User talk:Ansell/Archive 12

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church AFD
Hi Ansell, I have nominated Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church for deletion due to a lack of notability, and thought I'd let you know as a courtesy measure, since you appear to have been involved in its editing. Here is its entry at Articles for deletion (AFD). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue IV (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! &mdash; Noetic  Sage  23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

OTRS ticket on Randi
I did, in fact, ask the person who put it there, as you could have checked. The OTRS system is completely opaque; the least someone could do when adding that header is explain why they're adding that header despite the fact there's no trace of a debate in the article or on the talk page about the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it a vicious slur to verify what someone believes as you asked the person who put the note down? Relating removing an OTRS tag to a vandalism attempt that annoyed you seems a little extreme. I realise the system is opaque for the sake of privacy but that does not mean you can assume that statements originating from it are incorrect. It would be nice if you left OTRS and other admin tags alone while verifying their correctness though instead of assuming bad faith in the person who put the tag on and accusing them of something prematurely, like their action being related to vandalism for instance. Ans e ll  00:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We know what Randi believes; he's very loud and vocal about it. To say "Subject confirms atheism and skepticism beliefs and confirms no conversion to Christianity." is to state the obvious, as if there were a serious claim to the contrary. To tell us "Please discuss these issues here," is useless; we don't know what the issues are, just that there has been a vague insinuation that Randi has converted to Christianity by the wording of the box itself.


 * I don't think you understood what I was saying about vandalism. The only place I could find that actually made the claim that Randi converted was, a piece of vandalism that lasted six minutes. If it's not related to that edit, I have no clue what on Earth this could be in relation to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, you were removing an informative box put down by an administrator and OTRS volunteer which stated what I thought was obvious also. There is no need to take it as an insult or refer to the vandalism in your query about it. Randi will be fine whether people suspect him of converting to christianity or not. Ans e ll  07:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Symonds:These are not blog links.
"clown"[url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/4354469a2201.html |title=Too much monkey business |last=Richard first=Boock|publisher=Stuff|date=2008-13-01]

"predator" [url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/australia-wallops-south-africa-in-twenty20/2006/01/09/1136771505307.html?page=2 |title=Australia wallops South Africa in Twenty20 |publisher=The Age |date=2006-01-10 ]

These are not blog links. The Age and Stuff are newspaper websites. Why did you call them blog links and remove them?

Revert of Hoggs Ban
The links given along with that message were incorrect and pointed to news where he was banned. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329815.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/01/07/1199554494023.html http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=SPORTS&file_name=sprt3%2Etxt&counter_img=3 (last one doesnt even point to anything related) I removed the revert shortly after that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Test%2C_2007-08_Border-Gavaskar_Trophy&diff=184266484&oldid=184264652 and also added correct links http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/330850.html. Supporting links should be added while adding content. I am sorry for using the word vandalism without confirming it.


 * Vandalism is reasonably simple to spot. If you have to go and check sources to make sure things are currently still correct then its likely just a user not understanding that they have to put down a source, or change the ones that are their to support their edit. Both of these things are done in good faith and should never be referred to as vandalism. Thanks for going through the sources to figure out which ones were still current though. Just need to make sure the article has the proper sources for the current situation now! Cheers, Ans e ll  04:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WT:COI
Thanks for noticing the personal info that someone left at WT:COI and removing it. I wonder to what degree oversight is needed in these cases. The person has made only one other edit, apparently not controversial, and he is the one who left his own information. One can look up that sort of thing in publicly available telephone books, so I speculate that oversight may not be necessary. (Though I'm clearly not an expert in such matters). EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought there was a strict policy against personal information in wikipedia. I don't know if BLP is relevant, but it clearly says that contact information, other than website addresses should never be on personal articles, which you could extrapolate to include all pages I guess. Ideally if someone wanted contact with someone they would use the OTRS system, but that is not always the method of choice, especially when someone has been cited for a COI offense which does not refer to OTRS communication except in a drama paragraph... If someone with the relevant powers notices the edit summary then they can oversight it. Ans e ll  19:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Design Science (company)
A tag has been placed on Design Science (company), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Socrates2008 ( Talk  )   13:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Check yourself
I would check yourself before posting rudeness and insulting comments about any other person on a mailing list or anywhere else on Wikipedia space ever again. This is absolutely 100% unacceptable.

On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos ''on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do'' ''that. But that isn't really the issue here.''

