![]() | This page 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. |
There are multiple ways of citing data in Wikipedia. See WP:CITE#Citation_styles. 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 <ref> tags. -- Jeff3000 00:36, 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 ( [1]). 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I made a "strong delete" comment on
Wikipedia: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.
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)
Done, now located at User:Ansell/Sandbox. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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. Ansell 08:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
Hello Ansell/Archive 4, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grand master ka 06:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on
my RfA, which passed with a final tally of
0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on
my talk page. Misza 13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated
ROT-26 algorithm. |
![]() |
As requested
Feedyourfeet 08:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
lol i made a mistake -- 1 Meat and 2 Veg 07:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
There are multiple ways of citing data in Wikipedia. See WP:CITE#Citation_styles. 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 <ref> tags. -- Jeff3000 00:36, 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 ( [1]). 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I made a "strong delete" comment on
Wikipedia: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.
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)
Done, now located at User:Ansell/Sandbox. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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. Ansell 08:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
Hello Ansell/Archive 4, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grand master ka 06:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on
my RfA, which passed with a final tally of
0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on
my talk page. Misza 13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated
ROT-26 algorithm. |
![]() |
As requested
Feedyourfeet 08:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
lol i made a mistake -- 1 Meat and 2 Veg 07:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)