User talk:Michaelhobart

Welcome!

Hello, Michaelhobart, and

to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Maybe you need to look very carefully at

Suro 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Your edit to Tasmania

I have reverted your edit to Tasmania again because:

• The Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race is already mentioned in the article, specifically in the "Events" section.
• Most importantly, your addition of a book published by Ludeke Publishing clearly violates the
  conflict of interest guidelines as it is the same as your username. Graham87 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ummm

OK you might need to realise that every time you try to put it in you will either eventually get blocked for consistent spamming or COI issues. Unless you think around the issue - or try editing rather than just putting a link in. Think very carefully about your next edit - or you will get blocked as a spam/coe only account

Suro 00:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please

Sign your edits/messages on others talk pages, thanks.

]

Re: Tasmanian page edit

You could propose the addition of further reading material at

]

Regarding your username

Hi Ludekepublishing, I am concerned about your username because it would appear to be the name of a company that you either own or represent. Having reviewed your recent contributions, I noticed that you have been adding references which were published by this company. As you can see from

]

Sarah I have logged a request to alter my username. however, if editors spent mroe time checking the acuracy of content and the validity of those making edits rather than hasslng people over silly little things like this, there might be more pages that give readers a broader perspective on the accurate information they are trying to search for. Ludekepublishing 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for submitting the change username request. I do not agree that politely requesting someone change their username to something other than their business's name, as required by policy, may be accurately characterised as "hassling people", however, I do concur that it is very unfortunate that administrators must waste their time on trivial issues like chasing up people who have chosen inappropriate usernames when there are administrative backlogs to deal with. It would be much easier for all concerned if people followed the instructions on the initial sign up page which says:

"Your username must not contain:

• offensive, confusing, random or unreadable text or characters
• names of celebrities, notable world figures or events, or known Wikipedians
• existing company names (including non-profit organizations) and trademarks
• words like "bot" or "script" that refer to automated editing processes
• titles like "admin" or "sysop" that imply authority on Wikipedia
• domain names

For more information about which usernames are acceptable on Wikipedia, see our username policy." [1]

Now that Wikipedia is a top 10 website worldwide, many people see us as a tempting free forum for advertising and spamming their business names and products. Regardless, I thank you for your understanding and if you require any administrative advice or assistance in the future, please feel free to let me know. Regards, Sarah 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the new skin!

]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cpl2h.jpg)

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michaelhobart,

I think there are a number of problems with this page.

It's not really "Maria Island National Park" at all - "A European History of Maria Island" would be a more suitable title. It doesn't include mention of Aboriginal history - about 30,000 years compared with 200. It also conflicts with the "Maria Island" page, which is more comprehensive and less obsessed with European history. You used it to advertise what appears to be your own publication. It contained many spelling, grammatical and factual errors. Each section seems to refer to places and names as though they have been explained previously in the text (even though they haven't). Some of the links aren't set up properly.

There are now effectively two Maria Island sites. One contains your European history stuff and not much else. The other contains a spread of information.

I've done a bit to tidy up the "MINP" page.

I'd suggest incorporating your history stuff into the "Maria Island" page instead, and talking about the national park and its attractions and management on the "MINP" page. However, any history stuff should be balanced with an equal amount (and quality) of other information.

Actually, it's probably a better idea to incorporate both of them into one page - the difficulty is that Maria Island is both an island and a national park, so it falls into both groups.

cheyne (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyne - I think the pages should be merged, but suggesting it is "not really Maria Island National Park" is nonsense. It is presently Tasmanian Government owned property and its official title is Maria Island National Park and, thus, the page should be titled this to reflect the actual name of the island. Some work should be done, as you said, to incorporate the historical info into the natural info to form one page covering all aspects. I support you on the amalgamatrion despite the fact a couple of others do not agree. Two pages is confusing.

There is no issue with having separate NP and locality articles.

]

Take care

If you dont know

]

Response from Cheyne

Sorry it's taken me so long to get around to reading your comments, Michaelhobart. I don't really have any knowledge of or particular interest in penal settlements. Re my "last rediculous [sic] comment", I only raised this because the island effectively falls into two wikipedia categories. I have not "littered both sites with numerous errors", as you say. You also say "As it is my extensive knowledge based on extensive research..., I also do not see any problem in referncing the only good publication..., especially given the rangers and co on the island sell my publication as a reliable source of all informatin about Maria Island National Park". The rangers have told me that they sell it because it is the only historical publication available, despite the fact that (according to them) it contains errors. cheyne (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michaelhobart. You say in your last message to me "I found many errors in the information you have contributed to the Maria Island pages". This assertion is not borne out in the page's history, as there are no instances in which you have corrected any of my input. You added a few words about Aboriginal evidence near the isthmus. This evidence certainly existed historically and was witnessed by the crew of Baudin's expedition. In the present day, many Aboriginal artefacts including stone tools can be seen in situ elsewhere on the island's coast as well. cheyne (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]