Talk:Amanda Eliasch

AfC comments

• Comment: The basic notability standard for a visual artist is having their work in the permanent collection of major museums, or being the subject of substantial criticism or academic discussion, or winning a major award . None of these are the case here.The references are not about her art, but about aspects of her personal life. That's tabloid material, and the relevant policy is that WP is not a tabloid.
  It is possible for a really important society figure to be "notable for being notable:, but this is a rare exception and requires much more than the relatively small amount of material here.
  The usual criterion for accepting an AfC is a reasonable likelihood of passing AfD. Some define it at 51%. I prefer to use a higher level, like 66%. Biut its irrelevant here, because several discussions at afd have shown thatthis article is not going to be accepted there. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The Amanda Eliasch article has been speedy deleted a number of times for a variety of reasons (most recently for no particular reason than it was poorly written and had been deleted before). Because I accepted the previous article from AfC (it seemed to show clearly Eliasch had been widely written about) I think it makes sense to let another uninvolved reviewer to make a decision this time round. I've tried to rescue some info and sources from the Google cached version of the previous article. Sionk (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I left the following comment at 69.22.228.31's talk page and am reposting it here. Concurring that the argument for WP:CREATIVE is pretty thin, I nonetheless thought there was a decent case for meeting WP:BASIC. If this were in AfD, I think I would have voted to Keep on that basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm retaining these comments from the draft article when it was at AfC. It was recreated at AfC to address the alleged promotional nature of previous versions of the article. Despite being rewritten, using multiple in-depth sources over a 15 year period, and a non-aligned review requested, it was reviewed and declined by an admin who had previously speedy deleted a version of the article. In my view as a long standing AfC reviewer Eliasch meets WP:GNG and, if anyone disgrees, let's have a full AfD discussion with an impartial closing admin. Article is no-longer promotional and cites several claims to notability, therefore is no longer a speedy deletion candidate. Sionk (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

I think I will not send the article to afd at the moment, though if anyone else does I am unlikely to !vote to keep it in its present form. it is possible that she is notable for the film and the photography. (I added a brief notice of the photography published in a reliable professional journal on the basis of the worldcat listing for the review--I have not yet actually seen the review, but the title is helpful.) However, based on the sources cited the the article, the sequence given for her book, theatre work, and film is in that order--the film is based on the play which is in turn based on the poetry.

However, the personal information in the article is excessive, and fails our policy NOT TABLOID. It isn't a BLP violation--based on the sources, she is apparently very anxious to publicize this material herself. Besides NOT TABLOID, a good case could be made for removing much of it as self-promotion. Doing so would in my opinion strengthen the article against deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I also just now added a record for a published book of her photographs. It continues to amaze me how hundreds of edits can nonetheless ignore the material that is most likely to show importance, while going into great detail about gossip. For anyone who has published anything, the first place to look is WorldCat. </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC+9

Having spent some time reading all the press not just the salacious press, this woman has a lot going on. She is a black and white photographer and not a fashion photographer, so changed. it.

Hope this is okay with all of you. There is a difference.

I have tried to add some serious press too.Spikequeen (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(Moved the above post and fixed its indentation to make discussion easier to follow per WP:TPO- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

Other than a few more clear up bare URLS and some missing early press about black and white photographs. I think this is much more rounded, but I really need to know from one of the early editors what they feel as this is my first article. It looks much less salacious than before, and more intelligent, what do you feel? I hope I have done okay? One point are you sure about the description of the photographs, it sounds more vulgar than they are? @sionk or @MarchJuly? @Ad Orientem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikequeen (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC+9)

(Moved the above post, fixed its indentation and added {{unsigned}} to make discussion easier to follow per WP:TPO- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

