Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North West Metro

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as North West Metro are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.

The above is an interesting unsigned comment in view of the ones above and below it. I wonder who's been forgetting to sign themselves out?

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I signed for both warnings with the bottom signature because I placed both warnings at the same time. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comments on North West Metro: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. You call me a single issue contributor after I've only been here four days. You impute motivations to my writing. You'd do well to read the guidelines yourself. Seems you've been collecting a ping or two for your own bad behavior lately.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on your contributions in term of violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP. Please read WP:NPA. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've seen single purpose account editors blocked after 2 days of existence for excessive POV pushing on 1 topic. I don't think you should be blocked but you should be aware that your edits have been interpreted in such a way. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So generous of you to give me the benefit of the doubt. You have a beautiful mind.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you have a genuine intention to add information to Wikipedia and you have engaged in discussion just I think we've become sidetracked at times. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't. You've accused me of bias, making things up, an impure heart, soapbox tactics, giving undue weight, nimbyism, grubby politics etc. etc. That's English, by the way, not the Wiki-speak you hide your catty comments behind with its pre-fabbed links. You chop and change as your arguments are shot down. You even picked on my accidentally not signing something, when it was signed by the bot anyway. The true final redoubt of an obsessive pedant. You seem to spend most of your time trolling other people's contributions making pontifications upon the most trivial omissions or additions. You are a congenital busybody, going way beyond where an editor trying to be helpful should go. Your own soapbox is Wikipedia. Yet, after four days of harassing me you then have the hide to say I'm obsessed? I'm a one subject wonder? Your principal "virtue" is an ability to remain blissfully unaware of your own prejudices.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear you have taken personal offence at my comments and have used whatever position you have around here to harass me. From saying not 45 minutes ago "I don't think you should be blocked" your personal pique has taken over and you are issuing threats as you have done in the past to others. This is an abuse of authority, if indeed you have any authority.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last 45 minutes you have resorted to personal attacks, it's not an issue of authority, but I will report you to administrators who can block you. You are on your last warning. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michellecrisp, you are not entitled to warn me in the definite terms that you have used. You are not an administrator. What you are doing is implying authority that you do not have. That is a pure threat in any measure, and an empty one it seems. --Bushfire Bill (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are wrong, any editor can give out warnings, it's not implied authority nor it's not an empty warning, I have had other editors blocked by administrators in the past for attacking me. It will be reported at WP:ANI. Suggest you refrain from these kind of comments if you don't want to be blocked. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it again: making threats. This is the second time in a week. You're claiming to be able to predict what administrators will do, because you ask them to. You cannot use the word "will" in this context. You use fancy STOP signs as a form of bluff, some sort of ikon of an authority which you do not have. It is all an empty threat for which you have form. This is disgraceful behavior. All because somebody finally stood up to you and won't let you have the last word. Michellecrisp, you don't scare me.

This is Wikipedia policy as stated in the warning "If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption" Michellecrisp (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a personal attack on you. I am pointing out that you are claiming authority that you do not have. At best you are claiming you have special influence on an administrator and can get anyone who upsets you blocked. This is a very big claim., which I am curious to see substantiated. You use of the word "will" as in "you will be blocked" is attempt to imply you have authority, or have access to authority that you do not have. Your repeated threats, in the place of action, proves you don't not have the personal clout to back up your threat. You have so far given me three "warnings" without any action. Your "last warning" three posts above (06:36, 3 April 2008) was in fact your first warning. You can't even get your warnings straight. If you're going to report me, then report me. Stop threatening to do it. Go ahead. Make my day. If the administrator you imply will do whatever you want him or her to do contacts me, I will show him or her what has gone on this afternoon, all of it, and let him or her decide who's abusing who, and who's abusing the Wikipedia guidelines by purporting to be somebody they are not, and arrogating to themselves authority which they do not have. It's time to produce the goods Michellecrisp. Put up or shut up.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bushfire=

Hi! would you like to contribute to the bushfire article!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.71.89 (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about bushfires, except they burn things down. Sorry.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beecroft Article

Two things - I would be careful about the sorts of photos and information you are putting on the Beecroft article. You could be perceived as turning the article into your own protest about the planned placement of the egress facility in the Chilworth Reserve. Try to keep the article balanced, or else create an article on Chilworth Reserve if there is enough information available (I suspect there isn't). None of the information you have added is sourced - you should get some sources fairly quickly or else the information will be deleted.

