Jump to content

Talk:Bill Gammage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

reference to NSW premier history prize

[edit]

I can't find any reference to this prize, but have left it in. Does anyone know where this information can be found? Stellar 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User NULL's clearly evident nasty targeting of my edits for destruction, by own admission elsewhere.

[edit]

Clearly, User:NULL needs to initiate discussion (first) before reactively reverting my good faith, well based edits, which i demonstrated in the edit summary are for good reasons clearly superior to the immediately prior edit of User:NULL's—ego (obvious evidence) has no place in WP—well before User:NULL gives orders to me in his reversion edit summary to discuss on talk please—superficially mild orders, not mild at all when understood in context—personal targeted double-speak alike to the political level double-speak activity of Dog-whistle politics (diffs). i have edited this article occasionally over more than a year. User:NULL as previous User:TechnoSymbiosis was previously very actively and personally targeting my edits in article Masanobu Fukuoka, by User:NULL/TechnoSymbiosis's own admission in Talk:Masanobu_Fukuoka (now archived) – WP:HOUNDING.

——--macropneuma 23:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 23:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 04:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 06:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a really different topic, the creative encyclopaedia editing process—adding genuine content and meaning for readers—takes gradual, progressive, really careful work over considerable time. It takes creation not destruction. It is not completed until stated so, for the purposes of other editors targeting the edits' writing for further editing. Destruction and tokenistic edits which can be done later at any time—effectively another subtle form of disruption of the creative process—is so easy to do and facile. Doing this creative process one's-self is not so easy, and certainly not facile.

——--macropneuma 00:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the creative process of writing takes time and work to complete. It is harmed by nasty disruption for motives not related to encyclopaedia creation. User:NULL, your obviously nasty targeting and pouncing on my edits in this article for your destruction, baseless as it is in terms of motives for encyclopaedia creation, turns me away from doing any edits of Wikipedia. It appears that you want me to leave Wikipedia (obviously again, for no good reason in terms of motives for encyclopaedia creation).

——--macropneuma 04:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fool about the usage of the word produce regarding authors' writing. I'm more than aware of the numerous meanings of the word produce in the Oxford English dictionary. I'm more than aware that authors both write and produce writing, in simple English usage of words. For more examples, beyond the standard English use of the word produce i used in edits, is: Authors prepare, research and compile material for, write, construct and also produce books. Authors write and produce bodies of literature, also. Authors write and/or produce literature. The gross domestic product (GDP) of a nation includes authors' production of writing, books and literature (to over-emphasise the examples). Only an inappropriately narrow-minded construing of the Oxford English Dictionary's common usages of the word produce could construe authors as not producing and writing books. For a more pointed example, constructing the book's structure of chapters, headings, indexes, etc. is strictly not writing at all, but in fact book construction, editing in team with editors, and producing the draft manuscripts in terms of their full structure, as well as their writing. The case for the just as acceptable word produce is closed! IMHO.

——--macropneuma 06:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate process for substantive edits, not minor issues of punctuation etc, is WP:BRD, which means a revert should be followed by discussion. WP:BRD does not require discussion before the revert. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Peacemaker67. Macropneuma made an edit, I reverted it, and rather than coming to the talk page to discuss it, he restored it again. This combative mindset and disregard for Wikipedia's editing processes is something of a modus operandi for him, unfortunately. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WTF! Goodbye. I can't be bothered with your real blame game inversions any more.

——--macropneuma 03:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker67, it does not require discussion, is not germane here, when understood in context. User:NULL/TechnoSymbiosis' discussion before their obvious ulterior motive reversion, is preventative of the problems created here and required for cooperation, when understood in context of User:NULL/TechnoSymbiosis' reverting and specially targeting my edits. Bigger picture than just one policy rule, as a legalistic island, – WP:HOUNDING.

——--macropneuma 07:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 06:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it is patently obvious User:NULL/TechnoSymbiosis is only here to try to 'press my buttons' personally, grossly inappropriate in terms of WP and of motives for encyclopaedia creation, – WP:HOUNDING.

