Line 496: | Line 496: | ||
:This was not appropriate. Within hours of saying you were waiting for other comments on the list talk page, you have resorted to complaining about me in an ANI. Nothing you have raised in the ANI requires an admin to intervene. Your action appears an obvious attempt to stir up drama and try to block me from creating articles that meet the PORNBIO requirements you were demanding. You have done nothing constructive to resolve these issues. You are on a mission, go away and do something else rather than harass me. [[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash#top|talk]]) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC) |
:This was not appropriate. Within hours of saying you were waiting for other comments on the list talk page, you have resorted to complaining about me in an ANI. Nothing you have raised in the ANI requires an admin to intervene. Your action appears an obvious attempt to stir up drama and try to block me from creating articles that meet the PORNBIO requirements you were demanding. You have done nothing constructive to resolve these issues. You are on a mission, go away and do something else rather than harass me. [[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash#top|talk]]) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Porn bio is currently disputed and I also talked to you about the articles you were creating, there are issues with your creating stubs specifically as a reason to re add them to a ''list'' and it seems I am not the only editor to raise this questions, do you not think it would be better to move to discussion? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC) |
::Porn bio is currently disputed and I also talked to you about the articles you were creating, there are issues with your creating stubs specifically as a reason to re add them to a ''list'' and it seems I am not the only editor to raise this questions, do you not think it would be better to move to discussion? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 23:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::As far as I am aware, PORNBIO, is not disputed. I suggested a clarification in wording on the notability talk page, you raised an issue but dropped it for the time being. As I have said several times, if there was a problem with any specific article I have created, then the specific article could be addressed. DC, has suggested several "special" rules that there has been no consensus on and there appears to be little support for. It would be a very odd situation if editing on Wikipedia was supposed to stop every time someone started discussing the guidelines. If you want me to halt creating any further articles (possibly halting all creation of pornography related articles for an indefinite period) whilst DC continues to make various new objections (as s/he has done for several months now) then I suggest an RfC is raised on the list talk page to make consensus clear. To my eyes, this would look an awful lot like censorship by the back door. If you wish to discuss further then discuss the matter there rather than on my personal user talk page. [[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash#top|talk]]) 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::As far as I am aware, PORNBIO, is not disputed. I suggested a clarification in wording on the notability talk page, you raised an issue but dropped it for the time being. As I have said several times, if there was a problem with any specific article I have created, then the specific article could be addressed. DC, has suggested several "special" rules that there has been no consensus on and there appears to be little support for. It would be a very odd situation if editing on Wikipedia was supposed to stop every time someone started discussing the guidelines. If you want me to halt creating any further articles (possibly halting all creation of pornography related articles for an indefinite period) whilst DC continues to make various new objections (as s/he has done for several months now) then I suggest an RfC is raised on the list talk page to make consensus for a topic block clear. To my eyes, this would look an awful lot like censorship by the back door. If you wish to discuss further then discuss the matter there rather than on my personal user talk page. [[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash#top|talk]]) 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:11, 23 February 2010
Ash's Talk Page
| ||
Monday 17 June 2024 | Archives |
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)
TL;DR
Just in passing, I saw a comment on WP:ANI where you didn't know what TL;DR meant and since nobody seems to have answered that- it stands for "Too Long; Didn't Read". MorganaFiolett (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Binarygal
Let's keep the wikidrama down and not respond to any more of her personal attacks. She hasn't been able to substantiate why the external links should be kept, and so therefore we are keeping those links out of the article. But I think we should just archive the talk page now. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, though I suggest that at least 7 days of no contributions to the sub-topics to be archived (i.e. those which are considered off-topic) should pass before moving them.
- Note that there is a 10 month history to consider, as Binarygal has not made any contribution to the ITIL article (or any other article) since May 2009 (apart from a revert of my edit) then offering to stop editing apart from the talk page is not any real progress. I have no intention of keeping Binarygal going unnecessarily but I also see no indication that Binarygal will not attack myself and other editors in the future <side issue!> or does not already do this under the guise of other accounts (there is no clear evidence for this but a pattern of someone using anonymous IPs and SPA accounts is in the talk history, particularly for the RfCs raised)</side issue!>. With the most recent contributions making direct allegations of an anti-competitive cartel in operation and fairly direct threats of outing, Binarygal is in breach of the guidance of WP:OUTING and WP:NLT. I believe an indefinite block would have been a better option, until Binarygal made a clear statement to stop such behaviour and start making positive contributions. It is unfortunate that this type of extreme passive-aggressive behaviour where someone makes attacks and then plays the victim is tricky to deal with on Wikipedia as we tend to protect fringe views and give a perceived underdog the benefit of the doubt in most cases. Consequently is has been easier for people to assume that I must be a protagonist here or at lease equally culpable rather than basing views only on the evidence provided. Anyway this is the reason that I've raised a third ANI but have a low expectation as to whether any positive action will be taken.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I note that Binarygal has repeated the cartel allegation in the ANI.—Ash (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Look, seriously, they thrive on drama. Unless they cause problems on articles, I'm not going to respond to their ridiculous conspiracy theories. I doubt they have anything at all on you... I would really just ignore them. Based on her behaviour, either she is mentally unbalanced, or they are a troll. Just let them go for a while, another admin will eventually get thoroughly sick of her if she continues down her path. Don't buy into her drama, just bow out gracefully now from the conversations. Anything else is just causing unnecessary drama. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have archived Talk:ITIL to stop the wikidrama, I've also archived your thread for the same reason. I doubt they have anything on you, it's pretty easy to tell you changed your username, I wouldn't respond to this sort of stupidity. If they do out you, rest assured that the edits can be removed from the history entirely - we can also ensure that a block occurs. But I doubt anything will happen. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, seriously, let's stop the wikidrama... we really need to shut down this kaffufle sooner rather than later. Let's not fuel the flames any further? I have archived the section to stop this all from occuring. I also think that NLT is really a stretching a long bow - the only offense of Binarygal is an insistence that there are conspiracies and a tendency to make too many personal comments. She hasn't made a legal threat at all, believe me. That is not what is happening here! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please undo your change to the ANI. I recognize your good intentions but I asked for an independent judgement and you are over-riding my opinion unilaterally.—Ash (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest filing an RFC, or perhaps an ArbCom request for investigation. ANI is really not the first port of call for this sort of thing. Also, so you are aware, when you say that you want her to stop personal attacks on "other editors" you are also speaking on my behalf, because I am apparently part of the conspiracy against Binarygal and "Open ITIL" (whatever that is!). It's all very silly really. Let's just let the drama die down of its own accord. Binarygal may well be able to contribute some material, her interest is in ITIL. I would welcome constructive contribution from her (and yourself, of course). - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, however I see nothing unreasonable with asking for someone not involved (and particularly not directly accused on the talk page) to close this ANI. Please undo your resolved classification and summary.—Ash (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, I'm not going to. If you reopen it, an admin will close it. Like I say, take it to RFC or ArbCom, I'm not going to contribute to any more of the drama around this area! Neither should you. Come on, you are a reasonable guy. Let's just leave it be now? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you believe another admin will close it then why not let them? I do not understand why you think it is okay to assume all admins would agree with your opinion. I am not asking you to contribute to wikidrama, only to let the normal ANI process work and have faith in that process. I am asking you for a final time to undo your edit as I believe your edits constitute a disruption of the dispute resolution process.—Ash (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, I'm not going to. If you reopen it, an admin will close it. Like I say, take it to RFC or ArbCom, I'm not going to contribute to any more of the drama around this area! Neither should you. Come on, you are a reasonable guy. Let's just leave it be now? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, however I see nothing unreasonable with asking for someone not involved (and particularly not directly accused on the talk page) to close this ANI. Please undo your resolved classification and summary.—Ash (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest filing an RFC, or perhaps an ArbCom request for investigation. ANI is really not the first port of call for this sort of thing. Also, so you are aware, when you say that you want her to stop personal attacks on "other editors" you are also speaking on my behalf, because I am apparently part of the conspiracy against Binarygal and "Open ITIL" (whatever that is!). It's all very silly really. Let's just let the drama die down of its own accord. Binarygal may well be able to contribute some material, her interest is in ITIL. I would welcome constructive contribution from her (and yourself, of course). - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please undo your change to the ANI. I recognize your good intentions but I asked for an independent judgement and you are over-riding my opinion unilaterally.—Ash (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, seriously, let's stop the wikidrama... we really need to shut down this kaffufle sooner rather than later. Let's not fuel the flames any further? I have archived the section to stop this all from occuring. I also think that NLT is really a stretching a long bow - the only offense of Binarygal is an insistence that there are conspiracies and a tendency to make too many personal comments. She hasn't made a legal threat at all, believe me. That is not what is happening here! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have archived Talk:ITIL to stop the wikidrama, I've also archived your thread for the same reason. I doubt they have anything on you, it's pretty easy to tell you changed your username, I wouldn't respond to this sort of stupidity. If they do out you, rest assured that the edits can be removed from the history entirely - we can also ensure that a block occurs. But I doubt anything will happen. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Look, seriously, they thrive on drama. Unless they cause problems on articles, I'm not going to respond to their ridiculous conspiracy theories. I doubt they have anything at all on you... I would really just ignore them. Based on her behaviour, either she is mentally unbalanced, or they are a troll. Just let them go for a while, another admin will eventually get thoroughly sick of her if she continues down her path. Don't buy into her drama, just bow out gracefully now from the conversations. Anything else is just causing unnecessary drama. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I note that Binarygal has repeated the cartel allegation in the ANI.—Ash (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I have taken you at your word and so reversed your edit myself and explained why on the ANI. If you have further reasons to object to this, please explain why on the ANI.—Ash (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean by that, I told you I wouldn't reverse it. As I said, another admin came by fairly quickly and immediately closed out that conversation. Probably best not to contribute to the drama any more Ash! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The closure was independent, that was what I was looking for. You seem overly concerned to force your opinion on others, archiving the complete content of the ITIL talk page with no prior discussion is another example. I am certain you have the best of motives but I believe you could do more to ensure your actions are demonstrably supported by consensus rather than assuming that your opinion always represents consensus.—Ash (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. The closing admin closed for precisely the same reason I did, and as they were uninvolved they had even less consensus than I did. I stand by what I've done, as it has stopped all the drama. I most definitely run with consensus, except that this was clearly getting out of hand and needed to be stopped. Which is what I did, and quite effectively too I might say. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- The closure was independent, that was what I was looking for. You seem overly concerned to force your opinion on others, archiving the complete content of the ITIL talk page with no prior discussion is another example. I am certain you have the best of motives but I believe you could do more to ensure your actions are demonstrably supported by consensus rather than assuming that your opinion always represents consensus.—Ash (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles for Deletion, a request.
