Talk:Tim Ellis (magician)

Untitled

This conversation seems a bit strange. In Australia both Phil Cass and Sean Taylor are more established in general media and yet non of them have a listing on Wikipedia. Maybe they are more busy performing and working then promoting themselves on forums like this. The only way to get a page on Wiki seem to be, to make one yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.180.243 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Tim Ellis is one of the most important magicians in Australia's recent history. Well known and respected internationally, multiple award winner, innovator and publisher... why shouldn't he be listed? The two other Australian magicians listed in Wikipedia (Card Mondor & Tommy Hanlon Jr) have contributed far less to the Australian and world magic scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsonmitre (talk • contribs)

This article (like the above comment) was clearly created and written by the subject, and to a large extent is transparent self-promotion. I have begun the process of making the article neutral and encyclopedic. Further work in this direction is required to bring the article into an acceptable state (if the subject is in fact notable). Doggus (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} In March 2006, Tim Ellis and Sue-Anne Webster were VIP guests in the popular internet magic forum The Magic Cafe http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewforum.php?forum=194&1053 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.38.11.4 (talk • contribs)

Not done: Sorry, your request is not specific enough for me to act on. And anyway, that sentence is biased and contains peacock words. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering Tim Ellis has been a professional magician for almost 30 years, has won two awards at the World Championships, has been chosen to sit on the jury of the World Championships three times, has been nominated by The Magic Castle as Lecturer of the Year, has been chosen the MVP at the FFFF convention in New York, is listed in two magic history books as a significant magician on the world stage, has been profiled in MAGIC Magazine and appeared on the cover on many other magic magazines, and has made major contributions to the Australian magic community since the 1970s I really can't see how DOGGUS can say what he just said.Mark Linch (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis is a fine magician who is highly respected all over the world. Richard Kaufman

It only takes a couple of minutes googling to see that Tim Ellis isn't just another hack magician, his contributions to Australian magic and magic all over the world aren't hard to find. Entertainer, lecturer, International award winner, creator of magic sports and much more. I can't believe this conversation is taking place here, there really are undeserving magicians on wiki, but Tim isn't one of them. (yes, I'm a friend and fan, but do the googling yourself, don't take my word for it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.142.38 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

While the subject may have contributed to his own entry, there is no denying that Tim Ellis is a high profile figure in the magic community. So long as the Peacock words are not included, there is no reason why Mr Ellis should not continue to have an entry. [—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.137.148 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis has created many original effects and presentations and thereby belongs to the small group of innovative and creative magicians. Scott Nelson, FISM 2000 Grand Prix Winner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.26.236 (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis is one of the hardest working and brilliant minds in the art of magic, knowing Tim personally i can guarantee that he will continue to achieve even greaters heights and more success than he has already accomplished. Tim gets booked to perform all over the world because he is an original and exceptional talent making him more than just a magician, he is a world class entertainer. Jim Gray

