Talk:Tricia Walsh-Smith

Name change?

The day after the divorce from Phillip Smith, Walsh-Smith in all official correspondence from herself and her attorney began going by the name "Tricia Walsh."[1] Does this warrant an article move to Tricia Walsh? Possibly. --Oakshade (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't her date of birth, parent's occupation and basic information about her upbringing be listed in the article? 122.1.98.131 (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from newspapers

The statement that TWS was little known before her youtube divorce videos is a direct quote from Bryony Gordon, ”Tricia Walsh-Smith: is revenge now a dish best served online?”, Telegraph, 16 April 2008. The quote represents a neutral journalist's vantage point and it is quoted correctly in the TWS article here on Wikipedia.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The dislike of Tricia Walsh-Smith (TWS) by co-stars on "Louie Spence's Showbusiness" is actually taken from a newspaper which directly quotes TWS herself. She claimed in the Mirror that, in fact, she saved the show from poor ratings and was necessary for the show's success despite Spence and the other stars strongly disliking her. This is what the Mirror quotes her as having stated:

“I was brought in after a few episodes because they realised without me the show didn’t quite work as well. Louie and ANDREW STONE are not fans of mine and Pineapple founder DEBBIE MOORE hates my guts – but they realised they needed me so I’m thrilled to be in the show until the end of the run now.”

The Mirror article can be read here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/tricia-walsh-smith-i-saved-pineapple-108941

If TWS disagrees with the way the newspaper recorded her views, then that might be something between her and the newspaper, but it seems to me that the Wikipedia article captures her reported belief accurately.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Please also see this user's edits on the "Louie Spence" page. If there is animosity between television personalities, it seems to me that Wikipedia is not the right forum for them to air it. I have no axe to grind either way on the quotes. I know neither of these people and I have not seen their shows. I merely want Wikipedia to be neutral, accurate and reliable.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of this page

Dear Fruitinlondon, I hope you are well. I am responding to your apparent frustration (hopefully in a manner that will help and reassure you) at the way Wikipedia works.

I do not know if you really are TWS and -- with no disrespect -- it is of no consequence to me personally because I have no bias whatsoever towards or against TWS. I have never met TWS, watched her on television or read about her outside of the Wikipedia verification process. I simply have no axe to grind. For TWS's sake, as well as for the benefit of all readers, I just want this bio page about TWS to be neutral, fair, accurate and verified by reliable evidence.

Whoever you are (and with respect I do not have enough information upon which to determine the verity of your claim of identity), it seems to me that you have a slight problem:

You want to be able to edit this page yourself, and you have regularly done so liberally without always complying with Wikipedia guidelines on such key issues as Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, Verifiability, etc. Yet, on the other hand, you clearly do not seem to like anyone else editing the page, even though they seem to me to have been trying, in good faith, to keep the article fair, neutral, relevant, concise, accurate and well referenced with reliable (neutral third-party) sources.

I cannot imagine that those who have been editing this page are consciously trying to harm TWS's image or reputation via Wikipedia. I have edited thousands of pages, and watched editing patterns carefully, and I have to say that a deliberate campaign against TWS seems very unlikely. But, just in case some individual might have a prejudice, I will keep a watchful eye on the page. I hope that reassures you.

For your own future editing puposes, Fruitinlondon, it might help you to know that all material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research.

Fruitinlondon, as far as I know there is no reason why an individual can't edit a page about himself or herself. Following Wikipedia guidelines, you could learn to edit this article (indeed, ANY article) in an appropriate and responsible way without seeming to make it a vanity page or without having it only presenting the things you like. I respectfully suggest you familiarize yourself first with the clear Wikipedia guidelines at: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Plus, the way you have been trying to insert sources has actually sometimes inadvertently ruined otherwise strong sections. Try to copy (cut, tailor and paste) the way other citations are formatted and you'll strengthen your chances that editors will keep your information. I have noticed that if any editor just inserts incorrectly formatted information, and it interferes with good prose sections, it will probably be modified or removed by other editors pretty quickly.

