User talk:Michellecrisp/Archives/2008/September

Interesting
Hi, you may be interested in this development. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Museums of Valencia
I've noticed that you have removed the list of Museums of the town of Valencia, which I posted copying it from the German Wikipedia. I can accept that the list can be excessive, but it's also excessive to leave only one museum, as if there was only one museum in the town. Perhaps I should have posted only the most important, since there were in the list some really unknown museums, but there is a very big difference between such a long list and only one museum. Perhaps a list with the most important museums would be most appropriate.--Toni PC (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures in Tourism
Hi there. I noticed you are a regular editor in the Tourism article. It was open a discussion regarding the criteria for inclusion of pictures in the article. The article tends to get very crowded with pics, because, as one editor says, everybody wants to show off their vacations pics. Would you mind to drop by and give us your opinion. Thanks. --Mariordo (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

SUEU page
Hi Michellecrisp - Donald Robinson was the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney. He is definitely as notable as Peter Jensen or Marcus Loane - he just doesn't have a Wiki page. Paul White is a well-known Australian missionary to Africa who wrote children's books - again, very notable but no Wiki page. I agree with you about the rest. Please reply here. JRG (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This all needs citation then to verify notability. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You only need a citation to verify the notability of the actual page, not for links within it. I have references to show that both those people were in the SUEU at one time, though, if that would be ok. There are multiple references on that organisation within a number of books, but I don't have time to add them add the moment. Please also assume good faith for Moffdog - he is a user who has not made many contributions and does not deserve a warning. A small note telling him what you want to say would be sufficient. JRG (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, like I've seen in notable residents, if the person doesn't have a Wiki page all it needs is a citation to prove that they were connected to this organisation/entity/place. You can't just list names without some evidence backing it up, otherwise Wikipedia would be full of lists of people with no citation be back them up. Moffdog is a single purpose editor who has repeatedly reverted without consensus. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Moffdog is acting in good faith. Please don't warn him in bad faith but help him to understand the rules of Wiki. Threats and edit summaries in capital letters don't help. JRG (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a threat I'm following procedure. After 3 warnings in a short period without cessation of behaviour, is enough to justify reporting. I have good faith in the initial phases but simply continually reverting without consultation is not good practice. This is a behavioiur I typically do not see in new users. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michelle,

I'm just learning how this wiki thing works, so I would appreciate it if you would give me a break.

Also, the EU doesn't need wikipedia to advertise, it's doing a pretty good job as it is.

The plan with the exec is to have a list of the past 80 years worth of exec up, as this society has made a huge, if somewhat unseen, impact on Australian Christian culture and Australian socity in general.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moffdog (talk • contribs) 06:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle
A check at www.archive.org reveals that the page you mentioned doesn't have a history before 29 August 2007 so it's a big call to say that information present on Wikipedia in January 2006 is a copyvio of something that didn't exist for another 19 months. Last night, in this edit, you claimed the same information was a copyvio of another site that apparently didn't exist until even later. Incidentally, if you look at that site you'll see that much of the information is lifted directly from Wikipedia.