——--macropneuma 07:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 06:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

then this is not the forum, I suggest you take it to an appropriate one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh thanks exactly, i agree, but that's fraught with even bigger picture trouble. I haven't got that time to waste on WP admin knots with User:NULL/TechnoSymbiosis and they likely know that too, as part of the trying to 'press my buttons' by drawing me into admin processes. Previously they did this and wrote effective intimidation of me in relation to their very active, very large amount of time spent in admin processes. I spend virtually no time in admin processes and only time in encyclopaedia creation, so i don't even have any mastery knowledge of admin processes. I don't know of any admin way of dealing with this ulterior behaviour rapidly and with little time spent. I have a too busy life for even this talk here today—wasted many minutes of today—admin takes even more time, from my few experiences. As said, it appears that User:NULL/TechnoSymbiosis wants me to leave Wikipedia (obviously again, for no good reason in terms of motives for encyclopaedia creation). The same ol' thing in terms of their obvious motive of power play, not encyclopaedia creation—in other words. More than enough said here in talk on inappropriate WP behaviour—i agree PeaceMaker67.

——--macropneuma 07:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 07:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A final rigorous note to this criticism and self–defense section,

there's an uncrossable chasm of difference boldly evident between the meanings of edit writing based in sources, and the meanings of edit writing based in power–play mere opinions ignorant of sources.

Indispensible! is having read and familiarised one's–self with the sources, before editing each part of an article based on each of those sources.

——--macropneuma 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This tactic didn't work when you tried it at Masanobu Fukuoka and it won't work here. You don't own articles on Wikipedia. The language you chose was able to be improved in some areas, which I undertook to do. If you'd like to discuss the changes, please do so here in a concise and direct manner that doesn't involve personal attacks, as you've engaged in extensively. If you do choose to continue personal attacks and display ownership issues, we can pursue dispute resolution instead. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WTF! Goodbye. I can't be bothered with your real blame game inversions any more.

——--macropneuma 03:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable (and scholary) sources

[edit]

Easier, quicker, volume reliable sourcing is done by not using Google searches, but by using a search engine such as scholarly literature search engines, such that the results of such searches are only scholarly and mostly reliable sources. Google searches on related keywords can often provide more than 50% of results made of a mixture of links unrelated to the keyword's desired hits' topic eg. person's name will often be unrelated people of the same name (homonyms) and many links of totally unreliable sources eg. links to Wikipedia article syndications. Google searches' results or counts per se are not reliable sources at all according to WP policy,

WP Policy examples:

eg. Why are Google results not valid? > Not all websites are reliable sources;

eg. Search engine test > What a search test can do, and what it can't.

'Google wacking'— the useless trivia exercise of trying to use Google with two or so keywords to find a total of only one result. Here generalised to the ridiculous notion that multiple Google results means something as a positive source per se (without checking any of the results links webpages) for article writing—i coin 'Google happy–clapping' or similar phrase, like the stereoptype of 'happy clappy' fanatics of the superficial/pseudo-religious kind. In the same effect alike to saying that a Google wack single result is a meaningful reliable source for Wikipedia article statements.

Such results and counts can be used at most as guidance, for discovering false hits to exclude, for excluding and narrowing the choices of possible reliable sources. The reliable sources may or may not be found via Google searching, by means of opening and very carefully checking each plausible Google link and weighing it up as: a source at all of any kind unreliable or reliable, its reliability at all, the weight of its reliability based on its own origin context, and all in the context and for the needs of the WP article statement proposed to be based on that proposed source.

——--macropneuma 00:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 03:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating lecture on searching for and making use of sources, though I'm not sure who you're directing your comments toward. In any case, whether you find your sources by Google, university research networks, libraries, national archives or other methods, they need to be included in the article to verify associated claims. Unsourced information in articles may be removed at any time. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source you linked above looks reasonable. I'm a little unsure of its use of the word 'probably', but I think it's good enough to verify the 'best known' phrasing until/unless we can find a better one. Do you intend to add that source to the article or shall I? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My above was general solution information for everyone. Goodbye. I can't be bothered with your mischief or you at all.

——--macropneuma 03:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I see we have an arts.gov.au source for the 'best' claim courtesy of Peacemaker67 so that's probably sufficient for now. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Gammage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bill Gammage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Gammage&oldid=1198665062"