Who is DOGGUS anyway? All of his contributions seem to be editing Tim Ellis entry or trying to get it deleted. Should he declare a bias? 209.44.123.1 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised there is even debate on the Tim Ellis Wikipedia listing. He is a well known, well respected contributor to magic and without this listing Wikipedia would be far less complete. His contributions to magic include Fechter's Finger Flicking Frolic (the world first close up convention), the Magic Castle, FISM and of course the Australian Institute of Magic. I believe any doubt of this listing will be from those with a hidden agenda. - Shawn Farquhar 2009 FISM Grand Prix World Champion of Magic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.186.4 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Tim Ellis is a professional Magician who is at the top of his class. Not only is he talented but he is also reinvesting back into his industry. It seems to me that any negative comments are clearly bias and ignorant, demonstrating someone with a 'chip on their shoulder' or a competing interest or jealousy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.155.238.156 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be no question that the “Tim Ellis” Wikipedia entry is legitimate as it stands. All of the listed credits, awards, and honours are true, and the information is stated without exaggeration or hyperbole. For more than two decades, Ellis has been internationally recognized by his peers as a performer, author, and lecturer, and among his colleagues worldwide he is arguably currently the best-known magician in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.149.63 (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How odd it is that all the above comments should appear within such a short space of time. One cannot help but wonder what portion of them are further evidence of the self-promotional aspects of the subject. The notion that Ellis is the "best known magician in Australia" is simply false (and most likely more self-promotional hyperbole). But I concede I should have been more precise in my remarks: a highly self-promoting magician who greatly aspires to calling himself professional, who can at best be described as slightly professional, and who it is perhaps more accurate to describe as amateur-ish rather than amateur (that way, there is less offence to all the genuinely devoted amateurs out there, many of whom well exceed any amateurishness). I continue to believe there is very little justification for this entry. Furthermore, please do not remove the comments of other contributors from the talk page. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Finally, I have no connections whatsoever, neither current nor historical, with the subject of the article: no further aspersions need be cast in this direction. Doggus (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Doggus, are you sure you're not Ross Skiffington? You definitely write like he does. Mr Skiffington has often referred to Tim Ellis as an "amateur" (which in itself is incorrect on so many levels). 209.44.123.1 (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure I am not Ross Skiffington: I am not sure on what basis you claim our writing as similar, but I can assure you the analysis is faulty (unless the common characteristics are characteristics held in common by numerous people, in which case it may be correct, but not relevant—and if what you write is correct, that Ross Skiffington has "often referred to Tim Ellis as an 'amateur'," then that is indeed an area of agreement between us, although as previously indicated I prefer to say "amateur-ish"). Since you mention his name, however, let me also say that I would cite Ross Skiffington as an example of a professional magician who is both better known and more highly respected in Australia than Mr Ellis. That, at least, is how things seem clearly to stand from my vantage point (and please, once again, let me reiterate that he and I are not the same person, nor am I writing in any way on his behalf). It is a pity that my previous statement was not taken at face value. Again: I have no connections whatsoever, neither current nor historical, with the subject of the article, and no further aspersions need be cast in this direction. I cannot help but wonder, however, how many of the purportedly "different" editors of this page and the article itself are in fact merely different manifestations of a single individual. And I cannot help but wonder about the chances that that question will be honestly answered. Doggus (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My, my, this discussion is intriguing. I'm in the UK and I have definitely heard of Tim Ellis, but I have no idea who this Ross Skiffington is. I did take a look at your contributions though Mr Doggus. It appears that you are here on Wikipedia solely to edit Tim Ellis' listing. Someone you have "no connections with whatsoever". Why is that? - Mark 77.68.47.85 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the above comment, by 77.68.47.85, was initially added by user Mark Linch, then removed a minute later, then readded by 77.68.47.85. It is clear that user Mark Linch did not intend to add this comment under his username, and that he did so accidentally. It is also clear why he did not wish to do so: because the identity of user Mark Linch is also quite clear (from an examination of his contributions). Doggus (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Way to avoid the question Mr Doggus. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.47.85 (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the question? I have stated that I am unconnected with the subject. I have serious doubts about the notability of this subject. And also about the behavior of contributors to this article. User Mark Linch, for example, who just tried to conceal that he was the very person authoring transparent nonsense about "I'm in the UK" and "I have definitely heard of X" and "no idea who Y is." It would be horribly shameful, would it not, were it to turn out that the subject of the article himself would stoop to such low forms? Doggus (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this is the post by DOGGUS that Richard Kaufman deleted. “Tim Ellis is basically an amateur magician who nevertheless also happens to be a self-promoter. Hence the existence of this article. I think it is a fair assumption that the only major contributor to this article is the subject himself. In my view, the subject of this article lacks notability and the article should be deleted.” I don't agree with his post and I can see why Richard deleted it, but this is Wikipedia and everything said must stand. Having said that, I'm curious as to the reason why Doggus is targeting Tim Ellis too. Could he be the long lost Melbourne magician Ian Buckland? 75.102.39.212 (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid there's Buckley's chance I'm the long lost Ian Buckland (and I don't mean that trickily, since in fact Buckley showed up and hence his "chance" turned out to be something greater than zero, whereas the chances that I am Buckland are precisely zero). The continued speculation about my identity and motive is a distraction and beside the point, and I wonder how long editors will feel the need to continue with this line of thinking. But I would like to reiterate again how unseemly it would turn out to be if user Mark Linch turned out in fact to be the subject of the article, given the deceptions just perpetrated by this user. Of course, if one believes the other contributions of this editor, then they most certainly cannot be Mr Ellis, because the last contribution this user made before embarking on the particular deception mentioned, was to authorize the use of a photograph of Mr Ellis, a photograph which user Mark Linch claimed to have taken himself. So according to user Mark Linch, he is the photographer of Mr Ellis. That's all very convincing, yes? Doggus (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, firstly to clear up who is commenting, the comment "It only takes a couple of minutes googling ......" was me at work and not logged in. As to the suspicious coincidence of the rush of support comments, it isn't a coincidence and it isn't suspicious. The editing of Tim's page has become a topic of discussion in the parts of magic community and a few of us decided to lend support when Tim filled us in on the latest happenings, no suspicious coincidence, just a bunch of people interested in the truth. As to truth, the truth is that Doggus claims he has no links good or bad to Tim, yet Tim's page is the only one I can see that he has contributed to (sure I've only contributed to 2, but I'm not hiding my identity and claiming to be unrelated to the subjects), this alone makes me question his motives and impartiality, the harping on about Ross seems suspicious too, Ross is simply another magician that had some success in his day, he certainly hasn't contributed to magic like Tim has, Ross is simply a worker (no insult), where Tim is an innovator, creator, FISM Judge etc. As to who is more valid an entry, googling Ross Skiffington Magic get 15,000 results and Tim Ellis Magic gets 233,000, now tell me Ross is as well known as Tim. Perhaps the best thing would be for Doggus and Mark to both leave and let the real Wiki editors do their job, but I suspect if Doggus leaves we'll see a certain conspicuous IP start appearing again (the trends one can find in the history of an article or 2 is intriguing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan Croft (talk • contribs) 05:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Doggus, it is clear you do not like Tim Ellis as you refer to him as "amateurish". Thankfully Wikipedia deals in facts, not opinions. I am curious though as to why the only contributions you have made have been to Tim Ellis' page as you admit you have no connection with him, and apparently very little knowledge about him either. Are you even a part of the magic community? 75.102.39.210 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It was not I who brought up the name of Ross Skiffington; I merely took up the mention of another. Let me say once again: I am not he, nor do I write on his behalf. Skiffington is merely one of several magicians in Australia that it seems from my vantage are better known, more highly respected, and more professional than Mr Ellis. I am no expert, but to describe Ross Skiffington as a "worker" and Mr Ellis as an "innovator" seems to me to be rather far off the mark, but if that is your opinion, then there it is (self-promotion does, of course, to a certain extent "work" and perhaps you are its honest victim, but I am in no position to judge that). The supposedly damning fact that my edits are largely to this article has been pointed out at least four times, but I am unsure what that is meant to prove, yet alone can I imagine what the endless repetition of the same is supposed to prove. I do not know what you are trying to imply when you state that if I depart "a certain conspicuous IP" will "start appearing again": I have never edited as an IP; whoever it is you think I am, you are incorrect, as has been every other aspersion cast in spite of my repeated request for that to discontinue.

