User talk:Ashenai/Archive

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 02:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

RHINALLERGY
You should be bold. If you thought RHINALLERGY should be kept, you should have converted the speedy tag into an AfD and completed the rest of the AfD procedure. Anyone can do that. -- RHaworth 12:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice! I'll be bolder in the future. :) -- Ashenai 12:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thank you!
The article and its Talk page is under attack of some guy with a website and his own original theory for several months. I am quite disgusted by the constant calling Nazi and mass blanking and would appreciate more people keeping eye on the article. Pavel Vozenilek 17:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 17:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering rules
If you feel like working more on this page, please feel free to do so, or start the talk page. --Khaim 01:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Keywords vs. Mechanics
Since you seem like the most active member of the MTG project right now, I wanted your input on the difference between keywords and mechanics in the infoboxes. I honestly don't know what the difference would be, and would like to combine the two. I posted at the project, but got no response, that's probably the best place to reply:. Thanks! -- Norvy (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

SnackingKeyboard
I've actually blocked User:Snacking Keyboard six minutes before you reported him on WP:VIP, but thanks for the report anyway. I was just browsing Recent changes and saw a lot of edits with "Love virus?" as the edit summary. It didn't take long to guess what was happening and click on the "Block" link. &mdash; J I P | Talk 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ashida Kim
I have been trying to tell Mr. Kim that I cannot act unilaterally and delete the article because of the community consensus issue. He accuses me of siding with his enemies and "hiding behind policy". As for now, I can't delete it, as much as I'd like to. --Merovingian (t) (c) 16:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ashida Kim is not self published
Thanks. I hope I'm doing this right. Ashida Kim is not self published. His books were originally on Paladin Press and now on Citadel Press Books published by Kensington Publishing Corp. 850 Third Ave. New York, NY. 10022 (1 800 221 2647)

Thanks for putting up the info. I was under the impression that I could not vote because I just started editing. Do I just go to edit page on deletion article? Here is some more info. They can call or go to any Borders or Barnes and Noble and see for themselves that Ashida Kim books are in stock and very popular. Of the 8 or so books still in print, three of them are available at Borders here in Vegas. I don't mean borders.com, I mean the actual store. If you're in there looking for books about Ninja, chance are, his name is on it.

Ashida Fraud Forum
Here is an entire forum dedicated to Ashida 

I added some good edits so please update me from 14 to however many I now have.

Wikipedia latency issues
For god's sake, it took me ten minutes to GET TO this article and REVERT it.
 * You and me both; on my side it kept timing out on that particular article, and I knew it was being vandalized. If you can, please help me keep an eye on 210.55.230.121 until it is blocked.  [ edit ] 01:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Furtim
You gave Furtim a test, but assuming it was for his edit on Cannabis (drug) that was incorrect, he didn't add the test he merely edited the version that contained it without noticing it. You may want to retract the message. Happy editing! --fvw *  15:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Procedure
Before you went about deleting all of the links to the Berumen article, you should have waited the presecribed 5 days for the vote that you initiated. Those articles have survived editors who presumably know something about the subject matter. What is more, several contain material original and sourced to Berumen. You were highly presumptuous in your exuberance, I think, and you ought to revert your deletions until such time as the basic issue is decided. icut4u 15:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop it!
I am Maurice Simmons, no one else, and, as far as I am aware, I do not know anyone at this site. Don't make accusations unless you have proof. You may meet me at the Golden Spike in The City tonight and buy me a beer by way of apology. Logic2go