Hi. I saw you're active on the Articles for Deletion page, so could you please guide me there? I found a hoax, so I used a hoax template, but now I think there should be a discussion on it, because the problem is not only with this one article but with the all few dozens articles on Trubetskoy family, but I don't how to propose new article for deletion. Thank you in advance. --W Goslar (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you raise a request on the Wikipedia:Editor assistance page for the article in question rather than attempting to raise this for deletion yourself. It would be quite unusual for a relatively new editor to do this successfully.—Ash (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I expected your answer on my talk page, so I missed what you wrote and did everything by myself ;-) But seems I did it well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nester Trubecki. Anyway thank you for help. --W Goslar (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al McClellan
I left some comments and a "weak keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al McClellan. Nobody else has commented there yet. - Eastmain (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Paranormal AfDs
Could you bundle them to avoid editors have to !vote several times? Fences&Windows 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
A question
Hi Ash. I don't mean to be a pill, but in your nomination of Web Cam 3D you included a link to WP:MEDIA... sending me to a disambig page that had nothing to do with film notability. With respects, did you intend WP:NF or WP:NFF? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, actually from there you can navigate to Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Films, but your ref to NF seems more specific so I'll change the link.—Ash (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I had noticed that too... but figured it might be best to navigate directly to films rather than media. Changing a nom's comments is for the nom to do, so I came here. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Aliens
I have to say that the pictures and captions you added to Talk:List of alleged alien beings#RfC on pictures made me laugh! Very droll, Ash :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Old thread
As the AFD hadn't been closed, and the two of you were calling each other names, I think that my comments are pretty mild really. I only fixed some indenting, incidentally. Not a big deal in my view, I would certainly never tell another editor not to refactor a talk page for fixing indentation issues - why do you feel that this is an issue large enough for my talk page? Please comment on my talk page as you initiated this conversation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Alexander the Great
I do not think you have assumed good faith as you state in your User Page in this instance. This podcast you deleted is a one hour discussion by three bone fide historians on Alexander the Great. It is not a simple link to an authors' website. In addition, you deleted it in such a way as I now have to reconstruct the link. Why do you not at least listen to the debate before you delete it? I do not see any other contribution you have made to this website. It appears that you were just "passing through" and decided to delete it without any good faith investigation. I think a link to a discussion by top historians is at least as interesting as a link to an art exhibit. I respectfully ask you to reconsider. Mugginsx (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I take your point,as you stated on the discussion page of this article, though I still respectfully disagree. It is a productive and detailed podcast and it does, in my opinion, represent some differing opinions not represented in the main article. If, as I think you were suggesting, I were to add the "links" to all of the historians involved, that would add only more external links. Is that not one of the things you are trying to avoid, or have I misunderstood? I would again ask you to listen to the podcast before you take such drastic action. Thank you.
- Replied on article talk page. As for "passing through" I have actually contributed to this article in the past, either way, assuming a lack of good faith and making comments to that effect is rarely well received or a convincing argument... Ash (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have deferred to yours and Antipastor's opinion. Antipastor's objection had some merit, but yours was based on a quick judgment which was your personal opinion. It might have been better received by me if you have stated you had at least listened to the debate instead of just the "description of the debate" before deciding it was unworthy. As to the good faith comment, I did not say that you do not assume good faith elsewhere, just in this instance. If you have made prior contributions to the Alexander the Great website, I did not see them; nevertheless, I would apologize for that "passing through" comment. Mugginsx (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replied on article talk page. As for "passing through" I have actually contributed to this article in the past, either way, assuming a lack of good faith and making comments to that effect is rarely well received or a convincing argument... Ash (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
{{aan}} changes
Hi,
This doesn't look to be widely deployed right now, so I didn't see the harm in making changes which shouldn't have had an adverse affect on deployed code. Can you describe what wasn't working with the new version? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you are counting widely deployed. It is deployed in many pages as shown with whatlinkshere. I noticed that the template page itself was not displaying correctly, including an expression error warning, and you intended change formatting and remove some of the parameter options without discussion, such changes would have to be suitably propagated where the template is currently used.—Ash (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- So here's the discussion. Pages are misusing the "type" attribute to present this template as a "content" tmbox, which it isn't. There should be no need to override the "type" attribute. I've fixed the mistaken use of this parameter in various auto archivers where it was producing bad results, but removing it from the template code itself is the best way to fix them all at once. The big red error message was present in the old code; it was simply hidden behind an includeonly so that it wouldn't appear under the template page. As you wrote the template, you're probably the best person to properly fix that, but the old hack can easily be re-added. And as far as deployment goes, less than 500 transclusions on a template like this is really pretty low; limit it to the talk and Wikipedia talk namespaces (to avoid all the links which are part of the template logic itself) and there are less than a hundred transclusions. I don't particularly see the need to have yet another archive banner anyway, but for the time being it's best that it visually mirrors the other ones (indeed, this one may be a suitable replacement for {{talkarchivenav}} in the long run, as it has neater auto-detection). Any other thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replying on Template talk:Aan for future convenience.—Ash (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
CSD tag
Hi Ash, I've just deleted one of your CSD tags as {{G4}} rather than {{G1}}, G1 is really for "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes ..... fictional material" But the main reason I popped by was to point out that the prod message you had previously left on User talk:Deadace for that article gave Fantasy cruft as the deletion reason. As this was that users first ever edit I feel that might have been just a little abrupt, overly frank and jargonlike. May I suggest a slightly different tone? ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree - I changed the PROD to an untitled g1 shortly afterwards as I had the same thoughts, though I missed going to the user page and deleting the PROD alert. —Ash (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Clifford Brody
Hi Ash, I have made changes to the page Clifford Brody per your suggestions by removing the section that was not considered to be journalistic. Do you have any other ideas of how this page can be improved and not deleted? Your expert opinion is much appreciated! Thanks MeS2135. —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC).
- I suggest that it may be easier to concentrate on adding information to Banker's Academy. If notability in new independent sources cannot be demonstrated for Brody then it seems legitimate to add information on key individuals on the organization page so long as the sources at least establish Brody as a key figure. You may also wish to keep a draft copy of the current Brody article in your sandbox, if it is deleted then you can continue to work and improve on the article until you believe WP:PEOPLE has been satisfied. Ash (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help! I appreciate your insight and suggestions for improvements. Although I am the author of this page, I am not the person about whom the article Clifford G. Brody is written and can assure you that I was not attempting to use wiki as a promotional tool, but am simply new to wikipedia. However, I understand the reasons for your edits and will continue to make changes to improve the article per your suggestions. Thanks again. Mes2135 comment added 11:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC).
