Beauty111

Your submission at Articles for creation: Angela Workman (September 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Angela Workman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 13:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Beauty111, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 13:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Angela Workman (September 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Fuortu was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Angela Workman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fuortu (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Angela Workman (September 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Angela Workman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 02:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Angela Workman (October 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Angela Workman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Request to Disclose

You wrote: "I ... have documented it in exactly the way I was requested to do so." By whom? Who requested that you submit Draft:Angela Workman? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Angela Workman has been accepted

Angela Workman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Beauty111. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Angela Workman, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. If you are Angela Workman as you have suggested, please do not edit the article directly but make suggestions on the talk page for others to consider. Theroadislong (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is reference to Angela Workman graduate of Yale School of Drama

Please reconsider your edit on the Angela Workman page which read "Angela Workman was trained as a classical stage actress and received a Masters Degree from the Yale School of Drama." Please also reconsider your edit on same page which read "The War Bride" won two Genie Awards in Toronto."

http://saylescreen.com/clients/workman-angela-2/

Beauty111 (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Photograph from Yale School of Drama of Angela Workman

Here's an archived photograph of Angela Workman from Yale University Library, to support the contention that Angela Workman graduated from Yale School of Drama with a degree in classical stage acting (as per your edit removal).

http://findit.library.yale.edu/catalog/digcoll:940124

Beauty111 (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

When a film wins awards..

.. it is to the credit of the person who created the film. The editor here has no fundamental understanding of the working reality of the film business. If 'The War Bride' was nominated for seven, and won two, awards, of course that is a credit to the person who created the film!

Archived photo of Angela Workman/Yale School of Drama

A photo from Yale University Library, to support the contention that Angela Workman did indeed graduate with a Masters Degree from the Yale School of Drama in classical stage acting (as per edit removal).

http://images.library.yale.edu/drama/oneitem.asp?id=511

Beauty111 (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

To whom it may concern re 'autobiography' and the warning template

I just want to clarify that although I attempted to edit my new page (I didn't realize we aren't supposed to do that, my apologies), there are other people who have worked for two months to get this page posted. No one is paid by me to do this. As mentioned previously, I've worked professionally as a screenwriter for over twenty years, all over the world, for most of the major studios. I have a major motion picture coming out (The Zookeeper's Wife (film) based on the best selling book by Diane Ackerman). These are the kinds of high-profile films I write, and have been writing for many years. I'm considered 'notable' in my profession, though some editors on this site might not recognize me as such. I hope you will remove the warning template. (AW)

ScreenDaily article re 'The War Bride' nominations for Genie Awards

Newspaper article in ScreenDaily re the film 'The War Bride' and its seven Genie Awards nominations (as per edit removing this line from Angela Workman's page). Please revise!

http://www.screendaily.com/atanarjuat-and-war-bride-lead-genie-race/407774.article

Beauty111 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Beauty111! I've already declined the last two requests at Talk:Angela Workman, so I'm declining them here too. Thanks for confirming that you now realise that you shouldn't really edit the page about yourself. Just to be clear, the other people who've helped you with it shouldn't edit it either. Anyone is free to request changes on the talk-page at any time, but those requests do need to be accompanied by reliable sources that actually support the content you want added. A case in point: the Yale School of Drama listings of the two photographs that you link to above do indeed mention your name, but neither of them says anything at all about "a Masters Degree ... in classical stage acting", so they cannot be used a source for that claim (so I'm declining those too). Nor is your listing at Sayle Screen, a theatrical agency, a reliable source (please note, I'm not questioning whether what you wrote there is true, merely saying that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless it's independently confirmed – and your agents clearly aren't independent). What the page really needs is extensive in-depth coverage in reliable sources – say, newspaper or magazine articles about you, or coverage in a book. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please undo

To the editors,

I note that you have completely revised this page, and have added a very unflattering review of "Snow Flower and the Secret Fan" by the New York Times. Why would you put that on here? I would undo myself but have been advised not to. Here is a positive review of the film and I hope you will post this instead (the Hollywood Reporter is a major trade publication):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/snow-flower-secret-fan-film-210501

PLEASE REMOVE THE NEW YORK TIMES REVIEW IMMEDIATELY. If your intent is to remove my page entirely than I will do it, rather than allowing such cruel and unflattering pieces of information edited onto the page without my consent. Wikipedia is difficult to code for those of us who are not familiar with these methods, and who don't know all the many 'rules.' I have tried very heard to learn how to do it. But something punitive is going on here.

Beauty111 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require your consent to add reliably sourced content, that is the very nature of Wikipedia it only reports on what the secondary sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The review only mentions you in passing, what did you want to add to the article specifically?Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

response to theroadislong and a very cruel edit

I included the Hollywood Reporter review simply to point out that there are other, far more positive reviews of the Snow Flower film, and I would appreciate you linking to that instead of the New York Times review. If you insist on keeping the NY Times commentary on the page then I ask that you remove the page entirely (which is, I suspect, what you'd like to do). I've read many other pages of screenwriters, and those involved in the film industry. Rarely have I seen such unflattering references posted on these pages. This was not my doing; I believe it was yours.

You and I are at an unpleasant crossroads. You win. Please remove the NY Times notice, or this page entirely.

Beauty111 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I did NOT add the New York Times edit, please check the article history. [1] The Hollywood Reporter review doesn't say anything about the screenplay other than who wrote it, otherwise it could be added? Theroadislong (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I added that content, from a reference that was already in the article. The New York Times is an impeccable source, although of course a critic can express a personal opinion in it. Beauty111, please understand that what we do here is to try to report what is published about a topic, whether it's positive or not, in reliable sources. We're not here to be Linkedin or Facebook or anywhere else where people can publish whatever they like about themselves regardless of the truth, nor are we here to provide an advertising platform for anyone or anything. I'm sorry if that is not what you expected. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added the Hollywood Reporter review as a cit for Snow Flower. The film obviously received mixed reviews. There is now a positive and a negative one. Fairly balanced, I'd say, and both mention Workman as writer. Problem solved? Yintan  08:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the New York Times additional comment about the screenplay

I am asking you to please remove the additional comment about the Snow Flower screenplay (which, if disjointed, was not by me -- the Los Angeles Times review testifies to the fact that additional layers were added to my original draft). Please, will you remove it?

Beauty111 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Angela. Snowflake got a mixed reception so there are bound to be references to negative reviews. For the sake of balance I added the postive source you mentioned, only fair, but there is no reason to delete the negative one. I understand you don't like being associated with that but well, you did work on the film. So that's not a valid reason to delete the entire Angela Workman article. Kind regards, Yintan  08:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

Good news. I guess. It looks like the Angela Workman article will be deleted because you don't meet the notability criteria (yet). Sorry your first encounter with Wikipedia was a problematic one. If I can help in future, let me know. Cheers, Yintan  19:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Beauty111. You have new messages at Yintan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.