User talk:Ash/2009

Archives

Just created my 2008 talk archive.–Ash (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Added auto archiving, hence added link to User talk:Ash/2009 to see if it will get automatically created.—Ash (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Keyscript

Hi Ashley, I put two references to Keyscript shorthand on the Gregg shorthand site and two on the Teeline shorthand site. One in each of the lists and one in each of the external link sections. They were all deleted. I read your reason and it all concerned the external links, so I put references back in the lists on these sites. You deleted them with dire warnings, even though your previous remarks concerned only external links.

'Pitman shorthand' is in the list on the Gregg site. Pitman shorthand is not Gregg shorthand, just as Keyscript shorthand is not Gregg. So why should Pitman be left in the list, and Keyscript not?

One person who reached my website asked 'What other types of shorthand are there'? Well, obviously not Keyscript.

Don't worry, I won't try and put anything else on Wikipedia.

Cassyjanek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassyjanek (talk • contribs) 08:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If Keyscript were a recognized form of shorthand it would be supported by references that were not self published. If there were sufficient independent references it would be a suitable subject for recognition and would not be challenged. I can find no published book that mentions your system. —Ash (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ashley, Here are three independent sources (not me) which mention Keyscript Shorthand. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/shorthand.htm

Omniglot Ltd does exist as a company but the website itself is a comprehensive index of writing systems rather than shorthand systems and only mentions Keyscript as a link which would not justify the notability of Keyscript for Wikipedia.

http://www.alysion.org/handy/althandwriting.htm

This appears to be an individual's personal website with the domain registered using a gmail.com address rather than a registered organization.

under Alphabetical Shorthand Systems

http://www.geocities.com/shorthandshorthandshorthand/

This is a freely hosted website unlikely to be a reliable source.

(in Links)

What sort of book would mention any shorthand system except a book about that system of shorthand? The 'Lightning Guide to Keyscript' explains the Keyscript system. Unfortunately, it is published by me.

If this book has an ISBN it may be a useful source but would need to be backed by other sources or you are likely to have the page challenged under WP:NOTABLE and WP:SPS.—Ash (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cassyjanek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassyjanek (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Simon Callow

Hi Ashley, I just noticed you removed my recent additions to the Simon Callow page and identified them as vandalaism. I have seen the Classical Destinations DVD with Simon narrating. Amazon is one of many reputable sources offering the series for sale and noting Simon's role. I am unclear why my addition to the filmography is any more suspect than most of the other entries. As this is my first attempt at adding to Wikipedia, I would be pleased if you could explain why it was vandalism.Fishy milkshake (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, when I looked at the edit you had made I noticed that you had changed the publication date of the paperback ISBN 0140076824 to an incorrect year (according to Amazon and Copac) and the other change cross-referenced a wikipedia page that does not yet exist (Classical Destinations). You'll note that the tag I used was a 'user warning' which covers a range of warnings, not just vandalism, including 'experimental edit' in your case as these changes did not seem to add value to the page. I suggest if you add Classical Destinations to Callow's television performances that you refer to an external source rather than creating a wiki page from scratch (though I cannot see it on his IMDB page).—Ash (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant to enter text re Classical Destinations, rather than a link. I apologise for the mistake. If I ever edit Wiki again, I will be more careful. This Amazon page appears to provide support for the fact that Simon hosted and narrated the series. (Sorry, I hope that hyperlink worked - it's my first time.) I changed the book publication date because I saw the book on my sister's bookshelf and noticed a discrepancy. I thought the hardcopy in front of me was more reliable than Wikipedia, Amazon or anything else. I don't have any way of verifying this with you.Fishy milkshake (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with Sustainability article

Hi Ash, I am part of a team of people working collaboratively on a re-edit of the article on Sustainability. We are getting towards the end of our job now. A lot of our task has been to put summary information in small sections guiding the reader to more detailed information through side bars and the like. None of us have expertise in the programming of side bars. We would be very grateful if you could have a look at the article and recommend the best way to go. Space is a problem so we at least, I think, would need to use collapsible side bars ... but what do you think would be the best way of presenting the information? Granitethighs (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Russell Tovey

i'm not going to change it, even though i think that sentence looks wrong in the article (too short etc) but i was wondering, mainly out of personal interest, if you have a source for him being out before the attitude interview? Amo (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Though the attitude article might have been the first time in a published interview that Tovey discussed being gay, the text of the interview does not say that was the first time he publicly talked about being gay; if anything his discussion of gay life was very casual showing he was comfortable with being openly gay. Consequently it cannot really be referenced as his "Coming Out".

There is this recent reference where he talks about first coming out that I may add something from:

The Scotsman

February 2, 2009, Monday 1 Edition The Lee Randall Interview: Russell Tovey: Star pupil

BYLINE: Lee Randall

This closeness is all the more precious because it follows a falling-out with his dad after Tovey revealed his sexual orientation. "I came out to myself when I was about 15 or 16, and to my parents when I was 18. When you come out to your parents, that's when it's properly official," he says.

"Me and my dad just crossed wires. We have an amazing relationship now and did when I was growing up, but there are underlying things that don't get covered. When I came out he found it very odd and didn't know how to cope. I think my parents thought, 'OK, you're gay, you're going to get Aids,' and were under the impression that if I'd told them sooner they could have done something about it."

Done what - 'fixed' the so-called problem? "Yeah, like a hormone treatment or something. I think he was uneducated because it's not his world. My dad handled it the way that he thought was right, and for me it wasn't right.

"When my brother and his fiancée had their first kid it just sort of evaporated. It seemed really insignificant that I slept with men rather than women. Suddenly, this little boy was so amazing and he's going to love his uncle and his granddad and his dad, and if he sees them arguing that's going to be horrific, so it just went."

Without wishing to become a poster boy for the cause, he says: "The only thing I can give to young gay people is that when I was growing up there were no role models that were blokey, that were men. Everybody was flamboyant and camp, and I remember going, 'That's not me, so even though I think I am gay, I don't think I fit into this world.'"

He's currently single, though I teasingly suggest that if he keeps getting his kit off during werewolf transformations he won't be short of admirers. "I've got really good friends and family. My parents, after 30 years, are still incredibly in love, still make each other laugh, which is a beautiful thing to see. And my brother and his fiancée are completely happy, so if I feel a bit lonely I just go and sit with them and feel their love."

—Ash (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

it literally never occurred to me that you were talking about his personal life. Amo (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WQA for Binarygal

Just a note to keep track of various accusations from Binarygal.

Notes

A WP:WQA (Wikiquette Alert) was raised based on the behaviour from this user by User:2. This was in relation to repeated reversals to my deletions of surplus external links based on Binarygal's apparent suspicion that I had a secret agenda at Talk:Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library whilst at the same time setting themselves up as ITIL expert (making undue assumptions about my domain knowledge). I had raised a WP:3O (request for 3rd party opinion). Despite two 3rd party opinions supporting my edit Binarygal refuses to accept this decision or explain what they think my secret agenda is until a specific user, user:Kuru, intervenes in some form as an Admin (I would expect an Admin would wait until other potential resolution processes had run their course before mediating). Various warnings have been given on Binarygal's talk page by other users (not me).—Ash (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

After 8 days since my original edit I applied the deletion again but have been warned of potential edit warring. At the moment I am unsure of how this situation is supposed to complete or if I have to permanently give up on my edit as supported by the WP:3O process for potentially running foul of WP policies myself, though if I'm left in this situation it feels like one user can effectively censor another without justification. Unless there is a definite result I'll be left somewhat disillusioned with respect to the effectiveness of Wikipedia policies and in this case it feels like an extreme case of WP:OWN can persist in bullying and then constantly claim to be a victim until most editors would stop wasting their time.—Ash (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing hats, I guess that the only advice is to take a break and see if other editors intervene in the meantime. This is sort of okay, but it can end up being effective censorship particularly in the short term (i.e. under 30 days).—Ash (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lessons on process for next time (noting that this is the first time in over 2 years that I've had such a problem):

• WP:3O - asking for a third opinion - is a pretty easy to apply process assuming that the other party will accept the result (on this occasion User:Binarygal decided to reject the opinions after they were given as the third parties were not "Senior" enough).
• WP:3RR - 3rd revert rule - I did not apply this and it seems problematic as I would have to repeatedly have to edit after being reversed and then could be accused of encouraging an edit war. Admittedly as Binarygal has reversed my edits under an Anon IP as well as their own account this does mean they have reversed my edits 6 times so far though really this is a problem covered by WP:Sockpuppet guidance. The 3RR tool is quite helpful in analysing reverts.
• WP:DENY - I probably did reply too easily to Binarygal's irrational arguments and was constantly forced to explain further due to Binarygal claiming to be a victim in an obviously (and at times worryingly) passive-aggressive way. I think Binarygal is a great example of WP:OWN and looking at the talk page history has successfully put off other editors who were perfectly justified according to WP guidelines.
• WP:WQA - Wikiquette Alert - seems a fairly easy way of getting other editors to review the situation and I may use this process if I run into obvious personal attacks again. On this occasion a 3O editor raised the WQA for Binarygal without me needing to complain.
• WP:RFC - request for comment - can be used for user behaviour and portrays itself as more powerful than the WQA process. I may research this further if WQA peters out.
• WP:WikiProject External links After thinking this was for sites flooded with links, it actually seems to be of more general use. It looks a little under subscribed but I've added a couple of sites with external links issues to see if it makes a difference.

—Ash (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Change of user name

I originally set up this account with a sense of positive openness. After my recent experience of being challenged as to my professional background (i.e. my ITIL knowledge being questioned, which despite more than a decade of experience should be irrelevant here on WP) I have regretfully decided to reduce any potential future risk of harassment by moving to a more anonymous user name. I'll get around to archiving talk under my old user name once current discussions have resolved themselves.