How dare you call anyone a bad parent based on their own decisions? How does that help the encyclopedia? And if it wasn't the issue, why did you feel the need to spew that nastiness and go there in the first place? Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And I'm done. Mike H. Fierce! 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with this sentiment - I found your comments on the mailing list to be not within the spirit of mailing list discussion, or any Wikipedia-related discussion for that matter. Passing judgement on the morals of other Wikipedians in a forum where they were unaware of it on such an issue is inappropriate. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with someone, contact them directly - don't post to a mailing list where the person has no chance to defend themselves. This is a serious attack on a good faith contributor - I suggest you take a step back from wiki-politics as you clearly don't know how to conduct yourself in such discussion.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Objective, constructive criticism is good. Your comment was neither. Please refrain from such comments in the future, thanks. ~Kylu ( u | t )  04:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I sincerely agree with all of the above. I really hope this was simply a rare lapse in judgement. SQL Query me!  04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with all the above comments. Very rude and inappropriate.  Dreadstar  †  04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your way of alleviating yourself by saying, 'But that really isn't the issue,' is so childlike. It's the same as when a lawyer asks a question, knowing full-well it's inadmissible, but at least it poisons the jury, right? And on a mailing list? Are you serious? Did you refer to an editor, ANY editor, as acting irresponsible as a parent, on a mailing list? You owe her an apology. And for that matter, the entire scope of that thread was over 2 dozen messages deep before anyone decided to contact a single person who was being defamed. Everyone on that thread is as culpable as you. Keep your opinions of other editors off the mailing list. the_undertow   talk  05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at the AN/I page. Ans e ll  06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with your comment (that is, that I would come to the same conclusion), but it was hardly something to be this upset about. It still isn't something people want others to say on the mailing list, but these guys are spazzing out on your talk page. If you ever comment about me in a similar way, I'd probably flip you off in my mind, but I wouldn't get all butt-hurt about it like this. I feel more bad for you than I do for LaraLove. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It would have been nicer to leave discussion here, or participate in the mailing list, than to take it to a general purpose incidents forum like AN/I. Things escalate quite fast I am finding. Ans e ll  07:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Next time don't say it at all and you won't have to worry about it getting out. It's rather easy. Mike H. Fierce! 08:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was in anyway personally offensive to someone. It was a general comment, which was taken out of proportions as far as I see it. Not sure what more to say really... AN/I still doesn't seem to be the place for a big kerfuffle before anyone waits long enough for a response on the persons talk page or email address. Ans e ll  08:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have children? If someone called you a bad father, how would you feel? Mike H. Fierce! 08:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No I don't. If I would I know I would take concerns about their safety seriously and not attack the person for saying anything bad about me as a person in the process of expressing concern about their safety. Childrens safety above ones ego in other words (Please oh please try to take that in a nice way!). Ans e ll  08:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess my point is, unless you're in her home, nobody should be presuming what kind of mothering skills she has, especially over something like this (which really a lot of parents do nowadays). Maybe it's a male/female thing, but I know that with women, saying they're a bad mother is one of the most paramount personal attacks you can make on a person. Did Lara overreact? Maybe. But I, you, or anyone else...we're not her. She's very deeply hurt by all of this, more than you have realized, no doubt. I end up believing that you probably just said it without thinking. It came off as a very "asshole" thing to do (not trying to attack here, just telling the tone), and the response received afterwards...it didn't make her feel better. Not that it's 100% black/white right/wrong, but I think to head it off at the pass, you need to have a talk with her personally. She is very livid so I would wait for her to calm down a few hours. Mike H. Fierce! 08:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Unindent)If I had the chance to say it again it would possibly be as follows. Would this in anyway offend someone still? Am I allowed to comment at all if I see a safety issue? It was only ever intended to be a short comment of my personal opinion. How someone takes my opinion is pretty much out of my hands, but I am not one to take safety of children lightly so I won't take the parents feelings into account if I see a possible issue. Asking otherwise is against the law in many countries. (Technically you have to be in certain professions to be legally liable for not reporting safety issues in Australia, but the list of professions is pretty large) Okay, in this case it wasn't neglect, but potentially having people posting pictures of children in bathrobes would be very suspicious to a court in an anonymising network that wikipedia is. It *could* be anyone posting the picture, although I realise from the reactions that in this case it is almost overwhelmingly not.
 * "Although this is a side issue, I don't approve of the way the users are displaying pictures of their children in bathrobes, and licensing them under open licenses which can be abused by any random pedophile who discovers them. But that is not the main issue with this thread."
 * It was an off-hand comment that was basically exploded upon from my point of view. The other contributors to the mailing list agreed *after* I brought the issue up there for comment from the previous participants that everyone should have alerted the participants earlier, and I will keep that in mind for the future. There are lots of threads on the mailing list which are basically just places to get things out in the open for comment without the fuss of AN/I which has much quicker, but also more stressed commentators. I am a low fuss person and don't wish to hurt someone with random comments (never intentional comments). As far as I am concerned, commenting on possible neglect parenting issues is not anywhere near the same class of taboo subjects that include racism and sexism. This hasn't really changed my mind either, but I will try to be more sensitive and address people personally in future. If there is one thing I want to get across though is that GFDL is bad for personal pictures! Ans e ll  09:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to go to her and say what you just said to me, be prepared for her not to talk to you. I really do feel like you've missed the point, but I'm willing to not address it anymore. I can't make you have a conscience or feelings about calling someone an irresponsible mother. I've really tried. Mike H. Fierce! 09:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a conscience more for children than parents. I guess it was the way I was brought up. Possibly not going to work as you say. Would she take the pictures down from wikipedia and commons now that she understands the grave risks to the child from displaying their picture? From the sound of it she was playing down the risks, so I can't really go any further with showing what the risks are without annoying her more. Ans e ll  09:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say not to even bother yourself with it. You can't make her do it, no, and that there is no immediate huge grave risk. Another insulting thing that you may want to watch out for is presuming that you know what's best for her children more than she would as their mother. Mike H. Fierce! 09:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never been a big supporter of letting parents do anything with/to/about their children. It was a personal opinion. I thought of all places the US would be the most open to opinions. They have that fancy Bill of Rights thing afterall that gives them the freedom to say things. If a parent is taking risks then I reserve my right to comment on the risks. Not saying they have to follow the advice, but if the community decides it is best than it is best. Never know without talking about it. There is an immediate risk to the child of putting their photo up, demonstrated already by the vandalism by paedophiles of boy scout photos. How much more dismissive are people going to be of that? Ans e ll  09:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and talked to one of my Australian friends and she thought your comment was rather tasteless, too, so please don't go down the America vs. Australia road. In the US, at least, people who are unrelated to the person's family making a comment like irresponsible parenting would be viewed as "old bitty"/"nose where it doesn't belong" opinion at best or dangerous and insulting at the worst. If that opinion were voiced in real life, with different people in a different setting, she could be in risk of having her children taken away, and basically for nothing (they wouldn't actually take them just for that). Your comment 1) wasn't best, 2) wasn't warranted, and 3) cast very real real-life aspersions on a key aspect of her life. You are in Australia. She is in America. To call her a bad parent, I just don't see how you could do that, and better yet, not think it's wrong to do. Mike H. Fierce! 10:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He didn't call her a bad parent. He made a comment that I'm starting to agree with. -- Ned Scott 10:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say everything she did as a parent was bad. Just that it was not the most responsible thing to do to release ones child pictures on Wikipedia under a free-for-all license (or at least I would have extended my initial comment to include the license bit if I was questioned immediately on the mailing list). I don't want her children taken away from her, and my comment was just as spur of the moment as her comments about me, so I think they were both quite tasteless. Not sure whether the Australian mother knows any child-safety officers (CSO), but I do, and they take internet child pornography more seriously than you would believe. If it was found that the mother helped but intentionally licensing the photo as free for all then the CSO would not hesitate in taking that into consideration. If everyone is aware of the risks, then it is more likely they wouldn't do it in the first place and the children would be safe. Safe children equals very good parenting! I would applaud a parent for keeping their children safe to the best of their ability and knowledge of the risks. Ans e ll  10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your name is not Ansell. I am not talking to you. Mike H. Fierce! 10:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict)Please don't reject outside opinions on the topic. This subject was taken to AN/I already! It is a public forum, and always has been as the mailing list is public and open for comment from the public. Ans e ll  10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My name's Ned, and I just asked my Australian friend and he said he didn't think the comment was rude. If you want to hound Ansell about this, then I will stick up for him. This is pretty absurd to still be dwelling on this. -- Ned Scott 10:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not talking to you. Butt out. Mike H. Fierce! 10:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. -- Ned Scott 10:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How did this turn into an Australian vs American thing? Please, all of you just sit back for a minute. I can't recall anyone calling Corey Delaney's parents bad parents, for what it's worth.
 * I think Peter realises that he's sad something unacceptable. We can't make him change his attitude. It would be nice to hear a proper apology - not, 'Oh, I'm sorry you're offended' - but, again, we can't force anyone to do anything.
 * I too think Peter's comment was disingenuous and objectionable. If this was genuine concern for the kids he should have taken it up with the parents directly. But... we can't change the fact.
 * I'm not trying to play down anyone's concerns, just prevent World War III. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually hoped in the first place to take up the topic at a general discussion level, ie, mailing list, without blaming anyone, but my language in haste prevented me doing that properly. If people can get past the rash comments I have made to the issue it would be nice. Ans e ll  10:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You mentioned names. Not generalised at all, sorry. 'It would be nice' - no, dude, this isn't about your convenience, it's about a horrible thing you've said about someone. Particular people. Real people. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed the bit where I mentioned names. Ans e ll  10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion was about them! Are you being deliberately obtuse? ~ Riana ⁂ 10:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion was about the page, and one small comment about parents in general, without naming them, was intended to provide a general discussion topic. As far as I can tell there is no discussion yet on wikipedia about the posting of childrens photos. An Australian friend was utterly aghast at the idea of posting childrens photos on wikipedia, so it may be a cultural barrier. Doesn't stop me having an opinion about it though. Ans e ll  10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm Australian, thanks. The fact that the pictures were posted is not the issue. The fact is that you acted in a completely underhand manner by not contacting these people directly.
 * I withdraw from this argument as it's obvious you don't comprehend the amazing level of rudeness in your comments. People get their kids taken away from them after they're accused of being bad parents. I love that you can flaunt Esperanza in your signature and yet not see basic issues regarding community spirit and understanding. Ah well. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a foregone conclusions that children should stay with their parents no matter what. For your information, I have esperanza in my signature for historical reasons, and the fact that the page it direct to is more useful than a double signature. If you are Australian you would understand the severity of the actual issue and not dwell on apparently uncivil wording. If you ever did it then DOCS would be onto you in a flash. No questions asked at first. I do understand the severity, and I understand now more than at first that people are trying to quiet the issue down for the sake of someone who has done something for some big internet project. Ans e ll  11:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are Australian — are you questioning that Riana is telling the truth about her place of residence? I can personally vouch that she lives in Australia, having met her twice. Daniel (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he's not questioning that. Learn to read and stop adding to the [ridiculous] drama. 86.149.135.215 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent). I'm being quite serious here, are you not aware, nor have ever learned about Aristotelian logic? If not, then you will learn something, if so, then here is a refresher:

