User talk:Ansell/Archive 3

William Miller image

The reason that i removed the william miller photo poster by User:Pastorrussell was that its fair use tag was rather questionable (look at it and you'll see what i mean). Regards. MyNameIsNotBob 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And I am in favour of removing it for another reason, which makes two reasons why it should not be used. Ansell Review my progress! 09:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The AFD template

Hi, I noticed your edit summary at Outback with Jack: Bush Remedies. The {{afd1}} template is built to create a "hidden" section. If you feel this is unneeded, please bring it up on its talk page. --KJ 09:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it is not working, I dont see why it is just not included when the substitution happens, because my skin shows the "hidden" section in all its glory. It has not purpose being on the page. BTW, I did bring it up again on the templates talk page. Ansell Review my progress! 09:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Using ref tags

When you add the <ref> tags in to poorly referenced statements, could you also add the Template:Cite_web tag as well? Would just save me (or someone else for that matter) having to go through and complete the task. Thanks, and happy editing - keep up the persistent work at Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church! -- MyNameIsNotBob 03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I will endeavour to do it in the future. I will go through sometime and clean them up. I am focusing on getting the page relatively stable, something which needs to have the endless, "An example is ... by ..." where the ref tags work much better. It is a huge task I know. Ansell 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Malfunction

Four times over the one page is a bit much and is a bit of a nuisance. Ansell 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a hazard of trying to work with a category whose contents are changing rapidly. --Carnildo 07:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference texts

Do you per chance have the book Meaning for the New Millenium: Christian Faith from an Adventist Perspective"? It may prove a useful aid in referencing the Seventh-day Adventist Church page. It is one of my brothers college textbooks, but I was just thinking it would help if you had a text or two. MyNameIsNotBob 07:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Soil

Hopefully this will interest you. Cheers! -- Paleorthid 06:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Australian articles for deletion

Sorry, I must have missed that. I shouldn't have been deleting articles that late -- my judgment is bound to be skewed. Thanks for the tip! Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Greg Mathew

Please do not remove parts from the AfD tag. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Ansell 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The line that clearly states not to edit it. -- 9cds^(talk) 00:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you think about its practical implications. The section has relevance at exactly one point in time, when the nominator is making up the AfD page. Which means it has zero relevance now. See the discussion about it Template talk:afd and my image showing that it does not work on my skin and is a huge hinderance. If you have even one good reason why it should be there other than the "dont edit me" statement then give it either here or at the template talk page. Ansell 00:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.-- 9cds^(talk) 09:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, your next revert will be your fourth, and you still haven't put forward a logical reason for your reverting. Ansell 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. . Please be civil. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! -- 9cds^(talk) 11:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on just which bit was uncivil. It all nice to leave templates and refer to policies constantly but it would help if you attempted to address the issues at the same time. Ansell 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

here and here. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see how this can be seen as uncivil by 9cds: she thought she was doing the right thing but got called a process wonk. On the other hand, after dealing with the reverts and the things she said herself, and you believing she was an admin, I understand where they came from. However, communication is often easier when neither of the parties refrain to 'ad hominem' attacks like those. --JoanneB 11:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't something I want to remember. The changes to the afd template make this particular situation unlikely in the future. It is not a comment I would take altogether kindly to (having had it happen to me before, so I should have learnt from those experiences). Overall I hope she toughens her skin and thinks about why someone would possibly want to do an action before hitting revert. Ansell 11:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks like good things are happening with that template, glad to see that! I think every editor should just have an 'auto afd' thing in his tabs (through their monobooks) but I guess that won't happen any time soon :) --JoanneB 11:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Firefox and Firefox (disambiguation)

Hello, There's a discussion going on at Talk:Firefox about the Firefox redirect page and the Firefox (disambiguation) page. If you'd like to join in the discussion, feel free to do so --H2g2bob 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR report 9cds

Hi Ansell, I agree that 9cds has violated 3RR. However, as blocks are not meant as punishment but as prevention for this thing happening in the future, I believe that a block, at this point, might not be the best measure at this point, especially as another user has tried to start a mediation case with this user, which wouldn't really work if she were blocked. I've talked to her about it (on IRC) and I believe she acted out of both frustration over something else and ignorance of the reasoning behind your edits. I'm willing to monitor her for a few days, rather than blocking her, and talk her reverts through with her. Would that be an acceptable solution to you? I realise that she should not feel that she is immune to blocks and I will assure her that she's 'on probation'. --JoanneB 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want it to come to a block, more to increase visibility of the issue in the hope they would justify their edits as anything except purely following process without reason. I didn't realise that there was a mediation case already in progress, and yes, any real action would hurt the case. I would appreciate specific guidance from an outsider as per the Greg Mathew/Template:Afd-list issue though. Do what you think is best. Ansell 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Regarding the Afd-list issue: I think you were right on that, as I've explained in my latest edit summary there. However, for many editors, the idea that an AFD template on an article should never ever be even touched is very strong. On one hand, that's good, on the other hand, that makes deleting something like this without explanation a bit tricky, as to someone for whom that tmeplate is hidden, it's not very clear what you're deleting and why. Anyway, thanks for your coorperation on this issue! --JoanneB 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted an image a few weeks ago in response to a query over the bug on Template talk:Afd but noone, save Tony Sidaway, seemed to realise just how annoying it was to see it blaring at you from the page, and he is too busy to deal with things like this. Thanks, Ansell 12:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment there some time today or tomorrow. For the record, by the way, 9cds is not an admin. --JoanneB 12:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack

refrain from using personal attack on Wikipedia or you will be banned, see WP:NPA 70.48.250.17 10:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What statement is it that you were worried about? I love how people put down warnings without evidence. Ansell 10:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Seventh-day Adventist Telugu work: Malaysia

Can you have a look at this article, I really don't know what should be done. Is it AfD material? Can we do anything to make it worthwhile? MyNameIsNotBob 09:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears in the official SDA directory pdf and seems to have a few references on this google search [1]

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Šimunić discussion

Please see the bottom of Talk:Josip Šimunić. --Joy [shallot] 13:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on Template talk:Bibleref

I can't speak for those who originally created the discussion, but please note that the discussion is advertised in an infobox on the top of Template talk:Bibleref, in an infobox on Template:Bibleref, on the TFD, and on the talk pages of everyone or substantially everyone who participated in the TFD [2]. Please remember to assume good faith - I doubt there was any intent to exclude anyone. BigDT 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I originally created the discussion as a result of the TfD conversation. I also notified all those that voted on the TfD that I had started the conversation per a note like you found. Since there was no vote - but only an invite to discuss and formalize a policy for citing the bible - I had no intention of vote stacking. Additionally, it is my intent to advertise the discussion more widely after some of the ideas are vetted to focus the discussion and then to make sure that the community has full imput. Thx for your concern - always good to find wikipedians who, like me, agree that wide community discussion is essential --Trödel 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)