Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.4.215.55 (talk) at 01:27, 19 February 2010 (replying lto comment, proposing compromise language of edit issue over marijuana). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

Beauty Pageants Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of beauty pageants, their contestants and winners on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Beauty PageantsWikipedia:WikiProject Beauty PageantsTemplate:WikiProject Beauty PageantsBeauty Pageants ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Reckless driving

The reckless driving conviction is hardly notable. She was not found guilty of possessing pot, her lawyer said it was left there by friends. Clearly marginal trivia in terms of WP:BLP. It's only notable because the national press has picked up on it and the story is all over the wire for 12 hours. Had this happened in 1998 pre-Misplaced Pages, it would have never been included in this article by later editors. 71.191.137.121 (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Left there by a "friend". Yes, well... In any case it didn't happen in 1998, it is in the national news media, and it is notable. Live with it. Proxy User (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proxy User, your tone seems kind of hostile. I'm not sure why. The IP user above seems to be expressing what he or she sees as a legitimate BLP concern. Although this event may have been deemed "newsworthy" in the present, only time will tell how "notable" these events will be in the broader context of Wells' career. At present there appears to be a WP:WEIGHT concern that needs to be addressed. In order to present a balanced picture, a disproportionate amount of text in the biography of this LIVING ACTRESS is devoted to marijuana. Seems cause for WP:BLP concerns to me. Cleo123 (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yor addition to the Wells article is excessively POV. I don't mind including material that indicates Wells lawyers disagree with the rulering, but the article is not a Forums For Rebuttal. If you rewite it, I will not object to it. But otherwise, I will rewrite it.

Also, as to your comments in the discussion, hostility has nothing to do with it. This is not an article about Wells' career, it's a biography of an individual and therefor includes information about more than Wells career. Proxy User (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

POV? I have presented Well's side of the story, in the interest of balance and fairness to a living person. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the article's purpose. This is NOT the biography of a private individual - Misplaced Pages is not intended to include such biographies. Wells' biography is included on this forum because she is NOTABLE as an actress. The article's primary focus should pertain to her notability, not minor incidents in her private life - such as traffic stops. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. It is an encyclopedia. Cleo123 (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, saying that she was sentanced to jail time, when she wasn't seems to violate WP:LIBEL. Cleo123 (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

She ***WAS*** sentenced to jail time. It was suspended. POINT OF FACT. Please move on.

Honestly, do you understand how silly it sounds for you to claim this idea of FIRST three hitchhikers might have left the drugs and THEN maybe it was some guy she loaned the car to? Do you really want the article to explore these "facts"? All I've done is include *FACTS* from police reports. But hey, if you want to go into this absurd story, maybe we should. Proxy User (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's not up to you to decide if her story is right or wrong. Seriously, you sound like judge and jury - she's guilty in your eyes, and your going to write the Misplaced Pages article to that effect. Wonderful. 71.191.137.121 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dude", it **IS** up to any editor such as me to call out OBVIOUS POV and NON FACTUAL CONTENT. The information I have added comes from police reports and the Associated Press. The information that Cleo123 added is emotional NPOV rebuttal from Wells' lawyer (and quoted from a questionable source). Sorry, but you are simply wrong, "dude". This is not the proper forum for Wells and her friends to rebut known established facts as documented in available legal documents. If Cleo123 wished to include the comments from Wells lawyer, it needs to be rewritten in a non-POV slanted way. If you don't like it, you can ask for mediation. "Dude".

Some other notes:

• Wells was *in fact* sentenced to 5 days in jail - suspended, but none the less sentenced.
• DUI charges where *in fact* reduced to reckless driving through a plea agreement.
• Wells did *in fact* suggest that some mysterious hitchhikers (who oddly could not be located in rural Idaho) before changing her story that someone she loaned her car to had left the pot.
• Wells was *in fact* fined $410.50. Relatively small, yes. But fined none the less.

The facts are not in dispute, and are supported by official police and court documents. Wells can claim in entertainment news interviews anything she wished, but ultimatly what is fact is in the police and court reports. Proxy User (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide links to the official police reports and court documents which you are citing. Are you saying that her attorney is "lying" when he issues an official statement saying there was no plea agreement? You seem very insistent that "DUI charges were REDUCED". Her lawyer, who is, in FACT, an officer of the court has stated the the charges were DROPPED. There is quite a difference. Please, share links to the court documents and police reports that you've examined in your determination of FACTS. And for the record, I have no affiliation with Dawn Wells. Such baseless allegations are inappropriate and IMO, less than civil. Cleo123 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say her lawyer was "lying". The official documents don't say there was no plea agreement. The DUI charges where dropped in a plea agreement to reckless driving. If you have no connection to Dawn Wells, where do you get your "information"? The facts are contained in court documents linked in the article and legitimate news sources.

If you go back over what I've said here, you will NOTE that I don't object to including Wells' lawyer's opinion. What I said was your wording of it was overly POV and it should be rewritten. If you had done that, there would be no dispute. (And I never would have found that interesting Bob Denver connection, but now it's there!) Proxy User (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

pot connection to bob denver

Bob said she mailed him pot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Bob_Denver --Capsela (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Added the reference. Proxy User (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag on Marijuana

Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved.

It is my opinion that this paragraph is POV rebuttal, and while there is some information that might be included in a NPOV biography, it needs to be rewritten in a less POV style. Proxy User (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if this Marijuana incidents are noteworthy it hardly merits the amount of space (and details) that are current in the article. It reads like someone has an unhealthy fixation with this one aspect of her life.War (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I wrote the very simple and straight forward second paragraph. It's all that is needed. Proxy User (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Paragraph needed?

