Talk:Wil Wheaton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Recent events in the section "Early Career"

While it is likely true that Wil Wheaton was in The Weakest Link and later lampooned on the Family Guy, there don't really belong in the Early Career section.Grantor (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Portland, Oregon?

I had read a few years ago that Wil Wheaton had moved to Portland Oregon. Give the fact that he, as of June 2005, he became the feature Geek editor for the SuicideGirls (a Portland, Oregon based website) would give some credit to living in Portland, Oregon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.189.229 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Several STNG alumni have lived part time or visited Portland in the 2008-2009 time period and participated in various stages of production of the television series Leverage. It is possible that Wheaton was in Portland only temporarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.149.175 (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Glaring Error

The article states "After leaving Star Trek, Wheaton quit acting altogether." If you will look at his imdb page, you will see Wheaton has, in fact, had a steady stream of roles from the 80s, through the 90s, and up to the present year. Many of these were voice acting spots, but some (as with CSI) were physical performances. Kevin Scott Marcus (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Wheaton

Mr. Wheaton, I see that you have a Wikipedia account or at least are aware of this article. I also see that you seem to be apprehensive about editing this article. Please note that this is not against Wikipedia policy (see WP:BLP), as long as you adhere to all other policies. Bduddy 03:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

==WHEATON!!! GET TO THE CHOPPER!== 60.241.37.187 (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Brother Bear

Removed that Wil Wheaton was not in Brother Bear... Quoting Wil's Slashdot Journal

"I'm sure this is just begging for vandalism (unless those douchebags have grown up and finally kissed a girl) . . . but there is an error on my Wikipedia page that needs to be corrected. I'd do it myself, but that's against Wikipedia editing policy.

I am not in Brother Bear. Willie Wheaton, Wil Wheaton, Jr., and Reginald Maudling (Mrs.) are all not me. I've tried to get this taken off imdb, but someone (well-intentioned, I'm sure) keeps putting it back, and Wikipedia editors (also well-intentioned) are putting Brother Bear back up . . . so we're in an infinite improbability loop, and my towel is getting dirty.

Would someone please correct that, and cite this journal entry so it doesn't get corrected back?" --Tracy Blanton

Moved "Plus he's totally cool. And he rocks. No matter what other people might think" to here. He may be a total babe, but NPOV dictates that you decide that for yourself. Someone else

It seems that Wil Wheaton discovered Wikipedia. He's linked to it from his personal blog at http://www.wilwheaton.net/ and I think he may have submited the orginal bio for this page. His site is somewhat popular; quite a few people seem to have followed the link. --Stephen Gilbert

Yes, and his fans left some generally positive comments:
"Well, I checked out some things in which I have expertise, and I found no errors of fact. For something online, that's quite rare..."
"I am beginning the process of wasting all my damn time at Wiki. I took the liberty of adding "Tom Tomorrow" and "This Mordern World" entries. "Wil Wheaton" was already there! Whatta man!"
But then there's this one:
"I notice that the 2 articles I looked at in the wikipedia were based on original articles published in 1897 and 1911. I should look up relativity now, and see if it's in there."
And this one:
"the wiki is a great idea. very interesting project, but what is the priority with the experiment here... collaboration or information?"
Zoe i got that information about Will not being invited to many conventions for safety reasons from the con organisers themselves - why did you delete it?

Added detailed information about the decline of Wheaton's acting career, but his resurfacing as an internet celebrity. As "cool" as it is that Wil is a fan of wikipedia, please don't delete this added information because you think it's derogatory. There is no shame in being a child star who has faded from the limelight, and everything added is both factual and relevant. -EB-

An anon IP posted: Also in 2004 Wheaton suffered some financial issues forcing him to sell autographed memorabilia on Ebay to raise money for basic living expenses. - I suspect this is vandalism (this article is prone to it). I'd like some documentation for this, or I'm going to revert it. →Raul654 08:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

If you search the history of Wheaton's own web log on his website, wilwheaton.net, you will see tht he has discussed this topic himself. Apparently a financial struggle was endured early in 2004 due to Wheaton's pursuit of acting projects for which he was not hired; he discusses "finding old Star Trek" memorabilia in his garage and autographing it and selling it on Ebay. He also discusses doing this with headshots of himself. Not that I think it bar inclusion in an encylopedic entry, but neither was adding it an act of vandalism.

To end the prepetual vandalism of the site address, I created a mediawiki tag and protected it. →Raul654 23:21, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

It says that the deleted scene is on the DVD however I can't find it. In addition, I have tried googling about it and some sources say it isn't on the DVD. Could someone either tell me where to find it or can we edit the article to be accurate? Alison9 03:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weird Juxtaposition

Although his character (and by extension Wil himself) was loudly hated by a small but vocal group of Trekkers alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die) during TNG's first run, Wheaton has emerged as a vocal member of the geek / nerd community and runs his own weblog web site, Wil Wheaton Dot Net

Shouldn't that web site be Wil Wheaton Not Ded ? --Philopedia 14:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be? Visit the site and read the title. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Brother Bear

