User talk:Ansell/Archive 6

Seventh-day Adventist Church article
Ansell, just wondering if you would be able to help have a look over the recent influx of contributions to the Seventh-day Adventist Church article. I wish I could commit some more time to being able to clean up that page but unfortunately study commitments are becoming more and more urgent. Thanks for any help you can offer. MyNam e IsNotBob  21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At first glance most of the edits in the last two-three days look fine. this edit however, is kind of confusing, and as the paragraph is not referenced and is likely OR I am going to remove the paragraph entirely. Apart from that I am impressed by the level of referencing by the roaming anonymous user who has been working on the article. Ans e ll  02:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Honour or Honor
You ask who keeps changing it...I confess, last time it was me. I won't change it this time but its a quote and as such should stay the same as the original quote which included "honor". Anyway, thanks for fixing the ref tags for me...I have no idea how that slipped by. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I already forgot (talk • contribs).


 * If it is copied from the quote verbatim with quotation marks I would agree. However, it was not copied verbatim, the original here has honour, which is not surprising since it is abc.net.au. Ans e ll  07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I figured out the problem. Originally someone made the change from honour to honor so I looked up the related ref (to discovery) to see how it was spelled in the quote before changing it back. Sure enough, it was spelled honor. Then it was changed back to honour a few hours later so I checked the ref again to see if it was changed. The reference looked the same but the quote from the article was missing. Almost as if discovery no longer wished to mention the "Crikey Fund" in the article anymore so I added a new ref source (abc). I glanced over the article and didn’t pay attention to the honour in the new source. Long story ending, I have now added the original press release as a source and copied the quote verbatim.--I already forgot 08:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow... such a complex story for a single word in effect. I just looked at the ref, saw it was australian and didn't think to go find the original press release. BTW, if Discovery channel removed the statement you probably should remove the sentence next time as it is possibly not true if they think it necessary to edit their press release. Cheers, Ans e ll  08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "BTW, if Discovery channel removed the statement..." That’s a tough call. Someone gives a press release then retracts a portion of it by removing it from a web page without notice while other news outlets still cite the original communiqué? That’s a tough revert. :)--I already forgot 08:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry, I meant to say "think about removing the statement". As you say it is a tough call, since it is completely verifiable if multiple other news agencies cite the original. However, with my ethical convictions I would possibly remove it myself as I would have a specific doubt about the statement in that scenario. Maybe I would not be successful as a journalist, but thats my fate... im not one! :) Ans e ll  08:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack
First of all, I really didn't intend it to be a personal attack, but, in retrospect, I can easily see how it cold be taken as one. Regardless, I said this because he had attacked me, and, frankly, I'm glad he's gone.By which, I mean that I think many wikipedians will be better off without him, judging by his past actions. aido2002 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Note: Please answer on my talk page, just copy/paste what is said to yours, with a note saying it was pasted in.aido2002 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I dis revert it once, because I thought that it is not supposed to be reverted, but, to tell you tell you the truth, I really don't care about having it there to go back and check, and keep reverting it. :) aido2002 04:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, by now, I think it would be pointless to reword it, because I alredy got my point across, but, as far as th future is concerned, I will keep in mind what you said. It is important to keep a sense of open community. aido2002 04:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Brock in a Frock
Thought you might like to know that whoever added that talk page chat about crossdressing was probably thinking of Peter Wherrett: its old news and on the record he is a cross dresser. Asa01 09:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will know that piece of trivia for the future! Cheers, Ans e ll  09:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIo
Good catch! Thanks for the heads up ;) Hackajar 12:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems... Cheers, Ans e ll  01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding anacronyms and piping
Regarding the discussion on PMA's talk page. I agree that Piping links in the general article should not be done. But then, I personally have piped links to US and Australian states, for example at Caspar Weinberger and Bert Newton. But only in infoboxes! I think that infoboxes - due to their nature (documenting fast, easily digestible info) might be a special case. I think this warrants a policy discussion somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Piped link (as I said on PMA's talk page). What do you think on this specific proposal? Cheers and Happy editing! Jpe|ob 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that piping links (and using country-specific terms with no explanation) is not needed. PMA 13:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've finally put forward three policy proposals for piping links in infoboxes on such pages as diverse as Bert Newton and Louis A. Johnson - at the piped links talk page. I'd be delighted if you could consider the three possibilities and perhaps say on the page which proposal you think is best. Cheers and happy editing! Jpe|ob 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I commented at the Piped link talk page. Cheers, Ans e ll  01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin
It's a group of sleeper accounts for sure. I'm planning to clean up the history a little later if time prevails. I might give it a try in the wee hours of the night when things are quieter locally and less eyes are on the article, as it requires a deletion and can take some time to sort through the mess. -- Longhair 05:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me!
Silly uni students... I promise I will watch edits from the IP. BTW, isn't there an option not to ban established users when you do an IP block? Something like WP:BPP. :) Thanks! Ans e ll  08:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * IP address unblocked and reblocked AO. Apologies for the inconvenience. Yes, there is such an option, but it's not the default and we often forget to use it. It'll take time for it to become habit to always choose AO. Happy editing! ➨  ЯEDVERS  09:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