Is it me? Or does this article seem to jump from "Early Life and Career" to "Post Gilligan's Island Career"? LOL! Seems to me as if we may have missed the "meat of the matter" in this article. A "Gilligan's Island Section" might be nice, as that is what she's notable for. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Cleo123 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. There isn't much about her other television / movie / stage work, nor really much about her theater group in Idaho. I also think a paragraph on her clothing business should be developed. Proxy User (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. I'd do it, but I no longer have a copy, for instance of Inside Gilligan's Island. Someone? Piano non troppo (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana Incident

It is relevant, referenced, and appropriate. Proxy User (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating an entire section called "Marijuana" is unnecessary, inappropriate and places undue weight on minor incidents in her life. It's not going to be allowed. The version of the arrest incident you keep reverting to is also unacceptable, as it omits key sourced facts and statements about the arrest, charges, plea and sentence. FCYTravis (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur with FCYTravis. Kelly 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First, it is not a minor incident. Second, it is not a singular incident. Third, it was covered extensively in the international news media. Forth, there was almost NO discussion here prior to removal or your unilateral and unjust abuse of power of locking the article.

Fifth, I've filed a Request For Mediation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Dawn_Wells

Proxy User (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is a "minor incident." Mediation request rejected, no sense wasting my time with that. Go file an RfC first. FCYTravis (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your actions here show strong bias. Why do you fear Mediation? Such dishonesty from an Admin. Proxy User (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would caution you against implying that an Administator is "dishonest" - as that could be construed as a personal attack. FCYTravis should be applauded for the incredible patience and restraint he has exercised in this matter. I suspect that many admins might have blocked you for edit warring on the article. Instead, he has tried to teach you something here, and I would suggest you listen to him.

The fact that something receives news coverage of a tabloid nature in the short term does not make it significant in the long term, larger picture of a person's career. In creating your own "Marijuana Section", you have thrown the article out of balance, creating a WP:WEIGHT issue. Dawn Wells is notable for her work as an actress (that's why her bio exists on Misplaced Pages). Traffic stops for petty offenses do not warrant the amount of space and attention you seem to be pushing for. Whether you realize it or not, your version seems to paint this woman as a pothead and a criminal. You've stated very clearly that you object to her side of the story being presented. Presenting only one side of the story is WP:POV pushing. Please, re-read WP:BLP, as well as WP:HARM. Whether you realize it or not, I believe you are being terribly unfair to Ms. Wells. Cleo123 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I am very strongly biased against filling people's biographies with tabloid gossip, rumors, speculation and scandal. I am proud to have such a bias. FCYTravis (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you FEAR from Mediation? I've removed you. I still want a look by an UNBIASED Admin. Proxy User (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Proxy User, as I explained to you before on my talk page, mediation is inappropriate at this juncture. An RFC might be more appropriate. However, I would encourage you to heed FCYTravis' advice and drop this matter. Your version violates WP:BLP, WP:HARM and WP:WEIGHT. At least two members of the Biography Project have offered you guidance in this matter. When multiple users disagree with you, and nobody steps up to support your POV - one needs to entertain the possibility that perhaps they've misinterpretted policy.

FCYTravis has nothing to "fear" from mediation, or you. He's been an absolute "Gent" - and I wouldn't attempt to push his buttons if I were you. I will reject your request for mediation. Cleo123 (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit Bullies

Something wierd is going on. I removed a redundant section (It was an EXACT COPY of the wording from another section. This is a very valid and encouraged practice in all article. Then I MOVED a paragraph from one section to another that to me made more logical sense. This resulted in Proxy User suggesting that I am involved in an EDIT WAR on my talk page. I think everyone should know (just look at the page history) that this is happening so that they can consider carefully Proxy User's, point of view on this article.

For the record I don't have much knowledge of Dawn Well's. I only try to made edits so that the structure, logic, and principles of Misplaced Pages are preserved. Please look at my edits of this articles page to see if you think I'm being reasonable. War (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert (2/24/09)

I reverted the page to eliminate the "Statement of Facts from Dawn" that was added two days ago. If any of this material is true, it needs to be sourced, and integrated into the article in an encyclopedic manner, not just appended to the article in the form of a very un-NPOV personal statement. Nothing personal -- I happen to be a big fan of Ms. Wells -- but this is an online encyclopedia, not a website for publishing press releases. If whoever posted that "statement" (whether Ms. Wells herself, or some publicist) can cite sources, and make any needed updates or corrections in the proper manner, it would be most welcome. StanislavJ (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The anon IP who wrote this material made no other contribution to Wiki. At a guess, whoever wrote it is unaware of this discussion page, or generally of the Wiki guidelines. So we've lost the opportunity to get confirmation. Given that there's a reasonable chance Wells or someone representing her did write the material, I'm including it here for reference.

UPDATE: Statement of Facts from Dawn

The media statements concerning the Driggs Idaho charge against Dawn Wells are extremely inaccurate and erroneous. A third party had possession of Dawn's car during the entire day, and placed a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle without her knowledge .Dawn attended her surprise birthday party that evening, with a number of individuals each of whom verified Dawn had only two drinks in a three to four hour period. Dawn left the party to drive home and was stopped by an inexperienced officer only because she weaved while reaching for her heater controls in an unfamiliar new car.

There was no plea bargain with regard to the marijuana. The state dismissed the marijuana charge as a result of a third party appearing before the court independently and accepted full and exclusive responsibility for the existence of the marijuana.

The DUI charge was reduced to reckless driving because of insufficient proof of excessive alcohol consumption. The officer acknowledged in his written report that there was no odor of alcohol, no slurred speech or any indication of impaired memory. Unfortunately the inexperienced officer failed to properly administer any appropriate field tests which would have established Dawns sobriety. This officer was subsequently placed and remains on suspension from all law enforcement duties.

