User talk:Ashenai
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk page archive ... Ego stuff
[edit] Goju Ryu
Hi. I saw you edited the goju ryu article. Changes are described as follows: "22:19, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Gōjū-ryū (→History: removed some editorializing, added a tone tag. There is a lot more work to be done, but I don't know enough about the style to do it.)" Well, I suggest you explained your changes in the "Discussion" page. I tried to figure out what had happened, and I think this may satisfy you: I changed every personal pronoun to impersonal references; even in places where it was not necessary for they refered to words by quoted authors. I didn't find anything else wrong, so I need you to tell me what the problem is.
Well, there is also a couple of sentences you deleted. I think those are the "editorializing" ideas you talk about. However, I haven't found anything in the wikipedia help pages about "editorializing". I also think that the solution in the article was good because instead of taking part on a delicate and controversial historical issue, the article questioned the reader mentioning different points of view and letting the reader decide. I also appreciate you explain what you meant by "editorializing". Maybe I just didn't find the right wikipedia help page about it.
Finally, it called my attention that after making changes in the article, and referring to the style guidelines, you stated that you "don't know enough about the style to do it". It may be that you are modest. If so, don't be, just explain yourself clearly. It also may be that you really don't know enough about the style; if so, check the wikipedia help pages and you will save everybody's time in the future. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi! I saw your edits, and I think they are good. "Editorializing" means presenting opinions as fact, and is mostly a WP:V issue. An example: "this way of practicing kata ultimately makes it useless for self defense." This might be true, or it might not, but it's clearly an opinion being stated as fact.
- The article uses weasel words like "it is commonly believed" (by whom? references?), and very few of its statements are sourced. For instance, it talks about a Higaonna Morio, and has a reference by him. This person has no Wikipedia article, and the text says nothing more about him. Who is he? Is he an important figure in the style, or is he just a local instructor, or is he made up? I don't know, and I can't tell.
- I can see that a lot of work and effort went into the article, and I definitely don't want to take away from that. I just feel that it could use a lot more work verifying its statements, and separating opinion from fact (and sourcing both.) Since I know very little about the style (I'm not being humble, this is simple fact,) I sadly cannot help with this work much, but I can still see the problems, even if I can't fix them. --Ashenai (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hi. Thank you very much. I appreciate your answer. One of the most common problems about martial arts is the lack of bibliography and the abundance of oral traditions. The article has been moving in the direction you are pointing by adding bibliography little by little, so expressions as "it is commonly believed" tell the reader that the statement is not from an academic article or book, but from oral tradition. In the future we all expect to have references for everything, but in the meantime, we are modifying it bit by bit. By the way, I don't think any article needs to include a biography of every quoted author, and also I don't think that every quoted author needs to have a wikipedia article in order to be consider reliable. I would also suggest that you explain changes you want to make in order to help the habitual editors of the article to understand your point of view. At the goju ryu article, sometimes editors post in the "discussion" page changes that they want to do, before actually doing them. So we agree in the substance, more than disagree, and I appreciate your help. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Excuse me
I am sorry that you found my contribution to Wikipedia unimportant. But I find YOUR methods extremely offensive. I was merely adding a bit of typically unknown information. I am part of what is considered the youth following of John Paul II. Many people my age have only really known The Pope as John Paul II. He is our pope and the grace of god has softened and warmed his heart to the children of the world. As such, in many youth circles he is referred to as JPII. I would appreciate that when you’re editing pages you do as you see fit, as all wikipedians should do. But please don’t call sincere efforts vandalism.
