![]() | 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. |
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)
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) .
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)
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)
Good catch! Thanks for the heads up ;) Hackajar 12:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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|[[Wikipedia:Autoblock|Collateral damage]]}} {{blockinfo | ip = [[Special:Contributions/131.181.251.66|131.181.251.66]] | admin = [[User:Longhair|Longhair]] | reason = Vandalism, ignoring talk page warnings }}
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! Ansell 08:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
List of things to do when unblocked:
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)
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)
Firstly, thanks for voting "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Sully - I totally agree with you. I wasn't sure you were aware that there is another AfD - Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
|
|
|
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 Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Example. 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)
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)
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) .
Hi, I just put together an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline. 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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. |
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)
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) .
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)
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)
Good catch! Thanks for the heads up ;) Hackajar 12:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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|[[Wikipedia:Autoblock|Collateral damage]]}} {{blockinfo | ip = [[Special:Contributions/131.181.251.66|131.181.251.66]] | admin = [[User:Longhair|Longhair]] | reason = Vandalism, ignoring talk page warnings }}
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! Ansell 08:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
List of things to do when unblocked:
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)
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)
Firstly, thanks for voting "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Sully - I totally agree with you. I wasn't sure you were aware that there is another AfD - Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
|
|
|
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 Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Example. 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)
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)
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) .
Hi, I just put together an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline. 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)
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)
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)
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)