Dawn Wells accepted responsibility for her driving neglect by pleading guilty to reckless driving because she felt she was in fact guilty of not devoting appropriate attention to her driving while searching for the heater controls.

Contrary to news coverage, Dawn was not required to serve any jail term

for her driving offense. She received the typical Idaho sentence for her driving offense given to all who commit the offense, i.e. a fine and informal probation. The sentencing Judge often requires jail time, but found that unnecessary under Dawn's circumstances. Informal probation simply requires she pay the fine and commit no other offenses.

Due to Dawn's cooperation, integrity and complete lack of criminal record, this charge will not appear on her driving record. The court granted her the courtesy of a "withheld judgment".

This is a very humiliating and embarrassing event for Ms. Wells.

She wishes to apologize to her friends and supporters for any embarrassment or disappointment this occurrence may have caused.

Piano non troppo (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More about marijuana incident

This seems to be out of balance with the rest of the article per WP:UNDUE and it is the most discussed topic on this talk page, although I note that there are several editors who have commented against it and one who has argued in favour of keeping it. It's sourced etc, and I appreciate that, but I think it's still a minor incident that is given a major bias. Bob Denver later recanted his comment, and no reason is given why he recanted it. If it was false, it has no bearing on Dawn Wells, so it does not belong here. Her driving incident is discussed in detail and somebody else took responsibility. Then we have a comment that Associated Press had reported something that "was later found to be false." I don't understand why we mention it. At the end of the long section it boils down to the conclusion that Wells was not charged in relation to the marijuana, but with reckless driving, and no offense was recorded, although no source is provided for this. Rossrs (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just another point - WP:BLP is a concern here. Quoting and supporting 'facts' is one thing, but the overall result is crucial - the undue weight given presents a bias that we should look at carefully in terms of BLP. My opinion is that BLP should at the very least require that this section be pared down to the most basic, supported fact and that it not be spotlighted by being placed in its own section, but given the relative unimportance of the event, I would prefer it be removed completely. Rossrs (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your assessment, Rossrs. There is no reason for a short term allegation by Denvers to appear in the article and I have removed that. It's also quite unclear that the rest of it should be here at all either. What was added today is unreferenced and I removed it and edited the paragraph only to reflect what sources provided in the paragraph indicate. Frankly, this comes down to a traffic violation and is not notable in the career of this individual. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is undue emphasis. With media stars, Wiki tends to degrade into gossip, presumably because it's easier for editors read free references from online Associated Press articles, than to read a hardcopy of Inside Gilligan's Island.

But particularly with this article, my overall take was "That's all she did?" Why describe it at all, except perhaps to refute popular rumors. The allegation by Denvers seemed to imply that he mistakenly implicated Wells, then lied to keep her out of it. That might be make for an interesting sentence or two in a full-length biography -- of Denvers -- but the innuendo that he and Wells were still friends, that they were both marijuana users doesn't enhance Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic content. Piano non troppo (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proxy User, there is clear agreement above that the Denver claim isn't relevant here and was removed, that was not a "large section", it was two sentences. You've not bothered to post a comment here, but instead flatly reverted what I edited and called it vandalism, which is bad faith and unfounded. Regardless, I edited the section, removing a small amount of unsourced content added and added sourcing for the statement from Wells' attorney. This is a WP:BLP issue, which is a serious consideration and your reversion was both a bad faith claim and in no way adhered to WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why the Denver comment was removed. And the newer incedent which is a matter of public record can certainly not be argued away as not being properly sourced. Proxy User (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Proxy User. Your edits and their summaries suggest bad faith and bullying tactics. You do not have the right to call my edit, or any edit, vandalism just because you disagree with it. You should not be directing people to WP:OWN, when this talk page is full of you forcing your view onto anyone who disagrees. You should not be suggesting users be aware of WP:3RR as this is not a contest to see which version is standing after the 3rd revert. Several people have given opinions as to why this information should not be presented in its current format. I am removing it as a violation of WP:BLP and for that reason the discussion needs to be "should the material be added?", not "should the material be removed?" Please accept this as a good faith action, because although I do not have any great interest in Dawn Wells' reputation, I care greatly about Misplaced Pages's reputation, and this kind of tabloidish approach makes us all look bad. I'm not saying it's a done deal, but it's only fair that someone independent and unbiased looks at it, and with that aim I have posted a comment at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dawn Wells. Rossrs (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is *laughable* to describe my discussion here as "bullying tactics" while ignoring a certain Admin/Editor who should remove himself as a matter of conflict of interest, and has certainly been throwing his weight around on a very intimidating way. My discussion here, as well, is not "bad faith" whatever nonsense that might actually mean. I have an opinion, and I'm arguing it, rather than threatening other editors with admin action, as a certain other editor is. Proxy User (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're replying in February 2010 to a comment I made in August 2009, so your comment should reflect what was happening in August not what's happening now. I did not say anything about your "discussion here". I said specifically "your edits and edit summaries". If you're going to take such a tone with me, be careful that you've got it right. You haven't. You have an opinion, good for you. You've been expressing it since March 2008. Other people have opinions. Perhaps your opinion is being treated with the same degree of respect that you have shown to everyone who disagrees with you. Enough is enough. My comment was made 6 months ago, and you had a chance to comment then. You didn't. Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Marijuana arrest

Okay, so when I looked at this article there was no mention of her arrest at all. I agree that it shouldn't be given undue weight, but it's ridiculous that it not even be in the article. It was newsworthy, and is well-sourced. I restored an older paragraph about it–go ahead and edit it if you can improve it, but don't just delete it.—Chowbok ☠ 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You restored a section that clearly violates WP:BLP. Wells was not convicted of a marijuana charge, she was convicted of a traffic violation. Any content implying otherwise is a clear violation and clearly exposes Misplaced Pages to a libel charge. This has been addressed at WP:BLP/N more than once here, here and finally here, where the facts of the case regarding what amounts to a traffic conviction is being given improper weight with this content. Her "arrest" was ultimately a traffic stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced. It was covered widely and is public information. If you think it's libelous, then change it so it isn't. It can't be libelous to say that she was arrested, that there was marijuana in the car, and that she pled guilty to reckless driving, because even her lawyer concedes those facts on her official website. As I said before, it shouldn't be given undue weight, but that's not the same as saying it shouldn't be mentioned at all. And despite your implication, we do cover traffic stops.

