User talk:Ash/2010

TL;DR

Just in passing, I saw a comment on WP:ANI where you didn't know what TL;DR meant and since nobody seems to have answered that- it stands for "Too Long; Didn't Read". MorganaFiolett (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, a bit cryptic for me.—Ash (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Binarygal

Let's keep the wikidrama down and not respond to any more of her personal attacks. She hasn't been able to substantiate why the external links should be kept, and so therefore we are keeping those links out of the article. But I think we should just archive the talk page now. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, though I suggest that at least 7 days of no contributions to the sub-topics to be archived (i.e. those which are considered off-topic) should pass before moving them.

Note that there is a 10 month history to consider, as Binarygal has not made any contribution to the ITIL article (or any other article) since May 2009 (apart from a revert of my edit) then offering to stop editing apart from the talk page is not any real progress. I have no intention of keeping Binarygal going unnecessarily but I also see no indication that Binarygal will not attack myself and other editors in the future <side issue!> or does not already do this under the guise of other accounts (there is no clear evidence for this but a pattern of someone using anonymous IPs and SPA accounts is in the talk history, particularly for the RfCs raised)</side issue!>. With the most recent contributions making direct allegations of an anti-competitive cartel in operation and fairly direct threats of outing, Binarygal is in breach of the guidance of WP:OUTING and WP:NLT. I believe an indefinite block would have been a better option, until Binarygal made a clear statement to stop such behaviour and start making positive contributions. It is unfortunate that this type of extreme passive-aggressive behaviour where someone makes attacks and then plays the victim is tricky to deal with on Wikipedia as we tend to protect fringe views and give a perceived underdog the benefit of the doubt in most cases. Consequently is has been easier for people to assume that I must be a protagonist here or at lease equally culpable rather than basing views only on the evidence provided. Anyway this is the reason that I've raised a third ANI but have a low expectation as to whether any positive action will be taken.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I note that Binarygal has repeated the cartel allegation in the ANI.—Ash (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, seriously, they thrive on drama. Unless they cause problems on articles, I'm not going to respond to their ridiculous conspiracy theories. I doubt they have anything at all on you... I would really just ignore them. Based on her behaviour, either she is mentally unbalanced, or they are a troll. Just let them go for a while, another admin will eventually get thoroughly sick of her if she continues down her path. Don't buy into her drama, just bow out gracefully now from the conversations. Anything else is just causing unnecessary drama. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have archived Talk:ITIL to stop the wikidrama, I've also archived your thread for the same reason. I doubt they have anything on you, it's pretty easy to tell you changed your username, I wouldn't respond to this sort of stupidity. If they do out you, rest assured that the edits can be removed from the history entirely - we can also ensure that a block occurs. But I doubt anything will happen. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ash, seriously, let's stop the wikidrama... we really need to shut down this kaffufle sooner rather than later. Let's not fuel the flames any further? I have archived the section to stop this all from occuring. I also think that NLT is really a stretching a long bow - the only offense of Binarygal is an insistence that there are conspiracies and a tendency to make too many personal comments. She hasn't made a legal threat at all, believe me. That is not what is happening here! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please undo your change to the ANI. I recognize your good intentions but I asked for an independent judgement and you are over-riding my opinion unilaterally.—Ash (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest filing an RFC, or perhaps an ArbCom request for investigation. ANI is really not the first port of call for this sort of thing. Also, so you are aware, when you say that you want her to stop personal attacks on "other editors" you are also speaking on my behalf, because I am apparently part of the conspiracy against Binarygal and "Open ITIL" (whatever that is!). It's all very silly really. Let's just let the drama die down of its own accord. Binarygal may well be able to contribute some material, her interest is in ITIL. I would welcome constructive contribution from her (and yourself, of course). - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, however I see nothing unreasonable with asking for someone not involved (and particularly not directly accused on the talk page) to close this ANI. Please undo your resolved classification and summary.—Ash (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I'm not going to. If you reopen it, an admin will close it. Like I say, take it to RFC or ArbCom, I'm not going to contribute to any more of the drama around this area! Neither should you. Come on, you are a reasonable guy. Let's just leave it be now? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you believe another admin will close it then why not let them? I do not understand why you think it is okay to assume all admins would agree with your opinion. I am not asking you to contribute to wikidrama, only to let the normal ANI process work and have faith in that process. I am asking you for a final time to undo your edit as I believe your edits constitute a disruption of the dispute resolution process.—Ash (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I have taken you at your word and so reversed your edit myself and explained why on the ANI. If you have further reasons to object to this, please explain why on the ANI.—Ash (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that, I told you I wouldn't reverse it. As I said, another admin came by fairly quickly and immediately closed out that conversation. Probably best not to contribute to the drama any more Ash! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The closure was independent, that was what I was looking for. You seem overly concerned to force your opinion on others, archiving the complete content of the ITIL talk page with no prior discussion is another example. I am certain you have the best of motives but I believe you could do more to ensure your actions are demonstrably supported by consensus rather than assuming that your opinion always represents consensus.—Ash (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The closing admin closed for precisely the same reason I did, and as they were uninvolved they had even less consensus than I did. I stand by what I've done, as it has stopped all the drama. I most definitely run with consensus, except that this was clearly getting out of hand and needed to be stopped. Which is what I did, and quite effectively too I might say. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're totally brilliant, a real winner. Now go do something else.—Ash (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al McClellan

I left some comments and a "weak keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al McClellan. Nobody else has commented there yet. - Eastmain (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Paranormal AfDs

Could you bundle them to avoid editors have to !vote several times? Fences&Windows 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How does that work? I'm only used to doing one at a time.—Ash (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, found WP:BUNDLE which I'll absorb...—Ash (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion, a request.

Hi. I saw you're active on the Articles for Deletion page, so could you please guide me there? I found a hoax, so I used a hoax template, but now I think there should be a discussion on it, because the problem is not only with this one article but with the all few dozens articles on Trubetskoy family, but I don't how to propose new article for deletion. Thank you in advance. --W Goslar (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you raise a request on the Wikipedia:Editor assistance page for the article in question rather than attempting to raise this for deletion yourself. It would be quite unusual for a relatively new editor to do this successfully.—Ash (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I expected your answer on my talk page, so I missed what you wrote and did everything by myself ;-) But seems I did it well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nester Trubecki. Anyway thank you for help. --W Goslar (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax to me too... well spotted.—Ash (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A question

Hi Ash. I don't mean to be a pill, but in your nomination of Web Cam 3D you included a link to WP:MEDIA... sending me to a disambig page that had nothing to do with film notability. With respects, did you intend WP:NF or WP:NFF? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, actually from there you can navigate to Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Films, but your ref to NF seems more specific so I'll change the link.—Ash (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I had noticed that too... but figured it might be best to navigate directly to films rather than media. Changing a nom's comments is for the nom to do, so I came here. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Aliens

I have to say that the pictures and captions you added to Talk:List of alleged alien beings#RfC on pictures made me laugh! Very droll, Ash :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Old thread

As the AFD hadn't been closed, and the two of you were calling each other names, I think that my comments are pretty mild really. I only fixed some indenting, incidentally. Not a big deal in my view, I would certainly never tell another editor not to refactor a talk page for fixing indentation issues - why do you feel that this is an issue large enough for my talk page? Please comment on my talk page as you initiated this conversation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

I do not think you have assumed good faith as you state in your User Page in this instance. This podcast you deleted is a one hour discussion by three bone fide historians on Alexander the Great. It is not a simple link to an authors' website. In addition, you deleted it in such a way as I now have to reconstruct the link. Why do you not at least listen to the debate before you delete it? I do not see any other contribution you have made to this website. It appears that you were just "passing through" and decided to delete it without any good faith investigation. I think a link to a discussion by top historians is at least as interesting as a link to an art exhibit. I respectfully ask you to reconsider. Mugginsx (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I take your point,as you stated on the discussion page of this article, though I still respectfully disagree. It is a productive and detailed podcast and it does, in my opinion, represent some differing opinions not represented in the main article. If, as I think you were suggesting, I were to add the "links" to all of the historians involved, that would add only more external links. Is that not one of the things you are trying to avoid, or have I misunderstood? I would again ask you to listen to the podcast before you take such drastic action. Thank you.

Replied on article talk page. As for "passing through" I have actually contributed to this article in the past, either way, assuming a lack of good faith and making comments to that effect is rarely well received or a convincing argument... Ash (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have deferred to yours and Antipastor's opinion. Antipastor's objection had some merit, but yours was based on a quick judgment which was your personal opinion. It might have been better received by me if you have stated you had at least listened to the debate instead of just the "description of the debate" before deciding it was unworthy. As to the good faith comment, I did not say that you do not assume good faith elsewhere, just in this instance. If you have made prior contributions to the Alexander the Great website, I did not see them; nevertheless, I would apologize for that "passing through" comment. Mugginsx (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

{{aan}} changes

Hi,

This doesn't look to be widely deployed right now, so I didn't see the harm in making changes which shouldn't have had an adverse affect on deployed code. Can you describe what wasn't working with the new version? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are counting widely deployed. It is deployed in many pages as shown with whatlinkshere. I noticed that the template page itself was not displaying correctly, including an expression error warning, and you intended change formatting and remove some of the parameter options without discussion, such changes would have to be suitably propagated where the template is currently used.—Ash (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So here's the discussion. Pages are misusing the "type" attribute to present this template as a "content" tmbox, which it isn't. There should be no need to override the "type" attribute. I've fixed the mistaken use of this parameter in various auto archivers where it was producing bad results, but removing it from the template code itself is the best way to fix them all at once. The big red error message was present in the old code; it was simply hidden behind an includeonly so that it wouldn't appear under the template page. As you wrote the template, you're probably the best person to properly fix that, but the old hack can easily be re-added. And as far as deployment goes, less than 500 transclusions on a template like this is really pretty low; limit it to the talk and Wikipedia talk namespaces (to avoid all the links which are part of the template logic itself) and there are less than a hundred transclusions. I don't particularly see the need to have yet another archive banner anyway, but for the time being it's best that it visually mirrors the other ones (indeed, this one may be a suitable replacement for {{talkarchivenav}} in the long run, as it has neater auto-detection). Any other thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Replying on Template talk:Aan for future convenience.—Ash (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

CSD tag

Hi Ash, I've just deleted one of your CSD tags as {{G4}} rather than {{G1}}, G1 is really for "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes ..... fictional material" But the main reason I popped by was to point out that the prod message you had previously left on User talk:Deadace for that article gave Fantasy cruft as the deletion reason. As this was that users first ever edit I feel that might have been just a little abrupt, overly frank and jargonlike. May I suggest a slightly different tone? ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I changed the PROD to an untitled g1 shortly afterwards as I had the same thoughts, though I missed going to the user page and deleting the PROD alert. —Ash (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought Prod was the right way to go, until I spotted the previous AFD. Would you mind if I replaced Fantasy cruft with "non-notable fictional character" in your message on Deadace's talkpage? ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem.—Ash (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Clifford Brody

Hi Ash, I have made changes to the page Clifford Brody per your suggestions by removing the section that was not considered to be journalistic. Do you have any other ideas of how this page can be improved and not deleted? Your expert opinion is much appreciated! Thanks MeS2135. —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

I suggest that it may be easier to concentrate on adding information to Banker's Academy. If notability in new independent sources cannot be demonstrated for Brody then it seems legitimate to add information on key individuals on the organization page so long as the sources at least establish Brody as a key figure. You may also wish to keep a draft copy of the current Brody article in your sandbox, if it is deleted then you can continue to work and improve on the article until you believe WP:PEOPLE has been satisfied. Ash (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I appreciate your insight and suggestions for improvements. Although I am the author of this page, I am not the person about whom the article Clifford G. Brody is written and can assure you that I was not attempting to use wiki as a promotional tool, but am simply new to wikipedia. However, I understand the reasons for your edits and will continue to make changes to improve the article per your suggestions. Thanks again. Mes2135 comment added 11:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