Secondly - is the picture of the Scout Hall the one in York St that is due to be demolished, or is that another one? The Northern District Times has had articles running for weeks about that Scout Hall. Perhaps you could get a picture of that Scout Hall and add some information about the controversy (the green ban, etc.)? Please reply here. JRG (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

track

I placed a photo of a bush walking in Beecroft taken by myself, and attributed as such, in a section on "Recreation" in Beecroft that mentions "walking tracks". There are several bush areas in Beecroft, I identified Chilworth Reserve as the location of this track for reasons of clarity, so I assume it is not that photograph you are talking about.

All photographs in the bird montage were taken by me in or adjacent to the bushland area already mentioned before I began adding to the article. They illustrate some of the species I added to the text (unless you think there's only one species in Beecroft, the bower bird, which was the only one mentioned before). My textual additions re. bird species are linked internally to Wikipedia articles describing all of those species in greater detail. So far so good.

I fail to see how these two photographs in any way are linked to any perceived protest. Let's face it the original photographs (which I have not disturbed) were amateurish. Not to put too fine a point on it, the ones I have added are of much better professional photographic quality and illustrative of the text. I once used to be a professional photographer and enjoy keeping my arm in.

The scout hall illustrated is not the one under threat (which, however, is nearby, about 200 metres away). As far as I know there is no prospect of the demolition of the scouthall illustrated. It's photograph is included to illustrate a part of the tunnel route where the tunnel is very deep (>40 metres) and is unlikely to cause any disturbance to bushland amenity. IF anything this is a plus for the Metro, not a protest. There used to be a link to a very detailed survey map of the route available for download, showing this scout hall's precise position as directly above the tunnel corridor, but I don't think it's available anymore from the TIDC web site. If you want to quibble over this, I will check the current availability and provide a link if possible, but it's a huge download (over 2mb PDF).

FYI, the scout hall to be demolished is being demolished under approval from Council on a normal building application basis by the certified owner of the property. I am very well aware of its importance to local people, as building on the land will reduce access to a part of Chilworth Reserve (within 60 metres of the fern grove I illustrated). There is also an issue with regards to the circumstances of the grant (made in memory of a fallen Anzac, the brother of the donor by a daughter of the Byles family who used to own much of the surrounding bush). However, the latest news is that the demolition will go ahead. The site is already security-fenced in preparation for this. Nothing much to be done to stop it, I'm afraid. To mention the controversy at this late stage would require an excision of the reference when the scout hall was demolished (in a matter of days, apparently). How is this "encyclopaedic?... it's a passing issue.

You may also note I have mentioned the Metro as a possible benefit for Beecroft as it is hoped it will reduce commuter road traffic in the area. Beecroft is a virtual island in a sea of traffic chaos at most times of the day, especially peak hour. However, in the interests of fairness, I felt it necessary to mention that Beecroft is at the point where a surface facility (linked and backed up with references) may be built. Part of the function of this facility is for fighting fires, which may be of benefit to the Reserve (as it is a designated bushfire zone). On the whole I think I've been pretty fair about this, and have taken note of your earlier objections last week.

