User talk:Ansell/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ansell. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Perspicacious and his actions on Seventh-day Adventist Church

Were you going to revert on Seventh-day Adventist Church as you said in I am reverting back to a consistent version due to your ignoring a plea by MyNameIsNotBob to avert an edit war. I'd prefer you to do it as I do not wish to find myself outside of WP:3RR. MyNameIsNotBob 23:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting for a little while so as not to appear being hasty in the decision. In the mean time I commented extensively on the Graham Maxwell talk page with relation to rebutting each of its elements individually as part of the deletion process. Ansell 00:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be quiet and let you handle it now. I'm in breach of WP:3RR. My last edit was the fourth revert. He has just done his fifth in reverting your edit. I think doing the washing sounds like a safer activity at the moment. MyNameIsNotBob 00:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Doing the washing. That would be a first! -Fermion 00:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

ta inter wiki links

Yes, you may not be able to view Tamil fonts, because you may have not enabled Tamil font support in your OS. You can enable Indic scripts in your computer to view Tamil Unicode by adjusting OS settings. If that is not sufficient, you might have to install a Tamil Unicode font such as Latha. You can find more information here: http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Font_help. I hope that answers your questions.

Even if you can not view the characters, you should be able to connect it. Let me know if you problems connecting to the Tamil Wikipedia. Else, please add back the ta inter wiki link. Thanks.

--Natkeeran 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Cultic references on Seventh-day Adventist Church

Can you contribute to the discussion on Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church? I have read all the sources that Perspicacious has quoted and no where is there a statement classing Adventists as a cult. In fact they are all quite to the contrary. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 06:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh PS, his edits to Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are not actually original research. Just his referencing is quite poor so it gives that impression. He is referencing to plagiarised copies of Adventist Currents magazine. MyNameIsNotBob 06:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the sources he quotes on the talk page and contributing as you were writing these messages. I did not see that they were plagiarism. I dont believe that either everythingimportant.org or equip.org are notable references in his case. However I am reluctant to revert the entirety of his vandalism just yet. I need to look into the sources he references on that main page before I can do any of that. Ansell 07:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If his references were to cite the original sources properly as per Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news his references would be dependable. What actually intrigues me is how they all explicitly say that the denomination is not cultic. Has he read the sources himself? MyNameIsNotBob 07:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont think they would be acceptable. One of them is as you point out plagiarism. Another of them is his personal website, that has been rejected before and will not be acceptable now. As I said, one of his references actually says that the Adventist church is evangelical, however he is using it as a chief piece of evidence in his case. The bit about the seven faces of adventism from his site is more than funny, he actually thinks that fits in the first paragraph. Ansell 07:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Perspicacious edits are vandalism

Perspicacious is simply vandalising the Seventh-day Adventist Church page. List it as such per WP:VAND. Use the templates. He has two more warnings before being blocked. MyNameIsNotBob 12:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Great Disappointment

Can you have a look at the dicussion regarding Baha'i Faith on the Great Disappointment page. The paragraph does not belong there, the date and the event are very different things. MyNameIsNotBob 06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My warning to Perspicacious

You may notice that I have placed a warning on Perspicacious talk page to take his behaviour to admins. If he continues his clearly unhelpful behaviour, I am inclined to report him at Requests for Investigation. If so, I will need your help in developing a concise case against him. If you think RfI is the wrong place let me know. Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 21:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely would not go to RfI yet, it does not amount to that yet. The alternatives are Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts and WP:RfC for starting levels. Trying Wikiquette alerts would be my recommended path if he actually does vandalism to a page again. Continue to discuss the matter with him on talk pages. Ansell 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POV on IIT