I'm restoring the paragraph, which strikes me as even-handed and well-sourced. If you disagree with that, or think it gives undue weight or is libelous, then by all means edit it, but it should not be removed completely.—Chowbok ☠ 04:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And once again, I have taken this to WP:BLP/N#Dawn Wells once again and am fully prepared to open a full request for comments about this or take it to ArbCom if necessary. Opinion was rendered on this on WP:BLP/N and returning this content to the article is a blatant thumb the nose at those opinions. This has long been a settled issue here and you are giving no rationale that is acceptable in order to post what amounts to detrimental content based on something that is no longer a valid issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're not willing to work towards a consensus on this. "My way or the highway" is not a terribly productive attitude. I don't think those BLP opinions settled the issue, as most of them were about a previous revision that gave undue weight to the charge. There is a grand total of one person who agreed with you completely, and that hardly makes it a settled matter. I'm happy to have this on BLP/N, but please stop with the revert wars in the meantime. How about if you devote your energies instead to creating a compromise paragraph that addresses your concerns? —Chowbok ☠ 06:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no compromise when you add content that brands someone a drug user and implies they were convicted of the same. You may not think that WP:BLP is a concern, but in that you are terribly wrong. I'd remind you that "revert wars" don't happen in a vaccuum, your insistence on returning libellous content is a huge issue. As I said, I'm prepared to take all the way through ArbCom if necessary. Stop adding libellous content to this article and in fact, contains facts that the link you posted at WP:BLP/N disputes facts in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The compromise would be to edit the added material so that it is no longer libelous, not remove it completely. You seem quite uninterested in addressing my points. Oh well, let's see what happens at WP:BLP/N#Dawn Wells once again. (P.S., Can you try to avoid further canvassing?)—Chowbok ☠ 07:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing improper about notifying someone who previously commented on this issue that it once again has come up, despite how you would like to spin it. Please stop stalking my edits in the mean time and stop casting negative aspersions on a notification that complies with WP:CANVAS. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As per BLP, I've removed the material again. I agree with the discussion(s) above, it seems quite undue to include the information. Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, we'll leave it off until the matter is settled there. I'd feel better if you would specifically address my points, however.—Chowbok ☠ 07:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there's no parallel between Wells' traffic stop and Mel Gibson's, in terms of notability or long-term impact. Dayewalker (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it a problem of relevance more than anything. When you boil the whole section down, she's shown to have committed a traffic violation and everything else is negated. I question the relevance of including any mention of it. We've got a fairly minor actress, known mainly for one acting role that she played more than 40+ years ago, involved in an incident the circumstances of which are not crystal clear, but that had little impact on her life or career, was reported briefly and legitimately, though not necessarily widely, at the time it happened, and for which she received a slap on the wrist. There's no comparison to the high profile of Mel Gibson and the reporting of his scrapes with the law, good judgement and common sense, which are a series of events rather than Wells' one possible deviation from what otherwise seems to have been a blameless life. Mel and Dawn are not on an even playing field. Wells' incident seems like a non-event to me, and I think if we look at the intent of WP:BLP rather than following it to the very letter, we should be considering whether the information being reported is relevant enough to justify the possible damage it could do to the person. There's too much innuendo and suggestion in the information as presented, and not enough fact, and because the relevance is so shaky, I don't think we should reintroduce it to the article. The whole incident comes under WP:UNDUE as far as I'm concerned, and that's also the main thrust of

