Talk:Mary Beth Buchanan

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary Beth Buchanan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

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 sourced must 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.

Biography

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

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

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

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Occupation

She seems to be currently unemployed. No references to her on the web and she certainly isn't the current United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. I'm changing the Occupation to unknown. DavesPlanet (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zehr

The Daniel Zehr section may be controversial but nowhere does it mention Buchanan's name. Either Buchanan needs to be tied into this section or the section would need to be removed. DavesPlanet (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ARCHIVE

Please archive. Also, please respect contributors to the page opposed to non-value added editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.92 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are 'non-value added editors"? Tiderolls 01:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And "please" comes a bit late, after you've blanked this page a couple of times. You are skating on very thin ice and risk being blocked because of your disruptive behavior. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a level 4 warning was already issued to this user for this. There is no need to archive this page. 99.152.116.243 (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is being archived. Please take your threats somewhere else. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.5.92 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for this page being archived; it is not excessively long, and I would revert a move to archive this, as a disruptive edit. Perhaps the IP who likes to blank this page (and who likes to play the victim--what 'threats'?) can explain their motives, in plain English. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this talk page is not yet long enough to be archived. Netalarmtrick or treat! 01:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an attempt by the IP user to archive. You have not attained consensus for this talk page to be archived. Netalarmtrick or treat! 01:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

may I suggest just setting up the auto archive bot to do so to this talk page... it makes things far simpler and stops arguments like these. If the are no objections I will do so in a couple of days --UltraMagnus^speak 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Magnus. This solution was what I had in mind with this message. Speaking as one editor I believe your offer of help would resolve the matter. I'd be interested in other opinions, of course. Regards Tiderolls 17:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done the bot should be along within 24 hours, it will automatically archive anything over 30 days old --UltraMagnus^speak 19:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just manually archived a couple of comments myself that were un-time stamped, must be pre-sign-bot stuff. On the subject of archives, what happened to the archived peer review that is supposed to be linked at the top of the page? --UltraMagnus^speak 07:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the revision history and did not see its removal. I can only speculate that it got lost in all the page blanking and reverting. The bot could've removed it during the archive. I do not know how the bot executes its function, though. Tiderolls 12:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks Magnus, thanks Tide. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, What a mess. Seems in all this reverting, some archived discussions got left here as well, while this very recent (and still active) discussion got copied to the archive by mistake. Hopefully, I have fixed it correctly, with everything prior to 1 Nov 2009 in the archive, leaving just this one discussion still here. Astronaut (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus and Astronaut, thank you for putting in place the archive I tried to put in place a few days back. Much appreciated. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Peer review (not)

I removed the following from the heading: {{Old peer review|archive=1}}. I don't believe there ever was a peer review, partly because this template was posted at the time the page was created, and partly because the page creation was only the 10th edit ever by that editor; from that, I conclude that he/she simply copied another talk/discussion page header, and took a bit too much when copying.

If there in fact was a peer review, I welcome the reposting of this template - but please make sure that the link actually points to where the peer review was archived. -- John Broughton (♫♫)

Questionable editing

Reverted edits by 24.130.15.8 due to questionable nature of editing.

Uamaol (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mary Beth Buchanan. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]