User:Grumpyyoungman01/Talk Archive 03

Image deletion

"It's only chewing up server space." It doesn't actually save any server space if I delete it because the actual file itself is retained in case someone wants to undelete it :) enochlau (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

More on Falconians

Hi Grumpy There is no master list other than what I personally have created by a lifetime of research. How do I send it electronically? By simply pasting it here? Now I'm trying those 4 tildas 144.133.198.32 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there 144.133.198.32. If what you add is through your personal research, then don't bother sending it to me or posting it anywhere as I will see it all on the page as you edit it. I was only trying to ensure that all entries on the page either have a citation or the person has their own article. I originally deleted all entries which didn't have either, even though I accept that they are all probably genuine. As the list is now under control and well ordered I no longer feel the need. But this does not negate the neccessity on wikipedia to follow these rules WP:ATT, WP:VER, WP:RS. Even though in general I won't delete your entries, any other user may very well decide to delete them. And as you have done so much research yourself, it is fairly easy to refer to that by putting down editors/authors details, page numbers and publication details in

this sort of format: Old_Falconians#_note-59

rather than as: Old_Falconians#_note-60

Regards, Grumpyyoungman01 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

- P.S. If we can cover all of those bases, I would like to submit the article for consideration at Wikipedia:Good articles.

- P.P.S. 2. As an editing tip see Help:Show preview to use the preview function to more efficiently make multiple edits at the same time.

For your information

This is what I said to Michellecrisp

Your changes to Old Falconians amount to vandalism of site because they are totally wrong. You should not meddle with things you do not understand 1 Rodney Marks is a hoaxer but not in itself a hoax. There are plenty of net hite to quickly establish this fact. So why do you not research it? 2. Tony Steele. Only NSW cricketer??? Again lack of research leads to ignorance! Go to your local library. Find Pollards list of ALL Australian cricketers. Name of Tony Steele is there. It is official. So are you going to reinstate it? 144.133.198.32 01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi 144.133.198.32, Thanks for the FYI.

If you want to undue an edit someone has made see Wikipedia:Revert. In regards to what Michellecrisp took out, just put it back in again. If they still disagree then that can be sorted out later on the talk page. Grumpyyoungman01 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Grumpyyoungman01, I have responded to 144.133.198.32 (see my page). I do not appreciate the tone or his/her insinuation. My edits are not vandalism but made in good faith Michellecrisp 12:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

More on Falconians

The idea of submitting the article for consideration at Wikipedia:Good articles is personally very pleasing but from what you say every name needs citation first. That is a big task. Take Donald Robinson, Archbishop of Sydney. That was originally deleted on basis he went to Shore (fact). But first NSBHS. I was alerted to that by a minister nearly 50 years ago and I checked the School Roll to verify his name was really there - Donald William Bradley Robinson. Verified OK. Whether he wants that known is another matter! At his ordination as Archbishop he offered prayers for his old school. No prizes for guessing which one got the divine blessing and which one missed out. 144.133.198.32 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Donald Robinson sounds like a bit of arsehole, so I wonder why any school would want to own him anyway. Just for GA not everyone would need to be verified, just most. I understand that Who's Who relies on their information from its entrants, they supply the details which is why Donald Robinson's entry is not realible. We can still cite Who's Who, but ideally we would like a reference saying he went to NSBH and a school roll is not good enough if it isn't publically accessible. But, if we have a reference for all of the easy ones, GA won't be so stringent as to need a reference for tricky entries. It is sufficient if it is as good as we can get it. Grumpyyoungman01 03:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Grumpyyoungman01, I was just cruising by. As I've said on the Old Falconians discussion page, I think the list needs more evidence that individuals actually attended North Sydney Boys, I am not at all questioning the achievements of the listed individuals. I'm not requiring 144.133.198.32 to reveal his real name (presuming he's an old boy) but you can select any username on Wikipedia. Michellecrisp 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

More on Falconians

Hi Grumpy You have me confused! Originally you ruled that there was no need to show Loane and Robinson had attended other schools. Now you have reinstated plus McCaskill! What is going on? Large numbers of the entries went to more than one secondary school. 144.133.198.32 07:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I accept on your word that they were at one stage on the school roll. The citations I have reinstated attempt to assert notability. Citations are still required (although may not be found) that they also attended NSBHS. As along as the evidence we have is provided honestly with full disclosure, no one will be misled and no harm is done. All entries who went to another school should have "(also attended...)" tacked on the end, this also helps people who are compiling alumni lists of other schools as we are not working in isolation. Grumpyyoungman01 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Falconians

