User talk:Ansell/Archive 4

Ref tag
There are multiple ways of citing data in Wikipedia. See WP:CITE. One way is to use ref tags, and another ways is to use Embedded HTML links (see the above link). No one way is inherently better than others, and it is best to remain consistent. The Bab article does not use &lt;ref&gt; tags. -- Jeff3000 00:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * While still being consistent, it is possible to convert the entire system to use the tags. They have the extra information which is useful for a proper citation, such as the accessdate and title information in standardised forms. Why would it not be better to convert the entire article to that formatting, given its technical advantages? Ans e ll  00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Embedded HTML Links still does that. You give the link in the page, and then the full reference at the bottom, and that is how the BBC article is linked.  The full reference including access date is there.  --- Jeff3000 00:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What advantages are there to giving the reference twice, and not having backlinks from the reference section to where the citations are given? Ans e ll  00:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have access to all the books that have been used as references over the history of that article, go ahead and convert the whole article to ref style. I don't have most of the books, and can't do it.  If you go to ref style without citing the rest of the books that are in the current references, those references would disappear (or the page would use two styles, and not be consistent). -- Jeff3000 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to them as far as I know, (may be in university library) however, it may be prudent to have someone thoroughly check the article against the references in the process of converting to the ref format. There is a compromise where a Notes section is added above the References section in which the inline citations using the ref format are added. I would be willing to convert the current inline citations to this style if it is acceptable. I do not see the two section mechanism as inconsistent at all, especially if the cite set of templates are used for them all. Ans e ll  00:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As I am well versed in the topic, everything in the article is verifiable, I just don't currently have the books to change the article to ref style, which I have to other articles (see the Baha'i Faith article which I changed to ref style about a month ago . I am, however, a fan of consistensy, and those pages which use both a Notes and References section, mostly use the References section as a Further Reading section, and don't use the References section to back up statements in the texts.  Most of the references in the References section actually do use the cite style, (check it out), so I don't see any need to introduce an inconsistency in referercing in the article. -- Jeff3000 01:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are happy putting in references manually intext and doubling the entries at the bottom then it is not a huge thing, but converting the article should be done reasonably soon in the future as it makes life much easier, and keeps consistency ultimately (if you use the same template throughout) after it is done the first time. Ans e ll  01:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel strongly, go ahead and change the reference structure for those embedded links. I won't revert them, but I don't feel it's necessary given the current consistent style of referencing, so I'm not going to do it. -- Jeff3000 01:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My reasons for changing them are both from the ease of multiple referencing point of view for ensuring consistency of the citation style and for being able to easily reference the same thing multiple times in an article via the name parameter. If I were to go and do it now I would convert the books referenced to cite book and the inlines to cite web which have not too dissimilar styles, however, in order to not introduce inconsistency with the list at the bottom I would have to make Notes and References sections at least for now, even though as you point out they have slightly tangential aims, it would avoid the prospect of having half of the reference list backlinked and the other half not. Ans e ll  01:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the reference section, it already uses cite book and cite web for the most part. And like I said above if you feel strongly, go ahead and change it and add a notes section.  -- Jeff3000 01:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will add the notes section for the current inline citations. Sorry for making this such a drawn out process. Ans e ll  01:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup controversies
Ansell, I noticed you doing some edits to the 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies page. The issue with the references is minor compared to the issue with neutral point of view. I have gone through and reworded a number of the sections, and all of them need it done to. If you could work towards neutralising the article it would be most appreciated. References are easy enough to find at the moment, just go to news.google.com and search for them. Except for the Ghana vs US one which turns up some 400 odd results. Thanks, and happy editing! MyNam e IsNotBob  01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I am doing has little to do with the neutral point of view, although I am removing unneutral/unreputable references at the same time. It is just a janitorial task to convert them. Working on neutrality can wait for a few minutes, noone was actively editing the article when I put the inuse tag down. Ans e ll  01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted pages
All talk pages were without main page, so valid to delete under speedy. The one you mentioned was not deleted. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lisa Evers
I put the repost tag on the article because it had been deleted less than half an hour earlier, just with different capitalization- see the deletion log. -- Kicking222 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Toxic causes of Parkinson's disease....
I saw your edits...which would be more useful on the main Parkinson's disease page from which this is page is derived, rather than on this fork created by a sock puppet (see General Tojo)! Andrew73 11:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The main page is too large to hold this information. It is a valid fork. BTW, have you had a checkuser on the user you say is a sockpuppet, that can be seen as a personal attack if unproven. Ans e ll  11:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's ample evidence. See Requests_for_checkuser/Case/General_Tojo and also Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  The information on that page may ultimately be valid, but it should be edited on the main page and not this fork which was solely created to promote the agenda of this sock puppeteer/puppets.  Andrew73 11:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the obvious bias in the fork that would be removed by having the main page? BTW, I dont mind if the user is a sockpuppet, if it is proven he will be blocked and the article will be easier to maintain anyway. I still think the article has a right to exist based solely on the size of the main article, 52K compages to the 32K recommendation is enough to persuade me of that. If the worst comes to the worst at least let me copy the references over from the forum onto this page before deciding on the placement of the section, it is easier to edit where it is now. Ans e ll  11:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, I think we agree that the content needs better references rather than links to this sock puppeteer's one man forum. I just would like you to be aware of the heated context surrounding this article!  Andrew73 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, seems like the admins are watching it closely though so problems with sockpuppeting should not be huge. I am replacing the inline references with the journal references) and will not let anyone revert them to the old way. One external link will remain as long as the current situation is not abused or the sockpuppetter is found to run the forum. Still dont know why everyone was chanting Original Research at the AfD... at least make it clear what the problem is, and it isn't that. 59.167.220.106 11:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Think before you act
I have to say, this is really starting to irritate the absolute hell out of me. The number of people that keep telling me to assume good faith while at the very same time completely ignoring good faith themselves is getting beyond a joke!!! In fact, its reaching the point of being catastrophically hypocritical.