I shall now go by a soubriquet based on one of my favourite Jean Luc Picard expressions "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot". Perhaps it will encourage me to follow his diplomatic example?—Ash (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing comments

It's small beer, and I'm sure you know it already, but editing your own comments after someone else has replied to them isn't always a fair thing to do. The other editor's response had an initial tone of "you are perhaps being literal, I don't think this applies", but now reads more like "I know it's normally interpreted in one way, but I choose to interpret it in another", which perhaps isn't something they wanted to say. --McGeddon (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. My edit was intended to avoid the text repeating itself and so was falling more into the realm of pruning. I'll add a note to the other editor's page to highlight the change in case they feel like rewording as a result.—Ash (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Everett MOS:NUM

Only in that I was thinking of the "5 cats and 32 dogs" example in regard to the 6 year affair with British television presenter Paula Yates in the article, which is usually how I see it. I stand corrected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I've reverted the changes to the anon person's preferences.—Ash (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu - Somerset

Somerset was NOT mentioned in the source that you linked, so unless you have a valid reference please remove Somerset from the list. magnius (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, my boob locating the right County for a case.—Ash (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Members of the Newlyn Society of Artists

I have nominated Category:Members of the Newlyn Society of Artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ash (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you have created Category:Newlyn School of Artists so I've speedly closed and deleted Category:Members of the Newlyn Society of Artists. --Salix (talk): 17:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mothership Blog

Hi there - I notice you have reverted my edit to the lgbt publications page where I added our Blog to the list of LGBT publications. May I ask why you did this please? Our blog is a legitimate publication which we launched as a separate part of our gay dating site around 10 weeks ago. It is updated daily and complements our website well. Obviously publishing emcompasses far more than just hard print publications, as the wikipedia article acknowledges, and the Mothership Blog has a greater readership than several of the other publications listed, including AXM's online magazine. Thank you. David Abrehart Mothership Gay Dating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothership1 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered generally as publications (you will note that List_of_LGBT_publications#United_Kingdom does not contain any other blogs) and wikipedia specifically considers blogs to be unreliable sources as they are self published and subject to potential uncontrolled changes if referenced. You may find the paper at WP:BLOGS helpful or consider adding to more appropriate wikipedia pages such as List of blogs. There is currently a proposed change to move the page to List of LGBT periodicals which will make its intent to cover printed publications more specific. Should you wish to discuss this further, I suggest using the article talk page.—Ash (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles Griffes YouTube video

Hi. You have eliminated my changes to the Griffes page for supposed copyright issues. I would like to explain and perhaps get a response from you. I placed an external link on the Griffes page to what is perhaps his most well known piece of piano music (The White Peacock). The link is to a video performance that is NOT copyrighted. It is a publicly available video that I myself recorded in my own home. The piece of music is publicly available as well on the IMSLP database. Please explain what copyright is potentially being violated here. Dhfeld (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the score is available at IMSLP, the issue is the copyright of the performance on YouTube. The guidance at WP:YT states that Each such link must be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. These links must also identify the software necessary for readers to see the content. Consequently;

1. the video should have a statement of copyright status on the YouTube website releasing the video as Public Domain, the phrasing should follow a standard statement such as those available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/, no such statement is currently on the webpage for the video in question,
2. any necessary flash or equivalent software needed by a standard browser to play the video should be declared next to the link.

Now, saying all of this I still don't believe that the link you provided is essential to the particular wikipedia article and would fail WP:DIRECTORY and so still likely to be removed. However relevant links to the IMSLP may well be suitable and meet WP:ELYES.—Ash (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to draw a large distinction between the printed page (IMSLP) and a video. I'm not sure why. And I do not understand why a performance of a major Griffes work would not qualify as useful information for someone who wishes to learn about the composer. I will amend the youtube page with the sort of Public Domain statement you suggest. I do not necessarily agree that a statement about flash software is necessary. So many varieties of software will play a video. Does every link to a pdf file have to contain an explicit statement saying that the viewer must download Acrobat? Some things are increasingly moot technologically. If 1 in 500 viewers cannot see a page, that should not necessarily reduce the information content for the other 499. Lastly, who ultimately decides whether or not a link remains. Do you have veto power? I'm not trying to be a pain, but I have seen videos of the same sort elsewhere, and I have even placed one myself without any complaint. Dhfeld (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a distinction, as IMSLP makes the copyright status of scores absolutely explicit, whereas the YouTube video linked did not.

Generally I would have thought many readers of Wikipedia would find amateur videos of performances unencyclopedic; as a counter example you might consider if an amateur video of a performance of a Shakespeare play being added to the Shakespeare page would actually enhance the encyclopedic nature of that page and how would an editor judge which external links to performances should be kept or removed?

It's up to you how you wish to interpret WP:YT but the point about required applications is fairly clear.

Yes, I have no power of veto, Wikipedia tends to work out through discussion and gradual consensus so you have the same authority to edit and discuss these matters as I have. If you strongly feel my interpretation is wrong the best starting point would be to create a new section on the Griffes talk page and add the link there to see if a consensus with other editors can be reached.

BTW, none of this is a judgement on your video, I enjoyed listening to your performance :)

—Ash (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why

Do I keep getting messages from you saying I have edited things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.148.169 (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Because you are not following the Wikipedia guidelines and disrupting the contributions from others. The warnings on your talk page point you to suitable help. To see your edit history go to Special:Contributions/60.234.148.169 and check the "diff" links to see the edits in question.—Ash (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well you may notice that this is a shared IP address and I would appreciate a little less attitude from you when I ask a simple question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.148.169 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating an account is pretty straightforward, just follow the links already on your talk page. This way, your edits can not be confused with someone vandalising pages using the same IP address. I'm not sure what I have written so far gave the impression of 'attitude'; apologies if what I said gave the wrong impression.—Ash (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi : Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament

Hey there, Looks like we're both tweaking Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament‎, if I get in yer way or change something you've recently added let me know.

Cheers ^Khukri 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NP, all to be expected in a hot topic.—Ash (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Why I deleted sentence about Speedwriting in article on Shorthand

Hi Ash,

Could you please take a look at Tasoskessaris (talk). There I have given an explanation for why I deleted the sentence about Speedwriting in the Shorthand page. Tasoskessaris had also restored my deletion, but when I explained about why I had done it, he accepted my explanation and told me to feel free to delete it again, which I did.

I will await your response before I delete it again.

Thanks, Cassyjanek (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Cassyjanek

No problem; I re-applied your deletion after looking at the user talk page but added a bit of explanation on the edit this time. Unexplained deletions will invariably set alarm bells ringing so it's always best to say something about your edit in the edit summary and if it's significant, good practice to mention something on the article talk page too.—Ash (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and sorry for the delay in replying. Good work. I also agree with your comments about edit summaries. It's always a good idea to leave one when making an edit, especially when it involves deletion of an article section. Take care for now. Dr.K. logos 02:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Miles

Hey the reason I have tinkered with my wikapedia page is that I am the real Stuart Miles and I can confirm I was born 1974 not 69 which was said on Blue Peter to make me seem older! How can I prove to you I am the real Stuart? That is whu I asked for the page to be deleted as I am fed up of reading factually incorrcet things on my page!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartmiles (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 June 2009

Thanks for your message. There is some Wikipedia guidance for the situation where the subject of a biography page disagrees with factual content (see WP:BLPEDIT). The best way forward is to edit the article talk page (Talk:Stuart_Miles) rather than the article and point out what is incorrect and suggest an independent source. Other Wikipedia editors are likely to get on and correct the article for you. The process of proving that you are the true owner of the User:Stuartmiles account would in practice make little difference to the outcome as any edits you make to the main article without providing citations are just as likely to be reversed again.

In the meantime I shall add these notes to the talk page and suggest that you think of an independent published source for your birth date such as a magazine or newspaper interview.Ash (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi, It is a little confusing the way you mark some of your edits as minor, I was told that a minor edit would be a comma or a spellling mistake. Just a friendly comment. From the 'real' (Off2riorob (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

I tend to leave the box checked minor by default. wp:minor suggests in particular that talk page comments (presumably these are what you are referring to) should not be shown as minor so I'll try to remember that for any future edits.—Ash (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was those that I noticed, some people to reduce the tiny edits on their watchlist have the hide minor edits clicked in their preferences and those people would miss some quite major contributions. Thanks for looking. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

IMDB

This place is not a reliable source at all and you should rather of discussed it with me and not just randomly readded it. If I had not seen discussions over this I would not have removed it. As far as using it as a reliable source for any facts like this birth date, the site is written by the public with no checks at all. It is less reliable than wikipedia. You would do well to remove it. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

You did add it specifically to verify the date of birth didn't you? (Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

I do not disagree with your point about it not being a reliable source for a birth date citation. I reverted your edit as you had removed the link to the IMDB page for Stuart Miles from External Links as well as from the info box. This was perfectly clear on the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Off2riorob; There is no WP guideline that suggests that IMDB links are unsuitable as external links, refer to WP:EL." diff. There is no Wikipedia guideline that suggests that I should discuss the pros and cons before replacing perfectly correct material (particularly after discussions have already taken place on this issue on the associated talk page) I would refer you to the basic guidance of wp:bold. To say I randomly re-added it is inaccurate and offensive. As you appear to have edited Stuart Miles after I made comments on talk:Peter Mandelson you appear to be contravening wp:hounding. Stop trying to bait me, go away and do something more constructive.—Ash (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully ask you to take it easy with your accusations.The revert guideline suggests that if someone reverts your edit, that is the point to start discussion, and if you revert that revert then that point is the start of an edit war. Your addition [here]with the edit summary of

Adding second independent source for birth date... made it clear that you where adding it to use it as age verification.