Regarding this edit, the citation wasn't removed. It was moved for consistency with other citations and converted from a bare url reference to a full citation, again to make it consistent with the rest of the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The world's largest coal export port
Regarding this edit, the url you've cited doesn't say that Hebei is the world's largest coal export port. It says that Hebei is going to build the world's largest port. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Are they fishy sockpuppets or is it another debate? The single purpose accoounts in the Fish Information Services debate have been labelled as SPA - not sure we can do anything else but yes instructions to Ignore All Rules and the WP:NOT arguments seem similar. --Matilda talk 04:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And the shared interest in Monmouth School. Euryalus (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What has Monmouth school go to do with the price of Fish? If nothing - then sockpuppetry is likely I guess - I had missed the earlier contributions of one editor . I will report. --Matilda talk 05:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good and so you should Matilda. As for you Michelle - good second return to GP's comment. Best wishes.-- VS  talk 05:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sock-puppetry now proven - see diffs (I started off with a warning for their Personal Attack on you but then quickly realised the error they had made in showing us they are the same editor). Best wishes.-- VS  talk 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Homebush Boys High School
Hi. I admire and support your vaunted principles of bold editing. However, please explain your apparently discriminatory removal of 'uncited' entries under Notable alumni. As well as uncited (but wikilinked) former purported federal minister Jim Lloyd, you have removed SU emeritus professors Richard Collins and Ian Dance, whose credentials are backed by reliable citations and whose entries were NOT citation-tagged. Eg, the ABC reference for Collins includes the quote: My first science teacher at Homebush Boys’ High School, Mr Cullen, taught us physics and chemistry in the context of the potential of science to benefit society. On the other hand, you have NOT removed the following three entries, viz, Stephen Leeder, Alan Pettigrew and Danny Stiel AM, whose entries ARE citation-tagged (but are undoubtably capable of citation by a conscientious editor). I am reverting your edits as perceived vandalism pending full substantiation of your summary "rm uncited since Nov 07 and non notable)". Cheers Bjenks (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your incomplete reply on my talk page. Please now also address my criticism of your perceived discriminatory decision to excise untagged items while not excising tagged items. I will be taking issue later with your opinion that the specific professors are not notable and/or that it is not of note for a school to have produced alumni who became important professors. Regards Bjenks (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The professors are certainly notable enough to sustain separate articles. That this has not yet been done is not sufficient ground for you to attempt to downgrade them. If you will not answer my questions, how am I to "assume" good faith&mdash;which, in such matters, is capable of being sincerely demonstrated. Perhaps you should be making fewer arbitrary deletions and giving more consideration to the valid standards and needs of fellow-Wikipedians. Regards Bjenks (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your points don't strike me as showing good or constructive judgement. I wanted to know why you deleted, eg, Emeritus Prof. Richard Collins when his inclusion is well supported by a reliable, independent citation. You made some unhelpful remarks about "good faith" while declining to answer my reasonable request. Agreed, you can simply ignore such requests&mdash;any of us can, but not while claiming "good faith". However, maybe we're at cross purposes. Let us agree to disagree and move on. I must apologise for applying the term 'perceived vandalism' which I now accept was unwarranted. Bjenks (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits to HBHS alumni are unconstructive. I "know" that all the people in the list were there (because I was and have the school annual magazines from the 1960s to prove it. But I am sure you not regard them as "independent". I do not know why you deleted Darrel Chapman. As a former captain of South Sydney and a Kangaroo tourist he is certainly notable and then there is his subsequent significant academic career. I will revert most of your changes. I am sure that you will appreciate that the verifiable independent citations can take months to acquire - as they did for Bob Debus and Rod Howie. Please do not revert good faith edits that are included for illumination Albatross2147 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you accept year and page no from the school magazine? 10 month citation tags doesn't seem like too long to me. It just happens to be your opinion. There are more important issues here for busybodies to concern themselves with I would have thought. Or is there some sore of political bias in your edits ie. a public funded school in inner city ethnic land (as it was even in the 1960s) could not possibly have such a illustrious list? Albatross2147 (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been reading through your talk. You seem to have a bit of a crusade going on... perhaps a backwards step would be in order... just saying. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Because this threat by email also seems to extend to you ...
... I am notifying you of these details at my talk page.-- VS talk 07:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fish Information Service second AFD
Can you please add a subsection to the AFD listing explaining your justification for why the previous AFD, which clearly did have a sockpuppet issue (Spindoctor69 / Redgator5), was affected in a manner which prevented reasonable discussion there?

On first impression, reading the combined two AFDs and all the talk page side comments, even if one completely excludes all contributions from Spindoctor69 and socks, there was significant multi-participant discussion on both sides, and the "no consensus" appears to be a correct close even completely excluding Spindoctor69's contributions.

Under the circumstances, you need to demonstrate credibly that there was more than just sockpuppet participation, but that the socks unrecoverably disrupted the discussion or changed the outcome. As far as I can tell, neither of those is true. That a sockpuppeteer stepped in does not mean that an AFD must be re-run immediately afterwards.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene
It's becoming clear that he wants me off Wikipedia (which I have no Idea why). If his going to try and drive me off this Wiki then his making a big mistake. Bidgee (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)