User talk:Ansell/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Ellen White template

Ansell,

Thanks for your supportive comments regarding the Ellen White template. I have saved a backup at User:Colin MacLaurin/Contributions#Sandbox just in case the TfD is successful, and perhaps it can be reproposed in the future if more articles are written and more need is discovered. Thanks, Colin MacLaurin 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ansell

Thanks Ansell for fixing up those stray links for me. Much appreciated. :) Hope all is well with you. Cheers, Sarah 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Things are going pretty well. Just getting back into Wikipedia a bit again after a bit of a break. It hasn't changed overly :) Hope all goes well with you too! Ansell 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

recent addition

Hello Colin,

Thanks for taking the time to wikify my addition to the Wikipedia on A.T. Jones. This is my first time playing this game and I didn't know how to format everything correctly. It looks much more professional now! Blessings! Ann

Ansell, thanks for sorting out this misunderstanding! Colin MacLaurin 05:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the bottom of the talk page of WP:SDA. Do you know when the SPD article was deleted, and how? Please reply there. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 05:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to delete category of Jewish athletes

Well, they are trying to delete a category of Jewish athletes again. This time, figure skaters. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_14#Category:Jewish_figure_skaters . I pointed out to the originator of the attempt that we had addressed this general issue already with Jewish fencers, where the attempt failed (due in part to your help). Still, they insist on trying to delete this category. Any help by your weighing in on the issue would be appreciated. I will do so as well once I have a chance to write something up. Thanks again. --Epeefleche 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to delete category of Jewish athletes

Well, they are trying to delete a category of Jewish athletes again. This time, figure skaters. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_14#Category:Jewish_figure_skaters . I pointed out to the originator of the attempt that we had addressed this general issue already with Jewish fencers, where the attempt failed (due in part to your help). Still, they insist on trying to delete this category. Any help by your weighing in on the issue would be appreciated. Thanks again. --Epeefleche 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)--Epeefleche 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Feedback for my user page

Hi Ansell,

I was wondering if you would give me some feedback about my user page. I am trying to develop it to be appealing in content and also aesthetically attractive. Writing about religious topics is always controversial, and I would like to know if you think anything would be offensive to anyone, or could be improved. I have also invited a few others. Please reply here. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:AFDHiddenTemplateNotWorking.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:AFDHiddenTemplateNotWorking.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, you all are being quiet on the Amazing Facts article and the articles talk page. Don't know if you've been watching, but I've been fighting a few POV edits and loaded sentences. Can you add anything to the conversations in lieu of a consensus? I think that would quell the issues. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Merit

		The Chain Barnstar of Merit
		For your hard work! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 4 others with 1500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Diligence

		The Chain Barnstar of Diligence
		For shaping Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour

		The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour
		For building Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 2 others with 5000+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Andrews

Please be careful with your edit summaries. I resent the edit summary attached to this edit - especially when you did not reinstate the anon's unreferenced commentary [1]. As the anon had not referenced anything, it was not clear to me (or I suspect to any casual reader) that the para beginning 'In my opinion 501(6)(b) is a composite phrase ... was a quote from Spender - you inserted the reference when you reinstated it. Much of the other anon's contribution did not meet wikipedia principles of NPOV, NOR ... but your edit summary implies otherwise even though your actual edit did not reinstate the commentary / orginal research --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it did not look like you assumed good faith in their quotations, which I took the trouble to verify and they are indeed verbatim comments from the judgment. It seemed to me that you were using the lack of experience of the user as a reason to reject the entire discussion piece, instead of fixing it like I attempted to do. I am sorry but I get particularly annoyed at people who reject contributions on the basis of their being original research, without verifying that there is substance behind the lack of neutral writing skill. Ansell 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Look again at the diff. I get really annoyed at commentary which includes:

But Justice Spender blew this line of argument out of the water: ...

Justice Spender was critical, or at least quizzical, of the way Mr Andrews sought to justify his decision to the media by releasing only part of the second record of interview with Dr Haneef to show that he had grounds to kick him out:

There is, nonetheless, a certain piquancy in the present case, in that the Minister has chosen to give a selected part of what is said to be protected information to the public by way of press release, but has not sought to divulge to the Court any part of the protected information under s 503A(3) of the Act .

The Minister is, in a sense, presenting one case in the public arena, a case the accuracy of which cannot be challenged in any meaningful way, and a smaller and not the same case in the Court, in a way which does not permit explanation or challenge by way of cross-examination.

No doubt Mr Andrews will examine appealing this decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court, but for the moment his credibility as a minister who understands how to properly administer Australia’s migration laws has taken a battering.

Earlier this month Mr Andrews said he had no regrets over his handling of the Haneef matter. One wonders whether, when he reads Justice Spender’s decision, he might change his mind.

There is quite some writing skill behind all this - it is not naive lack of neutral writing skill. Moreover very little of the contribution was a quote. Further the additional selective quotation that you reincluded from the case adds little more to an article on Andrews than the first para quoted from Spender - it is getting on to points of law that do not comment on the minister or his actions but are matters of legal interpretation and belong in another article if at all on the wikipedia.

I acknowledge you provided a cite - but references are much more useful if cited with accompanying details - ie not merely links - try Wikipedia:Citation templates - while the intro suggests they are subject to discretion, I would suggest strongly that merely giving a link and no context of who wrote it, when or by whom it was published is a far inferior way of referencing.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All about me info boxes

hey i was wandering where you got all those info boxes from? and how you got the images.

thanks Hatmatbbat10 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue I (September 2007)

The September 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 19:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)