You changed Who's Who to Who's Who in Australia. This is wrong reference. The page numbers are for (English) Who's Who!! Can you please correct

Ok. Grumpyyoungman01 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

San Francisco Improv Alliance

Hi--thanks for the heads-up; it looks like someone removed the merge tag, which is what I would have done anyway. And kudos to you for tackling mergers; it's too often a thankless job! Jlittlet 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

MEA CULPA

Grumpy Please help I was trying to place something in Old Falconians that was above my level of expertise and I have suddenly found Sports heading deleted and Arts amalgamated with it. Unintentional and shock to me! Please restore. sorry What I was trying to do was place "erroneous" tag onto James Morrison but how that is achieved I do not know. Up comes a template The comment I( was going to put about Morrison was -

   Although he is connected to NSBHS as a soloist with its Big Band, he did not attend the school.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.198.32 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi there, that was really weird! I tracked down the offending edit. When you removed {{erroneous}} you also removed the last bracket of the reference by mistake. I think this is what made the page go so crazy. I can understand the bits where the references went all over the place, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the Sports and Arts sections merged, give that nothing at all was done with those headings. Grumpyyoungman01 09:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Steele notability

Grumpy, Thanks for restoring article. I finally got to library to re-read reference on Tony Hill Steele saga (and take book out). Here is new citation - The Complete Illustrated History of Australian Cricket by Jack Pollard (Viking Press, 1995) states at p. 437: "An Australian 'B' team returned this visit by playing eight matches in New Zealand in February and March 1970, under the captaincy of Sam Trimble. The Australian team was S. C. Trimble, G. S. Chappell, G. R. Davies, A. Turner, R. J. Inverarity, G. D. Watson, J. A. Steele, J. A. MacLean, D. Chadwick, T. J. Jenner, D.A. Renneberg, A. L. Thomson, D. K. Lillee and K. J. O'Keeffe." Is that not sufficient to remove the dubious tag yourself please? (There is also a longer reference in another Pollard work but that book is at a library far away - one day!Question: Can an acceptable citation be to a web page given no guaranteed permenency like a book? If yes, what format should it take? Perhaps paste the relevant part? Thanks again. 144.133.198.32 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, as I don't know your name, and I don't like to call you 144.133.198.32 as that is where you live and not who you are and calling you "you" or anonymous is offensive/obnoxious so I will call you Bob, (even though I don't know your sex).

Hi Bob,

Very impressive research skills and effort. The dispute is no longer about Tony Steele's existance or achievements, it now comes down to something fundamental to wikipedia. What is considered to be noteworthy? Is what he did sufficiently notable to be in an encyclopedia? It is good enough for an encyclopedia of cricket. I'll give you an example of the subjectivity of notability on WP:

I think Richard DiNatale is notable, because he is likely to become Victoria's first Green Senator. But I don't think David Risstrom is notable, because whilst he almost became Victoria's first Green Senator, he didn't get elected and is not likely to be unless he is preselected in 3 and half years time. This puts him at a level of all other unsuccessful candidates. That is just my opinion though.

Back in the day before this article was split from the school page, Enochlau's opinion was that an entry on a list is notable if an article on that person is justified. Note that this is different from anyone actually wanting to start an article on someone.

• Athletes:

         o Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis
         o Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.

taken from Wikipedia:Notability (people).

That doesn't make much sense to me. I really don't know what decision to make regarding Tony Steele. I suggest that we discuss the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Look for the heading Tony Steele on a school alumni list Grumpyyoungman01 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done quite a few pieces on cricketers and, seeing your discussion at the wikicricket page, I cut the Gordian Knot and did an article on Tony Steele regarding his first class cricket career. All first class cricketers are notable on Wikipedia, that debate's been done and dusted. I took the liberty of changing 'international' to 'first class' cricketer on your list because the status of those matches in New Zealand is confusing. Feel free to change it back though, it doesn't really matter either way. If you want to reference Tony Steele on your list of Old Falconians just copy the references (cricinfo and cricket archive) from the new Tony Steele page. They're the standard ones for cricketers on here. Hope this has helped! Nick mallory 08:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nick, the change to 'first class' is a good distinction to make for the list. Extra thanks for the page! Grumpyyoungman01 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Falconians

Grumpy! Why can't I put the well known popular title "The King of Bookmakers" against Bill Waterhouse? 144.133.198.32 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Steele