From WP:BLPN: I don't think this merits any mention at all. It is a minor, slightly embarassing incident which could only possibly merit inclusion if it was shown to have some sort of long-term significance for the subject. Rd232 12:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The "marijuana incident" was removed by an editor that has taken WP:OWN of this article, and ignores the fact that it was a notable incident reported on the national media. Good for Wells that she has a powerful Misplaced Pages editor willing to enforce bias in her Wiki article. But it's still censoring out an event that falls well inside the notability standard. =//= Proxy User (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Try to be a little more creative with your accusations, Proxy User. You ended up having this taken to WP:BLP/N on three different occasions and it was overruled, even with one time suggesting that you be blocked. Please refrain from making bad faith accusations and casting aspersions on persons because they clearly do not agree with you. The comments here and at WP:BLP/N aren't with you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're being offensivly heavyhanded, Wildhartlivie. I understand you have a lot of power here, this doesn't mean you should abuse it. Seriously, your tone is quite nasty. Proxy User (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, on two of those occasions, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, the focus simply on whether it should get its own section, not whether it should be excluded or not. I wonder how seriously to take WP:BLP/N discussions anyhow, when you're doing things like going around calling in favors in an attempt to rig the discussion.—Chowbok ☠ 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) This discussion seems to have taken a personal turn. I also reverted the addition of the section, and I don't believe I've ever edited this article before. Let's please focus on the issue at hand, as WHL isn't the only editor who opposes the addition of the material. Dayewalker (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply there aren't good faith reasons to oppose the addition. Just pointing out some questionable behavior.—Chowbok ☠ 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but if you think there's questionable behavior going on, please report it at the appropriate noticeboard. Bringing it up in the middle of a conversation on an article talk page doesn't accomplish anything. Dayewalker (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, you have taken a very personal bend here. I notified two editors, both of whom have commented on this before and whom I happen to know have not changed thier opinion on this. Then you followed around my edits to post personal messages on not one, not two, but three different talk pages, to the point that myself and one of those persons have told you to stop posting on their talk pages. Try to grasp that nothing inappropriate was done here and try for a change arguing your points on their merits, not making personal attacks or casting aspersions. That will not win you favor in this discussion, nor will it persuade anyone to agree with you. Proxy User, you started your first post here today with an attack upon editors who have removed this as an example of ownership, censorship and claiming that Wells has personal emissaries who enforce bias. Stating rhat your own conduct was commented upon to recommend a block and that you ultimately were blocked for violating WP:BLP on this article is neither heavyhanded nor nasty. It's the truth and that conduct is absolutely germane to any accusations you care to levy here against anyone. Almost two years have passed and the tune remains the same. You have been blocked for a bias in editing on this article and repeatedly denied a request to be unblocked by various adminstrators, all of whom you also accused of bias. In weighing your comments, it's germane that other editors who might post here should know that. If that is heavyhanded or nasty, then so be it. It doesn't erase the history. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks, on you or anyone else. I simply pointed out actions you took in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. —Chowbok ☠ 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, on what you contend was violations, not of policy but of guidelines. And once more, please try to base your arguments on the merits of your position, not in trying to wage war against other editors. As I said, you are not winning point here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If the content of this article were based on the merits of the content (in consideration of Misplaced Pages guidelines), the notable pot indecent would be included in some form or another, rather than having been censored by one particular editor with a POV. Discussion about including this content are usually responded to with "Wikilawyering" and threats to have the offending party brought up on charges in some Admin forum or another - quite frankly, very undignified behaivior. Proxy User (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Proxy User, the content was removed by more than one editor, the last one of which you reverted, calling it vandalism. This content has been challenged under WP:BLP, and as such is correctly and rightly removed. There is no notable pot "indecent" here, there was a minor traffic conviction and your insistence on characterizing it as a marijuana incident is both biased, pointy and inappropriate. Revert this again and you will be taken to WP:AN/I for your actions. It is both wrong and improper to revert an administrator on grounds of vandalism when his actions were based on just cause. The opinions are agaisnt you on this as they have been for several months. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What is it with you and you exceptionally offensive and overbearing tone? Good grief! Are you incapable of dealing with people in a civil way? Your attitude and tone are not conducive to rational discussion of the subject at hand. I see you are also using your "status" as an Administrator to intimidate. Proxy User (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That goes to show what you see. I am not an administrator, nor have I represented myself to be one, nor am I trying to intimidate. However, I am bothering to challenge your false assumptions and improper actions. That you bothered to revert an administrator has not gone unnoticed, was reverted and you reverted it again. Reverting content removed as a WP:BLP is improper and a bad decision, especially considering you've been blocked for inappropriateness regarding this topic on this article before. The administrator you accused of vandalism has reverted you again. Please do not continue to edit war against a valid content removal. So far, there has been no rational discussion here, only a drive to include deceiving content in violation of a basic Misplaced Pages tenet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) If I may interrupt the personal comments here, Proxy User, what's different about this time you're trying to insert this material than the previous times? The points made above seem sound, as it was a minor traffic violation. Consensus has been gained here, and the most recent BLP discussion (were there others) also seems to agree. What's changed? Dayewalker (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud! Consensus was already established that this content does not belong in the article. If two people disagree with that consensus, I suggest one or both of them take the necessary steps to either gain a new consensus or just accept the fact that the community disagrees with the inclusion of this particular bit of information. In other words, stop edit warring and bickering like children and move on. Pinkadelica 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Was "consensus" really established? Or did one editor intimidate alternate views until those people gave up? And, is "consensus" relevant if the content meets certain standards of notability? There is some content that there may never be a "consensus" about that is none the less relevant enough for inclusion. I am not convinced there ever was "consensus". I know that several supporters of inclusion (rather than exclusion) simply became tired of subtle threats and "Wikilawyering". "Consensus" is not the final word. Relevancy of content is. Proxy User (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a non-involved party should evaluate the issue in a formal process, though I suspect there are some here who would fight that. Proxy User (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On this talk page, the most consistent supporter of inclusion has been you. User:Chowbok's recent comments support your view, but everyone else has spoken of either reducing or removing the content. There are not "several supporters of inclusion." As for the "one editor intimidate", I see about half a dozen who have commented in favour of reduction or exclusion, so it has not been one editor trying to force a minority viewpoint. The same thing has happened when it's been taken to WP:BLP/N. You ask "is "consensus" relevant if the content meets certain standards of notability?", and I think the answer to that question is yes, however a major part of the discussion relates to whether it meets the standard of notability. That's the point on which several editors have said, no it's doesn't. I don't mind if a non-involved party evaluates this issue again. It's been taken to WP:BLP/N at least three times before, so if you decide to seek other viewpoints, just let us know where you take the question to. Rossrs (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proxy User, your personal attacks and slurs are growing extremely tiresome. First you accused me of throwing around my administrator status, all the while not even realizing I'm not an administrator, then you proceeded to twice revert an administrator who rightly removed this content under the auspices of WP:BLP. You've been blocked from Misplaced Pages because of BLP violations you committed on this page. It is time for you to stop dragging in your own personal baggage to this discussion. Four trips to WP:BLP/N have brought the same results, everyone commenting here with the exception of your bad faith accusations and posts by Chowbok have been against including this content. What do you have against Dawn Wells that you think it is pertinent to inflate what amounts to a traffic conviction into a "marijuana indecent"? How does that enhance this encyclopedia or how does that further the notability of a 2nd rate television actress? What is it going to take to make you dial back your personal attacks? Another block? A WP:RfC/U that recommends your topic ban from this article? Stop attacking other editors and grow up, as Pinkadelica said. It's time to stop trying to snow this talk page with bad faith accusations and accept that the opinion tide is against you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You all should know why I am posting in this barely anonymous manner. Ask yourself this: would you advise me to weigh in with support of the opposing viewpoint? You would likely tell me that I should not, based upon your assessment that the parties (I do not view anyone to be alone on their side) opposing you are engaged in improper, and perhaps personal, attacks/actions against you, to which I could then be subjected.--75.4.215.55 (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC):