Eisenhower Jacket

Hi Ash, I noticed a few days ago SRELY&P, the author of the article on the Gekko shirt, had spammed Eisenhower jacket, attributing its creation to an obscure tailor. I edited the article and referenced another tailor. As you can see on the talk page of the article, he took it very agressively, threatened action against Wikipedia and blanked almost all the article. I am hesitating: on one side, the article was wacky; on the other, it is not fair to revenge in this manner. Is it more appropriate to request deletion of the article for copyvio or to revert his blanking? Thanks in advance, Racconish (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to hold off interfering with the article as this falls under WP:NLT. Let the guy make his threats or deletions; I'll raise the matter for WP:ANI in a moment (as the guidance recommends) and let someone uninvolved investigate. Ash (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_about_a_jacket. Ash (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have concluded with blocks on these accounts, I suggest you edit as you see fit but disregard any text pasted by SRELY&P that may be available in the edit history just to be cautious. Ash (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you deleted BSMreview.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_service_management - The external link goes to a vendor neutral site - with articles and insights from the leading experts in Business Service Management (BSM) - in fact, some of the experts on the site were involved in creating the very term itself. It is the leading site in this field, albeit it is fairly new. I hope you reconsider your deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.59.16.3 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The site is has no official affiliations or authority. WP:DIRECTORY applies. This is the second time you have added the link to the same article, please discuss on the article talk page if you want to gain a consensus on the validity and relevance of this site for the article. Ash (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ash, where do I find the article talk page? I would like to submit this site for consideration. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.59.16.3 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Click the "talk" tab on the top of the article, or go to Talk:Business service management. You may want to check through WP:TALK if this is your first time. Ash (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

External Link for ITSMPA.Org on the ITSM Subject page

Hello,

I would like to address your comments and denial of the submission of the external Link for ITSMPA.Org.

You made reference to the fact that this link was intending to defraud users with the intent to drive up traffic or sell a product – This could not be further from the truth – IT Service Management Professional Association is a not for profit association made of Industry Standard ITSM Professionals. The association is dedicated to promoting and advancing Service Management through education, research, peer networking, community involvement, and application of methodologies for the benefit of all businesses who aspire to drive efficiencies through the rigors of applied SM process and practices.

The Content is user generated an mediated by their peers – Joining this group is free.

Please help me understand how we can bring this important information to those who are seeing it through searching in Wiki’s without violating the policies –

Thank you

Mark Storace Founder IT Service Management Professionals Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storace (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My comment on the talk page was "It is not an officially recognized organization and was created in 2008" (you may be confusing my comment with a separate section on www.sm-s.org). Wikipedia has the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy in order to ensure articles do not become indexes of interesting websites. If the site had unique or historic importance to the topic of ITSM, such as being a key player in international development of associated standards, or official recognition by national governments, then there may be a case for considering the link would be in compliance with WP:EL. In this case the site appears to not have any such rationale. To help you out I shall raise a general request for comments on the article talk page, but the link itself should stay removed until a consensus is reached.—Ash (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Raised under Talk:IT service management#RfC Should ITSMPA.org be included as a valid external link?. Note that RFCs normally run for 30 days unless there is an overwhelming consensus on one side or the other. Ash (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr gay uk non notable winnners

Hello,

i have added an edit to the mr gay uk page - i am awaiting Mark Hawkins of gayuk to update there own site - i represented leicester place in 1998. my modeling work was with prowlermedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuellee (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will respond on talk:Mr Gay UK where I shall move the text under discussion. Ash (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rani Singh

OK, sorry if I sounded snappy. I thought you'd misread my comment as "keep, has a blog at HP!" and felt I had to respond. Will strike out the comment. Holly25 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits at Steve Shnider

I appreciate your interest in this page, but I don't understand the rationale behind replacing a reference to the final published version of a scientific article, by a preliminary version on the arxiv (which is certainly no guarantee of publication, particularly in a journal of the caliber of Duke Math J.). Tkuvho (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please go ahead and revert it, I was under the impression that the arXiv ref was as good as a DOI.—Ash (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. As far as the notability issue, I really don't see any need for third opinions. I can't find the page with the guidelines right now, but any math admin should be able to locate it. Tkuvho (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I realized I have no idea how to do this without losing your link to the arxiv version (which may be more readily accessible to some users). Perhaps you could restore the journal citation? Tkuvho (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Went back to using standard {{citation}} format using WorldCat data and the arXiv link as the url parameter.—Ash (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Notes_and_examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkuvho (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the WP:PROF guideline is about notability, it does not imply that citation statistics can be added to articles.—Ash (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations

It seems to me as though most of the citations you have added to Kip Noll, Chris Stone and Lee Ryder don't actually support the text. Is this true or are you seeing a different preview to me on Google Books? Epbr123 (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that they are mostly mentions of the porn stars in question, however they do establish these actors as well known, along with a few facts (such as demonstrating their impact in the field of pornographic acting; that's how I'd interpret being called a porn "superstar" in reliable sources). These 3 pornstars were instantly recognizable names to me and a few references were found after a moment's searching on Google Books, so a PROD seems inappropriate if notability is in question. Generally there is a issue with PORNBIO as any actor appearing in earlier porn films (i.e. before 1995) will be poorly represented in on-line sources and the fact that these three examples were actually well represented on the covers of gay magazines at the time would seem to satisfy GNG but we would struggle to argue that PORNBIO is met.—Ash (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If the citations don't actually support the text, you need to remove them. At the moment, they are giving readers the false impression that the text in these articles has been verified. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability? Epbr123 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd that you think I might not be familiar with V, presumably there is something about my edit history you take exception to. You appear to misunderstand the point I made in the last paragraph. If you have a particular problem with how a particular reliable source is being used as an in-line reference, then I suggest you raise it on the relevant talk page. I have no intention of removing reliable sources that appeared appropriate to my eyes unless you have a specific concern. Ash (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, does A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition mention that Kip Noll was a regular performer at D.C. Follies? If not, why have you put the citation there? Epbr123 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I added the footnote on that paragraph to support his status as a "superstar" rather than his performances. I'm having a look through other sources as he appears more frequently under the alternate spelling of "Kip Knoll". Hmm, I'll add some quotes to ameliorate your concerns, though I have been criticised for leaving quotes in the footnotes. Ash (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For another example, where in Wonder Bread and Ecstasy does it say that Chris Stone began in the gay porn industry in the late 1980s, and continued working for at least 15 years after that? Epbr123 (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to the general point here, so I will copy your specific comment to the relevant talk page as this appears to be a matter of either refining the citation, refining placement or asking for an independent check. Ash (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation fixes in List of demons in the Ars Goetia

Thanks! –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

byron kennedys site..

hi there...

I see you have altered my addition to this site re Kennedy miller now being re named Kennedy miller Mitchell..

I am not too computer savvy re all this stuff...so I have my son helping me at the minute re this...

I am actually Byron's sister...andrea kennedy...& MY SON BYRON actually started this wikipedia page on behalf of his late uncle..

I have had to amend it a few times re incorrect birth dates etc...

SO this is just another amendment which IS correct... as DOUG MITCHELL..who my brother appointed as his accountant when the company went to sydney..... METRO THEATRE...in the early 80's...

DOUG is a LONG standing wonderful addition to Kennedy Miller....& he has been rewarded with partnership... SO it is now known as KENNEDY MILLER MITCHELL...

so maybe ... until i get my referencing right on the wikipedia site.... You can click on google & see what comes up...?? We are currently working on MAD MAX 4 etc...under the KENNEDY MILLER MITCHELL logo...

thanks for your time.....regards andrea kennedy-frost...Alf1957 (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The key thing is to ensure that any text you want to see added is supported by published sources. If getting the Wikipedia entry right is too tricky, then I strongly recommend raising the facts you would like on the article talk page (it is highlighted as a tab at the top of every article). Note however, that just because something is "true" does not always make it possible to add to a Wikipedia article as anything that is not self evident is subject to being challenged on the basis of sources. I'll keep an eye open for your contributions as you ask... If you are up to some background reading you may find Conflict of Interest helpful for your situation. Cheers Ash (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Brian Boruff article edited by you

Sir,

I am writing in regard to the article: [[1]], in which you participated in editing. First, please excuse what may be here (and may have been on his page) poor formatting. I am entirely new to Wikipedia. I have added in-line citations to the article, and cleaned up the list of references. As such, I was hoping that you would remove the following two templates, as I do not know how:

"This article does not cite any references or sources."

and

"Text document with red question mark.svg This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate."

I am asking that these be removed in light of the above-mentioned reasons. In addition, I was hoping that you could remove the template that the article does not meet the notability requirements, as Brian Boruff is a senior executive at one of the biggest multinational I.T. firms in the world.

If you cannot do remove these templates, I would really appreciate any advice on who I should contact about this or how it can be done.

Thank you!

Jamesmythology (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)jamesmythology

Homosexual behavior in animals

Hi, Ash!

If you have a reason you feel that the pages should not be merged, please identify it. Otherwise, Wikipedia states: If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merger purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.

Jstanierm (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:BRD applies. You have been reverted, now discuss the matter on the article talk page. Ash (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I can see you have reverted me. Why did you tag the article (which prompts for discussion) if you have no intention of discussing before blanking the page? You are not following the WP:BRD guidance which you have referenced. Ash (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Hi Ash! Wikipedia is clear that there is no need for discussion in order for mergers. If you want a discussion that is fine, but please let me know what your reasons are for why the article listing animals with homosexual behavior should not be merged with the article discussing homosexual behavior in animals, then please let me know what the problem is. If you are objecting to the revert simply because no discussion has taken place and you have no reason then I don't see the point of your redtape.

I noted that you object to any mention of sexual activity animals with regards to genetic output, so in an effort to dispel disagreement I have left those parts out.

I, however, would like to see them in, particularly in the section where the homosexual activity in animals is discussed in relation to human politics. I cited a good source from a well respected authority on what a detractor believes (the Catholic Church) to show that detractors *do* find the argument that its okay because an animal does it to have some fault. Jstanierm (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edit histories of both pages in question I reverted your edits once. One revert is not considered to be edit-warring. By adding the {{3RR}} template to my talk page you are making accusations that are unfounded and inflammatory. Please strike out your accusations. Until you are prepared to withdraw these accusations there seems little point in me engaging you in further discussion. Ash (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, You Win !!!

Ash, congratulations. You have successfully bitten a newcomer so bad that they no longer want to participate in the Wikipedia project. Details HERE

Regards,

ISPman (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Andersen

Hi, a small point of language, I raised a request for investigation on WP:SPI rather than making an accusation (as I'm writing this I note that the SPI form uses the words "accused parties", hmm, I'd really like to see that softened to "parties being investigated"). The term "accusation" is often seen as an attack, whereas asking for independent investigation is more a question of reporting apparent behaviour for attention. It's not a big issue but I tend to be as cautious as possible when such behaviour is going on not to be misunderstood. Also, to be fair, on investigation it may well become apparent that some contributions were made innocently. Cheers, Ash 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• You're completely correct. I'll ammend my comments. Apologies and thanks for pointing it out. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

concerning Simon Corcoran

No bother,

I don't know why wikipedia thinks that 2006 is recent, but anyway....the article deleted by me way back was a oneliner which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article as it stands now.

Cheers and happy editing.

