User talk:Fruitinlondon

The statement that Tricia Walsh-Smith (TWS) was little known before her youtube divorce videos has been removed previously by Oakshade as she asserted that "everyone is unknown before they become famous and why shoulfd TWS be singled out?" "Her co stars disliking her" is NOT a quote in the Daily Mirror, the correct quote is “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 CORRECT quote should be used. I am TWS and it is only since Gorge Custer sabre has been editing the page and adding hearsay which other edotors have repeatedly removed that I have had to keep an eye on the page. His editing is not neutral it is edited to cast me in a bad light. it is one thing for me to say my co-stars hate me and another to write "despite her co-stars strongly disliking her" which I repeat is not a quote inthe Daily Mirror article. Unfortuanately Wikipedia has "trolls" posing as intellectual and they if they don't like a celebrity they edit to cast the person in the worst light possible which is happening with this page.

The statement that Tricia Walsh-Smith (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.

If this "Fruitinlondon" Wikipedia user name does belong to TWS, and she genuinely believes the quotation is inaccurate or injurious, perhaps that is an issue between TWS and the newspaper. It does not seem to be libellous. Do any other Wikipedia editors have a view?GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

-

The dislike of 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) 16:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Tricia Walsh-Smith.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tricia Walsh-Smith.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Importance of neutrality.
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 Tricia Walsh Smith (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. And, no, I am not Louie Spence.

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: 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 have asked a more experienced editor than me to have a look at the TWS page and our respective edits. Wikipedia is a community, after all.

I sincerely hope this advice helps. Best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)