User talk:Ansell/Archive 2

re: Welcome Template colours
I am not actually worried about the edit link colours, I actually don't want them there (but they can't be rid of). Are the headings hard to read? The design is actually copied from Kukini's page. MyNam e IsNotBob  11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont really like the colours in the template, They don't really appeal to me. But I am not one to comment on actual colours more than telling people when things are invisible to me because of contrast issues. Ans  e  ll  11:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

palm island
I have updated Palm ISland and Hull River. Let me know what you think.

Do you know anyone studying Aboriginal history that could add more to any of the Aboriginal mission pages?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phenss (talk • contribs).


 * I do not know of any on wikipedia. I could attempt to contact a few people that I have known in the past who are aboriginal or who have lectured in aboriginal issues. It is important that people who are knowledgeable in the areas expand on the mission pages that you started recently. I can help with wikifying them and cleaning them up. I wikifies the Mona Mona mission page just before. It looked like a very reasonable stub! Ans  e  ll  08:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD - Irfan Yusuf
Hi. I just thought I'd let you know, I've commented on your vote on Articles_for_deletion/Irfan_Yusuf. --Tango 17:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Republican sex scandals AfD
It might be more confusing now if I move my revised recommendation, since I'd have to move your comment too. How about if I add a comment to my first post to see below?

I do read "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files" as a prohibition against mirroring pages, but I'll ask on the talp page for NOT for clarification. Шизомби 00:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ALR
No, I didn't realize it. Thank you for mentioning it. Ardenn 06:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems! :) Ans  e  ll  06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi. Concerning my edits on the wikipedia talk, there seems to be a misunderstanding. I did not rearrange on purpose; I messed up while changing the header of the comment below it, dragging my mouse. Please don't make false allegations. -ZeroTalk 08:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it just looked really suspicious redirecting schizombie to zombie... Ans  e  ll  10:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I dragged some stuff by mistake and I was not quite positive what I moved so I just re-added some bracketts to make a link, and...it messed up; I wasn't really paying attention. Thanks for fixing my error. -ZeroTalk 15:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean...
...Transwiki lyrics? Do you mean I should write down both Original lyrics(in Serbian) and translation in English? What Transwiki means?Dzoni 13:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, basically I mean put the English lyrics on Wikisource and possibly the Serbian version on the Serbian Wikisource. Will comment later on the AfD properly. Ans  e  ll  21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

cocacolonization (from wikipedia:deletion_review of ghey)
I am sorry for the people who can not make up -isation words for themselves. It is already on wiktionary, and i believe it unencyclopedic. I alread had WP:NOR discussion on parental advisory (and i made the point because it was not OR, and indeed this term exists nowadays). By the way 724,000 hits (google) are not exactly WP:POINT. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Making a POINT out of other words fits the definition. You seem to have nominated Cocolonization because Ghey was deleted and you were trying to make the point very visibly using other definitions that are possibly borderline. Ans  e  ll  21:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, ghey was deleted 2 years ago, and i do not exactly remember if i was involved back then. I do not spin webs/plots over two years. The article coca-coloniosation speaks for itself (wrong grammar, really hard to understand). For this reason, and because it is not much used nowadays, and it is easy to make it up, just add -isation, i suggested it for Afd. I do not understand what you mean with borderline. I do not nominate articles for Afd because of what happened to other articles. The Wiktionary entry is remarkable: internal links to 10 spelling variations. I do not believe it gets through. By the way a political party can perform coca-colonisations, they can make a program of coca-colonisations. If it is in a dictionary (noun), this is legal language usage. Have you reviewed the wiktionary entry?

"You seem to have nominated Cocolonization because Ghey was deleted". It is not so.
 * My point was the search hits: 470 for coca-colononisation, and 724,000 for ghey, to compare their importance/interest to the public. I have read WP:POINT (again). I do not see myself doing some of these things. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3
The article is being voted again  Dzoni 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Shared IP
Hi,

I wanted to know how do you arrive at the conclusion that an IP is shared; say for example 128.83.101.166? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know for sure for that one, it may be a static address for a student computer, however, judging from the WHOIS here, and the domain name response, L4.facsmf.utexas.edu I concluded that it was an educational institution, and that it looked like a "fac"ulty address. Faculty addresses are not likely to be static student addresses.


 * Given that it was at least an educational institution computer, and seemed to be more than just a student computer, I put the tag on. If you disagree with my reasoning then feel free to remove the tag. Also feel free to remove the tag if you can find evidence that l4.facsmf.utexas.edu is not a public lab computer or proxy address (doubt the latter). Ans e  ll  10:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wan't disagreeing, I was just wondering how you did that 'coz I didn't knew. Thanks for letting me know and sorry if I sounded disagreeing. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems! Ans  e  ll  03:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