Lectonar (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryanair

Hi, just got a message about a Ryanair edit that was tagged as 'vandalism'. I gave an explanation in the discussion section for the change. Was i meant to do something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.255.87 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Msg left on article talk page. Ash (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films

FYI: I started an RfC about the redlinked entries in this article. ThemFromSpace 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice one. I suggested it several times but didn't feel I'd been involved enough to kick it off. Ash (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Alice Bailey

Hi, I came across the Alice Bailey article while patrolling recent edits, and noticed the POV discussion. I've put a short note on the discussion regarding the POV. In short, I'm not sure the 'Quote' criteria you suggested applies (where you use a quote as an alternative to Rhetoric when dealing with a contriversial subject), as in this case the subject is not antisematism, but Alice's views (While her views may be contriversial, the fact they exist is not), and so don't need to be counterbalanced (unless the quotes are unrepresentative). I think the balance / focus may be more an issue, but the article is tagged for multiple issues already. Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Taken up on article talk page. Ash (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Claudia Chase (pornstar)

Hi, any chance I can get your help in preventing this page from being deleted? ClaudiaChase (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As you have been blocked and the page speedy deleted, no. Ash (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ITIL

Hi Ash

Regarding the deletions you've made to ITIL, the links I have given are those are WIki Links pointing to http://wiki.en.it-processmaps.com and are not external links as per your comment.

Regards, --Acpt22 (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when I said "wiki" I meant any wiki site. The guidance of WP:SPS and WP:ELNO (para 12) apply to any wiki. Exceptions may be suitable but this site in particular I believe needs discussion on the talk page due to its commercial background. These are external links even when embedded in the body of the text, in this case they fail the guidance of WP:RS when used as in-line citations. Ash (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ash,please advise what needs to be done further ?

Acpt22 (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you raise it for discussion on Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library. If the consensus agrees to add it as a source, then it is an exception to the guidance I have pointed out above. Ash (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ty Russell

Can you verify for me if he is alive? If so the lead needs to be changed to "is a former American porn..." CTJF83 chat 20:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I can not prove a negative. To assume that he is dead without sources would be original research and consequently go against the BLP guidelines. Ash (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the bottom has Category:Living people I'll just fix the lead. CTJF83 chat 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chris Stone

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chris Stone. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Stone. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

you got mail

I had sent you an email on Monday but haven't received a response yet. -Stillwaterising (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I did get it, just ran into a backlog of email (plus some 'real-life' urgent issues) and would like to look at a bit more background first. Most of my WP time has been during 10 minute breaks this week. Will have some time in hand on Saturday to get back to you. Cheers, Ash (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alec Powers

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alec Powers. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Powers (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan

In accordance with guidelines that I found about challenging an Afd decision, I contacted the closer, User:Cirt and expressed my concerns. He/she offered to userfy the page without addressing the problem. I'm not qualified or interested in revamping the article, but I thought you might be, or wish to help appeal the Afd decision. -Stillwaterising (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, in fact there is a userfied version at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan which you are welcome to add to. I recently found a source for a named nomination (see the userfied version), so just one more such reference would mean that he passes PORNBIO in such a way that even the hard-line deletionists could not object to (deletionists really do seem to have the upper-hand at the moment don't they?). I have pondered about when to have a second crack at this one as by any common-sense interpretation he is notable and meets the WP:GNG. Let me have a couple more days to think about raising a DRV as, so far, the consensus has been to apply PORNBIO in a way that demonstrably distorts the nature of how gay culture is presented on Wikipedia (i.e. allows the creation of biographical pages of some actors who have had no impact on culture and disallows others with huge impact who happen to lack on-line evidence of awards in their name). I may argue on the basis of his directing work, but I would like to tweak the userfied version before taking this approach and it may make sense to get some documented feedback from Cirt on the revised draft before either resurrecting (on the basis of new sources) or going to DRV. Ash (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have now found sources for further suitable nominations (for his directing work), I have left a note for Cirt. Should s/he not get around to it, I'll consider re-creating anyway in a day or two (probably after another note to Cirt first, to demonstrate I have followed best practice). Ash (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Now recreated, after Cirt's okay. Fingers crossed. Ash (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fagan

Just a connected Q, I see also you have this internal Gay_Erotic_Video_Awards and I can't see him there, how is he connected to that article and you have this GayVN_Awards also he doesn't appear there? Has he won these awards? Or how is he related to them? Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he does, primarily as his main acting career pre-dates these awards. I've trimmed the see also list as a result.

Note that any 80s gay porn star will be very difficult to source in a way that satisfies PORNBIO for a hard-line deletionist. In this particular case I believe that Fagan is notable due to the cultural impact his performances have had and the films sell as classics today, decades later. The fact only one award has been identified and sourced, is not good indicator of notability, rather the notoriety of films such as "The Young & the Hung" should be considered. Of course, hard-liners tend to discount these softer arguments even when they make for good encyclopedic articles. Ash (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Carrigan

You may wish to reformat the filmography section. See a good example, at article Jason Beghe. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing AFD

Please see [2]. I would suggest you have this moved back into your userspace (I deleted the redirect which was the only edit at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. I apologize, as I should have told you to make sure every single sentence on the page is sourced not just to sources listed at the bottom of the page, but more specifically to in-line citations. Cirt (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Now back in your userspace, at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to the guidance that advises us to always use in-line citations for every single sentence as opposed to just including them in the article? I thought this was general guidance for GA status, not a hard requirement. Ash (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For WP:BLPs it is really a good idea. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Good idea" is not normally a rationale to delete an article, one normally references rather more substantive guidance. Ash (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We do not know which sources back up specifically which asserted pieces of information. WP:V and WP:BURDEN apply, as well as WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was kind of exciting. What I found on request for undeletion page was that an article removed in contested AFD should go to DRV rather than undeleted. While I agree that it should pass in current state, it would be best that the inline citations be finished first, (see Stephanie Swift as an example). I understand that if an article is undeleted it should be completely rewritten before being moved back to mainspace. -Stillwaterising (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that ought to have been the process. Cirt seems to have made an agreement to by-pass that process and told me not to complain about it too. Bit of a waste of time really, doesn't encourage me to continue working on the article, if we can expect Epbr123 to always get their way on these matters, does it? Ash (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should wait until more sources are found? I feel your despair, and due to the recent debate I have been recently wondering if porn related material should be allowed on Wikipedia at all. However, where would readers find verified and unbiased information on their favorite (or least favorite in the case of User:Epbr123) type of actors and models? Nowhere but here. -Stillwaterising (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Porn Star Awarded

While I've only been recently been made aware of your work on WP:WikiProject Pornography, must say that your determination and quality of work is impeccable. -Stillwaterising (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Porn Star
		Keep up the good work! -Stillwaterising (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, though recent debates will probably result in my focus moving to other, perhaps less contentious, topics. Ash (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent tone

Ash, I can understand your frustration. However, your recent tone and sarcasm in posts to ANI and here is disappointing. I would really love to help you improve the Paul Carrigan page while it is in a subpage of your userspace. I have some experience in content quality improvement of articles (User:Cirt/Contributions). But I would really appreciate a shift in your recent tone and demeanor. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, I see inappropriate behaviour from two admins. Epbr123 for being on a zealous deletionist campaign (as shown across many AfDs), unable to take on board the viewpoints of others during AfD discussion, and yourself for ignoring an AfD discussion and instead effectively making a "ruling" when you were partial and could easily have summarized consensus and made a proposal for discussion. I am loath to argue with any admin, they have been granted power for good reason and must have an excellent track record. However being an admin does not grant special weight on opinions during a consensus discussion.

As for my tone, I have a consistent history of attempting to stay on the high ground during discussion, even when heated. My statement in the ANI was not rude but drifted into sarcasm for which I apologise. Given the background, a little venting seems human and whilst it is an excellent good goal to stay on high ground, some passion during discussion is, I hope, understandable. Ash (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I would have loved to have helped you. I think I am pretty good at both research and finding sources, as well as writing and article improvement. I have in the past saved many pages that were at risk of deletion in an ongoing AFD. But the recent tone of yourself and Stillwaterising (talk · contribs) is not one that fosters positive collaboration or encourages me to attempt to improve the page to demonstrate notability and improve its quality - which is most unfortunate as that is something that I enjoy doing on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I struck my comments and apologised. If you want me to do anything else, you are welcome to make a suggestion as at this point I'm not sure what you want. Ash (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay I guess I saw moreso defending the inappropriateness and focusing on individual users instead of discussing the content issue itself - or even attempting to improve the page. Perhaps the tone will improve towards positive collaboration in the future on this topic - I just do not know at this point. For what it is worth - I have a copy of the page in my userspace, I think (unfortunately) it is best at this point in time if I work on it, separately, there. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul Carrigan DRV

DRV discussion can be found here. I'm afraid that your decision to move to DRV may be premature. I've gone through the sources and citations and done my best with the material presented, however only the 3 nominations stand for notability. Without any articles featuring him GNG is in doubt too. Please do what you can to fix this. -Stillwaterising (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the issue for DRV is that consensus was not given a chance. In this case arguing notability on the basis of PORNBIO may be a bust but in terms of a directing career, this discussion has not been had. Carrigan lead the creation of a new genre of gay erotic entertainment, erotic wrestling, and founded a production company that still exists today (On Top Productions).

Anyway, the end result of the AfD may be to userfy, yet again, and I would be content if that is an informed consensus decision. No editor should over-ride a consensus process no matter how good their intentions, depth of experience or admin rights they may have been granted.

PS, I wrote to On Top Productions last week on behalf of Wikipedia, asking if they had any relevant awards. They were kind enough to write back and pointed to the "Steve Shannon triple play video" which was added to the article. It may be appropriate to create an article for the production company at some point, they seem sufficiently notable to meet WP:ORG... maybe when things have cooled off a bit. Ash (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead. Could you forward me a copy of the email you sent them? They seem to have a fairly active website but no "About Us" page or mention of Carrigan. On Top Wrestling seems to be based on actual wrestling but has redefined the meaning of submission finish. (lol) - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting on my detective hat, I find

1. ontoponline.com has their PO Box (in NY) and phone number.
2. archive.org shows their website first active in December 1998.
3. Whois on ontopwrestling.com shows the same address and the name of the registrant (no need to post that here).

To make an article one could do with a couple of published interviews and the published company annual report. At the moment it looks too sparse for an article. Ash (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - Paul Carrigan

I have worked on Paul Carrigan in a subpage of my userspace, please see User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan. Every single sentence is now sourced. Accordingly, I have changed my position at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_15#Paul_Carrigan. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I suggest you let DRV run its course. As the issue for the DRV is that you went against the documented consensus to delete the article, it may be more politic to let the DRV reach a conclusion and ensure there is a consensus before un-deleting the article. Although you have discussed the matter with Epbr123, having the DRV on record would help avoid a speedy delete from another editor, for example.

I noted that the 1992 point was raised. Carrigan's first appearance seems to have been in "The Spanking Master 4" in 1992. With the right phrasing this could be a suitable reference to support a statement such as "Carrigan's first credited pornographic video role was in 'The Spanking Master 4' in 1992." Ash (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps this fact about his first appearance should be removed. If the video itself can be used as evidence, then the only version I find still for sale was printed in 1996 (by Bacchus). I suspect the original film was made in 1992 but have no solid evidence to hand. This looks like a longer term bit of research for someone prepared to check through some gay adult magazines or catalogues of the period. Ash (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has no objection to me moving User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan to Paul Carrigan. Are you saying you object to my going ahead and doing that? Cirt (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My complaint in the ANI you raised against Epbr123 was that a negotiation between yourself and Epbr123 over-rode the consensus developing in the AfD. As an involved admin, you are now proposing to close the DRV based on another personal discussion with Epbr123 on his/her talk page. I would not object to an independent admin closing the DRV based on your proposal, but if you or Epbr123 close the DRV this would look bad for any appearance of consensus building as you are both heavily involved.

