User talk:Michellecrisp/Archives/2008/June


KLIA Operations and Infrastructures

Hi there. Good job for moving the section into a new page. However, please do a short summary on each section in the main article. Thanks! Jannisri (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane Lions "Stats"

Hi! Have you read the article clearly enough for your explanation in your edit summary. This is what it says:

  • "Statistics. Long and sprawlinglists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. "

Quite clearly these "stats" are not long and sprawling, they are neccessary to keep track of the club's progreess and give a much clearer idea on the club's progression (this is one of the main ideas of an encyclopaedia) and it's in a table; nice, neat and easy to read. So what is the problem with putting them on the page? Shaggy9872004 (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I just received your message. I don't think (and neither does Wiki "there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content") that it shouldn't be there. The reason we need those things from 2005 onwards is because Brisbane is still a young club. It can handle that much information; further more we don't need to give ggraphs from 2001-2004 becuase we know they won the premiership. As for it being not in context - we can ezil move those graphs for them to be in context and it isn't easy to find that info on the internet (apart from the season articles for AFL which don't give easy to read info for Brisbane it self anyway). It is neccessary for this info to be displayed if there is need of it, at the moment, there is.Shaggy9872004 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've just tweaked and moved the tables. I hope we have afinal decision.--Shaggy9872004 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation

Brisbane Meetup
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hey there, you're invited to the second Brisbane Meetup. Please see the page at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/2 for more details. Hope to see you there!

Automated message delivered by Giggabot (stop!) to Wikipedians in Queensland and known Brisbaneites, at 03:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

Hey, thanks for adding yourself User:Giggy/Brisbaneites (and thanks for your contributions!)... just wondering if you have any date preferences for the meet (if you're interested)? giggy (:O) 04:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Vyner Brooke

I can count 5 sources. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bexley

Hi, with regards to my edit to the article Bexley, the fictional location of New Old Melbourne Town is in Bexley. I felt that therefore it belongs in the pop culture section of the article.

Thankyou, Kingutd (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


The professor

Yes, I was quite surprised to see my user name listed there. It's made me even more committed to ensure that the article remains balanced and tells the whole truth. I don't think the "threats" can be raised formally in WP unless he tries to edit under his own name. Stay vigilant! Best wishes, WWGB (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Preston

Hey Michelle. Just a quick note to thank you for the little tidying up you've been doing on the Preston page. I've been checking it for a while but didn't know where to start he. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

University of Canberra

Thanks for keeping an eye on and editing this page. -- Jtneill - Talk 13:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten

  • I was no longer watching the article and certainly had not referred back to his website since. Just re-added to my watchlist and admired the talk page. Our defence is definitely WP:V and WP:NOR. All facts ont eh public record and I can't see the identity fraud claim given the public record - nor sure what it is based on. Obviously some unpleasant memories for Edelsten brought up in that aticle but I don't think it breaches WP:BLP. Thanks for letting me know. Regards --Matilda talk 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah waded through to page 18. I knew there was a reason for remaining strictly pseudonymous! I am not sure how though he might proceed about Action will be taken to name and shame and if necessary legal proceedings will be instituted. I am prepared to stand by my edits. --Matilda talk 06:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to the PDF in some depth at the article's talk page. I honestly can't see what Wiki can do to meet his concerns - nothing is unreferenced and the key facts are repeated over 100 times in the media. Orderinchaos 11:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Note

Please be careful about the T-word?[1] Thanks, --Elonka 02:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking

Hi, he hasn't yet breached WP:LEGAL since he's talking in hypothetical terms. He knows full well his edits are being watched by at least three of us, and although sailing close to the wind, hasn't yet crossed the line. When and if he does, however, we can wave him goodbye. Keep me posted, please. --Rodhullandemu 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I know he's been blocked before, but at present, irritating though it may be, he's not breaching policy. I will keep an eye on things. --Rodhullandemu 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i have just read all of the pages you said that this link violates, and i can't see where it says that this link can't be used. Can you please explain why. Plus i didn't say that the link that you removed has been around for a while, i was talking about the link above it that has been used for some time Climate charts of Townsville and places nearby (S.H.R. & U.A.) so why not re-add the link to this website The Insects and Plants of Townsville and see if any one else has a problem, because this site has a lot of really good info....thanks Thuringowacityrep (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Cool thanks but i have to ask if the site you removed is a personal website isn't this one too [2] as it says on the main page that it was made by me (the persons website) and yet this page can stay, i may have missed something and if i have I'm sorry but it is a real shame that the site you removed can not stay as it seems to have lots of good info for the Townsville area. I'm sorry about the comment on editors that tag....I'm still getting over the tagging attack on one of the pages i put a lot of work into some time back, and then a month or so later the same tagger went and removed almost all of the info that i had refed....anywhy thanks again. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up invite to the Brisbane Meetup