Also, I only removed the cite from the footnotes as it was only there once, as you can verify by looking at my edit and you have re added itwithout seeking verification of my comment. You have agreed with me when you say here...I do not disagree with your point about it not being a reliable source for a birth date citation... As this was the reason you inserted it, I respectfully request you take it out. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

If you really were being respectful you would take the time to understand my last paragraph. I shall repeat myself saying exactly the same thing one more time but try using different words:

1. You deleted the External Links section with this edit diff.
2. That is the only reason I reverted your edit.
3. You are welcome to remove the IMDB footnote from the info box if you still wish to.
4. I disagree with removing the IMDB link from the External Links section as this complies with WP:EL.—Ash (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for that explanation..I do sometimes need the idiot explanation.I have removed it from the infobox...I couldn't see for looking. I will go away now. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC))and please excuse my apparent stupidity, pickyness and slightly obsessive behaviour. (14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

more reliable bilderberg source

Hi. Thanks for replacing the source with a better one. Cheers, --Rebroad (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

An official WP:RFC at John Corzine is desirable

Hello Ash. If you read the WP:RFC page you will notice the instructions for how to use an RFC template, to get the debate listed centrally. That is probably a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still pondering how to resolve the issue in a more generally applicable way. Having a separate consensus-building-debate in order to mention each participant seems exhausting, particularly as I get rather niggled by getting accused of having a secret agenda due to some feeling that Bilderberg is so controversial... I have raised an RFC in the past and I agree that an official RFC (compared to the less formal BLPN I already raised) may provide a suitable precedent (while trying not to get overly wikilawyerish about it). I'll let the current BLPN run for Corzine and if the same issue comes up with another BLP, or the Corzine discussion does not easily reach consensus, I'll follow the RFC process as you suggest Thinking again, I'll raise this to an RFC as you suggest in order to encourage wider debate.—Ash (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Now raised on on RfC listings. See Talk:Jon Corzine#RFC Bilderberg Group participation.—Ash (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ed, please note that the summary for the RFC was added to the talk page after your comment was submitted. I have attempted a neutral summary but I apologise if it does not fairly match the original issue (which was a bit long for an RFC) you responded to. You may want to revisit your comment to make sure you are still happy it expresses your opinion considering the current RFC text.—Ash (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg attendees

Categories, especially concerning controversial topic like the Bilderberg Group, should always reflect what's in the article. I see you've been adding Category:Bilderberg Attendees to biographies of lving people where there's no mention of the group, and hence no source. Please make sure that each biography contains a sourced reference to their membership. Further, categories are supposed to reflect characterizations that are in some way central to the person, not just a peripheral issue. So each article should also show how attending the meetings has been a key factor in the person's life. Lastly, the category is misspelled - "Attendees" is not a proper noun and so it should be "Bilderberg attendees".   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been pondering the benefit of this category versus the existing participants list. There is some value in having a category where enough interest around their participation in the Bilderberg Group has resulted in an entry in their biographical page (for example after a change in Parliamentary rules for declaring interests, Ken Clarke was the first British MP for which a constituent formally complained that he had not declared an interest by receiving money from the Bilderberg Group, he apologised for overlooking the matter and in subsequent years carefully declared all expenses received as benefits; the related record is shown on his page as a citation). I do think there needs to be a better category name rather than "attendees" if not all attendees will actually be included; something along the lines of (but better than) "Bilderberg Group interested parties"? I also agree that to be in the category there needs to be a relevant source quoted on the biographical page and I'll consider the wording on the category description with this in mind.—Ash (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

3O

Nice 3O on photovoltaics! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, appreciated. I started off thinking the debate was about solar powered calculators rather than calculators for solar power...! —Ash (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dogs On Acid

Thank you for your third-opinion at Dogs On Acid. I appreciate it as I cannot edit the page due to my WP:NODRAMA pledge. Happy editing. 01:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the article and for forwarding me to the Conflict Of Interest guidelines. Take care. Dog On Acid (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sustainable energy

Hi, I just put together Template:Sustainable energy, which you recently made an edit on. I wonder if I can get some comments from you on whether is is useful, and what you think should be changed and/or improved on it. You can leave your comments here if you like, as I'll put this talkpage on my watchlist. Thanks, - LK (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment added on template talk.—Ash (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. LK (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

I have clarified my comments. Thanks! Verbal chat 10:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tucker

Hi, thanks for you comment on Jim Tucker. Can I ask in what way the 9 appearances in mainstream media in the US,UK and Canada listed on talk fail to amount to Tucker being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" thus satisfying criterion 7 in exactly the manner set out in example 14. Noirtist (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I did check through the published newspaper articles (as well as searching for fresh sources on LexisNexis) and all the significant interviews and major mentions bring him up as following on from Ian Stevenson's work. I think there is an argument to be had as to their significance and whether they count as a "small number" or not (hence the RFC should be given time for input from other editors), but it seems marginal as the mentions of Tucker in the press do not sufficiently address PROF #7 due to the relation with Stevenson and the articles do not seem all that frequent in order to firmly outweigh the fact that no reliable source addresses the rest of PROF. Considering the Ian Stevenson BLP is well established I would consider merging the most useful additional sources into that article.

I would like to point out that a third opinion is not necessarily the best option for satisfactory resolution here as these are normally for a dispute between two editors. The RFC process is more likely to produce a better form of consensus with (hopefully) a good variety of logical arguments presented by article contributors and new editors. If an RFC were not in progress I would have recommended this as the next step.—Ash (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Not sure I'd agree that they all/most mention Stevenson or how much that matters but at least what you say makes sense. Noirtist (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That was my error on 3O protocol Ash - I am but a babe in the wiki woods still. Once again thanks for your views. It's worth mentioning that there are a number of people with the research centre Stevenson set up who continue his kind of work, but they don't get the airplay Tucker does, so I'd certainly agree that it wouldn't be appropriate for there to be pages on them, but Tucker seems to be taking the research further - especially in terms of addressing the 'big issue' about possible mechanism for survival of personalities. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

I see you've done the same with User:Ash/UK Swine Flu Timeline as well. Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 16:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray

I have a request for clarification. By "Does this mean that you'll dismiss the results of this RFC?" did you mean "Does this mean that you'll ignore the results of this RFC?" -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, my point is that if enough users think the RFC is wrongly expressed or corrupted or think it's the wrong way of reaching consensus then that should be discussed and this RFC tossed (if necessary). I'll have a think about rewording my statement.—Ash (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-phased my statement. I'll have a cup of tea and might take another look at it later, just to make sure I'm actually saying something helpful rather than destructive...—Ash (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: "Common ground" discussion and COI. While identifying the known connection and its potential COI, is probably another point that the parties agree, I am not certain that it is something that would help move the discussion towards a consensus, and the phrasing would need to be carefully worded. I believe that some of the editors opposing or previously opposing the current Murray site may have connections with other Murray sites and so the COI is fairly abundant.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Murray talk page is an expression of how Milo has deservedly earned the reputation that he has at Wikipedia. They seldom produce satisfactory results, frequenly generating much drahmaz and little changed behavior, but Wikipedia's methods of dispute resolution may be your next step. Although stepping aback and personally having a cup of WP:TEA generally works better. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Coat_of_Arms_of_Zengid_Dynasty.JPG License Modification

Hello, I have modified the license. Please let me know if it complies with Wiki policies. Thank you very much. your effort is truly appreciated. Andibernard (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the image has been removed. A public domain image must explain its origin in order for the public domain claim to make sense.—Ash (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP/N Bob Ainsworth

Thanks for your help with this Ash! --Duncan (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ITSM

Hello Ash,

I am confused as to why you removed the article I posted on ITSM.

Stuart Galup, Ronald Dattero, Jing Quan and Sue Conger (May 2009). An Overview of Information Technology Service Management. Communications of the ACM,52(5)

The Further Reading list contains vendor writings. I am an academic and the article I posted was recently published in one of the most widely read IT journals.

Why is this not appropriate?

Sgalup Sgalup (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the edit in question was diff and the comment I made was "Removed site requiring registration". The relevant guidance is at WP:EL at the subsection on sites requiring registration. This says "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an in-line reference." In this case the article is not an in-line reference (i.e. using the "ref" tag) but has been copied into Further reading. You could convert it fairly easily into an in-line reference if it is truly relevant to something in the body of the article.

In the case of this particular website it appears to be a subscription only site (rather than free sign-up) and so really is not that suitable for references either. I suggest you try and find an alternative source that readers can access for free or convert it using the {{cite journal}} template and include a good relevant quote from the text rather than pointing to a website that most readers will not be able to access.—Ash (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ash,

Thanks! I appreciate your help.

sgalup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgalup (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of people executed for homosexuality

Hi, thanks for your message.

I removed the [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] category, as this was no required anymore... as I changed the {{unreferenced}} tag to {{unreferenced|date=July 2009}}, the article appears in [[Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2009]]. If I had kept the [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] category, it would also appear in the 'undated' list of Articles lacking sources.

As you will see if you look at my history, I have been going through the 'undated' list.

• If I find an article which looks like it needs an SD or a PROD, I've done that.
• If the text is a copy from another site, I've placed a {{copyvio}} tag on it
• If I can find references, I will put them in (along with new text if required), and then changed the unreferenced tag to a Refimprove one
• If I can't find references, but the article seems to meet notability, I will update the date on the unreferenced tag, and remove the [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] so that it only appears on the (at the moment) July 2009 list.

I noticed that although I had dated the unreferenced tag, the page was still remaining on the 'undated' Articles lacking sources list - which didn't make sense, hence the removal of the category that was hard-coded into pages.

As you will see, it's not been a case of changing the unreferenced tag date - I have been looking for at least 2 good references before tagging it thus. I haven't gone any further than that, as I do not know enough about the subjects to do more - but there have been a couple which I have noticed that after I've tagged them (and hence they show up on editor's watch lists), other editors have come back to the article and added/amended information.

Thanks for contacting me - I hope this makes sense! I've only just woken up, so if this rambles, please excuse me!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that and thinking about the references in the case of this list.—Ash (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

3O: Shell account

Thanks for your 3O on the Shell_account article. However as per the 3O talk page, I'd like to request further comments from yourself as an attempt to resolve this matter. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The request I replied to was:

Talk:Shell account#Removed links Dispute regarding whether "list[s] of free shell account providers" are acceptable as external links.

