User talk:WallyBG7767

November 2018
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Longhair\talk 05:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I have renamed your account from Fishwickhouse to this name. Someone else will review your request, but I suspect that they will tell you that you will need to review conflict of interest and agree to only make edit requests on the article's talk page instead of editing the article directly. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional reading suggested by Fishwick house owners.
I have read Wiki’s Conflict of Interest page and wholly concur with its intent. I understand that my part-ownership of Griffin’s Fishwick house puts me in a COI position with regard to any editing of its Wiki page. However, given that I have lived in the house for 45 years, helped plan and supervise three major restorations, which were aided by four separate grants from both the Australian federal and NSW state governments, and have for some 20 years been an active member of the Walter Burley Griffin Society (of which my husband is a past-president), I hope you would agree that I am well-qualified to contribute to improving the current Wiki entry which is deficient in a number of aspects, discussed below. I am proposing a series of three edits, for which I now seek your approval in principle, plus the addition of some images. With your concurrence the three edits would be entered onto this page at about two-monthly intervals, allowing me sufficient time to gather high-quality material for you or another editor to upload. All such material will be from objective sources with appropriate documentation and references.

The proposed changes are:

Edit I Reduce its length. Every paragraph in the current entry has been “lifted” word-for- word off the formal listing report prepared by the NSW Heritage Office, yet this entire report is freely available on the internet. My proposal is to select just two or three concise and informative paragraphs to remain in the entry, with the other material to be removed but accessible through links to the HO site.

Edit II Add a section on the prominence & significance of the house. Authoritative sources are on record stating the house to be of international significance, one of the most celebrated early 20th century houses in Australia and amongst Griffin’s most important buildings. Yet the current entry is restricted to its Heritage qualities. My proposal is to introduce a new section comprising explicit references to the importance of the house from books, academic articles, documentaries and reports from professional architectural bodies.

Edit III Increase the number and breadth of its sources. Almost all the article’s references, bibliography entries and attributions are from the 2006 NSW Heritage Office report. Many have little relevance. Since its mid 1990s restoration the house has been prominently featured in 27 books, academic and magazine articles, radio and TV documentaries and exhibitions. Concurrently, interest in Griffin has increased markedly in both the US and Australia. Therefore a very rich amount of important additional material on both Griffin and the house exists but is not currently referenced. My proposal is to prepare a well-balanced list of sources, especially those which would be of particular interest to researchers and students. WallyBG7767 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You may wish to post your comments to Talk:Fishwick House and request edits to the article due to your conflict of interest. -- Longhair\talk 22:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)