User talk:ClaretAsh/Archive 2

Annabel Simms
In June you PRODded this, and I deleted it. The subject, Ms Simms, has contacted me by email asking about it; I take that as contesting the PROD, so I have restored it. I have explained to her that I will notify you and that you may choose to AfD it, and also about notability and COI - she was aware of COI as a problem and said the only edit she had made to the article was to update an ISBN number. I told her that in my opinion notability was doubtful, and that while references to her journalism would help for verification, what was needed for notability was something independent about her, such as book reviews; and I said that (per WP:BESTCOI) if rather than editing the article she made suggestions on its talk page she should find people helpful. Over to you, but suggest wait a few days to see what she can provide. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence
I am requesting a rename on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. My current username on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote is LordVetinari. ClaretAsh 11:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling
Hi. Thank you  for patrolling  new pages and catching  Corrupt wikipedia administrators. Whan you see a page like this, be sure to  place the correct  warning  on  the user's talk  page. In a case like this I given the user  a 'only  warning  4im'. If they  make the slightes im^rper edit  again, particularly  at  the AfD, they  will  be blocked instantly. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the speedy deletion notice (on the article creator's talk page) count as a warning? ClaretAsh (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Tatyana Bakhteeva
Hello, ClaretAsh. Please remove your nomination for speedy deletion of Tatyana Bakhteeva article, as it is undergoing edit from my side, and will be further supplemented by corresponding references. Orekhova (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Replied here)
 * Dear ClaretAsh, thank you for your clarifying message. Orekhova (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Thank you for your correction.Those pages are not articles, they are archives of my talk page.--Orartu (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. ClaretAsh (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re WA LGA template
I think you're right - it does look better without the italics. The italics are only useful when distinguishing inside a long list where they're randomly interspersed. Orderinchaos 11:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We could go further and add † for towns and ‡ for shires, but that might be overkill. Being a city is a status symbol not usually shared by shires and towns, hence a need to specify cities alone.  Claret Ash  11:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shires is the default so doesn't really need a distinguishing mark, but for towns I think it has merit :) Orderinchaos 09:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian celestial hierachy
I did copy and paste but it was to start the article and I hoped to change the words slightly. I think that the angelic hierachy should be merged to the new page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.242.128 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you read Copying within Wikipedia, especially the sections regarding attribution to original author. If you only wish to copy others' work in order to rephrase it for a new article, I suggest you do it prior to publication, either in your own userspace (if you already have an account) ensuring you leave a clear explanatory note at the top of the page, or work on it offline.  Claret Ash  08:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I get a copy of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the duck (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume so. Just go to Copying within Wikipedia and use the "Save as" option on your browser. It's a good idea getting a copy of this page as it'll mean you always have a handy copy even if the internet goes down. Of course, when the page is updated, you'll need to re-save the new version. Hope this helps. Cheers,  Claret Ash  09:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fibre sidebar
Template:Fibre sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Clan MacNeacail
Oh, sorry about that. Well, when I read the small quote from Description of the Lews, I found out that "Olipheous" was Olaf the Black, King of Mann and the Isles; so I simply traced his ancestry as far back as I could and then I made a chart to show it. I know all about original research, but this is valuable information. Also, it seems that you are following all of my edits. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.14.89 (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. As your contributions show, you've only made one edit prior to this talk page. So I suppose that makes you technically correct. As for my removal of the table at Clan MacNeacail, I urge you not to take it personally, but to read up on our policies on poriginal research and synthesis of sources. I realise all these policies can seem a little daunting, but once you understand their importance, I think you'll appreciate why we're compelled to remove content from time to time. Regards,  Claret Ash  08:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Brazilian monarchs
Hi, ClaretAsh. I just saw your edit on List of Brazilian monarchs. João VI (John VI) became co-Emperor of Brazil on 1825 until his death in 1826. It was merely an honorary title. He held no power or influence over Brazil. It was done by his son to please him when the treaty signed by both countries recognized Brazilian independence. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand now. To help clarify it for others, though, may I suggest that something be mentioned at João's article about his status as co-emperor.
 * On that topic, too, I urge those looking after these articles to rewrite parts of John VI of Portugal and Pedro I of Brazil. Where the latter article states that João advised his son to declare independence, the former article states that, upon such a declaration occurring, he refused to recognise it. What happened for him to change his mind? Anyone reading one article gets a different idea of the situation than if they read the other article.  Claret Ash  00:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are many issues on those articles. João VI suggested his son to lead the Brazilians and take the crown for himself if the latter noticed that independence was inevitable. I was working on other articles but I'll start improving Pedro I's soon, so don't worry. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Chronicles of Inotia 3: Children of Carnia
I want to ask you something about the proposed deletion. Can you answer to that talk page? --도약 (talk) '하늘 높이 도약하라 (Jump into the sky) '  16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you.  Claret Ash  12:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Resource request
Hi,