- Replied on talk page. --Ashenai 22:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Raphael1
I'm probably a lot less eager about this than you are. I have the feeling that he's a newbie who is trying to get the hang of wikipedia. I think (but that's cold soil psychology, as it's called in Dutch) that he has some experience on online communities, and has a bit of trouble getting to grips with the specifics of wikipedia. I suggest we wait and see how it continues. And if you feel your blood pressure rising because of what he says, just close the browser and ignore it. Someone else will probably respond to it anyway. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry to be eaves-dropping here. I agree entirely with your concerns about Raphael1, Ashenai. The atmosphere is very hostile, insults are 'flying' and it is amiss with the weirdest, most twisted and amnesic logic I have ever come across. I agree, some of the very qualified, measured and inquisitive editors either no longer contribute, or do so very rarely. I can really only see his twisting of people's words and arguments as intentional, as he does not seem unintelligent - (although I definitely find his argumentation to be so). Aggressive-passive trolling - Predominantly a huge waste of time that could be spent better - and an unbeatable ability to make my blood pressure skyrocket! : ) Varga Mila 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Eh. Whatever his true motivations, they're certainly not worth getting irritated over. That never helps. I'd say just let things take their own course; historically, Wikipedia's been through a lot of efforts to disrupt it, and it has always come out the other side just fine. It's always best to be polite, even when you're certain the other person is malicious. Thanks for your thoughts, though; I'm glad I'm not alone with my suspicions :) --Ashenai 18:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] please explain your reversion on the talk page
Why is reporting history POV? Raphael1 16:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Replied on article talk page. --Ashenai 16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry.
Re that, I apologize. I have to get used to using Wikipedia popups still. Please try to assume good faith. People do occasionally screw up. - Image:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, I'm a bit puzzled... I was pretty sure it was just a mistake; why do you think I didn't assume good faith? If I had thought you'd done it deliberately, I'd have talked to you about it on your talk page. It was a minor hiccup, not really worthy of discussion. :)
- Anyway, I assure you that I've seen your edits here and there, and I know you're a good guy. My edit summary was just, well, puzzlement. --Ashenai 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clarity of thought
Thanks for your well thought out addition to the aniconism discussion... while you admit to not be an authority on the subject it's clear that you have a capacity for critical thought. Netscott 15:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, thanks for the compliment! The article seems to be a huge magnet for POV, and I've seen articles become muddled, sloppy messes because of the various conflicting POVs had to try to appease each other instead of working on a tight encyclopedia article. I'm just doing my best to keep that from happening here. :) --Ashenai 15:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes it's true... honestly I have striven for NPOV in the article and it has been difficult at times trying to keep out POV (my own included) but I think I can safely say that I've done well at that. Netscott 15:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wow, I just saw your last comment in the talk thread and it was superbly worded... seriously... nice.. Netscott 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Move of User talk:203.219.28.168 to User talk:Silly monkey
I am of the opinion that they are the same person (since they both edited the same article Chicken Flavoured Poodles, now deleted). I have moved my message to the registered user's page, so that it can be accessed whether or not he is logged in. (On the second thought, I don't think it is really necessary. He'll be notified about my message before he logs in.) - Mike Rosoft 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Irishpunktom vs. Netscott
Hello, sorry to disturb you but I noticed that you were mentioned on a notice of 3RR violation made by Irishpunktom against Netscott. Netscott has been blocked but in my lurking on the article I noticed that Irishpunktom was as much a violator as Netscott and so I made a report of 3RR violation against Irishpunktom. I was hoping you might be able to comment on my report.
Thanks!
CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks, I guess
Erm, thanks for your edit to my Talk page. I've never, in the history of my Wikian life, been congratulated for vandalism.
Flameviper12 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
PS. Not only was I congratulated, I was also banninated!
[edit] Re: List of viruses
Thanks for the helping hand. You're just in time, as I'm heading off to bed. Please be aware that User:Yoggga has been vandalizing this and associated articles using a number of different sockpuppets; User:Erin Elizabeth and User:68.11.236.86 have both been having fun with that article, as well as HIV, Adenovirus infection, and Adenoviridae. If he/she persists, semiprotection may become necessary for those articles. Thanks again! :) --Ashenai 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, his last sock his blocked. I'll put those pages on the CVU watchlist. --
Rory09622:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 128.122.253.228 problems?
