User talk:Ashley Y

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

2003

2004

2005

2006

[edit] Offices of Arms

Dear Ashley, Thanks for working on making sharper categories for the various British offices of arms. Would it perhaps, be possible to make the category "English offices of arms?" As it stands, the extraordinary officers are not actually members of the College. Also, I'm not sure the "former offices" section belongs in the template. There have been many offices which are extinct now that will fill up the template very quickly. Keep up the great work.--Eva ^bd 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not members, but "extraordinary officers" are surely "officers" as the name suggests? —Ashley Y 06:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely...would it be OK, then, if I changed them to English offices of arms? Perhaps it would be better to just call them all offices of arms again?--Eva ^bd 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are they offices of the CoA, though, even if they're not members of the CoA? —Ashley Y 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert, but I don't believe so. They are definitely English officers of arms, but are generally only appointed at times of ceremony such as a coronation or the investiture of the Prince of Wales. The only connection that they have with the College is that they are all heralds. --Eva ^bd 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the extraordinaries to Category:English offices of arms, but kept Category:Offices of the College of Arms for the CoA offices. —Ashley Y 04:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CAT and WP:NPOV

Please see WP:CAT and Category talk:Anti-Zionism. Also, please re-read WP:NPOV. Removing a reliably and verifiably sourced category, which was added in accord with WP:CAT, to hide one POV and thereby promote a different POV is a violation of WP:NPOV. Enough sourced debate exists to confirm the linkage, and a proper reading of WP:CAT demonstrates Directed acyclic graph form, not proper subset form. Please refamiliarize yourself with the applicable guidelines and policies. Thanks. -- Avi 08:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper subsets form a directed acyclic graph, actually. —Ashley Y 20:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I'm at 3RR. —Ashley Y 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROD to review

Can you look at Congregationalist Wiccan Association. The article is under prod, and I'm uncertain if it should be deleted. If you are also, I'll bump it up to AFD. I don't see any reliable sources in the Google search. But I continue to believe that you have more expertise in this area than I do. GRBerry 03:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It might be notable for the reason it claims in the first para. No idea, really. —Ashley Y 09:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've bumped it up to AFD then. GRBerry 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldists

You wrote: I don't think "heraldist" is a word. Do you mean "heralds"? Or do you mean "people interested in heraldry"? —Ashley Y 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Heraldists certainly is a word. You have summarized it quite well with with "peope interested in heraldry." Heralds are people that are paid to be interested in heraldry. The category includes people that have written extensively about heraldry or are otherwise involved in the subject--without actually being an officer of arms. It is definitely a word and I hope this clears up any confusion. Thanks for the note.--Eva ^bd 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).

Will (Talk - contribs) 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I hereby award you the Barnstar of Good Humor, for coining a most excellent and hilarious neologism, on a page where far too many people take things far too seriously. GTBacchus(talk) 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ashley Y 10:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balthus

Hi Ashley. I noticed your comments on TALK:Balthus and generally agree with them. I think it would relevant to note that Balthus is still being listed as Jewish on List of French Jews and List of Polish Jews using the Nicholas Fox Weber source. 141.212.55.207 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes/Faith

Dear Ashley Y

I added a "Faith" page to the Userboxes gallery. The vast majority of faith-based userboxes bear your username, so I thought that I should let you know! As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia I don't know if this means (a) you created all these boxes or (b) you created a template from which other Wikipedians have made them. Either way, please feel welcome to visit the new page of the gallery and say on its discussion page what you think. If you know of faith-based userboxes that I have not included, please contribute them to the gallery page!

Motacilla 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A he!

My apologies. Given that I'm a she who since childhood has gone by "Guy," I should have known better than to assume on the basis of a name...--G-Dett 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ailurophiles

This is to inform you that Category:Ailurophiles, which you created, has been nomianted for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4. Dr. Submillimeter 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

Given that I'm a current target of an ArbCom to permanently ban me for my hateful, disruptive behavior and incessant personal attacks and legal threats ... (insert picture of me rolling my eyes) ... it may be hard to believe, but in real life I have a reputation as the Great Peace Maker. I can see the motives behind all sides of the IP debate. It is definitely a complex issue and it demands calm, thoughtful, considerate discussion. Dino 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for abusing editors on talk pages

Your comments at Talk:NAS made me laugh out loud! I haven't checked whether I agree with your politics or not, but who cares? Cheers for being spunky and funny! Kla'quot 07:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, thanks for the comment re the sock thing, btw. Nice of you to say something. Following your comments on Folke Bernadotte, I've also been glad to run into you on other articles. Always nice to have more kind, thoughtful people around, to help get past all the rancor. Best, Mackan79 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Catholic user template

Template:User Catholic for some reason appears to put four user pages containing it into Category:Roman Catholic Church (sorted under the character "{" ), which should not happen. You last edited the template, so can you shed light on what is wrong? --Blainster 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I noticed that this is not the first time you do that. Please familiarize yourself with what is NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Recent_edit

[edit] Religio Romana

Did you by chance save the text of the deleted Religio Romana? I want to save it at WikiPagan. Thanks. --Tsmollet 00:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No. There wasn't much there anyway. —Ashley Y 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)