I've scanned the book on Clan MacNeacol that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the file at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've asked User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh to follow it up as my internet has gone funny and am having trouble downloading.  Claret Ash  02:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Claret, I can email it to you as an attachment if your internet connection is still wonky and Gabriel needs to take it down.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's ok. We don't all need a copy. As long as one of us has permanent access to it, it'll still be useful. Thanks for your help.  Claret Ash  23:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, how about that: I tried downloading again and it works! I've now got a copy.  Claret Ash  23:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma/birthplace sources
Hi, I've created a subpage on Bodhidharma/birthplace sources, but the copying-proces has been a little bit messy... I created the Talk-page right away, which of course was not the intention. And the Copied-template says not to delete the original page, but of course, this can be deleted. Anyway, thanks for your comments! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The copied template probably isn't necessary as the article only had one editor. Incidentally, you might find Moving a page useful for future reference. Hope I've been of help. Regards  Claret Ash  23:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll put the link at my tool-page. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to raid my links at User:ClaretAsh/Current projects.  Claret Ash  22:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Barbaro again
Can you explain to me why you keep removing references to my book on Barbaro ? thanks. Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrown (talk • contribs) 01:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please find my reply at this page. And, for future reference, please start new discussions at the bottom of the page instead of mixed in with other discussions. It otherwise makes it harder for people to know you've even commented let alone where to find it.  Claret Ash  12:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Syed Bilal Qutub
At present, I don't find any more reliable sources for Syed Bilal Qutub per WP standards. The article may be expanded by other en-wiki users or deleted whatever considered appropriate, please. Kind regards.--JC Bills (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it may end up being deleted. Wikipedia is very strict when it comes to articles about living people, which makes sense when you think about it. Incidentally, you might like to read WP:FACEBOOK in regards to the link you did add.  Claret Ash  12:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Majlis-ash-Shura, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Majlis ash-Shura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

On trying
I think you tried well, but what came out was merely that the only people interested in the discussion are the polar opposites, so there's no room for negotiation. This often happens in esoteric discussions (eg re category structures or templates or things that generally don't intrude on most people's experience of the encyclopaedia). Orderinchaos 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In hindsight, I should have negotiated with each involved user independently but that would have taken more time and effort than I'm prepared to invest at the moment. I've got other projects taking my attention and there's also a lot happening at work. Anyway, thanks for your words.  Claret Ash  08:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of Khans of the Golden Horde, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jalal ad-Din and Temur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Employment
Hi there. The changes that you made by turning it into a sidebar made it blank the entire page from left to right. . I reverted the template to its previous horizontal state until you can fix it. If you have changed the position of the template in various articles, you need to go back to them and reverse your edits so that it is once again placed at the bottom until you can fix the sidebar. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have also come across these numerous edits which apper to have no advantage and have upset the layout of the articles. I have reverted a couple which appeared on my watchlist but then discovered you have done a wholesale change to all such articles which appear in the template. I agree with Voceditenore that you need to reverse all these changes asap.Tmol42 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ClaretAsh, just so you know. I'm rolling back your edits to articles with this template, because it's much quicker than "undo + edit summary" and there are many, many articles affected. I've started with your most recent edits and am working down, but will have stop soon. I suggest you start with your first edits re the template and work your way up to avoid duplication. Voceditenore (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that I've asked for administrator assistance in helping to roll back the edits at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: It appears that they may not be able to use a tool that would revert your edits en masse, so it's really important that you go back as soon as possible and revert your edits. Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of it. Frank  &#124;  talk  18:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Goodness, a lot can happen in a couple of days. I won't apologise for not answering sooner as the comments above seem to have been made at a time when I was in bed asleep and I couldn't answer afterwards due to working in real life followed by WP being inaccessible. Anyway, I shall respond to the comments above all together in the order they appear.