Wil Wheaton says the "Willie Wheaton" in Brother Bear is some other guy, and that IMDb is wrong and won't fix it. As this has been "helpfully" re-added back in the past, it needs to be stated explicitly. -- Cyrius|✎ 29 June 2005 16:02 (UTC)

And just to make clear that this reinsertion problem isn't hypothetical, this little "fact" has had to be removed from the article three times. -- Cyrius|✎ 29 June 2005 16:09 (UTC)
Yeah at least one of those was my bad... I assumed that Wil would have had IMDb corrected and so if it was there it was accurate... stupid me ... :)  ALKIVAR™ 29 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)
He says he's tried but they won't fix it! Meanwhile, he posts a plea in his Slashdot journal and gets it fixed here in 9 minutes. -- Cyrius|✎ 29 June 2005 18:38 (UTC)

Pie in the Sky

This entry has a link for Pie in the Sky. However, this link is for the UK TV drama series of that name, not the unrelated film that Wil appeared in. I'm new to Wiki but I assume there should be a new entry for the film and a disambiguation page? -- Nigel Campbell

Yeah, probably. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Biography Gap

Why does the biography begin after the end of Star Trek and with him struggling to find work/reinvent himself? And must we use "like many actors" twice in a row? --feitclub 04:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, after ST:TNG and before The Rest of His Life he worked for NewTek (the Video Toaster people) and then for a bit for G4 (actually G4 would fall into the Struggle to Re-invent Himself). Somebody looking for something to do could probably look up dates and insert some details..... Taco 03:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The biography should definitely include more details about his childhood acting career, getting the part in "Stand By Me", becoming a teen idol during the Star Trek years, etc. Vandelay 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Okay, Mr. Wheaton has pointed out that some of the information in this article is inaccurate. Additionally, I would like to spend some time cleaning up this article and perhaps later, submit it for feedback from other editors who aren't involved. Why am I writing this instead of just doing it? Well, partly because I'll never actually do the work unless I put a comment like this here. Also, because I'd really like people's help on this. This article is already better than most of the other ones on my watchlist, but I think we can make it much better still. And, quite frankly, I'm going to have a hard time figuring out what's good, what's wrong but should be corrected, and what needs to be dumped. So please, let's all get together and fix this article! Suggestions and comments are most welcome! --Yamla 03:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian cat

There was no assertion in the article that Wheaton has libertarian beliefs or is affiliated with the party, so I removed the cat. --Deville (Talk) 00:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In an interview, he stated he was Libertarian. Also, on his website, he says "I often describe myself as a 'left-leaning libertarian...'" and "Now, if I had my druthers ... I'd have the Libertarians as a third party..." I will reinstate the LP category and post a link to an interview. -- Moviecritic, May 21, 2006
Just use a small "L". A big-L "Libertarian" is a member/supporter of the "Libertarian Party", just like "Republican" versus "republican". TodKarlson (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Onion Contributions

There is no mention of Wil Wheaton's frequent contributions to the Onion's AV Club, through his feature Games of Our Lives. Someone more closely associated with this article should add that.

--The Frog 15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Monolith Press

The article Monolith Press points to the article Wil Wheaton. This is wrong..they are separate entities, and this makes the article reference itself. --Nemilar 09:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've created a stub article for Monolith Press. Yay! My first stub!
--Nemilar 09:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Politics

I think there should be a section detailing Wheaton's political views- for one thing, Wheaton's self-identification as a libertarian doesn't seem sufficiently clear to some (see "Libertarian cat" above). For another thing, the only other political references in the article in its present form are "A column that Wheaton wrote for Salon.com in 2005, The Real War on Christmas, attacked conservative commentators..." and "Though never one to shy away from politics, in September of 2006 Wheaton very stringently clarified his anti-Bush beliefs...", both of which strike me as being rather randomly positioned within the article. --Redeagle688 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add Wheaton's birth info--parents, birthplace, etc. Thanks!

Should it be mentioned that he was voted Secretary of Geek Affairs in an online contest? --AtheneN (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton's favorite number

Wil Wheaton's favorite number has been added and removed two times now. Favorite numbers are clearly suitable for trivia sections, but this particular favorite number is more like a political statement and is therefore definately important encyclopedic information which deserves at least a place in the trivia section like so:

  • Wil Wheaton's favorite number is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 [1]