Eisenhower Jacket
Hi Ash, I noticed a few days ago SRELY&P, the author of the article on the Gekko shirt, had spammed Eisenhower jacket, attributing its creation to an obscure tailor. I edited the article and referenced another tailor. As you can see on the talk page of the article, he took it very agressively, threatened action against Wikipedia and blanked almost all the article. I am hesitating: on one side, the article was wacky; on the other, it is not fair to revenge in this manner. Is it more appropriate to request deletion of the article for copyvio or to revert his blanking? Thanks in advance, Racconish (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's best to hold off interfering with the article as this falls under WP:NLT. Let the guy make his threats or deletions; I'll raise the matter for WP:ANI in a moment (as the guidance recommends) and let someone uninvolved investigate. Ash (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_about_a_jacket. Ash (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to have concluded with blocks on these accounts, I suggest you edit as you see fit but disregard any text pasted by SRELY&P that may be available in the edit history just to be cautious. Ash (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why you deleted BSMreview.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_service_management - The external link goes to a vendor neutral site - with articles and insights from the leading experts in Business Service Management (BSM) - in fact, some of the experts on the site were involved in creating the very term itself. It is the leading site in this field, albeit it is fairly new. I hope you reconsider your deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.59.16.3 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- The site is has no official affiliations or authority. WP:DIRECTORY applies. This is the second time you have added the link to the same article, please discuss on the article talk page if you want to gain a consensus on the validity and relevance of this site for the article. Ash (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ash, where do I find the article talk page? I would like to submit this site for consideration. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.59.16.3 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Click the "talk" tab on the top of the article, or go to Talk:Business service management. You may want to check through WP:TALK if this is your first time. Ash (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
External Link for ITSMPA.Org on the ITSM Subject page
Hello,
I would like to address your comments and denial of the submission of the external Link for ITSMPA.Org.
You made reference to the fact that this link was intending to defraud users with the intent to drive up traffic or sell a product – This could not be further from the truth – IT Service Management Professional Association is a not for profit association made of Industry Standard ITSM Professionals. The association is dedicated to promoting and advancing Service Management through education, research, peer networking, community involvement, and application of methodologies for the benefit of all businesses who aspire to drive efficiencies through the rigors of applied SM process and practices.
The Content is user generated an mediated by their peers – Joining this group is free.
Please help me understand how we can bring this important information to those who are seeing it through searching in Wiki’s without violating the policies –
Thank you
Mark Storace Founder IT Service Management Professionals Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storace (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- My comment on the talk page was "It is not an officially recognized organization and was created in 2008" (you may be confusing my comment with a separate section on www.sm-s.org). Wikipedia has the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy in order to ensure articles do not become indexes of interesting websites. If the site had unique or historic importance to the topic of ITSM, such as being a key player in international development of associated standards, or official recognition by national governments, then there may be a case for considering the link would be in compliance with WP:EL. In this case the site appears to not have any such rationale. To help you out I shall raise a general request for comments on the article talk page, but the link itself should stay removed until a consensus is reached.—Ash (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Raised under Talk:IT service management#RfC Should ITSMPA.org be included as a valid external link?. Note that RFCs normally run for 30 days unless there is an overwhelming consensus on one side or the other. Ash (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Mr gay uk non notable winnners
Hello,
i have added an edit to the mr gay uk page - i am awaiting Mark Hawkins of gayuk to update there own site - i represented leicester place in 1998. my modeling work was with prowlermedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuellee (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I will respond on talk:Mr Gay UK where I shall move the text under discussion. Ash (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry if I sounded snappy. I thought you'd misread my comment as "keep, has a blog at HP!" and felt I had to respond. Will strike out the comment. Holly25 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Edits at Steve Shnider
I appreciate your interest in this page, but I don't understand the rationale behind replacing a reference to the final published version of a scientific article, by a preliminary version on the arxiv (which is certainly no guarantee of publication, particularly in a journal of the caliber of Duke Math J.). Tkuvho (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please go ahead and revert it, I was under the impression that the arXiv ref was as good as a DOI.—Ash (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. As far as the notability issue, I really don't see any need for third opinions. I can't find the page with the guidelines right now, but any math admin should be able to locate it. Tkuvho (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I realized I have no idea how to do this without losing your link to the arxiv version (which may be more readily accessible to some users). Perhaps you could restore the journal citation? Tkuvho (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Went back to using standard {{citation}} format using WorldCat data and the arXiv link as the url parameter.—Ash (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Notes_and_examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkuvho (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Went back to using standard {{citation}} format using WorldCat data and the arXiv link as the url parameter.—Ash (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I realized I have no idea how to do this without losing your link to the arxiv version (which may be more readily accessible to some users). Perhaps you could restore the journal citation? Tkuvho (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. As far as the notability issue, I really don't see any need for third opinions. I can't find the page with the guidelines right now, but any math admin should be able to locate it. Tkuvho (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Citations