To begin with, I have no idea what Voceditnore means by the sidebar "blanking the entire page". The link you provide fails to give an example of a page thus blanked and explains nothing. Also, as I checked each and every page both prior to saving and afterwards, I know that the sidebar appeared exactly as it was supposed to appear. I cannot "fix" a problem that doesn't appear to exist and isn't adequately explained. Having said that, I know from a quick read of the "what links here" section of the template's page that there were roughly five to ten articles on which I hadn't yet fixed the template's transclusion and which made it appear at the bottom but, as it was getting late that night, I opted to leave finish it off later on the assumption that anyone who came across an incorrect transclusion would see what the obvious problem was and fix it themselves.

I note Tmol42's coment that my edits appear to have no advantage. Might I suggest that this is probably due to Voceditnore's ill-thought reversion of the adjustment I made to the template. I suggest this because Tmol42 first commented on my talk page a full 28 minutes after Voceditnore's reversion. This suggests that, if Voce had not reverted, anyone could have looked at the article and seen that moving the transclusion from the bottom of the page to the top was an entirely sensible move. I adjusted the template in the full knowledge of its effects and consequently, as my contrib history will show, tried to "update" each transclusion as quickly as possible. Any idiot knows that, to transclude correctly, a navbar goes at the bottom but a sidebar goes at the top. The transclusion I moved was a sidebar but, thanks to Voce's reversion, what people subsequently saw was the relocation of a navbar. I refer to Voce's reversion ill-thought because, unlike myself, he appears to have completely ignored the consequences of making a major change to such a template.

By promptly reverting without investigating further, Voce appears to have failed to assume good faith on my part. My tone here is partly due to my irritation at the ignorance displayed in Voce's edits but mainly due to the implied insult that I wouldn't have the sense to consider the effects of such a major edit to the template. I can point to articles and templates I've created which I've avoided publishing to mainspace until I was sure they were ready. I think that speaks of my sense of attention to detail. I am not a bad faith editor and I am insulted by the implied suggestion that the only constructive solution to adjusting the template was to revert everything.

It appears that Voce has seen an "apparent" problem, has misinterpreted it, has assumed a bad faith edit, and has blindly reverted. This has then caused several dozen pages to fuck up causing trouble for Tmol42 and others. All this has wasted a lot of valuable effort and time on the part of multiple editors. If Voce had investigated properly, he or she would have seen that the only transclusions that needed fixing were the half dozen or so that I hadn't yet done. The 175 others were fine.

Actually, could it be that this mysterious "blank space" may have resulted from a sidebar being transcluded down the bottom of the page? If that was the case, and I suspect it was, then it means that all that needed doing was to update or remove the transclusion on those few pages that I'd left unfinished. Instead, what has happened is that several editors have wasted their time unnecessarily reverting me on well over a hundred pages. Hmm, what's more sensible: investigate properly and fix a minor problem on a few pages; or assume bad faith, go panicking to ANI and make reversions across 175 pages.

Frankly, it's no skin off my teeth. As I said, all this was happening while I was in bed asleep (Don't forget WP is worldwide so some of us sleep while others edit). What that means is that little of my time has been wasted by Voce and Tmol42's panicking. And, in hindsight, I think it's a little amusing. Nonetheless, I just wanted to clarify the real situation here, especially to clarify that my edits were not unconstructive, despite how others' may depict them.