or possibly its own subsection outside of trivia if more information can be found regarding the political statement Wil is making.--MarSch 12:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's his favorite number string if we're going to be specific, and I think it's not notable enough to bother including. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
what do you mean number string? Do you mean numbers should be represented in decimal notation or they aren't really numbers? --MarSch 13:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read his webpage or Google that string? That's the key to unlock HD-DVD disks. It's a string because it has letters as well as numbers and is only worth mentioning as it reflects his beliefs that data encryption of music and movies is silly. If it's worth mentioning, then it would be better served to explain his thoughts without resorting to the number string :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
it is the number represented by that string which is important, not whether it is represented in hex or decimal. Yes, obviously I am aware, that is why I used the terms "political statement" above. --MarSch 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So why not just write up an explanation of his political statement into a subsection, rather than file it under trivia (which should be avoided anyway)? :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't know of any sources that are explicit about it, only his own declaration of his favorite number.--MarSch 09:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth is a favourite number important encyclopedia information? It is not a political statement to have a copyright circumvention key as a favourite number. This sort of trivia rubbish just sullies the hard work done on conveying notable and useful information on the article's topic. (WP:TRIVIA is a good page to read up on) Remy B 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a decryption key, the main use of which is to be able to make free software implementations of hddvd players, such that people who happen to care about free licensing for more than just wikipedia can play their own hddvd's on their own computer for themselves in freedom and with no restriction of their fair use rights. Just because you do not understand the issue or do not care doesn't mean there is no political message there. --MarSch 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I know all about the hex key, the Digg controversy, the YouTube video, the Kevin Rose "We hear you", etc. etc. But that topic has nothing to do with Wil Wheaton anymore than it has to do with me, you, or Genghis Khan (for example). If that issue is highly noteworthy, make an article about it, but it doesn't belong on the article of someone who discussed it. Not to mention that the term "favourite number" is barely resemblant of a fact, even if you have a reference. It could change tomorrow, or was never seriously said in the first place, etc. Wikipedia is a place for notable information, not all the information you can find, or all the information of the latest controversy you just read about. Let's stick to serious information, and not dilute the real content with wishy washy nonsense like someone's "favourite number". Remy B 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Wil disagrees. If he himself thinks it is important enough to mention about himself, then maybe you should reevaluate your reasoning for excluding this info. --MarSch 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Wil certainly doesn't decide the notability criteria of Wikipedia, and regardless, he hasn't stated that he wants his "favourite number" on his Wikipedia article, or that you can speak for him about it. I mean, this is meant to be a serious encyclopedia. It is not serious to list random facts like one's "favourite number", even if it is a reference to some recent controversy. Remy B 12:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not claim to speak for him nor that he defines what is notable on wikipedia. I claim that he can decide what is a notable part of his political opinion and that he said that he wants this on his article. --MarSch 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Which he asked to have added as, it seems, a bit of a dig against Wikipedia, for banning HD DVD code and related discussion pages. I don't think it's notable enough about Wil to bother with including. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wil also states that he likes walking barefoot in the grass on his blog (and talks about the weather, about caring for his pets, etc etc). 'Notable' is subjective in a lot of instances, and saying 'He blogs about it!' is a slippery slope, since people (including Wil) blog about anything and everything. Wil was making a anti-encryption dig (which is a little political depending on your POV I'll grant you). He made one post about it. Since we can't tell if he's being facetious or not, and he's only mentioned it once, we should leave it out. (Psst, Wil, I'll buy another copy of Dancing Barefoot if you start posting about this every day for a month ;) ) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines, Notability and Trivia

I'm breaking this out to separate the discussion of the afformentioend number (string) and notability. Please note, I'm not saying that Wil isn't a notable person, I'm bringing this up to try and get everyone on the same page for what sort of information is appropriate for a Bio page. Wikipedia isn't a shill for a company or an individuals beliefs. Wil is a political opinionated person, but detailed discussion about the nitty gritty of his thoughts is something he should do on his website, not on an encyclopedia.

All that said, we probably do need to break out a section on Wil's activism and beliefs, in a general way. He's got a lot of information that can be included, from his published works. And yes, an autobiography, when published by a company, can be added. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Quit acting...

"After leaving Star Trek, Wheaton quit acting altogether"

I think that line needs a rewrite. He'd acted in many MANY other shows since then...I'd suggest something along the lines of "After leaving Star Trek, Wheaton quit acting altogether...for a short time, at least".

Also, he was in an episode of "The Invisible Man" (which was since TNG finished) which, although being a one-off, is noteworthy IMO...It was well-acted and it was a different character to his usual as he played a bad guy :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmUX (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 June 2007.

He was also in an episode of CSI iirc. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

Someone using the 63.229.217.49 (talk) IP address, and more recently the 63.229.218.189 (talk) IP address, has been deleting the following URLs and text from the External links section:

The first link was being changed to the old wilwheaton.net site, but the last edit just removed the text. Is there any reason why these links should be removed? They seem both relevant and notable to me. If people agree, someone should restore the above. I've already reverted these changes twice and I would rather get a few more opinions on this before repeating the revert so that I can point the anonymous editor to this discussion. If someone else does the revert, please point 63.229.218.189 (talk) to this discussion. Thanks. -- HiEv 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The external links you posted all seem like reasonable additions to the article. If they were deleted with no explanation, then re-add them to the article. Rray 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Atheist?

Twitter entry on September 12th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.145.225 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I added his statement from Just A Geek (2009) in which he says he says he's not quite an athiest and friends consider him an "agnostic Taoist". I'm giving the book more credibility and timeliness than the Twitter statement made in 2007. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He hates Wesley Crusher Too

Put in that he thinks Wesley Crusher was an annoying brat. :) His blog pretty much says that as he views the episodes lately, he realizes how he dislikes Wesley. But he was required to play him as instructed and his lines were given in the script, he didn't create them. He actually finds it funny how Trekkies come up to him at conventions with a photo of him from a episode where Wesley was stabbed to death (of course he didn't really die) and ask him to autograph it. As if he didn't get the joke. Fanra 02:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Details about how he came to leave ST:TNG belong here, I think. The whole article seems unusually jumbled in terms of relevence and detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.124.2 (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute?