Hi,

Will it be OK if I rename the title? Or will I have to refer to things by saying: the image of IITs helped it in getting good students. What more things need to be removed? Can you explain in detail. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to improve on the article by editing the version reverted by you and removing all the POVs. The original section looked bad hence I rewrote it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted you to know that this is not my original research. See for yourself. The IIT Brand or Brand IIT is a very well known term in India and the media in general. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written the section without emphasizing on IIT Brand and deleting reference to "brand image". The POV status of the rest of the section seems acceptable as it mentions both the fact that IIT Brand exists and that it is a "hindsight bias". Are any more improvements necessary. Have a look and share your comments. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be right, the brand image is an established fact. The hard part now is putting this down in an NPOV manner if possible (the alternative being putting more than one contrasting POV). I will have a look at it and make some adjustments to it as an outsider. I think the Factors behind success section header should stay though (as you have kept it in the revised version) Ansell 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it was good that you reverted it. In the flow of things (and under the influence of my own beliefs), I used descripters like best, which should be avoided. I think further neutralization of IIT Brand was also necessary, even though its a popular concept. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Per your requests saying Citation Needed, I have added a few sources. But I am not sure whether they are acceptable as the point is reaffirmed only subtly. For example, in an article I cited from Economic Times, it quotes a student saying he got a lot of respect in US and "...when you goes to an MIT or a Stanford and finds that the whole class looks at you differently on finding out that you are an IITian, that’s when it hits you." Is it good enough or should I go looking for better. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

An act of congress sure is a big help to your case. The news articles, being Indian, possibly aren't the best, but they are not bad. I would be happy with them as citations for what is a slightly risky section, being marketing and all. :) -- Ansell 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This sure has eased my burden a bit. Now I can explore other things to be added. :) -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, saw the edits you made sometime back on the IIT article. There are a few minor problems with it. Firstly, the IIT Location map was initially placed on top (as has now been done by you), but I moved it down as one of the editors told that there should be a picture in the lead. Secondly, one of the sentence edited by you now reads: "Many IITians have proceeeded to successful careers in industry, resulting in the establishment of the IIT Brand, considered to be a benchmark of academic excellence within the region." I believe that by "within the region" you mean India. But this is not clear in the sentence. If you wanted to mean something else, then also it needs to be edited as the meaning is not clear. Thirdly, one of the sentence now reads: "Cultural festivals are organized by individual institutes." Reading this someone will feel that "Cultural festivals" is a proper noun, while actually its a common noun. I think a minor edit needs to be done to that sentence also to avoid confusion. Other edits were just fine. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Change the image locations to what you think is the best. I was mostly moving around the images so they didn't clash with both other images or other headings. Unfortunately the Alumni heading is still clashing with a picture. I think there may be too many pictures on the page if we can't make them fit. Of course, I have a widescreen so images take up more vertical room compared to text but if you rely on having a small screen then its still a sign its too crowded. Tried to correct the two other problems you point out above. Not sure whether they are okay yet but I tried. Ansell 06:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid for a few days we have to face more problems. The government has announced reservation upto 49.5% in IITs and hence people are flooding the articles on politicians with vandalism. The IIT page also had a share of problems with a person adding details of the problem. Although done in good faith, it was way longer than should have ideally been. So streamlining the article is going to be a bit difficult. Just keep a watch on potential vandals and overly enthusiastic users. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What does "reservation up to 49.5%" mean? Is this a tax related matter? Thanks for the notice. Will be watching it as well as trying to get it up to FA status with respect to POV and grammar still. Ansell

Well, let me explain in detail, though this explaination is also bound to have some POV issues. India, since long has had discrimination related problems where certain sections of the society known as Dalits (euphemism Harijans) were discriminated against. When India got independence, the need was felt to bring these people into the mainstream economy by giving them incentives. These incentives were given in the form of reservation of such people in government jobs and in educational institutes. Originally it was meant to last 10 years, after which it was to be withdrawn. But the trouble is that since 50% of India belonged to SC/ST/OBC, it was politically incorrect decision to withdraw this (from elections point of view). Also, reservation were extended to Muslims and other minorities in what is seen as appeasement in order to get votes. So what should have stopped 40 years back is still continuing. What's more, every govt. tries to appease them even more by increasing the reservation. How the IITs implemented it is written in detail in the article as its significantly different from other institutes. However, now the govt. is planning to enforce quota system, where 49.5% of the seats will have to be filled from students of these categories rather than selecting them on the basis of merit only. If you want to learn more, explore Wikipedia and if some confusion remains, I will be happy to help. BTW, if you want to see what is happening to the politician's article who brought this decision, have a look here. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Outside"