Can you be more specific about the parts you say I have not documented? I thought the surface facility argument was over and done with after I made most of the changes requested, in part, by yourself. I don't want a flame war over this, but to say that "none" of it is sourced is a stretch (or perhaps you added your comment before I provided more links?)--Bushfire Bill (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should add that in the past couple of days I've added to or amended two other articles completely unrelated to Beecroft or railways: two technical entries on photography and cinematography. It's smusing that I can only add tangential comments to the one on Cartier-Bresson, as I have met the man several times and have asked him what he was trying to achieve artistically (dreaded conversations again!). You can look the new entries up. I have a varied range of intrests and expertise. I'm just not a Wikipedia devotee. I'm more interested in the subjects I write on than the medium in which they are published. My addition of bird pictures and other photographs to the Beecroft article involved a lot of time and effort on my part and have added to the site, which was dreary and graced by very ordinary illustrations. Illustrations are encouraged by Wikipedia and (you might want to correct me on this) original photographs are not classed as "original research". If that was the case just about every photograph on the site that depicts a local area would have to be scrubbed. Secondly, there is a wealth of printed information on Chilworth Reserve, which is a cherished part of Beecroft. Not so much on the net, I'd agree with that. Also much oral history (but that would be original research). Ironically, spoken history is precluded from inclusion in these pages as it is "original research", but it is the basis for the protest of the scout hall you suggest I should write about. That and a couple of newspaper articles quoting that oral history in the local rag. A bootstrap operation by the local Civic Trust: they make assertions about the history, get themselves quoted in the newspaper, then quote the articles back as "proof"... a Wiki no-no, I believe. Although the scout hall was granted to Scouts Australia on certain conditions, the legal position is that those conditions could not be held to apply in perpetuity. I am disappointed that the hall will be demolished, but the legal position is quite clear: the owners have every right to pull it down, and it is only moral pressure (and a lot of blarney) which has prevented its demolition so far. BTW, I have nothing to do with the purchase or any other interest in the land on which the scout hall is built, but I am very familiar with the day-to-day goings on regarding it, as I have a friend who lives literally right next door to it. That would preclude me from writing about it too, wouldn't it, under NPOV? I think, once again, you're way off the mark in saying "I suspect there isn't" in relation to information about the Reserve. That's a far too casual-sounding comment, and reflects your suspicions rather than any knowledge, and to my mind therefore evidences a value judgement on your behalf. I don't think you have any place suggesting what is a viable subject for inclusion. Please correct me if I am wrong.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the TIDC drawing that shows the scout hall illustrated lies directly above the tunnel's path. It is no longer available for download. I do have a copy, but am unsure of the copyright situation if I scan and publish it. It was freely available at one stage for anyone to download, but is now gone.

Do you know about The Internet Wayback Archive? It hopefully should have the documents archived. JRG (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to your questions, the birdlife paragraph and the assertions that traffic will be reduced on Beecroft Road are the things that need substantiating with published sources - that's it. I've added {{fact}} tags (as well as to some other information you didn't add) on the relevant sections. As regards the Scout Hall - you can write about it even though you know someone who lives next door, as the issue has been well-publicised in the local media and has been the subject of newspaper reports (as opposed to the lack of controversy (yet) over the Chilworth Reserve thing) - but write according to what has been published (eg. resident complaints, the green ban, etc.) and source it. A photo of the Scout Hall in question would be good too if you are able to take one. The quality of the photographs are very good. JRG (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's the nub. I'm not interested in writing about it. Apart from being a storn in a teacup (and I love the bush there too), I think the whole thing has been mismanaged by the local Civic Trust and I won't have a bar of them or their dramas. also in my opinion it's too much of a passing fad and the whole thing will be gone in a few days. The owner has a right to develop and sell the property and that's it, as far as I'm concerned (I repeat, I have no interst in the property or its sale). It's unused at the moment and as far as anyone knows hasn't been used for three years when a 21st birthday party was held there (not a scouting activity either). I'm not anti-development at all, as long as due process is followed. I'm not sure what you mean about the birdlife section. It's either there or it isn't. One might say the same thing about the satin bower bird and the use of the word "exclusive" in relation to the Golf club. Can you explain a little further?--Bushfire Bill (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you're not interested in it - it does have controversy, unlike the egress facility. It deserves to be written on. Can you please take a photo of it? JRG (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of an edit conflict I inadvertently erased your "citation needed" references. So if you want to reinstate them, please do so manually rather than as an undo, as I also fixed up a few of the bird citations that were dead links for various reasons. Just on the bird citations: what is wrong with them? Aren't links to the relevant articles (which show habitats) plus the photograph sufficient? I'll send this as a message to your talk page too.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations means in-line references that refer to sources (like an encyclopaedia) - see WP:CITE. It doesn't mean internal Wiki links. You don't have any sources to prove these birds live particularly in Beecroft. JRG (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Sorry, I've been out all night at the theatre, hence the delay in reply. Can I take a photo of it? Yes. Will I? No. And, with great respect, it's not your place to urge me to write anything on this scout hall or to take photos of it. Please desist, as I am feeling harassed to write upon something I have no interest in. Sorry, but if you want to see an article on it, come down to Beecroft and research it yourself. Around here the scout hall demolition's a non-issue (you shouldn't believe everything you read in the Northern District times or the Sunday Telegraph, you know), which will be over in a matter of days and forgotten when the scout hall goes under the crusher. In any case, the site is now enclosed in a security fence and it would certainly break some Wiki rule or other to illegally trespass on the site to photograph it. You can't see anything from the outside but signs saying the CFMEU will come to the rescue, but when the fence was put up I was right there and was the only person to speak to the erectors. They were CFMEU members, so don't expect the CFMEU to be the cavalry that saves the day. In a naive moment, I rang the Civic Trust immediately the fence went up and they declined to come down and speak to the fencers (the Civic Trust are the same people getting their photos in the newspaper as demanding the site not be demolished). That was the final nail in the coffin of my faith in the Civic Trust. They only fight the easy fights or the ones that get them re-elected to their honorary positions. They are a joke around here. Nevertheless, I've also spoken to Jack Mundey personally on the subject, twice. Jack is an old family acquaintance of mine, and has been involved in the battle to save the scout hall, but he says he can't do anything about it now. It's a goner in his mind. Anyway, none of this is Wiki-able, because (as you have told me) private conversations are not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia and I might be held to have a non-NPOV... by you of all people! Wouldn't that be an irony? And I'm clearly biased against the local do-gooders. Or should I write that there is a chance of the scout hall remaining standing when I actually believe, from informed sources, it's going down within a week or two? That would be the Wiki way, with citations, from newspapers even... but it would be a total lie. This is an example of how Wiki truth can be totally unrelated to the actual truth.

