User talk:Ansell/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 The Collegian (Walla Walla College) merger 2 My protection request 3 Your note 4 My RfA 5 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 6 Reverting Beland's edit 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC) 7 Please follow Wikipedia guidelines 8 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability 9 Re: Your edit to the WP:CSD page 10 John Atherton (pioneer) 11 You have mail 12 Arjun? 13 VandalSniper 14 November Esperanza Newsletter 15 Mock Duck 16 Dravid 17 Personal attacks 18 E.Shubee 19 FreshMinds 20 User:Crazycomputers/VandalSniper/Users 21 Sledging (cricket) 22 Humorous 23 Re:Tabs question at the Virtual classroom 23.1 Virtual classroom update 24 Weetbix history

The Collegian (Walla Walla College) merger

I guess that there are plenty of student newspapers with wikipedia articles.[1] I figured that Walla Walla College is pretty small and that the information about its newspaper would get better visibility on the Walla Walla College page. I don't feel very strongly about it, so if anyone objects I'll just drop the merger proposal without further comment. shotwell 02:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I brought it up because I have the WWC page on my watchlist and it interested me. I did not realise about that category for student newspapers, however, seeing that, I think that it is okay where it is. Cheers, Ansell 07:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My protection request

I believe you misunderstood my protection request. I made that request in order to prevent a recurring link spam problem. I did not create that page but merely removed the spam links. I hope you understand. Peter O. (Talk) 08:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Ansell 09:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Adding proposed makes it read strangely, that's all, and I'm trying to present something that's clearly and succinctly written. The proposal should be presented as it's intended to go on the page; with the wording that's intended for the page. There's a prominent tag saying it's just a proposal, and a lot of discussion will be needed before it ever goes live (and it's a huge assumption that it might ever go live), because it's proposing to replace two key policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Just wanted to send a quick note of thanks for your support in my RfA. :-) I really appreciate it! Best, Irongargoyle 01:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Beland's edit 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting this. I totally read Belands edit wrong and honestly don't know what I was thinking. After going back and looking at it, I'm sure I had some thought, but cannot recall why I did the edit. Anyway, my apologies and thanks for the revert. --Maniwar (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia guidelines

Be bold in contributions, but not in destructions. Editing is a collaborative effort, so editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly. This only leads to edit wars. Use the talk page instead. Reverting isn't always collaborative editing, but often a cheap shortcut. Be careful if a revert touches off a revert war. If a revert war begins, then collaboration is not working, and editing the article boldly by reverting is not collaboration. Instead it attempts to force one editor's will on the other editors, which will never work. Such edits will not survive. The "correctness" or "truthfulness" of the edit is irrelevant at this point (See: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). --E.Shubee 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The material was clearly original research. If it has any value, and I had tried in my edit attempt to clean it up using the references, however, I could not find any of the claims voiced in the references. Wikipedia must not be your original work. Collaboration does not mean letting standards on wikipedia slip. Oh, btw, welcome back ;) Cheers, Ansell 07:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to the WP:CSD page

I've reverted your latest edit to the wikipedia CSD page because the link in your edit summary was applicable to G10, attack pages, not A7, lack of notability assertation. Are you sure that's what you intended to link to? --tjstrf 07:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

John Atherton (pioneer)

Thanks for correcting his birthday, it was wrong... Fosnez 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You have mail

You have a reply waiting for you at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching  The Transhumanist   18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Arjun?

Thank you for commenting on the username change. I had a feeling that Arjun. was to close to the other username. But my question is why not just change my name to Arjun. The Arjun account has no talk page userpage and more importantly no edits at all. Is this change legal. And if not how about Arjun01.--Arjun 22:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a relevant proposed policy about your situation Wikipedia:Usurpation. I understand about the lack of edits and it being kind of fair for the name to actually get use, however, there is no consensus currently on that proposal. Arjun01 may be fair enough but just the "dot" doesn't provide a large degree of differentiation. Either way, I am not the one to have the final say. Heck, im not even an admin! Hope it goes well. Cheers, Ansell 00:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper

Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper! You have been approved. If have not already done so, you may find instructions to install VS on the project page.

As some of the libraries VandalSniper runs on are currently in transition, there have been a few issues reported with setup. At the moment, Linux is the most compatible platform for VS. If you have questions or problems, you may find help on the project page or its talk page. Please also feel free to contact me for help and I will do my best to assist you.

Thanks for becoming a part of one of Wikipedia's best new software tools! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!) Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. What's New? The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Mock Duck

Heya, thanks for your comments at my admin coaching page. Now here's a difficult question: where would you like me to reply? Here, at my admin coaching page, or at the Mock Duck talk page? :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dravid

Most of it is the nosnense from the original page, and I have no intention of putting in very conditional and obscure records. Anyway, Ian Thorpe is what you should belooking at if you want a review. Although it's hard to avoid the appearance of hagiography. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I spend a serious amount of time on your Dravid development page. I really should have a look at Ian Thorpe to review your changes. Its great having time and effort to put into Wikipedia now that my thesis has been handed in :) Ansell 04:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