The article page says that the neutrality of the article is disputed and to see the talk page (i.e. here), but I'm not finding where the dispute about neutrality is. What would need to be fixed so the tag could be removed? K95 (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

2009 Star Trek Movie

I kinda think Wheaton might have been kidding about being in the new Star Trek, because he subsequently twittered: this and this very funny thing. IMDB has no info on him being in the film, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beej71 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if Wheaton was to twitter that actually he is an android himself that would appear at the top of his wikipedia page, yes I can see it now...
Richard William "Wil" Wheaton III (born July 29, 1972) is an American writer, actor and android; formally believed to be human up until his January 2009 confession on the website Twitter. Wheaton is the first-known artificial life form. As an actor, he is best known for his portrayals of Wesley Crusher on the television series...
Hmmmm. --ADtalk 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
not really relevant to this article but I swear I saw him twice on the bridge of the Kelvin, but I cannot find anything to support that. Nowimnthing (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At 1 hour 48 minutes 55 seconds of the Star Trek DVD version, Wheaton appears to be sitting to the left of "Scotty" (Simon Pegg), in a role that one would assume is an assistant engineering/transport officer. This is a scene immediately after Scotty beams Kirk and Spock away from the Romulan ship as Spocks craft collides with the Romulan ship but before the red matter begins its catastrophic reaction. The person appearing to be Wheaton remains in the background of this scene until the main characters leave the transporter room. It has also been stated that he played more than one Romulan in this film, but is not immediately recognizable under the makeup and tattos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.149.175 (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Arcadia?

Everywhere I've read (his blogs) say that he lives in Pasadena. The very blog that you get this info from says Pasadena. It discusses him gardening in Pasadena. So why say Arcadia? 216.64.29.185 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC) That is where his wife lives, I had not read elsewhere that they had seperated. I know his wife personally. Josué L. Barbosa (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Guild Season 3

The first paragraph says he is "best know... for his work in The Guild Season 3". This is not right, right now there is one episode of season 3 available and he appears in what is the last 10 seconds or so. I don't think this should be included just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a Dick

Regarding Wil's meaning behind this: Editor LovelyLillith is requesting citation that this line applies to real life, as well as it's original "online gaming" intentions. This is hard to cite at the moment, but I'm working on it for fun. He says it out of gaming context sometimes, and did at his recent PAX2009 "Awesome Hour". It was said in a very general sense, and not related to gaming at all. I know I can't cite that, but I'm working on asking Wil if he can mention it in passing on Twitter or something similar. :) Gpia7r (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, he said in the 2007 article:

"One of the core messages of my speech was "don't be a dick" when you play games online, and a lot of people told me how glad they were to hear that. I think I may just go ahead and make it my new motto."

The last line does not directly refer to gaming. While he acknowledges that it was initially addressed to online gaming, the following "make that my new motto" implies a very general sense of the phrase, to me. While I'm 100% sure that he doesn't intend to limit this phrase to gaming only, I'll try to get a more concrete citation, even though that removes the alure and fun out of the entire thing. Gpia7r (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

While it is not my intent to "remove the allure and fun" from his statement, IMO this can be interpreted within the context of the presented sentence as strictly his gaming motto. The gaming community may see it as more global, and if so, it should be fairly easy to find someone well-known in the community who has said it in print. It is because of the fact that there can be two interpretations that I am asking for something to "break the tie" and give the article more solid references (Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, which is generally referred to for reliable, factual information, not just "fun" items or open interpretations). Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I was listening to "Memories of a Futurecast, Episode 4". At the end, he says "Don't be a Dick", in no context whatsoever to gaming or being online. It's implied very well to life in general. Gpia7r (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Then please provide that as a proper inline source, thank you. The current attribution is ambiguous.

LovelyLillith (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Found this while google searching. hope it helps legitamize his law. http://twitter.com/wilw/status/5966220832 this is from his twitter account.

Did Wheaton get the phrase from Wikipedia itself? Wikipedia:DICK dates back to 2006, and points to an article written in 2005 that dates back to 2005, and presumably earlier; and the phrase rings a bell from Everything2, which emerged in the pre-Wikipedia era. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Know Your Meme has a page about it [2]; I've added a mention based on a few of the sources they found. I also found a source regarding the phrase on a T-shirt in 1993 [3] and in the movie Heathers which was released in 1988 [4]. —rybec 10:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rybec: recently expanded on Wheaton's Law,[5] with some great sources. Note that the information on knowyourmeme[6] is misleading, and the wired article is only good for the term being popularised in one subculture by Wil; it isnt a holistic review of the term, so bold statements cant be extrapolated from it. 'Wikipedia:Don't be a dick' was created in January 2005, by user:Phil Sandifer, then copied to meta a few days later by user:David Gerard. So that pre-dates Wil Wheatons keynote speech at the Penny Arcade Expo (PAX) in August 2007. Maybe those two gents might explain some of the history - was it a new phrase in 2005? - or the archives may contain answers from them. Also, this slashdot page from 1999 is not asserting that there were bumper stickers - nor would it be a reliable source for that statement. It wouldnt surprise me that bumper stickers saying that were floating around back in 1999, but it is just as likely (or more likely, if you ask me) that CmdrTaco was being creative to punch home a point. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't assert that there were bumper stickers in 1999, only that the phrase was in use before it became associated with Wheaton. Putting it on a Web page is a form of use. The Slashdot page was archived in 1999, whereas Wheaton blogged about it 2007. —rybec 01:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I didnt see this earlier section; thanks for merging them. Yes, I agree that your addition to the article is OK - quite well crafted wording in fact. "it became an Internet meme associated with Wheaton" may be a bit too strongly stated is my concern, coupled with a slashdot guideline not being a good source. i.e. more research needed, but what you have done is a very good step forward. Sorry I was not clearer. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea where Phil found the precise phrasing, but it was (as noted on that page) a euphemism for "don't be a fuckhead" - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons

