Talk:Dawn Wells

message: You DO realize that you validated my argument right? I would advise ANYONE that strolls through here to read all the previous posts regarding "reckless driving/marijuana/pot" and decide for yourself who has an agenda. As was mentioned before, consensus DOES CHANGE, but consensus can depend on how many people vote at any given time. I personally think this is a "kangaroo court" and now an anonymous passerby has been censored. I intend to go to Craiglist Rants & Raves of all the major cities and encourage EVERYONE to read this discussion so that they can see how obvious it is that Craiglist administrators/editors gang up against people to change public opinion. Have a nice day.76.246.235.134 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief. =//= Proxy User (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I didn't "censor" your post, I closed the discussion because it wasn't at all to do with improving this article, and had already degenerated into pointless name-calling. That comment, like your rant above, seems to be nothing but sour grapes because consensus was overwhelmingly against including the incident. This argument has raged on for more than a year with a vast majority of editors making consensus clear. There's nothing more to see here, unless there's some kind of new argument. If you'd rather not register an account and actually try and improve the article, have fun at Craigslist. Dayewalker (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently added an archive box and I will archive most of the dated comments in the near future. Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the Person that censored my last discussion post... 

message: Okay, so people who are arguing against inclusion of Ms. Wells's arrest keep pointing to WP:BLP. Can somebody tell me what specifically there says to exclude it? Because I don't see it.
I do see this: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Notable, relevant, and well-documented: the arrest passes on all three counts.
I also see: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Reliably sourced, true, and relevant: again, this incident easily passes.
So somebody enlighten me here as to exactly what part of BLP they are reading.—Chowbok ☠ 06:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a massive discussion about this only recently where there was a large vote comment after and there was a strong consensus to keep the content out. Were you involved in that discussion? You were, your name is all over the archive like a rash. If you have so soon forgotten what the discussion was in regard to and what the consensus was, please re-read the archive. Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did just read that, as a matter of fact. I see lots of people referring to BLP, but nobody actually quoting anything relevant, or pointing to a specific part of it. So I repeat my question to you: what justification do you see in BLP for leaving this out?—Chowbok ☠ 13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: To the group: Please answer Chowbok's question. Point to a specific statement in WP:BLP that allows for the exclusion of notable, factual information. Please keep in mind Ms. Wells indicates this is notable and reliably sourced on her own website. If you cannot, no problem. As I stated before, with your help we can add this fact to the article in a simple, neutral way that properly meets Wikipedia's WP:BLP; no need to draw attention to it, just include it. Readers can then read all the good things Wells has done in her life which are in the article, and reach a verdict themselves without us trying to influence them.  —Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Chowboks question has been well answered, asking it again is tedious, read the archives. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point me to the specific point in the archives where my question is answered? I don't see it.—Chowbok ☠ 14:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a joke? Please don't waste editors time, your issue was well discussed and well resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Off2riorob clearly can't answer the question.  Anyone else? —Prhartcom (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Off2riorob: Should I interpret your answer to mean "No, I don't see a place in the archives where people referred to a specific part of BLP"?—Chowbok ☠ 18:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: And Dayewalker doesn't answer Chowbok's question either. So to summarize: Concensus has decided to go against WP:BLP, the relevent text of which Chowbok has cited, since no one in this group can cite any relevent text from it that supports their view. Now WP:UNDUE is a good argument; I agree that this event is small compared to the rest of her life. What about WP:N? I believe Ms. Wells herself has indicated that this event is notable. Therefore, the right thing to do would be to include it, but seriously, it should be a tiny mention, perhaps no more than two sentences.  —Prhartcom (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, no. I apologize in advance for being brief, but we've had this discussion many times before, and the consensus has always been clear. The fairly recent longform discussions in the archive show this, and revisiting this issue every couple of months with the same arguments is not productive. If you disagree with the consensus, please file an RfC as suggested in the last discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Pretty amusing that when I say that people are leaving out the info due to of a misplaced concern for the celebrity's image, everyone's outraged... but when I ask for the policy basis for the omission, I receive... silence. Almost as amusing as an editor removing the latest addition with a remark to discuss it on the talk page, while ignoring the actual discussion on the talk page. This is kinda pathetic.—Chowbok ☠ 17:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you disagree with the current consensus, then take the advice given and file an RfC, or other case somewhere else for more attention. If consensus changes, it changes, and I'll be the first one to post the new information when that happens. Until then, ignoring an entire archive of discussion and overwhelming consensus just because you want someone to explain a policy to you is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Dayewalker (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And once again, a non-response response. I'm asking a pretty specific question here, one that hasn't been answered to my knowledge. I'm not asking anyone to explain the policy, I'm asking somebody to explain how that policy applies in this case. Is this really so hard? It's not me who has the hearing problem. (It's also hard to see how consensus can ever change when discussion attempts are basically met with "shut up and go away".)—Chowbok ☠ 18:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The vast majority of editors who have commented on this issue have found it to be undue weight. Dayewalker (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's talk policy. 

message: Should the section about the Reckless driving incident be included in this biography of Dawn Wells? Isaidnoway (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on driving incident 

message: *No - it's WP:UNDUE for a BLP. A traffic citation is not notable, a significant life event, or relevant to understanding the subject of the article. TMZ is a poor source for a WP:BLP, and quotes attributed to her in that section are unsourced. And the mention of the Bob Denver incident should be removed too per WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Looking through the archives and multiple times this topic has been brought up, it seems clear to me that there has long been a wide consensus that this section should not be included. However, it persists, in part due to the lack of any proper RfC. Hopefully whatever the outcome of this RfC can be accepted as final, and this dead horse can be left alone! Awoma (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Am curious as to why no mention of her health issues.
Nor of the $197,000 raised through GoFundMe to also help pay medical bills.
Or am I missing something? 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an interesting point Almadenmike. I found a citation that includes information about the money raised two years ago for her health issues. I don't believe that we need a link to gofundme for a valid citation. Here is the citation: https://www.ksl.com/article/50075526/gilligans-island-star-dawn-wells-dies-covid-19-cited Jurisdicta (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health issues 

message: In this interview with KTLA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQM2OQydsbo she is said to turn 82. Since it was more than a year ago she couldn't possibly have been born in 1938 and been 82 at the time of her death. Either she was 81 when that interview was made or she was born in 1937 and was actually 83 at the time of her death. Which is correct? DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date 

message: Just a heads up to all, please note that User:Aloha27 is potentially violating WP:OWN on this article. RegardsIceFrappe (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Says the editor who has refused to take advice to take his/her edits here for discussion after being advised to do so.   Aloha27  talk  13:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Says the editor who made FOUR reverts within 22 minutes in blatant violation of 3RR to enforce your preferred version. I love your hypocrisy. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I highly suggest you re-read 3RR, 5 pillars, and WP:OWN. In any case, you will be sanctioned shortly for 3RR violation. IceFrappe (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You reintroduced content in which content was deemed to be WP:UNDUE in a previous discussion. You were advised to bring your concerns to this talk page at that time to reach consensus on the matter. You chose not to. Good day to you.   Aloha27  talk  13:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not "reintroduce" anything. In any case, WP:UNDUE is about brevity/length. No one is advocating using half the article to describe Wells' arrest in minor details. However, citing WP:UNDUE is not a "get out of jail free card" that justifies the censorship and suppression of any and all mention of Wells' arrest from reputable sources. Nor is it an excuse to remove mention of her dementia diagnosis last June. Again, read WP:OWN. Make no mistake, you will be appropriately sanctioned for your tendentious editing. Regards IceFrappe (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential [[WP:OWN]] violation