The DRV guidance suggests "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists.", by "administrator" I would naturally read this to mean independent administrator. If you wish to by-pass the guidance of a full seven days, again I suggest you make that proposal in the DRV discussion and see if an independent admin accepts it as reasonable. Ash (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in but I say ride it out for at least 7 days. Our group (WP:PORN) has become rather dysfunktshunal and I think our issues need to see the light of day. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. As you wish.............. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I can think of several amusing things to say in reply but I do not want to be accused of being sarcastic again. Ash (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

there seems to be a consensus. It's likely article won't get deleted right away under Too Soon. There's nothing DRV can do to prevent it. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A shiny barnstar for you!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I hereby award you this shiny barnstar for your tremendous work to source and improve content on Wikipedia. We need more editors like yourself who are willing to put in the hard work, even in trying circumstances. Keep up the good work! -- Banjeboi 17:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll take that as my queue to take my hands off the keyboard, stop arguing the toss and get ready to toss some pancakes instead! Ash (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quinn

I hadn't noticed this debate, seems to be lively. Got a comment in last minute, on 8th day. Am I right in my logic? - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your logic is clear. GNG however is easily interpreted in a range of ways, take "Significant coverage" this depends on context and if I were a deletionist I would push this point to claim almost any porn-related source were either insignificant or unreliable. For example the Adam Gay Video Directory has previously been challenged as a source even though it is the most definitive publication in the field and cited by multiple academic books and articles.

It seems a great pity that so much effort is being used to force a hard and probably poor interpretation of BLP (via PORNBIO) to delete articles about early erotic actors rather than finding ways of presenting such information in an encyclopedic fashion. I cannot interpret recent actions other than a prejudicial distaste for the subject of pornography driving hard-line interpretation of the guidance. Unfortunately it does appear that there are a large number of admins without experience of building consensus and prefer to assume that they are the embodiment of it. Ash (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bathhouse

As things stand, the only way to get a valid region code from this template is to use the coordinates= parameter. If you use latd/longd and don't give location_country=, the template omits the region code completely. If you use latd/longd and do give a location_country=, the template produces a bogus code such as US-X. Long-term, my preference would be to add a coordinates_type= parameter like {{Infobox settlement}} has. Another solution would be to provide some way for {{Infobox bathhouse}} to pass a 2nd parameter to {{CountryAbbr}}. But {{CountryAbbr}} is a horrible hack which I'm reluctant to promote. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your "neutral analysis" page

Ash, regardless of any disclaimers you may add to the page, this is in violation of WP:USER. Given our difficult communications lately, it would be nice if you would remove it voluntarily. Of course I have no objection to you compiling factual information (diffs) for some form of dispute resolution to be started in the very near future, but failing that, please don't do this onwiki. Thanks.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The page is about information available in the standard ANI search reformatted to help me understand the reasons and a timeline for your unusually heavy usage of the ANI forum. Reading through USER, the page appears to be in compliance with that guidance as it is relevant to Wikipedia and may well be used to support a dispute (such as the many you have raised on ANI) with clear factual information about past allegations and admin actions.

You will note that I have to date raised no dispute resolution process about your behaviour nor made any threat to do so. You have raised 2 ANI reports about me that resulted no action against me.

Based on you raising this comment on my talk page, I have asked an admin for an independent view of whether the sub-page is in compliance with the guidance of USER and added {{NOINDEX}} to the page itself.Ash (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask which admin you asked, because I don't see it in your contribs. I'm not prepared to wait indefinitely for this to be dealt with, so I would rather you asked for the page to be deleted and re-create if you can find someone to tell you that it is acceptable. I'm hoping to avoid another trip to ANI for this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why raise a third pointless ANI against me? It works quite badly at acting as a big stick to force your opinion on others, particularly where the second party has already carefully and politely accepted your complaint and is in the process of addressing it. I contacted an admin by email so picking through my contributions will not show it. The admin may choose to not advise and so their anonymity is reasonable. You may want to think again about what you are asking for, I would have thought it to your benefit to be able to see and potentially correct any summary about your edits I might have and be sharing with other editors rather than forcing this to happensecretly off-wiki. Due to the complications of sharing such a summary, I would probably be forced to re-create this as a public anonymously shared Google spreadsheet which by its nature nobody else could edit but everyone could review. Again the page contains no original analysis or accusations, merely a summary of what can be seen in the ANI archives. Ash (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The page is in clear violation of WP:USER and I've asked you politely to have it deleted. No one is "forcing" you to create this or share it at all. If you create or share this either here or off-wiki, it is by your own choosing and no one but you can take responsibility for those actions. I will allow an hour for the unnamed admin to reply and then I will take further action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, as I said, it is not in clear violation. As you are in a hurry to yet again waste everyone's time on ANI (why would this require an admin?), I have raised a notice at EAR for feedback as this is a less confrontational forum. Ash (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

MfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Raising pages in my userspace for deletion when there is an ongoing discussion is forum shopping and an unnecessary aggressive act. I assume your intent was to get some petty revenge. Please withdraw the nomination. Ash (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I told you I would wait an hour for the unnamed admin to get back to you and then I would take action. Taking the page to MfD is the appropriate action, so your claims of "petty revenge" and "forum shopping" don't really make any sense to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Such actions are straight-forward bullying. My action in using the EAR process was appropriate, a good way to avoid confrontation and you should have let that complete. Your actions are uncivil and threatening. Go away and leave me alone, I have no desire to be your virtual punch bag. Ash (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that I'm only here because you created a page maligning me. As always, I will avoid your talk page unless it is to inform you of procedural actions. I had hoped to avoid them in this case, but you seem to prefer the conflict. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are in the wrong. As stated repeatedly, the sub-page was not maligning you, and as clarified on the EAR forum it represented your ANI contributions neutrally in order to prepare for dispute resolution, this is directly in accordance with USER. The only reason I offered to remove it was to avoid making you more angry as suggested by another editor. The fact that you carried out your threat to delete the page and ignored the EAR process does not stop that action from being uncivil and threatening. You appear to be using Wikipedia to enjoy argument and drama with no consideration of the good intention of other editors.

(outdent) Let me make it extremely clear. I believe that you are using my talk page in a direct attempt to bully and harass me. Unless your next comment is an apology, please do not bother making any further accusations about me or excuses for your bad behaviour on my user talk page. Ash (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Hm2k_won't_stop_editing/hiding_comments_in_an_AFD -- unsigned 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

userfied

As requested. I've also blanked them. You can unblank when you've verified the content.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

New discussion at ANI

We don't appear to be making any progress with my proposed guidelines for male porn performers, so I've started a discussion at ANI regarding your recent BLP article creations. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This was not appropriate. Within hours of saying you were waiting for other comments on the list talk page, you have resorted to complaining about me in an ANI. Nothing you have raised in the ANI requires an admin to intervene. Your action appears an obvious attempt to stir up drama and try to block me from creating articles that meet the PORNBIO requirements you were demanding. You have done nothing constructive to resolve these issues. You are on a mission, go away and do something else rather than harass me. Ash (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Porn bio is currently disputed and I also talked to you about the articles you were creating, there are issues with your creating stubs specifically as a reason to re add them to a list and it seems I am not the only editor to raise this questions, do you not think it would be better to move to discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, PORNBIO, is not disputed. I suggested a clarification in wording on the notability talk page, you raised an issue but dropped it for the time being. As I have said several times, if there was a problem with any specific article I have created, then the specific article could be addressed. DC has suggested several "special" rules that there has been no consensus on and there appears to be little support for. It would be a very odd situation if editing on Wikipedia was supposed to stop every time someone started discussing the guidelines. If you want me to halt creating any further articles (possibly halting all creation of pornography related articles for an indefinite period) whilst DC continues to make various new objections (as s/he has done for several months now) then I suggest an RfC is raised on the list talk page to make consensus for a topic block clear. To my eyes, this would look an awful lot like censorship by the back door. If you wish to discuss further then discuss the matter there rather than on my personal user talk page as I am tired of having the same discussion in several different places. Ash (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC

I had noticed this was up, and glanced at some of the views expressed. My gut reaction is to support any such proposal but I'm going to think about it a bit longer before deciding whether I will be adding my opinion. Cheers Ash (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the current arguments on ANI makes up my mind. Obviously some admins are prepared to behave in outrageously arrogant, biased and offensive ways, any system of straightforward de-adminship is worth having as a deterrent. Not now though, I have to get dinner started. Ash (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in (I'm not sure how you got on my watchlist) but a couple of brief points, if I may:

• Under the current process, admins who behave badly often enough or egregiously enough tend to lose their bit via ArbCom.
• Editors other than admins also behave badly sometimes, and effectively dealing with them can require good admins who are unafraid to take them on. There might well be fewer such admins if community desysopping became the norm.
• Given the amount of daily drama on WP, the tendency of lynch mobs to form, and the difficulty in determining consensus, community de-adminship likely would be less straightforward than the current process.

That was three thoughts. Sorry!

Cheers,

(non-admin) Rivertorch (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL; it must be a truely contentious if I'm being canvassed based on mentioning that I intend to express an opinion. Not, of course, that I'm formally accusing you of deliberately canvassing.

I agree that recruiting good admins is a problem. It is also true that I seem to be noticing a lot of admins behaving badly, which may indicate that the "bar" is too low or there is a need for on-going monitoring. I am minded to opine in favour of the proposed system not because it appears the best of solutions but that such a system would then evolve (yes, there are arguments back on forth on this point, I can see them in the discussion). Personally I would rather see a system of yellow-card, red-card style where action against an admin is progressive and so based on repeated poor behaviour. A light-weight system for putting an admin temporarily "on the bench" because they got angry one day and vented at a far less experienced editor would probably be enough of a deterrent in most cases. Even having a place where non-admins could raise their gripes (and then be given time to cool off) would be useful and only result in action if a genuine pattern was apparent. Anyway, still thinking about it and there is a lot of chat to wade through in the RfC before I would chip in with my 2p worth. Certainly a number of recent ill-tempered discussions from admins on ANI appear to demonstrate that there is a problem and there are parts of Wikipedia where contributions from admins have become routinely un-civil and un-welcoming. Ash (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Project in crisis

Do you think starting a project rfc for this topic would be helpful or not needed? - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice would be to wait for another 24 hours. If there is no sort of consensus emerging after that then some wording of a suitable RfC could be discussed for a while before launching a RfC for the community to feedback on. Ash (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

you' so wise. Thanks! -Stillwaterising (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Removal of cn tags

I was trying to perform the same edit that you did just before me. I don't know how I screwed that up but I'll take credit for the goof. Dismas|^(talk) 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Chad Knight

Hi there. I've userfied this for you. It's now at User:Ash/Chad Knight. Cheers! GedUK  16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see why it was deleted, I'll have to get my large pruning shears out for this one. Cheers Ash (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Stryker

I'm looking at the references you're including -which is great that you're doing legwork-, but I'm sure they're not backing up the information in the article here. I appreciate your help and all, but the information must be verifiable and true to it's source, yes?38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Some of the references may well support part of the text, not necessarily all the information in a paragraph. Consequently I believe all the references have value, this does not mean that adjacent text should not be trimmed down to the facts that are either supported or verifiable. Ash (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Like I mentioned, I hope I'm doing this right, but I'm not sure.

"A bodybuilder since age 11, Jeff Stryker was discovered by adult film producer John Travis at age 26"...the refs you included say nothing to verify any of those those facts. The first source you provided only quotes Chi-Chi Larue as saying Stryker was discovered by Catalina Video and that Powertool made him a star, and the second source only verifies that John Travis was, at one point, Stryker's agent.

That's right, from the sources I added probably only show that Travis discovered Stryker when he was managing Catalina Video.

"Jamie Loves Jeff was one of the biggest selling heterosexual adult movies of all time." is not verified by your reference, which only states that the tape was one of Vivid's biggest sellers and was shortly due for release on DVD.

Okay, so the text needs to be qualified in the same way, i.e. it was this producer's biggest seller.

This ref only refers to Jeff's appearance in "Can I Be Your Bratwurst, Please", but none of the other films listed.