On the other hand, it has been quite clearly shown that user Mark Linch and whatever other identities he is masquerading himself about as, is deceptive and false, in short, it is clear that this user has not behaved in a trustworthy manner. It is not for me to declare the true identity of those who choose to parade about on Wikipedia in masquerade form, but I can say for sure that the actions of user Mark Linch, were they the actions of the subject of an article, are not only deceptive, but self-promotional, anything but professional, and on the contrary, in their bungled and unpleasant way, rather amateurish. As any independent observer would no doubt agree (yes, I know, you don't consider me such, but I can merely beseech you, look again, again, at what presents itself to you upon this page...). Doggus (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"whoever it is you think I am, you are incorrect" Wow! That's gonna haunt you! - 75.102.39.210 (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Meaning? Doggus (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And if DOGGUS and 123.243.53.233 turn out to be a certain Melbourne-based magician then it's not only deceptive and destructive, but it will be as if someone was sent to fetch the dog. It will be very embarrassing for the man concerned. 75.102.39.210 (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well whoever it is you are hoping to embarrass, I am not he. That is a promise. I have indicated several times that I have no connection to Mr Ellis, and there is no longer any point in reiterating it. My opinion that he is a self-promoter is based on the article he has composed about himself (and see in particular the earliest versions of this article, before my intervention). My concern is with a self-promotional article, but of course Wikipedia attracts those kinds of individuals all the time. My concern is with the transparently deceptive behavior of one editor of this article (but one editor may have more than one identity, of course), and that has gone unanswered. What would be embarrassing was if the editor who engaged in deception was also the subject of the article: I cannot prove that that is true, but, again, there has been no answer. The edits I have made to the actual article (some time ago, I might add) have all stood, that is, they were improvements. What has gone on here is that I have stated an opinion of the notability of the subject of this article, and a defensive and deceptive (by one editor) backlash has been the consequence. But nothing in that backlash has caused me to alter my opinion of the article. My responses should cause you to question your assumptions that I am somehow connected to Mr Ellis: I'm not. Doggus (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis is a FISM award winner - creator of many unique magic effects and one of the most respected performers in magic - he most certainly warrants an entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.108.196 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I may be wrong, and correct me if I am, but from my reading of the article he was a second place getter, not a winner, in 1994. Which is fine, no doubt an achievement, but is every place-getter at this FISM championship thereby automatically notable enough for their own article in Wikipedia? There must be quite a few of them. It seems doubtful to me. Doggus (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to see alot of support on here for you Tim, keep up the good work ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastjimmy (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Doggus, you seem to think your mysterious obsession with Tim's entry is irrelevant, but the majority here obviously don't, and your single mindedness on this issue combined with your lack of any other editing on Wiki is an obvious flag that you have ulterior motives (that makes 5 mentions, and still no explanation, perhaps you just have a crush on him). Are we expected to believe you happened to stumble across Tim's entry among the millions of Wiki pages and then went and researched him? How very suspicious, please stop claiming that you have no link to Tim, obviously you do, or you are simply some one else's lap dog and doing their dirty work. And if you have no knowledge or link to Tim, how is it you know what is accurate and what isn't? I smell a liar with less than noble intentions. As to this "Skiffington is merely one of several magicians in Australia that it seems from my vantage are better known, more highly respected, and more professional than Mr Ellis." That sounds like nothing more than opinion to me, and I doubt you have any contact with any magicians in Melbourne, unless of course you are lying about not having any link to Tim. Give up Doggus, go get another bone to play with, Tim is way to respected in the International magic community for some nobody like you to have him removed by Wiki, especially considering the other Australian magicians that are on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.79.70 (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis is a very creative magician whose many achievements in magic deserve a lot of respect (FISM, FFFF, Magic Castle...). His successful references and original performances are undeniable proofs he is a highly talented world class performer. Keep entertaining us TIm! Boris Wild —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.191.108 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no link to Mr Ellis. Nor do I have a crush on him. The "majority" (although the number of actual real, living people that constitutes is perhaps rather fewer than the number of "posters" would indicate) as you put it does, I concede, seem somewhat preoccupied with the irrelevant question of my "ulterior motives," but I still believe Mr Ellis's notability is marginal at best. That is what I have expressed, and I am entitled to do so, and if others such as the subject perceive this as offensively deranged and some kind of outrage on my part, then they are entitled to do so. Why you would feel the best course is to hurl personal insults is beyond me, but of course such things do tend at times to reflect on the hurler at least as much as the hurlee. Hurl away. Doggus (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Doggus. Based on your assertion that Tim Ellis receiving second prize at FISM in 1994 (he also received a special prize in 1991) is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, please tell me how many FISM awards Mr Skiffington has won? If he has won fewer than Tim then I suppose you want his entry deleted as well? Mr Steinmeyer has a message for Mr Skiffington too, but I think you know what it is. 75.102.39.192 (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