As the talk page discussion seems to be debating the different forms of words that formed the request, I suggest that the route to a resolution could be to re-phrase the question in agreement with the other editors and I can then respond to see if my opinion stands as stated, needs further clarification or is suitable for an RFC to be raised if a wider consensus would be more helpful.—Ash (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if I can get the other editor[s] to agree on the request phrasing. --Hm2k (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that it would probably be advisable to state on the talk page what the 3O request you are proposing will be in advance of requesting it. As I have also been involved in prompting another request, it may also be advisable if I left it to another third party to reply next time in order to demonstrate that any opinion given is truly independent of the discussion.—Ash (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not really getting anywhere on this. I'm under the impression that I'm being bated into trolling. Thus I will be following guidelines and not engaging in the discussion unless the other party are willing to use a proper dispute resolution process. I think this is fair. --Hm2k (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. You may want to strike the use of the non-word dickery, or maybe change it to dickering (which is in the OED), just to avoid any potential confusion with calling someone a dick. The other party has suggested mediation but if I were in the same position I'd try leaving the ball in their court rather than taking the bait again. There's no problem taking the page off your watch-list for a week and then see if you feel it's worth picking up again.—Ash (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell account RFC

While I appreciate you attempting to refactor the RFC stuff (I had planned to do that myself today), the text and wikilinks in the new section are copied from Talk:Shell account#Dispute which is not appropriate for an RFC. See Talk:Shell account#false analogy. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced this section with something much more neutral and have moved the refactored section to the talk page archive. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.—Ash (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus

I excluded some sources, perhaps I should exclude:

Streeter, Burnett Hillman (1924). The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins the Manuscripts Tradition, Sources, Authorship & Dates. MacMillan and Co Limited:Oxford

It is quoted several times in the article, but the rest of books and articles should remain, e.g. the article:

Voelz, James W. (2005). The Greek of Codex Vaticanus in the Second Gospel and Marcan Greek. Novum Testamentum 47, 3, pp. 209–249.

It represents new point of vew about the origin of the Gospel of Mark of the codex. The article is a little controversial and its point of vew not common excepted, but it was published in very important journal. I did not use it, maybe I will use it in the future... I hesitate. I did not use also the article of Curt Niccum (1997). The articles about "umlauts" and "triplets" are alos important. Before 1995 nobody undestand the meaning of these marks, now we undarstand. I can exclude book of Streeter (1924) if you want, but rest of the articles should remain. These articles ahve a lot of new detailed information, which will never be included to the wikipedia article. They are for experts, not for every readers. I think 100 000 scores for this article is enough (now only 50 000 scores), we do not need more. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am not an expert, the intent of my tagging this list was to encourage discussion of the publications left in this section. Further reading sections can become a dumping ground of less important "stuff" that nobody takes the time to tidy away. Two points which might be helpful:

1. I suggest you consider which publications in further reading really should be positively used a references and then take a view on the remainder as to why they are authoritative enough to be kept in the article but not useful enough to be used as references. If you feel that 'Further reading' should be kept as a section because it helps the article (rather than being 'useful' which may contravene the intent of WP:DIRECTORY) then the section could be qualified at the introduction to the list. For example "The following publications are the most highly recommended by <...authority...>"; if such a leading authority makes sense in the context of the Codex Vaticanus. This way at least there is a limit on further publications being added.
2. For those publications that contain a lot of detail that will never be in the article, I suggest you consider including them as references where such detail is most relevant. At least this way the reader knows where to look for detail rather than having to trawl through everything in 'Further reading'.
3. For those publications that might be used in the future (rather than being immediately and self-evidently helpful to the article), I suggest these are moved to a section on the talk page where other editors may pick them up for inclusion at some point.

—Ash (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of LGBT history

Greetings, LGBTQIQOP is an umbrella that includes any and all same-sex relationships, except those that are illegal. The mention of pederasty in ancient Greece is relevant to history, as it was a common practice. Also, as noted, "boys" really mean teenagers or young men, not children, and as noted the Greeks considered sex with "children" to be illegal. In Rome, older soldiers sometimes slept with a younger soldier, who they mentored. Not need to be witch-hunting and deleting relevant material. The word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869, and the word "gay" is a label. But if we replace that with the idea of "same-sex" then pederasty certainly qualifies. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Questioning, Omnisexual, Pansexual community has been one that seeks openness and fairness, not discimination, recrimination, exclusion, and taboos.Ryoung122 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is not about LGBTQIQOP history. I shall reply on the article talk page.—Ash (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Black people" v "blacks"

Hi, Ash. Sorry to see you've stricken your comments out on the talk page, unless you no longer agree with what you said (and that doesn't appear to be the case). I'm on your side of the argument, stating quite clearly that I personally would like to see "blacks" removed. However, I think we do need to try and abide by consensus. I also did a little research of my own and across the British media it is certainly not unheard of for those media to use the term "blacks" and not in quotes or in a stylised or derogatory context. Here's the search results I looked at. It has occurred to me to try and get direct input from African American wikipedians for their perspective. I may still do that at some point. I've also put these comments on the talk page. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My reply is on talk:Black people.—Ash (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed Link ITIL.ORG

Dear Ash,

I've added the very usefull and informativ website to the Content "ITIL". The web-site is www.itil.org and is not commercial at all. In fact, the IT Infrastructure library is documented much more in detail as it is now in wikipedia. And it has usefull cross-information to the other standards COBIT and ISO20000. And it has the full glossar from ITIL integrated in the site. The site is hosted by an accredited Service Provider under license from OGC and APMG.

You have removed the web-site because you think this is commercial. Please have a look and make your opinion.

I would really appriciate if after you've proofen it, that you add it again.

Thanks.

Martin U11720 (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take this up on the article talk page if you feel strongly about it. The site fails the guidance of WP:ELNO as it is not a link to authoritative information, such links already are included, and being sponsored by Glenfis AG there is no evidence that the information will be maintained, unbiased or add any value beyond the official web sites.—Ash (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment article

I've taken into account your comments about the article. I suppressed the link with the CRP Henri Tudor's website because you thought it was advertisement for it. It wasn't. I added some references to scientific publications about this methodology that has been presented in many international conferences and is used by several big businesses as Fujitsu or Dimension Data. I hope the modifications will satisfy you.

Best regards

158.64.4.15 (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As the TIPA is an initiative of CRP Henri Tudor, I do not think the issue has been sufficiently addressed. I am left with some questions that you may find useful if you are considering re-writing the article:

• How does independent governance work for the TIPA (particularly with respect to Henry Tudor)?
• Is the organization valid for third party certification and is this a certification process? The website states this is "under development", so perhaps a Wikipedia page is premature.
• What does "open framework" actually mean if a third party wanted to use or market it?
• What does "commercialized" mean in this context?
• The conferences referred to may have been published as conference proceedings but these cannot represent unbiased evidence. Are there no published articles that support the claims for this methodology/framework/certification scheme?

Please do not answer these questions here, the article needs to address them. Alternatively you may find it useful to add your justification for retention at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tudor's_ITSM_Process_Assessment.—Ash (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note - the text quoted in the AFD was a cut & paste from http://www.tipa-itsm.com/cms/Tipa/content.nsf/id/AIDA_becomes_TIPA as of August 6, 2009 this stated: AIDA becomes TIPA - The CRP Henri Tudor is proud to announce the launch the international commercialisation of AIDA, an ISO/IEC15504 compliant process assessment of IT Service Management, under the trademark TIPA (Tudor’s ITSM Process Assessment). —Ash (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles L. McCawley

I wanted to let you know that I left some comments about this article. --Kumioko (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD & dictionary definitions

Hello,

You recently tagged some dictionary definitions for speedy deletion as A3 - no content. I declined them all as dictionary definitions don't qualify under A3 or any other CSD criteria. The proper was to handle these is 1) redirect to a related article; 2) flag for transfer to Wiktionary using {{copy to wiktionary}}; or 3) propose them for deletion using {{subst:prod}}

There is no need to go back & do so this time, as I have already done so for you, but in the future please use one of the above 3 methods. If you have any questions, let me know.

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.—Ash (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential blocking

Hi Ash. I notice that in your "caution" you ask that I "use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors". Would you please take note of my last entry on the Common name talk page and comment on whether you believe I am trying to do this or not? I trust that you have sent a similar "caution" to Hesperian? Granitethighs (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes and you should continue to do so. The warning is part of a standard template. The advice is relevant, as the other options of WP:Dispute resolution are available if you wish to pursue your point of view further, should discussion on the talk page appear to you to have reached a dead end. I would have issued the same warning to Hesperian if he/she had made 3 reverts within 24 hours but they had not. As well as the suggested guidance in the warning, you might find WP:BRD helpful as an editing route map and a way to stay compliant with WP:3RR.—Ash (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Triple star

  3✬s for creating the Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ! — Athaenara ✉ 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated.—Ash (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Marc's

I found plenty of sources on Google News. All of the retail articles are in horrible shape; most need rewrites, not deletion, but nobody can ever be arsed to fix them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The same argument should be used to get them off Wikipedia rather than keeping them for the sake of it. An article that stays for endless years in horrible shape is a liability for the reader, they would be better off doing a google search.—Ash (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not if the subject is notable. I added a couple sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

URDAD article

Have added more context which should clarify the topic as well as categorization. Would like to request that the article is not deleted. User:FritzSolms 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to take this up on the AFD discussion. The text you have added on the methodology detail does not address the issue of notability which is the basis for the nomination for deletion.—Ash (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Blade Ship

Hello Ash, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Blade Ship has been removed. It was removed by 70.73.44.251 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 70.73.44.251 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Homosexuality

Hi. Re this edit, three comments:

1 Two of the three items you tagged are adequately sourced further down in the article. Arguably, they should be sourced in the lede, too; there's plenty of wiggle room both in guideline and in common sense to argue it either way. However—and please take this in the constructive spirit it's intended—since the sources are already there, they're almost as easy to copy and paste as is a fact tag.