Hi, I tried to view a wikipedia page and it said I had new messages. One was from you, and it said I had vandalized Wikipedia. I don't have any kind of login. I have done a very little anonymous editing on obscure articles (very basic spelling/grammar cleanup) that have interested me, but I have not vandalized anything. I am part of a university network. Could this IP have been assigned to someone else before? Can you tell me what articles this happened to? It really wasn't me. I won't check back here, but you can e-mail me at vacuousmiss AT gmail. Please let me know what happened. I want to be able to keep using Wikipedia. -- 128.122.253.228 6:43, 27 March 2006 (EST)
- Replied by email, probably mistaken identity due to non-unique IP. --Ashenai 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1
|
|
== Incorrect information on Maravich page? ==
Sorry that you thought I was trying to vandalize the Wikipedia, but a check of mmy work would probably lead you to realize that I may have made an honest mistake. Or not. I thought that the CBS Sports special 3/26/06 said that Pistol Pete had an absent right coronary artery. Actually, he had a congenital abnormality of his coronary arteries. Most are born with a right coronary artery, and a left coronary artery - which subdivides into two major branches. Thus, we generally have 3 coronary arteries. Maravich had a rare congenital abnormality - a single coronary artery. This represents one of a variety of unusual developmental abnormalities. I am researching the origianl pathological report in J Forensic Sci 1990 Jul;35(4):981-6 PMID: 2202775 to ascertain the exact situation. --Sammyj
[edit] Your user page
I noticed that you seem to be my inverse, according to your self discription on your user page (my information is here, in case your interested). It would therefore be a rather impressive feat if we were to achieve any sort of agreement in regards to the article. Heres hoping we can pull off "a state of pure NPOV Zen". Sam Spade 12:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. My apologies for any snarkiness I may have allowed myself on the talk page. I truly want what is best for the article, and I accept that you do, too; I hope we all can settle this without animosity. :) --Ashenai 12:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hoorah! Sam Spade 12:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GW
I'll ask you to be a bit more careful about flinging around accusations of vandalism [1], if you'll be so kind William M. Connolley 19:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Erm... *boggle*. When I reverted, I saw User:205.222.248.13's edit as the last edit. I didn't see either Tawkerbot2's reversion, or your edit. Sorry about that. --Ashenai 20:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, no real problem William M. Connolley 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2
|
|
[edit] Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#N...
Hi Ashenai! I've just seen that you're a native speaker of Hungarian. There is someone at the Language reference desk who could use your help. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to this discussion. Thanks a lot. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the heads-up! --Ashenai 23:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you for your help! Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please take a look at the discussion once more, if you can. Thanks! Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Site Is Not Mine!
I added on a website which you took to be commericial and/or my private website. However, neither are true.
I suggest you undo your edit.
Many Thanks!
- My apologies for that; I have no way of checking whether it is in fact your site. It is, however, a non-notable site, and those are generally added by their owners.
- I'm not sure which edit you would like me to undo; I'm not going to undo my removal of the site from the Earth article, as I believe it doesn't belong there. As for my edit on your talk page, feel free to add your comment below it, as an explanation!
- Again, sorry for assuming it was your site; it was not meant as an insult or attack. :) --Ashenai 10:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Human
(Human = cheese) = orignal research? That's an interesting interpretation.--1pezguy 03:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I found no reliable source confirming or denying it. Therefore, original research :) --Ashenai 12:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you!
No problem. :-) --Rory096(block) 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you! [2]
Hi Ashenai - really nice of you to recognize me as an "exceptional newcomer". Thanks man. Outriggr 00:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alfred Soultan
Hi, I'm picking on you as a random Hungarian-speaker! An article on Alfred Soultan is up for deletion. Would you have the time/interest to hack through the Hungarian reference material and comment at the AfD? Cheers if you can! JackyR 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies for the late response; I've looked the guy up, and I'm not convinced of his notability. His achievements put him right on the edge of notability, as far as I'm concerned; I wouldn't mind Wikipedia having an article on him, but nor would I mind if the article were deleted. --Ashenai 09:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3
|
|
[edit] King
Look here lil dude, I'm aware that that was vandalism and the fact is I DONT CARE, okay? I don't need you and ur nerdy lil friends sending me messages and all that stuff, just delete it and go about your business I posted it there for ppl to see any way so i got my point across. thank you.
[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)
Hi, I notice you've had a say in previous discussions about deletions/undeletions for the myg0t article, I'd just like to inform you that another such discussion is occurring now, so if you'd like to voice your opinion, for or against undeletion of the article, feel free to post your thoughts.[2] - USER-cacophony 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ashenai! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Xyrael T 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem - I never usually get thanks, but today I've had two! Cya around. --Xyrael T 21:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ann Coulter (misplaced comment)
Come on! Everyone knows Ann Coulter is evil. Let the page stay that way.
