G'day Marilyn Leask, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:
If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location based notices, you can add location userboxes to your userpage.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type ((helpme)) on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Hello, Marilyn Leask. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Marilyn Leask, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of userequire disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
Marilyn Leask (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks I was aware of the issues. I was asked to check it for accuracy by another person and I will try to create the personal information box which they couldn't do. I will then ask them to validate the content with a wider group and finalise the content.Reply[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bazj (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marilyn Leask (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I will work on these matters, thank you for the feedback. i am still new to doing wikipedia entries. I think I am ok now in contributing to changes but layout of a new page is something I am still learning and I think I could probably leave pages in the sandbox to come back to but I am afraid of losing everything which is why I pressed save which automatically also publishes. Apologies.Reply[reply]
Hello, Marilyn Leask. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Kate Reynolds (UK academic), you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of userequire disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
Marilyn Leask (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Thanks Bazj. I appreciate the notes and am very aware of conflict of interest. I held a government public service role for many years where neutrality is essential. Because of this role and a subsequent knowledge mobilisation role across the country, I am known to and know all the major figures in the education system in England. Even where we haven't met we are just one step removed probably from someone who knows them. I have noticed that a number of academics who have had significant impact are missing from wikipedia and ones who have done much less have entries.Reply[reply]
You cut-and-paste Kate Reynolds' CV, even leaving the words "Curriculum Vitae: Dr Kate Reynolds 6". That's not neutral, it's plagiarising her words. Had I found a copy of her CV online the article would have been deleted as a copyright violation. While your later edits are commendable, it still looks like a CV. Full sentences rather than lists of degrees and job titles are more appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.
You've removed the date of birth from your autobiography, even though it's a matter of public record and the source was cited. That's not neutral.
I'm not impressed by your neutrality so far. The message above (as you may have noticed) was generated from a template. The text is a long-agreed set of guidelines on Wikipedia. Ignore it if you like, but your experience of Wikipedia will not be a happy one if you do so.
"I have noticed that..." I'm uncertain how to read this paragraph. It almost reads as if you'd created the article yourself rather than UserMirandaNetter who, having created your article as her sole contribution, hasn't been seen since. This pattern of behaviour links to the next issue...
I also note that you've edited as Marilyn Leask UK. More to the point you've edited the same article with both accounts. This is a big no-no, have a look at WP:SOCK and the section WP:ILLEGIT. Given that it's almost impossible to overlook the connection I don't feel anybody's been deceived, but I'd strongly advise you to abandon the Marilyn Leask UK account other than a note on each user page pointing out the use of multiple accounts (as I have on mine - User:Bazj#Disclosure).
"I am known to and know all the major figures..." - Notability is not inherited.
In response to your question as MLUK, go to Special:Preferences, set up your email on the "User Profile" tab, then indicate what you wnat to be notified about on the "Notifications" tab.
Any chance you could add ISBN numbers to your books? It helps with verifying. Use ((cite book)) in your references. Bazj (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1)I will revise the Kate Reynolds section to have full sentences and put in an info box which is where people seem to put education.
2) I removed the date of birth as it is used in the UK to get access to bank details and personal accounts. You are correct that is it cited in some books but is is not easy to find and there is an English tradition of it being impolite to ask a woman her age. Ageism is also something to content with. I see wikipedia entries of academics without the date of birth.
3) I wrote the para 'I am known to..' to explain why there may be connections not to make a statement but to say it is a difficulty. Because of writing the books I have connections with many educators who have contributed but I may never have met them.
4) re the UK username, I couldn't find the password for the original account which I created sometime ago so I created another one. Now I can't see how to delete the UK one.
5) I have set preferences to get the emails now and that works.
6)I can add the ISBN numbers and will do that later
Marilyn Leask (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2) I didn't ask, I googled. It's also the English tradition that you don't blow your own trumpet. It's the Wikipedia tradition to discourage self-promotion. If you see an article without a date of birth, and you know it, and have a source for it, feel free to add it. Having your age on the article one of the prices you pay for encyclopedic neutrality.