Mr Tom Harrison clearly stated HERE an I quote:

"No, there was no accident. I saw your edit, thought it was not an improvement, and changed it back. I don't think it warrants an extended dabate on the talk page. Write up a 3rr report if you want; as you say, mine was the third revert. You can have the last word if you want it."

Not only did he fail to show good faith, fail to check the recent edits, fail to check the talk page to see that discussion as going on... but he did it because he felt his views were more important than anyone elses. Now I get you coming in here shoving "what you did didn't assume good faith" in my face while doing exactly that in the process!!!! I am struggling to remain civil when people horrendously fail the very thing they walk around snobbing everyone else for. So in the most politest and civil manner I can muster at this time, please check your facts before spouting off and please in future try not to be so unbelievably hypocritical when you feel the urge to admonish other people. Why not lead by example and show some of that "good faith" you seem to think I am lacking.

Let me ask you someting? What on earth possessed you to throw "good faith" in my face and not for a moment consider whether you were doing the same thing? Did it simply not occur to you at all? Or do you believe you are beyond such mistakes? Was it an oversight? (Note now I am assuming good faith in at least giving you an excuse for your actions) Or do you go around blindly telling everyone else what to do while ignoring it yourself? So please BACK OFF, your hypocricy is seriously offensive and inflamatory...