Accepted, just worked on replacing one. I believe it's helpful to use the fact tag to ferret out such cross refs. Its a bit of a red flag to see a lead section making claims with no refs, on balance it's fairly easy to sort out the most useful x-refs.

Yes, I see you're in the midst of doing just that. Sorry if I seemed a little snarky. The whole situation with the lede somehow got way out of hand, for which I partially blame myself, and things have been at a standstill for several days now. (Details here, here, and here if you have lots of time and patience.)

2 You're absolutely correct that "virtually" is a weasel word. Worse still, neither the wording in the section on animals nor (I suspect) the sources on which it's based justifies quite as strong a word as "virtually". Not when one considers the number of species in the animal kingdom, anyway. Many animals, yes, and maybe most or all mammals, but not virtually all animals. How should we reword this, do you think?

I was tempted to change it to "many", this is only slightly less weasley but carries the benefit of not implying a mathematical sense that 99.99%+ of animal species have some homosexual behaviour.

Since mathematical precision would be next to impossible to achieve here, I think "many" would be quite acceptable.

3 According to at least five major dictionaries, delist is not hyphenated. Btw, I think your suggestion on the talk page makes a lot of sense, and I will say so there.

Happy to bow to your research. I tend to stick to OED ... which does have delist unhyphenated in contradiction to my built-in spell-checker, so I'm definitely in the wrong!—Ash (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Spell-checker, schmell-checker [Rivertorch, poised on the brink of unseemly diatribe about spell-checkers, bites tongue] Rivertorch (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Friday,

Rivertorch (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Mandelson

I don't think the IP editor's internet policy bit was vandalism. If it was POV, it was at least sourced. I can't see how the allegations themselves are a problem if phrased properly and balanced by his denial. In any event, I initially blamed the dispute on Off2riorob, who has been making rather a habit of disruptive edits and POV-pushing through omission, in an edit summary restoring the text. Afterwards, I realised my mistake and addressed it on the talk page. I also made an attempt at making it more neutral. I'm not too concerned about having allegation included in the article, so if you still object and think the text irretrievably biased, go ahead and revert me. I've had as much of say as I intend to, and so leave it in your hands. -Rrius (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with a sourced and neutrally worded entry on this subject. You will note that my first revert of the IP editor's contribution (diff) was not to revert the entire entry but only the POV language the editor was introducing. This appears to be deliberate vandalism having nothing to do with the source newspaper article. When the same editor introduced a still POV-worded version later I reverted again. When on the third occasion in 24 hours the same editor introduced a more neutrally worded version but failed to properly follow-up on talk page discussion, this appeared to be a violation of 3RR and I left the user a warning but left their edits in the text, another editor later reverted them.—Ash (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Away for a week

—Ash (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Template: aan

Hi, I noticed that this template is relatively unused and appears to be broken? I understand that, when working, it is supposed to allow for archive numbers greater than 50, but looking at User_talk:Icseaturtles/Archive_2007, it appears that isn't exactly the case at the moment. Obviously, there is no big rush, and I see you are currently on vacation. Best regards. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked the code - there seemed to be a programming change with a sub-string function it was dependant upon. Nasty sort of bug as I'm sure many other functions had this propagated error. Seems to be working okay at the moment though I haven't spent much time testing it out.—Ash (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletions at Monterey article

I see you commented at the Monterey talk page. Could you take a look at the edits over the last 24 hours and comment? Ownership issues are becoming a big problem. Thanks. 75.54.204.224 (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Added a brief (and neutral) advisory comment. As discussion is on-going no further interference seems appropriate at the moment. You may want to register an account rather than editing from an anon IP address as other editors may be more comfortable discussing edits with a name individual rather than an IP address that may change over time. Cheers —Ash (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Hyperetes

Hello Ash, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Hyperetes has been removed. It was removed by Catalographer with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Catalographer before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Upgraded to AFD as there was no discussion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyperetes.—Ash (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Growshop

Is there a reason why you prodded Growshop (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, instead of simply reverting it and requesting page protection? — Sebastian 01:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

From the page history you can see I reverted it once before. It would be handy if a suitable sysop were to do as you suggest and I probably should have taken that route.—Ash (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I was going to do that now, but I saw that Skomorokh just declined the request and added {{wikify}} and {{refimprove}}, and I don't want to interfere with another admin's decision on an article that is not in my area of expertise. If you still feel that this article should be a redirect, rather than improved, please ask Skomorokh about it.    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.) — Sebastian 15:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to remember to revisit the page in a week, giving the creator a reasonable chance, and if there are no decent new references demonstrating the use of the term in English I'll ponder what to do next.—Ash (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ash, I was looking for "growshop" talk page.. which has been redirected to smart shop! I still editing "growshop" please note that discussion is not identical to deleted version.. 1. Article has been cleaned up, I am still working on it.. 2. Realiable english sources has been added.

Please do not redeirect to Smart Shop which has different meaning!

DeepoloDeepolo (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is eligible for speedy delete as per the AFD previously closed with a redirect. You should take this up on the talk page as it is not my sole decision to make. You will note that a single mention in quotation marks of "hydroponic growshops" in the Guardian is a weak source and more valid for the gardening phrase Hydroponic growshop rather than Growshop as a single term.—Ash (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand growshop.com and growshop.co.uk do not help demonstrate the article altough the word "growshop" in its website name. I think a link to a growshop could show what a growshop is and what it does. Deepolo (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Deepolo

As I've said previously such a link would need to meet WP:ELNO #5 and might take into consideration WP:ELMAYBE #3 & #4 or have significant grounds for an exception to be reached by consensus. In practice, I don't really understand why you are wasting edit time with this page as there really are no valid reliable sources.—Ash (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashtar Galactic Command

Greetings ,

I wanted to talk about the Ashtar Galactic Command which I know quite a bit about. My first question is how do I add information that is important to the History of the Ashtar Command and also books that i suggest people read that give an historic backround. Lastly External Links which are being deleted on Ashtar Galactic Command that are very important to allow people to understand more on the Ashtar Galactic Command who go to Wikipedia.

So these are my main concerns .

I would love to somehow moderate that page Ashtar Galactic Command and be able to add good content that would be helpful .

What do I need to do ?

Blessings , CmdrAleon Ashtar Command —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdraleons (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Try taking it up on the article talk page. I'm not going to take you seriously here.—Ash (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashtar Galactic Command Suggestions and Concerns

Its interesting that we who are interested in the Ashtar Command or Ashtar Galactic Command which is basically the same Command. Have problems with people who want to include some current information aswell as past history in relation to the command .

I personally think that adding Ashtar links that help people interested in this subject is a wonderful thing. Its not spamming and it certianly matters not that its on Ning Social Network. Which by the way many important and serious discussions are taking place that are dealing with the Ashtar Command area's and topics.

I would like Wikpedia to reconsider what you are doing on this topic . Myself I have added other book material that was deleted and was important to the topic at hand. If someone comes here from the Ashtar Command and has good information to add . Let them add it for others to see. If one has created a Ashtar Galactic Command Wiki site then its important to have good past and present information.'

It does no good when the Vrillion 1977 Broadcast is considered a Hoax here and again no one was found who could have Hoaxed it.

Its real until proven unreal.

I have alot more that I am concerned with on this.

Please reconsider some of the things that have been deleted these last few days .

Sincerely, CmdrAleon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdraleons (talk • contribs) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia no encyclopaedic entries can be produced without reliable sources. You viewpoint appears to be that some things should be considered true until proven otherwise (such as the above hoax must be a real ET incident if the hoaxer is not found). If you are incapable of complying with the Wikipedia rules then this is the wrong place to make your point or promote your ideas. You are free to take this up on the article talk pages but should you continue to add unsupported text to articles your account will be banned from editing. I really don't fancy getting into a lengthy dialogue with you about what I consider to be nonsense so please do take this up on relevant article talk pages rather than my user talk page.—Ash (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Freecycle Network page

I can't quite understand why the mention of what the new association in the UK is called keeps getting deleted. Considering that 27% of former UK Freecycle groups and over 560,000 former members are now part of Freegle, surely this is not recentism, even though the developments are fairly recent. Can you explain please? Ms548 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on the article talk page is pretty clear on the matter.—Ash (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ash - thanks - I hadn't realised that there were two different talk pages. It's definitely ilovefreegle.org, but will wait until press coverage before attempting edits again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms548 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick note to thank you for continuing to encourage the need for proper referencing in the encyclopedia, if your approach was universal it makes me smile to think how much more useful that Wikipedia would be in general. thanks again Deconstructhis (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Growshop. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Deepolo (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Deepolo

As I have made only one edit in the last 72 hours, I would appreciate it if you could copy diffs here for the recent 4 edits in 24 hours that you believe constitute edit warring on my part on the Growshop page. I cannot identify which edits you might mean from the page history and so currently cannot take the above warning template seriously.—Ash (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrospectively tailoring the above warning after I have already responded (diff) is a type of vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism types. Changing the above wording does not change the guidance of WP:3RR which needs to be demonstrated in order to accuse me of edit warring.

I have removed the standard warning image above as it may mislead readers of my talk page into thinking this is a standard 3RR warning when clearly you have retrospectively edited it to be non-standard for your own reasons, probably because you cannot find appropriate evidence to support your accusation. I have not interfered with your revised text.—Ash (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning on listing Nibiru collision for deletion?