 Claret Ash  13:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspected there would be a question about the "constructiveness" of your edits, which is why I chose to undo each of them manually rather than a blanket revert, which would imply a lack of good faith on the part of those who complained and those who cleaned up. But I know this thread is less about the cleanup than about whether or not it was even required. I can't answer that since the template change had already been reverted when I got to the discussion, and given that there is no WP:DEADLINE for improving the encyclopedia, it seemed prudent to back out the changes and try again. To that end, I think a good approach to this would be to create a new template and transclude it on some pages, removing the employment template. Then we can see if there is a problem without disrupting a number of pages. Everyone should keep in mind that the appearance may be different under different circumstances, so...it may both "work" and "not work", depending on who you are. I'm certainly willing to be involved if there's interest in doing so. Frank  &#124;  talk  14:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. I'll see how this discussion pans out, though, before pursuing the sidebar.  Claret Ash  00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello ClaretAsh. I'm sure you made your edits in good faith, and I'm sorry if I gave any other impression to you. But what I see when I look at your version of the template is a huge dark red space that completely covers the page from left to right. Click on the link and check it out for yourself. That's exactly what the articles looked like. It affected every single article to which the template had been added and/or moved to the top. The article text was pushed completely below the template and off the screen (and I have a very large monitor).


 * It first came to my attention when I saw Grey-collar where you added it to the top of the page. I then checked out the template and realized there must have been a coding error (as indeed there appears to have been). I didn't revert the template until I had seen the article. I thought it seemed the best solution, as I had no idea how to fix the sidebar version. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that you had subsequently edited so many articles to move it to the top (rightly for a sidebar), which created a problem that also needed reverting since the original template was a horizontal footer. The only other option would have been to keep all the articles in that very strange state until you or someone else could fix the template. That might have been a better solution, I'm not sure. But I made my decision in good faith, just as you did.


 * I've just gone back and looked at your coding of the template. I suspect the problem might have been this chunk:
 *   
 * which had been placed to the left of {{Sidebar with collapsible lists.... Perhaps try removing it and see if that works? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Frank has just told me that he can't see the red space extending across the page. I use IE7, so it obviously affects only certain browsers. I just now tried removing the chunk of code to the left of {{Sidebar and it looks fine in the preview (a normal sidebar). But, needless to say I'm not going to monkey with it. Next time I see something like that, I'll ask for the template to be looked at more closely first. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to throw in my two cents/pennies since I also reverted a lot of the edits. I did find that a monster red bar extended across the page (I use Chrome). The update edits that I reverted were ones after the template reversions had been made so that the template appeared back at the bottom of the page. Blackmane (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't explain the red monster described above. I use Google Chrome and it shows up perfectly. None of the diffs provided above show anything other than how it was supposed to appear. I also checked it on Internet Explorer and it shows up there alright (albeit with a change to one or two of the fonts). As for the code, I borrowed the bulk of the template code from an existing template, simply changing the colours and the words. It should display perfectly and I can't understand why it shouldn't. I'll examine it in further detail in the next few days when I'm not busy with work.  Claret Ash  00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited History of Bashkortostan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ASSR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.  Claret Ash  11:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I know it's a bit (well, very) belated but welcome back to Wikipedia. It's good to see you here again. It's been a while since we've debated over Adelaide articles. I hope you're keeping well over in this section of WP and hopefully we'll spar again in some random part of Adelaide. Cheers.  Claret Ash  10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) (formerly, LordVetinari)
 * Well thank you! (Most appreciated.) Given the nature of WP, I have little doubt we'll be sparring again!
 * Changing topic, ClaretAsh vs LordVetinari? Interesting!! (And both more interesting than pdfpdf!)
 * Best Wishes (and Happy New Year!) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