Good bye! Enigmatical 04:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay... Maybe its time for a wikibreak. It was just a link, let someone else take care of it. Dont get yourself tangled up over it. Please do tell how it is possible to assume good faith about someone else accusing someone else of bad faith. Seems illogical. How is informing you of the dangers of your edit summary hypocrisy?... Calm down! Ans e ll  07:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The way in which you "informed me of the dangers" was to start with the supposition that I had indeed done the wrong thing. That does not show good faith does it? So to tell me that I am not using good faith, while failing to use it yourself is what makes you hypocritical. Had you followed the link or read the background you would have found the evidence you were trying to pull me up on. Simply put, it was the way in which you approached it, clearly showing no good faith at all and admonishing my lack of good faith in doing so. Is it that difficult to understand? Enigmatical 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I was concerned I was neutral in the issue until you brought "bad faith" accusations into it. I was simply warning you of the dangers of your accusations, whether they were true or not. You had hardly discussed it properly on the talk page either way. Ans e ll  23:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let us enter into a phase of review. Your words were very clear and very precise: Your use of this in your edit summary here did not assume good faith. Are you telling me this statement was a warning? Perahps my understanding of english is seriously lacking but that sounds very much like a judgement with absolutely no room for error nor any "warning" at all. Its a statement of fact as far as you are concerned. Secondly... The amount of discussion is not important, whether it was started or whether it had been going for a while does not grant one the right to blatantly ignore the fact it was there and still make the change anyway. Lastly... "Do you have that evidence". I clearly showed you that I did and yet you are still here trying to argue the point that you have not in any way been hypocritical. Now you try to justify your actions by saying it was only a warning. For future reference, it may be worthwhile starting such statements with "Just a warning" because some people are unable to work out what your intentions are when they are not actually stated in your comments. Oh and it might be nice that instead of quibbling over things you just admit you made a mistake instead of now trying to validate your actions.... but I guess people just do not do this kind of thing any more. When they are right they are right, when they are wrong they are somehow absolved due to "technicalities" like a discussion "hardly" being "discussed properly". So sorry the discussion didn't meet your minimum requirements for being considered worthy. Pfth! Enigmatical 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmmm... Still seems like you are too stressed out and need a Wikibreak. I am not going to "admit" I was hypocritical because I don't see anything I did as being that. Your review convieniently put away the fact that you weren't getting your way on the CSD talk page and you have a comment about someone challenging you to take the issue to 3RR, which you gladly did. Hardly seems like you have the moral high ground to argue from. In terms of whether it was technically a warning or not, well, maybe it should have been considering my further analysis of the issue. It is against policy to accuse someone of bad faith edits (as you did), when you are in the middle of a content dispute, which hadn't even been close to consensus. The size of the discussion does matter. Ans e ll  01:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of things to round this discussion out. I am not, nor ever have claimed a moral high ground, in fact I am perfectly happy admitting that I can get things wrong and can often assume bad faith. What I find intolerant however are people who (as you are doing now) seem to be above such things and claim they never do anything wrong. That you cannot see your own bad faith in accusing me of it shows there is no need to continue the discussion. Oh and FYI, I didn't take the matter further when "challenged" to on the 3RR rule, because the other person was an administrator and had clearly shown that they knew they had the upper hand. No point in trying to do that to an administrator, they always win even if they are in the wrong (which I realise was not the case and totally my error). No wikibreak needed here, and I do find it a little insulting for you to make such a suggestion but I will assume you had the best of intentions. In future, please just put a little more consideration into things before you go accusing other people of things... you may just find you are not as squeeky clean as you would like to think. Enigmatical 04:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused - your Afd/Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease comment
I made a "strong delete" comment on Articles for deletion/Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease. You left a comment directly under mine that seemed to say that I was accusing you of bad faith editing. I left a response below yours; please take a look at it. I think there's been some sort of misunderstanding, but I'm not sure.
 * --A. B. 04:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just got your deprotection request, and was going to release the protection, but the article has since been deleted. — xaosflux  Talk  22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of speedy delete tags
You recently removed speedy delete tags from NSAMC, claiming that it asserted notability. However, this is an internet forum with 66 registered members and a page that's chock-full of unsourced claims. By looking at your userpage, I don't see any indications that you're an administrator, so you really shouldn't be removing speedy delete tags because you think an acceptable reason to delete the article doesn't apply. I'll assume that you were acting in good faith, though. Fabricationary 08:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will have to assume you were acting in good faith also, although, you seem to misunderstand what my rationale for it not being a speedy candidate were. If an article asserts "any" level of notability it is no longer a speedy candidate under the criteria you are claiming, it must go to either Prod or to AfD after that. Ans e ll  08:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've nominated plenty of things for speedy delete before that claim notability but lack it. The article is now listed at afd.  Again, if you're not an admin (with this account), so you really shouldn't be removing speedy tags from articles.  Fabricationary 09:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you need to go back and check the criteria again because that is not a speedy, that comes under WP:PROD and WP:AFD. Being an admin has nothing to do with removing speedy tags. Or if you can find a reference for why I should not be removing them I would be happy to read it. Thanks, Ans e ll  09:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ansell, I just stumbled across this discussion on your talk page. I think you're both right (or wrong). Articles should never be speedied if there is the least chance that someone on the planet (other than the original author) might disagree. I think the article in question would have at least two people (you and me) objecting to speedy deletion. I tend to think it's an iffy article, but PROD is the right way to go (better than AfD). The right way to interrupt the speedy deletion is to follow the instructions on the tag:


 * If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.
 * If you intend to explain why you disagree with the speedy deletion, you may add the text "hangon" with two brace brackets into the article, following the tag:
 * This will alert administrators to your intention, and may permit you the time to write your explanation.
 * This will alert administrators to your intention, and may permit you the time to write your explanation.


 * PROD puts the burden of work on the author; AfD requires multiple people to go read it and comment.
 * I hope someone notified the author -- at this point the ball should be in his court.
 * Cheers,--A. B. 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interrupting with hangon doesn't seem to work lately. There have been at least two cases that I have found and I have seen a discussion about it on the CSD talk page that someone has had an admin delete without waiting for the response. Apparently they were clearing a backlog and couldn't wait for a few minutes. Ans e ll  23:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think admins can resurrect the dead if they've dispatched them too quickly. Something like this happened to me and two other editors trying to help a newcomer with a new article; see User talk:Staxringold/Archive4. Staxringold got the article back ASAP (and graciously) when we pointed out his mistake. I think the New Pages patrollers are encouraged to move very quickly and err on the side of a few innocent dead -- this is necessary to keep up with the flood of new articles.
 * --A. B. 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PS It turns out it was an unnecessary resurrection. Several of us tried to fix it up; meanwhile the newcomer never bothered to come back again. See the sequel: User talk:Staxringold. I've become a little pickier about the newcomers I try to help since then.--A. B. 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually asked the admin in question He concluded that my hangon would have meant nothing and hence he deleted both the talk and article pages straight off... :( Why have the instruction if it doesn't actually mean anything. I know about the encouragement to be quick for tagging, however, there is no such encouragement for the admins deleting the pages, they have 5 or more steps to do for each page, and it seems like they are not all being done.  Ans e ll  03:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PSS It seems like you've got your hands full with other things; you can learn a lot about a person from the tenor of their talk page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigmatical (talk • contribs).