List of scandals`
Article is restored at User:Ansell/List of political sex scandals in the United States, with all its history. Enjoy! - Liberatore(T) 17:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

soil science categories
I appreciate your interest in the soil science category structure. I see the point of your revert today, that it is redundant for each nested category level to point to the same category that the highest category points to. An example would be if soil science, edaphology and agricultural soil science were both sub categories of agriculture. I have been putting some thought into this and wonder if you could provide some feedback. Currently soil science articles are arranged in a 3 tier category structure. Soil science branches to 5 main sub disciplines and edaphology further branches to agricultural and environmental soil science. I have been considering listing soil science only as a sub category of the earth sciences. Currently it is also listed as a subcategory of agriculture, agronomy, ecology, gardening, and geology. That list could grow. I would place agricultural soil science as a sub category of agriculture, agronomy and gardening. Soil biology would serve as as a sub category of ecology. Pedology Pedology would serve as a sub category of geology. I have philosophical concerns with this approach but nothing constructive. Clearly my considered changes would move in the opposite direction of your revert, so you seem like a good person for me to collaborate with. Any thoughts would be most appreciated -- Paleorthid 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was following the guidelines for category arrangement which state that a category should not be included in a category which one of its parents is already included in.
 * No problem -- Paleorthid 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The edaphology article deems itself to be one of two soil science branches, the other being pedology. This means that edaphology should be directly below soil science.
 * Certainly. Two branches (plus soil chemistry, soil biology and soil physics). Edaphology used to be a synonym for agricultural soil science (see agrology) as distinct from pedology.  But now that agricultural soil science tools have been ported to address the growing field of environmental soil science, edaphology is no longer a clean synonym for environmental agricultural soil science.  My preference for a clean structure would be to merge the edaphology, agricultural soil science and environmental soil science articles into one, under edaphology.  However, since edaphology is not a term recognized by the general public, that seems a bit over the top, and I wouldn't support it at this time.  What are your thoughts on merging these three articles? -- Paleorthid 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure about that one. I think it would take an expert to decipher the difference. Maybe its a case for redirects to a title that is clearly not a synonym for something else, not sure which one would fit that. Before this discussion started I had never heard of edaphology, and I was only over in biomedical sciences, let alone a total outsider. Possibly environmental soil science would work the best as a descriptive name for wikipedia's purposes. Agricultural implies its just to do with working in the soil, and the "true" scientific name doesn't strike me as clear. Putting in the alternative names in the intro to a merged article would clear up difficulties though. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ecology is linked under Agronomy and Earth sciences, and as such Soil sciences should not directly nest under them as well.
 * Soil science is more under earth sciences than ecology. Much more.  -- Paleorthid 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Gardening is linked under Agriculture and as such in the current scheme Agriculture is redundant if gardening is used as a parent.
 * Gardening. phhhttt. -- Paleorthid 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hehe, I see Agriculture as more of a skills based category. Not sure whether that reflects its real worth as an "applied science" (according to its categorisation). Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Geology is a complex issue. I think that it should be a subcategory of Earth sciences although I am not sure how it directly relates to soil science.
 * According to the earth sciences article, geology and soil science are at the same level in the hierarchical structure of the natural sciences under earth sciences (aka geosciences]]. Discussion that led to that content had something to do with to do with IUGS, IUSS and IUBS not being subordinate to eachother under ICSU and such. -- Paleorthid 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That should be reflected in the structure, and because of the intricacies of the soil area, it is not exactly there at the present time. I have replaced Geology link with a link directly to earth sciences to reflect that statement. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have gone through with some rudimentary changes to clean out duplicates such as Agriculture and Horticulture, which are in an obvious parent/child relationship.
 * Thank you -- Paleorthid 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would caution against including more categories than necessary for soil science, and check through the heirarchy of parentage if you suspect something is linked via a path directly as well as via a parent category. Ans  e  ll  01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the advice and hope you'll continue to contribute in this area. Soil science is a problematic area for category structure because soil processes occur at the intersection of life/solid/liquid/gas/temperature/chemical conditions. As a result, its hard to find a field of science (or technology or ....) that hasn't contributed to (or can lay claim to a sector of) soil science.  A classic tree structure may not be entirely appropriate for every article, especially those at the interface.  Like soil ecology, for instance. I'll review category policy again, but I had thought it was a guideline more than a strict policy.  Regardless, please watchlist Category_talk:Soil_science.  -- Paleorthid 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not been introduced to these intricacies before, coming from a biomedical science background. Soil ecology is interesting, however, I think the current structure works for it. Ecology is a parent of Soil Biology, via, Soil Science and Agronomy, which works for me. In cases where the name clearly indicates a presence in a category, such as in this case, I wouldn't be stressed if Ecology was added directly to Ecology even though it is there implicitly via the tree structure already.