[edit] Regarding 110_(number)
I reverted the page to combat vandalism (three times), and you flagged me for being the vandal. Thanks for your time. -- Porqin 00:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Catching my mistake/Galatea/Submarines
I came to your page to thank you for catching my mistake (posting a "welcome" on a user, not a talk page) and saw your Project Galatea initiative.
Project Galatea's a great idea! If you read my user page, you'll see I am also unimpressed by many aspects of Wikipedia after my limited tenure here. Editing Wikipedia seems like a multi-player online game for many editors more than an effort to craft a repository of knowledge. Racking up edits seems to be a major objective with playing 'gotcha' on user talk pages a close second.
I added Submarine to your Galatea list. It's on my long-term to-do list to rewrite it, but realistically I'm not going to have time to do it in the foreseeable future. I'm a good writer but painfully s-l-o-w. I'm more of a content guy than a writer type.
Submarine's a fairly stable article with not a lot of edit-squabbling occurring. The content is good but needs a combination of pruning and/or moving to other pages. If you have someone who wants to take it on, I'd be happy to help them some (i.e., what to prune, etc. -- I used to be a submariner). --A. B. 01:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] warning on talkpage
One is perfectly entitled to remove such warnings from his/her talkpage. An admin support my claim.[[3]] Another user removed my warning from his talkpage.[[4]]. To add to that the warnings is not justified. Another admin support my case. [[5]]. Please research before reverting others' talkpage. Thank you.--Bonafide.hustla 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] You're gonna block me?
Well, with so many ip address combinations, it will be hard to block/ban me. It's a shame that this encyclopedia, that I once chose for all of my research, won't let me include my favorite comedian and celebrity. I guess I'll have to tell all the people I know how incomplete this encyclopedia is. 68.251.188.133 08:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, no, I'm not going to block you, since I'm not an admin. Someone else will. This is a wiki, we're fairly interchangeable. :)
- Secondly, I know nothing about what happened regarding your favourite comedian. I know nothing about you except that you have twice vandalized the Wikipedia article, which specifically warns users about not vandalizing it.
- If you want to make your case about this comedian, we have the forums for that. In fact, if you don't want to go through the whole process, just feel free to make your case on my talk page, and I'll either champion your cause or explain why he's not encyclopedic.
- Nobody's out to get you, or this comedian of yours. We just want to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. That's really all there is to it. --Ashenai 08:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits to my user page
Did you have a look at User:Ding dong ding dong ding dong's edits? If you did, you might have noticed that the user has made quite a few edits on my user page and that I didn't seem to object to them. After all, guess whose sockpuppet it is? (I should perhaps be happy for getting what I was asking for: I have just had my edits to my user page reverted as vandalism ... Anyway, keep up the good work of fighting the real vandals. :-) - Mike Rosoft 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I figured out that it wasn't vandalism pretty quickly after you reverted him... sorry about that. It seemed clear-cut at the time. :) --Ashenai 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Anyway, I hereby award you a barnstar for your attention and for the laugh I got. - Mike Rosoft 19:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
-
-
- Woo, shiny... thank you :) --Ashenai 19:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Image Revolution
The Image Revolution page is not an add. If it was it would say in bold leters "PICK US EVERYONE ELSE SUCKS!!!!" and therefor it iks not an add. Leave it aloneTyluthan 22:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. sorry if i was an ass.Tyluthan 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
STOP PUTTING SHIT ON PAGES I DO YOU! ARE WASTING YOUR TIME!!!!!!Tyluthan 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I can not change your mind. But wouldnt you want some one to put a page somewhere to help get more people to know about it? WP has pages for websites like yahoo! and google and ask.com. Why cant i put a page up for a website that my stepdad made? You get my pointTyluthan 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not my sit you dumbass. That is why it wouldn't be on a usere page. Go fuck yourself. You are in denial that i am right and you are wrong.Tyluthan 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removing pictures
The comment i removed from the talk page was my own. i thought that the picture therein should be put back into the article "cat". I added it myself after a couple hours to the section on eyesight. I wasn't sighned in at the time. Maybe that's why you didn't realize it was my post. MontySpurling 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I Want Justice!!!
