Talk:Daniel Wayne Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raised by[edit]

The part about Anna Nicole having raised Daniel for his whole life should be changed. Virgie did raise Daniel until he was six years old. There is proof of that. Even Anna Nicole admitted it. Virgie has all of Daniels baby pictures, not to mention several pictures of Virgie and Daniel. Although the editor would have like to believed that Anna Nicole raised Daniel for his entire life, this is not factual. Virgie did in fact raise Daniel. I don't think that personal opinions should be involved when editing an article. You should only state the facts. Or if uncertain say, it is said that Virgie raised Daniel until 6 years of age and some say Anna Nicole for his entire life.

Should not be deleted[edit]

I don't think this article should be deleted. His death is very notable. Every news website in the world is writing about it. EliasAlucard|Talk 18:25, 11 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Re: Should not be deleted[edit]

Agreed--at least for the time being.Sectryan 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Archibald99 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasons stated above. EliasAlucard|Talk 18:41, 11 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)
  • Merge Neither...he isn't that notable in the past to warrant an article...not much to say, this can go along with Anna Nicole Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyintothesky (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Okay, I know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but if you'll allow me to do a little bit of my own personal fortune-telling... The latest news on the topic hints that there may have been foul play involved. If it turns out that Smith was murdered, then he probably will end up warranting his own article a la Nicole Brown Simpson. If not, then this probably turns into a clear "merge". Sure, every major media outlet is reporting it now, but if the kid just died of a congenital heart defect or something, nobody's going to be talking about it by the end of next week. So I guess what I'm saying is, it's hard to tell right now. --Jaysweet 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I was forced to put down my crystal ball, then I guess I'd vote Merge. --Jaysweet 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe with the latest developments with Anna Nicole, we should put more consideration into the proposed merger. Sectryan 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, also note that there was already an AfD discussion and the result was Keep... so I think we're all arguing in the wrong place ;p --Jaysweet 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lowry: I do not think it should be deleted or merged.

FYI -- Now that homicide and suicide have both been ruled out, I think the notability of this is going to decline rapidly. It was rejected for AfD fairly just a week ago, but I intend to propose deletion again fairly soon (basically, as soon as this drops of the CNN headlines). It can be merged with the Anna Nicole article. --Jaysweet 03:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good question to ask in relation to the deletion question is this: Can this article ever be expanded to the point where it could be considered for featured status? —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New comment: The Inquest on the death of Daniel is going to be coming up this March. There are also many people hinting at possible criminal charges being filed if in fact Howard K. Stern was to blame. Plus with Anna Nicole's death and all the news about that I really don't think this article should be deleted. I forsee more info to come as the Inquest isn't closed court, with the hype on AN's death, everyone will flock to that as well. 02-14-07 BriarRose

Daniel Smith shouldn't have a wikipage since the most important thing he ever did was dying

Methadone[edit]

Dr. Wecht was making the rounds of the media today (February 8, 2007). He confirms that there still no information as to where Daniel got the methadone from (nobody has admitted to writing a perscription) or why he might of have been taking it. 63.3.5.2 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists the pathphysiololgy of methadone was lengthening the S/T segment. This should read QT interval. I'm trying to figure out if this is a quote from the physician or if this was written by an editor. The reference does not provide this as a quote, so I will change it pending someone finding an actual quote.Bdolcourt 17:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article[edit]

Why Daniel Wayne Smith? That's not how he was known. Someone explain this to me. I assume there are other Daniel Smiths. But why not Daniel Smith (?????), fill in the question marks with something appropriate? Wouldn;t that be better? -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text of the will[edit]

It seems like it would be more appropriate for the text of the will to appear in Wikisource, with a link from here... doncha think? --Jaysweet 21:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in and I sorta care a little - it is only two paragraphs with the salient points from the horses mouth which I found preferable to: According to the Florida court as reported on cnn blah and blah. Covers the same territory in about as much space. the whole will is umpteen pages, thats not what is here. But I also did it because I thought the dating was peculiar : original post had "The copy contains the date 02/03/2007 02:18 followed by 8188805985 RAR above each page, indicating that the copy was made five days before she died. Each page is initialed VLM. The will declares...etc.(italics were not in original post -just for emphasis now) So that little sentence was removed somewhere along the line. It struck me as peculiar because five days before she died they make a copy of a will that was six years old. Thats one hell of a coincidence or at least so it seemed to me. Its just one more little factoid that doesn't quite make sense . So I leave it at that. 68.102.7.125 doctored the will to read F Lee and then somebody fixed that back but also removed the date thing, I don't follow this page too closely, but theres' my reasons.68.60.68.203 02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inquest into the death of Daniel Smith[edit]

I was disappointed to see no updated information on the scheduled inquest in the Bahamas of Daniel Smith. It's now 27 July 2007 and there should be some mention of this by now even if the authorities decided to cancel the inquest completely. These facts should be added to the entry which I found to be otherwise informative if a little heavy on the personal details of his (tragically) shortened life. This is my first time commenting on any web site hope I'm do this right. 64.183.113.34 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Dean Emerson64.183.113.34 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Redondo Beach Library[reply]

109.93.181.108 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Daniel Smith's inquest update I provided legitimate links to Daniel Smith's death inquest, Associated Press report. Unfortunately, person who deleted my updates under "Stevietheman" has got a personal agenda regarding Larry Birkhead and all things regarding this person. I suspect it's a conflict of interest, possible press agent.109.93.181.108 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's best not to make accusations if you don't know what you're talking about. The only common thread between Birkhead and myself is that we live in the same city. My revert was solely for the reasons stated. You dumped content into the wrong location, with various issues, and seemingly expect other editors to clean it up. Thanks, I guess. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:04, 2 January 2017

109.93.181.108 (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)I provided legitimate Associated Press reports regarding Daniel Smith's inquest in March 2008. I hope fair, IMPARTIAL (who aren't personally involved in Smith's case I.e. press agent, relative) Wiki editors will improve DS Wikipedia page if necessary. 109.93.181.108 (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This set of edits was much more within reason, although it's always best to explain why you are removing content. What you removed is probably not important enough to keep, but I had to determine that myself without any assistance of your explanation.
I further will warn you that you are casting completely unfounded aspersions upon me, and that is not considered to be acceptable behavior in the Wikipedia. I am not personally involved in Smith's case in any possible way. I just don't want this article turned into a mess that doesn't comply with guidelines. This is my same stance on any other article I steward. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Daniel Wayne Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Wayne Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Wayne_Smith&oldid=1205335591"