It seems to me as though most of the citations you have added to Kip Noll, Chris Stone and Lee Ryder don't actually support the text. Is this true or are you seeing a different preview to me on Google Books? Epbr123 (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed that they are mostly mentions of the porn stars in question, however they do establish these actors as well known, along with a few facts (such as demonstrating their impact in the field of pornographic acting; that's how I'd interpret being called a porn "superstar" in reliable sources). These 3 pornstars were instantly recognizable names to me and a few references were found after a moment's searching on Google Books, so a PROD seems inappropriate if notability is in question. Generally there is a issue with PORNBIO as any actor appearing in earlier porn films (i.e. before 1995) will be poorly represented in on-line sources and the fact that these three examples were actually well represented on the covers of gay magazines at the time would seem to satisfy GNG but we would struggle to argue that PORNBIO is met.—Ash (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- If the citations don't actually support the text, you need to remove them. At the moment, they are giving readers the false impression that the text in these articles has been verified. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability? Epbr123 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Odd that you think I might not be familiar with V, presumably there is something about my edit history you take exception to. You appear to misunderstand the point I made in the last paragraph. If you have a particular problem with how a particular reliable source is being used as an in-line reference, then I suggest you raise it on the relevant talk page. I have no intention of removing reliable sources that appeared appropriate to my eyes unless you have a specific concern. Ash (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- For example, does A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition mention that Kip Noll was a regular performer at D.C. Follies? If not, why have you put the citation there? Epbr123 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that I added the footnote on that paragraph to support his status as a "superstar" rather than his performances. I'm having a look through other sources as he appears more frequently under the alternate spelling of "Kip Knoll". Hmm, I'll add some quotes to ameliorate your concerns, though I have been criticised for leaving quotes in the footnotes. Ash (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- For another example, where in Wonder Bread and Ecstasy does it say that Chris Stone began in the gay porn industry in the late 1980s, and continued working for at least 15 years after that? Epbr123 (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that I added the footnote on that paragraph to support his status as a "superstar" rather than his performances. I'm having a look through other sources as he appears more frequently under the alternate spelling of "Kip Knoll". Hmm, I'll add some quotes to ameliorate your concerns, though I have been criticised for leaving quotes in the footnotes. Ash (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- For example, does A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition mention that Kip Noll was a regular performer at D.C. Follies? If not, why have you put the citation there? Epbr123 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Odd that you think I might not be familiar with V, presumably there is something about my edit history you take exception to. You appear to misunderstand the point I made in the last paragraph. If you have a particular problem with how a particular reliable source is being used as an in-line reference, then I suggest you raise it on the relevant talk page. I have no intention of removing reliable sources that appeared appropriate to my eyes unless you have a specific concern. Ash (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- If the citations don't actually support the text, you need to remove them. At the moment, they are giving readers the false impression that the text in these articles has been verified. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability? Epbr123 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to the general point here, so I will copy your specific comment to the relevant talk page as this appears to be a matter of either refining the citation, refining placement or asking for an independent check. Ash (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Citation fixes in List of demons in the Ars Goetia
Thanks! –Black Falcon (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
byron kennedys site..
hi there...
I see you have altered my addition to this site re Kennedy miller now being re named Kennedy miller Mitchell..
I am not too computer savvy re all this stuff...so I have my son helping me at the minute re this...
I am actually Byron's sister...andrea kennedy...& MY SON BYRON actually started this wikipedia page on behalf of his late uncle..
I have had to amend it a few times re incorrect birth dates etc...
SO this is just another amendment which IS correct... as DOUG MITCHELL..who my brother appointed as his accountant when the company went to sydney..... METRO THEATRE...in the early 80's...
DOUG is a LONG standing wonderful addition to Kennedy Miller....& he has been rewarded with partnership... SO it is now known as KENNEDY MILLER MITCHELL...
so maybe ... until i get my referencing right on the wikipedia site.... You can click on google & see what comes up...?? We are currently working on MAD MAX 4 etc...under the KENNEDY MILLER MITCHELL logo...
thanks for your time.....regards andrea kennedy-frost...Alf1957 (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The key thing is to ensure that any text you want to see added is supported by published sources. If getting the Wikipedia entry right is too tricky, then I strongly recommend raising the facts you would like on the article talk page (it is highlighted as a tab at the top of every article). Note however, that just because something is "true" does not always make it possible to add to a Wikipedia article as anything that is not self evident is subject to being challenged on the basis of sources. I'll keep an eye open for your contributions as you ask... If you are up to some background reading you may find Conflict of Interest helpful for your situation. Cheers Ash (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Brian Boruff article edited by you
Sir,
I am writing in regard to the article: [[1]], in which you participated in editing. First, please excuse what may be here (and may have been on his page) poor formatting. I am entirely new to Wikipedia. I have added in-line citations to the article, and cleaned up the list of references. As such, I was hoping that you would remove the following two templates, as I do not know how:
"This article does not cite any references or sources."
and
"Text document with red question mark.svg This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate."
I am asking that these be removed in light of the above-mentioned reasons. In addition, I was hoping that you could remove the template that the article does not meet the notability requirements, as Brian Boruff is a senior executive at one of the biggest multinational I.T. firms in the world.
If you cannot do remove these templates, I would really appreciate any advice on who I should contact about this or how it can be done.
Thank you!
Jamesmythology (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)jamesmythology
Hi, Ash!
If you have a reason you feel that the pages should not be merged, please identify it. Otherwise, Wikipedia states: If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merger purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.
Jstanierm (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:BRD applies. You have been reverted, now discuss the matter on the article talk page. Ash (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Hi Ash! Wikipedia is clear that there is no need for discussion in order for mergers. If you want a discussion that is fine, but please let me know what your reasons are for why the article listing animals with homosexual behavior should not be merged with the article discussing homosexual behavior in animals, then please let me know what the problem is. If you are objecting to the revert simply because no discussion has taken place and you have no reason then I don't see the point of your redtape.
I noted that you object to any mention of sexual activity animals with regards to genetic output, so in an effort to dispel disagreement I have left those parts out.
I, however, would like to see them in, particularly in the section where the homosexual activity in animals is discussed in relation to human politics. I cited a good source from a well respected authority on what a detractor believes (the Catholic Church) to show that detractors *do* find the argument that its okay because an animal does it to have some fault. Jstanierm (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the edit histories of both pages in question I reverted your edits once. One revert is not considered to be edit-warring. By adding the {{3RR}} template to my talk page you are making accusations that are unfounded and inflammatory. Please strike out your accusations. Until you are prepared to withdraw these accusations there seems little point in me engaging you in further discussion. Ash (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, You Win !!!