This is a simple matter of grammar, and what you find easier to say isn't relevant (though I have no idea why you find it difficult to say "outside Europe"...). "Outside", in this context, is a preposition, and doesn't need another preposition (any more than does "inside"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess this one comes back to a bit of a personal history of articulating prepositions like that. I am not overly stressed about the point. But in order to demonstrate that it seems more accurate to at least me I have done it. If you think in your wisdom that it is better that way then remove it. Ansell 00:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Adventist Church beliefs section

While I know you are editing, what are your thoughts on the changes I made to the "Sabbath" section and how could they be improved. Should the other sections be as long as that or is the sabbath section too long? What are the crucial beliefs requiring mention, i think something needs to be said about the sanctuary - what do you think? Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 02:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just based on reviews of diffs to the article throughout the last few days I did not find any of them to be out of track, however, in regards to improvements, I will have to take a more detailed look at the sections in the next few minutes and get back to you about it. Ansell 02:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just made some edits to the sections that you were editing the other day. I still don't fully appreciate the significance of the edits you made with relation to the introduction, but I tried to make it encyclopedic, rather than like reading out of adventist history and heritage class notes ;-). I think there may still be content in the article that is doubled up, not the least of which is the accusations about salvation by works being in two or more places at the same time. Will have more of a look when I next get time. Ansell 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventistism

I've removed the speedy tag, a quick google search leads me to believe it is a possible search term. Since redirects are free, I can't quite see how your reason actually meets any of the csd criteria, either. Hiding talk 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should have googled it. It seemed so random and I have been trying to reduce possibilities for vandalism after the incident on Seventh-day Adventism a few days ago. My bad! :) Ansell 09:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Alien Legacy

I finished the game and I know the whole plot.Did you play it?So why did you revert it?--85.102.76.88 11:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the gauge of your edits being a conversational walkthrough. Will revert back Ansell 11:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Ansell/Archive 1, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections are right now.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, please see the IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

— nathanrdotcom ^(T • C • W) 14:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

FAQ

Uh, just so you know, a FAQ and an FAQ are both correct. :) -- infinity0 14:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it because acronyms starting with F usually get the "an" in my books. It was a simple edit that I wouldn't have challenged to a revert anyway. Ansell 15:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturtrina (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 April 2006

What was that in reference to? The Jehovah's Witnesses pages? Ansell 03:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturtrina (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 April 2006

Vandalizm / Content disputes / personal attacks

Calling somebody a vandal because you have a dispute with that person can be considered a personal attack. Listing such disputes on WP:AIV just wastes Admins time Agathoclea 07:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had to learn that myself. It will go a long way if you can keep things clean should a matter like this eventually go to Mediation or ArbCom. Agathoclea 08:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Should I put a 3RR violation for his edits on New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures considering the IP address that just edited is clearly a sockpuppet. Thanks for the advice. Ansell 08:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Make sure the details are on the 3RR page "as explained" as unclear reports tend to get ignored by admins. Mark the revert that you think is a sockpuppet as such and then put in a check-user request so that the claim of sockpuppetry can be verified. I don't have time to look at the article myself today, but it might be good to get advice from people not involved in the subject matter on how things could be deescalated. Agathoclea 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony Le-Nguyen

Hello. It's not so much his article which is the spam, but all his creations on his minor community-level theatre exploits, which are also up for AfD. They may as well be Vanispamcruftisement.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I did separately do an AfD page for each of them, they're all on today's logs.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Will look at them and comment. Ansell 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the refs on DNA Resequencer

I'm trying to make this a FA. What do you think of it? Tobyk777 08:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with the science fiction part of wikipedia. The article is well referenced. If it ever goes to a Peer Review I would be interested in reviewing it. Just reading down it, the structure is clear and it reads well on scanning. I made one small edit, but generally a large review of just grammar and spelling and it looks good enough to put to a Peer Review. Having only watched random episodes of Stargate before I can't comment on the level of content. Considering the fanfare that Stargate (device) acheieved on FAC I don't know how well an even less known topic would be accepted. It seems like a hard life being an encyclopedia editor on a fictional topic. Ansell 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your updated signature

You realise your updated signature no longer provides a link to your user page or talk pages? Just thought I'd let you know. MyNameIsNotBob 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling... will experiment to regain these controls... Interestingly the Esperanza 'e' still works and provides that functionality. I had trouble getting it to link at first but I thought the trouble was fixed. Ansell 08:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

re: 3RR block violation?

