User talk:Michellecrisp/Archives/2007/July

Munich
You might want to check here when you edit Munich. Kingjeff 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Carlingford
I did not completely revert your changes - I put them back with references in many cases. As for the history of buses in suburbs, please take a look at Hammersley, Western Australia, a Featured Article, which has a section on its public transport including the history of its bus routes. Wikipedia is not paper so these things are quite ok to have there. I was improving the article, not trying to take away from it. JRG 06:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree about the bus routes - but I'll remove it for the moment until I can improve it and get a more comprehensive history of the bus services in the suburb (horse-drawn buses in Carlingford and the Epping area were the original form of public transport before the railway line appeared, and have an important history in the area.) It's been moved to the talk page. JRG 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Horse drawn buses can be mentioned as it's something notable and significant. but people from outside the Carlingford area don't care who operated the buses a few years ago. I doubt many in Carlingford care either. Michellecrisp 06:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamersley, Western Australia
You seem to be making pretty drastic changes to this page. I admire your intention to carry out wikipedia policy, but remember that as a featured article this has been through a rigorous review process. Your main point seems to be about the level of detail: instead of deleting well-research content, perhaps you can create subpages such as "transport in Hammersley" and move the content there, leaving a summary on the main suburb page. Recurring dreams 12:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article may seem much more detailed than the average locality article, but that's simply because someone put in the effort of finding sourced, relevant material. Just because the notability or importance of a subject is low, does not mean we shouldn't strive to be comprehensive. Also about the verbosity of the language, I found the writing quite clear. If anything the problem with most locality pages is that the language there tends to be short and choppy. Recurring dreams 12:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember that comprehensive feature articles on wikipedia are generally stand alone articles. We can't assume readers will know the systems and practices of Australia, and hence can't exclude material on the basis of the fact that its the same everywhere. Nevertheless don't think I am criticising all your edits. A good idea may be to discuss changes on the talk page, or maybe wait until User:Orderinchaos has returned, and work through changes with him, as he was the main contributor to the page. Recurring dreams 12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant up to a point. Even in the example you gave, if the agriculture industry was a main part of the article, then the material should be included. Perhpaps not the last sentence, but you eventually deleted the whole section on wool, which was well referenced. I think it should still be there. Recurring dreams 13:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, if the wool industry in the area is important, then something should be included about it. Recurring dreams 13:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had this article on my watchlist: please note that it is simply not good process at all to make mass edits of a Featured Article without any consultation. While I believe your edits are in good faith, if you want to shorten an article because of its length, you should break it off into sections (such "History of Hamersley", for example) and keep the content for expansion, not simply delete content which editors have put hours of work into researching for themselves. I have already told you about Wikipedia is not paper and the fact that the online nature of the encyclopedia allows us to include content that would not be in your average Britannica-type paper encyclopedia. I believe that most editors, most importantly those who have approved this article as featured content, will find this article is comprehensive and informative with the information that is currently presented. The article is also not over 60KB, which is the recommended splitting size according to The article size policy.

