Talk:Stephanie March

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

Heritage?[edit]

Does anyone know what she actually is (not lending credibility to claims made on TV.com)? Michael 06:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parnets were John Abe March IV and Laura Len Irwin. Mad Jack 06:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else said on ancestry.com about her family? Michael 07:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I could not find either of her parents birth certificates, so I suppose they were not born in Texas. No Rootsweb matches for an Irwin-March combo. Mad Jack 07:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to most sites, her mother re-married to a John Derby and is now known as Laura Derby. Doesn't have much to do with anything... Mad Jack 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I heard about the Derby thing...And we are left with ambiguous names... Michael 07:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean March and Irwin? Pretty British. Maybe she has a distant German ancestor or something, like most people Mad Jack 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but either name could also be something else (though uncommonly). I'd like to know whether that submitter as TV.com actually knew what he/she was talking about when he/she posted that. Michael 07:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find anything? Michael 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who, me? How did I get involved in this? :) Mad Jack 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a forum, someone verified what was said on TV.com. I'm asking that person how this is so. Michael 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this "smoking gun" source the person has is off-line, which is likely, you ought to ask for specifics - date, etc. so we can cite it Mad Jack 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, online. I think it's some ancestry site. Michael 05:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image changed[edit]

Changed the main image to a screenshot I took from the title sequence on season 2 of SVU. If anyone wants to switch it back, be my guest. I just personally thought it looked better there.  :) (TehLostBug 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image needed Goober2017 (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people[edit]

Please remember that biographies of living people have some of the most stringent verification policies on Wikipedia. We cannot make claims about a living person's personal, as opposed to professional, life without strict citations.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a problem with your editing here.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephanie_March&diff=prev&oldid=655715562
You deleted verifiable information.-Why not just verify and cite it yourself rather than delete it? I do understand that BLP has strict policy--but BLP is "not a suicide pact"--and removing verifiable information just on your judgement of policy feels like destruction to me. I verified the sorority info. as a matter of fact that is an internal link. But why should editors have to go to the trouble of (if we are lucky enough to catch-it)....finding good info that was removed, and then validating it? I think that the onus should be if you are going to remove something-try and find the cite 1st--not just hope that some other editor will notice that you deleted good verifiable content.2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that the onus is on any editor adding claims, particularly personal-life claims, to cite it. You claim I "deleted good verifiable content"? Simple solution: Verify it. Also please explain what "that is an internal link" means.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I typed in "Stephanie March" at the sorority's search page for alumnae, I got this: "Sorry, no Notable Thetas match your filter criteria." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope to who the ONUS is on. I guess that we disagree here-but if you are taking content off of the project, you should rather just verify it or it is destructive imo.Internal link is a bracketed link to another article on WP. As-in the Stephanie March--the sorority has her listed ON THEIR WP article-also, I found her on the Theta's notable alum link-try looking by chapter I think that it was Tau or begins-with T their are only 11 or so do not key-in her name, she is there, verified.I am undoing because you are wrong about this fact that you want to continue to remove.2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK-so I undid and then added a piped-link to the WP page that lists notable sisters. Here is the problem that I have with how you are stating and applying your version of BLP policy, ONE-that is not what it says. Two--when an editor removes, destroys information...that is not always noticed. If it is not, it is LOST/destroyed/gone content. Now if this was obvious vandalism, libel or a slur--of course it can be deleted per BLP without a second thought, but what you are doing is not-only incorrectly stating or implying that each and every factoid on a BLP must be cited or it must be deleted according to your actions.......this kind-of editing can harm the project by destroying content when it is always better to just go ahead and find nd add the refs and cites yourself if you want them there so badly.2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See top of page for notice of this topic on BLP Noticeboard ty.2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're a single-purpose account who is not here to build an encyclopedia but simply to hype your sorority sister, and you completely misinterpret both WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. The latter says, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So you're wrong about where the onus lies. As for the former, "[A]ny material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." I challenged that claim since the search function at the Theta site did not turn her up. BLP also says, "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." As noted, the onus is on the editor who adds a claim to verify it. In any event, the cite is there now, and I've filled it out to help avoid such problems in the future with a cited source whose search function doesn't work. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a SPA-I'm an IP who's IP is dynamically generated. Why not just deal with the problem instead-of not AGF? OK you did see the fact, thank-you. i am in no way related to the article content I am an editor who likes to see content retention rather than removing info on your interpretations of policy. 2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also-please show me exactly where it says that all verifiable content that is not cited must be removed. 2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And--you are claiming that any facts that are not cited are "contentious". You do not understand the meaning of that word. And even-if you are saying that every BLP fact is "contentious" 'till proven otherwise/cited, supplying the references yourself, or tagging CN is the non-destructive way to edit. JFTR--you have made improvements to the accuracy of the information with your editing in this article but if this is how every BLP article was edited, WP is at-risk for massive information loss. Again-it was just luck that i happened to notice your edit here. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ARTICLE CONTENT.2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can barely understand the nearly incoherent grammar and punctuation above. Regardless, the policy says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page." You can't say that because you claim it's not contentious that it must remain there — because if that were the case, anybody putting information into an article could say, "I don't think it's contentious, and so it must remain there". That's ridiculous. If your continual violations of policy and guidelines don't stop, I'm asking for admin intervention.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alum-[edit]