 * Rather ironically I commented on that page as you were writing here. :) Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to IIT article
Hi,

Saw that you changed the location of seealso in the Alumni section of the article with a summary that said "move seealso and introduce clear to try to keep headings from overflowing pictures". I tried using the two most common screen resolutions (800x600 and 1024x768) but couldn't find any problem. I have expanded the section also which most of the time takes care of such problems. I have reverted your edit for the time being as the correct positioning of seealso is at the bottom of the section. If the problem still exists, please discuss it in my talk page or the the article's talk page. I am 99% sure that the problem isn't existing now. Regards, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a rather large screen resolution, and as such the clear was needed to keep things from overflowing. I wouldn't count on those resolutions being a standard for whether pictures are screwing up layout or not. I didn't realise that seealso was only for the bottom of the paragraph, Is the seealso for IIT Alumni really a main link as it references an article which expands on the paragraph? Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not a main article and just a list. A main article is one whose summary is incorporated in the article in question, however in this case, details have been added from individual alumni's page. A lot of problems come when high screen resolutions are used. My policy is that I check for consistancy in the two most common ones. I believe you might be having problem with a lot of other pages also. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a policy that if I can smooth image layout for my HighRes screen format then it will work well for any other lower resolution as the spacing increases with lower resolution. I think it also indicates that there are too many images, or that the images are too large if they are taking up a large proportion of a page. Maybe the list should have an introduction which describes the event if it currently does not have this. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 11:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith....
Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil, and assume that Perspicacious is here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. --Perspicacious 10:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What was the exact part of my message which you are claiming that I did not AGF for, and what was uncivil about it? I should point out your edit summary previous to my edit, which was hardly impressive. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 11:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref
Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR at Criticism of Adventist...
Please be careful about straight reverts. You are close to tipping the 3RR at Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Just thought I'd let you know. MyNam e IsNotBob  23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am stopping there. It would help if the other editor used Talk pages at all. I would appreciate your input into the situation also. Even if it is just discussion the changes on the talk page with me. The additions are clearly out of scope for the page, which is why I moved them to Seventh-day Adventist Church. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't edit the Criticisms page at the moment because my school firewall seems to block it. Don't ask me why! I don't necessarily agree with having any extended quotes from the 28 Fundamentals anywhere on wikipedia. It is simply copying sources, which is the intention of wikisource. I have just discovered I am able to use the talk page. So I will leave a comment there. MyNam e IsNotBob  23:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Disturbing
Are you finding this blindsiding of userboxes a bit disturbing? JohnnyBGood   t   c  00:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it look like it from my comments on various discussions on WP:DRVU. I am indeed, which is part of the reason I created WP:REDUCE, possibly need some expanding to include reducing confusion by not following undecided policy... Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if there is ANYTHING I can do to help. JohnnyBGood  [[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|15px]]  t   c  00:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Put any thoughts about it on the discussion page and we can go from there. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes: A New Proposal
Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // The  True  Sora  01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

QUT Block again
Could someone unblock the QUT proxy again.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by I@n for the following reason (see our blocking policy): vandalism

Your IP address is 131.181.251.66.

BTW: I think a one week block for a university proxy is very harsh.

Thanks Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not use helpme for blocks. Email the blocking admin and speak to your uni's network department.--Commander Keane 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have done both of those. The block length is the thing I am mainly complaining about. Although, I figured out that I can still edit through secure.wikimedia.org so I am not so worried anymore.


 * And btw, I will continue to do what is necessary for removing blanket educational institution proxy blocks until WP:BPP is implemented. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 02:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. In my view however the fact that it is a university proxy should make little difference, vandalism is vandalism and there is a certain "duty" to protect the integrity of wikipedia. Taking it up with your network admins to try and link those responsible to the vandalism and deal with them individually is the best way, whilst they are still at large blocks are going to happen. Regarding your "And btw, I will continue to do what is necessary", well misusing tags such as is disruptive to wikipedia and as such is a grounds for blocking in it's own right, you've been asked not to and it certainly didn't help achieve your end so don't do it. --pgk( talk ) 09:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Im sorry. I wasn't actually referring to using helpme again. The point still stands that protecting wikipedia, and letting valid users have access should have a degree of courtesy to the real editors, considering I never edit under that IP, I just access using that IP. WP:BPP has been way too long in coming considering the obvious hate of vandalism on wikipedia. Giving 1 week blanket blocks after one test4 tag on the page, and all because another admin went and gave a 99 hour block without even putting test4 on the page the first time.
 * And about the university tech department, they have been notified about it. Ask User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me about a conclusion to that matter if indeed there is a conclusion. Would it make it more interesting if it were an admin that was blocked under this policy. There is a special notice on some pages about not blocking because it annoys other admins. Is there a general template for not blocking as a courtesy to established editors? In general admins dont seem overly concerned about collateral blocks. Almost like vandalism has a pedestal over good editing in the heirarchy. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 10:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories in userspace
Hi! I noticed that in your scratchpad / draft / alternative article User:Ansell/List of political sex scandals in the United States you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Living people and a few others. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it".) Cheers, Z iggurat 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems. Thanks for notifying me about that. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Erko Kings
Thanks for your help. What do you think about the "up for deletion" thing at Erko kings? The consultant 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured essays
Oops, sorry about that, I wasn't quite aware of the essay. Sometimes, wikiediting can be headspinning. Circeus 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment at the T1 debate
Ansell, hi. Have I deleted some of your arguments from the summary there? I don't think I have, but if I'm wrong, I'd like to restore what I took out - could you point it out to me? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)