There are photographs from the outside on the Northern District Times site, I believe. I suggest you use them. I used to like to walk my dogs through the scout hall grounds to the bush beyond (that fern grove in the posted photo is nearby and it's a magic place). I'll miss that, but it's a perfectly legal demolition and there's nothing anyone can do about it, as far as I can see, and I'm not about to get arrested for fighting the battles that the Civic Trust have screwed up. I really do know a lot about this area: trust me on this on JRG. It's a losing fight.

As a last comment on the scout hall, someone tried to post the name of the private in the army who in whose name the site was donated to the scouts. It was excised by none other than our colleague Michellecrisp, I think, with the words, "a private is hardly a notable resident." I suggest you take you up with her. I certainly don't want to, and won't.

Re citations: You say I should use citations from encyclopedias, but that Wikipedia does not come under the definition of a suitable encyclopedia to cite from. But if the references I used have all been checked with the zeal you have exercised on my own entries, they must be valid, mustn't they? I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this but, sorry TRG, now I've heard it all. There is no source to prove that Pennant Hills Golf Club is "exclusive" either, but you have left that alone. The same goes for Garfield Barwick being a local resident. Or Ruth Cracknell. Or any of the other "notables". Michellecrisp had a go at cleaning that section up, disallowing null-referenced entries, but allowing internal references: a violation of WP:CITE, according to you. A simple phone book entry from the appropriate time would suffice. Yet you have left these standing without adverse comment. Is it not an assertion that Sutherland Road was subject to flooding before the M2 was built? Who knew that, except a local who saw the floods: original research, I think. Or that the Hills Bus company was formerly called the Glenorie Bus company. Where's the companies register entry proving that? Or that the Anglican Church was "prominent" in Beecroft. Where's the proof of any of these assertions? You have picked up on my edits only, for reasons which I cannot begin to guess. This evidences a non-NPOV on your part as you are picking and choosing edits by one editor to place caveats upon, while ignoring others' edits which are just as questionable. It is this inconsistency that puzzles me.