When the subject of an article is listed on their sorority's website specifically as a "notable" alum----I think that it is safe to say that that person is a "notable alum". Deleting for PEACOCK does not apply here. I am rv this edit which claimed PEACOCK as that is an incorrect application. Editor is free as always to boldly edit, but in this case PEACOCK does not apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephanie_March&diff=prev&oldid=6560628972601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY wrong, so it's not surprising you've gotten WP:PEACOCK wrong as well, since if something isn't notable, we don't mention it. We don't say, "The Empire State Building is a notable building in New York City." We don't say "Denis Leary is a notable graduate of Emerson College." We say, "The Empire State Building is a building in New York City" and "Denis Leary graduated from Emerson College."
As for saying "Class of of 1996" rather ather in "in 1996," that is needless, portentous wordiness. Good writing is saying the pertinent thing without verbosity of pomposity.
And I'm not showing good faith by referring to you as an SPA? You haven't edited anything else under this IP. That's the actual definition of "single purpose account." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same IP here on mobile. I'm going to try and agf here and explain that when something is noted as quote notable by a third party as in this case...it is the correct usage of notable. Bold edit if you like but you are incorrectly using Peacock for a reason.2601:C:6783:6A01:582F:363:E1B1:7B47 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, that's not even an official Theta page — it says so itself on the site. It is simply a fan site, and unless such sites are run by published authorities in their fields, they're not valid reference citations. I probably should remove it for that reason. In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure why I'm not. Because if the national organization's official site or the Northwestern house's official site doesn't mention her, we can't go with a fan site. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My IP is dynamic and changes all the time per my ISP. Let's just deal with the content please and not get personal. I undid your edit because you made the article awkward, possibly incorrect, and also you are one hundred per cent wrong about the fact that March is officially noted as being a notable alum. 2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And jftr--I have no prob with re-wording Class of '86 but you actually made it MORE wordy and awkward and overall dumb-looking. I fixed that but your misunderstanding of the term PEACOCK is baffling me seriously. She is legit "noted"-for, and labeled-as NOTABLE. I don't have trouble with you editing it but your pretense that is is PEACOCK is wrong here. 2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've reverted your WP:PEACOCK edit twice so far, at 15:22 and at 16:07, 12 April 2015‎. Another revert will put you right at 3RR. There is no need to say "notable" — if it's not notable, we don't include it. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke right? I keep trying to get you to understand that it is EXACTLY the definition of notable. What don't you get there. And you just rv an edit that I made to appease YOUR claims that you did not like "class-of". Something is very off about your editing and I think that you meant "pretentious"? not "portentous"? GO AHEAD AND BUG ADIM WITH THIS YOUR BEHAVIOR NEEDS TO BE CHECKED HERE.2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please look up the definition of "portentous." Let me try this way: Can you see why we do not write, "Denis Leary is a notable graduate of Emerson College", and why we would just write, "Denis Leary graduated from Emerson College"? If you can see the difference, that's why "notable" is WP:PEACOCK.
Also, a woman is an alumna (not alumnae, plural) of an educational institution, according to the primary definition. One is not an alumna or alumni of a fraternity except colloquially, which makes its use, rather than the use of "member", another portentous term.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