This is all a bit overdramatic, especially since there hasn't been a post on this page in over a week. Whatever facet of the discussion you see, please log in and make your case. Anonymous postings like this don't help determine consensus on the article, which is what this page is for. Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have struck through my words.--75.4.215.55 (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just find it absolutely mind boggling that a clearly notable event is being censored at the request of the bio subject. It's clearly a "personal" issue with the Enforcement Editor, who has taken WP:OWN of the article. It's inappropriate. To me, It’s not about Dawn Wells, it’s about notable information about a public figure being censored from the article. Saying so is not a “personal attack”, it’s an observation of fact. This business of "changing the subject" by attacking me is just silly and totally off topic / subject. The issue is the censorship of notable material on the article subject. As well, the idea that the was some consensus in the past (and I dispute that - bullying a POV until alternate opinions get tired of the argument is not consensus) is irrelevant. There is not consensus *NOW*. Proxy User (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain with diffs what you mean when you say this information is "being censored at the request of the bio subject." My own opinion of this situation has nothing to do with anyone else's opinions or requests. Dayewalker (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proxy User, please provide clear and irrefutable proof that this article is "being censored at the request of the bio subject". To make such a charge is quite serious and that is clearly a case of "changing the subject" by attacking. Your conduct regarding this article really makes me think that you should be topic banned regarding this article. No one bullied anything and there is clearly consensus *NOW*. To take a count, there are 5 editors, myself, Pinkadelica, Rossrs, Dayewalker, and RD232 commenting on this page and Off2riorob on WP:BLP/N who think this does not belong. I'm fairly certain no one who expressed an opinion about this has been "bullied" into saying it doesn't belong. On the other side is you, Chowbok and a random IP who said he didn't have the courage of his own convictions to identify himself for the content. Continuing to snow this talk page with your own objections has failed to dissuade anyone from disagreeing with you and your comments about bullying and claims that this is being other-directed are less than convincing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into some sort of of-topic argument with you. The fact is, the subject we are talking about is notable and should be included, The fact is there was no real consensus to delete it, and even if there was, it is not legitimate when the content in question is in fact notable and relevant to the article. There is simply no real reason *not* to include it other than it is mildly embarrassing to the subject of the article, which is not a legitimate reason. Kindly refrain from unfounded accusations of "attacking", it is false, divisive, a distraction and most importantly, ungentlemanly. Proxy User (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And dude, you've been corrected before. Take a minute to discover my gender. There is no attacking going on here except from you who has speciously claimed that Dawn Wells has had this removed from this article. Please provide proof. That's a serious charge that you're making. And again, COUNT the opinions. You're fabricating an outcome of this discussion that is clear on this page. Just because something was reported in the news at one time, does not make it appropriate content for inclusion in a BLP, as the discussion has decided, despite your contentions to the opposite. Consensus is clear here. Running around shouting "The sky is falling" does not make it so, Chicken Little. Please stop being contentious before someone decides to take this to WP:AN/I to suggest a topic ban. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Again with the threats. Why is that always your default?—Chowbok ☠ 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's how he/she enforces his/her will with this article. This is why claims of "consensus" are hog wash. The reality is that other editors with other views on the subject just don't feel like being the target of this type of intimidation, so they find some other subject to edit that doesn’t involve this kind of nonsense. Proxy User (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And your default response is to make snarky, spiteful remarks, Chowbok. Is that something you only do with me, or do you practice that with every editor with whom you disagree? Or is disagreeing with me something you do as a matter of practice? The simple fact is that anyone who continues to occupy the time of other editors in continuing to discuss the same tired false comments and fabricated rationales are subject to sanctions, one of which can be topic/article bans. And the simple fact is that it is fast becoming obvious, given Proxy User's past behavior regarding this article, that it may be a necessary step. Take a poll of everyone who responded here to form the consensus that was determined if they were intimidated or bullied into the opinion they expressed. You'll be told no and to stop making false statements and accusations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to bully people into agreeing with you, you already have your little fan club/cabal of the same 5 or 6 people that come in to defend you anytime you get into one of your many, many editing disputes. I'm certain from your behavior that you've bullied and intimidated many people into not arguing with you, and we just don't see them because they've given up and moved on.—Chowbok ☠ 18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, that's your standard fall back - accusing people of cabalism and collusion and it's growing very old. There were 6 opinions expressed here against this content. Two of them you have previously accused of cabalism, but the other three are persons with whom I have never worked - that being Dayewalker and RD232 commenting on this page and Off2riorob on WP:BLP/N who think this does not belong, including an administrator and two persons who came to this from WP:BLP/N. That's hardly proof of cabalism at work, so effectively, prove it or stop saying it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"People"? "Standard fallback"? I defy you to look through my 6+ years of edits and find a single time I have made those accusations against any editor on here aside from you. You're pretty self-righteous for somebody who's been blocked for sockpuppetry and had at least two socks banned. If the shoe fits... That said, I don't mean to suggest that only socks and meatpuppets agree with you. There are people here agreeing with you in good faith, and it's a shame that they have to be sullied due to your muddying the waters and making it unclear who's a legit editor and who isn't.