Some further points here; Jack Pollard's work Australian Cricket: The Game and the Players is an encyclopedia and Tony steele has a big article in it! I have not yet got to revisit the book at Mosman Library. Is that not notable? Look at the players who toured with him. Some of the all time greats! Just called 'B' as no Tests but a real Australian team which is why it conferred international status. 144.133.198.32 03:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about cricket for any of this to make sense to me, which is why I didn't weigh into the debate with Michellecrisp. But all is sorted now. In fact, you can remove all of the extra info from the Tony Steele reference if you want, just a page number to the encyclopedia is sufficient, especially as he has his own page now. Up to you. Grumpyyoungman01 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Grumpy Still awaiting your answer on validity of a citation to a Web page plse 144.133.198.32 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about your question.

Yes website citations are acceptable as long you think the source is reliable. Give the link a title and an author or organisation if there is one, in brackets say (accessed day month year). And all is ok. If the link disappears, we can worry about that later. Let me know if there something more specific you need help with re citing web pages.

I don't understand your Bill Waterhouse question? Did I or someone else delete something? If so I can't remember and I can't see why you couldn't put "The King of Bookmakers" against Bill Waterhouse. So go ahead. Grumpyyoungman01 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: uncontroversial image deletions

Hi Stephen,

Could you please delete these four images: Image:Dear Landlord argument map.jpg, Image:NASA Stardust Mission inference objection.jpg, Image:Stardust Mission Inference objection with co-premise included.jpg and Image:Condorcet method argument map.jpg? I have uploaded png versions of those files and no articles now link to the jpegs. Thanks - Grumpyyoungman01 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about this when it first popped up here, but I've dealt with those now. --bainer (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen. Grumpyyoungman01 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

More Questions

Thanks Grumpy for info 1 Yes someone did remove "King of Bookmakers" but as long as in "" "" indicates popular title like one already in article for Bob Adamson "The Poet of the Hawkesbury River." 2 As to lots of 'citation needed' remaining to be finalised, the thought occurs whether I could if acceptable refer to published school sources, namely the school magazine (called, surprise, The Falcon), the Old Boys Bulletin and the public schools exam list published in SMH (repeated in The Falcon). Are these all ok plse? The issue may be one of public access if there is an intention (from Wikipedia viewpoint) that any reader can go to source to read/verify. Then again you may say that is irrelevant. Please note that NSW State Library has a strict policy of not keeping school magazines (to save $10 million on a new wing to house them!) 3 You would have noted someone altered Tony Steele international cricketer to first class cricketer but did not give a citation! Is that a breach (even if ultimately correct)? I will contact ACB HQ for an official ruling. As you are no doubt aware international status arises from a man made set of rules, varies from sport to sport, era to era. In about 1990 45 new Wallabies were created just by a rule change 144.133.198.32 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Falconians

Sorry to trouble you again but this time cited references have gone crazy. Plse restore 144.133.198.32 10:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Grumpy, did you intend for "NSBHS HSC 1969" for Mark Aarons to appear in body of text rather than references? Why was Web reference for McWhinney deleted plse? Surely an official govt site is valid! I see you wish me to insert full Web address even if very long - I was trying to shorten! Cheers Bob 144.133.198.32 06:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob, With all of the NSBHS HSC 19XX things (I moved more than just Mark Aarons), I wasn't sure if you were just indicating the year that they graduated, or if that was a school published reference similar to the Leaving certificate. If you are saying when they left, it should be in the body, if it is a reference, give it its own reference tags to separate it from the other references. I noticed that you included that info with a reference from somewhere else, hence my confusion.

In general, if other citations cover both the fact that the entry is notable and that they attended the school, don't bother with a school published citation.

It doesn't matter how short or long a web address is, because if you look at my formatting changes, and you did the same in some cases, all web address should be given a title. With the organisation in normal typography and the specific page name or headline in italics. This means that the web address itself is piped.