Thank you. Spikequeen (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article has been supported some of the best editors and only taken down because of the way it was written. The editor registered today again the claim that the page should be deleted. Why is it so under attack? There seems to be no reason. I checked and the page was up for seven years before. Is this vandalism? Perhaps they are anti pretty women who are clever? What do we do to protect the article? Spikequeen (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeenSpikequeen (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a credible artist and writer in the United Kingdom, I think her work should be respected by the users, I think the article is continually subjected to Vandalism. This page is not unambiguously promotional, because she is a credible artist, with notable works and recognition. The article seems to continually subjected to vandalism. The article adheres to the rules of Wikipedia. This time put in jeopardy by no credited editor--Spikequeen (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Arthur goes shopping for your advice on this page. Glad you think it is worthy to be on Wikipedia. I will listen to your advice and check the other artists/filmmakers too. If you can help I would be most grateful. Spikequeen (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd add to the above, I fail to understand why this article is under continual attack. It makes clear claims of notability, therefore is definitely not a speedy deletion candidate. The author that added the speedy seems to have registered today with the sole intention of deleting the article. Past history or personal grudge? Sionk (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I just wanted to drop a friendly reminder that an AfD is now open. Irregardless of what we might think about its merits or lack thereof, until it is closed that's where all discussion concerning keeping or deleting this article should be occurring in order to avoid any question of possible canvassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignore my above comment. The AfD was being closed even as I was typing it. Sometimes common sense does triumph on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Undid speedy keep closure

I undid the speedy keep closure for the following reasons:

• Although Davey does mention SPAs, he also does not mention the at least two SPAs voting to !keep in that instance, and without their !votes, it would reach as no consensus. Due to the SPA nature, it should go for the full 7 days and be decided by an administrator.
• His vote also seems to be a supervote as well, closing the discussion early and making a keep argument in that effect.
• It is not one of the reasons at WP:KEEP to speedy keep this article.

Let it run for the full time (7 days) and assessed by an administrators so this time it will be permanent. Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I 100% disagree with you but it's not worth edit warring and getting blocked over, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Point 2 of WP:KEEP seems to apply. I still fail to see why there is so much animosity towards this particular article. But considering the bitter past history of continuous speedy deletions it will do no harm for it to go 'full term' to put the argument to rest. Sionk (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation style

There are few bare urls added as inline citations which is something that is not very desirable because of link rot. I was going to go in an clean them up, but noticed there are two different citation styles being used: two use templates and the most of the rest are written freehand. WP:CITEVAR says that we should defer to the style used by the first significant contributor to the article. In this particular case, that appears to be "freehand" per this edit . Personally, I prefer using templates because I think they are a little easier to manage, but freehand is perfectly acceptable. Regardless of my personal preference, it might be a good idea for the community to reach a consensus as to which citation style is the preferred style for this particular article. Doing so will not only make it easier to go in a clean up any problems with existing citations, but also will serve as a guide for editors adding any new sources. Just a suggestion.

Anyway, for the time being, I have added a {{cleanup-bare URLs}} since I am not sure which style should be used. Once the preferred style has been clarified, the two bare urls can be cleaned up accordingly and the template removed. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems very minor (only two sources) and would be easier to fill in the citation details than add a 'bare url' template. Sionk (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk: Thank you for the feedback. Filling them in is no problem. The question is simply which style should be used. Two different styles are currently being used, so now's probably a good time to pick one out of the two. Given the fact this article has been a bit of a battleground recently, I thought it would be just best to discuss beforehand as a courtesy. Please complete the sources and remove the template if you feel I am being unnecessarily cautious. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sionk and Marchjuly,

I am trying to clear up urls on the articles of Pam Hogg and Amanda Eliasch. Also trying to do links to articles. I gathered I should mention the authors then the link. Can you explain this easily, as you say there are many ways to do them. Also I notice that the article on Eliasch's page

All Tamara's parties http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/08/homes, doesn't appear on the page. Couldn't it be used to substantiate the Cloak and Dagger Butterfly Book, and Sins of a butterfly which is not mentioned but I know exists? It appears to be the basis of all her work? Eg Eliasch did a play, a film, artwork, all based along this theme. Found NY article for Made by Indians, I added it?

Just wanted to let you know Sionk, as there has been so many problems with the page?

