Talk:Michelle Marsh

message: I have removed the word "mesmorisingly" (descriptive of her allegedly natural figure) as hideously unencyclopedic. I've also marked her stated measurements as citation needed because I personally find it extremely unlikely that the given sizes represent her actual dimensions. 82.46.144.37 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that the measurements are actually (and somewhat astonishingly) correct in this instance. However, you are quite right to remove "mesmorisingly" and request citation. I should imagine a keen Nuts (magazine) reader will be able to help out here!!... Jhamez84 21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Her measurements are always being given as such almost every time she appears on Page 3 Online. Perhaps that will help? From what I know of British bra measurements, if you have a very narrow back, as Michelle seems to have, the cup size will appear bigger, hence the FF. -- Jalabi99 13:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mesmerisingly Natural" 

message: Please can editors be mindful that Royton is in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, not the town of Oldham (they are two different locations with their own wikipedia entries!). Whilst one may write an address as Royton, Oldham, this is an encyclopedia - not an address label, where the information is required to be presented in a more specific and factual way.
My apologies for being so precise about this, but I have the articles best interests at heart, and would hope that if a researcher/student required this information, they would have the right infomation presented to them! Thanks for your co-opertaion. Jhamez84 18:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Futher to this User_talk:195.93.21.5 is insisting on changing the article so it does not reflect the truth (see the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, Oldham, and Royton articles to verify that Royton is indeed its own town in the Borough of Oldham). If this user alters the page, please can an editor kindly revert their changes- in the meantime I will leave a warning on their user page regarding this and the 3RR wikipedia policy. Thanks guys, Jhamez84 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royton is in the [[Metropolitan Borough of Oldham]]!

message: Can someone please put back the infobox for Michelle? (Great choice of picture, by the way.) -- Jalabi99 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of Infobox 

message: There are a few problems with this sentence fragment that someone keeps putting into the article lead.  In no particular order:
*(1) There's no particular discussion (or source) in the article for the proposition that her breasts are large.
*(2) There's no particular discussion (or source) in the article for the proposition that her breasts are natural.
*(3) There's no source in the article indicating that she's noted for either of these things.
*(4) The passive tense is used here in an attempt to disguise the complete lack of sources.
As Wikipedia is a tertiary source encyclopedia, we must always have reliable sources for assertions we make.  It may be that Michelle Marsh is noted for her large, natural breasts.  In that case, it should be easy to find a reliable source stating that.  Just because you note her for that is not in any way adequate.
Hope that helps, Nandesuka 13:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "noted for her large, natural breasts." 

message: Excuse me for being a clueless native of a former colony, but what's the difference between saying one is English vs. British? Can't we just pick one and stick with it? Tabercil 18:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop reverting to the version of the article that has the unsourced statement about what she is noted for. Nandesuka 01:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I took a look at a number of other random articles about celebrities - Sting, Emma Bunton, Robert Palmer, John Cleese, Helen Mirren and Dido. In each instance they were referred to as being English, not British in the first paragraph. So it would appear that the preferred usage on Wikipedia is English. So I guess that's how Ms. Marsh is to be referred to here. Tabercil 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? I looked at random points in the Helen Mirrin article, and the article has her identified as "English" from about January 2006 on. John Cleese was from about December 2005 on. Dido is from about January 2006 as well. I wouldn't call that "recent months"...  Tabercil 06:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So given that the bulk of the other articles identify the subject as "English", then why should Ms. Marsh be identified differently as "British"? Tabercil 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you have to prove that consensus supports you.  As soon as you do, I will stop reverting you.  --Ideogram 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You are wrong, as I am demonstrating to you.  --Ideogram 18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not an argument.  It's a statement of fact.  You cannot get your way by going against consensus.  --Ideogram 18:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I observe that multiple people have reverted you and you are the only one reverting right now.  And you are not allowed to discount other people's opinions based on your belief that they have a "personal vendetta".  You must WP:AGF or you can leave.  --Ideogram 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have let your last edit to John Profumo stand since I observe there is no consensus against you there.  I do not have a personal vendetta against you; if you learn how to work with consensus I promise I will leave you alone.  --Ideogram 18:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you try to keep discussion on this page focused on this article?  --Ideogram 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to respond further unless you say something relevant.  You should be discussing with the other editors of the article anyway.  --Ideogram 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So far, as near as I can tell, several editors of this page have reverted you and indicated that you are mistaken on this very talk page, and no one has supported your position, Gangsta.  Yet you continue to edit war.  This is very disruptive.  Please stop. Nandesuka 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English vs. British 

message: Gangster, I'm sorry to carp when you have obviously made an effort.  But I don't think this quote supports the claim we're making.  This is the bit you had in mind, yes?  While I'm not going to worry about the fact that the website is obviously promotional (high quality references just don't exist for this sort of stuff), I do think we want something more specific than "I don't need to diet, it's all just natural".  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please tell me I've missed something. 

message: Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta.  --Ideogram 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gangsta RFC 

message: Why is the sentence "From the beginning of her career, Marsh was regularly partnered with Lucy Pinder, with whom she has appeared in magazines, television and corporate appearances" an issue of BLP or original research? The criteria for BLP are:
    * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
    * Verifiability
    * No original research
A simple Google image search image establishes the truth of this statement. There's no need to use a reference for what is, by any reasonable standard, obvious and unobjectionable. More tellingly, why was the exact same sentence with the names reversed OK in the revision of the Lucy Pinder article as of 13:59, 4 August 2009 that you edited? This sentence is important to understanding the subject, please leave it be. G&E (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spittin' image

message: The second paragraph of the article on Page 3 clearly states that there is a dispute about whether Page 3 girls are softcore pornography. 
The link to the pornography portal is not an attempt to resolve this dispute, but merely a reflection that the dispute exists and therefore Page 3 girls are a topic of interest to the pornography project. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornography portal links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michelle Marsh. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225033028/http://www.livingtv.co.uk/shows/four-weddings/ to http://www.livingtv.co.uk/shows/four-weddings/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michelle Marsh. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728224206/http://www.michelle-marsh.com/info.htm to http://www.michelle-marsh.com/info.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)