Because if you're going to remove valid sources on pedantic grounds, you may as well, since there no other sources. Mike Brown is an accredited scientist with a record second to none; he's not likely to discuss issues such as this in a scientific journal. There ARE no better sources for this topic. Believe me, I've looked. And looked. I really don't care about this. I edit it because if I don't then it gets left to the lunatics who tell the world we're all gonna die. As it is between 1500 and 3000 people look at that page every day. I don't want them seeing the ramblings of some crazy person. 2012 panic is high enough already. So. What would you recommend I do? Because I'm fed up. Serendi^podous 13:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a secret plan to remove the article, just sources based on self published sites. I can believe Mike Brown is a creditable source but then his published articles should be referenced rather than pointing to his blog. I suggest you take a look at his publications list (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/papers/pubs.html). Admittedly if he has never gone into writing about such a collision or ever mentioned "Nibiru" in any of his real publications (or magazine and newspaper interviews) then he's probably not a good source for the Nibiru article as his name lends false credibility and interest to the article.—Ash (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There's very little I can do. Any scientific arguments must mention Nibiru, otherwise I'm violating synthesis. These scientific arguments are blindingly obvious to anyone who knows anything about science. But most people don't know anything about science. The problem is that the number of scientifically reputable individuals who bother to deal with Nibiru is minuscule. So where am I going to find the sources? No one ever tells me that. They just remove the sources I do find. Serendi^podous 13:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How about checking for newspaper articles that add balance. For example a critical article in Sunday Tasmanian (Australia), January 25, 2009 Sunday, Death planet hoax returns, Martin George:

Concern is building again over a hoax that first appeared -- to my knowledge -- in 2002, about a planet called Nibiru that will supposedly wreak havoc on the Earth. It's all a load of rubbish!
I first became aware of this hoax in early 2002, when I received inquiries about a planet that had supposedly been discovered on an extremely elongated orbit that was to bring it into the inner Solar System.
According to the information being circulated around that time, it was heading in the vicinity of the inner planets and would pass between the Earth and the Sun about May 2003.
Apparently, its 'magnetic' effects were predicted to do all sorts of nasty things to the Earth, including stopping its rotation. But the authors go on to say that the rotation will start again afterwards. Let me assure you that no laws of physics could allow any of this to happen.

—Ash (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How did you find that? I ran some search terms through Google and that didn't come up. I must be missing something fundamental. Serendi^podous 15:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got access to LexisNexis at the moment, handy at times, though there are results on Google News that you may find helpful. Try this search for example.—Ash (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, self-published works are not acceptable as sources unless:

When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Since Mike Brown certainly qualifies in that regard, his blog qualifies as a reliable source. So I'm putting it back in. Serendi^podous 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good argument, one I've considered myself for other sources. You may wish to think this one over a little more though, as Brown's blog entries about Nibiru are not actually extracts or quotes from his work in third party publications but original self-published analysis. Consequently I do not think this is a good exception to the rule. I'm not going to fight you too hard on this one but generally seeing blogs as references in any Wikipedia article makes me suspect the article as being poorly written and in this particular case it only took a search on Google News to find third party publications that provided suitable criticism from a scientific perspective. I suspect that if the blog ref were raised on WP:RSN it may well be considered unsuitable.—Ash (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through Google news. There is nothing on the level required for this article. This article either uses the sources it has, or it ceases to exist. And given the hysteria that this topic is already producing worldwide, that would not be a good idea. Serendi^podous 17:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growshop

Would you consider redirecting this article to Smart shop right now?

The article is obviously not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining.

This listing was posted several days ago, and has received no !votes yet. One keep vote could mean that it was kept non consensus. Whereas a redirect is immediate and the information is assured to be removed.

I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd, instead of having to wait another 7 days.

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with early closure of the AFD on that basis. This probably is the approach that should have been taken when the page was recreated 2 days after the previous AFD closed. As there have been accusations of edit warring on the article talk page, it's probably better if any such action is taken by other parties than those recently involved in editing the page.—Ash (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Too late-- another editor voted delete, so the AFD will run its course. Thanks for considering this, and happy editing. Hope to see you soon. Ikip (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tags on Morya article

I'm the main writer for the Morya article, having written sections 1-10. I wrote the article to replace the highly inadequate article that preceded it. Since the article could not be a biography in any real sense, I decided it should give an account of the stories told about Morya beginning with Blavatsky and going on to the Ascended Masters groups. In the initial paragraph it brings up the obvious point that all these stories may be fictional. I cited J. Paul Johnson's explanation, implicitly making the less obvious point that his account may (also) be fictional. The truth or falsity of these stories does not necessarily affect their interest as historical or even anthropological artifacts. The theosophical movement has had wide ramifications. A couple examples: Franklin Roosevelt's archives have letters he received in correspondence with a person presumed to be Master Morya; Elvis read Leaves of Morya's Garden and read out of Blavatsky's books on stage. Of course, these facts don't prove that Morya existed; they do show that some very influential people were influenced by the idea or image of Morya. I was hoping that the article--at least the part I wrote--would be helpful to people who, for whatever reason, wanted to learn more about the different forms of this idea and how it evolved over time. Again, whether or not this idea expresses a person who really lived is a judgment that I've left to the reader. Quoting several people who, being the tellers of these stories, clearly believe in the existence of Master Morya and their version of him does not constitute an endorsement of their views or some other bias.

You've tagged this article as one with several issues. That it can easily become a "fan site" is unfortunately true. I don't believe that the first ten sections of the article encourage that, and also don't know how it can be prevented except by the sort of vigilance that you have shown. As for the other tags, could you please give concrete examples of peacock terms, bias, and ideas not verifiable in the sources cited. Also, what significant viewpoints have been excluded? Much obliged.--Asiaj (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply on Talk:Morya#Discussion on multiple tags including pointing to WP:QUOTE.—Ash (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ash - Patrick Swayze

I'm wondering if you can assist me with the Patrick Swayze article, I see that you put together a well thought out response regarding the late Mr. Swayze's lineage......I believe that it left it as something to the effect of 'Welsh name...Irish line possibly some Apache.." as quoted by Mr Swayze/his wife..... user All Hallow's Wrath appears to be pushing POV appearing to have first deleted it and added his own POV with reference that does not support it (change) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Swayze&diff=prev&oldid=314019915....please let me know if you can assist...Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keynote1 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 16 September 2009

I'll take a look, probably late today. Obviously with Swayze's death a number of editors may contribute on updates which may resolve the issue (or create new issues).—Ash (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ash...I was wondering if you have been able to have a look at the Patrick Swayze item noted above?...thx much

Sorry, I doubt I'm going to be able to get to it in a timely manner. I suggest you raise it for attention at WP:3O if the situation has not resolved itself. Apologies for not being able to lend a hand this time.—Ash (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Ash...All Hallows Wrath has--once again--changed the entry to suit his view.......I find it maddening when someone like yourself has put together a cogent and INDEPENDENT response to this type of situation (EVEN WHEN THE OUTCOME IS NOT WHAT I HAD EXPECTED) and editors STILL continue on their merry way--with no regard......argghh...oh well...thanks

Patrick Swayze

Sure but I think you already were the third opinion on this issue......would it be appropriate to raise it again for a third opinion when that was already done?

Good point. If the issue was covered by the previously accepted third opinion, this consensus is being ignored, and discussion on the talk page is going nowhere then you might consider using WP:WQA. Particularly if you are convinced that the views of a single editor are overriding consensus and the editor is behaving unreasonably. There's normally a fairly quick response and you may benefit from the recommendations of several editors.—Ash (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuente Magna

You didn't deliberately restore the Ikon reference did you? We can't use Wikipedia articles, which that is, as references. None of those sources are RS (the only published book is by a software person and actually uses one of the websites as a reference anyway). Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware I've added two books as sources and a link to a ucr.edu page. Which are you calling the Ikon reference (did you mean the Icon Group) and where is the Wikipedia article?—Ash (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Icon is a Wikipedia mirror - [1]. The ucr.edu page is anonymous, not a reliable source. The Caper Jones book is not a reliable source for this - even the book it outside his field, but the bowl is just a mention using the world mysteries site as a source, so we shouldn't use it. I'm not clear why you've used an archive of the university site as that's just a duplicate. And how do I verify "Pontificio Istituto biblico, Pontificio Istituto biblico. Facoltà di studi dell'antico oriente (1987). Orientalia, Volume 56. University of Virginia"? I'll copy this to the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Promotion of homosexuality

As an editor active in the article: Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, I believe you may find the AfD discussion of Promotion of homosexuality currently underway to be fascinating. ;o) Best regards. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 09:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate sex sources

I can't find anything about hate sex or similar in The masks of hate. How does this reference support the definition of hate sex? It seems to be about depersonalized sex, not hate sex. A Letter To The Parents Of isn't a reliable source as it is self-published: Lulu.com is not a proper publisher, it has no editorial processes. It's also fiction, so while it is useful in attesting to use of the term it's not useful as a factual reference. The last one sounds like a good lead:[2], but it refers to a porn film. I've already given better sources than these in the AfD discussion. What we need now to actually write an article on the topic is discussion of the concept rather than just uses of the term. Fences&Windows 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with lulu published source failing RS (and I've now removed it on that basis), however "The masks of hate" uses the term several times in the correct context - e.g. p.128 "it is hate-sex, not love-sex, and is prompted by fear." The use of the term in fictional works or films is still an appropriate WP:RS in order to show how the term is used. I agree with your sentiment that the article needs to be written, my interest was in adding a few sources as the article was tagged as having insufficient sources and so that alone is not a good reason for deletion.—Ash (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, somehow my search missed those uses in The Masks of Hate. It's a pretty good reference, it'd be good to see more than snippets! I'm going to do some more searching for potential sources. Fences&Windows 17:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Prince2 sources

