Talk:Kurtwood Smith

Image copyright problem with File:Red Forman.jpg

The image File:Red Forman.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

We should have an image that isn't all blurry 72.237.55.2 (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the image. Gage (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kurtwood Smith.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kurtwood Smith.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kurtwood Smith.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Masterson letter

FefePipepipe (talk · contribs) believes that the fact that Smith wrote a letter in support of Masterson belongs in the article strongly enough to repeatedly insert the material despite my expressing concerns and asking them to bring the question to this page, and their having been reverted by multiple other editors in the past. Can other editors please weigh in on this? This information has previously been added and was removed because editors felt that unless Smith was specifically targeted for criticism that this was immaterial. Pinging 2000carrots (talk · contribs), Hy Brasil (talk · contribs), Gonnym (talk · contribs), Sdrqaz (talk · contribs) as other editors who've either added or reverted this information to this point. I am boldly removing it until we reach a consensus one way or another, and would ask that other editors refrain from re-inserting the text until that time. DonIago (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The only reason we are here today is because  DonIago (talk) is placing their personal biases in this forum and was called out for edit warring, as well as violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. DonIago (talk) decided the information did not fit their narrative and reverted the information. Yet, what is funny is that when they got called out, the child in them came out and the harassing tone and tenor were shown where they antagonistically continued to say go to a Talk page to form a consensus rather than simply reinserting them; while he did the opposite.

Wikipedia defines a person’s Personal life is the course or state of an individual's life, especially when viewed as the sum of personal choices contributing to one's personal identity. Wikipedia With the keywords being PERSONAL CHOICES. He chose to draft and submit the letter to the judge and the letter became a public domain document and a document that is subject to FOIA rules and he did this in his PERSONAL LIFE.

Pointing out that other people made edits does not make their edits right or wrong but makes the changes edits.

It is mighty funny that other individuals, such as Ashton Kutcher, Mila Kunis, Debra Jo Rupp, Giovanni Ribisi, and William Baldwin who also wrote personal letters to the SAME JUDGE during the same trial without thought for the potential consequences (also called PERSONAL CHOICES) because it has been documented they did not realize their information would be seen. All of these letters were personally written as the actors and not the characters these actors played. Furthermore, none of these individuals that wrote these letters in the personal lives as the actors they played, but they stressed to the judge their interactions with Matterson in their PERSONAL LIVES.

Again, this is what is truly defined as harassing behavior. DonIago, is edit-warring, not because the information is Untrue, BUT because THEY DON’T Feel it should be there. It is clearly seen by his bold-assertion of what they are going to do “ I am boldly removing it until we reach a consensus one way or another, and would ask that other editors refrain from re-inserting the text until that time. DonIago (talk) 13:28.”

Once again, remind me who is DonIago (talk)  ?? Right a person online doing the same as the rest of us, but they have consensus approval to make overarching changes! FefePipepipe (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)