Both User:Naturtrina and User:62.128.202.55 were blocked and have not edited since. You can request a Checkuser here, but it probably isn't worth your time. —Ruud 08:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time. Ansell 08:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush Crimes Commission

"In future you will note that your votes will be disregarded if solicited as Morton did. He thinks the process is just a straw poll. Its actually a consensus discussion." As you probably saw on my talk page, I voted differently from the way he expected me to vote! But I did read the article and the comments before I voted. I didn't vote "for" or "against" what he wanted, I made up my own mind. I was surprized that I was asked to vote on this article, since I don't think I've ever heard of him before and I haven't done any edits to political articles, except for fewer than five minor edits. I don't think I've given much (if any) hint of a political stand anywhere. But I don't mind giving my opinion once in a while. Bubba73 (talk), 00:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that you did make up your own mind, and against the way he was expecting you to play his game, but still beware of people saying anything about invitations to vote, there is no such thing. Thanks for getting back to me about it though, it wasn't a personal thing, just need to be aware of these things. Ansell 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't mean it personally, and I never even considered what you wrote to be something "personal". This may have been the first time I've been invited to vote (not sure), and the warning about that which is on the page now was not on there at the time. I din't think I was really aware of that. A while after I voted I did add a comment below my vote explaning that I had been asked, and that I didn't feel strongly, and hadn't been editing these type of articles. I'll try to watch it about being invited to vote though. Thank you! Bubba73 (talk), 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I should have put the warning up when I first voted. Well, in actual fact, it should have been put there by the first person to realise what was happening, or that it was likely to happen. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Ansell 00:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the barnstar, I appreciate it! Bubba73 (talk), 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy lists

Just FYI, I probe tonnes of open proxy lists and about 25% of em confirm at time of scan, a lot are closed as soon as they are discovered. I will keep the ip on my watchlist though, thanks! -- Tawker 07:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting that it was listed on the same list the other IP that was masquerading as User:Naturtrina. I understand that you do alot of this, but its a big coincidence that they are both on the one list. Ansell 07:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Potomac and Chesapeake Association for College Admissions Counseling

Thanks for removing the 'inuse' tag from the above article. I forgot to do that. I suppose having said that, for future reference it would be more considerate to at least check with the editor who put the tag in place before removing it. No harm here, but thought I'd mention it. ~ʘ~ B.Rossow ^talk_contr 15:01, Saturday [[April 15]] [[2006]] (UTC)

Why I Feel Qualified to Vote for Keep/Delete Afd

You asked on my discussion page why I am qualified to vote on Afd. Quite frankly because of the principals of community that Wikipedia is founded upon. I have read the guides on proposed qualifications for keeping or deleting articles. I know enough that I don't expect my voice to be the one and only used in judgement of what stays and what is destroyed, rather that my voice is representative of one faction of the community and that in fairness all factions should have voice. Certainly there are those within the community that feel themselves to be more qualified than others to pass judgement and that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong, I see that as vigilantism and not in line with the edict of good faith which should guide decisions on Wikipedia. I've never painted a great work of art, but I feel qualified to voice whether I think a painting is good or not. I've never writen a song, but I feel qualified to voice whether I think a song on the radio is good or not. I have never writen an article on Wikipedia but I feel qualified to voice whether I think the articles meet the stated purposes and guidelines of Wikipedia. I appreciate you asking.  : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent answer! Thanks for replying. I can be a little forward when suggesting things as I did on your talk page, however, it is nice to know that people here on wikipedia can handle those comments with a mature attitude. Puts a bit of faith in this place. Thanks for putting your voice in to AfD, its not something I always get around to and its nice that the regulars over there have someone with a good knowledge of the policies in their midst. (I get annoyed at people who just say "Delete nn signature") Ansell 23:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

...