Ashenai - I want justice!!!! I provided the pages (Karate & Self Defense) you controlled with two best and absolutely relevant links!!! Do you know that I was the first person who introduced 'External links' section on the Karate page in the end of 2005, and now you're trying to delete the first, the best link!!! Do you think that you're worthy to be the moderator of Wikipedia? I doubt. Look at the links you provided (and most probably associated with) - they refer mostly to junk and commercial sites. The link I provided doesn't refer to commercial site (it's non-commercial) and it's utterly relevant to the content of the Karate page. Yes, I'm associated with that site, but I'm not the spammer - I just want to obtain justice!!!!! Please remove site www.self-defender.ne*t from the spam filter and return link Karate techniques - video illustrations to the Karate page. As I mentioned above, it was the first external link on the respective page, and the best link! If you don't want to return this link, delete the entire 'External links' block!!! And also please remove www.selfdefenseforums.co*m from the spam filter - I'm not associated with this online community, but it's great and worthy site, and I can't imagine why moderator deletes links referring to absolutely relevant and informative sites!!!! Regards, Supermastermoderator
- I see your username has been blocked. If/when you get a new one, feel free to tell me what it is, and we can continue this conversation. --Ashenai 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, I've got a new account and don't want to forget about this discussion. I told you about my position in the previous posting and it's interesting for me to know why are you so obstinate in this question? Please delete 'External links' block forever if you don't accept my contribution. - El loco coyot(Ex-Supermastermoderator) 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bancroft's School
Please don't remove information just because it's redlinked. There is no policy calling for this and this is indeed part of the point of lists, to show which articles need creating. I have seen many lists move from largely red to largely blue over my time editing Wikipedia, and removing red links means that large amounts of information will no doubt be lost, since many of these links will never be readded, even if the articles are created. -- Necrothesp 00:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Since I added all but one of these people, I can assure you that they did all exist and did all attend Bancroft's School. They also all appear in the Dictionary of National Biography, the definitive guide to notable Britons. I can't help thinking that you are rather assuming bad faith here. I can't see that any of the people you deleted were likely to be either vanity or non-notable. It's usually fairly easy to spot a vanity addition to a school page (I know, since I delete them all the time) - someone too young to be particularly likely to be notable and having a blatantly stupid description. To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone would add, for instance, "Sir Reader Bullard (1885–1976), Ambassador to Iran, 1943–1945" as vanity. He's dead, he was blatantly notable (I would say anyone who's been knighted is inherently notable anyway), and his position would not be considered at all glamourous by the sort of bored teenager or student who usually adds these things. Sorry to appear a little miffed. I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but many of these alumni lists are my work and I'm meticulous in my research, so I can't help but get a little irritated when people delete them for no apparent reason other than they don't have an article yet. For me, one of the great things about these lists is seeing the links turn blue as people do write articles about them. That's another little link that's been made in Wikipedia and thus another little bit of knowledge added. And that's what it's all about. -- Necrothesp 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salvation
Do not worry you are but a lost lamb the Lord will forgive you
Hia everybody!!!
Hey thanx 4 helping me out a while ago!
This isnt salvation saying this... how do you make the names pop up like that?
Image Revolution is infact a small biz. But it has had many places for it's name to be verified. Go to the Image Rev website at [6] to see a list of places Image Rev has done sites for. ThanxOuijalover 13:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.
As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.
Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] August Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] Image:Nothing.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nothing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lightmatter colosseum-70x52.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lightmatter colosseum-70x52.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TXMap-doton-Roma-70x52.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TXMap-doton-Roma-70x52.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] Another sockpuppet?