None of that makes any sense to me. My question was whether such a second-place at this FISM magic convention confers sufficient notability to warrant an entry at Wikipedia. I asked my question because somebody posted a comment with the implication that this alone was sufficient. My question did not receive an answer. Certainly my question did not mean that everybody who lacks such a second-place also lacks sufficient notability to find a place in the annals of this encyclopedia: nobody could think notability was as one-dimensional as that. Possibly even Barack Obama lacks such a second place, but I am certain few would begrudge him a place in these pages on that account. The remainder of what you (whoever it may be I am addressing) write is incomprehensible to me. Doggus (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Whoever it may be I am addressing". Do you see the irony in that Mr DOGGUS? Just call me Mr CATTUS. 75.102.39.198 (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have already said, there is no longer any point in me reiterating what I have already stated very clearly numerous times. At least you are now acknowledging that you are the subject of the article (at least I think you are, forgive me if I've jumped the gun), and by extension puller of the little "I'm in the UK" manoeuvre, which didn't quite come off. Doggus (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"At least you are now acknowledging that you are the subject of the article". How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Do you think that everyone here who supports Tim Ellis IS Tim Ellis? I guess he's pretending to be Richard Kaufman, Boris Wild, Brendan Croft, etc. You really are on a one-man crusade aren't you? 75.102.39.198 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK, my misunderstanding. I thought you were. Carry on then. Doggus (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"but I still believe Mr Ellis's notability is marginal at best. That is what I have expressed, and I am entitled to do so" - Doggus