Cool, so the footnote ought be placed against that film rather than left to the end of the sentence. Note that film credits are not normally required to be individually sourced as such information is not often controversial and easily checked using the film database pages already listed in the article.

I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia guidelines, do in fact, require that information included here be supported and verifiable, according the the first of the WP:5P, unless I'm misunderstanding something, which is totally possible. :o) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there's any conflict in viewpoint here. The sources added support some of the article information. If the remaining information appears unsourced or unverifiable then it is reasonable to remove or re-word it. I suggest you follow BOLD and assume that others will be prepared to revert and discuss if there are issues with your revisions. Ash (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC?

Hi! you've been very helpful with me so far...perhaps you could give me some advice.

If I see a pattern of biased Wikiediting with a certain user (one, for example, with a particular history of creating (successful) AfD's for gay porn stars, but also doing so to other gay-related articles). I know there's a procedure to address the behavior of such users...doesn't it start with an RFC? How would somebody go about investigating or beginning that process? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, Ash! Seems like good advice. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris Greene deleted content

Your deleted content is at User talk:AGK#Chris Greene. If you need anything else, just ask. Regards, AGK 17:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability discussion

Your definition of "more than" is obviously different to mine. BTW, how is this a typo? Epbr123 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Our definitions would be the same. SW is proposing a re-word of the criteria, not defining what the word "several" means. I have just looked again at my comment and I'm not sure how else to word that to be more clear.
• The "typo" was a mis-saving. Ever since upgrading to Firefox 3.6, editing in Wikipedia seems to keep on failing (possibly some issue with caching the text box field as it is blank when it fails to save) and I have to go back and try saving again most of the time. Unfortunately sometimes that means re-pasting my edits and in this case I reposted my last version and did not spot that I was pasting it next to a draft. I was going to debate the definition but then I realised that you were correct and that was not the point that SW was making. Ash (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm using 3.5.8 and don't have that issue. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tried using Safari for a couple of days, not a single repeat of the problem with Firefox 3.6. Makes things more complicated (as Firefox is still my main browser) but okay as a work-around. Maybe the next Firefox upgrade will wipe out this problem... Ash (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gay Exorcism

Man that video is fugd up! I'm glad we're keeping the article. I actually think the video adds the credibility of exorcism, but without a before and after interview of the subject and complete knowledge that it was a voluntary event it's hard to determine whether it is abuse or not. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the video - I can not bear watching that sort of stuff on Youtube and the description in the papers was bad enough. Actually I had heard of plenty of exorcisms (and faith healing) against homosexuality going on, this video just made it popular in the press. Sexual deviance being caused by demons is hardly a new idea for the church. Ash (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a line from the first revision "They are often very brutal and painful to the victim, but do actually work." I notice there's a image here but don't think it represents too well. I hope you keep working on it and maybe it will attract other contributors as well. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:ANN

Can you help me to customize this? I want instead of it saying Archive 1,2, etc, to have the dates of the archive. Is this possible? CTJF83 chat 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible. If you want to archive by year, try using {{aan}} using the year as the sub-folder name. I designed it exactly for that reason (as used on this talk page). You could also just use the {{archive box}} and manually put the dates of the archive next to each folder name. Cheers Ash (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would I just do something like {{aan}} or something like that? Or should I just change the archives to the dates instead of numbers? CTJF83 chat 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd just drop aan into the pages though changing the names is not difficult to do if you really want the years to be obvious. Ash (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true, the years aren't even that important...thanks. CTJF83 chat 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mea Culpa

I could have sworn I checked the source listed in the Kristian Digby article, but I obviously opened the wrong one, so sorry about that!

I'm not totally comfortable with sources that second guess coroner's reports, and 'sources close to the enquiry'; it feels a little too gossipy to be considered a RS, and sometimes their entertainment section is more like the Sun's. GedUK  08:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I might have agreed if the particular source was a "gossip" source (and I happen to feel bad for Digby's relative reading this stuff). As this is as stated by BBC news it is obviously mainstream and we can rely on the fact that these items have gone for forensic investigation. The deduction that they were likely to have been used for sexual purposes is logical and reasonable unless the evidence has been manipulated (there are no sources that speculate as to that unlikely scenario). Ash (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not in the BBC reports (or it wasn't last time I looked), but the ents section of the Telegraph. It's not been officially announced that the items have gone for forensic examination, that's just what the 'source close to the inquiry' said. It's probably true (that they've gone for examination), but I'm uncomfortable relying on unsourced leaks, even if they're reported in a reliable source. We might be better wording it something like: 'Some sources assert that a belt and plastic bag (or whatever it was) have been taken for forensic examination, but this has not been officially confirmed'. I'll copy this to the article talk page. GedUK  12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, paragraph 4 of the Times report states "Sources close to the inquiry disclosed that a belt and a bag, items associated with autoerotic asphyxiation, had been removed from the property for forensic tests." How much clearer could that be? [3] Ash (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I see you copied this thread to the article talk page. It would have been polite to let me know so I would not have wasted time replying here. Ash (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, it was the last sentence. GedUK  15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'll have to practice that reading stuff a bit more. Doh! Ash (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You caught me in the middle of work

When I hit save, I had a ec with you. Was fixing the old as below:

'''''In the Closet''''' is an [[2008 in film|2008]] [[United States|American]] [[horror film|horror]] [[short film]] written and directed by Jody Wheeler, starring model and actor [[Brent Corrigan]] and writer, producer, director [[J.T. Tepnapa]].<ref name="twitmagazine"/><ref name="gayporntimes"/>

Plot

Press (Brent Corrigan) picks up Griffin (J.T. Tepnapa) in a bar. When they get to Press's home, there are strange noises coming from the bedroom.

Awards & nominations

• 2009, The film was nominated as 'Best Short' at the Iris Prize festival.

<ref name="twitmagazine"> {{cite news |url=http://thisweekintexas.com/content/view/59/95/ |title=Review: In The Closet |last=Simolke |first=Duane |publisher=This Week In Texas |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="gayporntimes"> {{cite news |url=http://www.gayporntimes.com/hardnews/2008/05/19/brent-corrigans-in-the-closet-frightfest/ |title=Brent Corrigan’s “In the Closet” Frightfest |last=[[JC Adams|Adams]] |first=[[JC Adams|JC]] |publisher=Gay Porn Times |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="irisprize"> {{cite web |url=http://www.irisprize.org/shortlist09/index.html |title=2009 Iris Prize nominations |publisher=Iris Prize Film festival |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="lavoce"> {{cite news |url=http://www.voceditalia.it/articolo.asp?id=41119&titolo=Porno%20gay%20attori%20si%20traformano%20in%20Zombie%20e%20Vampiri |title=Porno gay: attori si traformano in Zombie e Vampiri |date=10 November 2009 |publisher=La Voce |language=Italian |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="afterellen"> {{cite web |url=http://www.afterellen.com/node/58880|title=IRIS - International LGBT short film Prize finalists announced... |publisher=After Ellen |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

Maybe you can use some of the above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathew Shepard

Abusive text hidden

He died of AIDS like all queers do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.234.63 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC) No, Matthew Shepard at the age of 21, was murdered by being beaten, tortured and left to die. His injuries were so severe that doctors could do nothing for him and he died several days after the attack. Quite different from the death you describe. Ash (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility-- apology

I'm sorry. It was not my intention to behave in a incivil manner, and I apologize for having made heat-of the-moment statements that offended you. I don't believe in pretending not to have written something-- I'd feel like a weasel. (Should have gone for a walk before I posted the first version.) If you feel anger toward me, then I probably deserve it and won't whitewash my own behavior by pretending. Again, I'm sorry for hurting you. Dlohcierekim 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stryker.

Duly noted. But the SPS does not back up the info that was in the article. :o) Thanks for keeping an eye to make sure I'm doing this right. I'll lay off for a bit and see how the edits I've already made land with the general WP community. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: RfC

Per the argument on the Admin Noticeboard, and per WikiStandards, I'm going to stay away from Delicious Carbuncle. But I do believe he is WP:TE against gay porn star articles. If you believe there is a time to address that, please include me in the discussion. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move

Hi, Ash. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move. Cunard (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding your latest accusations

Please see here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note: nominating an article for deletion is not a personal attack. Nominating an article is merely the mechanism by which an editor expresses their opinion that the article should be deleted. Other editors may or may not agree with that editor. In some cases, articles are in a poor state, and the AfD nomination spurs editors to improve the article until it can be demonstrated that it really should remain on Wikipedia. A nominator generally does not delete an article that they have nominated. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Nominating an article with the rationale that it is "in order to improve" it is explicitly against the deletion guidance.
2. I do not believe that anyone apart from Delicious carbuncle has made any claims of personal attack with regard to nominations.
3. As an admin, why are you raising your opinion here rather than in the ANI? —Ash (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re the first point, if you see this happening, then the relevant AfD debate is a good place to voice your concern over that. I'm not saying that it is the case with DCs nominations, I was saying that having been nominated, in some cases this is what happens, even with a nomination raised in good faith. Re the third point, I was offering some friendly advice, which you are free to take or ignore as you see fit. We admins aren't all "block first, ask questions later" you know. Personally I don't like having to block an editor if it can be avoided. However, I will block if it proves necessary to do so in order to protect Wikipedia as a whole. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what is going on here. Delicious carbuncle has raised an ANI requesting admin intervention due to personal attacks. I have made no accusations of personal attacks. Consequently your point stating that nominating an article for deletion is not a personal attack on my talk page seems entirely irrelevant to the ANI raised or to any action or concern I may have or that Delicious carbuncle may have. Nobody has suggested that nominating an article for deletion has been a personal attack. Did you mean to say something else? Ash (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

change your page name.

Hello. My name is Chase Hunter and I am a college student at BVU in Storm Lake Iowa. I kindly request that you take the page off that is about the actor "Chase Hunter." Being in the political science area of the university I cannot afford to have my name related to the type of thing this actor is in. I kindly ask for you to remove this page.

Thanks, Chase Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.238.103 (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I shall raise the suggestion of a page move on the article talk page. However it is normal for any biographical article to be named after the subject of the article. The page could be moved to Chase Hunter (pornographic actor) but as there is no other notable Chase Hunter on Wikipedia there is has been no need to disambiguate the page. Ash (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A request for comment has been raised on Talk:Chase Hunter. Ash (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Marins Ssempa

Thanks for your help in getting those references in order. I'm still not clear how you did that. Is it something I can do, or is it only account holders? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone can use the online tool, take a look at REFLINKS. To get it to appear as a handy link in your sidebar you need to fiddle with your monobook.js settings - (adding the line importScript('User:SQL/refcheck.js'); ). This probably means editing from a named account as you need to be able to have saved preferences (and I think only default settings are available for IP addresses as otherwise a dynamic IP user could suddenly find someone previously set their new IP address with some silly style, such as black text on a black background...). Ash (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that page, and to me it's quite a bit of technical jargon that I don't understand, but I'll try to wade through. Thanks for your help. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea!

Thanks for the comment. Actually about to grind some fresh coffee beans in RL. A delightful morning routine. I have noted your wikilove approach, congratulations on getting some results even if they were painfully grudging. Cheers Ash (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your advice and guidance. You'll also want to note my brief edit here. I hope I can count on you in the future and promise not to take up too much of your time. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

NP, glad to help. Ash (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

link to existing citation in George Swede

Hi Ash, you wrote:

Hi, from your first edit you may have an interest in the website link you have added. Please be aware of the conflict of interest policy for such contributions. Cheers, Ash (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ash! Thanks for the reply and I hope you can help me out. I'd like to make the changes, but I'd like to make them correctly. Actually, I'm pretty sure I am in compliance just want to check with you. I read through the policy again now and according to the "Non-controversial edits" section the following two items are allowed:

a) Fixing spelling and grammar errors.

The citation already existed, haijinx was simply mis-capitalized. That seems unquestionably allowable.

b) Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.

