User talk:Michellecrisp/Archives/2008/March

Townsville page
can you please tell me how a comment from Peter Lindsay is not a reliable source...he said it in House of Representatives. Plus i used those 2 ref's only due to the fact that i had so many to pick from. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Population/Demographics
It concerns me to see that you have started deleting the demographics sections from some of the Sydney suburb articles. Population is one of the important sections that we are trying to expand in all articles and is one of the areas that is judged when rating these articles. Please have a look at the article for Ashfield, New South Wales, which has one of the highest ratings of suburb articles and is closest to being complete. I agree that in some cases the section is a bit long and could be trimmed but can you please reconsider the complete removal of this important information from these articles? J Bar (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * hi, I agree that not everything should be removed but the presentation of large chunks of stats copied from the Census is excessive in my opinion. I will look to reinstate some of the more important stats in the next few days. thanks Michellecrisp (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks. J Bar (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Commercial Areas
I've been keeping track of all the changes to Sydney suburbs and I've also noticed that you've been deleting the details about shops/shopping centres from some the Commercial Area scetions, while many other editors have been making an effort to provide more details. Just thought I'd let you know becaiuse it seems like you're deleting stuff that everyone is trying to expand on.

My personal view is that it's not too bad to have some details like supermarkets, department stores and big businesses because it gives people a good idea about how big the commercial area is. But I don't like it when editors get carried away and list every shop and business. Maybe we should have something in between?

If we can come up with some sort of standard, we can avoid the edits/revert battle that seems to be going on. What do you think? J Bar (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten
An apparent single-purpose account humbly calling itself has appeared at the biography, and shows every sign of attempting a whitewash. You might want to keep an eye on things. --Calton | Talk 10:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently there's only one citation from a non-primary source versus quite a few primary sources. I suspect this article may turn out to be a BLP headache. Andjam (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Self proclaimed censor
Michelle - unless you represent Wikipedia then do not go around telling myself or other people what to do or how to do it. It is obvious you have decided to self appoint yourself as an expert on all things Wikipedia and what does and does not belong in various articles. It is also obvious you have some self appointed role to format articles in wikipedia as YOU yourself would like to see them. In the politest possible terms - PLEASE LEAVE Wikipedia alone. Unless you actually want to CONTRIBUTE something your edits are most unwelcome. STOP removing information that you have no idea or knowledge about because you don't want to see it there.

If you have some official affiliation with or mandate from Wikipedia, then I'd be interested to hear of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjmcgrath (talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

North Rocks, New South Wales
You might want to check out the history section, it's way too long and unreferenced! Michellecrisp (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns about the length of History section and the lack of references. I'll see what I can do about improving this situation, when I get the opportunity. But I must say that I also share the concerns about losing so much information from any of these articles. I'd rather see anything unreferenced or poorly written, replaced by improved information rather than simply having it deleted. The danger of tagging articles for references is that it can lead to other editors taking upon themselves to easily delete information soon after and I've seen it happen often. It may be important or relevant information that has not been pointed to a particular reference but it's lost and nobody else bothers to rewrite it later so the article remains incomplete. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikifactsright
Hi there! Just dropping by in regards to this. Editors may remove warnings from their talk page; if anything, that is a guarantee they've read them. I've made this clear to the user. I've also made it clear that he isn't allowed to twist warnings around. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He may be unsure of what he's doing, but he's just misinterpreting policy. His motives seem to be in the name of the 'pedia. Some patience and discussion may be all that is needed; I'm not going to block him for being new, though. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  07:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked, and I'm denying his unblock request due to the nature of his edit warring. If he continues after his block expires I'll block him again; hopefully he listens to reason. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  14:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi - I wouldn't bother pursuing the question of Do you know Edelsten or not? with him He has declined to answer.  I think we just follow appropriate steps in regards to his edits regardless of stated conflict of interest.  COI is after all only a guideline and even if he said yes - the follow-up question would be "so what?"  What matters is his edits and attempts to distort the article.  We need to ensure the article is free from POV and complies with other policies.  To ensure balance I added reference to his medical practice innovations - they are what made him notable at the time.  Sadly they were followed by deregistration, jail, ... and those incidents should be included too.  Regards Matilda talk 20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's been an interesting twist in the tale - I am following it up. Orderinchaos 22:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See this. Orderinchaos 04:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate COI is a concern but it is only a concern. Per Policies and guidelines policies take precedence over guidelines and eventually guidelines do not stick.  I think we need to stick to the policies which unfortunately these days favour removal of material rather than keeping it in.  The most important one to enforce to my mind is Neutral point of view - which states All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This policy seems to preclude the removal of material that is supported by WP:RS and which can be seen to provide balance to the article. Regards Matilda talk 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten
Please restrict your comments on the talk page for this article to collaboration on the improvement of the article, rather than calling other editors disruptive. You are misinterpreting policy when you say things like "any removal of cited, referenced material is disruptive editing"; that is simply not the case. Cited material may be removed for stylistic purposes, for NPOV purposes, certainly for BLP purposes. Your comments on that talk page are becoming increasingly hostile, with insinuations that editors are personal proxies of Mr. Edelsten. It's not helpful, and I'd ask that you stop. Please also note that this article has been subjected to scrutiny under the OTRS legal queue as the result of a complaint. Please do not revert any edits regarding that OTRS ticket without prior discussion with the OTRS representative (that would be me.) Thanks. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  13:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I have blocked Wikifactsright from editing. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosford, New South Wales
I spent ages last night trying to improve the Gosford site to find its been deleted. For starters the introduction sounds ridiculous- "Gosford is the main city of the Central Coast of New South Wales, located approximately 50 km north of the Sydney Central Business District (CBD) as the crow flies, but somewhat further by road due to the shape of the coastline". Surely that can be re-worded. Gosford is one of the largest cities in NSW and it has a very poor Wikipedia site that I was trying to improve. Talking about the ailing CBD is not my point of view, it is the belief of the entire community. Certainly I would be more qualified to make statements about Gosford, as I actually live here. It is a major issue here which is well publicised in the media. Also, the revitalisation plans are on the Gosford City website. It wasn't written that they were being constructed or anything, simply that they were proposed. It would be far more appreciated that instead of deleting the information that was put on this page to give people more accurate information on Gosford, make suggestions on how it can be improved, or that references and sources should be added.