By all means, if you don't like the quality of the article, then by all means put it up for Featured Article Review (but as it was put up less than 3 months ago you will have to wait until the 14th of July) - I would have no problems with you doing this. At the very least use the talk page at WikiProject Perth, and let Orderinchaos as the creator have his say when he is back from his Wikibreak. That is the proper process if you have a complaint about the article - it is not to simply make mass changes without deletion. JRG 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 60K is a guide, I've encountered this before, the actual length rather than the number of K is a better indicator of size. Michellecrisp 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what you are doing - Featured Articles have undergone rigorous editing and approvals before they can get to that status. It is not due process to simply mass edit and delete many things in the article without even letting users know what you are doing. I would advise letting WikiProject Perth know about your changes. But having said that, I would agree that your first two edits after my revert are sensible deletions which I would agree with. JRG 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I won't make large edits, but anything that is irrelevant or poorly worded on a small scale I will edit in the meantime. As I said, I'm surprised this is a featured article. It is a not well laid out or easy to read format with lots of minor details. Michellecrisp 03:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Minor editing is fine, but just be careful - if you want to do something major, ask the WikiProject. If you want to challenge the FA rating that is your right to do so, but you'll have to wait 8 days due to the 3 month requirement. JRG 03:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Must say I'm somewhat surprised at the wholesale content removal without consultation. I understand that you are of the view that it is too verbose, but that in itself is not a reason to remove verifiable, well-sourced information that relates to the entity. Some of the changes, such as removing the politics line, I do agree with. Also, a little civility in the edit summaries would be appreciated - it is actually acceptable for people to disagree on an issue without one of them having to be wrong or needing to be told off. I will be away from the net (actually, off wandering the WA countryside) until next Thursday night, but just thought I'd add my two cents on the issue. Orderinchaos 04:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. There would seem to be a difference of opinion then as to what constitutes importance and notability. I have been editing fairly solidly on Wikipedia for more than a year and was made an administrator just after getting this one to FA, so I do have a reasonable understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Orderinchaos 04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Michellecrisp, I have noticed your contributions to the article mentioned above and the subsequent responses from others. You might consider noting any proposed changes on the talk page. There is already always room for improvement, but you are making extensive changes to an article that has been extensively reviewed. The consensus of the major review was overwhemlingly in favour of designating it as 'one in a thousand', a feature article. There is plenty of articles to add to, you might find it more productive than altering this one. This is not to dissuade you from contributing in whatever way you wish, I merely wanted to point out that removing material from feature articles will likely be undone. This would be a waste of your time and a moment of someone elses, maybe you should show a little more caution in this matter.  I hope you are enjoying editing at the project. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  05:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to bomb you with comments, but how many of those locality articles were feature articles. I don't think anyone is proposing that parts of content are exceptionally notable, but it assumed that a significant number of readers may find a summary, and the appropriate links, of certain topics useful.  You might need to start pointing out the guidelines on notability that you think may be relevant. Why is an excellent article on a minor suburb important to your work here? I ask this question in all earnestness. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions


 * that's the thing. the article doesn't have a structure where major and most important facts can be clearly seen or summarised in a scan. "Why is an excellent article on a minor suburb important to your work here?" is an irrelevant question. I have every right to challenge any article I wish on Wikipedia. I feel that people sometimes (not all the time) submit articles for Featured Articles because they worked a lot on it, spending hours looking for every fact. sometimes it's WP:OWN. Michellecrisp 05:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course anyone can edit, anywhere, anytime. I did not intend the query to be taken as combative, I am merely questioning the merit of negotiating changes to an article of low importance. I suppose in using a feature article to ascertain the various degree of notability criteria, dissection may have some merit. However, I believe that you have failed to evaluate the relative degree of importance.  I followed the evolution of the article closely and I am aware of the pitfalls of editors owning pages, it can be highly distasteful.  However, this is not the case, the editor sought the advice of very experienced editors and has indicated to myself the extent of help from people outside our community.  I have seen a greater proportion of 'better than good' articles lifted by the singular focus of one editor, assisted by a number of others.  With an  understanding of good faith and policy, the extensive process of expanding, rewriting by others, and inevitably, building on the work of those before us, many articles are propelled through to a highly critical review process.  I believe this was exemplary model of the collaborative process. Having said that, I look forward to your suggestions for improvement - on the talk page. For my part, I tend to bold in creating material, removing many others requires a bit of tact. Thanks for your time.  Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  06:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, like you, my only motivation is improvement of articles. Michellecrisp 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've stated quite clearly I do not believe it fits Featured Article. being honest here, anything can be challenged and reverted in Wikipedia, that should not dissuade anyone, least of all me. I've already put some proposed changes now on the Talk page so need to reiterate what I'm already doing now. thanks. Michellecrisp 05:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Winnipeg
Thanks. Just needed a day off to fix it up a bit. Always work that can be done on it to bring it up to good article standard. I have to continue to add footnotes. It helps to have someone take a look from time to time to see how to improve. it. jdobbin 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Given your views on suburbs
I'd be interested to see what you make of this article: City of Thuringowa. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Newtown
Hi Michellecrisp, it is a really good article. The structure was particuarly good and a great starting point for developing other articles. I refrained from making a small edit, given the circumstances. I notice the number of edits in the link you posted (the 500 item list took a while for my little engine to render), I have not questioned your willingness or effort - it is clearly notable. I have questioned the merit of continuing the discussion at the review. As I said at that that discussion, I apologise for addressing the issue by identifying the circumstances leading to it, but you failed to follow the guidelines set out for feature article review. Having said this, I was unsurprised that you have taken umbrage with my comment; it was a hazardous but carefully considered attempt to forestall unproductive and disruptive discussion. I am unimpressed by your unilateral actions, please find a better way to raise concerns and improve the quality and the quantity of suburb articles. I will draw attention to a principle of effective communication and the subsequent process of collaboration - trust. Neither is posssible possible without it, I believe that is self evident. Your sweeping comments and misrepresentative quotes, of an arbitrary grouping of editors, demonstrates a lack of this. Again, an FAR is not the appropriate forum for any perceived or factual grievance regarding this. I am happy to address any concerns you have regarding my approach to this issue, I will leave it to another to suggest what yours should be. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Hamersley, Western Australia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. ''You have previously been advised to discuss this at talk and you have failed to do so. The content you have removed was in the article at the time the FA passed. Additionally, the level of detail in this article is considered the gold standard for suburb projects on Wikiproject Australia. If you have issues with the content, discuss it at talk, or more appropriately wait for the FAR you have opened to be decided. Until then, I would strongly advise you refrain from any further edits to this article.'' Thewinchester (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Michelle, I apologise for the way in which some WP:WA editors have responded to your FAR request on Hamersley. I count these people as friends and collaborators, but right now I am somewhat embarrassed and ashamed to admit it. Notwithstanding the above message, it is clear that you have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, so I'll gladly defend your right to modify and/or request a review of any article you wish, FA or not. Hesperian 12:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies if I have appeared uncivil, I hope that I haven't. However, my attempts at levity are not always well received, more room for improvement :-) You have previously indicated that both you and I are seeking to make improvements, agf, etcetera, I believe this is true. It appears that you have been offended by another, but I am making an open request, to all involved, to refrain from responding. Except meself!, to make an invitation to everyone to have a nice cup of tea. I would be in your debt, ta.  ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  15:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you have been uncivil, you have assumed good faith and given me an opportunity to get my point of view across. my response to thewinchester (which I know he has referred to me in glowing terms to you) is my right to defend what even an administrator thinks is inappropriate. it is a constructive response based on multiple defensible reasons, use of vandalism warnings should not be abused. thewinchester unlike many others didn't bother to discuss with me. look at my talk page, I'm happy to discuss any edits I make. Michellecrisp 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Phew, I'm glad, I don't want to make you feel like it is getting personal. You are correct that it shouldn't be, rather a discussion of the edits themselves. I feel very strongly that newer users, I'm fairly new myself, should be encouraged to contribute anywhere. I don't think I would like being accused of vandalism either, a real vandal would probably get a thrill from it; all in all, in is a bit of a pointless accusation. I also agree that owning a page is common and very bad news, however I can't see the relevance.  In my experience, all the editors in todays proceedings, and others, have critiqued each others contributions in accordance with policy and guidelines. They can afford to feel proud of the body of work they contributed to, I'm glad that you are able to help with that.  I'm sure you will make many improvements to wikipaedia. Regards,  ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  16:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Stronger warnings have the general effect to get editors to sit up and take notice, and generally educates that there are people who will watch over your shoulder to let you know when you've crossed the line. The warning in that respect has clearly worked, because it got you to see that you've put quite a few noses out of joint with your actions and need to take a little more care in future. Clean up as many suburb articles as you feel inclined to touch, just know how things are done around here first and learn how the best articles have been structured before doing it. You've got caught in the crossfire this weekend, as i'm knee deep in troll-whacking, and my good faith and sanity on the wiki is at absolute rock bottom. Thewinchester (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * response to thewinchester. you still did not address most of my concerns raised below. my behaviour with editing the article was very limited once the reversion to the major article. you even admit that you lack WP:AGF because you are working on other articles with trolling. My edits were not trolling. Why did you have such a big issue with the 3 minor edits? please answer the question. Michellecrisp 04:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Dear TheWinchester, your vandalism warning is unwarranted for a number of reasons. Your aggression shows a lack of good faith.
 * you have assumed bad faith. see WP:AGF. look at my history on a number of topics. everything I do on Wikipedia is to improve it. You have used a level 3 warning which assumes bad faith.
 * Both of you have assumed bad faith with each other. This needs to cool down IMO. Orderinchaos 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