re: robert peel
No problem! Thanks for restoring it :) XYaAsehShalomX 19:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict :-)
Hi, yeah, I saw I voted twice after I saved the page, but you were quicker :-) Thanks! --JoanneB 10:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops, probably should have left you a minute or two to self-fix. Sorry 'bout that. --Ashenai (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: test3
I only give test3 as a first warning when someones been on a vandalism spree, or has been going well beyond the realms of 'testing the waters', e.g. they're not a newbie to be bitten. In the specific case you mentioned, the user had made -13- vandalistic edits to one article, most likely the same one you warned him on. And now that you've seen (and reverted, thanks) his edits to my user page, I think I was somewhat justified. --Kiand 11:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Test templates
Regarding your message on User talk:Adam1213. I usually use the test templates in order myself, with a few special additional rules.
 * 1) If the user has previously reached test3, or even test4 status, but that was more than a couple of days ago, I restart from the first test template.
 * 2) If the user has made obvious vandalism (such as replacing an article's contents with "PENISPENISPENIS" or forging other people's comments), I jump immediately to test2 or test3. Never to test4, though.
 * 3) If the user has vandalised my user or user talk page, personally insulting me, I jump immediately to test4, or block the user right away. &mdash; J I P | Talk 16:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with all that. Personally, I dislike giving even test3 as a first warning, because it's very unhelpful. Unlike test1 and test2, there's no link to the sandbox in it, and nothing to encourage helpful editing. "PENISPENISPENIS" is often just someone doing a bit of irreverent testing, and reacting with {test3} is a bit too scary, IMO. Forging other people's comments is another matter entirely, of course; that's not something a newbie does, it's a premeditated attempt to hurt the Wiki.
 * My advice to Adam was meant as a "rule of thumb": you can't really go wrong with using the test templates in order, and it's generally better to err on the side of leniency, I think. :) --Ashenai (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

RuneScape
You said it. I've been monitoring it for several days now and its like a trainwreck. If I had ever played it I might consider wading in and trying to clean it up, but I don't feel like walking deliberately into quicksand. :) --Syrthiss 17:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto here. Never played it, not really interested in playing it. But it has too much content, and draws too many vandals to just ignore. Sigh. --Ashenai (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm just fighting off the vandals and maybe someone who plays it and has a literary bent will wander by. I personally wonder if thats a null set though (plays runescape + literary) ;) --Syrthiss 17:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No hard feelings
Life is too short for that, especially at my age! Best. icut4u

Requests for adminship/Stevertigo
I noticed that you had just added your signature to the 'Send Back to ArbCom" section. That specific RfA was closed early due to large opposition. If you notice that a RfA is closed with the special header, please don't add any votes, since that would be confusing the historical record. Thanks, Bratsche talk 21:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Aah! Sorry about this ^^ note. I didn't save it, and the screen was hanging out in an open tab. Sorry. Oh, and your Project Galatea looks interesting. I'll think about joining soon, but when I have more time to plan a good article out. Cheers, Bratsche talk 21:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Nyelvek
Helló!

Megtennéd nekem, hogy felrakod magad a magyarul beszélő wikipedian-ok listájára? Anny az egész, hogy berakod ezt: A saját lapodra. Így tudnak neked szólni, ha valami van magyar ügyben (kell egy magyar pl. egy AfD - Article for Deletion -hoz). Meg amúgy is jobb, mert így legalább lehet tudni mi az ábra.

Máté --Msoos 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (megnézheted az én lapomat, hogy ez hogy néz ki, szerintem egész jó...)

News from Esperanza
Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? )

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

Berumen
I have nominated him for deletion again - I thought you may be interested to cast your tuppence-worth, since you were an active participant in the first article: Articles for deletion/Michael E. Berumen (2nd nomination). Otherwise, hope all is well. ElectricRay 23:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: EA-welcome (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Image copyright problem with Image:Tsigganes-Greek_Gypsies-70x52.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tsigganes-Greek_Gypsies-70x52.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Regarding Rammstein
''Ack, my bad. Good call on the "du hast" thing. Thanks for the correction. :) --Ashenai 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)''
 * No problem :-) Jogers 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,

--Cel es tianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

My RfA
Hi. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support.  Soothing R  21:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Ashenai,

Just a quick (belated) note to express my thanks for your support in my RfA. It is always refreshing when someone understands the points you are trying to put across.

Anyway, as it stands I have around 70%, so I'll need a few more supports in order to get admin status. I have been quite disappointed that most of those in opposition seem to have disregarded the sentiments on my user page - but hey, that's life.