Hi Ash,

I’ve amended the PM Forum link to ref the article directly, rather than the online ref. Also Argyris is directly relevant as it supports the point being made by explaining how this type of material (Prince2) can marginalise and misdirect. The point being made is a sophisticated one but directly relevant to any worthwhile discussion of Prince2. Any source discussing this point is unlikely to reference Prince2 directly. The article as it stands before my edits is bland and basically just an advert/straightforward description of PRINCE2 - I understated that Wikipedia is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Also, you seem to think it is appropriate to remove what is the only properly researched and referenced item referenced on the whole article! Don’t you think that is a little ironic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pothoc (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unfair on the article to say it is not referenced when the OGC website is sufficient. The paper you are repeatedly inserting is apparently unpublished as I can find no reference to it on Google Scholar. Why not find a published article by Christophe Bredillet, there seem to be plenty and I can only assume that if he advocates against PRINCE2 as a "false God" then one of the published sources should mention it (try this search). As for Argyris, the book does not mention PRINCE2 so fails "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article", again surely if the criticism is a well known one then a source that mentions PRINCE2 in this context can be found or the criticism is not relevant enough to appear in this article. If you wish to discuss further, please raise these sources on the article talk page for general discussion. Unless there is a consensus to include these sources then I see no reason why they warrant an exception to the guidance of WP:RS.—Ash (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ash, I find you comments ridiculous. I am not going to waste any more of my time on you or wikipedia. No wonder Wikipedia is ridiculed when it has people contributing in the way that you are. Do whatever you like with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.127.147 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I recommended you discuss further on the talk page, that is how a consensus is reached rather than expecting everyone to bow to your opinion and refusing to collaborate if people disagree with you. I'm sure you would be happier writing on your own blog where you don't have to put up with what you think are ridiculous comments.—Ash (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ash, the article as it stands is more or less an advert. Most of the information on it is taken from OGC (who sell it and make money from it!), the rest seems to be from other organisations who make money from peddling it. Does that strike you as "NPOV" eg would you create an article that only included what McDonalds and their franchisees said about their products?... because that is basically what the article amounted to before I added at least some other viewpoints to try to provide some balance. As I say, my references are the only ones which don’t point to information provided by those who make money from Prince2 and your response is to remove them saying that they are not on Google Scholar! Tell me - what  % of existing scholarly articles do you think are on there? I'd be surprised if it is 10%.

You also want to remove the ref to Argyris because it doesn’t directly mention Prince2. Tell me this - would you remove a reference to a book about the effects of fat on the human heart from an article on McDonalds because it doesn’t directly refer to a Big Mac? I could go on listing the absurdities in what you have written but as I said. I won’t be wasting any more of my time.

It is a shame that Wikipedia which could be something very special is reduced to a mockery by people acting as you have done on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.127.147 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorthand page

Hello Ash,

On the Shorthand page, I changed 'List of Shorthand Systems' to 'Incomplete List of Shorthand Systems' because not all shorthand systems were there. I acknowledge that just about all lists are incomplete, but, what particular concerns me is that you seem to have recently deleted a system called 'HandyWrite' for no obvious reason. I would really like to know why you deleted this one. I believe its theory is set out on the Net.

You also changed the title to 'Widespread Shorthand Systems'. You have got to be kidding. Some of the systems appear to have been lost and forgotten about centuries ago. One I looked up was from the eighteenth century and the book was handwritten with funny spelling.

Don't get me wrong, I, and I hope plenty of other people, are really interested in shorthand, and these quaint old books are quite worth seeing.

But I have the feeling that the title 'Widespread Shorthand Systems' is going to narrow the field even more. I don't think that is what Wikipedia needs. If you change it back to 'List of Shorthand Systems', I will not be inclined to change it.

Thanks,

Cassyjanek Cassyjanek (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The list has been trimmed for shorthand systems where there appears to be no reasonable published source demonstrating notability. You are factually incorrect when you say "no obvious reason" for removal as "HandyWrite" was specifically noted as being removed on the article talk page with the reason given. Any list on wikipedia is assumed to be for 'notable' items (see WP:SAL) but I'll change it to notable to avoid any confusion in this case.—Ash (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ash,

Thanks, yes, I didn't look at the discussion page. It takes a while to get used to how Wikipedia works. I saw in the 'History' that there was no reason given for why Handywrite was removed, so I assumed that no explanation had been given.

Cassyjanek (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of template recycling

Hi,

I have put your template up for speed deletion, however you might want to put hangon as it appaeres someone vandlised your perfectly fine template and i was unaware of that until i was lookign at he history as i only notice the probkem when look at the main article of recycling--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy was probably a bit hasty; I've reverted to an earlier version.—Ash (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Until i realised it was not a vandlism page jsut been created i thought speedy was good enough as it fulfilled the requirement under g3, but then i noticed it trying to leave youa message but i knew the person who made it before was not you so i looked at the history and realised that someone had just vandlism yoru template, so i left you message becaus ei made a mistake sorry abotu that--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

3O

Hi Ash. I remember you basically spearheading the 3O template and FAQ, and the great job you did on that. Another issue has come up, and I was wondering if you could stop by and give your opinion. (Ha, the irony of giving a 3O on the 3O project!) The discussion is over at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#User:RicoCorinth. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. The issue has been resolved, more or less. Thanks anyway. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library#RFC: Link to itilcommunity.com

Hi,

I found your request at WP:EAR whilst archiving and have respondede there and here. Apologies for the delay. In my opinion that should have been closed as non consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, on this occasion though there was some post-RFC discussion on the talk page, no complaint has been pursued. I have not re-opened the debate (it would be for a third time) but will keep an eye on the topic.—Ash (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Image:MRP2.jpg

Hi,

I refer to your suggestion here after:

"The previous nomination stated: It has not been made clear if the up-loader has confirmed their status as the author of the original book this image was scanned from, or that permission has been granted from the publisher, John Wiley & Sons, for the content of a book under copyright to be waived. In this case the diagram could be fairly easily redrawn without needing to copy from a book and is therefore not essential or unique for the article in question. —Ash (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)"

I am the author of this picture, as the author of the book published by John Wiley and Sons 15 years ago, and with the right of my editor, I've upload this (e.g. my own picture) -with the adequate rights I thought- here. So instead simply and radically delete this picture please re-evaluate your assessment considering my personal authorisation as author. FYI, John Woiley is currently still my publisher for additinal books I've wrote. Please let me know (if you need my personal address or additional emails from the editor just let me know using my email). About the proposal of removing the mention relating to the book, we both (the editor and myself) prefer keeping it, considering some past bad experience of being too often reused without any mention to the genuine source.

regards --Jbw2 (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the reply at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ash#Image:MRP2.jpg —Ash (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

the required email has been sent. Regards. --Jbw2 (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Tucker

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shangra-la Mission

I agree with you that this should be deleted, but if you start removing other people's comments from the discussion you'll end up losing the moral high ground, and deflecting the discussion into bevavioural issues rather than concentrating on the unsuitability of the subject for an encyclopedia article. If people make irrelevant comments then it's best to just leave them in place so that the closing administrator can judge who is basing their arguments on policy and guidelines and who is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is fine, and you could revert my edit on the basis of your opinion if you wish to and we can discuss it, particularly in relation to the WP guidance that I referenced to back up my actions. However in this case you stated "It is not acceptable for a deletion nominator to remove comments from an AfD discussion." which implies that there is some other Wikipedia guidance to back up your opinion. If no such guidance exists, perhaps you could mention that fact in the AfD to clarify that my actions were actually within the accepted practices of WP:DEL. If you feel your opinion ought to become policy then perhaps you could take this up on WT:DEL.—Ash (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't let's get antagonistic about this, as we agree about the underlying principle with this AfD. I just don't see how your removal of these comments can be helpful to the aim of the AfD discussion of reaching a consensus. The comments that you removed didn't have any basis in policy or guidelines related to deletion, but they didn't contain any personal attacks, potentially libellous information, or copyright violations, which are the only reasons that I can think of to justify their removal. And no, I haven't looked up the wording of every policy or guideline about this, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but you seem to be quoting guidelines about article talk pages rather than about deletion discussions. I can't see how removing these comments benefits anyone, whether people who want to keep the article, those who want to delete it, the administrator who closes the discussion or, most importantly, readers who come to Wikipedia to look for information. If this article is going to be deleted (as I think it should) then let's do it after an open discussion so that nobody can complain that the procedure followed was unfair and get the decision overturned. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, by using the words "not acceptable" you put me on the defensive and when I ask you for clarification your reversion of my edits comes down to your opinion. An AfD is a talk page and the same principles apply including WP:NOTFORUM. If you are not prepared to clarify your statement I suggest we leave it at that, just don't expect me to be happy about it, considering you have made it appear in the AfD that I have broken some Wikipedia guideline when it boils down to your personal opinion.—Ash (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this AfD, are you planning, or considering, a check-user on the multiple socks (or potential socks) participating in the discussion? I am not sure if it is really necessary, as the article will almost definitely be deleted, but it might be good for future reference. Given the way this crowd operates, I find it likely the article will be recreated. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, done. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IAMBeing. Blocks now in place.—Ash (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, damn! Good show, old man! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Business continuity planning

can you explain to me why adding the site http://www.continuitycompliance.org to the Business continuity planning page is seen as advertising? this site sells nothing? just a resourceful site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javen.Jordan (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure; the site you added has no official affiliation or recognition by any authority in the subjects covered by the articles where it was introduced, it does not make any claim for such recognition either. At best the site is a forum as it contains posts or articles that are user submitted and not published elsewhere (as explained in the site FAQ). It does not appear to be owned by any registered company (checking the whois records and company register, the organization name on the public registry appears to be made up). As a forum it fails to meet WP:ELNO#10 and cannot constitute a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. Consequently such a link should be removed and repeated posting of it would be considered spamming. Note, the site may not sell anything directly but as explained in its own FAQ they create income through advertising as do many other commercial websites.—Ash (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I put the wrong link up.....this is the link i wanted to put up. Its a free Business Impact Analysis Calculator. here is the link. Let me know what you think http://www.continuitycompliance.org/tools-resources/community-projects/business-impact-analysis/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javen.Jordan (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The general principle of WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies, unless this calculator is uniquely worthy of mention in the body of the article (because it is authoritative, such as a government sponsored scheme, like CRAMM) then there are many such tools on the internet. A link to a directory of such tools (as you might find on the Open Directory Project, ODP - http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Management/Software/Risk_Management/ for example) would be a suitable link but there is no particular rationale to link to this one.—Ash (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your speedy nomination of Wikipedia:Cluocracy

