Wikipedia:Editor review/Ansell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Ansell

Ansell (talk ยท contribs) I have been active on the project for a few months now and I was wondering what people thought of my contributions so far. Ansell 03:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I'd like to see more project edits. Computerjoe's talk 08:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 Weys 04:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional: Trying to resolve disputes is good, but do you clear backlogs? Computerjoe's talk 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    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. Ansell Review my progress! 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 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.marsh 03:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You revert articles incorrectly Mikesc86 01:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that my revert was reverted by another editor with the same reason should say something about the correctness. [1] and [2]. Ansell Review my progress! 06:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 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. Capitalistroadster 10:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ansell's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash Residential Services reflect a basic misunderstanding of copyright law, which does not protect facts. The GFDL is a copyright licence, and as such inherently covers only what is copyrightable. Representation of information is copyrightable, but information itself isn't. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • 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. Ansell 01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 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". Andjam 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Ansell

Total edits 3099

Distinct pages edited 1122

Average edits/page 2.762


First edit 19:57, 20 July 2005

(main) 1472

Talk 344

User 131

User talk 389

Image 2

Template 6

Template talk 35

Category 32

Category talk 2

Wikipedia 553

Wikipedia talk 133

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer The main projects I have been involved in are the Wikipedia:WikiProject Brisbane and Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. I also focus on Australia related articles and have been active at the Wikipedia:Help Desk and Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Science in the past.
  2. 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.
  3. Can you give any examples of what could be considered "your" own work on wikipedia? I'd love to take a look. michael talk 12:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    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. Ansell 01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
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! michael talk 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)