User talk:GordonE/Controversies

Victoria Park
I am not sure I understand your reasons for defending "Victoria Park" as the location for Curtin University. While Curtin is indeed within the bounds of the Town of Victoria Park, saying that a location is in Victoria Park almost always means the suburb of Victoria Park (or East Vic Park). In Australian English (and I refer you to MoS for where we should be using regional dialects) the name Perth refers to the whole metropolitan area of Perth, not just the small area of the City of Perth. Also, seeing as Wikipedia is a global encylopedia, Perth is far more helpful for people in other countries.

I also notice that you aren't so vehemently defending Subiaco as the location of UWA, or Melville as the location for Murdoch. bjmurph talk? 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * G'day Bjmurph. Last observation first: I haven't defended Subi as the location of UWA or Melville as the location of Murdoch U simply because I have no interest in those suburbs or institutions.  Second observation: I actually understand what you mean by use of Australian English and the use of regional dialects -- but this is not a language problem, which brings me to your question.


 * One needs to be careful in specifying what suburb an institution lies in -- a small but very significant portion of UWA is actually within the City of Perth. See map 372 of the current StreetSmart directory. Gordon | Talk, 8 July 2006 @10:42 UTC


 * I have very carefully specified Victoria Park (as the Town of Victoria Park rather than the locality) simply for geographical accuracy. As you correctly remark, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  It is indeed global, but it is not a collection of anecdotes.  Encyclopedias are -- or should be -- noted for accuracy.  I have imposed that accuracy in the Curtin U and some related articles, including the Victoria Park and Bentley articles.


 * Of course, nothing prevents you from mentioning our locality usage in the "Australia" or "Western Australia" articles... Although I fancy you will find there is nothing unique about our habit of using the name of a major center to refer to very large areas of land/suburbs  Gordon | Talk, 7 July 2006 @12:46 UTC

You are mostly right about the language thing(about it not applying here), but I have had problems when dealing with (some) Americans, who (in my experience anyway) tend to view only the small "downtown" area as the city.

As to the location of curtin, I disagree that there is any additional (useful) geographical accuracy gained by stating the location as Victoria Park. Consider here that we are talking about Local Government divisions while the university is a state institution. Again, Curtin is in the Perth Metropolitan area (a fact I hope that noone will dispute), and (a point I didn't want to bring up, but you did it first :) there are multiple campuses in perth- consider the City and Shenton Park campuses (This is highly irrelevant because the article(s) state that Perth is the location of the main campus). bjmurph talk? 15:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * G'day Bjmurph. (I've taken the liberty of ever so slightly reformatting your last, 'cos it helps me follow the thread.)  The problem with geographical accuracy is that localities (and only Deities know why) sometimes span LG boundaries.  Whether an institution is a State entity is irrelevant.


 * Certainly Curtin U is in the Perth Metropolitan Area -- but that cannot excuse ambiguity in describing where to find it for the benefit of non-Sandgropers. Remember that the PMA is a Regional Planning concept as much as anything else, and relates to our discussion only insofar as "I live in Perth, so send snailmail to Hampton Street, Fremantle."  This brings me back to my point about accuracy in encyclopedias, and I apologise for not using the word "precision" in that sentence, for which I should be slapped.  We need to remember those people who have no knowledge of Australia except that it has Sydney, Melbourne and kangaroos -- some of whom may not have heard about Melbourne...


 * About the multiple campuses, I have searched high and low to find where I raised the subject, and finally decided it must have been here on this page when talking about UWA lying partly within the City of Perth. So yes, it is irrelevant, especially as it's Hackett and Winthrop Halls that lie there, not a remote campus.  I am aware that Curtin U has several remote campuses, and my opinion is that any discussion of these should state not only the locality but also the town or city where the locality lies -- or where the institution lies if the locality spans LG boundaries.  Gordon | Talk, 15 July 2006 @05:18 UTC

"I really don't want a Revert War."
Why have you insisted on reverting Cylindrachetidae and sandgroper (insect)  to worse versions? As the articles currently stand, (a) they are mutually redundant, (b) they are poorly formatted, (c) they include inappropriate categories (once an article is in Category:Orthoptera, it need not, indeed should not, be placed in Category:Insects), and (d) they include poor grammar and spelling (there is no such word as "genuses", for instance). I cannot see any advantage to your reverts; please justify them. Also, it would be more appropriate for someone who said "I really don't want a Revert War" to discuss disputed changes before repeatedly implementing them. I have given my reasons; please give yours. --Stemonitis 11:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was working on the two articles. You jumped in with hobnailed jackboots and no discussion.  When you are prepared to discuss before acting, I will come to the party.  You can demonstrate a reasonable frame of mind by leaving the rv's as they are and asking me politely why I am having two articles which apparently duplicate each other.  Gordon | Talk, 30 September 2006 @12:00 UTC