I've spent the last week bending over backwards to please you and two other editors regarding references and now you tell me that the encyclopedia whose standards I've been trying to meet is not a suitable encyclopedia to refer to. Can you see my point (especially as I'm a newbie)? No wonder kids at university get 0/10 if they even mention Wikipedia in their essays. There are too many rules with utterly bamboozling contradictions in them. The inconsistencies, ins and outs, the anarchy associated with competing editors who go to war on what amounts to mere disagreement on emphasis and point of view, are mind-boggling to the average person on the outside looking in.

It's taken me a week to get a few simple paragraphs into Wikipedia on several issues that I understand deeply (and which, with respect again, you clearly don't). It's been a frustrating and generally unpleasant experience which I have put up with because I am interested in the three subjects I have written upon and want to set a few facts straight. I don't think that's the aim of Wikipedia... to make it unpleasant to contribute to... but unpleasant it has been. The funny part of all this is that you and the other editors cite internal references to somehow or other "prove" that entries I have made are invalid. Yet when I cite internal references you tell me internal references don't cut it. Call me simple (you have called me enough in the past week from a nimby to an obsessed trivialist dabbling in matters of no importance), but can you see the humour in that? I can only conclude that there are some people who take Wikipedia and their self-appointed status of "editorship" far too seriously,, and are prepared to use selective victimisation, and multiple, contradictory interpretations of rules, as a tool to keep a closed shop running when the horse has already well and truly bolted. This is intellectual wankerism at its worst. Get your stories and your crits straight, or leave me alone... please. --Bushfire Bill (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate you being a bit terser rather than in multi-paragraph replies every time. I don't think you appreciate what I'm saying as regards content, and I don't think you understand what I am saying you need external references for backing up Wiki articles - there is a difference between Wiki links and external citations. I am NOT criticising your entries (apart from the initial ones a week or so ago on the egress facility, which have now been changed and I'm satisfied with that) - I am trying to point out you need external references to back up what you are saying. Have a look at this article and see the in-line citations and where they link up in the text. That is what I mean- you need these sort of things in your sentences to improve the article. For example, as an average Wiki reader who comes along, I'm not to know that the Satin Bowerbird lives in Beecroft. Sure, there may be umpteen books who say that, but if it's not sourced, I can't check the assertion. It's just like an essay or academic work - without references we can't be sure of its validity. That's not to say it's wrong - it's just to say it is better if we have external references. That's the Wiki rules, to which everyone, including you and I must adhere. Internal wiki links aren't references. It will take you two minutes to write in a source. Yes, I'm aware that the rest of the article is far less than perfect and needs plenty of references too, but I didn't write it and I don't have time to fix it at the moment. I'm just encouraging you to add refs as you go (some editors are very overzealous for deleting anything unsourced that I wanted to warn you that this could happen if you left the sentence without sources.) As for the Scout Hall - even if it is a non-event, it HAS been in the media and has received a substantial amount of coverage. Even if, as you say, "you can't believe everything you read in the Northern District Times or Daily Telegraph", the fact remains that there HAS been media coverage - and far more than anything else affecting the suburb in the last couple of years - so it deserves at least a sentence or two. That's all. I was asking if you could go and take a photo of the Scout Hall since you're familiar with the local area (which I'm not). Please understand what I'm trying to do - encourage you by showing you the guidelines. JRG (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, TRG, adding the words "citation required" to any one of a dozen entries in the Beecroft article wouldn't take you any time at all. Your excuse for not editing the rest of the article applies to my contribution too: you didn't write it. I understand you're only "going hard" on me as an introduction to Wiki rules for a newbie, but that doesn't change the basic inequality of your efforts on that page. Moving on, while I don't like the idea of the bush access that the scout hall provides being blocked, it's the owners' right to block it. Surprising for someone you have imferred was a nimby, eh? The access was only ever "non-approved" by Council. There is no bush on the actual site and what native vegetation there is is protected under tree preservation guidelines. The real bush is outside the site and will be left alone by any development. It boils down to this: the local activists don't want private land cleared. They rarely or never use the access it provides (like I do and have), but they don't want anyone else to convert it into a more useful form either. They would rather the scouts organise sausage sizzles to raise $500 per event (if that). The sale of this site would realise probably the equivalent of 4,000 sausage sizzles, being worth about $2 million. It's an acre or so of cleared land next to the bush (not in it), versus the good that $2 million would do for the Scouts. If they want to put in a Wiki entry they can take the photo themselves. My contribution was a photo of a limpid fern glade that is in the bush right behind the scout hall, which I have changed the caption to note. That's the bush which needs to be saved, not private land labouring under some long gone caveat on a deed of grant that no longer applies anyway.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the caption to the fern grove photo.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