Well that makes it easy then; Doggus, you are mistaken in your belief that Tim is not notable enough for Wiki, and enough notable magicians would say he is (no, not including me as notable, far from it) and they would certainly be a better judge than someone who doesn't know Tim or have any links to him what so ever. His undisputed list of achievements and contributions to magic can be added to this support from notable peers and settle this once and for all. Still avoiding the question as to why you have a bee in your bonnet about some one you don't know? Odd that Tim is the only person you have questioned on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan Croft (talk • contribs) 11:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well clearly you're impressed, but I'm not sure that is the way notability is established at Wikipedia. You may well be right that Mr Ellis is a thoroughly notable individual. For myself, the self-promotional aspects of the article tend to obscure things a little. Doggus (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not about being impressed, and yes, that is how notability is usually decided, it's called peer review, and combined with achievements, that is how you judge notability, would you suggest otherwise? Perhaps it's a fame thing and popularity gets one on Wiki. The fact that you disagree is irrelevant as you have admitted you don't actually know much at all about the topic at hand. If you want to pick out peacock words go for it, but your "not notable" argument is wrong, and seems to be based on some proprietary method of judging notability that excludes peer review and achievements.

Does Mr Doggus get that we are all laughing at him and his remarks about Tim Ellis are laughable at best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastjimmy (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this with amazement and I'd just like to thank those who have stood up against my page being deleted, I do appreciate it. I won't say who I think Doggus is, but I'm very sad that he seems to dislike me so much. He admits having no connection to me, but I don't understand why he has such a great interest in me. In July last year he questioned my notability and proceeded to make many, many edits to my page in accordance with Wikipedia. In November this year someone with the IP 123.243.53.233 came on and made so many edits to my page that it was locked for four days. While it was locked Doggus reappeared and requested the page be removed from Wikipedia as I was "not notable" in his opinion. It seems he thinks the article is so "self-promotional" any qualifications I may have for inclusion in Wikipedia are rendered invalid. Based on the fact that both he and 123.243.53.233 have devoted their contributions almost exclusively to editing my page, a reasonable person may conclude that their is some bias or intent there. I could certainly hazard a guess as to the identity of this person, especially seeing as the ISP is a Melbourne based TPG account, but I think he would gain far more respect by honestly identifying himself. Until then, he's stated his opinion and continues to ignore the facts. TimEllis43 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited as an IP address, and I've only ever edited this page with one identity. Can the subject of this article honestly say the same? You say that you have "been watching with amazement," implying that you have not been a contributor here. But are you honestly and truthfully denying that you are user Mark Linch, who added the photo to the Tim Ellis article and claimed to be the photographer, and who then accidentally pretended to be in the UK? Your speculations about my identity are incorrect, in spite of the persistence with which they are made. Doggus (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't care less who edits this Wikipedia article. If you're going to list a biography, then why isn't it complete? It's sparse and missing many historical facts about the man. Just because you don't like to talk about your first wife, doesn't mean that only your second wife gets mentioned in the article. It's a valid part of Tim Ellis's biography and deserves to be included. And can I suggest a re-write for neutrality? Or is that so far fetched?