 * If I asked around every time I made an edit, I'd never get anything done. I didn't look at the talk pages before I made an edit, and I had no way of knowing that they were works in progress. In fact, just about everything on Wikipedia is a work in progress. My edits were progress. And I have asked you for your reasons, lastly just two paragraphs above here, and you haven't replied. If your reverts are not intended to be an improvement, then you should not make them (WP:POINT). I ask you again: why on earth should there be two articles about the same topic? --Stemonitis 12:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Point two first: You shot first, then asked questions -- always a sign of hostile intent. Point one: You sound like a person with too much on your plate.  It's a good way to upset (read: really turn them off) people.  If you had read the Talk pages you would have seen a discussion on the very subject you're whingeing about.  And you may possibly have understood that some progress was being made (painfully slowly) toward a solution which could be accepted by all.  Now it looks like going to Arbitration...  Gordon | Talk, 30 September 2006 @14:08 UTC


 * I edited first, as I often do; when I find clearly duplicate articles, I merge them to the title that seems better to me, rather than going through the tedious bureaucracy of a formal merge request. Only very rarely does this cause a problem. Often people are unaware that a second article exists, or one copy may have been created by a relatively new user who hasn't got to grips with redirects yet, so this practice is perfectly reasonable. I certainly had no "hostile intent"; I was merely improving an article which had some problems that I thought I could solve. I apologise if it caused you to feel miffed, but I maintain I did nothing wrong. Policy states "Merging is something any editor can do, and if you are sure that something should be merged, you can be bold and do so", and I had no reason to believe that this merge would be controversial. Indeed, I cannot understand your characterisation of my edit as "blowing all the work out of the water", since the article was demonstrably improved by it. Let us continue the discussion about the pros and cons of merger at Talk:Cylindrachetidae. --Stemonitis 14:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising my writings in the dog article
Nothing in my writing here is controvertial and in need of citation. It can all be looked up by the reader on any level. Do you need citations that dogs did not decend thousands of years ago from the wolves that are alive today, as most people believe? Do I need proof that they decended thousands of years ago from the wolves that LIVED thousands of years ago? Why does this need citation? Is this your problem? I am merely pointing out the error that so many, many people make. They hear that dogs decended from wolves, and they look around and see the only wolves left in the world in any number today are the wolves of northern lattitudes...they see the grey wolf of northern Eursaia and the timber wolf of North America, and believe that all dogs decended from them. Humans are a tropical creature that moved into the colder regions. Everywhere man goes, wolf populations dwindle, as anybody knows, and in ancient times, before man, there were wolves all over the world, adapted to their own climates. What part of this needs citation? Obviously, the first dogs to be bred were the ones where the people first lived, which is obviously the warmer climates, and it was THESE wolves that gave rise to most of our dog breeds, not the northern wolves. Now the wolves of the colder regions are the only ones left in number, the wolves in warmer places, where dogs were first bred, are almost all gone. Some northern breeds decended from northern wolves, yes. The spitz breeds and sled dogs, etc. This is all so obviuous, can you tell me what part of this you don't understand, and need citations about? I feel like I am talking to a child. If I tell my child that George Washington was the first president, to I have to give a citation? This stuff doesn't need citation.

You are vandalising, because you, as the only person on earth who doesn't agree with this, erased three whole paragraphs, not once but twice, on the grounds that there were no references, even though much larger tracts of the article are more controvertial and have no citations. You erased every word I wrote, even though all of it is true, none of it is controversial, and this is nothing but pure vandalism.

You need citation that dogs interbreed with coyotes? Why? How can you not already know that? How is this possible? And articles about the Russian jackal-dog hybrid are all over the web. Can you use a search engine? Look up the pre-caudal gland in any veterinary text. Things that are controvertial or new need citations to the new or controvertial sources, but when something become so widely-known that it can be found in every reference work out there, it no longer needs specific citation. For anything I wrote, you can look it up in Britannica. If you read something that you did not know, it doesn't mean the author needs to cite references for you, it just means you need to do your own homework. I am merely pointing out the things that are such a big part of common knowledge, and using them to prove that dogs did not all decend entirely from modern wolves of the colder climate where people didn't even live when dogs were first domesticated. In all my years of veterinary practice, I have probably told 100's of my patients that dogs decended from warm-climate wolves, NOT all of them come from the northern wolves. Now, after all these years, I am confronted by a web vandal who tells me I have to cite freaking references about this. It is purely annoying.

If you erase my writings again I will report you as a vandal. Really, do NOT do it again.

Morgan Wright —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morgan Wright (talk • contribs).
 * Gordon, I have warned this editor that they will be blocked if they continue making personal attacks against you. Please let me know if it continues. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not wasting my time with Wikipedia anymore
Wikipedia doesn't pay me enough to share my wealth of knowledge here. If I, a veterinarian in practice over 20 years, get my writings about dogs arbitrarily erased in their entirely, by a person without any veterinary credentials at all, and then a second person defends this vandalism, warning ME about getting banned here, then I know I am completely wasting my time here. I feel like this is more of a video game for computer hacks than a group of academics who care about knowledge. I really am disappointed with the two people who came online here. This is a sorry thing to happen. If I say 2 + 2 = 4 and somebody who think 2 + 2 = 5 wants me to show citations that it's 4, I am gone. Morgan Wright (talk