I suggest you read the policy on wikistalking which this edit clearly indicates. This is a form of harassment according to Wikipedia policy. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of policy

In the past week, you have made several "final warnings" and empty threats to have me blocked, none of which you carried out (or were able to). I have made one single edit on your contributions, and no entries at all on your talk page, yet you immediately claim I am "stalking" you? If you think my edit was inappropriate there is no need to claim "stalking". Just undo the change. I think you are a little over-sensitive about this, hence further correspondence on this subject from you will be ignored. Thank you.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hardly an abuse of policy as I'm alerting you that if such behaviour continues it will fit the definition of wikistalking The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. writing on someone's talk page is not stalking. also for your information, the editor that was disputing me in Geoffrey Edelsten is now permanently blocked. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply restating your opinion is not an argument. Just this once I'll break my rule of ignoring you. In the post above you clearly alleged I was stalking you. Now you admit that one edit is not stalking. So I guess that means I wasn't stalking you after all? In other words you are making this whole "stalking" thing up based on one single edit that you (in your imagination) have extrapolated into some kind of malicious intent on my part. The assumption seems to be that any change I make to any of your edits is stalking. Clearly a preposterous proposition. This is what I meant by your getting "over-sensitive" about things. Any reading of the talk between us will show that it is you who have instigated most of the exchanges and that it is you who have made the empty threats, fake warnings and all the rest of the trouble. I have not threatened you, or warned you in any way. I have not invaded your home talk page with bombardments of quotes from Wiki policy and threatening graphics. It has all been from your end. You are in no special position of authority to make any threats. Re. the Edelsten post: there you go again... claiming to be able to get people blocked if they disagree with you. I'm sure this claim to have authority in your pocket is frowned upon by real administrators of this site. Incidentally the person who was blocked was temporarily blocked, not permanently blocked, as you claim. More overstatement of your case. In addition, the administrator who blocked the person in question quite specifically mentioned you as a prime source of aggravation on that matter in the following terms:

"There's obviously some inappropriate editing by Wikifactsright, ~~which if he continues I will block him for~~ who I have blocked for reasons unrelated to his editing . At the same time, there are inappropriate threats, warnings and accusations by Michellecrisp, which degenerated into a talk page argument".

Note: "inappropriate threats, warnings and accusations." It seems you never learn. If you write anything more on this matter I will not report or warn you... I will ignore you. However, please do not misconstrue any silence on my part on this matter as agreement with you.(And please use capital letters in your posts. It aids readability)--Bushfire Bill (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you misinterpret me on warnings...they are standard text supplied by Wikipedia, including the word "will be blocked". I did not get Wikifactsright blocked but his edting was clearly disruptive. you can see that 3 administrators contacted me concerning the extremely disruptive editing of him. you quote the opinion of one editor. as stated by another editor above you clearly enjoy long winded posts...why devote so much energy to this? as let's see if you ignore me on this. you seem to be gaming for some sort of intervention. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to want to play on minute detail, I purely alerted you to your editing so that such behaviour does not continue. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly warning

Please refer to my comment made 25th of March about "ownership" - especially in railway articles. I suggest you step back and build up a creditable edit history in other areas before taking your line of arguement. You really need to source online documentary evidence to support your viewpoint. Goodluck!! Surfing bird (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a fellow Poll Bludger reader..

..please stop playing games with the ABC articles. It's amusing and I certainly agree with you regarding the ABC's poor performance recently, but please don't mess up Wikipedia to make a political point. --Stormie (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vera Cruz (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Professionals. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]