List of things to do when unblocked:


 * I would revert this.... but i'm blocked... Ans e ll  09:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Take this out of the "Sex stubs" category. Ans e ll  09:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ask someone why blocked editors are shown Edit links instead of View source links... Ans e ll  09:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Go back on my vow not to apply for adminship until after my thesis is complete... (maybe!) Ans e ll  09:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thorpey
I should get the 9/11 stuff out of the bio I borrowed by Greg Hunter. It's definitely true though, it was mentioned a lot back then. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe a tag would have been more appropriate. I don't remember it but that doesn't mean it isn't true. My motivation behind removing it was that people are likely to be entering a lot of stuff about 9/11 around about now and if they get into the habit of referencing the things it would be beneficial. Cheers,  Ans e ll  05:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your constructived edits. Didn't know a simple disambiguation (something I've been working on extensively over the past month) could lead to so much trouble. -- Jeff3000 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. And sorry for interpreting your words; I'll be more careful next time. Your edits on the page are also great. Thanks again for everything. -- Jeff3000 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep vote on umpire AfD
Firstly, thanks for voting "keep" on Articles for deletion/Damien Sully - I totally agree with you. I wasn't sure you were aware that there is another AfD - Articles for deletion/Stefan Grun - nominated by the same user for the same reasons. Your input would be greatly appreciated for the latter. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would have mentioned campaigning for votes, but the two are both so clearly keep that it doesn't matter. In future, I do not really like people advertising such things to me by personal preference. Cheers, Ans e ll  08:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ansell
Hey Ansell, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. I'm looking forward to seeing your own RfA! Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Ansell, I think it's great that you have your priorities straight as Wiki is a time-devourer at the best of times and you don't want to let your uni work suffer for it. But I'm sure if you decided to have an RfA during one of the uni holidays you would breeze through it no worries. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning: 3RR
You have done 3RR over the past 24 hours. This is in violation of Wikipedia's regulation. You will be reported. --140.115.117.143 13:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning, however, you are probably wise to dispute your user ban first at your user talk page. Cheers, Ans e ll  21:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Spare me. How am I supposed to dispute on my page when I am blocked? You know they procedure for everything, but the rules doesn't seem to apply to you people. You violate every rules, work with each other to make stupid points, block people, and ABUSE YOUR LIMITTED POWER. Give the lowest man a minimum of authorirty and the first thing that comes to his mind is to abuse. That's you and your friends. You have blocked a friend of mine accusing him of impersonating me, while all of you have been playing "hidden sockpuppetry" all along. Evading the 3RR by rv-ing each at a time. For what? I know your kinds, virtually active but social rejects. But I am too good for your Wikipedia, I was hoping to contribute but not anymore. I have managed to remove my pictures from the files and I will never share my knowledge with those who do not deserve it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.73.24.25 (talk • contribs).