"to get access to bank details" I'd suggest you change your bank. You wouldn't get far with my bank (also in the UK).
4) You used the two accounts within three hours of each other. On the same article.
There is no way to delete accounts - Wikipedia requires that everybody is credited for their contributions. Deleting the account would destroy that connection. All you can do is abandon the UK account and disclose the connection on your user page. Bazj (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) re date of birth - hmmm I used Google and Bing and it didn't come up easily. I was appalled recently when I did a search at what private information is available just on facebook which I don't like to use for privacy reasons. I feel very very uncomfortable about having my date of birth so public. Anyone could find my mothers maiden name, schools from the information now there which are some of the questions online account holders often ask.
2) logging in on both accounts, I have set myself the task of understanding how Wikipedia works and have clicked to stay logged in for 30 days so I guess the other computer I use or the ipad is logged in on the UK account.
3) I agree about not blowing your own trumpet but I was at a conference where there was a discussion about the fact that some educators in the UK have a wikipedia page when they have worked in one school and written one book but are active on social media and that the education profession was not well served by people's reticence to have their achievements noticed I had tried editing Wikipedia years ago when there was inaccurate information about me in it and didn't find it easy so this event at the conference prompted me to get started again. I don't mind if the page about me is deleted as I am retiring. I felt it was less intrusive to experiment with a page about me rather than at the start amend the pages of others as I was afraid of deleting everything inadvertently but felt it didn't matter if it was the page about me.
4) I am surprised that wikipedia allows people to use pseudonyms. For example, you know who I am but I have no idea who you are.
Marilyn Leask (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4) I'm surprised anybody would want to use their real name. Very few editors do. A quick count shows plausible real-world names for only 8 of the 100 most prolific editors. Some however give out their real name on their user page. Personally I have no intention of letting my wiki persona interact with my real life.
I know a few people who have their own wiki articles and someone who, like Reynolds, is a Dean of School at a UK university who does not. I have never and will never edit or create their articles. (except to remove something slanderous, a case which hasn't yet arisen)
Like you, I leak personal information through being a company director. If the dob from checkcompany.co.uk annoyed you, try companycheck.co.uk and its listings for you, you really won't like that. Bazj (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marilyn Leask (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)thanks for the heads up on the personal info. On another matter I am missing out on categorising pages and not sure where this is. Don't answer unless it is easy for you as i know i will find it eventually.Reply[reply]
Doing it manually, you add, for example, [[Category:Living people]] at the foot of the page. MOS:LAYOUT gives an idea of which bit goes where in an article. If you want to discuss a category, use [[:Category:Living people]], which then links to the category, the first colon preventing you accidentally adding this page to the category. (And if you look at the edit box for this you'll see the nowiki tags which allow me to show you the syntax without it showing up as Category:Living people)
The easy way, go back to Special:Preferences and the "Gadgets" tab. In the section marked Editing there's a tool called HotCat which adds a load of + and - tools at the bottom of the article while you're viewing (not editing). You can add one category at a time, or add several and save when you're done. It prompts you as you type, suggesting the categories that fit your typing thus far.
While you're adding tools, ProveIt is useful for adding references in good style without needing to worry about the templates it uses.
And back under the "Editing" tab there's a checkbox for "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Check it. It makes little difference now but when you want to be an Admin in a year or two it's something that people really get wound up about. It'll ensure you have a good track record of always putting an edit summary. Bazj (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article Sarah Younie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails both the general notability guidelines and the alternative criteria at WP:PROF. I can find nothing indicating that better sources are available which would establish notability.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Marilyn, I really think you need to read the inclusion criteria at WP:PROF and the General notability guidelines before attempting to create any more articles on academics, and especially ones on your co-authors. That is a clear conflict of interest. Sarah Younie does not come anywhere meeting those criteria, and Kate Reynolds (UK academic) will probably end up deleted as well. You are doing these people a real disservice by trying to create Wikipedia articles for them when they don't meet the criteria and are almost certainly going to be deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What prompted me to start adding biographies was when I found this entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_Christodoulou where the person involved has a minimal amount of experience which is what prompted me to write about people i knew of who have influenced national policy and who keep a low profile. I have not amended the entry above though it is shocking to promote someone who works for a private company and has written one book.
