User talk:Wenttomowameadow

Ted Williams (voice-over artist)
Hello. You removed material in the Ted Williams (voice-over artist) article without discussion, noting it was from a "gossipy" [sic] source. It is all factual, has been carried by MSNBC and other sites besides E! Online and it's mostly a quote from Mr. Williams himself. It should be left in, it's a fact. The material you removed was: In February 2011, Williams was in West Hollywood, California for an opening, and told E! News in an interview that "I love Dr. Phil. I don't want to bash him in any way. I walked out of treatment because it was a little scripted, I felt. There was no anonymity. I want him to know that his cares and his concerns will not be in vain. I am going to try and truly get back into the swing of things." Reference: Gicas, Peter, "Golden-Voiced Ted Williams: Fame Came Too Quickly", E! Online, February 18, 2011

It should be re-inserted. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's gossip, not important biographical information. You should ask for feedback about the content you want to add on the article's talk page. The onus is on you to show that I'm wrong and that it should be included! Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's Williams' explanation of his sobriety and life situation which is quite relevant, that being the focal point of his recent notoriety. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He was (apparently) notable before this event. Headlines like this from E! are for outlets of yellow journalism, not encyclopedias. It's disappointing that you've added this back in without discussing it on the talk page. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, I'd take your points about off-colour journalism positions, etc. In this particular case, what has been added is a quote from Mr. Williams himself, in relation to the previous matter in the article, as to his life-event responses to his recent-found success after years of being homeless. It's educational to hear Mr. Williams' words on why he left a rehab facility after 12 days with his new re-found broadcaster's life in the balance and the context of his patron, Dr. Phil McGraw. It's Mr. Williams talking himself -- it's not an opinion. The addition states where the interview took place, who interviewed him, and what he said. The previous paragraph spoke on his rapid rise back into voice-overs and how he had relapsed and went to rehab. Again, Mr. Williams' words are quite relevant as to what happened and why. If the news service misquoted Mr. Williams, then it hasn't been so stated elsewhere. Actually MSNBC and other news services carried it too. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In MSNBC's gossipy celeb report section. Related stories such as "Party crasher steals Paris Hilton's birthday cake" are featured, so I wouldn't give too much weight to the source of the quote! I really think that you're adding trivia about an event which itself on the fringes of acceptability. I'm not going to edit war about it, I'll just urge you to discuss it on the talk page if somebody else challenges your edits. To sum it up, you want to add in a quote about a man in his 15 minutes of fame claiming that he likes a tabloid/major TV celebrity. This sort of thing really needs to be discussed when challenged, and not added back in. There is no deadline for Wikipedia to carry this information, if it's a worthy addition it will still be worthy in a week's time. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in this topic and engaging it. I do have a different opinion, though. I re-edited the verbiage to simply quote Mr. Williams in the context of why, in the larger psychodynamics of recovery, he left the rehab facility presumably prematurely. It's an article about Mr. Williams, so it's totally relevant. I don't think it's a trivial quote -- quite the contrary -- he says something very honest about his life and the rehab mechanism and its appropriateness for him in his present station in life. It's not "gossipy". If we must pare down the quote, then one might be tempted to remove the opening part about Dr. Phil McGraw and just leave it about rehab. But the previous paragraph is all about Dr. Phil's patronage of Mr. Williams so it would seem to behoove one to keep it. It's definitely not worth getting into any kind of un-mutual behaviour about this, agreed. Let's see how it plays out. It's just a quote from Mr. Williams, now, in the article. Bests. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

King of the Hill
I would create a centralized discussion on probably the "List of episodes" page where I would outline the issues with all of the episodes, cite policy and guidelines that affect this, and propose a compromise. In this case, I would point out how long the tags have been on the articles, the lack of effort to improve them, and then propose a timeline. Should X number of episodes not be brought up to at least the criteria for the WP:GNG for each of the seasons (as it would be very easy to do that with more recent episodes than for earlier seasons) then then episodes will be redirected on Y date. I would also propose the creation of season pages as a possible compromise (see WP:MOSTV for more details on season pages). I would also request additional opinions (in a neutral manner) from WP:TV, WP:NOTE, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and any other relevant WikiProjects to bring in a wide range of opinions and not leave it up to just the people editing those pages. If you feel like the only people responding are "fan editors" who are biased, then I would follow the steps at WP:DISPUTE to solicte more neutral opinions.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'll get all of this together when I get time (it's been a month already, yikes). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not delete content on other users pages, as you did to Lugnuts page. If you delete content again I shall inform an administrator. Shakinglord (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)