TfD
Oops. I completely thought that was an unintentional duplicate. I've reinstated it, but please don't feel like you need to somehow run it by me (or anyone else that makes a similar mistake) in the future. It was clearly a mistake on my part, so just reinstate the content next time. VanIsaacWScontribs 11:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I was going to be bold and fix it myself but I wasn't sure if a simple revert wouldn't stuff up anything else. There's no uniformity in how the various types of XfD pages are structured so I didn't want to risk breaking something. I figured if you knew how to remove it safely, you'd know how to pur it back. Anyway, thanks again.  Claret Ash  11:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just copied all the code that got deleted from the diff you posted, then just pasted it back in, removing the extra lines that get added when you paste from formatted to unformatted text. I also commented on that one, so you've got a concurring opinion now. VanIsaacWScontribs 11:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose, in hindsight, I could have opened a single TfD for both templates. But that particular art is currently beyond my abilities.  Claret Ash  11:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pumped Up Kicks
I have to tell you that this edit to Pumped Up Kicks has left me dumbstruck. It is outrageous to suggest merging one of the biggest hits of 2011 which has charted internationally, with multiple number one peak positions. It isn't even near a stub, and is heavily sourced with references from reliable third party publications, clearly passing the notability guidelines at WP:NMUSIC.  NYSM talk page  13:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To add, two weeks ago the single was the number one song of your country. Please explain your reasoning.  NYSM talk page  13:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about notability? Notability is not an issue and never has been. If you read my argument at the discussion (which I note has barely been allowed to occur what with other users removing merge notices on a whim), you will see that I never mentioned notability. My argument is purely that none of the articles are so long as to require separate pages. They can all fit onto one page quite comfortably. That notability equals a mention in WP is not the same as saying that notability equals a separate article. If you disagree, feel free to participate in the discussion. Perhaps, if more people participate in the discussion instead of being dictated to by a couple of editors, a consensus will be clearer.  Claret Ash  22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion is at Talk:Pumped Up Kicks. And it is complete nonsense for you to say the Pumped Up Kicks isn't long enough to warrant it's own article, it has 12 sections and almost 39,000 bytes.  NYSM talk page  23:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, now. Please be civil.  Claret Ash  23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just painfully honest.  NYSM talk page  23:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ClaretAsh, but "not being long enough as to require a separate page", on its own, is not a valid rationale for merging an article into another. I highly recommend you read Stub to understand what article length means for its existence. If a subject is notable on its own merits separate from another subject and those articles are reasonably sourced, there is no logical reason to merge the articles for those subjects. This reasoning given for merging the songs into the Torches article is pretty bewildering, particularly when "Pumped Up Kicks" is the longest article of any Foster the People release. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jan McLean
I have removed the prod tag from Jan McLean, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --  At am a  頭 23:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're probably right.  Claret Ash  23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent change to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Your recent changes indicate a biased opinion, particularly with regards to the removal of Category:Mujaddid, although this has been backed with several references already within the article. Also, you may not be aware, but large parts of the article are highly biased and go against Wikipedia's neutrality. Indeed some statements down-right may be considered by some as defamatory and libellous, such as: - Nevertheless, I hope we can work together to better achieve neutrality and work towards a better biographical article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri fan (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "founder of wahhabi movement"
 * "'Abd al-Wahhab was not a good student and was arrogant and defiant with his teachers"
 * "Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab did not complete his studies, but whether he was expelled or dropped out is unknown"
 * "...his reformist ideas were formulated while..."
 * "Indeed, he personally organised the stoning..."
 * "When she died, he inherited her property and wealth."
 * "...upholding and propagating Wahhabi doctrine."
 * etc.