I see that he had a column in the magazine, but I do not see anything showing that he helped actually design the game. Anyone have a reference to support this? LovelyLillith (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I expect that he had no involvement with published D&D work other than his column. He is probably in the "game designer" category only because there is no "D&D columnist" category. A lot of D&D fans seem to consider people like him, Vin Diesel, and Stephen Colbert as almost folk heroes because they have publicly spoken out in favor of their D&D experiences. Anyway, I'm sure the category can be removed if desired. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Good call. I've created a "Dungeons & Dragons enthusiasts" category that I'll put Colbert and Diesel into as well, that should work for other fans of the game in the future too. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: I had created the aforementioned category but after various debate by administrators, it has been changed to "Dungeons & Dragons writers". Wil is included in this category for his articles. LovelyLillith (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources

This article has a number of references to Wil's blog, as well as references using Tweets. Per Wiki policy, Tweets and personal blogs are generally not considered to be in the reliable source category, save for a few circumstances. I'm not saying all of the blog refs should be deleted, but I do think they should be used sparingly and Tweets shouldn't be used at all. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for details. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:SELFPUB, almost all of these seem to fall squarely under the permissible circumstances you mention. He's cited as a source of information about himself and his opinions, with the latter clearly characterized as such in the article. The section of the article relating to his political opinions references his blog in several places, and there are two blog posts cited in the section about his poker playing, but the bulk of the article is about his careers in acting and writing, where he's only once cited as a source. He's 11 of 36 sources currently, which I suspect is largely a function of the convenience of using such a prolific blogger as a source. The one arguably self-serving citation is his being credited with the voice of several Romulans in the 2009 Star Trek film, and even that probably can't be characterized as "unduly self-serving" given his history. If someone can check the DVD commentary, it's apparently confirmed by the director, and we'd be able to replace that reference. MisterFancyPants (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Most recent work...

I see nothing on his most recent acting roles... He's been starring in an award-winning web series, titled, "The Guild", and I saw him on some guest spot just a weeks ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.241.56 (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Evil

Doesn't his evilness merit a mention? As I understand it Wheaton has been involved in a television programme in which he plays an evil version of himself. I'm unclear on the question of the goatee, which is why I came to this article. --TS 22:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be his work on The Big Bang Theory. We do mention it (and that he's playing himself) under the Performing section, but we don't mention that he's playing Evil Wil Wheaton (as he refers to it on his blog). I don't watch the show personally so I'll have to defer to others as to whether adding the qualifier warrants a mention. I would think it couldn't hurt but I'm not positive. Millahnna (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there are no reliable sources for that meme, and it's all much of an in-joke. I haven't seen the programme either but I follow his twitter feed. --TS 23:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Since his blog is verified, we might be able to use that as a source. Again, I'm not positive. He describes the character in his posts (and I'm paraphrasing here) as being a really mean, nasty, insider Hollywood version of himself. Millahnna (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Should we also mention that this is a follow-up of his brattish character in that Star Trek-themed The Weakest Link episode? Mox Factor 58.152.146.116 (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

He has kids

This video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxs9k1MsrmE has him mentioning he has two teenage sons. -OOPSIE- (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What's up with this also "When Ryan was 19, he asked Wheaton to legally adopt him, which he did"

Is Ryan autistic or have some mental disability? After you're 18 you're a legal adult, you can't be adopted as a child. The snare (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're the one mentally disabled one here. Try a Google search. I found this without too much trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.215.34 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Grandfather on Wagon Train

I've seen several references on the web (usually in trivia notes) that the movie "Stand By Me" mentions "Wagon Train" because Wil's grandfather starred in that TV series, but I can't find any sources that actually say who his grandfather was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.76.177 (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional information

i am not sure where this would go, but Wil Wheaton is also a minor fashion model as well, having modeled for at least one retail clothing store (with his wife; Clockwork Couture, which has both an online and a physical presence - [7]) 99.18.56.54 (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a secondary source would be needed for this. Nightscream (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Beer

Might add that he is an avid homebrewer https://wilwheaton.net/tag/beer/ and currently has published his own flavor of beer in collaboration with the Stone Brewing Company; The "Stone Farking Wheaton W00tstout" http://www.stonebrewing.com/collab/w00tstout/ 209.221.41.173 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo Discussion

