Talk:Tim Ellis (magician)

message: This conversation seems a bit strange. In Australia both Phil Cass and Sean Taylor are more established in general media and yet non of them have a listing on Wikipedia. Maybe they are more busy performing and working then promoting themselves on forums like this. The only way to get a page on Wiki seem to be, to make one yourself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.180.243 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Tim Ellis is one of the most important magicians in Australia's recent history. Well known and respected internationally, multiple award winner, innovator and publisher... why shouldn't he be listed?
The two other Australian magicians listed in Wikipedia (Card Mondor & Tommy Hanlon Jr) have contributed far less to the Australian and world magic scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsonmitre (talk • contribs) 
:This article (like the above comment) was clearly created and written by the subject, and to a large extent is transparent self-promotion. I have begun the process of making the article neutral and encyclopedic. Further work in this direction is required to bring the article into an acceptable state (if the subject is in fact notable). Doggus (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: All right, let's stop with the back-and-forth accusations please; this is a talk page, and is intended to be used to improve the article, not snipe at other editors.
Maintenance tags are a good way to help improve articles, but they require an explanation; User:Doggus, please explain why you feel the article needs these tags, and what you feel should be done to meet the deficiencies that you're concerned with. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tony. I understand that the tag does require explanation. I think in general the entire article requires a review on the grounds that small claims to notability are inflated to puff out the general notability of the subject. I am not convinced the subject is in fact notable, but do not myself have a great handle on the way notability is judged and established at Wikipedia for this particular kind of entertainer. I also think the tone of the entire article tends to fall short of being encyclopedic, no doubt due to the self-promotional aspects of the article as currently composed. I recognize these are all general rather than specific criticisms, but at present I lack the time to go through the article with a fine tooth comb. I realize that this may mean no action is forthcoming in terms of either improving or removing the article. Apologies if I am unable to devote the necessary attention to the article. Finally, how long will other editors feel it necessary to make false and incorrect proclamations about my identity? No worthwhile purpose is served by their continued insistence on doing so. Doggus (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling a time out 