Compare this with this. The latter you reverted as an "edit of a sockpupput" - I don't know much about socks, but that looks like a return :) Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted all his bogus LGBT-project tagging of pedophiles and rapists, for now. See edit summary for his obvious intentions. --Dhartung | Talk 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Intelligent design
The quote from the DI is accurate and in context. I don't dispute this. But it also mischaracterises the views of their opponents by using the highly misleading word "undirected", with definitions including "random" and so on. That seems completely and totally wrong to me, and while I'm not going to re-revert now, I would appreciate if you'd talk about it on the talk page, because that seems completely and totally unacceptable to me, and a violation of WP:NPOV by way of allowing one side to define their opponents' position. Adam Cuerden talk 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Already replied on talk page. --Ashenai 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ashida Kim
Hi. You've previously commented on the Ashida Kim issue. It is up for a VfD. You should participate.
[edit] This is what I'm talking about
This is exactly what I'm talking about with the "Don't touch our shit" attitude, and is exactly why unsourced claims need to be removed on sight. As often as not they're opinionated, highly technical, or in this case just plain wrong. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, that's what discussions are for. You were right with that last revert, and if your edit summary had included the reason for it, I'd never have touched it. This is why communication is useful. Now all you have to do is convince us you're right with your wholesale removals. Please direct your editing energies to the Wikiproject talk page. :) --Ashenai 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have explained, at length, my reasoning for removing unsourced, opinionated, game guide material from articles. WT:MTG#Clarifying the cards issue with regard to policy has this explanation, with no response other than MM mischaracterizing my stated intent and you latching onto a tangiental point raised by somone else.
-
- Like I said before, I intend to remove unsourced, opinionated, game guide material from articles. I plan to ignore any obstacle to removing unsourced, opinionated, game guide material, because it's fundamentally necessary to make this a better encyclopedia. Please meditate on whether any revert you make is restoring material that blatantly violates those policies.
-
- In short, read what you revert. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel you've brought up a point that we haven't sufficiently addressed, or we have mischaracterized your argument, the correct course of action is to explain how, not ignoring discussion altogether. Though I have to say that the argument "Gatherer is not a sufficient source for anything. It is direct, personal observation, the epitome of original research" is difficult to mischaracterize.
- Trust me, I'm not planning to willfully ignore any point you bring up, and it seems to me that quite a few others are willing to debate any aspect of this issue. Again, if we don't address the points you think we should, please explain on the project talk page. --Ashenai 10:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- In short, read what you revert. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have willfully ignored things I've said since then.
Gatherer is not a useful source for anything but purely trivial facts, ones which need no critcial evaluation. You could cite Gatherer for things like "Grizzly Bears was banned on February 30, 2012" or "The wording of Lightning Bolt was changed to 'Prevent the next 7 damage dealt to a Knight by a blue source' on April 31, 1967." Most of the claims that can be sourced to Gatherer are highly trivial, and of little use in writing an article because they are not evaluative.
Evaluative claims cited to Gatherer (using that godawful inline external link template) are essentially unsourced. Take for example the crap currently in Darksteel:
*Skullclamp - An equipment that cost 1 to play and 1 to equip, it gave a creature +1/-1. When the equipped creature died, its controller would draw two cards. Skullclamp was found to be inherently broken, allowing decks with small creatures to draw absurd amounts of cards quickly. The Standard format degenerated into weenie decks that abused Skullclamp against control decks that were forced to splash Oxidize to answer Skullclamp. As a result, Skullclamp became the first card to be banned in Standard tournaments in four years. So great is Skullclamp's power level, it is currently banned in all formats except Vintage, where it remains unrestricted.
Where does this page explain that the card was "inherently broken, allowing decks with small creatures to draw absurd amounts of cards quickly"? Where does it explain that "the Standard format degenerated into weenie decks that abused Skullclamp against control decks that were forced to splash Oxidize to answer Skullclamp"? Or that "Skullclamp became the first card to be banned in Standard tournaments in four years"? Or that the fact that Skullclamp is so powerful is whyt it is banned in all formats but Vintage?
This fundamentally fails WP:V. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added sources for everything you brought up here, as well as a bunch of other stuff in Darksteel. I have to go; it's not done yet. You seem fairly knowledgeable in Magic: if you want to help, feel free to add sources for the other statements. :) --Ashenai 11:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Open Wikis in External Links
Seeing as you have done as I have in the past and cleaned up the External Links section of EVE Online I wondered if you might be interested in the conversation I am having with another editor here, I would appreciate your opinion as I think I am struggling to get my point across. Richard Slater (Talk) 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)