'''Hamersley, Western Australia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.''' Michellecrisp 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * see WP:OWN do you feel an attachment to this article because you are from WA? this is a good faith question.
 * Look carefully at those 3 edits, they are sensible and appropriate and were discussed with User: Recurring dreams these 3 edits were not reverted despite many others talking to me about the article in the meantime. I was told "Minor editing is fine, but just be careful - if you want to do something major, ask the WikiProject." by User:JRG. User:Orderinchaos said "Some of the changes, such as removing the politics line, I do agree with" (emphasis added) which is this edit how is that vandalism? you are clearly wrong. it has been discussed. admittedly not on the Talk Page but here User_talk:Michellecrisp it has been discussed.
 * I've said already since reversion to the "original" version that I will only make if any minor edits. 3 of those were NOT reverted by any editors despite a number of editors seeing it except you.
 * These 3 edits were made before I created the review request at 6:04 on Wikipedia time []. I made NO subsequent edits to the Hamersley article after 6:04 []
 * Your warning said "adding nonsense", please explain to me how those 3 edits were adding or nonsense. I'm assuming good faith here. Nonsense = ''Nonsense is an utterance or written text in what appears to be a human language or other symbolic system, that does not in fact carry any identifiable meaning'
 * Featured Articles are NOT edit free:


 * For the record I don't take it personally - I'm quite happy for it to go to FAR, as it passed an FAC only recently, and neither the assessment guidelines nor the article have changed significantly in the time since, so I think the community will not only back up my view, but will identify minor improvements that can be made, as previous processes have generated. I'd rather this have been done initially rather than mass removals of content on a subject on which you admit you know little - it's one reason why I don't get hugely involved in editing in many areas of Australia, other than vandalism reversion and blatant stripping of advertising and such. I actually restored one of your edits in part, as it was a good one, although the "presently (2007)" needs to stay as in even a month, that will probably have changed.


 * As said above I think we disagree about what constitutes notability (on rereading the sections removed, we're talking about stuff that personally involved the Premier of Western Australia and appeared on page 1 *repeatedly* in the state's major daily newspaper, and was a key recommendation of a report commissioned specifically by the Premier on a city-wide problem). Yes, it is long. I don't deny that. I have been meaning to look at that for a while, a major part of the length is actually the full citation format, but by Wikipedia standards in terms of printed pages it is shorter than many other articles - for example if you look at Pokemon and manga related pages.