You have hereby been invited to the Brisbane wiki-meetup which is going to be happening sometime in the next few weeks.

Brisbane Meetup
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

While your confirmation of attendance is not entirely required, it is recommended for the booking of the location which we will be attending (suggestions are needed!). If you are going to be attending, please sign your name under the relative available dates on the meetup information page. We look forward to seeing you there!

This invitation has been sent by ENewsBot on 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Replied at my talk page. Orderinchaos 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Need Clarification

I dont' understand this; please expand or I can't act as you suggest: "If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. I ask you to cease trying to circumvent the Deletion process." I haven't done anything that has been edited extensively. And I don't know what the reference to redistribution means. I didn't write this article, I merely edited it at one point for quality of prose and neutrality. Then we got into this debate, you and I did, in which you responded by submitting the article for deletion. No one on the deletion site has said that was an appropriate choice. Having read the deletion procedures, I suggested it should close. Please show me if there is a policy to suggest I should not have.

Again, specifics please.

Incidentally, I take no ownership over this, any more than you do. I simply disagree with you.

By the way, when will you stop putting the notability tag up? Since this debate began, at least half the debaters agreed with the article's notability and I added an extremely solid third party reference to the law school's notability. Will you always dispute notability, no matter how I respond to your suggestions? Should I give up? Or simply play cat-and0mouse with you and keep deleting the notability tag? Surely it is worth erring on the side of leaving the tag off it this site is important to someone; why it is important to you to erase the site, I do not know.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusionist

You wrote "Please keep discussion to article not me." Does this mean you regret the reference you made to my motives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osloinsummertime (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrapping up, I have learned that responding to an editing debate by trying to delete the article is a big waste of time and energy of everyone involved on WP. Only two, including yourself, voted for deletion. Why try to delete it when you can alternatively do the research and make it a better article? (E.g. why ask for sources on notability, when you can provide them yourself?) Incidentally, you were wrong about ownership--I don't care what happens to any article on WP, since there are always other sources. Just some friendly words of critique.124.185.30.251 (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Osloinsummertime (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing Ipoh

Thank you for cleaning up the page on Ipoh. I have been trying to do so but dare not edit it to avoid removing essential information. From your edit, I have seen how a cleanup can be done.

Does further cleanup need to be done? If not I think the cleanup banner can be removed.

By the way, I saw on your talk page that you're from Brisbane. How do you edit things on Ipoh without being afraid of altering its true meaning?

Can you put something on Ipoh talk page? Thank you very much for your effort.Mhching (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirby article

Please be aware of the WP:3RR policy. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to warn User:JRG about it? --Damiens.rf 06:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Michellecrisp! Thank you for my first ever barnstar! Mvjs (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

Please do not instruct someone to read a policy in an edit summary. It's at the very least impolite and at the most contentious. I have read WP:Layout. You are changing a section of web citations and sources only. The policy says: "A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a document that comments on, and may cite a reference for, a part of the main text." The policy further says "If this is done then name the section "References" unless some of the footnotes are notes and not citations, in which case name the section "Notes and references"." This section is composed entirely of citations to magazines, web pages and other linkable sources, with direct sourcing given for each citation. The only valid criticism might be that the section be named References, but there is nothing in this article that qualifies the section to be a combined section, as there is no instance of a footnote without citation. Let me reiterate, there are no footnotes without citation, which per policy, would be the case if the section were to be named "Notes and references" (note also that both words would not be capitalized, as per MOS:CAPS#Section headings. I am changing this back to a single title. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so on the talk page and not in the edit summary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)