As I mentioned, the citation already existed and I changed no text in it other than the capitalization. The link for the citation however was not present most likely because the "haijinx" archive were offline for several years. As another editor already created the citation, I don't see how adding the valid link is a COI.

That said, the same section on "non-controversial edits" includes: If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page. Should I place a comment on the talk page proactively about why I fixed the capitalization and added the link?

Haijinx (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this back on my talk page. Your interpretation looks good to me, the fact you have explained it here is fine and I doubt that you need to take any further action (if anyone else asks you can point to this conversation).

I would like to point out that if you add any links to a website that includes the same text as your account name, this will flag up on automatic searches for conflict of interest. If you are acting in good faith and complying with the COI policy that should not be an issue but some editors may automatically revert your changes and you are at risk of your account name being blocked if it is perceived that your account name itself is promoting your website. Tricky area. Assuming you have nothing but good intentions, I have two suggestions to avoid this happening, either think about changing your account name to something more neutral (by creating another account to edit under) or avoid adding such links but point out the links on the article talk page for others to add on your behalf (if they think it is okay to do so). Cheers, Ash.

FYI

Looks like semiprotection because of potential for vandalism is not limited to lists. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone understands that BLP exists for good reason but it is never an excuse for indefinite preventative protection. It surprises me that the general admin community do not recognize this as a direct conflict with the core principles, in particular Founding principles #2 "The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration". Ash (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar statement on the discussion you linked to but I note the emphasis "please realize that this page is for admin review of requests", so I'd rather not interfere where I'm not genuinely welcome. Ash (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have commented as well but others have commented appropriately and I assume that the article won't stay protected. I'm concerned though about this tendency to pro-actively protect articles. I agree about IP editors, I think they are our most valuable resource (more than admins for sure!) and I think that asking long term IP editors to register themselves is not appropriate. This definitely bears watching. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand your proposal?

Please see [4]. Did I misunderstand? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you did misunderstand. The RFC is proposing that footnotes are not needed where an article includes a suffix such as "(pornographic actor)". The RFC is not proposing that such suffixes (intended to disambiguate articles) could be dropped. Cheers Ash (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please advise Re: Delicious carbuncle.

Per your advice, I have made civil attempts in multiple places with Delicious carbuncle, including a lengthy thread on his talk page, as well in article discussion pages s/he and I are both interested in.

My issue here is not that he is WP:TE (although that is a secondary concern), but that he continues to WP:BITE my edits with no serious intent towards WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL, while I have suggested a WP:TRUCE (which was painfully short-lived) and WP:COOL. He has indicated that he is not interested in any WP:RfC on his behaviors.

• I myself am going to take a day of WP:COOL to make sure I'm not overreacting, and to show my willingness to follow the spirit of WP:5P.

Do you still think WP:WQA, WP:ANI, or WP:RfC might be in order? I'm concerned that these might just inflame an already tense situation. I don't understand how I've become a target, when I've been polite and respectful of his editing from the get-go.

Please advise. Thanks. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Delicious carbuncle appears to be using bullying tactics such as making accusations of personal attack and taking editors repeatedly to ANI (such as myself and Benjiboi) without reasonable substantiation. I do suggest following the recommended process in good faith. Going to WQA should not inflame the situation as it will get independent views on the behaviour demonstrated to date, though you should note that no action would normally be taken against DC using WQA as it is an advisory forum. The fact that you have offered a truce and only received abuse and further claims of potential malfeasance in return should hold any opinions you now have in good stead. I would welcome such a move on your part, the fact that DC has raised two recent ANI's against me makes the counter-claim that I would be getting some sort of "revenge" possible if I were to go that forum at this point. However DC's behaviour should be appear immediately unacceptable for any independent reviewer. The process may be a drag but it may result in a change in the uncivil editing we have recently seen. Ash (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all of that is a somewhat unfortunate path to feel necessary to take. I was unaware he raised ANI's against you, and since that's the case, I'll probably avoid involving you more in this Un-delicious debacle. But you've given me good advice and I'll follow the good direction you've given. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, the ANI and WQA forums have the facility to search the archives. It may be worth taking a look at any previous contributions involving DC before taking any action. Needless to say the two ANI's against me amounted to nothing as there was no intervention required. Cheers Ash (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some of this user's actions, edits, particularly in relation to you, myself, and some other Wikieditors appears intent on achieving some non-specific goal that is unrelated to making wikipedia a better place. I have no idea what his/her goal might be. I am going to follow the good advice you gave me above, but might I suggest -just suggest- laying off of Delicious carbuncle for a day or so? Take a WP:COOL yourself from the articles you are both involved with...they will still be there in a day or two and, as you knkow, here on Wikipedia, nothing is forever set in stone. It might be in everyone's best interests later on, and would certainly show your willingness to address the matter in accordance with the advice given at Griefers. Just my two cents. Hope I'm not out of place. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem and taking a break is always a good idea. I'm not actually annoyed, the fact that DC is digging a big hole to fall into feels like their problem rather than mine. Ash (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Sorry to have to involve you again in this, but I don't know where to go without being accused later of some form of Canvassing against Dc. And since we've both been under his/her attack as of recent, I think you'd be the best starting point on where to turn next.

I've complied a summary of my experiences with Delicious carbuncle and do wish to have the matter move forward. Below, please find my notes. I can edit them and include more or less info, but do not simply want this to be placed on your "Analysis page" if that will not move forward within a reasonable amount of time (say, the next few days). Please advise on which direction you think this should go. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Hey, nevermind...I'm going to begin by placing this at WQA. That seems the coolest and most civil path to follow...and when dealing with an aggressive editor such as Dc, it's best be behave as civilly as possible. :o) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I was pondering a response but wanted to tidy up some of the trivial sourcing challenges by DC that were littering up ANI. One possible benefit you may consider to having a named account would be the ability to have anonymous emails sent to you. In this situation when an editor appears to be scanning talk pages to find evidence they can claim as attacks, use of email to discuss what to do next can be helpful. I'll probably stay out of the WQA unless I can help clarify any facts as I'm getting pretty tired of having to address these nonsense passive/aggressive personal attacks. Ash (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The WQA has been posted here. Sorry to have your continued involvement, but hope you'll at least "keep an eye" on things. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

PornBio

Pornbio leaves a significant number of performers out of the loop, such as the legendary Chad Douglas, who made significant contribs to mainstream porn before awards were given. How to account for this? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In my eyes this is an ongoing serious flaw with PORNBIO. You would probably have to demonstrate more general notability, I doubt there is a strong case. You may consider the notability of the movie Big Guns (pornographic film) (it did win 1987 X-Rated Critics Organization Best Video, 2002 Grabby Award, Best Classic DVD and 2006 GayVN Award, Best Classic Gay DVD) or the notability of Laguna Pacific or add to the existing William Higgins (director). Any of these articles/potential articles could discuss Chad Douglas as a key figure with supporting sources (try this GBooks search for some sources). Ash (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

X15v72A

Dear Ash,

You are mistaken. My edits were in no way libelous. I was referring to allegations of plagiarism by Mr. Gervais that have been made by other persons. Furthermore, these comments were all fully backed up and referenced and the allegations are already well known and in wide circulation:

• www.plagianimals.com
• www.captainpottie.co.uk
• www.enotes.com/misanthrope
• www.enotes.com/tartuffe
• www.pilkipedia.co.uk
• familyhobgoblin.blogspot.com

Your grounds for removing my contributions on the basis of libel OR bad referencing are therefore highly questionable and in direct conflict with the supposedly democratic and impartial principles of Wikipedia.

X15v72A (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

These sources fail the reliable sources guidelines. They are either primary sources, forums or blogs. If you provided a newspaper article in a quality newspaper about the claim of plagiarism then you may be getting somewhere but to make such a weakly sourced claim in a biographic article is not appropriate. Ash (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

CACPT

Hello I see you've added "issue tags" to the CACPT article.

It is a small organization with few outside sourced references. The Canadian Institute of Planners, and Ontario Professional Planners Institute are very similar organizations with little to no references but seem to not have had any problems. Perhaps you could suggest some ways I could improve the article. Thanks. Po' buster (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising the question. If there are no sources to be found apart from primary sources then the organization fails WP:ORG for notability and should be deleted. References to independent trade magazines or conference proceedings should be sufficient to establish that this is an institute with impact in the field. As for the other articles, they fail too, and I have added similar tags now you have highlighted them for improvement. The rationale of other pages being just as poorly sourced falls under the often heard argument of OTHERSTUFF exists and is not of itself a reason to keep a poorly sourced article if that article has little chance of future improvement. The tags are a way to advertise the fact that the article needs sources to attract potential editors. Cheers Ash (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost all urban planning organizations aren't well referenced outside of their own web pages. Even the American Planning Association and Royal Town Planning Institute which have tens of thousands of members have little to no references. There must be a way to write articles which don't have many outside references, no ? Po' buster (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Professional organizations, associations and trade associations must have demonstrable impact on the field. If Wikipedia allowed pages for any group without requiring anything but self-published sources then I could set up a nonsense website about a group that worships my cat and we would have no policy that could legitimately remove it. Try Google News & Books, again if the association has events, awards or publications that trade journals/magazines refer to, then this is a certain level of collaborating evidence. However after trying a Google search myself, there does seem very little hard evidence of notability.

Perhaps you should look into the history of the "Planning Principles Award". Ash (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin Ssempa

Hi. Could you please look at this and then the user's page.

I've reverted his edit and added (another) last warning, but perhaps he could be blocked for a short period? I know it's a shared IP, so I want to give every possible chance for improvement before sanction. But s/he's a new editor and there's clearly no grasp of basic 5. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. This IP only has one warning in the last two months. As we have to assume that this could by a dynamic IP reallocated to different people on a regular basis, blocking normally only occurs if there are 4 warnings recently. All you can do is keep on giving out warnings. As it happens, your last warning should have been a level 1 as previous warnings were so long ago. PS I'm not an admin so I wouldn't actually block anyone but once 4 warnings are given it happens fairly promptly. Cheers Ash (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Right on, thanks. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some questions...

I liked the "collapse" that you added to [5], and think that might help on the talk page of list of porn actors, especially when some of the bulky threads were wholly off-topic. Is there a list of "collapse tags" somewhere? Thx.

Probably worth having a surf through the categories - try starting at Category:Collapse templates.

Awesome, thanks.

Oh, and congrats on the prelim results of your analysis page. Seems fair, but given the user in question, I'm still laying low.

NP, I'm have a rest from it. I may return to consider whether to drop the idea in the next couple of days.

I'm sure you'll make a decision that makes you comfortable and conforms to the guidelines.

Your editing method has all my respect, even when we don't always agree, such as with the footnote proposal. Care to be my WP:MENTOR? It might help you later on if you apply for Adminship. Also, please let me know if I'm being a nudge, just say and I'll gladly lay off... 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

lol - I'm flattered and happy to continue offering advice an any issues you have, though I don't feel wise enough to be a grownup mentor. Brings to mind a Kesuke Miyagi type training program, though most WP editors can wax on indefinitely, few get around to waxing off... Ash (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:o) Well, I think you would be a very good mentor. But if you don't want to, I'm happy to keep taking your advice just the same. Might you be able to recommend another editor to mentor me? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is probably worth taking a look through Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and seeing if there are any names you recognize or if some have similar interests. Ash (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ash. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  14:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Analysis Page

I see the MfD of your Analysis page has been withdrawn.

Since, as you state, that "page is the basis of preparation for a dispute resolution process by one or more editors", does that mean I can use that page to include some of my own observations and diffs in prep of the identical process?