Ash, congratulations. You have successfully bitten a newcomer so bad that they no longer want to participate in the Wikipedia project. Details HERE
Regards,
ISPman (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Andersen
Hi, a small point of language, I raised a request for investigation on WP:SPI rather than making an accusation (as I'm writing this I note that the SPI form uses the words "accused parties", hmm, I'd really like to see that softened to "parties being investigated"). The term "accusation" is often seen as an attack, whereas asking for independent investigation is more a question of reporting apparent behaviour for attention. It's not a big issue but I tend to be as cautious as possible when such behaviour is going on not to be misunderstood. Also, to be fair, on investigation it may well become apparent that some contributions were made innocently. Cheers, Ash 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're completely correct. I'll ammend my comments. Apologies and thanks for pointing it out. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
concerning Simon Corcoran
No bother,
I don't know why wikipedia thinks that 2006 is recent, but anyway....the article deleted by me way back was a oneliner which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article as it stands now.
Cheers and happy editing.
Lectonar (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ryanair
Hi, just got a message about a Ryanair edit that was tagged as 'vandalism'. I gave an explanation in the discussion section for the change. Was i meant to do something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.255.87 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI: I started an RfC about the redlinked entries in this article. ThemFromSpace 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nice one. I suggested it several times but didn't feel I'd been involved enough to kick it off. Ash (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Alice Bailey
Hi, I came across the Alice Bailey article while patrolling recent edits, and noticed the POV discussion. I've put a short note on the discussion regarding the POV. In short, I'm not sure the 'Quote' criteria you suggested applies (where you use a quote as an alternative to Rhetoric when dealing with a contriversial subject), as in this case the subject is not antisematism, but Alice's views (While her views may be contriversial, the fact they exist is not), and so don't need to be counterbalanced (unless the quotes are unrepresentative). I think the balance / focus may be more an issue, but the article is tagged for multiple issues already. Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, any chance I can get your help in preventing this page from being deleted? ClaudiaChase (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
ITIL
Hi Ash
Regarding the deletions you've made to ITIL, the links I have given are those are WIki Links pointing to http://wiki.en.it-processmaps.com and are not external links as per your comment.
Regards, --Acpt22 (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, when I said "wiki" I meant any wiki site. The guidance of WP:SPS and WP:ELNO (para 12) apply to any wiki. Exceptions may be suitable but this site in particular I believe needs discussion on the talk page due to its commercial background. These are external links even when embedded in the body of the text, in this case they fail the guidance of WP:RS when used as in-line citations. Ash (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you raise it for discussion on Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library. If the consensus agrees to add it as a source, then it is an exception to the guidance I have pointed out above. Ash (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you verify for me if he is alive? If so the lead needs to be changed to "is a former American porn..." CTJF83 chat 20:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I can not prove a negative. To assume that he is dead without sources would be original research and consequently go against the BLP guidelines. Ash (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, the bottom has Category:Living people I'll just fix the lead. CTJF83 chat 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Chris Stone
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chris Stone. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Stone. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
you got mail
I had sent you an email on Monday but haven't received a response yet. -Stillwaterising (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, I did get it, just ran into a backlog of email (plus some 'real-life' urgent issues) and would like to look at a bit more background first. Most of my WP time has been during 10 minute breaks this week. Will have some time in hand on Saturday to get back to you. Cheers, Ash (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Alec Powers
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alec Powers. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Powers (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
In accordance with guidelines that I found about challenging an Afd decision, I contacted the closer, User:Cirt and expressed my concerns. He/she offered to userfy the page without addressing the problem. I'm not qualified or interested in revamping the article, but I thought you might be, or wish to help appeal the Afd decision. -Stillwaterising (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, in fact there is a userfied version at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan which you are welcome to add to. I recently found a source for a named nomination (see the userfied version), so just one more such reference would mean that he passes PORNBIO in such a way that even the hard-line deletionists could not object to (deletionists really do seem to have the upper-hand at the moment don't they?). I have pondered about when to have a second crack at this one as by any common-sense interpretation he is notable and meets the WP:GNG. Let me have a couple more days to think about raising a DRV as, so far, the consensus has been to apply PORNBIO in a way that demonstrably distorts the nature of how gay culture is presented on Wikipedia (i.e. allows the creation of biographical pages of some actors who have had no impact on culture and disallows others with huge impact who happen to lack on-line evidence of awards in their name). I may argue on the basis of his directing work, but I would like to tweak the userfied version before taking this approach and it may make sense to get some documented feedback from Cirt on the revised draft before either resurrecting (on the basis of new sources) or going to DRV. Ash (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- As I have now found sources for further suitable nominations (for his directing work), I have left a note for Cirt. Should s/he not get around to it, I'll consider re-creating anyway in a day or two (probably after another note to Cirt first, to demonstrate I have followed best practice). Ash (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Fagan
Just a connected Q, I see also you have this internal Gay_Erotic_Video_Awards and I can't see him there, how is he connected to that article and you have this GayVN_Awards also he doesn't appear there? Has he won these awards? Or how is he related to them? Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think he does, primarily as his main acting career pre-dates these awards. I've trimmed the see also list as a result.