I should also add that I am not Doggus. Based on his writing style, he is far better read than I am.

And a quick hello to Sue-Anne Ellis aka 124.181.79.70 (of the infamous "crush" comment) Sue-Anne; you're writing style is so distinctive it's impossible to miss, even when hidden behind an IP Address. unsigned comment added by 123.243.53.233 (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's really funny, I'm the one who wrote the crush comment, obviously I wasn't logged in at the time. It would appear we have a similar writing style Sue-Anne.Brendan Croft (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling a time out

All right, let's stop with the back-and-forth accusations please; this is a talk page, and is intended to be used to improve the article, not snipe at other editors.

Maintenance tags are a good way to help improve articles, but they require an explanation; User:Doggus, please explain why you feel the article needs these tags, and what you feel should be done to meet the deficiencies that you're concerned with. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, don't expect a response from either Doggus or his friend 123.243.53.233 as they're out tonight at Monday Night Magic at Dante's in Melbourne. You'll get a reply around midnight AEST or tomorrow morning. 83.170.85.108 (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I understand that the tag does require explanation. I think in general the entire article requires a review on the grounds that small claims to notability are inflated to puff out the general notability of the subject. I am not convinced the subject is in fact notable, but do not myself have a great handle on the way notability is judged and established at Wikipedia for this particular kind of entertainer. I also think the tone of the entire article tends to fall short of being encyclopedic, no doubt due to the self-promotional aspects of the article as currently composed. I recognize these are all general rather than specific criticisms, but at present I lack the time to go through the article with a fine tooth comb. I realize that this may mean no action is forthcoming in terms of either improving or removing the article. Apologies if I am unable to devote the necessary attention to the article. Finally, how long will other editors feel it necessary to make false and incorrect proclamations about my identity? No worthwhile purpose is served by their continued insistence on doing so. Doggus (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations

The citations need to be properly formatted using citation templates. A number of them claim to be from newspapers when in fact they are reproductions of the newspaper on another site which is not the same thing. Please read WP:Citing sources and WP:Reliable sources. Youtube is not a reliable source, MagicUnlimited is a self published source, not an RS, except for citing the opinions of Ellis, the link from ref #25 (Catchpenny Club) does not support the statement. I could go on. There are few citations that support the notability, the rest are just non RS puffery, I am afraid. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have formatted the first two citations properly and they do not inspire much confidence - a baptist church magazine and the Australian Institute of magic chaired by Sue Webster!. Please read WP:RS. Please demonostrate how these so-called sources in the article meet this criteria Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason that this "^ [3] 'Australian Institute of Magic' Bernard's Magic Shop Owners Business Affairs Victoria" Can't be change to link to the original PDF extract that is linked to from that page?Brendan Croft (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Church Magazine" ( http://www.sightmagazine.com.au/about.php )article was reproduced in The Salvation Army Warcry and distributed nationally. It was the cover story and feature article, but does not appear on the net.

