User talk:Angela MacLean
- 1 Your submission at Articles for creation
- 2 Thanks!
- 3 Thank you
- 4 Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Angela MacLean/sandbox (March 8)
- 5 Talkback
- 6 Killiechassie House
- 7 W R Mitchell
- 8 W R Mitchell
- 9 Your submission at AfC Comic Book Girl 19 was accepted
- 10 Killiechassie House
- 11 Minor edits
- 12 ArbCom elections are now open!
Your submission at Articles for creation
|The Citation Barnstar|
|For mending all the broken links in J. K. Rowling; a feat I certainly could never accomplish. Serendipodous 21:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)|
Thank you Seren for my first Barnstar : )
Some of these last citations look pretty difficult to find; they might need a few sentences deleted or rewritten.
That'll probably involve stepping on a few toes. For the moment I'll leave this for someone else with more experience.
I have watched, with awe, your systematic attack on broken links. I would welcome any tips from you on how to go about the task. I have used WebCite in the past, but that only works if I catch the site before it disappears. In any case WebCite think they may cease new work at the end of the year. It would be great if you would advise me, but, anyway, many congratulations. Apuldram (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|for your guidance regarding repairing broken links. Apuldram (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)|
Thanks so much for your help at Kent State shootings in tracking down citations. I've been meaning to go back and look for them, so I appreciate having it done! Nice to meet you - I expect from time to time I'll be asking you to look at some other pages I work on, if that's ok with you. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 20:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, lovely to meet you & thank you for the encouragement. Kent State is an upsetting page to edit - I didn't know the extent of the killings until recently. Plenty more to do there and I'll be back to it soon. I'd be more than happy to help out with other pages once I've finished on Kent State. Can't promise anything but sometimes I do get this peculiar itch to edit for a whole hour or two. Best wishes to you! Angela MacLean (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Angela MacLean/sandbox (March 8)
I thought this biography of Comic Book Girl 19 might now be started as a stub. However, the Ukulele Dude suggests that the article contains, 'no claims of notability at the link above'. I'd say that publications & official companies such as Variety, DC and Cosmopolitan represent the 'official' mainstream - but not according to old uncle Dude. So, we'll wait and see. If she becomes more mainstream she'll inevitably end up on Wikipedia. If not, she'll disappear back into obscurity. Angela MacLean (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
New version now submitted along with more citations - fingers crossed : ) It only seems to link in the heading above and not the link below. A photo of CBG19 would be helpful. Angela MacLean (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there, hopefully it's now up and running. I'll check and see if it has clicked in. Angela MacLean (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
W R Mitchell
Dear Angela. Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions re. the W R Mitchell article. I will certainly pursue and follow these up, although I rather wilt at the prospect of adding ISBNs to all his 170+ books!
W R Mitchell
Kevin was honest enough to say he had missed the bit about the MBE, so the article has been accepted - just. I realize there is more work to do with it, and will take your advice re. a media section, which is a good idea. Thanks again.
Your submission at AfC Comic Book Girl 19 was accepted
Strongly oppose deletion of this. There's plenty of hits in other sources like , , , , , . It's a notable historical estate not just because of Rowling and will easily meet guidelines if written properly. And we don't just delete articles because the owners might not like the article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. Contrary to your remark, the house was not deleted just 'because the owners might not like the article.' That's complete nonsense. To the best of my knowledge the owners have not made any comment on the matter. I instigated the removal of the article because it was sitting on a group of citations, the majority of which were dead or plain silly - for example, the sprite living in the local loch and the Bonnie Prince Charlie story which likely relates to a 18th Century sapling. Seeing as the house was only listed on the basis of inherited notability I didn't see the point in it being listed. You've found some other weak references, some of which are archaic - however I can't help but notice that you're still appealing to inherited notability (by heavily referencing JK Rowling's biographies). I've just counted them - 5 in total and sadly that is the basis, the weak foundation, of your entry.
Please read the other editors comments on the AFD page and see what they make of 'inherited notability'. You've actually gone against the advice of four other editors and yet you talk of "censorship" on the entry's Talk page. Nobody tried to 'censor' the page - that's a childish way to refer to the AFD process. In the meantime I point to the House link above as an example of what shouldn't appear in Wikipedia - inherited notability, removed by considered debate by several editors and then put right back again for a fairly non-descript house in the country. You suggest above the house is notable for being owned by JK Rowling. It is not. Notability is not inherited - the house is just a big house in the countryside.
Original entry for deletion from the AFD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killiechassie_House News story now out of date. It makes Wikipedia look like a gossip column and not an encyclopedia. Invasion of privacy of the family. Contains superfluous trivia and nonsense about the surrounding area. Non-notable subject. Feeds off the JK Rowling bio page as a gossip parasite. Previous deletion tag removed and yet the person who removed it hasn't even bothered to replace the four dead links. Angela MacLean (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah OK, something you said in your edit summary in the list article about "protecting privacy" made me wonder if Rowling had contacted us asking for it to be deleted or something. Name of house removed to protect family privacy. Hardly childish, your summary made it strongly seem that way. Even if the original article was shocking or not, looking in google books should have convinced you that there was more to it than meets the eye. When deleting an article you should be very careful in not treating it as it is and look around a bit to see if it has coverage outside tabloids. It should never have been deleted, shoddy article or not, whether or not the four people at the AFD agree with you or not. Many more people would support me I'm sure and even the ones who commented originally might now see it in a new light.. It's not inherently notable just because it's Rowling's home, true, but the coverage in reliable sources and the fact that it's dovecote is a B listed buildings make it so. She just happened to buy the estate which let to a bit more info being written about it, but most material on it actually existed long before she moved in. I don't want you to see the restoration and my comments here in a negative light, I can understand you wanting to delete it as tabloid trivia, so I don't want to be on bad terms over this. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)