Wil Wheaton specifically requested a photo to be used on the top of his Wikipedia page.[8] Out of respect for the person the page is about, I believe it is proper to use the requested photo. Wikipedia user Uncle Milty claims the photo is out of character for Wil Wheaton, but he hasn't provided any references showing whether or not the photo is actually out of character. For now, we should assume Wil Wheaton is the authority on Wil Wheaton's character, rather than Uncle Milty. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Uncle Milty has yet to provide any discussion on the talk page on this subject, but I'd like to suggest a compromise - we should keep both photos on the page. We can use Wil Wheaton's photo where he requested it to be used, and use Uncle Milty's apparent favorite photo further down on the page in the "Career" section, since it is a photo of Wil Wheaton at a conference. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

For purposes of discussion, it should be noted that three different images have been in use over the past week:

  1. This was the image in use before the image was changed
  2. This image was put into place on May 7
  3. This image was put into place on May 8

Aside from IP editors, users who have edited the article since the image changes started are JavaWarlord, JuneGloom07, McDoodly, Solarra, Urabutbl, Nightscream, and Uncle Milty. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The sweater photo is a gag photo (and a copyright violation, it turns out) that has no place in a proper biography, and the only reverts I made were to remove it. I was also a participant in his most recent AMA on Reddit, and at no point did Wil "approve" the photo. In fact, his only comment was an invitation to vandalize WP with the addition of the photo. That's not a choice that it his to make. If he truly wanted a better photo in his WP article, he could freely upload one that meets WP's licensing requirements. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the sweater photo is listed as creative commons and was approved by Wil Wheaton (the only person in the photo). Is it owned by another individual or company? Please expand on this issue. Also, why doesn't it have a place in the biography, if it is the photo requested by the man the biography is about? I think you just personally don't like the photo. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Wil Wheaton does not own the copyright to the photo, and as such cannot arbitrarily change the photo's licensing. The person who took the photo owns the copyright. While the photo could possibly be appropriate somewhere farther down in the article, a gag photo is not the best choice for the infobox. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:OWN. No one editor owns any Wikipedia article, nor does the subject of the article. The photo chosen should be that which best serves the article. While we should not dismiss the concerns of the subject outright, we do not give carte blanche control over the article to the subject either. It is better to meet in the middle, by having him supply a photo of equal or superior quality, and having the editing community decide through consensus, which is the prescribed manner that such matters are decided on Wikipedia. Wheaton stated in the thread on May 8 on that Reddit threat that he wants a "new" picture to replace the one taken at the Wizard World Experience in June 2013. However, the one taken at the San Diego Comic Con is not a "new" photo, as it was taken in 2010. As for the one with the clown sweater, the facial expression is awful, the sweater is not consistent with the attire he is known to wear, and the lighting is bad. It looks like it was taken as some sort of joke, and it looks like that it will likely be deleted soon, as it was not uploaded by the copyright holder. Moreover, I see no evidence that Wheaton favors or approved of that photo anyway, since he never made any such indication in that Reddit thread. The person who indicated this was the user called enderandrew42. Nightscream (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This is his blog where he talks about the story behind the photo. #[9] I'm not an expert on copyright, but if we cite the source of the photo, is that enough? If not, we can contact the author of the photo, since she is listed in his article. While I agree that Wil Wheaton shouldn't have full control over the article, I do think he is the leading authority on what photo represents him the best. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if you don't like the photo. I also think it's rude of you to insult his facial expression. In the thread in question, the user you mentioned suggested the photo, and Wil Wheaton responded with "Make it happen, Internet", showing that your claims about the discussion are entirely false.128.186.121.40 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Choosing A would be pretty disrespectful, because Wil Wheaton specifically called it unflattering. I think the right decision is to keep both photo B and photo C within the article. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed photo C was deleted from Wikipedia Commons, but I think we should look into the licensing of the photo, particularly because we know who the photographer is (Loren Cox) and it's extremely unlikely that they care about the license. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The author of photo C can be contacted here: [10] 128.186.121.40 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have uploaded a possible contender here. This is a cropped version of a CC-BY-2.0 licensed photograph found on Flickr here, and is currently pending approval. If this one passes the approval process I think it will meet everyone's expectations for an infobox image, and I can't imagine that Wil would be too upset by it either. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that I've asked Loren Cox, the photographer of the clown shirt photo, to join this discussion. I'd like to postpone consensus until we have more information about the copyright information regarding the photo. Since there has been a lot of discussion surrounding the photos since people started voting, I also think we should restart the voting from scratch. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the reference I posted to where Wil Wheaton talked about this, so I'll post it here: [11]. Let the record show that anyone who says he didn't want this photo or requested some sort of WP "vandalism" is talking out of their ass and shouldn't be taken seriously. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of these votes were cast pretty prematurely in the discussion; we even have an entirely new photo to choose from. So, we should probably restart the consensus once the discussion is complete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.121.40 (talk • contribs)