 * This is interesting... Ans e ll  03:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re : Toxic Causes of Parkinson's Disease
Done, now located at User:Ansell/Sandbox. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also done. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

admin work
Yeah, thanks. I've gone on strike, and so has Kimchi.sg, and we were averaging about 70 and 120 deletes per day respectively. So there will be more backlog soon, maybe four day lag. I'm still enjoying the personal-attack hunting though - a four-way religious dispute- you can see my relgion survey on my talk page to guess or analyse my bias. If you see User:Blnguyen/RFA summary you can see that I've nominated three users in one week for a certain reason. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed that there were more Thorpey rumours which I had to remove just a minute ago.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Criminals
Thanks for that. I think I've exhausted my quota of reverts for today and someone (anon) put them back in again. I've talked with one of the guys about it, but another, popped up in 5 mins and deleted Skaf again. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You know about WP:AUS? You should join up.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly thought I was there already. I am in the Brisbane one. Will add myself to the list. Ans e ll  07:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Pics
There isn't a need for IfD. they are untagged, so they will expire after 7 days like normal prods and get deleted.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Doh! I just put them on the IfD page, is there a problem with that? Ans e ll  07:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you did that to all unlicensed and unsourced pics you'll get 500 everyday. The IfD is used only when someone thinks the article is useless or can't be deleted on copyright grounds. Here the guy hasn't put copyright info, so just let it disappear without debate.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Will remove it on those grounds then. Ans e ll  07:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Enigmatical/Template:User transhumanist
Well, I have simply followed the same methodology used by other templates that have been moved into the user space. It may be worthwhile contacting those who first started it and sharing your 2c with them. Enigmatical 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

re:Requests for adminship/Arthur Rubin question you posed
"What is a semi-vandal?" Is that a loaded question? The user is attempting in my view, to define the difference between using rollback for blatant vandals and not in content dispute cases. I assume there is a point to the question though, even if I cannot see it myself. Ans e ll 08:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never actually heard the term before. I'm interested in his reasoning behind classifying a user as a semi-vandal. I also wanted to know what he felt made an edit have no value (I think this is important). I really didn't have any "motives" behind asking the question. Did it come out wrong? Sorry if this is confusing. I just woke up. ;) Alphachimp  talk  11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it. It wasn't intended as an attack, but I realize it could be misinterpretted. Alphachimp  talk  11:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Referee Graham Poll.jpg
I tagged it for two reasons: I think you are mistaken about the use of the "promotional" tag. Images used for promotional purposes are not necessarily freely distributed images. Ytny 05:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is not a promotional image. The page it comes from may be considered promotional, but the image is part of the content and is not part of a press kit or otherwise marked as free for distribution. It appears the image is only licensed for use on the Kent Referees' Association website.
 * You have to describe why exactly the use of the photograph qualifies as fair use.


 * I am a total stranger to the whole fair use scenario, being an Australian and technically having to work under an american copyright situation here which is foreign, literally, to me. I placed the tag somewhat naively upon checking it off by the tag. As you say, it is not explicitly released as a media item and therefore is under doubt for its fair use. I also did not realise that I had to explicitly write a free use statement, although it was probably there in the upload window and I mistook it for something else, like the tag and web references. If someone could find a high quality free image for the Graham Poll article it would be great. Thanks, Ans e ll  07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do think the fair use and other copyright tags could be a lot clearer. I see a lot of people use promotional for the same reason you did because it's not explained adequately. As for finding a free image of Graham Poll, it might be tricky - news services are pretty tight with their copyrights and not too many amateurs are going around taking pictures of referees. I'll look around though. Ytny 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling
Hi there Ansell. Yeah the AWNB/AfD discussion pointed to the first AfD so Iwasn;t aware that someone created a second one for it. Thanks for the notice. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Zazz sources
As requested

Feedyourfeet 08:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * APC Magazine Article
 * MX (scanned article)

edit tags.
Yes, thank-you for pointing it out, i forget often to use them. I will focus on using them for every edit I make. Although it's hard to keep up with new pages being added. Sorry. --Jmatt1122 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey
lol i made a mistake --1 Meat and 2 Veg 07:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)