- Note that any 80s gay porn star will be very difficult to source in a way that satisfies PORNBIO for a hard-line deletionist. In this particular case I believe that Fagan is notable due to the cultural impact his performances have had and the films sell as classics today, decades later. The fact only one award has been identified and sourced, is not good indicator of notability, rather the notoriety of films such as "The Young & the Hung" should be considered. Of course, hard-liners tend to discount these softer arguments even when they make for good encyclopedic articles. Ash (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Paul Carrigan
You may wish to reformat the filmography section. See a good example, at article Jason Beghe. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
ANI
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ongoing AFD
Please see [2]. I would suggest you have this moved back into your userspace (I deleted the redirect which was the only edit at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. I apologize, as I should have told you to make sure every single sentence on the page is sourced not just to sources listed at the bottom of the page, but more specifically to in-line citations. Cirt (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now back in your userspace, at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the guidance that advises us to always use in-line citations for every single sentence as opposed to just including them in the article? I thought this was general guidance for GA status, not a hard requirement. Ash (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that was kind of exciting. What I found on request for undeletion page was that an article removed in contested AFD should go to DRV rather than undeleted. While I agree that it should pass in current state, it would be best that the inline citations be finished first, (see Stephanie Swift as an example). I understand that if an article is undeleted it should be completely rewritten before being moved back to mainspace. -Stillwaterising (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, that ought to have been the process. Cirt seems to have made an agreement to by-pass that process and told me not to complain about it too. Bit of a waste of time really, doesn't encourage me to continue working on the article, if we can expect Epbr123 to always get their way on these matters, does it? Ash (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should wait until more sources are found? I feel your despair, and due to the recent debate I have been recently wondering if porn related material should be allowed on Wikipedia at all. However, where would readers find verified and unbiased information on their favorite (or least favorite in the case of User:Epbr123) type of actors and models? Nowhere but here. -Stillwaterising (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Porn Star Awarded
While I've only been recently been made aware of your work on WP:WikiProject Pornography, must say that your determination and quality of work is impeccable. -Stillwaterising (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The Porn Star | ||
Keep up the good work! -Stillwaterising (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
Cheers, though recent debates will probably result in my focus moving to other, perhaps less contentious, topics. Ash (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Your recent tone
Ash, I can understand your frustration. However, your recent tone and sarcasm in posts to ANI and here is disappointing. I would really love to help you improve the Paul Carrigan page while it is in a subpage of your userspace. I have some experience in content quality improvement of articles (User:Cirt/Contributions). But I would really appreciate a shift in your recent tone and demeanor. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- To be frank, I see inappropriate behaviour from two admins. Epbr123 for being on a zealous deletionist campaign (as shown across many AfDs), unable to take on board the viewpoints of others during AfD discussion, and yourself for ignoring an AfD discussion and instead effectively making a "ruling" when you were partial and could easily have summarized consensus and made a proposal for discussion. I am loath to argue with any admin, they have been granted power for good reason and must have an excellent track record. However being an admin does not grant special weight on opinions during a consensus discussion.
- As for my tone, I have a consistent history of attempting to stay on the high ground during discussion, even when heated. My statement in the ANI was not rude but drifted into sarcasm for which I apologise. Given the background, a little venting seems human and whilst it is an excellent good goal to stay on high ground, some passion during discussion is, I hope, understandable. Ash (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, I would have loved to have helped you. I think I am pretty good at both research and finding sources, as well as writing and article improvement. I have in the past saved many pages that were at risk of deletion in an ongoing AFD. But the recent tone of yourself and Stillwaterising (talk · contribs) is not one that fosters positive collaboration or encourages me to attempt to improve the page to demonstrate notability and improve its quality - which is most unfortunate as that is something that I enjoy doing on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I struck my comments and apologised. If you want me to do anything else, you are welcome to make a suggestion as at this point I'm not sure what you want. Ash (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay I guess I saw moreso defending the inappropriateness and focusing on individual users instead of discussing the content issue itself - or even attempting to improve the page. Perhaps the tone will improve towards positive collaboration in the future on this topic - I just do not know at this point. For what it is worth - I have a copy of the page in my userspace, I think (unfortunately) it is best at this point in time if I work on it, separately, there. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I struck my comments and apologised. If you want me to do anything else, you are welcome to make a suggestion as at this point I'm not sure what you want. Ash (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, I would have loved to have helped you. I think I am pretty good at both research and finding sources, as well as writing and article improvement. I have in the past saved many pages that were at risk of deletion in an ongoing AFD. But the recent tone of yourself and Stillwaterising (talk · contribs) is not one that fosters positive collaboration or encourages me to attempt to improve the page to demonstrate notability and improve its quality - which is most unfortunate as that is something that I enjoy doing on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Paul Carrigan DRV
DRV discussion can be found here. I'm afraid that your decision to move to DRV may be premature. I've gone through the sources and citations and done my best with the material presented, however only the 3 nominations stand for notability. Without any articles featuring him GNG is in doubt too. Please do what you can to fix this. -Stillwaterising (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, the issue for DRV is that consensus was not given a chance. In this case arguing notability on the basis of PORNBIO may be a bust but in terms of a directing career, this discussion has not been had. Carrigan lead the creation of a new genre of gay erotic entertainment, erotic wrestling, and founded a production company that still exists today (On Top Productions).
- Anyway, the end result of the AfD may be to userfy, yet again, and I would be content if that is an informed consensus decision. No editor should over-ride a consensus process no matter how good their intentions, depth of experience or admin rights they may have been granted.
- PS, I wrote to On Top Productions last week on behalf of Wikipedia, asking if they had any relevant awards. They were kind enough to write back and pointed to the "Steve Shannon triple play video" which was added to the article. It may be appropriate to create an article for the production company at some point, they seem sufficiently notable to meet WP:ORG... maybe when things have cooled off a bit. Ash (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lead. Could you forward me a copy of the email you sent them? They seem to have a fairly active website but no "About Us" page or mention of Carrigan. On Top Wrestling seems to be based on actual wrestling but has redefined the meaning of submission finish. (lol) - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Putting on my detective hat, I find
- ontoponline.com has their PO Box (in NY) and phone number.
- archive.org shows their website first active in December 1998.
- Whois on ontopwrestling.com shows the same address and the name of the registrant (no need to post that here).
- To make an article one could do with a couple of published interviews and the published company annual report. At the moment it looks too sparse for an article. Ash (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Update - Paul Carrigan
I have worked on Paul Carrigan in a subpage of my userspace, please see User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan. Every single sentence is now sourced. Accordingly, I have changed my position at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_15#Paul_Carrigan. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. I suggest you let DRV run its course. As the issue for the DRV is that you went against the documented consensus to delete the article, it may be more politic to let the DRV reach a conclusion and ensure there is a consensus before un-deleting the article. Although you have discussed the matter with Epbr123, having the DRV on record would help avoid a speedy delete from another editor, for example.