 * I guess I just don't understand why you've taken on this issue on an FA when there are *thousands* of articles which have far worse problems which are lying there for months unfixed. I do what I can to fix those, and to fill in areas of the country with minimal coverage, but the more people on board with that, the better - this is wasting valuable time of a number of editors. I think also that you need to heed concerns regarding the aggression and lack of civility with which you have at times approached this endeavour (esp with edit summaries and with some of the comments on the FAR) - we as a community can only work if we work together, and it's taken a long time to get where we are - also means one can avoid reinventing the wheel when new challenges arise. Orderinchaos 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for your comments orderinchaos. to answer your question, I stumbled across Hamersley and it struck me as something that I believe was overly verbose and placed too much notability on minor facts. If FA is a gold standard, I believed that it deserved the highest level of scrutiny. I certainly will be looking at other FA articles in the next few weeks. Your accusation of "aggression and lack of civility" bemuses me, one editor sent me which I believe an inappropriate vandal message and continued to talk behind my back. I have made constructive comments trying to improve it. I am also bemused that a number of WA editors have tried to dissuade me with the argument "well why are you so interested in a relatively minor suburb?" pick on other articles not this (or rather "my") one. It is the right of any legitimate editor to edit any topic in Wikipedia. the processes of consensus, reviewing etc enables one to revert or challenge changes which people have done. Michellecrisp 04:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't questioning the right to do that (in fact, I encourage scrutiny, and certainly don't believe FAs are set in stone for the duration), but more just the tone/language used in parts of this process. It should be noted that I did not support the level 3 warning, and said elsewhere that I felt it was over the top. The fact there are WA editors across the entire spectrum of this debate is a good thing IMO. Had I been in Perth (I will be on Thursday night), I'd have had more time to look into some of the areas - some of the improvements being suggested are good ones. Orderinchaos 03:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point I'm trying to make is that "trying to make one's case" (at least in the way you're doing it) is not really appropriate for WP:FAR. This process is designed to address any lingering issues with featured articles in such a way that they can stay featured articles - people air the issues clearly, and the relevant people (usually those who wrote the article) go and fix them. To essentially go out and try and get the article defeatured (while attacking the authors and not really spelling out issues with the article in detail) is a little bit bizarre, and is why you're getting bemused reactions from some people, including myself. Rebecca 13:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning your right to question the article, but I am questioning your manner. Let me put it another way: the point of WP:FAR is not for people to argue "this article is crap" and "win"; it's to very clearly (and politely) spell out any issues in such a way that the authors and other interested parties can fix them - working with them to fix the article. This is why it's not really appropriate to take this sort of aggressive stance (even to the point of asking the authors not to contribute to the discussion). To this extent, even now, I'm still not sure what exactly your problems with the article are (apart from a few vague statements about conciseness). Rebecca 13:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough, but I dare say if you'd set that out clearly from the beginning and cut the confrontational tone, you'd not have got nearly so hostile a response. Rebecca 13:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
I have met a lot of exceptional editors, their path to attaining the esteem of the community is as varied as their contributions. I would not count myself as one, but I fancy that I know a potentially good one - keep working toward that. Continuing improvement to one's approach and skills is an important process. I will pause and reflect again on my own, after an appropriate interval. Your use of quotes requires the support of diffs, I do not contest the "sweeping statement" quote, but the use of diffs leads another reader to that quote in context. As I pointed out, you have misattributed "why not pick on other FAs or other localities" "why do you show interest in a small suburb in Perth" to a group that includes myself. A diff must be added to this or I ask that you remove it, please. Many others, more experienced than you or I, have attempted to draw attention to more productive means of contributing. Your one note of condolence, appropriately posted in that circumstance, is not a licence to perpetrate the very behaviour you ascribe to your alleged and vaguely defined adversaries. If my tone and content shows encouragement, but betrays my weariness, then I hope you will credit that to my wish to be earnest and unaffected. Please attend to the problem of quotes on my talk. Thanks, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  09:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [Emph added] ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  10:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 *  ... It's pretty obvious who it is and you are in regular contact with this user. Recent contact, so what? Can I say no other editor has displayed a genuine lack of civility to me. Of course, but you repeated an accusation that contradicts this. I have added emphasis above and repeat my request remove it, or supply the substantial number of diff links required to support your desultory claims.  ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍  contributions  10:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion with you has become unproductive. You are seem to be skimming my comments only to fuel your indignation; you have failed to address anything I have said, except to digress to another tirade. You have made another public accusation against my integrity and transparency, As for the other editor you pretended to not know who I was talking about, .... I am reluctant to waste anothers time with this pointlessness, feel free to get a third opinion or have me reviewed. You have not felt it appropriate to recant your accusations, so I am making a clear request: Do not post on my talk page again, please. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am seeking clarification on what statement you find so offensive, I will happily remove anything that contradicts Wikipedia policy. please point out by diffs specific statements, or I will think this is an ambit claim. Is it really public accusation if you have an anonymous username on Wikipedia? Is your pride hurt, I do apologise in good faith. As I said every accusation/misinterpreted statement flies around on Wikipedia, I was once accused of being someone else in real life on Wikipedia! you have failed to address anything I have said I have provided you diffs on what I thought you were asking, I answered your "so what" question. You yourself have admitted your weary, so please don't let out your frustration on Hamersley or other things on me. Michellecrisp 12:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Completely left field - but I doubt Fred's frustration relates to Hamersley - apart from reading it once before I submitted it for FAC, he's had no involvement in it. Orderinchaos 03:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have left some comments on the FAR 1 that you may wish to consider/rebutt/as you please. Just notifying you. Thanks. Twenty Years 02:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Michellecrisp 02:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thuringowa edits
Hi can you tell me why you removed this as i feel that it IS important info "This facility can treat 34 different types of patients and medical conditions" Thank you Thuringowacityrep 03:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, i only asked because before i ever add any info, i look at other wiki pages to see what they list and i go by that, i seen a lot of pages saying that the Hospital or Medical centre can treat this and that and has one of the best etc, so again sorry to have troubled you i just thought i had added the right amount of info. Thanks Thuringowacityrep 08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi this sentance "The Reds normally play their home games at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane" is Not notable, i don't know who added it or when and i never even seen it there, so thank you for removing it and thanks also for moving the sports part, i was going to move it soon but i am trying to find all the refs needed for this part, i'm getting to it. thanks again Thuringowacityrep 07:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that... i read it wrong i feel bad now, i thought you had removed it but after looking at it again (with my eye's open) i can see what you done, sorry again. Thuringowacityrep 08:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs
The blog is quoting what crikey said. He did say those words, don't just remove the citation; find one more reliable to replace it. Timeshift 12:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that sentiment. Tagging articles is important, but adding content and references is more useful. Recurring dreams 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course but tagging is the first step to clarification and verification. I'll add verify source tag. Michellecrisp 13:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Stavanger
On June 20th you added a POV-template to Stavanger, claiming the neutrality of the article is in dispute. However, you seem to have forgotten to mention on the talk-page what exactly the dispute is supposed to be about. So I'll remove the POV for now, but feel free to re-add it with an explanation of what exactly is disputed. Other than that, I want to thank you for having pointed out several weak areas in the same article, I'll make my best to remove the advertising-like language from the relevant sections. --Eivind Kjørstad 10:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying the POV-issue, I agree the section in question is opinion. Don't know how I managed to overlook the tag on my first read-trough. I'll attempt fixing it. Would you mind if I asked you to have a look-over after I try to improve the article somewhat, to see if I've suceeded ? (I don't trust my own judgement on my own writing, so I'd hesitate to remove tags based on improvements made by me) --Eivind Kjørstad 11:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thuringowa
Hi thank you, i can see where you are coming from but with me if someone remove's text or info that i have added, im cool with it, as long as thay tell me why it was removed so that i know how to fix any probs that info may have had. Thanks again and if i do add info or a ref that you feel is wrong can you please drop me a quick line telling me what it is that is wrong so i can get on to fixing it fast and correct the first time.