Yes, Sue-Anne Webster is the President of the Australian Institute of Magic. It is the only FISM Affiliated magic organisation in the Southern Hemisphere. The organisation is directly responsible to FISM and has to be 100% correct in everything it says and does or risk losing accreditation. Mark Linch (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Can you demonstrate that the War Cry and the AIM have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, i.e. are they frequently cited without comment by major news organisations? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Cry was established in 1879. Seems reliable. I have seen other entertainers claim to be 'Magician of the Year' for example, and have used newspaper articles to reference the claim. Though they are established newspapers, they merely report what the subject in question told them was true without checking. They are RS references but the information is flawed. 66.148.122.88 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But we're not talking about other magicians. This is the Tim Ellis discussion. Suggesting that other magicians are at fault is not productive to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.53.233 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of understanding. Wikipedia doesn't work on assumptions such as The War Cry was established in 1879. Seems reliable. It works on verifiable reliable sourcing. Demonstrate that the War Cry and AIM are RS and then they are OK, like the New York Times or The Age. Otherwise they are no better than fan sites or blogs. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I don't understand how a magazine, published since 1879, is less credible than a daily newspaper. However, as other references have now been added, you probably don't need mine anyway. Mark Linch (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You have to demonstrate that other reliable sources use a source like the War Cry and consider it to be reliable. It has nothing to do with how long the magazine has been published. Please read WP:RS and WP:Verifiability. It is important that you understand how this works if you wish to edit here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to do a little search, though was limited to 12/09, and found this example of the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper using the Salvation Army War Cry as a source http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-vulture/christians-worship-their-idols/20091123-it7o.html Mark Linch (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Professional Magician tag? "Category:Professional magicians From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A professional magician is someone who performs magic for their living." Mark Linch (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I undid the removal of category Professional Magician, there is absolutely no logical reason to remove this category, it is after all what Tim is

