User talk:Osloinsummertime

Voting

I just thought I should let you know that you are not supposed to vote twice in an AfD. Might be a good idea to strike one of them.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Griffith University Law School. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. I ask you to cease trying to circumvent the Deletion process and let an admin do their role Michellecrisp (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As an experienced editor, and someone that has occasionally put up articles for deletion, I've seen my fair share of WP:OWN. trying to stop the deletion process or trying to close it in an attempt to keep an article is a classic example of WP:OWN. If you have a conflict of interest with the subject you should declare it as well. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE why is it on the same token, you seem so eager to keep this article? I feel you have a strong attachment to this. especially given you single purpose editing especially at the start of your account on this? I'm applying the same standard I would to any article. check my edit history, I've edited numerous articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also a lawyer living in Brisbane and I have to wonder why Ms Crisp considers that the article on Griffith University Law School, which is obviously an important institution, should be deleted. Ms Crisp has in the past campaigned incessantly against various contributions to Wikipedia by myself and others, demanding citations for matters of common knowledge and demonstrating lack of awareness of the conventions of scholarly citation. Her response to challenges as to her motivation is invariably that Wikipedia cannot be monopolised by "experts," but that does not mean it need be monopolised by aggressively non-expert amateurs. One has to wonder just what her brief might be, particularly given that she has not made much at all in the way of substantive contribution of her own but only challenged contributions by others, as will be evident if one examines her "contributions." (I do not counsel anyone to maintain a watching brief over other editors, be it said, but Ms Crisp clearly monitors very closely all my own contributions with a view to challenging them, for reasons that quite escape me.) She is not without her partisans, be it said -- she managed to get an administrator to block me temporarily at one stage, indeed, entirely for objecting, perhaps (I readily concede) with excessive vehemence to her less-than-constructive interventions. It is useful that you have managed to attract the attention of the administrator Elonka, who is in my experience a sensible and literate overseer and who will no doubt keep sympathetic and disinterested watch on this further perplexing campaign of harassment by Ms Crisp. Do please persist in your efforts to keep this important article on Wikipedia despite Ms Crisp's interventions. The purveying of important information must not be stopped by maverick editors with imponderable personal agenda. (Not, I hasten to qualify, that Ms Crisp is necessarily herself a maverick editor with an imponderable personal agenda). Masalai (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)