I have declined the speedy. Please take some time to read through WP:CSD and what constitutes WP:Patent nonsense before tagging any more articles. I can see from other conversations on your talk page that you are rather keen on pointing out policy and process to others so this should not be any hardship. Nancy ^talk 13:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I had thought this a fairly easy deletion, and though I had re-checked the guidance it probably falls under neologism. I'll raise for discussion rather than speedy delete on that basis. As for your interpretation on my keenness for policy, I'll consider your feedback as perhaps I might be better off just stating my opinion without attempting to justify it.—Ash (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ayaan Ali Khan and Amaan Ali Khan

There you go, I created new better pages. Hekerui (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

At a glance they look much improved compared to the original fansite type article they used to be.—Ash (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

realy...

have you read Peter Mandelson's new approach to copyright law hm... and if it passes and you live in the uk you can say good by to Wikipedia because it has snipits from other sites which his law will make illegal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.126.85 (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

btw

isn't Wikipedia ment to be al about freedom of speech well i don't think you keep to that ow ye btw every time you take a edit down it will be put back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.126.85 (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits at List of male performers in gay porn films

I'm not sure why you are formatting references at List of male performers in gay porn films rather than in the linked articles where the references belong, but perhaps you could take the time to check the references you are editing. For example, in this edit you populated a reference to a gay porn site that requires login, and a dead link. Have you read this discussion at the BLP noticeboard? I doubt the AfD will result in a delete, but the list will may end up somewhat different, so your time may be better spent working on individual performer articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This was a quick cross referencing to existing footnotes for the list to be in better compliance with WP:LSC. Where there is likely dispute about inclusion, a cross-reference to an internal WP page is not considered a substitute for including the reliable source reference against the list item. An alternative way of doing this would be using document anchors but many folks find that confusing.

As for dead links, I avoid removing them as a rule as someone may replace with an archive version... like this one:http://web.archive.org/web/20080206164922/http://www.xxfactor.com/hotornot.html; perhaps I'll add this in a moment.

As for login, the Lucas site prompts for a login but you don't have to create an account to see the information.—Ash (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, considering your recent edit history you appear to be on a deletionist campaign against creating gay porn related articles. Perhaps your note on my talk page was intended to warn me off?—Ash (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I would very much appreciate someone with a knowledge of and interest in gay porn performers to improve the articles. They have been ignored for far too long. I have nominated unsourced BLPs for deletion as I have come across them. If you take a look at WP:PORN you will see that articles on porn performers regularly get deleted either due to BLP issues or simple lack of notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I'm over-interpreting based on a couple of samples and seeing things that aren't there. :) Ash (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brad Hunt

Can't the deletion discussion then be stopped? Seeing as how my original article was about the mainstream actor and not the porn actor... Or does it have to go on? -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If the nomination was raised in error then this should happen naturally, a note on the nominator's talk page asking them to confirm this is the case might help. Ah, just noticed this has already happened...—Ash (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brad Hunt (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Brad Hunt (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD <G8>

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List of hoaxes

The assertion that Thierry Henry is an ¨alleged sportsman¨ under List of Hoaxes may be difficult to reconcile with Wikipedias´ policies but I am confused why you are determined that Johnathan Swift is British and not Irish; an error which I corrected on the same page and has now been returned to the original innacuracy. Swifts´ place of birth is in Dublin City, his education was in Ireland and his ancestors on his fathers´ side were Irish born for generations. Please correct this error as soon as possible.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.25.161 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative on this issue. Please do not meddle anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.25.161 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

When reverting vandalism there is no obligation to pick through the vandalism to find good bits. A policy of Curate's egg applies, see WP:CUV for the guidance that covers my actions when cleaning up your vandalism. If you intend to make positive contributions in the future, I recommend you set up an account.—Ash (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnathan Swift was referred to as British; he was Irish not British; I corrected this and you reverted it to the inaccurate original. I don´t understand how my actions on this matter constitute vandalism. I changed something that was false to something that was true. To claim that I ¨vandalised¨ other content and then use that as a justification to invalidate my correction of falsehoods is a bizarre form of protecting the truth.

Your actual edit was more than that one word change, see (diff). It was straightforward vandalism to add "Thierry Henry, Alleged sportsman". My earlier statement applies. If you vandalize Wikipedia you should expect your edits to be reverted, if you persist then you will be blocked from editing.—Ash (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Does your reccomendation that I set up an account if I wish to make ¨positive contributions in the future¨ imply that truth is limited to those who hold accounts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.25.161 (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The benefits are explained at WP:WHY.—Ash (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not destroyed or damaged anything but merely added a comment which was easily removed. Words have meanings Ash. None of this offers a reasonable explanation as to why you incorrectly reverted my correction of Johnathan Swifts´ nationality. If you don´t have a justification you could admit as much.

This is just getting silly now. Swift would never handle the ball in the box, far too principled for that, yet it´s ok to refer to him as British. Henry is a cunt, no two ways about it, but it´s not acceptable to mention this the most obvious aspect of his character. Lets just agree Thierry Henry is a cunt, update his profile accordingly and let that be the end of it. Everybody will be happier and future generations will applaud our candor. Say it after me: Thierry Henry is a _____!

I do not appreciate swearing on my talk page. Go away.—Ash (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha, and indeed ha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.25.161 (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Template 3OR suggestion

Thank you for the fine work on the 3O FAQ and templates. Can I suggest one more parameter for the 3OR template? (I'm not conversant enough with the conditional coding to put it in myself.)

{{subst:3OR | <text of opinion requested> | <response> | d=<anything> | n=<anything>}}

Setting n would add, just before the signature:

<br><br>Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.

Thanks again. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. I'll consider adding a wiki-link to the FAQ in the optional disclaimer text as extra optional closing text might seem a bit over the top. Cheers —Ash (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Francis Villain

How about we suggest this one go to WP:Incubator? I simply do not have the language skills to search for or translate French sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, never used the incubator before but it seems like a reasonable way of getting the article improved.—Ash (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Helena Blavatsky

What led you to believe that this source wan't used? See Ref #6. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

An oversight; must be tired - time for bed! —Ash (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

List of hoaxes again

You will be aware of the page I'm drafting on Broom Hill Park, Ipswich. Another building which backs onto the park is Westbourne Library. Doing a search for the latter's history I found a pic of it on Flickr which led me to this highly amusing webpage, The author has a Flickr set along the same lines. Do add it as a link, or new article, to List of Hoaxes.--Lidos (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The website belongs to a UK Individual and there are no independent sources quoted for this to be a well known hoax. As the website fails WP:SPS, I'm not sure that it would stick to the List of Hoaxes article due to a lack of supporting sources.—Ash (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I only found Ipswich Evening Star: 24.9.07 which the author himself uploaded.--Lidos (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion#FAQ_addition. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Category:Roman codices

Due to technical limitations, categories can not be moved like normal pages. Please make a request here, and if it qualifies to be moved, a bot will take care of it. Thank you, MrKIA11 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, in this case I'll probably add a {{db-c1}} in a few days.—Ash (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

A minor note about "Reverted 2 edits by Canadiansteve identified as vandalism to last revision by Peripitus." Good faith inclusion of that image isn't vandalism: it is a picture of a robot, after all. He's got a COI and it could be argued that the pic is promotional and unnecessary for the article Robot, but you could have just rolled back the edit or undone it without tagging it as vandalism. Fences&Windows 18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be assuming that this editor added the image for the first time. This was a roll-back of another editor's removal of the image on the basis that it was not a suitable free image after prior warnings and explanations of why this was not suitable on his talk page. Given the background of his talk page, the edit history of the page being edited and the history of the non-free images this user is promoting, this cannot be considered an edit in good faith.—Ash (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

I'll be testing out a cheap laptop mobile USB HSDPA modem from O2 but there is no guarantee that I'll get a good connection as the self-published reception maps are notoriously unreliable... yeah, I haven't joined the iPhone generation as I'm too tight to pay £30/month for a poor mobile service.—Ash (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ash, if you've a connection could you wikify Sally's recent addition to the Broomhill Lido article, please? Am back home, but using iPod Touch so not ideal editor!! Otherwise it can easily wait until you are home. Will be in touch.--Lidos (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Made a couple of tweaks to the article, just now, while on the train home. The HSDPA connector is a bit of a misnomer as such connections are rarely available. Most of the week I have managed to get a weak GPRS connection (annoyingly slow but at least it worked and I could check email). However I'll keep the gadget as I am impressed by the way connection is made from the train as it swaps from GPRS to 3G connections seamlessly (the led changing from green to blue) and even though it is getting no connection in some places, this does not force the browser to disconnect. It was £7.50 for 7 days connection, worth it for amusement on the 5 hour train journey and access to news, train bulletins, email etc throughout the week.—Ash (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

External links deleted

Hey Ash,

I just noticed that a few of my external link additions have been deleted. Because I don't want to violate any of Wikipedia's guidelines, and because I am not a spammer, I would like to inquire as to why these links have been deleted - as they contribute unique, original and valuable information to each article.

If this is not the case, I apologize and will not add any more links.

Here are a few of the deletions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ariel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_City

Thanks for your help - the reason I didn't respond sooner was because the Wikipedia messaging system is not what you would call the most effective messaging system in the world and didn't see ANY of the messages until just now.

Thanks,

Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by CityNY (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By adding links to cityrealty.com across multiple articles your actions are exactly those of a spammer promoting this site. The link fails WP:ELNO #5 and as your contributions have been to do little but promote this site since you created your account you may find the guidance of WP:COI helpful in case you are affiliated with Real Estate On-Line.—Ash (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)