(My other option would be to compile the info off-Wiki, which might be later construed as Wiki-stalking or trolling...at least this way, it will be admittedly in that editor's field of vision). Pls advise. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do. If the page is later deleted I will keep a copy off-wiki but should be able to share a copy (possibly via Google documents). It may help to have key diffs for recent disruptive behaviour. Of course as previously stated if DC's behaviour abruptly stops being disruptive then no action would or should be taken. Ash (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:Griefing may be useful. Like when they keep posting to an ANI thread, or any admin board thread, presumably to keep a discussion everyone else is tired of from being archived. I think most admins see through all of it but it's worth noting. Their doing it with tho threads presently. The overall issues remain disruption and incivility but that's only going on my interactions with them. Really there's so much to work through, ugh! -- Banjeboi 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiLinking

Hi Ash, I was monitoring the page Homosexual behavior in animals because of vandalism, and noticed your last update there. I was under the impression that WikiLinking should be limited to words not commonly understood by English-speaking people. It seems that most of the words you linked are common enough that they needn't be linked, such as Australian and prostitution. I'm fairly new here, so I wanted to confer with you before taking any action. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the context, there may be a relevant article on zero to link from another article on algebra for example. I think you are right about these two links however, as they don't add much information to the article. Please do unlink them if you prefer. I'll revisit User:Ash/linklistLGBT.js to winkle these out. Ash (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave Awards

Please note that I am now trading emails with the leading US gay porn expert from 1980-something to 1995, LOL! So many questions! I feel like we should ask him to look at the list and suggest early porn stars we're missing completely and maybe resources he's found helpful? Ideas? -- Banjeboi 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, well done. His feedback would be handy, though a definitive OTRS with his own full list of Dave Awards would be better. Alternatively, perhaps he could publish the definitive list independently (even if just on a blog) so we could cite the webpage, maybe with an OTRS to make it clear it really has been published by him. This would satisfy WP:SELFPUB as the awards were originally published by him. Anyway this little wrinkle in the history of gay porn seems neatly solvable rather than a bone of contention. Ash (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Speedy Deletion: Ronnie Larsen

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you. A tag has been placed on Ronnie Larsen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article. If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --tb240904 Talk Contribs 23:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Really? It is not considered good practice to raise a speedy delete when an editor is in the middle of improving citations for an article. In this case, the article was only 3 minutes old when you raised a speedy delete on it, and at that point there were already independent reliable sources on the article establishing reasonable notability. The speedy was misjudged. If you believe Larson is not demonstrably notable and the article cannot be improved, then an AfD could be raised, not a speedy. Ash (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Busy

Well, Ash, if it makes you feel any better, I've archived my grievances over Delicious Carbuncle (uch, is there a grosser username?) offline and am going to post it tomorrow or the next day on your analysis page. After all, Illegitimi_non_carborundum. You've been a great help to me. We'll get his actions brought to light. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Mowbli Jumping small.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mowbli Jumping small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia review dot com

Hi Ash, I am assured that User:Delicious carbuncle is not part of some off-wiki (or on-wiki)conspiracy, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia review dot com. I don't understand the context, nor would a reasonable man, so the allegations are not defamation. People at Wikipedia review dot com are the bane of my existence -- I've been outed and accused of being disbarred. Pay no heed to the man behind the curtain. If there is some admin action you want, list it at WP:AN/I. If there is something specific that I can do, based on my experience, get back to me. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as per my comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis (2nd nomination) no claim that DC has been involved in a "conspiracy" has been made. I merely mentioned that a thread on Wikipedia Review specifically discussed an ANI raised against me by DC. This in turn has obviously attracted interested editors to view the original ANI (why else would the ANI have been mentioned unless to attract attention to it?). I have no interest in raising an ANI on this matter, the page in question at MfD is preparation for a RFC/U. If I am not allowed to discuss these matters, how on earth could I ever get to prepare an RFC/U? Cheers Ash (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, since you stated "I have no particular plan to raise these concerns directly in an RFC/U about DC as I have no evidence that DC is personally deliberately manipulating WikipediaReview or vice-versa and I am keen to assume as much good faith as possible" the point about discussing them is moot. Your statements have more than implied that there is some conflict of interest happening ("administrators who then get involved in ANI or other disputes without declaring their previously existing interests"), which, when tossed out with no evidence in a discussion which should be about deleting or keeping a page, are wholly inappropriate. If you feel that these concerns need to be discussed, please do so in the right place and provide some form of evidence that people can review. Again, I would like to ask that you delete the comments in question, since I view them as personal attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What would you consider "the right place" for such discussion? In your posts, you've eliminated your interest in participating in conversations about the matter on your talk page, an RfC/U, and ANIs...perhaps you suggest we all jump straight to a MedCab? (PS- Call me a troll again to show how civil you're being.) 38.109.88.180 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you are inferring, I made no attempt to imply any such thing. If you chose to ignore those parts of my statement that gave context and pick out the bits you want to support your argument then your argument has no credibility. Ash (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction to Bearian's comment: The statement that Delicious carbuncle has "nothing to do with Wikipedia Review" is incorrect and based on the impression that DC gave Bearian on their user talk page. Delicious carbuncle has made contributions to Wikipedia Review since 2008 using the name "carbuncle", please see this archive copy of his/her member card page where "carbuncle" declares their WP account to be "Delicious carbuncle". Ash (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at site:wikipediareview.com carbuncle and see that you are correct. Bearian (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Casting Aspertions

Hiding comments by Spartaz (talk · contribs · logs · block log) after related disruptive comments at MfD

For the benefit of leaving no doubt whatsoever I would like to draw you attention to the following principle from a recent arbitration case concerning casting aspersions. The relevant text is "It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." By continuing to repeat allegations against Delicious Carbuncle without seeking to exercise dispute resolution options you are failing to abide by the principle which was central to a user being banned from Wikipedia. I am sure that I am not the only bystander who is sick and tired of seeing this circus continuing unabated so I am asking you nicely to stop this now. The appropriate forums in this case are RFC/U and RFAR. AN, ANI, talk pages and MFDs are not the appropriate forums. I suggest you file that RFC. Until you do so, I think silence on this point is the best policy. I'm going to leave Benjiboi the same message. If you choose to ignore this warning there will be consequences and you will not be able to say that you were not warned. Spartaz Humbug! 18:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Could you actually have a look at the forum discussion referred to first? The link is http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28677. I count at least 2 sysops on that short discussion and no comment is made anywhere by Delicious carbuncle. To repeat, this was not any sort of allegation about Delicious carbuncle, I thought my text was clear enough. Neither have I said there was a conspiracy. The fact that the ANI raised against me was discussed on WikipediaReview which attracted attention to the ANI on Wikipedia is completely factual, it seems bizarre that this is being blocked from being mentioned in the preparation of an RFC/U. Oh dear, I see you are also a WikipediaReview member, is this related to the fuss you are making here? Ash (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC) There you go again. Just post the RFC or keep your laundry list offline. I have no opinion on the substance of your claim but I do have an opinion on your continually making this allegation without attempting to evidence substantiate it through the correct dispute resolutaion forum. You need to file an RFC or stop touting this allegation around. Its becoming tedious now. Spartaz Humbug! 02:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Need some help please

Hi Ash, what's up? I could use an extra set of eyes on this. The two editors I'm working with are both Buddhist and I'm finding it hard to maintan a NPOV. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, your additions seem factual. My reaction is to wonder why so many words actually say very little about the subject. Presumably the Dalai Lama's views on sexuality have moved on since 1997, so reliance on a 13 year old quote might be slightly over-egging the case (particularly as "other holes" is a slightly tangential reference). As the same newspaper report from 1997 goes on to quote him saying he supports full gay rights and tolerance, it makes one wonder if "sex with your wife" may also apply today to same-sex marriage for members of the Buddhist faith. These are unanswered questions that the current text tacitly ignores and consequently gives potentially undue weight to out of date views. Perhaps a talk page appeal for more recent sources to support a factual and more up to date statement of the case, however I would not rush to remove or change the facts you have added as "potentially undue weight" is a very mild criticism here. Cheers Ash (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ash/RfC Delicious carbuncle

• User:Ash/RfC Delicious carbuncle

Please remove mention of me on this page, User:Ash/RfC Delicious carbuncle. I do not want to be involved in this anymore due to the inappropriate tone by multiple parties. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, done. Ash (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

While that's noble of you, Ash, (and certainly not to stir up any shit or animosity, Cirt), I DO hope that you will eventually include any and all inappropriate edits by Dc in the DR process, regardless of whomever those inappropriate edits were targeted against. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence without this particular example, and I think we should respect any editor's request to stay uninvolved. There is a lot of history with regard to other editors and DC, for the RFC/U to stay robust, it will probably be best to only raise evidence that those who "certify" the RFC are comfortable to answer questions on. So far I see that as yourself, Banjiboi and me. Not only do I respect a position of staying uninvolved, I personally envy it. I would much, much rather be viewing this on the sidelines rather than being the target of Delicious carbuncle's accusations. Ash (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For honesty, resilience, sisu, and diligence in defending English Wikipedia against Wikipedia Review. Please accept my apologies for my previous posts made in ignorance of the danger to the Wiki, which you recognized. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kind of you to say, I appreciate your help clarifying matters here. I'd much rather spend my time constructively; it is a pity that Delicious carbuncle will not just get bored and go away. Ash (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this potential "Outing"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A-Frame&diff=prev&oldid=351663390 38.109.88.180 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not only is outing in edit comments not appropriate, it cannot be withdrawn without official intervention. If you wish to follow up, I suggest pointing this out to an interested admin to test if it is worth taking action. Considering current events it is probably better that I do not get involved. Cheers Ash (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do I go? To an ANI? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth asking for advice on ANI. Though that advice may be that no action is appropriate. Ash (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U questions

Ash, is it likely that the RFC/U you are preparing will be filed any time soon (i.e. within the next few days when the MfD is due to be closed)? The ANI thread about your misuse of citations (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fraudulent referencing) has stagnated and the next step would seem to be an RFC/U. I do not want it to be viewed as a preemptive move to head off your action, but I would like to get the issue addressed properly. If your filing is imminent, I will wait, but please be realistic in your response. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page header

Please any mention of me (or allusion to me) from your talk page header immediately. This is completely unacceptable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Strangely, I'm not satisfied by my username being replaced with "name of this aggressive person removed by their request", particularly when you still link to a conversation that involves only the two of us. Remove all mention of and allusion to me as requested. I have no more patience for your game playing - stop making accusations, allegations, threats, insinuations, or the like. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How to get away from any particular abusive user without giving up on Wikipedia

Since you asked in your header...

...I would continue participating exactly as you have been, while ignoring each and every one of his edits, and allowing his actions to speak for themselves. Seriously, Illegitimi non carborundum. You're better than that. Take as many breaks as you need to, but keep focus and know that all good things come to those who play fair. He's digging himself under. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

another name

I see you have added the first name to that lesbian list. I started it just for gender equality as the male list seems to be several years old and has stood the test of several AFD's. I searched for some names and got one. Janine Lindemulder. Doesn't she qualify? I don't know much about this subject so I feel unqualified to edit that article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems a perfect candidate for the list. Note that the list does not imply that the actor is a lesbian (or rather, self-identifies as a lesbian), only that they have appeared in lesbian pornography. I don't think you need to be a subject matter expert to add names to this particular list, only that you have checked that appropriate sources confirm their credits (personally I have never watched lesbian porn, and probably never will). In this case the BLP article seems to provide sufficient verification. Cheers Ash (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: RFC

How to include under "desired outcome" that Delicious carbuncle cease from un-wiki-like behaviors with a particular scope to my edits (such as reverting, behaving uncivilly...)? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Would a voluntary editor interaction ban for 12 months be too inconvenient for you? I'm not sure what else would be effective, possibly a self-ban against calling anyone a troll for 12-months but seeing DC's sustained record of incivility this would not stop other forms of abuse.

