I'd like to see a more encyclopedia-oriented outlook on Wikipedia. Making comments requesting the undeletion of various speedily deleted inflammatory templates strikes me as unnecessarily wonkish. --
Cyde Weys04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
I have tried a few times to clear backlogs in different sections, but that is not really my first preference as I have limited time on wikipedia until the end of my exams. After that I could start trying to clear some of the backlogs. I have done some recategorisations lately, and cleanup on articles within my projects, but in the wide scheme of things I haven't done that much.
AnsellReview my progress!22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
You seem to have a good grasp of policy and mean well, I care about that kind of stuff infinetly more than portal talk edits or whatever the flavor of the week at RfA is. You might consider working more on adding content to articles, not just maintenence. Hit random page and expand an article, or even try to improve something towards being a featured article. Ultimately writing articles is what the project is all about, everything else is just deemed a necessary evil. --
W.marsh03:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Ansell is making a useful contribution especially on Australia related topics such as Brisbane, He is also a regular participant in community forums such as Articles for Deletion.
Capitalistroadster10:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I am not a lawyer, and as such I do not even know how to respond to your statement. It seems like a tangent to me to go into representation versus the "actual information". I was simply responding according to my understanding that the GFDL needs to have contribution history preserved if the information is kept. Thats how simple it is to me.
Ansell01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
this comment in an AfD poisons the well. It claims a deletion of a marginally notable article would violate NPOV without a good explanation as to why it would do so, and attributes support for deletion to "personal feelings".
Andjam02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
Answer I have focused on trying to resolve conflicts on the
Seventh-day Adventist Church and
Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church pages, of which one 3RR, not on me, has occurred. I have also been in a dispute with
Naturtrina in the past which happened IMO because they were constantly reverting good faith edits on the
Jehovah's Witnesses and two other related pages. This controversy earned me my only vandalism tags, which were wholy due to my use of the tags on that users page after trying to discuss the issue on the relevant article talk pages. Overall, I feel I have been quite bold in my edits, particularly my inclusionist perspective on AfD's when I can see the possibility of the article being encyclopedic.
Answer I have not focused on putting my own work into wikipedia. I am more of the editor type who are content to format other peoples contributions. This may make me less than the ideal wikipedian for now, however I plan to contribute to the
Business Process Management and related pages when my Honours year is finished and I have more time to put some of my current research into wikipedia. The projects which I have listed on my user page are where any/all of my substantial edits to wikipedia can be found.
Ansell01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Less than the ideal wikipedian? Nonsense - any contributions are welcome. I was just wondering if I'd be able to examine anything specifically. Otherwise, good work so far and I hope to see you around!
michaeltalk02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I'd like to see a more encyclopedia-oriented outlook on Wikipedia. Making comments requesting the undeletion of various speedily deleted inflammatory templates strikes me as unnecessarily wonkish. --
Cyde Weys04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
I have tried a few times to clear backlogs in different sections, but that is not really my first preference as I have limited time on wikipedia until the end of my exams. After that I could start trying to clear some of the backlogs. I have done some recategorisations lately, and cleanup on articles within my projects, but in the wide scheme of things I haven't done that much.
AnsellReview my progress!22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
You seem to have a good grasp of policy and mean well, I care about that kind of stuff infinetly more than portal talk edits or whatever the flavor of the week at RfA is. You might consider working more on adding content to articles, not just maintenence. Hit random page and expand an article, or even try to improve something towards being a featured article. Ultimately writing articles is what the project is all about, everything else is just deemed a necessary evil. --
W.marsh03:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Ansell is making a useful contribution especially on Australia related topics such as Brisbane, He is also a regular participant in community forums such as Articles for Deletion.
Capitalistroadster10:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I am not a lawyer, and as such I do not even know how to respond to your statement. It seems like a tangent to me to go into representation versus the "actual information". I was simply responding according to my understanding that the GFDL needs to have contribution history preserved if the information is kept. Thats how simple it is to me.
Ansell01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
this comment in an AfD poisons the well. It claims a deletion of a marginally notable article would violate NPOV without a good explanation as to why it would do so, and attributes support for deletion to "personal feelings".
Andjam02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
Answer I have focused on trying to resolve conflicts on the
Seventh-day Adventist Church and
Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church pages, of which one 3RR, not on me, has occurred. I have also been in a dispute with
Naturtrina in the past which happened IMO because they were constantly reverting good faith edits on the
Jehovah's Witnesses and two other related pages. This controversy earned me my only vandalism tags, which were wholy due to my use of the tags on that users page after trying to discuss the issue on the relevant article talk pages. Overall, I feel I have been quite bold in my edits, particularly my inclusionist perspective on AfD's when I can see the possibility of the article being encyclopedic.
Answer I have not focused on putting my own work into wikipedia. I am more of the editor type who are content to format other peoples contributions. This may make me less than the ideal wikipedian for now, however I plan to contribute to the
Business Process Management and related pages when my Honours year is finished and I have more time to put some of my current research into wikipedia. The projects which I have listed on my user page are where any/all of my substantial edits to wikipedia can be found.
Ansell01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Less than the ideal wikipedian? Nonsense - any contributions are welcome. I was just wondering if I'd be able to examine anything specifically. Otherwise, good work so far and I hope to see you around!
michaeltalk02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply