Talk:Marsha Mehran

Bestseller

Newspapers do not determine bestseller status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeslinJ (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Bestseller" is a vague claim to begin with. Pomegranate Soup was reviewed in a number of newspapers ([1]), and some of those need to be added to make the book worth mentioning in the first place. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes per below

This is not a John Heslin. Again, please refer to please regarding responsibility in how and when you source things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeslinJ (talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits have been carefully sourced and referenced. They were removed previously when there were no sources, but please explain why you think there is a lapse in "responsibility in how and when you source things". Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Suspect edits from JHeslin

I have reverted the latest edits here by HeslinJ as I believe he has a significant COI on the article:

• [2]

Shows glowing reviews full of praise and five stars from "John Heslin" - based on wp:duck it seems likely the two are the same person and has a clash of interest of some sort here.

The material removed has been ref'ed by multiple different sources, and is a valid addition - it explains part of the reason why Ireland features prominently in the book.

The editor also claims that the source is incorrect, but offers no reasons as to why they know better, or alternative sources - instead just blanking the entire section. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good catch on the Amazon review. We'll have to keep an eye on this one. Per WP:DUCK, it appears that socks have been engaged in a WP:EDITWAR on the article. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I am at 3rr now, so unless it's blatant COI/disruption, I'm afraid I'll not tempt wrath. Shame, because there's no reason why the article cannot stand up and be improved, but this constant COI-edit-warring is diverting resources. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's rap.

I have asked HeslinJ to respond and discuss his edits.[3] I have already laid out several comments here previously, and would welcome his responses, so we can understand his reasoning behind his edits. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know if we can get him to come here and talk, but I hope so. The information that he's so upset about, and which he tried five times today to delete, appears to be based on this quote: "While working as a waitress she met her husband-to-be, Christopher, a bartender at an Irish pub." That information appears in this source [4], it is clearly referenced, and it meets every guideline and policy for inclusion in Wikipedia. HelsinJ has refused to explain what he finds so offensive about the statement, and why he thinks it's incorrect. It would be interesting to hear these perspectives. But I doubt he's going to say anything. Once the page protection expires, he'll probably just go back to edit-warring on the article without giving any explanations. Qworty (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's his priviledge, but the offer to discuss has been made. Failing to do so will most likely result in blocks, at which point he will be unable to edit at all, so it's in his best interests to discuss his reasons here. Note to Heslin - you've already got away with transgressing 3RR once (this edit was 4RR) - it's unlikely to happen again, so please join the chat and clarify: If you can offer superior sources to support your claims then we will comply with them - because that's how Wiki works - but so far you haven't. In This edit summary you say "Happy to bring this up further" - well, now's your chance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've brought up the topic on Heslin's page again.[5] The lockdown will soon expire, and there has been no discussion or comment from anybody other than Qworty or me so far. The edit requests below don't count as discussion, as they are just that - edit requests with no discussion of reasoning behind them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2012

This is Marsha Mehran. Please remove the following personal information from this page: Mehran has a previous marriage to Christopher Collins, a bar manager, whom she met in New York. The two subsequently moved to Ireland for two years, and she used her time there in the novel.

MarshaMehran (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marsha.

Thanks to Edit-warring instigated by HeslinJ, nobody can remove information from this article. In any case, that info is reliably sourced and indeed relevant to the article, so why should it be removed? Also, from your username, that old COI thing rears its head again.

Not done: Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2012

This is Marsha Mehran. Please remove the following personal information from this page: Mehran has a previous marriage to Christopher Collins, a bar manager, whom she met in New York. The two subsequently moved to Ireland for two years, and she used her time there in the novel.

MarshaMehran (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Marsha.

Thanks to Edit-warring instigated by HeslinJ, nobody can remove information from this article. In any case, that info is reliably sourced and indeed relevant to the article, so why should it be removed? Also, from your username, that old COI thing rears its head again.

(Duplicate post. Strictly speaking, I could remove this one, but for formalities sake, let's not.)

Not done: Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Your behavior is baffling

Could you please explain to us, Marsha, WHY you want this information about a marriage deleted from the article? What specific Wikipedia policies does it violate? Do you have anything better than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Qworty (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Waitress when she met Collins?

This source clearly states that she met Collins whilst working as a waitress: "...While working as a waitress she met her husband-to-be, Christopher, a bartender at an Irish pub."

The other sources are simply lists of occupations she held while she stayed in New York; "Broadway poster hanger, personal assistant on film sets, hostess in a restaurant owned by Russian mobsters and the odd, humiliating waitressing gig." - which include the waitress role. There is nothing in any of these sources to conflict or contradict the - reliably sourced - claim that she met Collins while working as a waitress. So stop taking it out!Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Waitress reference.

Firstly, regardless of whether the claim is supported by another reference, that's no valid reason to remove a perfectly good reference that further - and unambiguously - supports the claim.

Secondly, it is not a matter of how you read the reference, as it states "I took on a variety of bizarre jobs in Manhattan -- a Broadway poster hanger, personal assistant on film sets, hostess in a restaurant owned by Russian mobsters and the odd, humiliating waitressing gig. I also met my husband, an Irishman who worked as a bartender at Ryan's Irish Pub on Second Avenue."

Regardless of how you read the sentence, it does not state - as you quote - "she was working in NY as a waitress (NY Times ref), when she met her husband", it only states that she was in Manhattan and while there had a variety of jobs, which included waitressing. Then, as a completely different sentence it also states that she met her husband while she was in Manhattan. There is no stated connection between her holding the waitressing job and meeting her husband. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to remove the reference, please justify it here - as part of the bold, revert, discuss policy. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

request t change/add ref

Typed in earch for th subject-- found so much more to supplement the meager links.why is this locked down? Request to edit. Thanks, gillian.

Requests for protection removal are addressed at WP:RFPP -- Dianna (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

request to remove link

Requedt for removal--ny times link 3 not relevant to preeceeding matter. In fact added on later according to history. None of refers to it,as does ref 2.for consistency, it should be removed. And perhaps replaced by other more recient links. Simple search revealed better items. Thanks, Gillian

The link to the NY Times is an op-ed by the subject of the article and therefore has to be considered a primary source. I am going to remove it and clean up the article a bit. -- Dianna (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)