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)

This is being added to this page as the individual continues to bounce from here to my page and I want a historical view of this discussion:

I've requested that you start a discussion at the article's Talk page in every message I've left for you here; you've provided no rationale for why you should not do so. I also mentioned WP:BRD in my first edit to this page - when your edits were reverted, you should have initiated a conversation at the article's Talk page instead of simply restoring your desired text.

I'm done here. DonIago (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could have initiated the talk page as well, but you chose not to. You chose to do what you wanted to do. But you couldn't help yourself. And I have clearly indicated in previous communication and repeated with additional actors on how you are going to have to justify how KURTWOOD SMITH, the actor, wrote a letter to a judge in his persona life, just as the other actors, identified, did only KURTWOOD SMITH should not have WHAT HE DID (because no one made him write that trash of a letter including identifying that he knew Matterson had been found guilty of the horrendous crimes against those young ladies) to applied to his Wiki page. Those other actors did the same ignorant steps in straddling the line by writing those letters in an attempt to give Matterson more credibility/weight over the victims and in the process potentially retraumatizing them.

Using your logic, then Iggy Azalea personal life section should be cleared about any mention of the ignorance in the letter that was written for Tory Lanez against his conviction of the actions against Megan Thee Stallion... Oh wait, the information is clearly posted on Wikipedia and she did the EXACT SAME thing as did Kurtwood Smith. Just like the other actors that also wrote letters to the judge. These people have paid handlers and were writing letters based on emotions, quasi-loyalty and quasi-friendship and then passing them onto these people's lawyers; where the first thing they should have done is asked for their handlers/fixers/consulting firms to review the letters.

I have been done here, but you would NOT let the horse stay in the ground! FefePipepipe (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The onus was on YOU to initiate the talk page discussion when your content was removed, not Donlago. Instead you chose to slowly edit war to reinsert the content. You’ve already been referred to WP:BRD.

Also, the personal attacks on Donlago need to fucking stop. Accusing him of harassment is outrageous. He has been completely reasonable. You however, have not, and your bias is dripping from each of your attack ridden posts.

There is enough to support inclusion of Smith having written this letter, but we shouldn’t be cherry picking the contents for the article, merely that he wrote the letter. I’m removing the quotes unless you can find a source specifically stating that some of the phrasing itself was notable. Hy Brasil (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that this is act was notable as if you search for Kurtwood Smith and even just "letter" you get many hits. Now if you'd ask me if an article should be written about this letter, then of course not, but it does deserve mentioning here. Gonnym (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems glaringly obvious that whoever wrote the Personal Section was a feminist with #metoo leanings (contributers are allowed to have these but not at the expense of objectivity). The fact that they felt no requirement to furnish the necessary details one would usually expect to find in a Personal Section like Smith's relationships or politics, but rather go straight to one small aspect and nothing else - a letter Smith wrote - makes this abundantly clear. Just wondering what WK does to address personal biases like this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.212.106 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)