Thank you again for your support! DJR (Talk) 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support of my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA ultimately succeeded with a final consensus of 52/1/0, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any comments regarding my editing, or I can help you at any point in the future, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Zarf
Hi Ashenai - no, it was just a coincidence. It's just a word I've always liked (like "crepuscular"). I spend too much time at the keyboard as it is without getting involved in online gaming :) Grutness...wha?  23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.Mojorisin' 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)

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)

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. -    nath  a  nrdotcom  ( 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)

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)

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)

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)

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!

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. -- Rory 0 96 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1
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

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)

GW
I'll ask you to be a bit more careful about flinging around accusations of vandalism, 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)

Reference_desk/Language
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)

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)

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)

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. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
No problem. :-) -- Rory 0 96 (block) 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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. - USER-cacophony 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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. Xyra e  l  T 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem - I never usually get thanks, but today I've had two! Cya around. -- Xyra  e  l  T 21:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Stay calm. It's powerful, and that's fine - just don't lose your head! -- Xyra  e  l  T 21:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter (misplaced comment)
Come on! Everyone knows Ann Coulter is evil. Let the page stay that way.

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)

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)

warning on talkpage
One is perfectly entitled to remove such warnings from his/her talkpage. An admin support my claim.[] Another user removed my warning from his talkpage.[]. To add to that the warnings is not justified. Another admin support my case. []. Please research before reverting others' talkpage. Thank you.--Bonafide.hustla 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * Woo, shiny... thank you :) --Ashenai 19:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 to see a list of places Image Rev has done sites for. ThanxOuijalover 13:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nothing.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nothing.jpg, has been listed at. 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)

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. 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)

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. 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)

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)
 * How lovely :) Thanks much for fixing that! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  20:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ashida Kim
Hi. You've previously commented on the Ashida Kim issue. It is up for a VfD. You should participate.

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 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)

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)

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)

RfD nomination of Project Galatea
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)
Since you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
We were getting there with those other sections, but we just merged our changes into yours. I would find it helpful if your edit summaries were more specific than just "wikifix" or "minor wikifix", which really is just pseudo-blank. SimonTrew (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

edit war at evolution
Why do you keep posting that notice to my page after i delete it? I havnt edited the 'evolution' page since the last time i tried and it didnt receive kindly and so i stopped.

Jinx69 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I thought people weren't allowed to blank their talk pages, but apparently I was wrong. Sorry, my bad. --Ashenai (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on another editor's talk page
Any editor may remove a warning notice from his or her talk page. Edit warring to restore such notices is expressly forbidden. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yyyes. I figured that out myself, and then apologized to the person concerned, a month ago. As per the conversation right above your message. What are you doing? --Ashenai (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Hey there. Regarding this, I wish you more success than I had with the request that led to this. Let me know if you're able to decipher it. (I wasn't.) Rivertorch (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

August 2013
Your recent editing history at My Little Pony: Equestria Girls (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  20:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3RR does not apply to reverting blatant vandalism. Replied on talk page. --Ashenai (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing, introduction of false information, personal attacks and nonsense are not vandalism. 3RR still applying. I suggest you to calm down. I have noticed this and I'm sure others have. If this person continues but you continue, the pages are likely to be protected or both accounts blocked. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Intentionally adding nonsense to a page is, in fact, vandalism, as the page you have linked clearly explains. "While intentionally adding nonsense to a page is a form of vandalism (...)". I'll stop reverting since you've clearly asked in good faith, but I believe you're mistaken about both the letter and the intent of 3RR. --Ashenai (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Audio_Bullys
There is a discussion regarding Template:Audio_Bullys in which you may be interested. Please visit Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_22 to take part. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Only Man"
There is a discussion regarding "Only Man" in which you may be interested. Please visit Articles for deletion/Only Man to take part. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AAshenai granted] the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Woo, thank you! This will come in handy. Much appreciated! --Ashenai (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

deletion of page
why my page is deleted? its an official page Adeeb.faraaz (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

how can i create the wikipedia page Adeeb.faraaz (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

can u please create a page/article for me Adeeb.faraaz (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

can u tell me how to delete the account from wiki Adeeb.faraaz (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * }


 * Replied to all on user talk page. --Ashenai (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Talk:Evolution
For the record, I tried to engage in John.r.r. when he first started that thread on Talk:Evolution, but, his reply to my request that he get to his point was what made me lose all good faith in his intentions. If he really does have any good intentions, why won't he bother to explain what changes he wants made? And unless he can bother to explain what changes he wants, I don't see why I should give him the benefit of the doubt.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I get that he's maybe not the easiest person to work with, but there's really less drama and work involved in giving him a short answer (and then hatting the conversation, if you want), than deleting his suggestions.
 * And my objection is only to the removal of those contributions where he legitimately gave a suggestion trying to improve the article; see the specific reversion that I linked on your Talk page.
 * Even if he is acting in bad faith (which I'm not convinced of, but you've interacted with him more than I have), I think answering him and dealing with him amiably is simply a better solution in the long run than deleting his concerns. --Ashenai (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts, Ashenai. I did attempt earlier to deal constructively with him. The response can be found at User_talk:John.r.r. Which indicates he's never going to change. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare  ‖ 16:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've read all of his edits, and I know my chances of being heard are low. I've seen POV warriors become good editors with time, though (rarely, but it does happen), and hey, hope springs eternal.
 * I think you've done a wonderful job in your interactions with him. And, you know, in general. WikiGnomes are the awesomest kind of people. :) --Ashenai (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Linking
Thanks for looking at, and answering my query on 290815 on the Village Pump/Proposals page about linking and the lack of information you get when hovering the mouse arrow over it. I've tried it on the two examples in the segment I left, i.e. OTRS and SELFPUB - it works! Thanks again

RASAM (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help :) --Ashenai (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


William Hembrom (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 
 * Yay :3
 * (That CV, or whatever it is, is still not appropriate for an article, though. Sorry! Lemme know if something isn't clear, or if I can help with content/policy issues.) --Ashenai (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Vespasian - edits from BC/AD to BCE/CE
How does changing date formats from a religiously-biased style (BC/AD) - a style contrary to the spirit of a Roman such as Vespasian himself (who was fighting against such insurgent religious groups in the first place) - to a more neutral, historical style that is far more congruous with a historical subject such as Vespasian and certainly a better fit in terms of the subject matter.......constitute "vandalism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.190.175 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * More edit warring than vandalism, really. My problem was that User:Egsan Bacon told you to read WP:ERA in this edit... which you really should have done, because it explains Wikipedia policy on Era style. Just gonna quote the relevant bit right here:


 * Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.


 * Silently edit warring to get your preferred phrasing into the article is not okay. If you had discussed the matter on the article talk page, I would not have had the slightest problem with either of you changing it to BCE/CE. I daresay it might even be more appropriate.


 * You appear to be a new editor, though, and I get that Wikipedia policy can be opaque at first. I meant no offense or insult, and will gladly explain any Wikipedia policies that aren't clear. Cooperative editing is not optional, though. Edit warring is not acceptable. --Ashenai (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on James Taranik
Hi Ashenai--I want to give you the sequence of events here, beginning with the vandalism that caused me to write my first post to you:

1. User 68.5.146.216  edits the page and changes "pioneer in the area of earth-observation satellite remote sensing" first to Adult Film Producer and then to Spaceman. He also changes the date of birth from 1940 to 1969. I also notice that the page is somehow in the category of biographies of living persons, which I did not ever see before.

2. I try to figure out how to fix this, look around, and revert those changes back. I read the article on semi-protected pages and write to you in the Teahouse.

3. I check the article again and see that user TheRedPenOfDoom has made further changes...challenges the birthdate, removes an external link, and deletes a space that is needed next to the term where he removes the link. I look around and think he is a sockpuppet, probably the same as the first user who vandalized, since this all is happening on the same day.

