User talk:Andrewaskew/Archive 1

2012 list date
What happened to my note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmel (talk • contribs) 16:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reply) Andrewaskew (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Polyamory
Hi Andrew. All categories need solidly reliable sources to support them. That is: secondary sources that state the subject viewed themselves as polyamorous. Any interpretation of events on the part of an editor, without this evidence, would be taken as original research. The arguments are put clearly on the Brecht talk page. I hope this makes our position clear. It's nothing against you or polyamory, it's just how WP works. Best wishes Span (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, a few pointers: each article/list is sourced separately. The editors of individual articles might challenge you on the sources of some articles but not on others. That's how WP works. You cannot cite one article's given sources to support another. Lists are notoriously dubious in their sourcing, biographical articles less so. WP is not even. Some biographies are fantastically written, following the guidelines closely, others stand full of guff, puffery and nonsense. Given that there are very nearly four million articles in English, this is not surprising. WP does not run by precedent (although this is how editors usually learn their way around) but by actual guidelines. See WP:OTHERCRAP for more details. WP can seem archane, complex and Byzantine in its structures as it grew organically from nothing, but it is very much worth asking questions, doing some reading up on how we work and watching how long standing editors do things. It can take a little time to get used to it all but it is worth it. I hope you will enjoy editing here. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your new categories up for deletion
Per our discussion on Categories:Propaganda talk page, I think you have to study Wikipedia policies more before creating or ediging categories in a way which is WP:Synthesis. I'm adding three of your new categories to deletion discussions, in addition to one already up for deletion. See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_18. CarolMooreDC 01:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

aka
I am well aware of what the letters stand for, but the unword "aka" is only used in teen zines and other publications full of drivel written by people who can't write. This is an encyclopaedia. Drivel is not acceptable here. Kelisi (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I never claimed that "unword" was standard English (it surely isn't), nor did I write it in an article. At least the Urban Dictionary lists it. Kelisi (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(Conversation) Andrewaskew (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda by interest = Propaganda by topic
I don't have time to deal with your WP:OR in creating and changing categories willy nilly as you please and hope someone will deal with your disruptive edits at some point. In the meantime, at least note section title. CarolMooreDC 04:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(Conversation) Andrewaskew (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Categories Wild West, Wild west shows
Please see my proposal to upmerge or rename the categories Category:Wild West and Category:Wild west shows. Hugo999 (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Off topic of Freemasonry categorisation
I am making this comment here now, as I presume I may be questioned later.

I made an edit to a Cfd discussion which declared part of the discussion off-topic and placed it behind a collapsed template.

While I was willing to participate in some of this discussion, it had reached its limit of relevance to the discussion at hand, and was showing signs of derailing the Cfd.

I felt that WP:TPOC gave enough of a precedent to collapse the edit. I considered only collapsing part of the off-topic discussion, but this would have seemed biased.

If other editors feel I have made an overly hasty edit, please let me know.

--Andrewaskew (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello, I'm Lova Falk. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Distraction seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lova Falk    talk   14:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(Reply) Andrewaskew (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First, my apologies for the late answer. Work has just been crazy before the holidays. Second, once more my apologies for bad judgment. I read your text as a we-are-all-being-manipulated-by-the-media kind of content, but when re-reading it I see that it is not, that you just describe a technique of manipulation. I'm sorry, and best wishes,  Lova Falk     talk   08:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)