You will note that I do not hide behind a pseudonym. I think you will find that some of the people who have put up biographies like that listed will have some form of connection - how else could they know such obscure facts. My connections are professional only with these people. The biography above has an image of one book. Dr Younie has written so many books that it would not be possible to have pictures on the page. She has won awards at the EU level for contributions to knowledge and has been elected by peers to a national body. She has served that national community over probably 20 years.
Dr Sarah Younie, like hundreds of other people in UK education may have co-published with me or have been enabled to publish because of things I have initiated - all the books in the learning to teach series in the secondary school series for example - there are books in every subject. I have never met of these people but they will appear connected to me as the series has been going for over 25 years. I was prompted to write about Sarah Younie because of her long standing engagement with IT issues at the national level - e.g. as as chair of ITTE when I wasn't involved with her at all but had a government role she was the key contact between government and this part of the education sector. Kate Reynolds diversity and equality work again has influenced national policy. I don't mind if the bar for publishing is higher but if you are going to add people's biographies then they need to be universally of a higher standard. Professor Andrew Pollard's biography for example is not in keeping with his status or influence in the education profession and needs improving. Of course I know him, there are few researchers in education in England and I have been on the major professional bodies representing this part of the education community. People who have had CBEs for their work in education are missing. If you want a comprehensive encyclopedia then active recruiting of profiles might even up the balance. The people I proposed will not care whether they are on wikipedia or not so feel free to delete them but please set the bar higher for everyone. Marilyn Leask (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marilyn, Wikipedia is not a professional directory for pasted-in CVs. Yes, there are many articles here for people who do not meet the criteria for inclusion (probably thousands). When we find them, we delete them. But that is never an excuse for creating yet more of them. If someone has truly been influential at national level, then you need to provide a published source, entirely independent of that person which states that. In fact, you need to provide several. I refer you again to the criteria at WP:PROF. We do not base biographies on personal, unpublished opinion. And yes, it is a conflict of interest to write articles about your co-authors, even if you don't know them personally, because it gives the impression that those works are notable in some way and worth buying or stocking. It is never a good idea to write about people with whom you have a connection like that. By the way, I've moved your signature. It goes at the end of your comment, not the beginning. Otherwise, it's difficult for people to see who said what. WP:SIGN has more on this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Smerus tagged KR for deletion but, despite a reminder, hasn't let you know. So, on his behalf, and with apologies for the delay :
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Kate Reynolds (UK academic), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bazj (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re Reynolds I have done that with another colleague who doesn't know her checkingMarilyn Leask (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re Sarah Younie ! have searched on the web for the independent verification of Sarah Younie's role in international bodies influencing practice, knowledge in the field of information and communication technologies in education. This includes an invited position with ICET (a world association of teacher educators) which has consultative status with UNESCO as an Elite member. This is just one example of her recognition by her professional community internationally. I trust the number of these international roles, independently verified, meet the criteria. Marilyn Leask (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They may well do if you include references to them in the article. Hints about them here on your talk page won't do anything. Bazj (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have actually put the international board membership references in the profile, I went on the web and picked up the references to the organisations pages e.g. where her place on boards has been independently mentioned. I am still looking for the early European SchoolNet materials were once on the web and which now seem to be missing. Some of the history of the European SchoolNet is held in pdfs I found but I couldn't get a web link to them. They appear on a google search and just open straight up so there appears to be no web reference.Marilyn Leask (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A link to a PDF is just as good as a link to a webpage. Right click on the google result, copy link location. Bazj (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nomination of Kate Reynolds (academic) for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kate Reynolds (academic) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Reynolds (academic) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the references you're adding may well prove to be counter-productive.
