User talk:Cross porpoises

Laurence C. Jones

How did the entry on Prof. Jones suddenly become non-notable while his associate Martha Louise Morrow Foxx remains notable. The information lost in the merge was factual, but did have an oral history aspect to it and needed some work. - Athrash | ^Talk 09:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the huge section from "One day in 1909..." onwards was uncited, and read like an essay instead of an encyclopedia entry. Rather than request deletion of the article, I redirected his page to the one about the school, since his foundation of it is his claim to notability. I do not believe Martha Louise Morrow Foxx is notable at all, but one editor disagreed. Therefore, I will have to take this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where others can offer opinions. Since there are no webhits, no Google book results, nor any Google scholar results, I fail to see what content we can build on. Cross porpoises (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The world does not revolve around Google. There are references in books to her worth as a beloved teacher of the blind. One newspaper article [1] will bring tears to the eyes. What about her daily task in 1930 of washing six little boys night and morning and tucking them away in their beds, rather heartwarming. - Athrash | ^Talk 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Laurence C. Jones, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to use the wikify and uncited tags when an article is uncited and reads like an essay. Removal of content to support an AfD is simply vandalism. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And you feel free to read Wikipedia's definition of vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Kind of hard to argue that I "made a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" when I tidied the categories while making my AfD nomination[2] (which, if you weren't such a clown, you would have realised was for Martha Louise Morrow Foxx and not Laurence C. Jones). And are you aware that you're violating policy (Wikipedia:Assume good faith) when leaving boilerplate messages making unfounded accusations of vandalism on talk pages? So go pester someone who thinks you know what your talking about. Cross porpoises (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Martha Louise Morrow Foxx

I have rewritten this article and added numerous citations. I hope that you will reconsider your AfD nomination. • Freechild'sup? 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Smoke-free laws

Hi Cross Porpoises. I admire your policing zeal, but unfortunately you've reverted a significant number of carefully considered improvements before there had been opportunity to add a fuller discussion on the relevant talk pages. As I don't want to get into an editing war (doubtless you don't either), I'll explain the rationale for you here and we can then hopefully move on and keep these sites under positive repair. You'll have gathered perhaps that I do have some expertise in the subject, but the edits made were from standard Wikipedian principles, in order to employ the term most commonly used in the field of endeavour covered and to avoid the ambiguity which the previous term 'smoking ban' often carries with it (not least in suggesting that smoking per se is to be banned, which is almost never the case in fact). It would be helpful if you could indeed discuss such moves or improvements before rejecting them quite so rapidly, and in this case you would be doing the WP project a favour by undoing your rapid revisions and, as you have advocated, talking about it. Thanks.Hypocaustic (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hypocaustic

I've started a thread at WP:ANI on this user. oknazevad (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)