Talk:Johnny Lewis

message: Not sure if Taylor Negron counts as a citable source, but this article has some rather interesting biographical information on Catherine Davis, the woman Lewis is believed to have killed. - Jmabel | Talk 20:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great source and should be included in the article. Thanks for providing it. 87.164.110.60 (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but I have to disagree, to a point. The Negron article reads more like a blog or even a eulogy calling her a "saint" and such. I've no doubt she was a very nice lady but not sure what relevance anything from the article has to the crime or M. Lewis. About the only thing that might be worth mentioning in the Wiki is that she had a history of renting to actors. Just one guys opinion. Sector001 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taylor Negron on Catherine Davis 

message: For some reason (and I don’t know why, because the editor in question hasn’t bothered with the courtesy of an explanation when edit warring), but the cause of death keeps being removed from the IB. The template documentation says it should be included “when the cause of death has significance for the subject’s notability”, and James Dean and John Lennon are given as examples. Given this is the unusual death of someone young, it fits with the documentation and should not have been deleted, particularly not without an explanation - that’s extremely poor practice. 213.205.194.214 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave me alone. I removed it per the template documentation, and per BRD, do not re-add this until there's consensus to keep it. You don't even like infoboxes, in fact you seem to despise them, so I don't understand why you're wasting your time warring on this one. Or maybe I do. You were following my edits around, and that's how you found this article. You don't really care, you just want to bother me. Please go away. For someone ":retired" you sure seem to keep coming back. Sro23 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: At least try and retain a veneer of civility when you talk to others. I don’t “despise” IBs, so please drop the untruths (you don’t know me, you don’t know what I think about things, so drop the comments on me and try and discuss the matter in hand). This information is in line with the template documentation, so if you want to use a policy or guideline reason for deleting it, then say so, but until then, leave it in place. (And as for following people around, it’s astonishing just how you’ve tracked some of my edits, even though legitimate - and just how you made it to Fleming for your !vote there. How about you go away from following me? I have just as much right as you to make legitimate edits, so don’t try ordering people around just because you don’t like them. I am under no constraints and am allowed to edit: WP is not a cult that people are either never allowed to leave or are barred for life, so back off). - 213.205.194.214 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tired. I'm leaving you alone so you need to leave me alone. Sro23 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the article. It’s nothing to do with you - you’re not worth the trouble, to be honest, but you left the article in a sub-standard state, which I’ve corrected. Now, if you have anything useful to say in terms of the policies or guidelines in relation to the cause of death (I’ve highlighted why the information should be there), then put it here. If not, I’ll presume your deletion of the information was an abberation. 213.205.194.214 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You edited the article because I had edited it. If I never edited it you wouldn't have touched it. You were following my edits. Why is that so hard for you to admit? Sro23 (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. No arguments on policy or guidelines about the death field in the IB then, which means you don’t have one and we can all move on. 213.205.194.214 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the policy: WP:OR. Name me the article that states Lewis' cause of death was specifically "blunt trauma". I see blunt force trauma in reference to Catherine Davis, but all the sources say about Lewis was he either jumped or accidentally fell. Furthermore, if you read the template documentation it states the cause of death "should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability". "Blunt trauma" is not clearly defined and sourced, and just because this was an unusual death of someone young, I don't think that means it needs to be included. His death was ruled accidental, and looking at other articles of people who died from accidental falls, almost none of them have this parameter filled. Sro23 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the OR doesn’t cover whether the field is included or not, just that a little tidying is needed. I’ve tweaked and added a specific reference. 213.205.194.214 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the OVERLINKING tweak. - 213.205.194.214 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of Death 

message: Could someone remove the NOT?   Not funny and very disrespectful. 73.249.254.51 (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  subtitle to article 

message: I'm not quite sure about how to handle this (or whether to handle it at all...): An article including a quote of a statement given on Twitter by Sons of Anarchy creator Kurt Sutter, is quoted in the Wikipedia's article's 'Death' section. (It's a quote of a quote of a quote) The quote's final two sentences seem to have some serious mistakes:"[...] Yes, it's day of mourning, but it's also a day of awareness and gratitude. Sadly, some of us carry the message by dying." 
In the archived copy of the source of the LA Times article there's an indefinite article 'a' missing and it says 'or morning' instead of  'of mourning'. Also, there are no capital letters in the 'source'...
I guess the following is approximately, what Mr. Sutter tried to say: Yes, it's a day of mourning, but it's also a day of awareness and gratitude. Sadly, some of us carry the message by dying.
Clearly, (partly) correcting the original's archived copy in the quote is well-intentioned by the one who included it in the article. Nevertheless, a quote ought to be a quote, not an interpretation. Retelling what Kurt Sutter had to say, indirect speech, might be more appropriate.
What about: 'In a September 27 2012 Los Angeles Times article a Tweet by Sons of Anarchy creator Kurt Sutter is quoted stating that the day Johnny Lewis died was one of mourning, but also one of awareness and gratitude, referring to Lewis as 'one of us'.Korinthus (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling and missing words in Kurt Sutter quote of a quote of a quote