| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
Okay, we really need to clean up this article and make it look more professional. Right now it is obviously just the ravings of a group of fanboys. Admittedly, I am a fanboy of Sir Williams, but we would make him (and us) look a lot better if we got this a bit more organized and objective.
I'm thinking we first need a standard bibliography, which will allow us to clear up substantial portions of the article, and then as much of a biography as possible. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about his personal life to contribute much to the second part.
Is anybody else with me here? Zaklog 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This reads like an ad. This person is not relevant to 99.9% of readers. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising (Unsigned comment)
That's basically what I was saying. I'm aware that this is far too enthusiastic about Mr. Williams, but like I said, I don't have the bio information and haven't had the time to fix this up well. As for relevancy to "99.9%" of readers, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Whether one person in a thousand looks up an entry or not doesn't particularly matter. The point is to have as complete a knowledge base as possible.
Yes, you're right: this needs cleaned up. But you can complain, or you can do something constructive. (And before you suggest it, an outright deletion is not constructive.) --Zaklog 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Cleaned Up edit
Article cleaned up today to serve as a reference article for a notable author instead of a fanboi shrine. Please feel free to contribute to this article but please cite sources and keep opinions (even glowing ones) out of the article text. Stoick (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)