Anyway back to fully understanding urls. Marchjuly which one would you suggest on say on Hogg's page. There is a lot of unsubstantiated material which if I add proof will need to be done correctly. ThanksSpikequeen (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Spikequeen: Thank you for your continuous efforts at trying to improve this article. I don't know anything at all about Eliasch other than what I have read in this article. The source "All Tamera's Parties" from The Guardian is reference no. 1 and is currently cited twice in the article. Since Eliasch's book Cloak and Dagger is referred to in "All Tamera's Parties", the article can also be used as a source for the book. You have to be careful though and make sure you don't attribute anything to the source that it doesn't say, i.e., make sure you don't add your own interpretation to anything the source says. As for "Sins of a Butterfly", "All Tamera's Parties" does not specifically mention the book; therefore, even though you know the book exists, you can't use that article as source for it. Please try and remember that, in principle, verifiability matters more than truth on Wikipedia; Therefore, if you can find a source that explicitly mentions that Eliasch wrote "Sins of a Butterfly", then you can use it to source the book. Make sure, however, that said source satisfies WP:BLP#Reliable sources because if it doesn't it might be challenged and removed by another editor for being unreliable.

Finally, I don't know what is going on at Pam Hogg. Since this talk page is for discussing improvements to "Amanda Eliasch", I suggest you discuss improvements to "Pam Hogg" on Talk:Pam Hogg and not here. You can also try asking for help at WT:FASH since the article falls within the scope of WikiProject: Fashion. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello MarchJuly. You are totally right found that it was repeated, found some more articles. Started working on new articles that link.

Wikipedia is a wonderful spiderweb, so much links.

I am working on tabs, but they look complicated to use. The instructions simple but what if I make a mess?

So much to learn. Thank you as always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikequeen (talk • contribs) 10:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello MarchJuly,

Have still a few problems understanding URLS, there seem to be so many. As you explained so many other editing advances to me, any chance for this. As it looks messy on this page and on the other pages I have edited, where I have added citations. Generally I have added press? I would like to get it done. Spikequeen (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(Moved the above post and fixed its indentation to make discussion easier to follow per WP:TPO- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

@Spikequeen: The bare urls I was refering to have been cleaned up by Missionedit with this edit . Please compare the before and after versions to see the difference between the two. For more specific details, please refer to WP:LR, WP:BAREURL and WP:CITEHOW. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk. Hello, just checking in, as the boss on this page can you check what I have done. I hope I have kept it serious. Personally I think the page looks much better and I have linked it with some artists etc. Someone else has added some things too. I was also thinking about the tables but they are complicated and at the moment, as I am learning and there has been confusion do not want to touch anything that may stir editors up.

There is a whole lot more. Her art collection has about 200 pieces in it. I bought a copy of the book and it appears she bought things as she wrote about the artists? Should I mention that? Also the elephant seems interesting, to save the elephants? It has been up before? Anyway let me know.Spikequeen (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the 'boss'. Looks okay to me. Sionk (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Is it really necessary to use {{infobox artist}} in this article? The only parameters filled in are "name", "caption", "image" ("image_size") and "birth_place". There are other parameters such as "background", "origin" and "occupation" filled in, but these aren't even part of the template so readers can't see them unless they look at the code. The "caption" and the "name" parameters are the same which is unnecessarily redundant and Eliasch's place of birth is given in the fist sentence of early life. WP:INFOBOXUSE says that "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article." Like everything else then, it's usage should be judged on whether it actually improves the reader's understanding of the article. In my opinion, the only role this infobox is performing is that of a "picture frame", so removing it will not detract from the reader's understanding in any way. Why not just have a photo with an appropriate caption? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, It was for the awards, not the rest, There are five awards, 7 nominations which incidentally are, at the moment, not incidentally one hundred percent accurate. I just thought it looked less messy to show them like this?. There are several books not mentioned. There appear to be about 5 photographic books not mentioned on Eliasch's page. Don't want to touch it incase Sionk feels it is necessary, just there is so much that is not there at the moment. It appears to have been removed the first time the article was taken down, there is evidence to substantiate all. It appears to have been up for 7 years. So just thought it would look better also on the pages of Duggie Fields, whose dates are all jumbled up, Pam Hoggs, may be Tracey Emin?. Up to you? You know more than I do. Just I like tidy appearances. Anyway up to you both. Thanks Spikequeen (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

