Talk:Michelle Marsh

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

Untitled[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion January 2005. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michelle Marsh. Joyous 18:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Mesmerisingly Natural"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Royton is in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham![edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The last paragraph is very current affairs (with regards to criticism of Michelle). I recommend it is deleted at the end of Summer. 213.122.4.33 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of Infobox[edit]

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

"noted for her large, natural breasts."[edit]

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)[reply]

English vs. British[edit]

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)[reply]

I suspect the anon user might be a Scottish nationalist or something like that. Anyway, English only covers the people living in England (which isn't a country) while British includes everyone in the Great Britain.--Certified.Gangsta 08:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that England is a country, if you check. English is more specific than British, and therefore preferable in this instance. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're doing this out of personal feelings. No offense. Before an anon changed everything (several other articles)into English instad of British calling others edit "blatant vandalism" etc. Most likely Scot, Irish, Welsh nationalist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs) 19:40, March 4, 2007 (UTC)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Well look at the history, in the last couple of months. All of these people's articles have been changed from British to English by some POV pushing IPs.--Certified.Gangsta 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I couldn't care less about this issue. I just wanted to make sure this ain't a nationalistic conspiracy.--Certified.Gangsta 05:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OKay here's the deal. Check these out and tell me about it. [[1]] This is only the tip of an iceberg.--Certified.Gangsta 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So? Maybe these people should be addresses as being "English" versus "British". As well, you're pointing to a series of edits made nearly half a year ago. Tabercil 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back then, all of these people were labelled as British, some conspirators (all of them never registered) began slowly change all of them to English. No one notices and they did it under the radar. Only I reverted some of them and of course I can't take care of everything by myself. So I'm only keeping a few pages under control.--Certified.Gangsta 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want Ideogram to justify his reverts by start discussing on this talkpage because apparently he's reverting based on personal vendetta.--Certified.Gangsta 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

How many do I have to tell you wikipedia is not democracy? Content factuality is more important. If we have an overwhelming number of editor who has personal bias from the same region claiming all Arabs are terrorists, then no matter what the consensus is, it will be removed/reverted.--Certified.Gangsta 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"you are wrong" That's a very bad argument. I don't see that as a valid reason for you to stalk me and edit war.--Certified.Gangsta 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's not consensus. Many IP reverted them to this version and people who had previously run-ins with them endorse their version based on personal vendetta or interest.--Certified.Gangsta 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whatever, you just want me to leave so you can push you POV with no oppositions. I didn't say they got beef with me. I'm saying you got personal vendetta. Now are we clear? I can't assume good faith when someone is stalking me 24/7.--Certified.Gangsta 18:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What you did in John Profumo is called harassment campaign.--Certified.Gangsta 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe you should follow your own advice. You and blueshirts used Talk:Culture of Taiwan as a forum to attack me and gather support.--Certified.Gangsta 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Great, I don't want you to. Make sure you stay out of this page since this isn't your scope and you're only here because this is part of your harassment campaign. Me and other editors can resolve it by ourselves. Stay out of it.--Certified.Gangsta 22:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gangsta has apparently decided to open a a second front. I'll let participants from this discussion decide whether his edit should be allowed to stand. --Ideogram 07:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao Actually this is the 2nd front. I was involved in Hazell's article before Marsh's. Now, after I left Marsh'a article alone, people are reverting Hazell's article from British to English based on personal vendetta. Note that Ideogram is edit warring on Taiwan-China related articles.--Certified.Gangsta 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Personal vendetta"?? Dude, five different people reverted your Michelle Marsh edits. How can you call that "personal"?? Tabercil 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ideogram established himself on the right when he clearly was involved in content dispute with me on unrelated articles. Many IPs addresses had been pushing the English vs. British stuff (often with offensive edit summary). I'm too tired to revert them all. But again, you haven't provide any argument other than many people reverted me. The IPs started this mess and then some other ignorant people from WikiProject:China stalked my contributions to make this seem like a legitimate edit war but the only thing I'm trying to accomplish here is to revert some controversial statements some IPs have been making.--Certified.Gangsta 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make a very simple argument for why it should be English... when the World Cup of Soccer occurs every 4 years, each of the Home Countries in the U.K. sends a team: Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. Note that the team is officially designated England, not Britain. And the term which described the natives of England is English. And here's something for you consider: if your views on what nationality Ms. Marsh should be viewed as aren't sticking, maybe there's a reason for it. Maybe instead of viewing this entire "anonymous IPs are pushing English" issue being a conspiracy against your views, maybe it's a sign that your views on this topic aren't the norm on this issue. Tabercil 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me I've missed something.[edit]

Michelle Marsh has the features of a real ingenue -- blue eyes, blond hair, slender nose, and lips that turn down slightly at the corners, giving her an almost wistful look. But most of the time, Michelle's cute face is aglow with a smile, indicative of an engaging personality.

Michelle, it goes without saying, has a body that's the envy of many. She's 5'7", 112 lbs, and measures 32FF-26-32. Michelle has the added fortune of not needing to obsess over food and exercise to maintain that physique. "I'm very lucky in that area," explains Michelle. "I don't need to diet or anything. It's all just natural." [2]

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) [3][reply]

Gangsta RFC[edit]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta. --Ideogram 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also comment at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Certified.Gangsta redux. --Ideogram 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spittin' image[edit]

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)[reply]

Pornography portal links[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Marsh&oldid=1208074118"