—Chowbok ☠ 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting really tired of your vitriolic crap spewing all over talk pages. I took you to WP:WQA once for your behavior toward me and just because you thought that not responding was the way to go, it's on record and so is this. One thing we don't need is vitriolic crap being vomited everywhere. Many things have gone noticed around here . I served my block, and that restored my good standing and even the checkuser who placed it said "I agree, you served your time, and we privately got to a resolution that met the stuff we outlined. It may not have been the one I personally would like to have seen but it was acceptable, and raising that block over and over isn't helpful." In other words, throwing it up every time you wish to speak is buying you no progress here, many editors here get blocked for many reasons and it doesn't mean they lose the right to come back and voice opinions. Even administrators get blocked foa a lot of reasons and don't lose their tools. I'll say it once here for the record, regardless of the block, I am not LaVidaLoca and the resolution of which Lar spoke was to submit evidentiary proof of that distinction, which at that time my friend declined to do, but which now is being worked on for submission to prove it. So dude, if you think there are other socks floating around, or I'm acting surreptiously, go right ahead and march your ass over to WP:SPI and file a sockpuppet complaint and prove it or eat it and shut up. Be sure and include my username, Pinkadelica, Rossrs, Dayewalker, Off2riorob, Rd232 in your complaint, since they constitute the editors who spoke against this content. If you can't do that, then by all means shut the hell up and stop picking at me. I'm sick and tired of your spew and it's beginning to stink up this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody can complain at WP:WQA; what's more relevant is that they basically told you to quit whining and go away. I never said you didn't have the right to voice your opinion; the point is your bullying manner and the suspicious way certain accounts never ever disagree with you. I've given up on progress here; I think between your bullying tone and your aggressive gaming of the system, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that you will always get what you want. I'm happy just waiting for you to self-destruct and finally getting banned, and then the rest of us can discuss these issues in a much more mannerly fashion.—Chowbok ☠ 22:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody can complain anywhere, that's the beauty of this site. For anything else you care to spew, take it to WP:AN/I. I don't game the system, you ask for policy and guidelines, you got it. That isn't gaming anything. Let me make a suggestion though, while you're waiting for me to "self-destruct and finally get banned", hold your breath. It will keep the air clean and the monitor free of vitriole. I'd suggest others read your comments on this page and others to see who discusses issues in a mannerly fashion, cuz it ain't you, babe. Or is that your modus operandi? Push and pick until someone gets so annoyed at you that they "self-destruct". You got instructions for how to do that somewhere? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of us have enough respect for the administrators' time to not go crying to WP:AN/I anytime somebody hurts our feelings. I don't claim to be "mannerly" with my last few posts here, but I agree that people should read this thread from the beginning, as it clearly shows you set the tone for this discussion.—Chowbok ☠ 22:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not let ourselves get distracted from your accusations above that the article is censored because of the whim of the subject. Kindly source that with DIFFs, or strike it, as it seems to be the crux of your argument and appears to be completely fabricated. Dayewalker (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that Dawn Wells herself lies somewhere at the heart of this discussion. Have a look at the editing history of the editors involved here and you'll see a consistent approach to WP:BLP across a range of articles. If you are going to make such a statement you need to back it up with evidence. Rossrs (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why that actual real issue is not being discussed: Why factual, notable, relevant, and well sourced information is being deleted from the article? "Consensus" (which was never actually reached anyway) is irrelevant. It is not proper to reach "consensus" to delete factual, notable, relevant, and well sourced information. And, intimidating other editors until they simply leave is not really "consensus". With several editors here, it’s always the threats of some sort of disciplinary action or some other Wikilawyering nonsense. Never actual discussion of the subject at hand… Proxy User (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual real issue has been discussed. Because something is reported in the news at one time does not make it automatically fair game for inclusion, especially when it is being presented in a manner that violates WP:BLP. The actual consensus determined here is that this content is not significant enough to include, especially when it is being presented as something it was not. Please address what you have against Dawn Wells that you are so determined to smear her in this article and please stop making false claims that no consensus was reached. Just because consensus did not agree with you does not mean it wasn't reached. And once again, please provide diffs to prove your false claim that Wells was involved in any way in this decision. That's the real issue here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, editors with other views were intimidated until they left. This is what is going on with the “discussion” right now. That's not "consensus". And no, including factual, notable, relevant events in a subjects life does not violate WP:BLP. Why not discuss the merits or lack thereof of the actual subject here, rather than making veiled threats, snarky responses, and nonsensical Wikilawyering? Proxy User (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proxy User, see my response to Chowbok above. Prove it or drop it. The way this content has been presented violatesWP:BLP and editors from that board agree. Again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that Dawn Wells has anything to do with this or retract your statement. Stop dancing around responding to a direct request to prove your accusations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As this above discussion has grown full of attacks and unfounded accusations, I've suggested to Proxy User on his talk page that he start a new section here with his proposed addition. That way, the subject can be clear and hopefully remain civil. If there are any preexisting DIFFs that show current consensus from BLP discussions (or similar discussions), or that show any validity to PU's accusations of censorship due to requests from the subject, please make them available. Dayewalker (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker is on the right track but I'll go one (well, a few) better. If Chowbok and ProxyUser are not satisfied with the current consensus, both are free to open an RfC to seek a new consensus. If neither want to do that, there's no need to fill up this talk page with more of the same. I honestly don't know what's so hard about that concept as I suggested it before, but whatever. As for the bad faith accusations of *gasp* cabalism and claims that the subject herself is trying to censor the article (WTF?), I highly suggest that Chowbok and ProxyUser toodle on over to AN/I (or any other appropriate venue of their choosing) and write a lengthy report with the relevant diffs to support their assertions. If neither are prepared to do that, enough with that crap already. Crying about censorship, etc. is basically the Misplaced Pages version of a tantrum. Don't get your way? Cry censorship!!! Consensus doesn't go your way? It's a meanie cabal working against The truth!!! Arguments like that only serve to make other editors shut down and not want to bother with you. In other words, your tactics aren't working guys. Either follow the correct dispute resolution steps or give up the ghost. Pinkadelica 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm... Which "current consensus" are you talking about? Because while there is primarily one editor claiming such a consensus, I've been following this since the original story was added, and I can't recall any such "consensus". So please, which one? The one between a heavy-handed editor and a few people he rounded up specifically to support his position? Which one, please? Proxy User (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is really starting to take nest firmly in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Complaining about the current consensus won't help change it. As stated above, if you think editors are keeping the current consensus version of the article out for censorship reasons, file a report at WP:ANI or somewhere else where action can be taken. Dayewalker (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop being so obtuse, Proxy User. If you have proof that I rounded up Dayewalker, Off2riorob, Rd232, then as Dayewalker suggested, trot over to WP:AN/I and file a complaint. Otherwise, we'll close this out as consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Boat Show

