This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Amy van der Hiel (talk·contribs) has been paid by "Media Relations Coordinator on behalf of unspecified. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN.
The Berkman Klein page on Rosemary Leith at Berkman: Berkman Klein page on Rosemary Leith has a CC license at bottom which states: "Unless otherwise noted this site and its contents are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.". I have a confirmation email of this from someone at Harvard too. Please let me know if I should adjust it in any way. - Amy van der Hiel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy van der Hiel (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The edit which created this on 20:58, 30 June 2020 appeared to remove a prior draft/request-edit at the same time rather than archiving it. [1]. That content could reaasonably be placed on an archive at some point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was drawn to examine the bio of Leith due to the June 2021 NFT auction at Southerby's and report proceeds would go to Leith and her husband, see Tim Berners-Lee. It was immediately apparent to me Leith appeared notable in her own right and created a red-link (actually intending to do a very quick stub). My investigation revealed G12's from 2009 and this article which was draftified (Quarantine paid-for spam) by MER-C and subsequently G13'd. While many would TNT my method is almost always to work from the previous version of the article, however bad, to avoid attribution issues and so previous issues are understood, unless there are large scale copyright issues. I declare I have no paid coi interests here. There is a faint, extremely remote, and very obscure, trivial coi connection with a previous incumbent of one of Leith's positions from 40 years ago but any declaration might be seen pretentious, there's also an outing issue that might occur from it. I'll email an oversighter if someone really is concerned but I'd prefer not to waste their time, though they would have laugh, one of my usual scrapes. Regards the general content of this article as I find it the factual content is broadly accurate as far as I see it from a couple of sources I eyeballed prior to the refund; there's probably a bit of fluff. I might have to WP:STUBIFY and work up slowly. I'll probably use harvard referencing as I work through the existing references, which might be my first approproach. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had a tainted history and in my opinion it should have been in mainspace long long long ago. I've done my reasonable good faith best in the re-write - given my time constraints - but there will unfortunately be mistakes, hopefully just minor grammar etc. Per Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Back to Draft? this should probably simply been WP:STUBIFY'd to clear the paid editing rather than ending up with the G13. On that basis let me state clearly here I object to any further draftification unless per a consensus; which can be tried at AfD. Equally I contest this is inappropriate for a speedy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got pinged recently, presumably because I attempted to create this biography in June 2018. I hived the material off from the Tim Berners-Lee article, thinking that Rosemary Leith was an interesting and notable person in her own right. Someone else disagreed, and the next day the article was on the naughty step. And there it languished until User:Amy van der Hiel came along a year ago, with all good intentions, hoping to use her energy and expertise to improve the encyclopedia. She got swiftly blocked, despite writing cogently and transparently (under her real name, at that) about what she was trying to achieve. I despair sometimes, I really do.
If Wikipedia can be so hostile and labyrinthine to someone well versed in netiquette ("I have some expertise, because of my job history, with web technologies and web history but if I should not contribute entries or updates about technology, people who work in technology or the web, please let me know and I will not do so in the future."), what hope do we have to open up to less skilled potential editors? I haven't looked at this article since, I don't know, probably the day after I created it. Why was this eager and useful new editor not directed to help - the Tea House, for example? Or why was it not suggested that she put her information on the article talkpage, and let other editors take it from there? Given that she was blocked for trying to be honest, if I were her, I'd not try fighting my way through the thickets of Wikipedia again. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I have no reason to believe that procedures weren't followed correctly. But O the end result!--Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon Caryatid: As the editor who picked this this and kicked in back into mainspace I believe you've every reason to feel aggrieved. Noting the NFT auction I asked myself "Is Rosemary Leith a valid article?" ... I answered myself yes and aimed to do a very quick stub article direct to mainspace or maybe via draft. In the pre-checks I noted a pre-existing article and I will (almost) always prefer to work from a pre-existing article rather than WP:TNT it ... I always like to know what when on before and anyway it gives me some places to look if nothing else. I was a tad frustrated at the delay by having to request a REFUND/G13 but Graeme Bartlett was on the case really quickly and gave the really helpful comment: I hope you can neutralise any paid editor problems. [2]. I had come across Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 39#Back to Draft? where Insertcleverphrasehere suggested WP:STUBIFY and Onel5969 endorsed the suggestion and decided to take the approach here due to the {{Paid}} and I was a tad worried about inadvertently leaving in a copy. On reflection I am now minded [3] was a possible restore point which would have left some of your content, and I might have used that but for getting an article like this back to mainspace a minimal baseline was my best bet, less content less issues. But I really but acknowledge your work on this, and I am reasonably minded Amy van der Hiel edits may have been more good faith rather than "hard-core" paid. I'll also semi-minded I could have rammed this straight back into mainspace and taken a WP:AFD challenge ... but I must be taking TimBL's advice. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