take care Thuringowacityrep 02:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Myer
Appreciate your edits to this article. Good to have some fresh eyes looking in on this and it's now more encyclopedic as a result. This, together with articles such as Kmart (Australia) and BI-LO (Australia) have suffered by and large to date from operational detail clearly written by insiders. Murtoa 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wagga Wagga / history
Hi Michelle, sorry to say I haven't gotten back on that particular hobby horse just yet. I am also very concerned about the Indigenous Australians huge History section, which is equally woefull - even though there is a History of Indigenous Australians.

Unfortunately summary style has not been usefully applied to either of these articles, and I'm not particularly great at it. I can wield a scalpel, but I can't particularly write new prose to concisely summarise the "History of..." articles. Garrie 04:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Canberra
My apologies, I thought the claims were present before the article was promoted, and some user has just gone through and added fact tags to them, which I think is silly because it is just like sticking a giant bumper sticker on the top of the article that says "unreliable". I dislike these little tags, and whenever I see them I try to remove whatever claim is stuck to them, which is wrong. Sometimes sources are hard to come by, and some topics have many sources that could be cited but these sources are unreliable. I guess that's just how the wiki works, eh? ;) Kind regards, Sebi  &#91; talk &#93; 07:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, thank you for contacting me about it. I usually check the history and consult the user who added something that I removed, but had a gut feeling that it was added ages ago. Sebi  &#91; talk &#93; 08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Signing
Hi,

I saw you added a comment on User talk:Tuddy which I happen to be watching since I've commented there before. I noticed you failed to sign your comment using the four tildes - see WP:SIG. I'm adding the unsigned comment marker for you. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 08:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An Invitation to join Saskatchewan WikiProject
Welcome! Mumun 無文 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Regina, Saskatchewan articles on Wikipdia
Is kindness as to your -- with the greatest of respect -- odd English now considered racist in Australia? I hadn't known! Thank you for advising me and the wider Wikipedia community. But if now you propose to enter into the fray as to the editing of Wikipedia articles, especially as to matters that are far beyond your ken, dear Madam, you must allow your -- again with the greatest of respect -- seriously substandard English now to be edited with all due punctilio. Incidentally, though, may we kindly suggest that you consider international standards as to the matter of footnotes and other citations. You might want to consult any number of universally-accorded textbooks as to standard English. The MLA might be a place to start. Kind regards. Masalai 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PS You might want to consider making positive contributions to Wikipedia as to facts as well as merely attacking other contributors' contributions. Masalai 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not attacked other users' contributions. Do not interpret adding tags or removing of duplicated info or things that do not meet WP:N as an attack. WP:CITE. Use of the word "attack" says a lot in this context. Michellecrisp 04:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of racism
Ms Michelle Crisp: you made allegations of racism, to which I made the following response:


 * "Is kindness as to your seriously defective English now considered racist in Australia? I hadn't known! Thank you for advising me and the wider Wikipedia community. But if now you propose to enter into the fray as to the editing of Wikipedia articles, especially as to matters that are far beyond your ken, dear Madam, you must allow your seriously defective English now to be edited with all due punctilio."

You want to be very very careful about such allegations. You are of course protected by the anonymity of Wikipedia. Do you care to disclose your identity? It would be of considerable interest to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait community that you bandy about the term "racist." Masalai 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Be civil"
 * Oh, dear madam, I note that you have urged on my user page that I "be civil." I shall try. Thank you indeed. Shall I in future post such messages on your own user page? One notes the obvious defects as to civility, grammar and spelling in your many overtures to overseas Wikipedia contributors. May one assume that the usual Wikipedia norms pertain? Kind regards, dear Madam. Masalai 22:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Masalai. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''I can understand that you two are in a content dispute, but the way both of you acted hasn't been the best. Can I suggest a cup of tea all around and then some considered effort to work well with each other. If there's anything I can do to help please don't hesitate to ask.'' Thewinchester (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to make ad hominem attacks such as yours above, and anyone who read the Hammersley FAR to which you have made a veiled reference to would disagree with your inappropriate (and Non-AGF) characterisation of my comments. You're both in the wrong on this one, and you need to step back quickly and sort it out now. Thewinchester (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For all to see . Michellecrisp 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO ALL USERS my talk page is not a battleground to air previous grievances. Any such comment will be removed. Michellecrisp 07:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
You should consider registering an e-mail address with Wikipedia.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Regina, Saskatchewan
Thank you for your recent involvement in the Wikipedia articles on Regina, Saskatchewan. One wonders, though, what the nature of your interest in this part of the world might be. It is clear from your other contributions to Wikipedia that you are not a native anglophone, though it must be said that you do remarkably well in English, despite your obvious difficulties with English. And for that, our compliments.

It appears that you are located in Australia. Are you an aboriginal Australian? In that case, welcome to Wikipedia, and our sincere compliments on your splendid command of English, considering your disadvantaged background! You do very well, it must be said. We in Canada are very well aware of the difficulties that aboriginal Australians face in confronting the 21st century.

But (I hope it is not offensive to say it to an aboriginal Australian) possibly there will be a coach who can help you in dealing with the vagaries of the English language. Despite our aforesaid compliments, you have a great deal of progress yet to make in attaining fluency in English. It is indeed a very difficult language.