- I noted that the 1992 point was raised. Carrigan's first appearance seems to have been in "The Spanking Master 4" in 1992. With the right phrasing this could be a suitable reference to support a statement such as "Carrigan's first credited pornographic video role was in 'The Spanking Master 4' in 1992." Ash (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- On reflection, perhaps this fact about his first appearance should be removed. If the video itself can be used as evidence, then the only version I find still for sale was printed in 1996 (by Bacchus). I suspect the original film was made in 1992 but have no solid evidence to hand. This looks like a longer term bit of research for someone prepared to check through some gay adult magazines or catalogues of the period. Ash (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has no objection to me moving User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan to Paul Carrigan. Are you saying you object to my going ahead and doing that? Cirt (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- My complaint in the ANI you raised against Epbr123 was that a negotiation between yourself and Epbr123 over-rode the consensus developing in the AfD. As an involved admin, you are now proposing to close the DRV based on another personal discussion with Epbr123 on his/her talk page. I would not object to an independent admin closing the DRV based on your proposal, but if you or Epbr123 close the DRV this would look bad for any appearance of consensus building as you are both heavily involved.
- The DRV guidance suggests "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists.", by "administrator" I would naturally read this to mean independent administrator. If you wish to by-pass the guidance of a full seven days, again I suggest you make that proposal in the DRV discussion and see if an independent admin accepts it as reasonable. Ash (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mean to butt in but I say ride it out for at least 7 days. Our group (WP:PORN) has become rather dysfunktshunal and I think our issues need to see the light of day. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sigh. As you wish.............. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mean to butt in but I say ride it out for at least 7 days. Our group (WP:PORN) has become rather dysfunktshunal and I think our issues need to see the light of day. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- there seems to be a consensus. It's likely article won't get deleted right away under Too Soon. There's nothing DRV can do to prevent it. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
A shiny barnstar for you!
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
I hereby award you this shiny barnstar for your tremendous work to source and improve content on Wikipedia. We need more editors like yourself who are willing to put in the hard work, even in trying circumstances. Keep up the good work! -- Banjeboi 17:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC) |
Cheers, I'll take that as my queue to take my hands off the keyboard, stop arguing the toss and get ready to toss some pancakes instead! Ash (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Quinn
I hadn't noticed this debate, seems to be lively. Got a comment in last minute, on 8th day. Am I right in my logic? - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, your logic is clear. GNG however is easily interpreted in a range of ways, take "Significant coverage" this depends on context and if I were a deletionist I would push this point to claim almost any porn-related source were either insignificant or unreliable. For example the Adam Gay Video Directory has previously been challenged as a source even though it is the most definitive publication in the field and cited by multiple academic books and articles.
- It seems a great pity that so much effort is being used to force a hard and probably poor interpretation of BLP (via PORNBIO) to delete articles about early erotic actors rather than finding ways of presenting such information in an encyclopedic fashion. I cannot interpret recent actions other than a prejudicial distaste for the subject of pornography driving hard-line interpretation of the guidance. Unfortunately it does appear that there are a large number of admins without experience of building consensus and prefer to assume that they are the embodiment of it. Ash (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox bathhouse
As things stand, the only way to get a valid region code from this template is to use the coordinates=
parameter. If you use latd/longd and don't give location_country=
, the template omits the region code completely. If you use latd/longd and do give a location_country=
, the template produces a bogus code such as US-X
. Long-term, my preference would be to add a coordinates_type=
parameter like {{Infobox settlement}} has. Another solution would be to provide some way for {{Infobox bathhouse}} to pass a 2nd parameter to {{CountryAbbr}}. But {{CountryAbbr}} is a horrible hack which I'm reluctant to promote. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
userfied
User:Ash/Butch Taylor (pornographic actor) User:Ash/Rod Barry
As requested. I've also blanked them. You can unblank when you've verified the content.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
New discussion at ANI
We don't appear to be making any progress with my proposed guidelines for male porn performers, so I've started a discussion at ANI regarding your recent BLP article creations. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- This was not appropriate. Within hours of saying you were waiting for other comments on the list talk page, you have resorted to complaining about me in an ANI. Nothing you have raised in the ANI requires an admin to intervene. Your action appears an obvious attempt to stir up drama and try to block me from creating articles that meet the PORNBIO requirements you were demanding. You have done nothing constructive to resolve these issues. You are on a mission, go away and do something else rather than harass me. Ash (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Porn bio is currently disputed and I also talked to you about the articles you were creating, there are issues with your creating stubs specifically as a reason to re add them to a list and it seems I am not the only editor to raise this questions, do you not think it would be better to move to discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, PORNBIO, is not disputed. I suggested a clarification in wording on the notability talk page, you raised an issue but dropped it for the time being. As I have said several times, if there was a problem with any specific article I have created, then the specific article could be addressed. DC, has suggested several "special" rules that there has been no consensus on and there appears to be little support for. It would be a very odd situation if editing on Wikipedia was supposed to stop every time someone started discussing the guidelines. If you want me to halt creating any further articles (possibly halting all creation of pornography related articles for an indefinite period) whilst DC continues to make various new objections (as s/he has done for several months now) then I suggest an RfC is raised on the list talk page to make consensus for a topic block clear. To my eyes, this would look an awful lot like censorship by the back door. If you wish to discuss further then discuss the matter there rather than on my personal user talk page. Ash (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Porn bio is currently disputed and I also talked to you about the articles you were creating, there are issues with your creating stubs specifically as a reason to re add them to a list and it seems I am not the only editor to raise this questions, do you not think it would be better to move to discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)