Brendan Croft (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Already covered by the Australian Magicians category. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we have different ideas of how the categories work then. I wasn't aware that a search of Professional Magician would return magicians without that category tagged on them. Unless Australian Magician is a sub category of Professional Magician, which would be incorrect as there are many Australian Magicians, some Wiki worthy, that aren't actually professional magicians. One is an area specific Category and the other relates to an individuals profession, very different things. When dealing with an art that is common as both a profession and as a hobby/interest, the difference is very important. Brendan Croft (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Please note that there is every likelihood that user Mark Linch is in fact the subject of the article, despite claims to the contrary which have recently been added to Mark Linch's userpage. The motive for adding such claims is clear: to distance the subject of the article from the deception which Mark Linch was caught perpetrating above. The deception involved would obviously be embarrassing, were it found to have been perpetrated by the subject of the article, because "Mark Linch" was caught adding a comment while logged out which pretended to be by an anonymous user in the UK, and which proclaimed the great renown of the subject (and note that user Carsonmitre, who is also likely to be the subject of the article, had already added a similar comment proclaiming the notability of the subject, but under the Carsonmitre username, when the article was first commenced). When this deception was initially pointed out, there was no response or denial by either user Mark Linch or user TimEllis43. No doubt these users may claim this was because they did not wish to dignify the claims etc., but the deception was clear, and it seems more likely that the user(s), having been caught, were unsure of the best course of action. If user Mark Linch is in fact the subject of the article, as he appears to be, then it is unfortunate that, having been caught in an embarrassing deception, they are now piling deception upon deception. Furthermore, it is contrary to strict Wikipedia policy for a single editor to edit an article with more than one identity. Any editor who has been editing this page with more than one identity would be best advised to admit they have been doing so, and state clearly which account they wish to use in the future. Doggus (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've stopped making changes and are now attacking the people making the changes to this article. To quote you Doggus "Your speculations about my identity are incorrect, in spite of the persistence with which they are made". I may just be learning about how things are done here in Wikipedia, and though you may know more about the way wiki works, you have only ever edited the Tim Ellis page here I can already see I know more about magic in Australia than you do. Just because I disagree with your point of view doesn't mean I must be the subject. I'm not. If you can contribute to the article then please do so, but if you can't I don't understand why you are here on Wikipedia since July 2008 and the only edits you've ever made have been on this one article? As you've said before, Wikipedia is about facts not opinion. But despite the facts added to this article by many different people, you ignore them and continue to insist the subject is not notable. Mark Linch (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not "attacking" anybody, and I am not doing anything "now" that I didn't do before. What I am doing is pointing out a clear deception which you perpetrated, which I have pointed out before, and about which you have said not one word. After the deception was initially pointed out, and when you hadn't edited for a while under the Mark Linch username, I thought you may have dropped that identity on the grounds of compromised integrity. But when you resumed editing as Mark Linch, I felt it reasonable to raise the issues of the conduct and identity of Mark Linch. OK, so you deny that you are the subject: that denial may have been more convincing, if you had not behaved in a clearly deceptive way, and if you had not then completely failed to acknowledge the deception. But given those two factors, it is difficult to take the denial on face value. The rest of your comment is nonsense: I am not ignoring anything about the article, nor am I insisting on anything in relation to the article. Furthermore, if the article has been improved as a consequence of my intervention, so much the better (but don't worry, I won't be hanging out for your thanks). The only thing on which I insist is that your conduct has been deceptive and poor. I should further point out that Wikipedia is not a punitive culture: where users break rules or make mistakes or stuff up, but then acknowledge their errors and indicate they will not repeat them, then no further repercussions usually follow. But where they behave deceptively, violate policy, maintain conflicts of interest, etc., and fail to acknowledge or reform their behavior, then they can find themselves in difficulty. It is for that reason that I urge full and honest disclosure on the questions raised. Better late than never. Doggus (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very impressed that doggus has become such an expert on WikiPedia after editing only one article. This one. And he has yet to declare his conflict of interest. Better late than never. I agree with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.84.55.202 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Full and open disclosure of identity, I like it, how about leading by example Doggus, and before you claim that your identity is irrelevant, it isn't!! Let me introduce you to the concept of "conflict of interest". Due to your constant refusal to identify yourself and your obvious obsession with this particular article, it is fair and reasonable for any one to assume you have some type of vested interest in this, or some type of personal vendetta. Until you can prove that you have neither, your comments will be ignored and your edits will be undone. 61.9.142.38 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Previous comment was me, silly work computer had logged me out again Brendan Croft (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that there is a temptation for other editors to circle the wagons and fire warning shots against perceived outside threats. Attacking me may certainly be easier than dealing with the relevant questions. In this case, however, I don't believe such an approach actually does anybody any favors, including the subject of the article. Attempts to distract from the questions I have raised are not, in fact, helpful. But it would not surprise me if the same wrongheaded responses continue, to nobody's benefit. Doggus (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But you attacking other editors when you can't get an article deleted is okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.84.55.202 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was Doggus that had been avoiding answering direct questions, like "why do you have such a hard on for Tim?". Just go away Doggus, your edits here will be undone and your comments are obviously tainted by your personal issues, as anyone who has read this can tell. Why don't you and Mark go and find some where else to play. Brendan Croft (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference Check Tag

If anyone is going to add the reference check tag please cite specific reasons, the references on this page have been thoroughly checked, and in fact an impartial editor even reformatted them and found more. Please do not add this tag simply because you don't like the subject personally. 61.9.142.38 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Why is Tim Ellis not listed here as a World Champion of Close Up Magic. His own publicity material claims he is yet when you check the facts .. the truth comes out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.71.6 (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Awards are listed with the name of the Organization that awarded it. Feel free to check on any of them, but do not remove them completely. Like Doggus, your edits will be undone so don't waste your time. Brendan Croft (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Aspergers Syndrome and Autistic Spectrum Categories

I undid the removal of the People with Aspergers Syndrome and People on the Autistic Spectrum category tags as it is publicly known that Tim was diagnosed with Aspergers in 2007 and is in the references here

1. ^ Unwin, Mat (September 2007). "Tim Ellis and Sue-Anne Webster in their words". Magic Magazine pp. 46-51 (Las Vegas: Stan Allen).

Should a simple statement of Tim being diagnosed with Aspergers in 2007 and an appropriate reference be a better way to go that removing valid category tags? Brendan Croft (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it is known to the general public is irrelevant. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for verification. And the sourced statements belong in the article, not here. The usual procedure on Wikipedia is not to restore the information until it is properly sourced, so don't revert again without adding the appropriate information to the article. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)