 * Even during your block, unless you vandalise your own talk page, you can still contribute to discussion there. In regards to your edits on Mellat Park, it is not like the entire Wikipedia is ganging up on you. We have repeatedly put forward policies which the community has agreed to, as reasons for removing the sentence that you desire to be in the article. I understand that the "honour" of your people is at stake because people are not caring for their national treasure (ie, the locomotive), however, unless you can present the evidence as neutral commentary, and prove that it is not original research on your part, you are not going to gain the sympathy of the community.
 * In regards to your clain that I have been disregarding 3RR, the purpose of that policy is to avoid edit warring. One exception on the 3RR page to the strict rule is WP:3RR, which refers to constructive edits. My first edit to the page was to remove sentence that you and Jeff3000 were actually edit-warring about. That was not to endorse either of your views, the sentence was, and is still, clearly in disregard for the Original research policy. Unless you can rebutt that claim, my edits were constructive and aimed at stopping your edit war.
 * Also, you may have noticed that you were not initially banned indefinitely, this was because we do actually want constructive editors to continue with the project. If you had served your community block, and come back with a civil attitude and not made personal attacks or threats you would have been welcomed back.
 * In terms of your friends edits, he had already been warned for edit warring, so he clearly knew what he did was edit warring, and he had no basis for his edits except to state that he was infact doing Original research by claiming it was "from visula(sic) observation", and hence it could disregard the community consensus on including verifiable, and sourced material. Ans e ll  00:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Parler pour ne rien dire", Speak to say nothing. Basically what you said is: your edit: BAD, Our edit: good. You no like our edit, we ban; You no like us, we ban; you talk, we ban; we attack, but we ban before you defend; you break rule, we ban; we break the rule it's ok...in a REAL civilized world, that's called double-standard. LEARN IT. You speak of "my people"? that's right, because it is about our people and your people. Just read the news, Freedome of speech is great only if it is practiced by your people right? If my people talk, BAN!
 * You phrased it so well, "gangin-up", it is ganging-up and your guilty conscience is surfacing. The problem started with Jeff3000, in my opinion, he is a social-outcast. He might even suffer from serious mental problem, I have gone through his "editting" and he seems to be having problems with almost EVERYONE he comes accross. He even delete from his discussion people who criticize hime. He wants to have his way and all of you blindly joined him, without even trying to understand what was going on. I read the Wikipedia's rule, it calls for discussion, not giving/receiving orders. I didn't feel anyone was discussing, but all were giving me orders. Then BAN!
 * Listen, there's an old expression that says: "The smaller the dog, the louder it barks", you people are small, no other world than this creepy Wikipedia to find some kind of (virtual-)social acceptance. So when you come accross others, you bark, and you bark so loud so maybe you can be get the attention you never had...Sorry, I really had good opinion about Wikipedia.
 * Have fun barking...


 * How did you discuss the issue in the manner you describe? You come here and tell me to "have fun barking" when I was the one who responded to you to possibly reconcile the differences. In regards to your ban, you were abusive and stated plainly that you saw this entire exercise as a "childish game" and did not see the value in discussion after I clearly stated the reason why your sentence was not viable
 * I see no value in trying to have an adult discussion with someone who has clearly stated their intentions. Ans e ll  10:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then go back and check for yourself. The whole purpouse of Wikipedia is to let people enter their knowledge to make a popular source of information. A large part of the information available here are without sources and references. That is why this is a non-official site. Jeff3000 and all you barking "wikipedians" had nothing against the sentence written there initially. Jeff3000, the mentally-ill barking loser wanted to have its way with a link. His ignorance and stupidity led him to think that Iranian people mentioned in the article were the ETHNICAL IRANIAN GROUP. He gives the Balkan and China as an expamle. It leads you to think that he's a real stupid, but is he? When you say American, do you mean an ethnical people, or the citizen of the USA? So he kept changing the link from Iranian people back to Iran to reflect his selfish opinion. Then more and more of you barking lil' doggy keep joining him in his bias fight. Until the combined idiocy kicked in and someone had the genius idea to ask for a reference. Although I had clearly uploaded a picture showing the tags, vandalism, and rusts, your desperate moves was to look for reference and consequently removed the whole sentence. Only an idiot (no offense to you and your so-called circle of friends) would be incapable after looking at the picutre not to come up with the same conclusion. So I managed to remove my picture (and all the others as well) because خلایق هر جه لایق. Now, once again you try to justify your imature bahaviors by twisting my words and actions. If Wikipedia was not filled with stupid immature, social-rejects barking lil dogs, maybe I could have found someone with the minimum of intelligence and rational to explain my point. The only one who came close to understand it was Wafulz, and although he is one of you, but apparently not part of your gang, you skipped his comments as well. You missed the whole point, but it's ok, because the Chinese have a saying: "When a finger points at the moon, the idiot is the one looking at the finger".
 * One last thing, I rather be the most uncivilized person in the world, rather than belong to your so-called civilized circle or let myself been reconciled by someone like you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.222.152.123 (talk • contribs).


 * In a civilised society one has to be civil first to be treated as a citizen, unfortunately you have chosen not to participate nicely.
 * Please respect wikipedia's civility and no personal attacks policies and refrain from making edits such as this. Ans e ll  00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hypocrisy . You think you are civilized, but you're wrong. Look at your actions, and go read Newton's 3rd law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.251.142.107 (talk • contribs).