For example you linked to the home page of the Council of Subject Associations, which has no mention of you. Following up with a google search of their site it would appear there's no mention of you anywhere on their website. You need references which support your claims, not generic links to websites which tend to disprove them. Regards, Bazj (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see that I have been referencing the organisation rather than the page link to the name of the person and their role in the organisation. This can be easily remedied. I have written to the chair of the CfSA pointing out what you said. What we are finding in the education sector is that ministers come and go quite quickly and can't easily find out about either the major organisations or the major researchers. I will also put a link to a report they have produced showing the professional associations engage with 50% of the teaching population in the UK in any one year. Some of the organisations have existed for a hundred years and normally they are all linked with their international peak bodies i.e. British Educational Research Association is a member of WERA, World Educational Research Association; UCET, Univ. Council for the Education of teachers is linked iwht ICET international council for the education of teachers and so on. UK science associations are linked with international science associations. As I write this, I wonder if there is a subset project for Wikimedia for wikieducationresearchandteachereducation. I am in conversation with various people at the Wikimedia foundation about these issues that I am discussing here with you and I think an world wide encyclopedia focused on school based education organisations and knowledge bases and notable theorists would be very helpful world wide. I don't know if you know of the UNESCO goals for education for all - over 100 million children are out of school and millions of teachers are poorly or unqualified. Many of the people leading the organisations I mention are working with UNESCO on these matters and plans are underway for a World Congress 2020 to mobilise research based knowledge about pedagogy. This needs about £10M investment and the sponsors are being identified now.Marilyn Leask (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Happysailor was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Translational Research and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! Ricky81682,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! - Happysailor(Talk) 15:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Harry McVey and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Translational Research, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Harry McVey, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Your draft article, Draft:Translational Research[edit]
Hello, Marilyn Leask. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Translational Research".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969TT me 13:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Marilyn Leask. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Harry McVey".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969TT me 15:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That has got to be one of the most biased things I have ever read on Wikipedia! Your addition to the page on the national education service, is effectively promoting the labour party.[edit]
Here is your opinionated article contribution, i have had to edit it, but your the user that added this. Can't find a single reference either. I suggest you look at my edit history on the page and see why I had to alter it. A lot of your claims are subject to opinion rather than fact. Its not a simple statement on what the policy is. Plus what does the free market approach mean and how is it not working? I won't disagree with you on the saleries but to say its public outcry and extraordinarily high saleries among your fellow academics is, is somewhat of an exaggeration, untested experimentation, according to who. you also did not reference the fact its accelerated since the 2010 government, which given this is on the opposition parties policy page is rather convenient.
The National Education Service is being designed to ensure opportunities for life-long learning are available to meet both of the core aims of education: personal education and education for employment.
While early Labour Party statements have suggested that the NES would be "free at the point of use", as the details of the service are developed it is likely to that this statement will be taken to apply to what is identified as entitlement for all up to the age of 18 and that a variety of funding strategies will apply post-18. For example, where there are national priorities for retraining, such training could be free at the point of use by those who are retraining. On the other hand, where post-18 education is for personal fulfilment rather than national priorities it would not be unreasonable to expect a charge to be made. The National Health Service already operates this kind of mixed economy.
In the UK there has been extensive untested experimentation with the education system in the early 21st century and this has accelerated since the 2010 change of government. This has led to a wide range of unintended or unforeseen consequences. Many innovations which were intended to free up market forces have been found not to support national priorities. There are national shortages of expertise in for example engineering but no system for ensuring that young people are encouraged to study in areas of national need. This provides an example of how scholarships for post-18 education could be used to signal to young people what the national priorities are. In England, the free market approach to the school system means that government has limited options to ensure the curriculum offered to students post 16 meets national priorities. In both university and school systems an unforeseen consequence has been that the school and university leaders have managed to negotiated extraordinarily high salaries which has led to public outcry.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2018 2a00:23c1:b575:1801:cd94:7dfa:1f41:1993 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 October (UTC)
Hello, Marilyn Leask. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Leask until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Marilyn Leask. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Marilyn Leask, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bazj (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
