Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 20 March 2010

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ash. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

TL;DR

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

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

Binarygal

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Al McClellan

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

Paranormal AfDs

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

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

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

Articles for Deletion, a request.

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

I suggest you raise a request on the Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nester Trubecki. Anyway thank you for help. --W Goslar (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

A question

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

Hi, actually from there you can navigate to Misplaced Pages: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, 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) 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) 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 Misplaced Pages talk namespaces (to avoid all the links which are part of the template logic itself) and there are less than a hundred transclusions. I don't particularly see the need to have yet another archive banner anyway, but for the time being it's best that it visually mirrors the other ones (indeed, this one may be a suitable replacement for {{talkarchivenav}} in the long run, as it has neater auto-detection). Any other thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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

CSD tag

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

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

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

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

Clifford Brody

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

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

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

Eisenhower Jacket

Hi Ash, I noticed a few days ago SRELY&P, the author of the article on the Gekko shirt, had spammed Eisenhower jacket, attributing its creation to an obscure tailor. I edited the article and referenced another tailor. As you can see on the talk page of the article, he took it very agressively, threatened action against Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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/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). Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rani Singh

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

Edits at Steve Shnider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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