With the infobox, I don't see a problem using one, they're pretty standard issue for most Wikipedia articles. I've changed it to {{infobox person}} because that seems to give a few more parameters (including awards). To be honest I preferred the earlier headshot image of Eliasch, she's quite distant in the current one, meaning it has to be exceedingly large to show any meaningful appearance. It does look at the moment like an image preferred by a publicity agent, rather than an encyclopedia.

As for Eliasch's other publications, well, if you can find reliable secondary proof (no Amazon or publishers' websites etc.) then maybe they need to be listed under a separate "Publications" heading. By 'publications' I mean things she has substantially written/illustrated and been credited for. Sionk (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Sionk. I agree that an infobox (IB) can be a very useful summary in many cases, but there are quite a few FA articles such as Ima Hogg, Terry-Thomas, Frédéric Chopin, W.B. Yeats, Noel Coward, etc. which don't use them. I am not trying to cherry pick or use other stuff exists as proof that this IB should be deleted; I am just trying show that an IB is not absolutely necessary for an article to be considered good. This article is fairly short and most of the biographical information that could be included in any IB would be easily available to the reader with a mouse scroll or two. The changes you've made are better than what was there before—although the "caption" and "name" parameters are still exactly the same and, thus, still unnecessarily redundant: the current "caption" should either be removed or replaced in my opinion. However, is changing templates or filling in more parameters really the answer or does it run the risk of turning the infobox into a disinfobox? In my opinion, removing this IB would not significantly harm a reader's ability to understand the article; therefore, maybe an IB isn't really needed to in the first place. Regardless or my personal opinion though, if the consensus is that the article needs an IB, I will defer to that consensus. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed the earlier headshot photo was deleted, but there's this one available. Sionk (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk: I think your suggestion would be good if she was looking at the camera instead of to the side and she was not wearing sunglasses. So, I can't really call it an improvement over the one which is currently being used. That is just my opinion, and I will defer to what ever the consensus is. I do, however, suggest moving any photo talk to a new thread per WP:TALKNEW so that it can be discussed separately from other stuff. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I couldn't much care either way. It's little more than a photo-holder, so I'd have little objection to just keeping the photo and removing the rest. Sionk (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk, the black and white photographs are not nude, they are semi clothed. I checked. They are not outrageous. They are like 1930's..photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikequeen (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

I don't know what to do with this constant barrage of disruptive editing by Aromavic and their rather obvious sock (now blocked). I know that efforts have been made to reason with him/her and warnings have been posted on their talk page, but nothing seems to be getting through. The complete disregard for consensus and editing history are indicative of a SPA with a hardcore vendetta of some kind against the subject of the article. As much as I intensely dislike ANI, I really am getting tired of reverting this endless stream of abusive edits. Any suggestions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There's been a great deal of animosity towards this article, from socks and from experienced admins. I don't pretend to understand why. Hopefully Aromavic will find something more productive to do in their life and move on. Sionk (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Brit Week party

I reworded the section about Eliasch's Brit Week party. Much of the information in the original sentence was not mentioned at at all in either of the cited sources. I tried to save what I could and the wording may not be perfect, but I removed anything not specifically mentioned in the sources per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:GRAPEVINE. If new sources are found that verify any of the information I removed, then please re-add. Also, re-adding the information and then adding a {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} template is not an option because such templates are not supposed to be used on article's about living people per Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template - Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Eliasch's nationality

The article says the Eliasch was born in Beruit, but was raised in England. Would that mean she also has Lebanese nationality? I'm pretty sure that Great Britain is not a nationality, but I'm not sure if she would be considered English, British or both. The title of reference no. 29 begins with "British Artist Amanda Eliasch..." so I have changed her nationality to British. If that's not correct, then please revert or replace. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Marchjuly, Eliasch is British from Great Britain. as born in Beirut but is not Lebanese, her mother is English Caroline Gilliat daughter of Sidney and Father came from Bath and Lincolnshire, if you check.He worked for The Daily Mail, and was correspondent for the Middle East where she was born. She spent six weeks in Lebanon only. Look at previous edits of Wikipedia.