Hi there. It is in the final hours, but could you give me a few examples regarding my lack of ability to distinguish between vandalism/content disputes, as you said. Other than the Rx Strangelove comments, which I feel were debated to the max, the concerns you raised are quite heavy - a few new examples would help. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 01:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I dont have any new examples other than those which were referenced already. You do have a good record with reverting simple vandalism on pages. :) Should I strike out that bit considering it sounds like I have new examples. I still think the lack of article talk edits are really worrying, although maybe them on their own are only worth a neutral vote. Ansell 01:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

) Maybe. ;). --Jay(Reply) 02:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have kind of thought a bit since I wrote that comment. And I think the uncertainty in your record doesn't make you a firm candidate in my mind. It is nothing personal. Just that you don't have much concrete support behind your vandalism removal edits, which makes bad reversions stand out so much more. I haven't had that much experience myself, but I have tried to explore all facets of wikipedia to get a feel for it. And I still don't think I am near the standard considered proper for adminship. I am too rash generally, although thats improving. :) Keep trying even if this one doesn't succeed.

I know I try RC patrol stuff as a normal user and its difficult to get past TawkerBot2 most of the time. :) Ansell 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

thank you

for the comment you offered on my talk page, through your comment I also became aware of esperanza, which I was very happy to hear about. thanks Danieljames626 04:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a cool way of helping people feel like they are a part of a bigger community, not just editors on a page all alone. Now you are aware of it you can use it. :) Ansell 04:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:172.144.50.56

Hello, I see that you made a comment recently on User talk:172.144.50.56. I'm sure it was an accident, but just wanted to let you know that you signed my name at the end of your comment. I've fixed it, but just wanted to let you know, when you copy and paste a warning, don't forget to sign your own name. Thanks, and good night. Chuck 06:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, yeah I used Template:NPA-n, but substituted it in. Not sure how to get the article name in there, so I just edited it twice. Thanks for the reply, Chuck 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

{{NPA-n|User talk:Ansell}} is how you get the name inside. The pipe | character in templates gives the ability to put more inputs in. Ansell 06:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh cool, Thanks, Chuck 07:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler AfD

Hello. Generally it is probably not a good idea to lobby for AfDs and RfAs, but seeing as I participated in the last two, and probably because I voted delete - they contacted me. I don't mind this when there is a re-run. Also on RfAs if I have given someone a barnstar, then I would like to be reminded if I wasn't aware that they were up for promotion. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

They are understandable reasons for having people contact you about these things. It was actually a pretty neutral statement, I guess I am a bit up tight about vote stacking in these things. The current nom being the third in 6 weeks also kind of seems like an abuse of the AfD system. If there was no consensus on the last two then the system should focus on matters that are more pertinent. The article can't be that bad if there wasn't a consensus to delete twice in a month. Still, thats not the reason you commented here so I should comment somewhere else about that. Ansell 01:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a policy against making other users aware of an AFD. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume and make accusations. Thanks. OSU80 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you contact all of the previous voters, or was it just the delete voters? Selectively making users aware of AfD can be easily construed as vote-stacking? Ansell 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't aware that I only contacted voters who voted delete. Maybe you should conduct your research better before jumping the gun and making accusations. The last voter who voted delete voted merge in a previous AFD discussion. Thanks! OSU80 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I did state my query as a question. Ansell 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to sit here and argue about it with you any longer. The fact of the matter is, the article is non-encyclopedic. The fact that a "rumor" or "discussion" exists shouldn't warrant an entire page dedicated to history that cannot be proven. OSU80 02:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Uhhh...It's rough consensus. We consider every vote to be an equal opinon, regardless of the subsequent comments (the onus is on the voters to be convinced to change their votes). Don't worry too much though, I don't see this article be deleted anytime soon. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you note

Thank you for making the minor edit to my user page. I really appreciate it. Thank you for your time. ram_einstein 16:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

QUT Wide proxy block isn't reasonable!

{unblock|This is a public university proxy with minimal vandalism, most of the vandalism has been self-reverted anyway.}

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Can't sleep, clown will eat me for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "repeated vandalism for several days"

Your IP address is 131.181.251.66."

Contributions of blocked IP

I contacted the blocking admin, but havn't received a reply yet.