4. The RedPenofDoom reverts back my reversions and starts making changes all over the document. I check some of the changes on other bio pages and it appears to me he is a troll because he is asking for citations where no other bio page has them that I can see! I try to write back to him, referencing Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he does not respond to that, but continues to make changes...meanwhile you and I are exchanging messages.

5. Now he writes that the subject is not notable. My friends and family are telling me not to feed the troll and you are telling me he is legit, and can do anything he wants. I decide not to continue trying to communicate with him. Which I cannot figure out how to do anyway, except by making changes and having him revert them. I went through a process when I first created the article over notability and satisfied the requirements, I thought. Can anyone just come along and say I am wrong? I have more than met the requirements for academics, which I was pointed to by another editor.

6. I believe TheRedPenofDoom is angry and targeting the article because I thought he was a troll. If he removes the article, which is about an academic who was also the project scientist for NASA's Space Shuttle series, who also had two articles published in Science, and leaves alone the many many academic biographies with no notability at all, my belief will be confirmed.

Thank you for trying to help me. Dchittur (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright! Thanks for collecting everything. Let's look at them in order.


 * 1-2. This is bog-standard vandalism. It happens a lot, to many articles. It's not worth giving it much thought, just revert it. If the vandal won't stop after multiple warnings, you can report them at WP:AIV board, but that wasn't necessary here.


 * 3. Understandable, but no, he's quite separate from the vandal. Wikipedia gets a lot of visitors, articles often catch the attention of multiple people at the same time.


 * 4. Bio pages most certainly do have citations! Franklin D. Roosevelt has an entire bibliography, plus 311 references. That's not the best article to compare yours with, though. The point is that every statement made in an article needs to be sourced. Imagine an argumentative skeptic reading your article, and asking "how do you know this?" after every sentence. If the article is properly sourced, he should be able to answer every single one of his own questions via the references. Many articles are not perfect and fall short of this ideal, but it's important. You got the information from somewhere after all: include the source in the references!


 * 5. I assure you TheRedPenOfDoom is not a troll. He's been an editor here for 8 years, has made over 100,000 edits, and has never once been blocked for vandalism or disruptive editing. He's somewhat brusque, but he does great work in the specialist area he has chosen, which is finding and pointing out issues in articles. He doesn't have it in for you or your article, he just works quickly, and on many articles in quick succession. I've looked at his recent contributions, and since your argument he has worked his magic on three other articles. He's not very chatty, but not everyone here is very people-oriented, nor do they have to be. Encyclopedia editing is not really the most social of activities. :)


 * 6. I don't think he's angry at you. And please try to assume good faith, it's one of Wikipedia's most important tenets.


 * If you want to talk to him, go to his talk page and edit it! That's what it's for. You have already successfully sent him one message. He's communicated about the article quite a bit, though, you just didn't see the venue. If you look at the article's talk page, he listed a number of potential sources you could look at to try and determine notability, and has given his thoughts on the matter. Again, his statements are not very chatty or newbie-friendly, but they are intended to be helpful, and to help find sources for the article.


 * It's important not to take edits to the article as a personal insult. Wikipedia is based on the idea of quick collaboration: it is routine to edit articles without asking, and no one has any claim to ownership of an article. Once it's on Wikipedia, it's open to being mercilessly edited by anyone at all.