The only reason that I deleted the McWhinney Canadian parliament link is because I couldn't be bothered to find the actual page, having done so for others already. So by all means reinstate it in full. Grumpyyoungman01 07:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Steele again

Dear Grumpyyoungman, mr anon has admitted here [1] that he is a personal friend of Tony. to me that explains his insistence of including Tony. secondly, Wikipedia guidelines are clear on conflict of interest. I would prefer if an independent third party consider the inclusion of Tony Steele. The fact remains he is not on cricinfo as an international player. Michellecrisp 02:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michelle, there has already been an independent consensus that Steele be included on the list. See here, Steele also now has his own article, which was not created by Steele's friend Bob (anon). He is legitimately on the list and I think the only thing that you could insist upon is Steele being referred to as an A class player and not an international player. But an independent editor from the Crikect project has asserted that it is fair to call him an international player, see Nick Mallory's comment down the bottom of the section, he said it was ok to change it back to "international" and that is what Bob has done. Grumpyyoungman01 03:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Chambers

Can you see my point? He has given more Public Seervice than anyone! But it depends on definition. Move if you wish 144.133.198.32 08:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Steele

Grumpy, here we go again!! The person who changed status stated "the tour does not have international status' and "no baggy green cap" Am I correct in believing that to validly make that change they need to have a citation, not merely a`claim. By going back over lots of past discussion, the point was reached, as I understand it, that international status was established. So what is the justification for change. I believe at time the players did wear baggy green caps but that may have to be verified from ACB. But that is not crucial point anyway. As pointed out before, international status is not a matter of opinion but a set of man made rules distinctive for each sport. Here is an example of the bizarre - In the 1950s Australian Rugby Union was at a low point. NZ teams on way to South Africa just considered the games here as low grade practice! On one occasion, the entire NZ squad of 30 decided to play on same day - 2 games in Sydney. But 2 All Blacks were carrying injuries. So 2 local Sydney club players were drafted. One I remember was Gordon's long serving fullback Maurie Graham (brother of a League legend). What is their OFFICIAL status? Full All Blacks listed on NZ's Roll of Internationals! 144.133.198.32 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Again

Grumpy, since last posting, it has just come to my attention that the person who made the change on Tony Steele has perpetrated a big fraud. They changed quote from Jack Pollard's book to read "this tour does not have international status" So that is not just their claim as I originally thought but supposedly a` dirct quote from book. Having taken book out of Stanton Library North Sydney I am in a position to state Jack Polard wrote no such thing or anything like it! 144.133.198.32 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Finality

Grumpy, have just sent a request to ACB for ruling but question arises how does their reply become authenticated for Wikipedia purposes? Someone will say it may be another fraud! Pderhaps there should be an arbitrator with a PO box no! Reason: I have lots of press clippings from decades ago before net existed so I did not place source on every one. 144.133.198.32 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob, see my comment here for the penultimate ruling on the matter. If anybody wants to make the change away from a description of 'international' they need to first run it past Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Grumpyyoungman01 08:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Falconians

Grumpy, just to let you know - in course of researching "citation needed" for Benjamin Way, I discovered I had made a howler. The Covent Garden Director is his elder brother Justin Way and not Benjamin the School Captain. So it's corrected 144.133.198.32 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Grumpy plse tell me how to insert an explanation into history when making a change Thanks 144.133.198.32 06:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob,

Underneath the editing box you will see this text: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*.

Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made) : "

Just underneath that you will see a wide, one line box. Type your edit summary in there. If you click on the "show preview" button under the summary box, then you will be able to see a preview of your edit summary as well.

I have noticed that Michellecrisp has made lots of edits to the List lately. I don't have time to have a look at all of that now (studying for exams). What I suggest that you do is leave the list alone for a week or so, until I get around to checking out the edits. In the meantime I suggest that you put any new additions to the list somewhere else. Such as on here, which is a subsection of my user page.

Don't worry about any deletions to the list, as it has happened all before when I deleted stuff and can be restored in whole or in part in a matter of seconds. - Grumpyyoungman01 06:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

yes I have made a lot of corrections and some deletions. all corrections are citated. see discussion page for deletions, all are justified in terms of Wikipedia notability guidelines. Michellecrisp 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not threatening or anything like that. I had a look at what you have said on the talk page and it all seemed sensible. - Grumpyyoungman01 06:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of alterations by Michellecrisp