There is only press on her visiting Marrakech since. Problem with Aramovic again he put a speedy delete on the article. What is weird is none of the other articles I am editing have this problem. They are just as flashy with press etc. Do not understand. Must either be one of the men that deleted her before who is cross or a hater?

There is so much that could be in the article that is not, so do not know what the problem is? Perhaps check IP Address. He talks about Sockpuppetry, could he one of the men who did it before, anyway needs checking? Understanding citations now but not yet good so forgive me. Spikequeen (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Spikequeen for the additional information regarding her nationality. My only concern was whether her nationality could be properly cited. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Academy of Live and Recorded Artists

Also here is the proof she went to ALRA, reputable drama school in UK. http://www.alra.co.uk/images/pdf/alra-article/alra_article-issue-5.pdf Spikequeen (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Spikequeen: I saw that source. No text about Eliasch attending ALRA was removed from the article. The only thing I removed with this edit was the Category:Alumni of the Academy of Live and Recorded Artists and I only did that because no such category exists on Wikipedia. If you feel that such a category should exist on Wikipedia, you can try and create one, but there are specific steps you need to take to do so. Please read WP:CAT and WP:FAQ/Categorization and WP:FAQ/Categories for more information on what categories are and what kind of job they do on Wikipedia. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts

Dear Marchjuly, Eliasch's proof of going to RADA is this and many other editorial pieces so presumably she went http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/much-ado-about-amanda-eliasch-6411222.html. Spikequeen (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Spikequeen: The information regarding Eliasch attending RADA was removed from the article by Sionk with this edit because it was not properly supported by a reliable source. If the link you have given above directly supports that statement, then re-add the information. Please be careful though because on Wikipedia there is no "presumably" when it comes to articles about living persons (i.e., BLP articles); Only information which is supported and can be verified by reliable sources should be added. It makes no difference whether the information is positive, negative or neutral; If it's not properly supported, it is subjected to immediate removal per WP:BLPSOURCES. Of course, things aren't always so crystal clear and lots of stuff gets left in BLP articles that probably shouldn't, but what is done in other articles is not a good reason for doing the same thing here. Original research and synthesis are things that we need to try and avoid. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Evening Standard source says "She got into "the Rada boot camp" at 28 but hated wearing dowdy costumes in plays about Anne Frank. She transferred to photography..."

The other Evening Standard article says "after 26 auditions, she made it to drama school, but the birth of her first son, and the fact that she didn't like wearing a dirty coat in a play about Anne Frank, convinced her that maybe acting wasn't a viable career. So she re-trained as a photographer."

I don't know what the Rada boot camp is - whether it's a euphemism for acting school in general, or whether it actually means she went to RADA. Either way, we already have some proof she graduated from Academy of Live and Recorded Arts (though we don't know which course). To say she "qualified as an actress at The Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts" seems to be a very liberal and misleading interpretation. Sionk (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the RADA information again (apparently added by a RADA teacher) on the basis she only seems to have attended briefly. Eliasch may want to pretend in her press material she is RADA trained, but there's still no reliable proof of this. Broadway World seems to be a simply a theatre website that rehashes press releases. Sionk (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk: Understand. To be honest, I didn't look too deeply into Broadway World. It does't have a Wikipedia article about it, but it does seem to be cited quite a lot as a source, so I assumed it was reliable. I did think the RADA/Watson mention was a bit of a reach regardless of where it was used, but I didn't realize that a RADA teacher might had added the info. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk: Understood, but checkLyall Watson, he was Vice President at RADA and taught Amanda Eliasch I telephoned RADA to check. The article and press releases were correct. She left as she was pregnant and was there for a term, it is reasonably important as he edited the play As I like it from the letter she wrote to her Father. Lyall is now a well known writer for television, having written script for TitanicMerrypinkwoman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk: and @MarchJuly: proof that Lyall Watson was Vice President at RADA. Today I phoned him and Amanda did indeed study at RADA, he did teach Eliasch and she went under the name of Amanda Gilliat. Here is the proof http://unitedagents.co.uk/lyall-watson. He was Vice President there. He should be included.

