| Revision as of 06:34, 31 January 2008 editAnsell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,237 edits →Check yourself: replied at the AN/I page← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:21, 31 January 2008 edit undoNed Scott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,898 edits →Check yourselfNext edit → | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
| :Your way of alleviating yourself by saying, 'But that really isn't the issue,' is so childlike. It's the same as when a lawyer asks a question, knowing full-well it's inadmissible, but at least it poisons the jury, right? And on a mailing list? Are you serious? Did you refer to an editor, ANY editor, as acting irresponsible as a parent, on a mailing list? You owe her an apology. And for that matter, the entire scope of that thread was over 2 dozen messages deep before anyone decided to contact a single person who was being defamed. Everyone on that thread is as culpable as you. Keep your opinions of other editors off the mailing list. ] ] 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | :Your way of alleviating yourself by saying, 'But that really isn't the issue,' is so childlike. It's the same as when a lawyer asks a question, knowing full-well it's inadmissible, but at least it poisons the jury, right? And on a mailing list? Are you serious? Did you refer to an editor, ANY editor, as acting irresponsible as a parent, on a mailing list? You owe her an apology. And for that matter, the entire scope of that thread was over 2 dozen messages deep before anyone decided to contact a single person who was being defamed. Everyone on that thread is as culpable as you. Keep your opinions of other editors off the mailing list. ] ] 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Replied at the AN/I page. ] 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | ::Replied at the AN/I page. ] 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| I don't necessarily agree with your comment (that is, that I would come to the same conclusion), but it was ''hardly'' something to be this upset about. It still isn't something people want others to say on the mailing list, but these guys are spazzing out on your talk page. If you ever comment about me in a similar way, I'd probably flip you off in my mind, but I wouldn't get all butt-hurt about it like this. I feel more bad for you than I do for LaraLove. -- ] 07:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==ANI Notice== | ==ANI Notice== | ||
Revision as of 07:21, 31 January 2008
 Archives |
|---|
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church AFD
Hi Ansell, I have nominated Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church for deletion due to a lack of notability, and thought I'd let you know as a courtesy measure, since you appear to have been involved in its editing. Here is its entry at Articles for deletion (AFD). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue IV (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
OTRS ticket on Randi
I did, in fact, ask the person who put it there, as you could have checked. The OTRS system is completely opaque; the least someone could do when adding that header is explain why they're adding that header despite the fact there's no trace of a debate in the article or on the talk page about the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it a vicious slur to verify what someone believes as you asked the person who put the note down? Relating removing an OTRS tag to a vandalism attempt that annoyed you seems a little extreme. I realise the system is opaque for the sake of privacy but that does not mean you can assume that statements originating from it are incorrect. It would be nice if you left OTRS and other admin tags alone while verifying their correctness though instead of assuming bad faith in the person who put the tag on and accusing them of something prematurely, like their action being related to vandalism for instance. Ansell 00:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- We know what Randi believes; he's very loud and vocal about it. To say "Subject confirms atheism and skepticism beliefs and confirms no conversion to Christianity." is to state the obvious, as if there were a serious claim to the contrary. To tell us "Please discuss these issues here," is useless; we don't know what the issues are, just that there has been a vague insinuation that Randi has converted to Christianity by the wording of the box itself.
- I don't think you understood what I was saying about vandalism. The only place I could find that actually made the claim that Randi converted was , a piece of vandalism that lasted six minutes. If it's not related to that edit, I have no clue what on Earth this could be in relation to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- From my point of view, you were removing an informative box put down by an administrator and OTRS volunteer which stated what I thought was obvious also. There is no need to take it as an insult or refer to the vandalism in your query about it. Randi will be fine whether people suspect him of converting to christianity or not. Ansell 07:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Symonds:These are not blog links.
"clown"
"predator"
These are not blog links. The Age and Stuff are newspaper websites. Why did you call them blog links and remove them?