a) If is utterly irresponsible for a parent to post underage childrens photos on personal user pages and

b) There are pictures of underage children on on parent's userpage then

c) Those parents are utterly irresponsible.

So the comment was not 'general' by any stretch of logic; it pertained exactly to a particular userpage, with particular photos, posted by particular parents. 'Particular' is contrary to 'general.' the_undertow   talk  02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, Aristotelian logic. Your deductive path is a syllogism (or could easily be restructured as one), in particular, is it not?  Then you certainly understand that the premises - in this case 'It is irresponsible for a parent to post underage childrens photos' & 'There are underage children photos' - are 'general' statements, and that the proposition - in this case 'those [particular] parents are utterly irresponsible' - is a 'particular' statement?
 * So, while it is understandable that many are interpreting Ansell's original statement as a 'particular' statement (the proposition of the syllogism which, remember, he did not state explicitly), it is also understandable that perhaps Ansell intended to give more weight to the premises rather than the implied proposition.
 * So, the comment is indeed 'general' by a simple stretch of logic. You and others are simply (and perhaps justifiably) interpreting it as a 'particular' statement.  --Iamunknown 04:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only general when used outside of the context of the user's page. You don't have to refrain from using names to make implications. I assume you understand causation, because if you are a follower of David Hume, well, this conversation is a moot point. But the page resulted in commentary, so the commentary is a result of the page and directed at its content. It was not a random person, on a cell-phone, who happened to opine at just the right moment. the_undertow   talk  05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good times. Well, while poorly issued in an insulting manner and in the wrong venue, I've addressed the core issue here, although I still don't agree that there is any risk great enough to be of real concern. But someone whose opinion actually matters to me raised his concern this evening, so I've removed the references to my kids. So for all intents and purposes on wiki, I am not a mother anymore. Wonderful.  Lara  ❤  Love  05:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your recent mailing list comments.. -- SQL Query me! 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)