Unlinking common words
Well, these things are somewhat a matter of judgment of course. If someone is reading an article on the Seventh Day Adventist Church, is it really likely that a link to a huge general article on North America will be helpful to them? In fact, in the guidelines, there's a specific example like this - see Only make links that are relevant to the context. Nor is it likely that a reader interested in the Saturday vs Sunday Sabbath controversy will need to have Saturday or Sunday explained to them in a linked article. Colonies Chris 09:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As you say, it is a question of judgment. However, unwikilinking every "common word" will not really be that well taken, especially by people who see linking such as you refer to, to be what wikis are about, connecting human knowledge together semantically. BTW, the specific example you refer to is a direct claim about a particular non-geographically located subject. The fact that the church is a physical entity and not an intangible economic theory nullifies that example. Ans e ll  10:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no quarrel with the idea of connecting knowledge. The majority of what I do on WP is making links, not breaking them. However, links have to be tailored to the likely readership of the article. Otherwise we'd be linking every word. Colonies Chris 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How did I edit the Esperanza page? I don't really know. I thought I was editing your talk page but when I saved, I was redirected to Esperanza, and there was no trace of my comments. So I went and looked your ID up in the page history and edited again using that address.

The Halo's RfA


Review page
In what cases should review pages be used, and when shouldn't they be used?

If notability is discarded as a guideline, then wouldn't that encourage nominators to prove that the article is advertising, which would be even more of a well-poisoner? Andjam 04:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be appropriate to double post on review pages. Just the fact that I don't look there as I archived the review back in May i think and only noticed it on my watchlist would say the review page is a little out of date. Reviews are not meant to be permanent black list records, they are meant to help.
 * On your other point, encouraging nominators to prove this is advertising, and not actually something that can have the vanity element removed, as happens regularly on pages, would simply be a nominator trying to find another way to express their personal opinion. If the page is advertising, and infact it cannot satisfy actual policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, then why all the talk about cruft? Why the talk about notability instead of actual things that we can objectively state? How you would prove this is advertising given the independent comments on it is beyond me btw.
 * Admittedly there are a few objective comments on the discussion but most of them look suspiciously like people taking the content material and voting on it based on their prejudice.
 * I did not want to make the comment I did sound like bad faith. I simply wanted to encourage the notion that each person should objectively look at the page and its references and come up with their own piece of the discussion instead of "non-notable" or "per nom." In some discussions that are not this controversial, (the original nomination wasn't controversial at all I guess, but that was in the keep direction) it may be appropriate to simply reference an objective set of conditions that were violated, ie, not a set of acronyms, but rather a set of points based on the article failing a specific part of a policy.  Ans e ll  04:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw on your user page "Review my progress!", and I assumed that it meant to give a review. Andjam 05:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad. I should keep track of my user page contents. Cheers, Ans e ll  05:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Graham Poll
Ansell,

Can't quite work out why you've completely reinstated the entry on the above.

Sb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve bloomer (talk • contribs).


 * The edit summary contained my conclusions as to why the particular set of edits was both POV, in that its language was not neutral, and that references to verifiable and hence non-original research comments are not for wikipedia. In short, I thought you were replacing referenced comments with your own opinions. Ans e ll  10:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case relating to Non-notability
Hi, I just put together an arbitration case at Requests_for_arbitration. The case is about some users who have been abusing some guidline and proposal pages (including WP:NNOT and WP:STRAW). Since you've been involved with NNOT, I thought you might be interested in giving your comments. I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks! Fresheneesz 05:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mellat Park
I've had intermitten net access for a while and haven't been able to keep track of whether the vandal who was attacking this page and others is still around. I noticed you dealt with an alert about him on my talk page (thanks for that), so I'm hoping you're more up to speed. Is he still vandalising? I ask mainly because Mellat Park has been semi-protected for quite a while now and I'd like to unprotect it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not noticed them vandalising. Apparently the Tor IP's that they were using were blocked as Open proxies sometime in the last day or two, and they had not had any activity recently. I think it would be safe to unprotect the page. however, it will still be on my watchlist for consideration in the small amount of time I have to devote to wikipedia this month. Ans e ll  21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Ansell/List of political sex scandals in the United States
It's just that I had it on my watchlist since it was userfied, and I noticed a new editor making changes to it, so I concluded that that page was possibly mistaken as an article. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 12:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archiving
That's funny you mention that, I was just thinking last night that it was about time I archived my talk page. Thanks for your support. Irongargoyle 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)