If DC were to stay away from gay-sexuality topics then I doubt that an interaction ban would be an issue for me. Ash (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that a voluntary editor ban would be perfect. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied material

The material was copied over because it was suggested that the discussion should be all in one place. So I'm attempting to keep it in one place, so as to encourage people to do so, because it makes sense and is just easier. Zazaban (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you may want to use the {{cot}} template in future, this would help distinguish copied discussion threads from "live" discussion threads on a talk page. Ash (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it very clear to everyone involved that the discussion had been picked up and moved and not just documented. Anyhow, it seems to be over. I'm going to go to bed and join my boyfriend, who has been a real good sport calmly reading for an hour while I'm in the next room arguing with people on the internet. He must be impressed. Ah well. Night. Zazaban (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread involving your user and talk page notice

I have started an ANI thread about your user and talk page notice which associates me with undisclosed threats to your personal safety. For reasons which should be obvious, I view this as an egregious personal attack. Since earlier requests to remove mentions of me from your talk page header were unsuccessful, and since direct requests to admins were unsuccessful, ANI seemed like the only choice, although there should be no reason to let the ANI thread delay you from filing your RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your email

Ash, I would like to post the contents of the email you just sent me in the current ANI thread. Obviously, I will not include your email address. Do I have your permission to do so? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I am advised against making comments about matters already in Oversight. My email to you was an honest request that I would hope you would respect as someone interested in LGBT matters regardless of any other disputes we may have with regard to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. Ash (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Perhaps you could clarify what it is that you are requesting of me then. I didn't see one in there. I am doing my best to be fair to you, but you make it exceedingly difficult. You say that you believe I was not involved in whatever incident precipitated all this, but that isn't at all what your talk page and user page seem to be implying. It might help if would identify the incident or at the very least say if it was here or off-wiki? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have requested that you avoid speculating on the details of the matter with Oversight. It is not appropriate for me to answer questions on detail. Ash (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking a break - the ANI you raised and the resulting unsubstantiated personal comments it has invoked are obviously upsetting. I can only assume that was your objective. Ash (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No. My objective is to be free from unsubstantiated accusations and smears. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

advice Re: RfC/U from someone special

Even though there are currently open ANI and WQAs, per the smart advice of a high-ranking admin (MedCab Committee Coordinator, and frequent assist to Arbitration Enforcement), I think you should file the RfC/U anyway, and as soon as possible, even if it's not all ready. Please. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My basic security comes first. The RFC/U will be delayed until these issues are sorted out. In addition we need Benjiboi to complete any changes they would prefer to see before they certify it for issue.

Even if the RFC/U successfully changes Delicious carbuncle's behaviour, this does not change that fact that a number of administrators and at least one member of Oversight contribute to Wikipedia Review. Wikipedia cannot be considered a safe place to contribute when members of Wikipedia Review can routinely bypass the policies of NPA and OUTING by posting whatever abuse they like on WR with no repercussions on their associated Wikipedia accounts. MedCab et al should advise members of minority groups to vigilantly keep their accounts anonymous for this reason, a fact that was not made clear to me when I set up my account over three years ago. If I was abused on the street in such a blatantly nasty, personal and homophobic way such an act would be covered in the UK by the hate crime legislation. Apparently such protection is not given to Wikipedia members. It would be a simple matter for members of active attack sites to be automatically blocked, unfortunately this does not happen even when you would have thought that such membership would be in direct contravention with the expectations of "trust" for being an administrator.

Based on my experience I feel that groups such as the LGBT Project are well intentioned but give a misleading welcoming impression. It should be made clear to all contributors that they should be prepared for direct personal attacks if they contribute to Wikipedia and advise as to what steps members should take to keep themselves safe, particularly if they are member of a minority group. Ash (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what threat you're referring to, but of course I want you to feel safe. I have no idea what WR is or what they do, but if it's that bad, e-mail the highest ranking wikipedian you can access.

I intend to file the incomplete RFC/U in your place, with a link to your explanation above as to why you were unable to continue contributing. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have halted contributing to LGBT articles hopefully on a temporary basis. I should hope to be able to continue with the RFC/U. Ash (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So should I wait and trust that you will file it? It's needing to be sooner rather than more thorough as the blanks will CERTAINLY fill themselves in quickly. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As said earlier the RFC/U will need certification by Benjiboi as one of the affected parties. Perhaps you should drop him/her an email? Ash (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your userboxes

Hi Ash. It's really unfortunate that you're no longer contributing. I noticed you deleted your old userbox pages. This is leaving a lot of redlinks on many userpages (including mine). Could you please redirect your old userboxes to fix this? Many thanks. -- œ^™ 12:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the option of repairing the transclusions using a script. Hopefully this deals with all those users that enjoy using the various userboxes I have designed over the years. Ash (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Ash)

Hello, Ash. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ash, where you may want to participate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume there is no particular timetable here. I am travelling this week from tomorrow and have been advised that I have to deal with a serious family matter in the next few days, though I may have some mobile internet access.

A glance at the RFC/U shows no new material that has not already been discussed ad nauseam on the ANI forum and if you were interested in resolving any sourcing issues in a collaborative manner, you would have discussed them on the article talk pages rather than ignoring my clarification. I doubt that pointing to AfDs provides sufficient evidence that you have genuinely attempted to resolve any dispute before taking the matter to RFC/U (or ANI for that matter, the latter not being a dispute resolution forum).

At this point I feel harassed; particularly as I made the effort at the time to explain in detail the sources raised into question on the article talk pages and it is clear that the sources pointed out on the RFC/U are not currently under dispute in the articles in question. In the process of discussing your accusations I have been accused of being a fraud, liar and accusing others of homophobia. Characterizations such as "seeing Fred Phelps around every corner" are inflammatory, misrepresent my statements make me seem ridiculously hysterical.

I will think about a response that may include and substantiate the above but I would rather you had done the gracious thing and left me alone and found something more interesting to do rather than being tempted to return to give me another kicking after your remorseless repeated complaints on ANI got you nowhere. I used to have a lot of fun contributing to Wikipedia and produced some widely recognized valuable templates and articles. Shame. Ash (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, you seem to be attributing to me comments I have not made, but all of it is better dealt with at the RFC. I'm sure your response can wait until your family matter is resolved. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, NO, the RfC is regarding Ash's BLP contributions, nothing more...not any possible perceived personal attacks upon you. You wrote the Rfc, Dc, don't you know what it's about? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If the participants can manage to confine themselves to that particular issue, I will be pleasantly surprised. I fully expect, however, that this will simply be the prelude to an ARBCOM case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you would like Ash to defend himself against accusations of behaviors in an RfC that's not actually about those behaviors. Is that right? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position on my talk page. I suggest you put the RFC/U up for deletion as it is now clear that you are not using it as a genuine dispute resolution process but only as a route to get me blocked or banned. Ash (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusions seem entirely unrelated to what I wrote. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Note on fake titles

Seen here, you mention that the title of the SPI is fake and meant to inflame. You are wrong, it is in fact a mistake made by an admin at the time of the creation of the original case. The mistake is omitting "the" from the title, as the first non-IP listed sockpuppet for the original case(that was under a title referring to an IP) was The Rusty Trombone (talk · contribs). So ya, it wasn't an attempt to inflame. Please assume good faith.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I did assume good faith. The SPI itself states "Note: Although there appears to be no actual User:Rusty Trombone, I am using that identifier to keep the SPI cases together.", you can hardly blame me for assuming that statements made by the person raising the SPI were correct. You would probably be saying I was not assuming good faith if I assumed that statements made by the person raising the SPI were incorrect. It would be a refreshing change if someone assumed good faith about my statements. Thanks for your comment, go away, I've got funeral arrangements to consider. Ash (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't originally reply so soon, as I thought I had misread something. I see how, that I did not. I do not see how assuming malice is good-faith. As you said, the user posted that he was using this case as an identifier. He didn't say he created the original case, nor did he say that he created the case under that name for any specific reason, other than the editing habits previously described in his rational for his suspicions.

Assuming that the case name is meant to inflame, where no evidence exists that would belay that, is bad-faith.

It is true, that I cannot blame you for assuming that the comments by a user are correct. I can however blame you for assuming they meant malice, when none of their comments belayed such a thing in the first place.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I never used the word "malice", I said that the made-up name "appears to be a deliberate act intended to cause offence and inflame argument". From what was written it appeared that Delicious carbuncle was making up the name "Rusty Trombone" which is as offensive as calling someone something like "Arse Bandit". My statement was correct based on the facts available, the name is offensive and inflammatory. I said nothing else about Delicious carbuncle. Again, thank you for attempting to give me advice but your comments are not welcome as you do not appear to be sticking to the facts.

I have struck my comment in the SPI. This seems reasonable as my comment related to a version of the SPI before it was renamed and consequently linked to an existing case.

Go away. Ash (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A deliberate act intended to cause in offense or inflame the situation is the same damn thing as malice, and indeed, it is quite clear that you did not simply assume such because of the SPI case name, but rather since you have a history with this user. I would advise against following them around and spouting that they mean ill.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 17:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just got off the phone discussing funeral music. How many times do I have to tell you to go away before you understand me? Try following your own advice as your nagging on my personal talk page now appears to be personal harassment.

I made the effort to strike out my comment in the SPI, this seemed an act of good faith. What else do you want from me? Blood? Actually, give me an address and I'll send you some. I'm having several blood tests tomorrow so I'm sure the nurse could draw some for you.

Just to make it clear for you - GO AWAY !!!!!!!!!! Ash (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen

this bit of revenge and gaming? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Delicious_carbuncle/RFC I'd just ignore him and all of this. His own edits will speak for themselves. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, hopefully it'll keep him/her busy for a while rather than hassling editors who would rather collaborate on LGBT articles than spend all their time arguing the toss. At this point I'm hardly worried about any possible action that could be taken against me for inflated citation issues from last year. What would anyone do, ban me after I've already been forced to retire due to harassment? Meh, all these issues were clearly answered on the relevant article talk pages if anyone were bothered to look, no case to answer. This should make it obvious to the majority that DC is a type of "persistent litigant" intent on making life a misery for other contributors. Ash (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ctjf83#Re:_RfC.2FU_on_Delicious_Carbuncle 38.109.88.180 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Sebastian Cole

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_G4. If you would like the article to be userfied, please ask me. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 16:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Abuse responce

Your case for Wikipedia:Abuse response/75.2xx.xxx.xxx has been declined as none of the IPs have been blocked. Please see WP:ANI if this becomes a problem again. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pleasuredrome.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pleasuredrome.jpg. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pleasuredrome

I have AFD'd the article Pleasuredrome because I think the question of notability and required extent of coverage in third-party sources should be aired. Nothing to do with it being LGBT related. William Avery (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your attention needed

One of your articles is on the proposed deletion pages, there are two others that are very similar.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome

The above is a link to where the articles deletion is being discussed.

I have tried my best to add and improve to it, but I can see that there are three articles now that could be merged into one,

• Merge

• Chariots
• Steamworks
• Pleasuredrome

Whats your opinion? Please reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome

(Rovington (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks!

I noticed you edited my user page to correct the "interest in diabetes" box. I never noticed it was broken but thanks for correcting it. --Triesault (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Hi,

Since you've added the tag to promote the tidy-up of the article I would like you to participate if you wish. Talk:Homosexuality#Splitting_and_revision_of_article

Pdorion (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

European Gay Porn Awards

An editor has proposed European Gay Porn Awards, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Gay Porn Awards.

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the concerns. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EGPA.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EGPA.gif. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, I have rescued your EGPA article on the talk site of its (short) German version, see here: http://www.pluspedia.de/index.php/Diskussion:European_Gay_Porn_Awards If you find some mistakes or some more informations, feel free to edit there. Regards Mutter Erde 92.229.222.68 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

List of female performers in lesbian porn films

As a significant contributor to this article, you may be interested to know it has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female performers in lesbian porn films. Robofish (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ash! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 35 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Anthony Shaw - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)