User talk:Ash

Ash's Talk Page 6603 days of editing
Thursday 21 November 2024	Archives 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

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...! —Teahot (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)

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.—Teahot (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.—Teahot (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)

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.—Teahot (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. LK (talk) 17:40, 20 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.—Teahot (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 Teahot - 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 have clarified my comments. Thanks! Verbal chat 10:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

I see you've done the same with User:Teahot/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.—Teahot (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...—Teahot (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.—Teahot (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)

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)

TALKBACK: Pederasty & Pedagogy in Archaic Greece

Hello, Ash. You have new messages at Talk:Homosexuality.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

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)

Away for a week

—Ash (talk) 11:11, 22 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Growshop. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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

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)