User talk:Ash

Ash's Talk Page 6645 days of editing
Thursday 02 January 2025	Archives 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shangra-la Mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business continuity planning

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

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

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

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

List of hoaxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your speedy nomination of Wikipedia:Cluocracy

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

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

Ayaan Ali Khan and Amaan Ali Khan

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

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

realy...

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

btw

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

Your edits at List of male performers in gay porn films

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brad Hunt

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Brad Hunt (disambiguation)

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Template 3OR suggestion

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

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

Setting n would add, just before the signature:

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

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

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

Francis Villain

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

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

Helena Blavatsky

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

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

List of hoaxes again

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

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

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

Invitation

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

Category:Roman codices

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

Happy Holidays!

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

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

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

External links deleted

Hey Ash,

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

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

Here are a few of the deletions:

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

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

Thanks,

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

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

TL;DR

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

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

ANI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Hm2k_won't_stop_editing/hiding_comments_in_an_AFD

Binarygal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles for Deletion, a request.

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al McClellan

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

Paranormal AfDs

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

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

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

A question

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

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

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

Aliens

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

Old thread

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

Alexander the Great

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

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

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

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

{{aan}} changes

Hi,

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

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

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

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

CSD tag

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

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

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

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

Clifford Brody

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

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

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