Talk:Amber MacArthur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good article nomineeAmber MacArthur was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 22, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Age

How old or when is Amber's Birthday?

In a 2005 episode of Gadgets and Gizmos she states she is 28.
Then she couldn't have been born in 1971. Until someone can confirm the birth year, I'm editing it out. 71.230.68.176 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually she said she was 29.
Someone just edited her birthdate to make her 10 years older. Can anyone confirm this, or should i change it back? Yavoh 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's fixed it. Thanks, whoever you are. Yavoh 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone set her birthdate to January 3 to reflect the birthday on her Facebook profile (which she confirms is not accurate), but I know for a fact (and she has verified this for me) that her birthday is in June. I changed it back to the correct date (June 27). I'm unsure about the year so I left it alone; somebody might want to look into that. Gabriel. 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new net@nite podcast here: http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/insidethenet/NATN-026.mp3 has Leo talking about Amber's upcoming birthday. He doesn't know how old she is, though, guesses around 31 or 32.


Porn?

An anonymous user added that Amber MacArthur was in several Canadian porn films. A Google search failed to verify this. Since, if false such statements qualify as defamation, I removed it. Can anyone verify this conclusively as true/false? --Zwilson 06:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubt it. -- Zanimum 19:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Somebody under the ip User:70.50.136.151 wrote in the article that Amber is leaving G4techTV. It is confirmed on her blog at http://ambermac.typepad.com/ambermac/2006/08/to_all_the_g4te.html

I will clean up that section and re post it.

& ) 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I have re-written the section and put in a proper reference to the blog article; also came up with a better section title other than "She Is Leaving G4TechTV" and better grammar than this user used (i.e. Typing Every First Letter In Capitals Like This.) Tell me how you like it? Also, feel free to make a small change to the section and maybe even come up with a better title than what I have done. Thanks! ;)
& ) 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Amber MacArthur to many irons in the fire

I know Amber Macarthur is young and smart but she is spreading herself to thin and it’s going to catch up with her. She needs to slow down and to focus. Mike Scott

Sorry, but this isn't the place for commentary. -- Zanimum 19:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New image

I've added a new image of Amber. She agreed via MySpace email to release any of her pics as CC for Wikipedia. -- Zanimum 18:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Fail, pointers

Sorry but this is a fail.

  • The article is too short, almost a stub.
  • Remove the fan website from external links
  • A lot of one sentence paragraphs throughout the article
  • Check {{cite web}} to see how to format references
  • External link in the middle of text, This Week in Tech network at twit.tv/ITN.
  • She is perhaps best known for the series, remove perhaps

Basically the article needs to be expanded a lot and formatted. good-luck feel free to try again for GA once these issues are dealt with. M3tal H3ad 06:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for "remove perhaps", there is no way to definitively decide what a person is best known for. The perhaps leaves it purposely ambiguous, in case her TWiT appearances are more notable. -- Zanimum 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, how about 'well known'? M3tal H3ad 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Amber is not "well known." Obviously this is a relative term. I think George Stroumboulopoulos is an example of a well known media personality. He is vastly more widely known than Amber, yet has a shorter wiki article. The lengthiness of Amber's article, coupled with the lack of citations, sensational elements (eg. her association with Tony Robbins) make this article seem suspiciously promotional. Aliengruvgod (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. Amber MacArthur is actually quite well known and is able to earn a living with public appearance fees. Personally I would consider being able to earn a living from public recognizance to mean that she meets the criteria of a well known person. I suspect she is probably more widely known than George Stroumboulopoulos, outside Canada, because her work as a social media authority, consultant, journalist and technology advocate is more diversified and international than Mr. Stroumboulopoulos' career as a Canadian broadcaster. In fact, Ms. MacArthur is probably better known outside Canada than Stephane Dion. Stoick (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that "MacArthur is probably better known outside Canada than Stephane Dion" or George Stroumboulopoulos is at least unsubstantiated and, with respect, possibly absurd. Fans and friends of MacArthur's especially run the risk of committing such rhetorical hyperbole. A rudimentary exercise in objective measures: A Google search of "George Stroumboulopoulos" (in quotes) yields 111,000 results, whereas "Amber MacArthur" yields 44,000. MacArthur does not come close in this test even with the advantage of a relatively common name. As I said, this test is rudimentary, but it does tell you something about a person's pervasiveness on the web, another arena in which MacArthur should have an inherent advantage. Aliengruvgod (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs Cleanup

This article needs to be cleaned. There are too many un-cited statements in the "Personal life" section. Article is very short and feels bloated. Maybe it deserves a Stub template?

--Ts1and2fanatic (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maritial Status

Her Martial Status and the way it may effect the parentage of her child is non-encyclopedic and should not be part of the article. It in no way has any barring on her job as tech journalist. David Reiss (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they? I noticed Leo said 'hubby' on natn 98, but he may have meant it informally. Dwmg (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Dreiss2. Someone keeps adding the "nonmarried" thing about her having her son, kind of weird. Maybe someone should warn the user if they keep doing it? NCSS (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NCSS - Her marital status and discussion around her son are well documented - Amber continues to discuss these facts. The community is not sure why such a neutral and documented fact causes you contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.53.130 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Son's Birth

As I write this it is February 6, 2009 and the article says her son was born on February 8, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.87.21 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self Promotion

Why is this 15 minutes of fame nominee listed in wiki? Answer: using wiki as a social media platform for self promotion. Minimal accomplishments or relevance. Should be deleted. Wikipedia is not FLICKR or Facebook or Twitter. Go sell self promotion somewhere else, we all full up here at Wiki.

Protection needed?

There are some IP editors that seem to not be able to control themselves from adding superfluous and non-encyclopedic information that is person in nature. While I have placed warnings on those user's pages, I wonder if semi-protection might be in order here? What does everyone else think? NCSS (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it would seem that protection would not be warranted at this stage. NCSS has continued to remove bibliographical information in a biased manner. The use of protection for an article in order to enforce biased removals, such as these, would seem to be a misuse of an important editorial quality control tool.

I have only removed personal attacks that do not have a source?!? NCSS (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 19:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Who???

I'm from PEI and have never heard of this person. 24.137.115.238 (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amber MacArthur. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amber MacArthur. 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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amber_MacArthur&oldid=1218283088"