message: The citations need to be properly formatted using citation templates.  A number of them claim to be from newspapers when in fact they are reproductions of the newspaper on another site which is not the same thing.  Please read WP:Citing sources and WP:Reliable sources.  Youtube is not a reliable source, MagicUnlimited is a self published source, not an RS, except for citing the opinions of Ellis, the link from ref #25 (Catchpenny Club) does not support the statement.  I could go on.  There are few citations that support the notability, the rest are just non RS puffery, I am afraid. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have formatted the first two citations properly and they do not inspire much confidence - a baptist church magazine and the Australian Institute of magic chaired by Sue Webster!.  Please read WP:RS. Please demonostrate how these so-called sources in the article meet this criteria Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Can you demonstrate that the War Cry and the AIM have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, i.e. are they frequently cited without comment by major news organisations? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a lack of understanding.  Wikipedia doesn't work on assumptions such as The War Cry was established in 1879. Seems reliable. It works on verifiable reliable sourcing. Demonstrate that the War Cry and AIM are RS and then they are OK, like the New York Times or The Age.  Otherwise they are no better than fan sites or blogs. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: You have to demonstrate that other reliable sources use a source like the War Cry and consider it to be reliable.  It has nothing to do with how long the magazine has been published.  Please read WP:RS and WP:Verifiability.  It is important that you understand how this works if you wish to edit here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I undid the removal of category Professional Magician, there is absolutely no logical reason to remove this category, it is after all what Tim is
Brendan Croft (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Already covered by the Australian Magicians category. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess we have different ideas of how the categories work then. I wasn't aware that a search of Professional Magician would return magicians without that category tagged on them. Unless Australian Magician is a sub category of Professional Magician, which would be incorrect as there are many Australian Magicians, some Wiki worthy, that aren't actually professional magicians. One is an area specific Category and the other relates to an individuals profession, very different things. When dealing with an art that is common as both a profession and as a hobby/interest, the difference is very important. Brendan Croft (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Please note that there is every likelihood that user Mark Linch is in fact the subject of the article, despite claims to the contrary which  have recently been added to Mark Linch's userpage. The motive for adding such claims is clear: to distance the subject of the article from the deception which Mark Linch was caught perpetrating above. The deception involved would obviously be embarrassing, were it found to have been perpetrated by the subject of the article, because "Mark Linch" was caught adding a comment while logged out which pretended to be by an anonymous user in the UK, and which proclaimed the great renown of the subject (and note that user Carsonmitre, who is also likely to be the subject of the article, had already added a similar comment proclaiming the notability of the subject, but under the Carsonmitre username, when the article was first commenced). When this deception was initially pointed out, there was no response or denial by either user Mark Linch or user TimEllis43. No doubt these users may claim this was because they did not wish to dignify the claims etc., but the deception was clear, and it seems more likely that the user(s), having been caught, were unsure of the best course of action. If user Mark Linch is in fact the subject of the article, as he appears to be, then it is unfortunate that, having been caught in an embarrassing deception, they are now piling deception upon deception. Furthermore, it is contrary to strict Wikipedia policy for a single editor to edit an article with more than one identity. Any editor who has been editing this page with more than one identity would be best advised to admit they have been doing so, and state clearly which account they wish to use in the future. Doggus (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I'm not "attacking" anybody, and I am not doing anything "now" that I didn't do before. What I am doing is pointing out a clear deception which you perpetrated, which I have pointed out before, and about which you have said not one word. After the deception was initially pointed out, and when you hadn't edited for a while under the Mark Linch username, I thought you may have dropped that identity on the grounds of compromised integrity. But when you resumed editing as Mark Linch, I felt it reasonable to raise the issues of the conduct and identity of Mark Linch. OK, so you deny that you are the subject: that denial may have been more convincing, if you had not behaved in a clearly deceptive way, and if you had not then completely failed to acknowledge the deception. But given those two factors, it is difficult to take the denial on face value. The rest of your comment is nonsense: I am not ignoring anything about the article, nor am I insisting on anything in relation to the article. Furthermore, if the article has been improved as a consequence of my intervention, so much the better (but don't worry, I won't be hanging out for your thanks). The only thing on which I insist is that your conduct has been deceptive and poor. I should further point out that Wikipedia is not a punitive culture: where users break rules or make mistakes or stuff up, but then acknowledge their errors and indicate they will not repeat them, then no further repercussions usually follow. But where they behave deceptively, violate policy, maintain conflicts of interest, etc., and fail to acknowledge or reform their behavior, then they can find themselves in difficulty. It is for that reason that I urge full and honest disclosure on the questions raised. Better late than never. Doggus (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Full and open disclosure of identity, I like it, how about leading by example Doggus, and before you claim that your identity is irrelevant, it isn't!! Let me introduce you to the concept of "conflict of interest". Due to your constant refusal to identify yourself and your obvious obsession with this particular article, it is fair and reasonable for any one to assume you have some type of vested interest in this, or some type of personal vendetta. Until you can prove that you have neither, your comments will be ignored and your edits will be undone. 61.9.142.38 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Previous comment was me, silly work computer had logged me out again Brendan Croft (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that there is a temptation for other editors to circle the wagons and fire warning shots against perceived outside threats. Attacking me may certainly be easier than dealing with the relevant questions. In this case, however, I don't believe such an approach actually does anybody any favors, including the subject of the article. Attempts to distract from the questions I have raised are not, in fact, helpful. But it would not surprise me if the same wrongheaded responses continue, to nobody's benefit. Doggus (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I thought it was Doggus that had been avoiding answering direct questions, like "why do you have such a hard on for Tim?". Just go away Doggus, your edits here will be undone and your comments are obviously tainted by your personal issues, as anyone who has read this can tell. Why don't you and Mark go and find some where else to play. Brendan Croft (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple accounts 

message: If anyone is going to add the reference check tag please cite specific reasons, the references on this page have been thoroughly checked, and in fact an impartial editor even reformatted them and found more. Please do not add this tag simply because you don't like the subject personally. 61.9.142.38 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Check Tag 

message: Why is Tim Ellis not listed here as a World Champion of Close Up Magic.  His own publicity material claims he is  yet when you check the facts  .. the truth comes out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.71.6 (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I undid the removal of the People with Aspergers Syndrome and People on the Autistic Spectrum category tags as it is publicly known that Tim was diagnosed with Aspergers in 2007 and is in the references here
1.    ^ Unwin, Mat (September 2007). "Tim Ellis and Sue-Anne Webster in their words". Magic Magazine pp. 46-51 (Las Vegas: Stan Allen).
Should a simple statement of Tim being diagnosed with Aspergers in 2007 and an appropriate reference be a better way to go that removing valid category tags?
Brendan Croft (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it is known to the general public is irrelevant. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for verification. And the sourced statements belong in the article, not here. The usual procedure on Wikipedia is not to restore the information until it is properly sourced, so don't revert again without adding the appropriate information to the article. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspergers Syndrome and Autistic Spectrum Categories