Talk:Amanda Hamilton

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

PR or article?[edit]

This needs a massive cleanup unless it is to read as an advertorial for her business. We need sourced material and better structure. Please help find some stuff so we can do a better job - if possible. SimonTroote (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexmaitland: As noted above, this article is seriously in need of work to find reliable sources and build a proper article that does not read like Amanda's agent's sales pitch. The only sourced statement so far is a criticism, unfortunately. To remove this is wholly unjustified . Attention should be place on building a list of appropriate references with which to build an article. Please do not remove such items or add unsourced elements. Thanks. SimonTroote (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Once again, I am undertaking a substantial trim as the article is almost completely unsourced and reads like an agent's biog. I will trim back to the most straightforward claims concerning her central notability - that of TV presenter and author - and keep sourced material. SimonTroote (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexmaitland: OK - I will work on citations/references, but the essence of this is that Amanda is four main things; a broadcaster, a writer, a nutritionist, and a company owner. All that is quoted - from memberships, media columns, awards, work with government, and her own company - is fact, not whimsy or puff. I will beef up my wiki editing skills to make sure all the elements that are within are properly referenced. What I suspect is that the reason that you are editing this out is less about wiki protocol, and more about sticking a negative slant on her profile! Can I ask what your role is within wiki? —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Right. Let's be serious people. No more unsourced advertorial. No removing of sourced commentary. This is not supposed to be a puff piece. SimonTroote (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex. I once again see you have reverted material and appear not to want to discuss what this article should be about. I urge you to read the notice about Biogs of Living person at the top. In the next few days, I will beginning editing this (once again) back to the basics that can be supported by appropriate material. Please read how to write biogs on wiki. Can I also suggest you declare any relationship you may have with the subject. SimonTroote (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Bias - Alexmaitland/Alexmaitland99[edit]

I have trimmed back the article, made it read less like a PR piece, and added two references - so add a ref improve tag. Part of the problem here is the clear and obvious bias of Alexmaitland and his sock puppet Alexmaitland99 continually breaking wikipedia's rule on bias. I will stick an appropriate warning on both "users" talk pages. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with this tight coterie of supposedly objective editors coming in and adding random items that are either selective negative quoting (and therefore making the balance of the wiki significantly negative to wit the criticism section; she has received negative comment from respectable sources just once, and rebutted it), or her marriage to Crawfurd Hill (which seems just to be a thinly veiled reason to "cite" a piece of whimsey in the tabloid press). The rest of the wiki concerns no claims about her abilities or achievements; it just references and cites a busy and active life in several areas. I love the notion of sock puppet, though. My kids love the idea! So concerning her private life and family, why not check, for instance, her other media collaborators/partners such as Simon Rimmer (sole reference "He is married with two children." or Steohen Jardine (no family reference)? Equally, if you are so concerned about the lack of references or citations, why not just remove anything that isn't cited (and not on the basis of some tabloid puff). By the way, I am looking through the "obvious bias" revisions that that editor posted and can't see anything wrong with it so perhaps you can explain?

Cask12 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we start this debate, can I ask what associations you have with Amanda Hamilton? Your only edits appear so far to be on this article, and after the WP:BLP and WP:BIAS tags were placed on Alexmaitland page/s, suddenly your account was created. You also seem to wish to keep adding back a wholly commercial link, which is not a relevant or acceptable link under WP:LINK and specifically WP:EXT - I have hence removed it again. If you wish to understand about sock puppets, then please read WP:SOCK. Secondly, the referece you keep removing seems like a freely given interview form a WP:RS that Ms Hamilton gave to the press, and which which confirms: (1) her divorce; (2) her marriage to Crawfurd Hill; (3) the number of children, although its states 4 including step children. As I removed the names of her children under WP:BLP, it seems a fair and WP:RS source which confirmed the relevant facts, which had been inserted at a proportionate level under WP:BLP. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Alex Maitland?[edit]

I found this discussion really interesting. Amanda Hamilton's husband, Crawfurd Hill, has been employed by her since 2008 as her marketing manager and his middle name is Alexander Maitland. Surely not a coincidence? Patkline85 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Meant to add citation http://www.edinburgh-gazette.co.uk/issues/26532/notices/2517-214/Patkline85 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC) [1]Patkline85 (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much as thought it would be interesting and note worthy for an article on Crawfurd Hill, its not of much relevance to an article on Amanda Hamilton. Please read WP:Biography for a guide on what is noteworthy. --Trident13 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.edinburgh-gazette.co.uk/issues/26532/notices/2517-214/

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amanda Hamilton. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Amanda Hamilton. 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) 06:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amanda_Hamilton&oldid=1199912797"