Generally speaking this discussion is more about the exclusion of option C and less about finding a "better" replacement to option A. Mkdwtalk 19:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't. It's about selecting the most appropriate image by way of consensus. If the consensus chooses A, then that's fine. And if it chooses B or D, or X, then that's fine too. Nightscream (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I still think the 4th photo should have a fair chance, if we're going to vote. It's also been mentioned that we might include C later in the article. Maybe we should have a separate vote for including photo C later in the article. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's wait until it passes Flickr review first. These aren't votes anyway, they are simply an attempt to form an orderly consensus. The image I uploaded can still be discussed later if necessary. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Since it has now passed review, I've added image D to the gallery for your consideration. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment If the subject request a particular picture be used, why should we give that opinion any special consideration? We're not his press agents. We are no more here to flatter him than to caricature him. We want the picture that most accurately shows him, on most representational and technical merits, assessed in complete NPOV independence of his preference. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
He is, more than anyone else here, an authority on which picture accurately shows him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.167 (talk • contribs)
Yet his photo of choice not only met the fewest Wikipedia criteria, it was also clearly a photo that was not serious and I would have a hard time believing Wheaton would choose that photo as his 'best' representation if he took this selection process seriously. If anything, the photo would be appropriate on an article that focused on his fun loving nature or personal character, but this is not a personal exposition on Wheaton, but an encyclopedia, whether it succeeds or not, does its best to avoid those things. In fact, the choice of photo reflects the exact opposite and perhaps examples why having a conflict of interest in developing a NPOV BLP is strongly discouraged. Mkdwtalk 07:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
"He is, more than anyone else here, an authority on which picture accurately shows him." No, he is not. The consensus of the editing community on Wikipedia is the authority by which matters of accuracy and appropriateness are determined, and not the subject of an article. The subject of an article is only an authority on his personal opinion or preference, and because that is affected by considerations such as self-interest, bias, personal aesthetics, etc., that opinion/preference may be taken into account, but it is not going to be given any more or less weight than it deserves. You wouldn't argue such a thing about the main photo in his Britannica entry, so why argue that here? The power to edit Wikipedia articles that is afforded by its open-edited nature is not the same thing as the right to control it. Nightscream (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
If the author of a Britannica article was in the process of writing the article, and knew that the subject wanted a certain photo to be used, I suspect they would give that substantially more weight than if a few random individuals requested that a photo be used. And that's what we are - a few random individuals. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added a 5th option for the photo. I didn't upload it to commons and mark it as free, because I'm not sure about the rules are regarding this. It's a derivitive of photo C. Basically, it's a more professionally framed version of the photo, and the background of the photo has been changed to not look like he's in the middle of someone's basement. A small percentage of the original photo was used, so maybe it can be considered fair use? 128.186.121.40 (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's not uploaded to the Commons, then it won't show up here. If the photo is still primarily derived from the original, which it is, then it's considered a derivative work, and therefore does not fall under Fair Use. Cropping a copyright-protected photo isn't what Fair Use is about. On Wikipedia, Fair Use regarding photos is generally about keeping the resolution low enough so that it doesn't interfere with the copyright holder's ability to profit from the image, and is also about the articles to which the photo's use is restricted. For example, a low-res screenshot of Nana Visitor as Kira from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine would be okay in the Kira article, but not the Visitor article. A low-res shot of a celebrity on the cover of Vanity Fair is okay in the Vanity Fair article, but not in the article on the celebrity----unless the shot goes to their notability, like that pic of a pregnant Demi Moore on the cover back in the 80s. Nightscream (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been invited to join the discussion, and I simply have to repeat what Nightscream said with perfect aptness: "No one editor owns any Wikipedia article, nor does the subject of the article. The photo chosen should be that which best serves the article. While we should not dismiss the concerns of the subject outright, we do not give carte blanche control over the article to the subject either." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Both of you are equating changing a small photo in the corner to carte blanche control over the article, so it's hard to take either of you seriously. If he was trying to change or remove facts, that might be considered carte blanche control over the article, but putting a happier photo in the corner? If you call that "blanche control", you have to know how ridiculous you sound. 128.186.121.189 (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Control over the article has nothing to do with which aspects of the article are being discussed, and is not specific to facts in the text. You're arguing that one equates with the other is a non sequitur. The bottom line, the subject of an article does not get to unilaterally dictate any aspect of its content solely on the basis his personal aesthetics, period. That isn't ridiculous, it's reasonable. Your statement, on the other hand, is poorly-reasoned. Nightscream (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Unilateral control over a single aspect of the article is not the same thing as unilateral control over the article. You've changed what you've said, from describing something that wasn't being requested ("blanche control over the article") to something that is arguably being requested (unilateral control over an aspect of the article). Being that his point was that the first isn't even arguably something that's being requested, it's not really his reasoning that's poor. It's your ability to accurately describe your own thoughts. 128.186.121.189 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) <-- Dos estudiantes?!
There is nothing inaccurate about anything I've described. The photo is part of the article, so whether one uses the wording "control over the article" or "control over an aspect of the article" is irrelevant, since the meaning is clear and understandable to anyone not suffering from a severe mental hernia, and neither wording is inaccurate. Pretending that it is is just hair-splitting. Nightscream (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
"Blanche control over the article" and "control over an aspect of the article" are two very different things. But, think that we can all agree that you meant the second but mistakenly said the first, and that given the size of this discussion thread, nobody has either (except perhaps uncle milty, whose chosen photo is up right now). Also, since you're accusing other people of having a mental hernia because of your own mistake, I think it's fair to say that you're objectively a dick. We could add it to your user page and cite this talk page as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.28 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus discussion subthread