Ansell 06:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Placed per WP:BP#controversial blocks. Ansell 06:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have left a note for the blocking admin on their talk page. I don't think this a controversial block - it's just simple vandalism I imagine. What you should do is contact your uni's tech support and see if they can track down who made the vandalism (use the IP's contribs etc).--Commander Keane 07:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This actually looks really weird. There was no {{test4}} tag placed on the talk page for the user and as such there was no grounds for a block. MyNameIsNotBob 13:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The block has been removed, but as one can plainly see, long term vandalism has been ongoing from IP 131.181.251.66 for a matter of weeks now. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] If this type of activity resurfaces, and unfortunately I believe that it will, I would also like to ask that you contact the technical support department of your university to have this traced. Thanks! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Every one of those edits were self-reverted within 1-2 minutes. How is this long-term vandalism, admittedly, it looks like one person out of the 40,000 students at QUT likes to do this vandalism/self-revert vandalism process. Why should this block the other 39,999 students off. It isn't like they are permanently manipulating content. For a university proxy particularly this seems a bit extreme to classify as anything more than a joke. Ansell 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the vandalism originating from this IP address is self reverted. While some of it is, that does not make it any more acceptable. As suggested above, the best thing you can do to help prevent this problem is to contact your school's IT department. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I sent the following to [e-mail] using my student account.

Would it be possible for a representative of QUT to investigate the supposed vandalism by a student, likely by the name of Bryan Galliford? The links to the evidence are presented below, note in your investigation that although the user changed the page back to the original within minutes, this is still thought of as vandalism by wikipedia, and results in a block on the entire campus for editing, even for editors who register a user name.

Statements such as this were placed and then removed: "BRYAN GALLIFORD IS A GOD!!!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_Hogan&diff=next&oldid=49864589

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thematic_Apperception_Test&diff=next&oldid=49887205

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shopping&diff=next&oldid=49877474

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Prichard&diff=next&oldid=49236821

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Ryan&diff=next&oldid=45614174

If you could reply to the administrator dealing with the vandalism using the following link it would be most appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me

Thanks,

Peter Ansell

Hopefully you receive a reply soon. Please don't block again until you do!!! Thanks! Ansell 23:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am still at odds as to why an admin would apply a block without following the vandalism block process. WP:AIV clearly states that an admin should not block unless {{test4}} has been applied. User:CSCMEM has not really explained that. MyNameIsNotBob 06:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

H3 vs Wikipedia Headings

Ansell, I'm a bit confused by your desire to use H3 tags instead of Wikipedia's wiki headings. I assumed someone with knowledge of HTML, not Wiki-markup was editing, and thus moved the Wikipedia-style headings -- I didn't know the use of H3 was intentional -- sorry. The source of my confusion is that, at least on my browser and Wikipedia configuration (Firefox 1.5/whatnot), the H3's show up in the table of contents just like the HTML tags. Is there something I'm missing? Ken 16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought they wouldn't show up... I didn't think to check the TOC to make sure they wouldn't! Thanks for pointing that out. Revert that back to wikimarkup. Mind you, im using the same browser config, but i dont think it is that. I am the one who missed something. Ansell 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

When I originally placed the H3 tags in there on the main page, it was to reduce the size of the TOC. It appears as though now this does not make any difference. MyNameIsNotBob 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Thanks for you comments here. It's nice to see a few isolated voices of sanity on an issue that has been causing me a lot of wiki-stress recently. It looks like the "cabal" of wikipologists will prevail this time (as is the nature of the adverse selection of DRV), but the responses of a few experienced wikipedians (yourself included) prevented me from taking a very long hiatus from the project over this issue. savidan^(talk) (e@) 22:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a shame that I didn't get to it when it was on CfD. The cabal pretty much rule because they are the ones who find it necessary to trawl through these things. I try, but articles are much more interesting for me. AfD is what causes most of my wikistress... :-D Ansell 23:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Category: Hitler Youth will have to go through a CFD vote after this one concludes, being as some users have voted to keep the old one deleted because a new one exists. However, CFD is nearly as devoid of disinterested metapedians as DRV, so the same result will likely arrise. savidan^(talk) (e@) 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

thankyou

I did not know of the rule about linking pages Ansell. I really appreciate your help. I will follow the guidlelines. Your help here has been really appreciated. Bradley1956 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi Ansell. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, supersede is the standard spelling of the word. It goes on to mention "The spelling supercede is recorded as early as the 16th century, but is still regarded as incorrect."

You're quite right about dependant/dependent: I'll be more careful with it in future.

My use of 'disapoint' was a mistake on my part. I've fixed it up, thanks for catching it!

Cheers, CmdrObot 21:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)