I sincerely hope this advice helps. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the material added by Fruitinlondon. It's a total mess and cannot be maintained in any article on Wikipedia. My only disagreement with you, Gorge, is there are good reasons why editors should not edit their own articles (WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY), and Fruitinlondon is a classic case. Otherwise, I commend your patience and attempts to advise Fruitinlondon. I have commented at BLPN where Fruitinlondon opened a topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP

I have moved some material out of the lede section. Personally, I would eliminate all material about the divorce,under the rule that WP is NOT TABLOID. But the material is very well sourced, and apparently is public enough that it would be hard to see it does harm to have some mention of it in the article.

However, this is the sort of material where COI editing is very inappropriate indeed. I am myself not going to edit further, as this is not the sort of subject that interests me, but I am giving everyone a warning that insertion of material that overemphasises such matter is indeed a violation of BLP and cause for blocking.

Further discussion would I think best be on the BLP Noticeboard, & it might be well not to edit the article except as according to consensus there. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole divorce section is irrelevant even if citations are included. It doesn't add any relevant information about the artistic work of Mrs. Tricia Walsh-Smith. All we need in terms of details here is a very brief "Personal life" section (say 3-4 lines) that mention the three marriages and the fact that she is now divorced. I am not comfortable at all with all these unnecessary details. It is sad that so much time and effort and space is spent on this personal affair, rather than a comprehensive section on the nature of her works. werldwayd (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm glad the material was placed in a Personal life section, although it's way overblown, as you say.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The coverage of the divorce is inclusive of sources describing it as the first impact of social media "you tube to extend pressure" on divorce case - it appears to be notable for that reason alone. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The only relevant information is the first line frankly that need to be built upon with a brief summary of her works and their relevance. As for the rest and I quote "Walsh-Smith has appeared on CBS's The Insider as well as on Good Morning America, ABC Television, Inside Edition, Fox News Channel's Geraldo and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren", all this is not "intro" material and just smells of blatant promotion and press release type of coverage. At best, it should be demoted to a lower section of the article. Accordingly I have added concern about the tone of the article (intro, and lower sections). werldwayd (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Again agree - intro is much better. Body could use quite a bit of work. It's self-serving and full of fatuous quotes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tricia Walsh-Smith. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080726064252/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24059422-663,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24059422-663,00.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"infamous schoolgirl"???

"her infamous schoolgirl in the commercial for Hellmann's Mayonnaise": I cannot find any info about this ad. Was it really so notorious? The cited source barely talks about it either. Equinox ◑ 05:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tricia Walsh-Smith. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124093312/http://gothamist.com/2008/12/04/tricia_walshsmith_resurfaces_with_m.php to http://gothamist.com/2008/12/04/tricia_walshsmith_resurfaces_with_m.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515042106/http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NzgxMw== to http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NzgxMw==
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006122833/http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/liar-lawyer-stefano-to-get-extra-time to http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/liar-lawyer-stefano-to-get-extra-time
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201102003/http://www.newsoftheworldonline.eu/ to http://www.newsoftheworldonline.eu/

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) 06:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content.

A new user SPA (or perhaps a sock) is constantly removing over 7,000 bytes of sourced content for admittedly POV reasons. - "Removed irrelevant information only suitable for tabloids", "Undid revision as this is not POV but tabloid. "Dancing around London in bondage gear is tabloid & not suitable for Wikipedia. Public opinion is POV not factual .Harmful to the living person. " [2][3] Of course most of the removed content was simply either statements of facts or analysis of the divorce case and it's impact on the legal community, all of which is sourced by The New York Times, The Guardian, The Times, New York (magazine), CNN, The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and MSNBC which are not tabloids.

This user needs to be reminded that it is policy that Wikipedia is not censored. While they might find some content offensive, that doesn't mean content sourced by reliable sources can be removed.--Oakshade (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, one of the sourced sentences "Its video featured her in bondage gear and dancing around London" is supported by The Times that states the video is "featuring bondage gear and the Tower of London".[4] The actual video Tricia Walsh is Going Bonkers (which is awful) shows Tricia Walsh literally in bondage and dancing around London! I don't know what more proof anyone needs. --Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)