Talk:Leif Garrett

message: Can someone affix a recent picture of Mr Garrett to the front page? Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.133.125 (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture 

message: How much money does he have?  Did he have 7 million to give to his best friend in that lawsuit or anything close to it?  Is he penniless?  --24.177.0.156 (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Money

message: Was this guy actually famous? I've never heard of him! (92.11.204.130 (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous? 

message: There are issues with at least one of the references used in this section; the AOL url does not direct to any text. Given :WP:BLP policies I am removing the text that cites the AOL source until this is resolved. Pjefts (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The lawsuit should be mentioned as it did a lot of damage to his career in the early 1980s, along with the negative publicity resulting from the car crash. (217.35.237.246 (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that there are currently no :WP:RS sources for the material. Please feel free to find some and add the text back in and please keep in mind that BLPs require extra care. Pjefts (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the allegations that he was a prostitute be mentioned? (217.35.237.246 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal trouble

message: Wouldn't an older picture be better? (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:148:F717:350:4352 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I included this one as it has the appropriate licence. Karst (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Starting in January 2014, this article and talk page have been the target of banned User:HarveyCarter who shows great interest in the troubled personal lives of performers. Below is a list of IPs from the areas of Bury St Edmunds and Gravesend, that have been used here by HarveyCarter. If a similar one appears, simply revert it on sight per WP:EVADE. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Years of disruption from banned editor

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Leif Garrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413015846/http://www.libertynjustice.net/gettoknow_leif.php to http://www.libertynjustice.net/gettoknow_leif.php
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070928060953/http://www.registerbee.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=DRB/MGArticle/DRB_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173352327754 to http://www.registerbee.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=DRB%2FMGArticle%2FDRB_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173352327754
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on Garrett's 1979 car accident said "His blood alcohol level was three times over today's legal limit", and is directly cited to this story, originally published in 1999, which says "Garrett, whose blood-alcohol level was three times today’s legal limit..."  changed this to sentence to read "His blood alcohol level was three times over the legal limit of that time and place" (emphasis mine), which contradicts the source. Presumably there is a reason why the article published in 1999 specified this in then-current terms, instead of merely saying "three times over the limit". I reverted this for that very reason, and was today reverted by the same editor was says in their edit summary "this is not a direct quote, and use of "today's" outside of a direct quote avoids having to keep this tagged for a lack of precision in the phrasing". I'm unclear on the relevance of a "direct quote" when confirming the statement here or what is meant by "having to keep this tagged" (no tag exists), but changing the meaning of the sentence to something not supported by the source is not an improvement. One can surmise that an article published in 1999 using "today" means the definition of the legal limit in 1999, and not 1979, which would be the "time" in "that time and place". While not ideal, I suppose the most accurate reading of this would be "three times over the limit by 1999 standards", which is admittedly clunky, so if you have a more precise source to use here that describes his intoxication level in a meaningful way by all means do so. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I misread the 1999 as 1979.  Sorry about that.  Nevertheless, "three time's today's legal limit" refers to the limit in 1999.  We should not expect readers to have the 1999 blood alcohol content limit immediately come to mind.  I suggest dropping the "three times" language entirely, since the limit in 1999 is irrelevant.  Instead, add a source that notes what the limit was at the time of crash, which is relevant. ~TPW 15:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about precision in Legal trouble section