 * I hope I've clarified things a bit. Editors can be (and are expected to be) quite merciless in judging articles; that's how they are improved. It doesn't mean they have any negative feelings towards the author. --Ashenai (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Valeria Lukyanova
Valeria Lukyanova's real birth date is June 21, 1991. It's written on her official VK account here http://vk.com/amatue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.83.122.171 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is the very definition of a primary source (a subject writing about themselves), and so I'm afraid we cannot accept it as a reliable source. Every plausible source I have seen lists her birth year as 1985. If you wish to change it, please provide a better source than the subject herself! Thanks. --Ashenai (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Creamfinance article
1. Hi there! Thanks for the prompt response about the issue. I will try to make it more informational. 2. Is there a specific section where I could find unfinished articles that I may be able to add something to? Viktorijagor (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Viktorijagor, and welcome to Wikipedia! All articles on Wikipedia are "unfinished", there's no such thing as an article that can't be improved. If you have information to add on a topic, just search for the article on it, and if your information is missing from it, feel free to add it! Only add information that you have a reliable source for, though.
 * If you're interested in a particular topic, you can join the WikiProject for it, where you'll find other editors who have the same interests and can give you specific advice. here is Wikiproject Latvia, for instance, although it doesn't seem to be very active right now. --Ashenai (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

about article
Don't know exactly where to talk to u, try to do it here. So, why in the article of some sites from the same category (for example this site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Karma) the same reference to Forbes is ok? And some more references to their own(!) blog (Credit Karma Blog) and some other sources that looks like unreliable too (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-30/a-free-credit-report-with-no-strings-attached-dot-honest). Are they more reliable and if so why (for me to know how to make my article about CRedit Land more reliable) or this site (and some other from the category as well) are treated differently?? I understand in general your point of view but what I can't understand is whyyy other sites are ok with even absolutely the same references (like Forbes blog). Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas A 2 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Douglas A 2! Just because other stuff exists, that doesn't mean it's okay! Wikipedia is imperfect, and we don't see everything. I don't have time to do a detailed check on Credit Karma right now, but I will later; and yeah if the source is bad it needs to be removed.
 * That said, the main problem with the Credit-Land.com article isn't that it has bad sources; that would not be a valid reason for deletion. The problem is that it has no good (reliable) sources. Not a single one. And I couldn't find any on Google, either. Credit Karma does have sources that look okay at first glance (although I might revise this opinion once I go through them in more detail.) --Ashenai (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. Already started working on the content of the article and adding more reliable sources hope I manage to finish it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas A 2 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible COI issue with Edible art
I came across Edible art as it was listed for having bare URLs instead of proper reference citations. In the process of finding the information about the referenced pages, I discovered that all the article's sources were on the website of a single bakery that specializes in custom cakes (and didn't work especially well as sources for what they were meant to be supporting). These sources were added by the article's creator. They haven't edited the article since 1 September (it was created 28 August), and they have been editing other articles (though I haven't looked to see what kinds of edits they've been doing). Considering the degree to which the article as created was serving as an advertisement for that one company — via both the reference URLs and text praising the bakery's chef — I feel the creator of the Edible art article would benefit from a reminder about WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. The last time I raised the possibility of a COI issue in an article with NPOV issues, though, I was scolded for bothering a "seasoned editor" and given a long list of that article creator's Wikipedia accomplishmments and a (ridiculous) assertion from some friend of his that there wasn't any NPOV issue with the article anyway. I'd prefer to avoid another such disappointing experience, so I'm hoping you would be willing to talk to the creator of the Edible art article? Thanks in advance. —GrammarFascist (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi GrammarFascist! Thanks for pointing this out, I'm a sucker for a good meaty COI case. I've removed a stray self-promotional link that was still in the article and given the user a heads-up. That said, this user has not edited any articles since September 1, and no other articles have links to the website in question, so no further action is warranted. Good faith newbie mistake that's been fixed. Thanks again. :) --Ashenai (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

??
Hello XxRoadhouseBluesxX (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi XxRoadhouseBluesxX! What's up? --Ashenai (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a bot XxRoadhouseBluesxX (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, thanks for sharing. --Ashenai (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Volume of Europa
You Internet calculation is giving a mistake. Please, calculate volume himself on a your computer! 93.77.235.134 (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Internet calculation is mistaken. Please, calculate volume himself on a your computer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.77.235.134 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Answered on talk page. --Ashenai (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ashenai!


Happy New Year! Ashenai, Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation
Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update
The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Custom signature fix needed
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are in the wrong order.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Change the signature as shown below, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
 * Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Current signature:

Fixed signature:

More information is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)