CLOSED
Consensus for A. Discussion may be re-opened if another alternative is found. --Pine✉ 07:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • A. I'd be fine with either convention photo, and will accept any clear consensus here, but I'm going with A. Nightscream (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • B Roberticus talk 18:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I, as well as a number of other editors, were messaged to comment on this discussion. This same group has been messaged similarly in the past for other discussions regarding photo choice on biography articles. Photos A or B are suitable that represent Wheaton as his true likeness (appearance) and are suitable for an encyclopaedic article. Photo C is clearly a joke and whose only purpose would be for novelty and comedy. While I believe there is a time and place (and even possibly a place further down in the article) for the photo, the purpose of Wikipedia and namely this biography article is not centred around comedy. As such, very few reputable publications would use this as the choice lead photo on a formal and neutrally toned biopic of the person. Our guidelines should be the same. Mkdwtalk 18:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • B It's more flattering (A he's quite shiny). CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • C I think the third photo should be used, but if B is chosen, I think we should add a section about the new photo. Furthermore, I think that it's disgusting and shameful that anyone is choosing A, since the subject finds the photo unflattering. 128.186.121.40 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A The name shield and the microphone in image B are too distracting and C was already deleted. Armbrust The Homunculus
  • A per Armbrust's rationale. --Cavarrone 18:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not C. I don't have strong opinions about A or B. Both are less than ideal. A is more current, but not enough to be a major point. B looks a little better, but is marred by the mic and name card. Sure would be nice is someone could convince him to provide a decent one. I can accept either A or B.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A meets more of Wikipedia's criteria for these photos. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I saw this in the editing remarks: "Out of respect for the man this page is about, we ought to use the photo he requested." As a matter of fact, no, it's not up to him. This is not an ad, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, or professional profile where an actor can post headshots. Regardless of which, A remains the one that best meets Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • B. I'm not particularly fond of any of these pictures, but B wins over A for me. AstroCog (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A, most natural facial expression. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A, The most recent photo is usually preferable in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 21:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A, Although I like B better than A, I think we should go with a 2013 image rather than a 2010 image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A, although if Mr Wheaton is (quite rightly, in my opinion) concerned about the quality of the image in his Wikipedia article, he is more than welcome to convince a studio to donate a professional image of himself under a free license, or have his agent do so. We got a picture of Jeff Dunham like that, among others. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A, as it's the more recent image. While "B" is a more natural looking photo, informal photos with name tents and microphones visible always seem (to me) out-of-place as infobox photos. Drdpw (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • D, as it is a more clear-cut portrait image. David A (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Nightscream left a note on my talk page asking for input on this discussion. There seem to be plenty of people with opinions so I won't express mine but I will be willing to do a non-admin close of this discussion after a few days. If discussion stalls after a few days and no one closes this discussion please remind me on my talk page to close. --Pine✉ 07:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • D, as it's clearer and better than either A or B. If all three had been present at the same time, it would presumably have more votes than the other two images. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Either of the three is fine to me, as they show his head clearly and he doesn't look dramatically different in either of them. The silly one is out. Hekerui (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with DGG and Crisco 1492, and how was this [12] confirmed to be Mr. Wheaton ? Mlpearc (open channel) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A Head and some body. 2,087 × 2,926 pixels. 2013 (way newer than D). The best choice by far. Oh, and I can't view C, and E is well, just strange. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus for including photo C later

Do you think we should include photo C later in the article if it is not chosen as the infobox picture, and if we get a copyright release from Loren Cox (the photographer)?

  • Yes. I think it's an interesting photo, and since we have information behind the photo we could possibly provide information about the event he attended. 128.186.121.40 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Only if it's relevant in context to the section in which it's placed, or some information in that section. Otherwise, it may appear to be inappropriate by way of WP:TONE and representation of the subject. Nightscream (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:TONE appears to talk only about written language. Specifically, avoiding slang, jargon, first and second person, etc. You'll be happy to know that none of the photos contain any jargon, slang, etc... 166.147.120.143 (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I was in error to link to the policy on tone, which references language in particular, but more broadly, an article needs to have an appropriate tone overall, as Mkdw also indicated at the top of the Consensus discussion subthread above. The photo would not be appropriate on that basis, unless some context relevant to Wheaton's notability can be provided. Nightscream (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Audiobooks

http://www.audible.com/search/ref=a_search_c4_1_1_1_srNarr?searchNarrator=Wil+Wheaton&qid=1411506575&sr=1-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac.san.fran (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wil Wheaton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 04:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Don't Be A Dick Day

I'm wondering if Don't Be A Dick Day is notable enough for a stand-alone article, or should just be a section on this article. Please feel free to discuss and edit Draft:Don't Be A Dick Day. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

sephardic roots

he has sephardic roots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.245.250 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wil Wheaton. 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) 09:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wil Wheaton. 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) 18:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wil_Wheaton/Archive_1&oldid=1136223917"