Grumpy, thanks for tip. As to alterations, I regard "need for citation" as a challenge and respond accordingly including visit to NSBHS Archives Room last Tuesday 11 to 1. Gave up then through tiredness but will go back. If anyone thinks references are in doubt let them address a letter to The Archivist, NSBHS, Falcon Street, Crows Nest NSW asking for confirmation. The Archivist is a professional but engaged part time only. So as result of research discovered Smilde was not World Bridge Champion but member of third-placed team. This came about because my press clipping turned out unreliable. Likely to happen again of course. In fact, last Tuesday could not locate Sir Vernon Christie on Roll so for moment will remove (there's a lot of confusion with NS Intermediate HS!) The Australian Obituary did clearly state NSBHS. Michellecrisp is liable to same errors especially as to date his research is`confined to Google. This is suspect yet it is being used to supplant my well researched data! The web page that claims Read as youngest ever Australian professor is obviously way out. That is just one example. Also putting Sir John Kempson Maddox - he never used John. Grumpy what is your view on placing a direct quote from SMH Obituary "took Australian drama to new levels of sophistication"? Aleged glowing bias but not from me! If quote cited it becomes a fact in itself even if the writer had a personal connection. 144.133.198.32 08:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Obituaries are almost always testimonials to someone's achievements. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a testimonial. Just because it appears as text in obituary does NOT make it encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is an online wikipedia and thus references may be from the web. I use google because it's one of the premier search engines and the web enables one to verify some of the lesser known doubtfully notable people that I've never heard of. If things don't come up on google then it's probably not notable. Otherwise the whole page on old falconians lacks neutrality since some have an interest in making it look so good. By the way, Anon, I am female not male. Offence taken. Michellecrisp 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Michellecrisp

Grumpy, Hopefully when your exams are over, you will be able to examine in full the highly disruptive activities of this person and as Editor do something about it! He sets a very high standard but does not observe it himself. Examples 1 The original entry for Tony Steele was carefully worded - "Australian cricketer" - that's all. Yet it was deleted on basis Steele never played for Australia. If anything has been proven, it is the correctness of that simple statement and it was verifiable by library research. So what was the basis of the deletion? That Michellecrisp is the repository of all knowledge in the universe? Did we ever read a statement "Sorry I got it wrong I never knew about that 1970 tour of NZ"? This is a theme you will see many times - inadequate or no research. 2 The original entry for Marks was deleted on basis it was a hoax. The smallest level of research would have quickly established Marks existed in precisely the manner described. And the tag is of course a direct accusation against me. Again a theme repeated. Again no apology. 3 Whilst I have already told you I welcome "citation needed" it is another matter to flippantly insert tag "dubious". And these again are easily verifiable by research. Both Andrews and `Neil are in Who's Who in Australia but not necessarily the current edition. I could go on and on about the deletions, alterations and false accusations on bases not properly researched (or not researched at all) but you will see all that for yourself. I hope you have enough time? Thanks Grumpy for being a helpful and fair Editor. You will not hear from me again 144.133.198.32 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob,

I'm always happy to hear from you, don't stop giving me talk page messages! Wikipedia is filled with lots of editors who are always trying to do the best by the project that they can. Conflicts are inevitable and as far as conflicts/disagreements go, this one on Old Falconians is tame and curteous. Have a look at some of the recent disputes I have been in here and here. Don't burn yourself out with research. As a point of Wikipedia policy, anything that is contentious and does not have a citation tag is allowed to be deleted on the spot. In practice, many editors do not do this, unless it is obvious vandalism. But being bold is probably the single most important policy. Grumpyyoungman01 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Anon, no need to whinge behind my back. I am not being disruptive. All my edits are in good faith. I note you did not apologise for calling me a male? How discourteous. I also note your continual refusal to create an identity for yourself despite being a very regular user. Grumpy is right, anything that is not properly citated on Wikipedia can be deletedin Wikipedia, this is policy: Any edit lacking a source may be removed. Tony Steele did not appear as an international cricketer on cricinfo which is the most common point for checking one's cricketing credentials. Look at the talk page, there are people of dubious notability. I am concerned that the Old Falconians page is exaggerating or having a very low bar for inclusion of people compared to other old boys sites, for example this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_Old_Sydneians is much better. Michellecrisp 05:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling a kettle black, this kind of rude message lacks civility and courtesy, worse still it comes from an anonymous identity. Michellecrisp 05:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michelle and Bob, my main advice is don't take it personally. Talk about edits and not personalities/motivations. No point in whingeing about the behaivour of other users as it is a complete waste of time. I have only been here for a year and a half or so, but that much I know. - Grumpyyoungman01 05:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't take it personally as my edits are all in good faith and justified. check my edit history on a number of topics not just this one. I take pride in making Wikipedia better and more an encyclopaedia than soapbox. Anonymous attacks are not appreciated though. Michellecrisp 05:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Motivations are important if it breaches conflict of interest guidelines. For example, I have discovered other editors with clear conflicts of interest. Michellecrisp 05:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I meant to ignore motivations unless the point of dispute is the motivation. Grumpyyoungman01 05:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)