Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Leslie

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

This article is trash

[edit]

The whole thing is too bad. The article serves no purpose. Almost everything in it is negative. It should be nominated for deletion but knowing WP it would be kept since AfD voters are impressed by news coverage and don't care about what an encyclopedia really should be about. Borock (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some specific examples or additional sources that support your general but non-actionable criticism? --Merbabu (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about the undue weight given to her crime, arrest, trial, and sentence? Many people go to jail for drugs. If this is what she is known for then the article should be deleted. In my opinion only a really sick person would have such an interest in a young woman's suffering. If any editor who contributed to this article lived in my neighborhood I would go out and buy a gun to protect my family from him (or her but that would be even more sick.) Borock (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Leslie is known for her arrest, trial and sentence - not much else. Hence, it is given due weight in my opinion. The case alone is more than notable enough for a wikipedia article even if she had done nothing else. If you feel strongly that her activities aside from the drug case are notable enough, then please find the necessary reliable sources and develop the article further. Your comments that the dozens of editors who have contributed to this article are "sick" and should be shot are completely inappropriate. Such comments are worthy of you being blocked in my personal opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they should be shot. However that is one good reason to own a gun, to protect yourself and family from people who take pleasure in other people's sufferings, especially when the person suffering is an attractive young woman. Borock (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you really like me to improve the article according to WP policy? If so let me know. Borock (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course I would. Why not? Makes more sense than calling it "trash" and suggesting wikipedia editors get shot. I note your promise to do it according to wikipedia policy. That's good. Are you suggesting it hasn't been done according to WP policy? --Merbabu (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of the page WP:BLP policy is quoted: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." I will go ahead and do this. Borock (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many references in the list. You can you those. --Merbabu (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each fact in the article needs to be linked to a WP:Reliable sourceBorock (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the whole article including removing mention of her arrest is vandalism. I have notified administrators. Are you seriously suggesting it is libellous to mention she got arrested and that she said she was a Muslim? You removed the categories - are you suggesting she wasn't imprisoned abroad? Or that she is not living? Give us a break. --Merbabu (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be rewritten so that it is properly sourced. I would prefer it to be deleted since millions of people use illegal drugs and thousands go to prison for it. She is just not that important. I know she is interesting to certain persons that the media panders to, but WP does not need to go down to that level. Borock (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then take it to afd. Don't blank info and vandalise pages. Your comments about shooting editors and complete omission of the drugs case suggest you are not here for the right reasons. --Merbabu (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will AfD it then. I don't expect it to be deleted because of the mindset of most editors, but you never know. Borock (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great - that would fit within wikipedia's most fundamental policy - WP:CONSENSUS. --Merbabu (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't care to come to a consensus with perverts. Well, some perverts are okay but some are not. Borock (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make personal attacks on other editors. Comments should be solely based on contributions and not contributors. Talk pages are also for discussing changes to the article, not sharing personal opinions on the article subject. Thanks. Euryalus (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the talk page is not a forum about your view on people but is for discussion on improving the article. Bidgee (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up

[edit]

I've cut back that the article rather dramatically, as I think it is generally agreed that it needs major work. I've left the core story about the arrest, everything that was properly referenced and was directly related to core issues, and early life in place. I do expect to add content back, I just figured that rather than slowly taking things out until we get the weight right, it might be better to take stuff out and slowly add it back. :) Hopefully that wasn't too bold a move, but I won't make any changes for a bit in case someone wants to revert, and I have no problems with someone doing so. I have things I'd like to put back (and new stuff about life after Bali), but I think it is better to see if others are happy with what i did first, as you may well not be.

As far as weight goes, I think there were four main issues regarding her arrest:

  • The fact she was arrested and the defence used
  • The conversion to Islam
  • The later claims of corruption
  • The issue about selling her story

I think all four areas should be covered, as should events covered in the media after she was released (return to catwalk, her fashion label for dogs, and so on). - Bilby (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW In the article before the current AfD there was a comment to reference the Sixty Minutes transcript when it appeared. In case the "later claims of corruption" do get put back in (and I think they should) here's the ref: Liz Hayes (2006-06-04). "The price of freedom". Sixty Minutes. Nine Network. Retrieved 2009-04-29. Mark Hurd (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed outline is good, but question why the way forward is to remove material that is both cited (or in reference list) and within the scope of you outline. I'd say it's better to "renovate" the material there rather than delete it (including references) in the hope that someone might rebuild it later. --Merbabu (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so. :) But my concern isn't about referencing - it was well referenced, and you've been doing a good job of fixing things anyway. Personally, I couldn't find anything which wasn't going to be sourced. The problem was undue weight, as a lot of time was spent on trivial aspects, which made them seem more important than other parts of her life. I'll make a shot at adding things back today, and if it is a problem I am still happy to be reverted, with no complaints coming from me. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that much of what you removed was trivia and should stay out. I just saw that some things that you removed did fall under your 4 suggested points. Anyway, it will get there. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come the religion stunt was turfed? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was temporary - it is on my list of things to replace (with refs) tonight. My main question, though, is whether it deserves a subsection of its own? - Bilby (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put back (and extended) the material on her conversion and decision to wear Islamic dress. Actually, I was surprised to see that commentary on this still continues today, but I guess I shouldn't be. Anyway, I've tried to make it as NPOV as I can - hopefully I did ok on that score. - Bilby (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sound basis for suggesting this article should be deleted. 165.228.172.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Front page of the SMH

[edit]

She was on the front page of the SMH well before her Bali trial as the ideal face of beauty. - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Leslie. 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) 09:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Leslie. 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) 23:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Leslie&oldid=1206592855"