This article should state the year of her appearance at the Philadelphia Boat Show. An undated article appeared in the Philadelphia Citypaper saying that she would appear at the Philadelphia Boat Show on Saturday, February 8. If that is correct, it would be 1997 or 2003. However, that article appeared in 2000, as can be seen by and . So, either "Saturday, February 8" is wrong, or the comment that she will appear was added later for a 2003 appearance. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pot Incident

Since there is currently, today, now, no "consensous" on this issue, let's talk about it. I see no reason at all why references to this notable, relevant, and well sourced event should not be included. Please be spacific in your objections, oblique references to WP:BIO are meaningless. Proxy User (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There most certainly is a consensus here abou the "pot indecent" and characterizing that way certainly shows your POV about it. See comments from myself, Pinkadelica, Rossrs, Dayewalker, Off2riorob, Rd232, all of whom used valid rationale for their opinions. Just because you continue to say there is no consensus does not detract from the fact that there is one made. This is not a filibuster, talking it to death doesn't change it. I recall you claiming that an administrator was misusing his power to force this through as well. You were wrong then too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WAS a "consensous", maybe. Is there a possibility that you can discuss the merrits of inclusion / exclusion without resorting to unproductive name calling and becomming agressivly abusive of other editors? Would that be possible? Proxy User (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing here is that everyone has already discussed the inclusion of this and a consensus, with which you don't agree, has been reached. This has already happened here and all the denial in the world does not make that evaporate. There was no name calling or "becomming agressivly abusive of other editors" in my last post. There is a consensus, I named the editors who agreed and I said this is not a filibuster. Your conclusion that "there is no consensus" is wrong, as was your claim that an administrator was misuing his power. This section is pointless. The discussion was already posted. Just because the consensus wasn't what you wanted does not mean that it goes away. If you disagree so strongly, perhaps you should open a WP:RfC on this, as Pinkadelica recommended. Be sure and notify everyone who posted here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing here is that "consensus" is not a permanent state. Also, your definition of "everyone" and "consensus" are self-serving. Proxy User (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can certainly change. However, until it does, as per BLP the discussion needs to continue until a new consensus is reached. PU, I've reverted your most recent addition of the disputed material to the page. As per BLP and previous discussions, it doesn't belong. Please continue the talk page discussion, and try and get consensus to swing your way instead of just replacing the oft-deleted material on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the paragraph about the pot incident. I do not think it belongs because of Undo weight issues. She wasn't charged or found guilty of possession of pot so why is it important to add this trivia to the article? No, I don't think there is a good reason to add this within the policies of WP:Weight and WP:BLP. --CrohnieGal 21:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus might change, but that doesn't tend to happen in 2 weeks and it doesn't happen just because the persons who rendered their opinions have been disparaged as bullied, meat pupppets, denizens acting on behalf of Dawn Wells or talked to death. If opinions change, it won't be because of the arguments presented in the last two weeks and it will happen on this page. That hasn't happened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wells was charged with three crimes. Her guilty plea to an uncharged lesser crime of reckless driving came as part of an agreement with prosecutors who agreed to drop the three crimes she was formally charged with - the more serious driving under the influence, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) as reflected in the reference citation in the language I am proposing concerning this edit issue.--75.4.215.55 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Section Re: Marijuana

I propose that the following section be added as a subsection of "Personal Life", or because that section is small, just adding it to "Personal Life" with no subheading. Your comments invited.

{begin subsection}

Reckless Driving: Alleged Marijuana Involvement

In March 2008, Wells pled guilty to reckless driving as part of a plea agreement dropping charges relating to alleged possession of marijuana. All charges stemmed from her arrest in 2007 after a Teton County, Idaho sheriff's deputy allegedly observed her swerving and failing a field sobriety test.

{end subsection}

The reason that this brief mention warrants inclusion in her biography (subject to consensus) is the same reason it received any attention in the first place. It runs against type. In particular, it runs against type that is the very reason for her inclusion in Misplaced Pages, i.e., her role as Mary Ann on Gilligan's Island. The title of the referenced Associated Press article says it well: “‘Gilligan's Island' good girl caught with pot." If readers want more detail than the two sentences of the proposal entry, reference citation links are provided so they can read details of the alleged swerving, marijuana odor, what other people said/were going to say about her behavior at a party earlier, how many joints were found where, and in what condition, etc.--75.4.215.55 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Associated Press, via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website (2008-03-11). "Gilligan's Island good girl caught with pot". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
2. http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0311_dawn_wells_wm.pdf Jail Booking Detail], Teton County Sheriff, October 18, 2007

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Beauty Pageants articles
• Unknown-importance Beauty Pageants articles