condition of room when found resolved it has been retracted in several newpapers and magazines that there were not pills strewn about the room in which he was found the police report itself states that there were several pill bottles on the nightstand please correct this as it really makes it look worse than it is and it is irresposible to repeat something that was in in the tabloids while i understand that wiki can be inaccurate this statement is just wrong i can't give you the names of the correct reporting services unfortunately but i believe the new york times corrected their statement about the condiftion of the room and several others as well thx so much for this page by the way good job barb opps did i miss something when i went back to the page the text above was gone maybe i was looking at a chached page sorry barb reading the sources given throughout this entire article makes clear what the more current official nyc and ny state offices determined there has been repeated acts of vandalism and frequent deletion of reliable third party published sources from this article it is currently still semi protected from anonymous ip users for that reasonscroll up and see archive and talk page history as editors people need to take some time and examine the editing history to find precisely what they are referring to and to provide links to editing differences diffs to document what they are referring to please add an exact link or quotation please provide the editing history links and look at the archived talk page history of this article where i recall discussion of this matter already being made this comment does seem familiar if you or someone else made it before please provide a link to the archived talk page section where it's discussed already in wikipedia one does need to give the names of the correct reporting services and provide precise citations author title url and or name of work published dates accessdates as per the current citation template format used in this article thanks this comparison to the diffs shows that a later editor has corrected the problem frequently introduced throughout the history of the editing of this article scroll through newer edit consecutively diffs and diffs as requested above in this sec of comments please do not introduce obsolete rumors into this article please review the archive of talk page discussions and the editing history thanks added another link to corr of misinformation added by earlier edits please sign comments using four tildes scroll up to top of page for guidelines thanks i've added the templates reconstructed info from editing hist current state of this article this article still needs more work in my view it is still too dependent on rumors and tabloid journalism sources its sources are in many cases tabloid newspapers that rely on anonymous sources in their reporting and that convey unsupported rumors frequently when one tries to update this article with reliable third party published sources the updated information is being deleted with what appear to me to be explanations that are not supported by wikipedia's own policies and guidelines for editing the current infobox template is an example one cannot just make up one's own rules and regulations the descriptions in the template box for the parameters are explicit there is no requirement for legal meaning of domestic partnership domestic partner s in the parameter of that infobox template infobox actor it makes clear that the parameter refers to romantic relationships in a more general sense the same editor keeps removing the information about michelle williams and heath ledger being domestic partners in the meaning def