User talk:Michellecrisp/Archives/2008/January

Brisbane meetup

	Brisbane Meetup Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Delivered on behalf of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Sorry you got this later than some other people - took the lazy botop 2 days to run :) Giggabot (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your work on Cardiff

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Just a little token of appreciation on your recent editing work on Cardiff, especially catching all the Cruftiness, Peacockisms and unreferenced sections that were littering the article. Diolch am fawr! B e t t i at a l k  11:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Bay, New South Wales

Don't you think it would be better to look for some references to add to existing articles, rather than just deleting information that is important to articles? J Bar (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff

Whilst I understand and appreciate your work on Cardiff, please watch out for editing content that may actually be encyclopaedic, such as, in my opinion, your recent edit to Cardiff's air section. It's common and acceptable to show transport links to/from a city's airport. Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Marseille

Please refrain from tagging actual encyclopedic content: to describe the section devoted to the ancient monuments and customs of Marseille as "reading like an advertisement" is simply a lazy comment, particularly when there are careful references to information on these monuments and the associated customs. Your edits were unhelpful, unconstructive and seemed simply to express your personal point of view. Please use the talk pages to discuss content in future. Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Michellecrisp, as mentioned above the particular tagging of a section was intellectually lazy and disruptive editing: when you tagged the section, you should have explained yourself on the talk page, as is normal on WP. If you have no special knowledge of French or France, why not avoid pages covered by wikiproject France? Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What you have written on my talk page is incorrect. I do not own the page and all recent changes to the article have been made with consensus. Please desist from wikilawyering unless you have some constructive suggestions to make. Reading sources for Marseille does indeed require a working knowledge of French. Please take a moment or two to find out about wikiproject France: it is involved with transferring information from the French WP to this one. A previous version of the page on Marseille had a direct translation of a publicity article on the Marseille Opera, which was removed. Your tag would have applied there. However, finding out details about the recent restoration of the 12th century churches of St Laurent and St Catherine does require some effort. Likewise finding free images for the gallery is non-trivial. Unless you have an intimate knowledge of Marseille or French, it might be advisable for you to stop calling such information or the details of the Candelmas vigil "an advertisement". I have no idea what you could mean and how else this information could be expressed. Your refusal to discuss these matters on the talk page of Marseille helps in no way. FWIW I work in Marseille, employed by the French State, and speak fluent French (although at present I'm here in the UK giving a graduate course). Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you have little or nothing to add to the article on Marseille. With knowledge of neither Marseille nor French, why continue with the comments you are making? It seems that you are a rather inexperienced editor. (This is a specific comment on you, not on any other editor.) Editing articles on Marseille obviously requires a working knowledge of French: it is extremely foolish to suggest that this is not the case. Other people have corrected the Marseille article, particularly the history section, and they have done so by adding or changing content with careful justification on the talk page. You have still not said why the factual information on the various churches, museums and ancient monuments reads like an advertisement. Which advertisement? Australian towns do not have hellenic remains or early Christian sites: does it annoy you that European towns occupied since 6,000 BC should list and describe such sites? Perhaps you consider it unfair to the antipodes? I am merely here trying to probe what might have induced you to add your initial tag that you resolutely refuse to justify. Since you are criticizing sourced and reliable information with no further comment, it seems that you are actually just trolling/wikilawyering. If you are unwilling to add carefully reasoned comments on the talk page of Marseille, please stop trolling. Mathsci (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

City of Thuringowa talk page comment

Hi sorry but i realy need to point htis out to you as i guess you missed where i said it on the page, i added the info (that i re-worded from another editor) and had a ref to use but the page was down, so i went saved the info so that i could look for other verifiable sources to add, and after i had found them i went back to the page to add the 2 good ref's only to find that it had been deleted, so can you not be like the other editors and jump in so quick before i have time to finish what it is that i am doing, thanks . Thuringowacityrep (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Frenchs Forest, New South Wales

Hi Michelle, Cam Nancarrow lived in FF next door to me in Gladys Ave. Inclusion only requires that:

he is notable (squash champion) 
at some point lived in the suburb. He did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJGB (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)