Amanda initially wrote the play and letters and together they worked on the screen play and As I like it. They still work together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrypinkwoman (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Merrypinkwoman: Regarding Watson, the problem is not that he isn't who you say he is. The problem is his overall relevance to the article. If the article was ony about As I Like It', then the fact that Watson co-wrote the screenplay would be very relevant and worthy of mention. But, this is a very very small part of this article so we need to decide how relevant it is to the reader's overall understanding of Eliasch. If there was significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources which clearly showed the impact that Watson had Eliasch's career, not that just he was a vice principle of a school she briefly attended or oe of her former teachers, then that would be notable and something worth adding to the article. I'm not sure that is the case and the sources you've provided so far appear to be primary sources which need to be used carefully. The same could be said for Eliasch attending RADA. I'm not sure how knowing that she attended RADA for a term significantly improves the reader's understanding of who Eliasch is and why she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

Finally, you posted Today I phoned him and Amanda did indeed study at RADA, he did teach Eliasch and she went under the name of Amanda Gilliat above which makes it seem as if you somehow know him, perhaps personally or professionally. If this is the case, then it's possible that you have a conflict of interest with the subject matter, and other might see this a you trying to push a specific point of view. If you are connected to Watson in some way, then I suggest you read "Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide" just to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia's COI policies are. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys welcome MerrypinkwidowSionkMarchJulyBeen working. See there has been lots of movement on the page. I argued the point that Amanda E went to RADA, but they don't like it. Though it appears to have been a life changing experience, she got in which is already something, I did the audition and failed, really difficult. The other editors think it not interesting. Page looking good though.Spikequeen (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Evening Standard article says she attended "drama school" but decided it wasn't for her and left to have a child. Even if this refers to RADA, it's not evidence the experience was 'life changing'. I doubt there will be any independent secondary proof she attended RADA, if she was only there briefly. It looks like the truth is she went to a different school at a later date where she received her acting training. If she's now pretending she is RADA trained, that's not a myth we want to perpetuate here. Sionk (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sionk and Marchjuly.I live in London I telephoned RADA and Eliasch indeed went and she indeed met Lyall Watson who was Vice President then. I then phoned his agents and he rang back. He taught Amanda 6 months, he also worked with her on the script of As I like it, and directed the play. I actually just put in that she just attended RADA. Lyall is a respected writer and director too having done series for the BBC She then attended the Moscow Arts Theatre, which is now not mentioned at all, and then to ALRA doing a three year degree course in Drama and Acting.. The same as the counterpart at RADA. Very tricky to get into. Lyall did not do the film, Eliasch did. Parts of it was based on the play. I have taught dance at the drama schools and know, but now am a chef. The five articles were correct. There is little difference between the schools, to get into any is a miracle. There are only 14 accredited in UK, there is plenty of secondary evidence just the editors are questioning The guardian etc,all written by reputable journalists who would write the correct things otherwise they get sued. She left to have a baby, is inaccurate, as she was playing Clytemnestra the day she gave birth, Lyall told me. Anyway I will leave it now. People can at least read this I suppose? Merrypinkwoman (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is an ANI discussion now taking place that may involve this article and one or more editors who have contributed to it. It can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Result

Due to their persistent disruptive editing Aromavic is now subject to a topic ban on Amanda Eliasch. This means s/he is strictly prohibited from making any edits on this subject anywhere on Wikipedia, including this article and its talk page. Hopefully this will bring an end to the incessant attacks on this article. However if s/he should violate the ban, an administrator should be notified or a notice posted on WP:ANI. Also any edits made in violation of the ban should be reverted, no matter how innocuous they may seem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)