Revert of Hoggs Ban
The links given along with that message were incorrect and pointed to news where he was banned. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329815.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/01/07/1199554494023.html http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=SPORTS&file_name=sprt3%2Etxt&counter_img=3 (last one doesnt even point to anything related) I removed the revert shortly after that http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Second_Test%2C_2007-08_Border-Gavaskar_Trophy&diff=184266484&oldid=184264652 and also added correct links http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/330850.html . Supporting links should be added while adding content. I am sorry for using the word vandalism without confirming it.
- Vandalism is reasonably simple to spot. If you have to go and check sources to make sure things are currently still correct then its likely just a user not understanding that they have to put down a source, or change the ones that are their to support their edit. Both of these things are done in good faith and should never be referred to as vandalism. Thanks for going through the sources to figure out which ones were still current though. Just need to make sure the article has the proper sources for the current situation now! Cheers, Ansell 04:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
WT:COI
Thanks for noticing the personal info that someone left at WT:COI and removing it. I wonder to what degree oversight is needed in these cases. The person has made only one other edit, apparently not controversial, and he is the one who left his own information. One can look up that sort of thing in publicly available telephone books, so I speculate that oversight may not be necessary. (Though I'm clearly not an expert in such matters). EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thought there was a strict policy against personal information in wikipedia. I don't know if Misplaced Pages:BLP#Privacy_of_contact_information is relevant, but it clearly says that contact information, other than website addresses should never be on personal articles, which you could extrapolate to include all pages I guess. Ideally if someone wanted contact with someone they would use the OTRS system, but that is not always the method of choice, especially when someone has been cited for a COI offense which does not refer to OTRS communication except in a drama paragraph... If someone with the relevant powers notices the edit summary then they can oversight it. Ansell 19:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Design Science (company)
A tag has been placed on Design Science (company), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Check yourself
I would check yourself before posting rudeness and insulting comments about any other person on a mailing list or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages space ever again. This is absolutely 100% unacceptable.
On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here.
How dare you call anyone a bad parent based on their own decisions? How does that help the encyclopedia? And if it wasn't the issue, why did you feel the need to spew that nastiness and go there in the first place? Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And I'm done. Mike H. Fierce! 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with this sentiment - I found your comments on the mailing list to be not within the spirit of mailing list discussion, or any Misplaced Pages-related discussion for that matter. Passing judgement on the morals of other Wikipedians in a forum where they were unaware of it on such an issue is inappropriate. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you have issues with someone, contact them directly - don't post to a mailing list where the person has no chance to defend themselves. This is a serious attack on a good faith contributor - I suggest you take a step back from wiki-politics as you clearly don't know how to conduct yourself in such discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Objective, constructive criticism is good. Your comment was neither. Please refrain from such comments in the future, thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I sincerely agree with all of the above. I really hope this was simply a rare lapse in judgement. SQL 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Totally agree with all the above comments. Very rude and inappropriate. Dreadstar † 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your way of alleviating yourself by saying, 'But that really isn't the issue,' is so childlike. It's the same as when a lawyer asks a question, knowing full-well it's inadmissible, but at least it poisons the jury, right? And on a mailing list? Are you serious? Did you refer to an editor, ANY editor, as acting irresponsible as a parent, on a mailing list? You owe her an apology. And for that matter, the entire scope of that thread was over 2 dozen messages deep before anyone decided to contact a single person who was being defamed. Everyone on that thread is as culpable as you. Keep your opinions of other editors off the mailing list. the_undertow 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replied at the AN/I page. Ansell 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with your comment (that is, that I would come to the same conclusion), but it was hardly something to be this upset about. It still isn't something people want others to say on the mailing list, but these guys are spazzing out on your talk page. If you ever comment about me in a similar way, I'd probably flip you off in my mind, but I wouldn't get all butt-hurt about it like this. I feel more bad for you than I do for LaraLove. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
ANI Notice
Hello, Ansell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your recent mailing list comments.. The discussion can be found under the topic Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.5BWikiEN-l.5D_mailing_list. --SQL 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)