Our sincere compliments on your progress thus far, but may one suggest that you explore the possibility of becoming somewhat more fluent in English before you start wholesale deleting sections of articles on the English-speaking Wikipedia instead of making contributions? We are sure that there must be coaches in basic English in Australia who can help you with attaining fluency in English. And then you will be able not only to make deletions from Wikipedia articles and to put tags on them demanding citations, but actually to make substantive contributions.

We look forward to your future contributions, which we hope will be ones of contributing information, and constructive rather than destructive. And good luck with becoming fluent in English! It can be done, we assure you, and our very best wishes!

Masalai 12:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can anyone see the WP:OWN and racist assumptions that all Aboriginal Australians have problems with English above? Michellecrisp 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have left a message on Masalai's talk page. I fail to see how this attack was warranted. LibStar 01:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Masalai removed the relevant parts from his talk-page. I agree, his comments to you here, and even more the ones he made on his own talk page are completely inacceptible, and amount to a mixture of personal attacks and downrigth racism towards Aboriginees. Let's hope the deletion is a sign that he wants to put the entire thing behind him. (oops, forgot to sign, sorry about that.. --Eivind Kjørstad 12:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I think, the thing some editors react poorly to is people who themselves haven't spent much energy actually improving an article, then swooping in an adding lots of problem-tags, such as NPOV and ADVERT and suchlike. They feel pecked on, as if adding these tags is indication that their work was useless or not "good enough". I don't *agree* with this mind you, and it's unwikipedian. But I *understand* it. Outside editors reviewing an article and pointing out weak points is however a very valuable contributions. But it takes some maturity to see such critisism as constructive attempts at helping improvement, and not as attacks. You're very much welcome to tag to death any article I've ever touched, I'll be flattered, 'cos I'll think it means I've written about something relevant and/or important. --Eivind Kjørstad 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

run-on sides
They belong on the 2007 season page, yet the Storm do not yet a page. Londo06 06:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Standard on the 15 biggest European sides along with many other NRL sides, most who have 2007 pages. I will look to set up a 2007 Melbourne page, as it is the standard to stick it on that page, when available. Londo06 06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tourism in India
Thanks for that, much appreciated. I will continue to look at ways of improving the article and others. Thanks User:Mindys12345 12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tourism in Europe
With the tourism in Europe article I wouldn't mind expanding on that article, but I wouldn't really know were to start, mainly becuase I don't know all that much about Europe and the article itself would end up being to long. So I am kind of undecided at the moment, I might have some ideas in future. User:Mindys1234512:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think someone has tried to have the article deleted, but the request was refused by Stephen, who stated that it was a notable subject. I am kind of neutral at this point, unless I can think of something to add to the article. User:Mindys1234512:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Masalai continues
Michelle you may want to see this continual attack and lack of good faith on you and lack of contrition on their part. I have left a response on Masalai's talk page. LibStar 11:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP issues
Hi Michelle, I noticed that some time ago you removed the primarysources tag from the Karen Tso article. Recently I have noticed that various edits have been made to the article which alter the sequence of which network she was on, when.

With this in mind, the primarysources and / or unreferenced tags are clearly required as they each indicate that the article has not been created from multiple independent sources, and as such, the text may well not be very accurate. Which I definately believe to be the case in this article.

So I have restored the primarysources tag. I will re-read the article, it may not even have that much information and might need an unreferend tag instead.Garrie 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Manly Sea Eagles - Ongoing Edits
I've got a condensed history now in the History page, but am taking on the suggestions of others adapting the style of the Eastern Suburbs page into the Manly content.

Please note that major changes do take time, especially when this task is far from my major lifes concern. I'd suggest you not bother looking through the Manly page for another couple of weeks, thus providing a suitable timeframe for the various amendments to be incorporated.

Your suggestion with the banner was much appreciated. Could you please suggest a more suitable banner for use over a longer period of time, to prevent ad-hoc amendments on items which were already likely to be changed/removed at a later date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manly1124 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 31 July 2007