on mobile still. If Dennis Leary were listed by a third party as notable it would not be peacock. Do you get it now? Look at the ref and link...she was noted as notable I think. She was on a list..hence noted. Also I'm pretty sure they used the exact word notable. Change I don't care but don't slap peacock on it as a reason because you are wrong.2601:C:6783:6A01:582F:363:E1B1:7B47 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes-please do look up portentous. I maintain that you used it incorrectly.2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OH-you actually have a good point about that not being an official page. Upon a brief check so far I'm not finding any other 3rd party confirmation about sorority claim. That doesn't mean it is not true, but I'd like an additional ref that does not refer to the WP article.2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I used it exactly right. I'm a journalist; I know words and grammar. Per Merriam-Webster: "self-consciously solemn or important : pompous".
Wait — is that fan page referencing Wikipedia? That makes it a circular reference that can't be used. I didn't see anything at her mention that refers to Wikipedia, however.
While we've been arguing over whether something is portentous, I've gone through and added archive links, including a couple of pages I've newly archived. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The unofficial fan page-I do not know where they got their information, but when I tried to find another good 3rd-party ref--all I found led back to WP is what I am saying. Without that one page, I am unable to verify it, and now it is indeed contentious imo. I am still contending that you are not using portentous correctly--that is the 3rd "best use' definition, and it could only fit in certain portentous circumstances to avoid misunderstanding. If i saw it in an article used the way that you use it I would change it ;)--I have to do other stuff but if you want to rm the sorority info. I'm OK with it or question the source, but there is a problem that other pages on WP have the info. as well. When I can I will keep looking for another RS for that-so far I'm not finding it2601:C:6783:6A01:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. The third definition is still one of definitions of the word. By definition — literally — I am using the word correctly. And I wouldn't talk about showing good faith when you don't trust someone to quote something correctly from Merriam-Webster. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
well the sorority ref...the only valid one that I can find so far is on the one in the article but that is not an unofficial fan blog? Like to me like a dot org with support from the national foundation? On mobile again here 2601:C:6783:6A01:582F:363:E1B1:7B47 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. The fine print reads: "The Heritage website is in part supported by Kappa Alpha Theta Foundation" but also, more pertinently, "©2015 Kappa Alpha Theta & Rawfactory Interactive." If Theta holds the copyright, that would seem to make it, if not strictly official, close enough. I had a gut feeling about that, so as you can see, I left the reference in even after having second thoughts about it. Looks like we're on the same page, which is nice. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think that the article has been improved. I also noticed how you archived refs...and I think I learned from your edits there..I plan on trying to archive my ref edits from your examples. There was a quote somewhere where March said something about being a 5th generation Texan...that may be a good addition to replace the unverified/unverifiable? Statements about ancestry that were helpfully deleted. Tnaks for bearing with my messy mobile text to try and reach understanding2601:C:6783:6A01:749D:4612:8214:E3DD (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, it's all good. A couple of my closest colleagues here started out with me on different sides of an issue, and we eventually found our commonalities. I hope you register and that perhaps we can work together to improve other articles as well. A fifth-generation Texan mention would be a great addition if verifiable. And, yes, archiving is of great importance and I'm always gratified to see an editor willing to go that (actually pretty quick) extra step. Please let me know if I can ever offer any help. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stephanie March. 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) 22:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephanie_March&oldid=1207611006"