They're not personal attacks. I really do feel that he does nothing but gaming the system and do bad faith edits. Kingjeff 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between feeling that, and edit warring repeatedly using statements to the effect of "this user edits in bad faith and is a vandal". I am going to stay out of the specifics of the situation in question but it would be prudent to let the situation settle down a bit and discuss the edit in detail on the talk page. Also, please watch your 3RR's. Cheers, Ansell 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I did watch. I'm doing things in good faith unlike the other user. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Attilios. Don't take any personal offence about this. But I have a recent history of him harassing me and doing bad faith reverts, edits and nominations for deletion against me among other users.Kingjeff 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It does look like a complex situation, however, I hope you understand my viewpoint that I saw multiple edit summaries claiming bad faith and had to respond in the interests of the community. I hope the AMA thing goes well. Cheers, Ansell 03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. But this guy has some kind of issue. I know he was following me edit after edit for a while there. Kingjeff 03:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

E.Shubee

What do you think is an appropriate course of action for us to pursue once E.Shubee's ban expires? Durova suggests we visit WP:RFC. I am trying as hard as I can not to get myself tangled up in the issue so I am coming by here to keep my perspective broad. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 03:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure there what to do as far as attempting to reconcile his edits with what the community expects. Assuming for the moment that he is a sock of Perspicacious, which isn't really in serious question, the checkuser was just unable to conclusively verify it, then his history amounts to contributing just to a small selection of pages, with a variety of edits mostly integrating original research from what he has admitted is his personal website. I am not sure what to expect in the way of contributions from him. I know how harsh he was the last time you genuinely asked him for assistance. Hardly puts the go in the situation... Ansell 03:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

FreshMinds

Apologies for me prod'ing that. I hadn't noticed the previous AfD and am happy leave it there as its been considered and resolved. Cheers. — Moondyne 13:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats okay. Ansell 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Crazycomputers/VandalSniper/Users

Thanks for catching that new addition. I saw it pop up on my watchlist but I was preoccupied so I didn't check to see where it was added. Thanks again. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sledging (cricket)

B class was very generous! :-) --Dweller 08:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I go on the idea that B class articles have the majority of their paragraphs in at least a half finished form. It is possible that it could actually be a start on other methods. Feel free to change as you see fit. Its good to know someone is going along checking my recent classifications. :-D Cheers, Ansell 08:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to fit the Assessment scale to me still. OR problems are part of the possible description of B class articles there. Ansell 08:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Humorous

Is the correct spelling worldwide. See my user page for a link to the discussion. For what it is worth I am a UK-English user and would never correct in this way. Thanks for your interest, --Spellmaster 09:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. The last time I looked into it, admittedly a few months ago, the main uses of the "...our..." variant were in sources before about 1800, and in Wikipedia. If we are to be taken seriously as a resource, I think we need to use standard spelling. I think this is a case ("honourary" is similar) where well-meaning editors have assumed that a UK/US spelling difference exists where none actually does, obviously along the lines of humor/humour, honor/honour etc. I quite agree that dictionary.com is not a good source for spelling info. My original discussion had input from UK, US and Australian users checking reputable paper dictionaries, and as far as I can remember nobody was able to point to an instance of "humourous" in a modern printed source. I really do appreciate that you (like me) care enough about spelling to query this. The last time the discussion took place was at Cane Toad; I am sure I can dig out further examples of discussion if you like. The main point is that on each occasion the matter has been discussed, nobody has been able to present evidence that it is a matter of national varieties of English, a matter on which I am very sensitive myself and so fully appreciate the sensitivities of others. Best wishes, and thanks again for your interest. --Spellmaster 09:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "honor" is one of those US English variants which still looks "funny" to my eye. However, again, "honorary degree" is correct worldwide; there is no substantive use of "honourary" anywhere, hence the comaprison. Best wishes, --Spellmaster 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Of course, google is an extremely poor source for spelling; I hope we can agree that other than the established cases of differences in spelling between national varieties of English, and on certain well-established instances of spelling variants which are equally acceptable (I remember being surprised to find that "propellor" is considered an acceptable variant of "propeller"), spelling is an issue on which we should be fairly prescriptive and consistent here, and should be guided mainly by paper sources, which tend to be more conservative and hence more reliable. I really appreciate your input, by the way; it is reassuring that others besides me care about such issues. --Spellmaster 10:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Tabs question at the Virtual classroom

I left a question there in answer to one of your interface postings.

Virtual classroom update

I've written a translation of Interiot's "geekspeak" post. It took me hours to figure out what he was talking about. Some pretty cool tricks, now described in easy to follow steps. I've also thrown in some of my own tricks, have updated my notes on the interface I use, and have answered students questions in the questions and comments section at the bottom of the page. Let me know if the page is helping in any way. Hope to see ya there again soon.  The Transhumanist   00:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Weetbix history

Hi Ansell,

My name is Jed Walker, my mother is Yvonne (Osborne), daughter of Bennison Osborne who invented Weetbix. I noticed my mother's contribution was removed and I re-added it today (though I still have to check with her on where the factory was. They lived in Stoneham but it is quite possible the factory could have been in Clinton).

I then peeked around some more and found the discussion section with your comments about removing a "large block". I'm guessing that was a reference to the history my mother provided.

I would like to see this history in there. What is needed to ensure that it stays?

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Jed S. Walker

Please see my response at the Weet-Bix talk page. Ansell 10:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)