 * Replied at Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab  Claret Ash  00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism in Serbia and Montenegro
I note that you have re-instated a split tag that I recently removed. I removed the split tag because the person who put the split tag on did not leave any discussion on the talk page either clarifying what was supposed to be split off from the article or what the reason for the split would be. Moreover, it was not obvious from the article why a split was required and what should be split. If you can add this information then it greatly reduces the risk of the split tag being removed in the futureOp47 (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:Hinduism in Serbia and Montenegro.  Claret Ash  00:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Androzaniamy
Well done. Blake Burba (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Before editing other people's user page, you may want to review WP:NOBAN --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I usually steer clear of editing user pages. But see my opinion here.  Claret Ash  03:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus at the ANI discussion that Androzaniamy should not have the Adopting template on her userpage.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Eagles, there was no such consensus. Few if any mentioned whether she should have the template on her user page. Several thought that she shouldn't actually adopt anyone, but since that was not the central topic of discussion, it's hard to see that as reflecting significant consensus, and it was not part of the closure of the discussion. And userpages are not generally edited on the consensus basis anyway. Now, if you want to have her barred from adoption, find some appropriate route to do so. (Oh, and yes ClaretAsh, I see that you posted on some third party's user page the reasons why you want that gone; even if well-intended, I don't think that gives you the right to do so) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How convenient. I no longer need to go to the discussion; the discussion now comes to me! Pardon my levity. Moving on then... I stand by my edit and the reason I gave for doing so. Like many others, I was only trying to protect a well-intentioned editor from future embarassment. But that was in the past. I won't now waste effort reverting NatGertler's reversion. I now think it's time for Androzaniamy to stand on her own feet in WP, just as the rest of us have to. I think WP:ROPE and HTFU amply cover situations like this. In other words, the best we can all do is treat Andro like any other Wikipedian, issue a barnstar when she does good and a trout when she buggers up. If she's smart enough to react wisely, she'll do well. If not, then let the future happen...  Claret Ash  04:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking to yourself?
Careful! You don't want to end up like Max Headroom!! (c.f. Paranoimia - Yes, I'm showing my age again ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Partly a belief in always using edit summaries and partly failing inspiration of what to write in the damn things. No, I don't talk to myself but I occasionally answer myself back.  Claret Ash  12:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * a) Oh? I frequently talk to myself. And often get answers. The problem is, they're rarely useful ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * b) Oh wow! Look where I ended up!! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Boney M! I was trying to think of that band's name a few days ago. Don't know why. I only remember that I'd forgotten.  Claret Ash  13:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To any talk page stalkers reading the above, this is what's called a late night conversation. As random as a drunk conversation but kinder to the liver.  Claret Ash  13:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ROTFL! (Perhaps even ROTFLMAO?) Yes, wikipedia will do that sort of thing to you ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Duck down!!!
Androzaniamy (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Love what you've done with the place, Claret! Have a great day! :)   Wikipelli Talk   11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sing though. I think the batteries are fucked.  Claret Ash  11:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha! Need an animated trout, get busy on that, will you? :)   Wikipelli Talk   11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominating multiple articles—advice from a non-expert
In reference to WP:Articles for deletion/Wright on Health (2nd nomination), the procedure is covered at WP:BUNDLE.


 * Go to Brad Wright (blogger), and add " Wright on Health (2nd nomination) "
 * In the nomination, add "I am also nominating the following related pages because [pretty much the reasons in the PROD]:

I've asked another, more experienced editor to look at this suggestion. Depending on advice, I'll probably act in 18–24 hours if you don't.Novangelis (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In reply: Novangelis's advice for how to do a bundled nomination is right on. However, I'm not sure I would recommend doing the double-nomination thing at this point (even though I was the one who originally suggested it). The Brad Wright article is already proposed for deletion, via the PROD process, and it turns out that people are looking at both and discussing both at the current nomination, and so far the consensus is to delete them both. So that gives us a kind of informal bundling. If we try to bundle the Brad Wright article into the AfD discussion at this point, it will disrupt the PROD process and it might restart the clock on the AfD discussion. (I'm not sure about that, but AfDs are supposed to be open for discussion for 7 days.) The two could have been bundled at the outset, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea now. My suggestion at this point would be to let things ride. Thanks for following up on my comment, though! --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your points. Thank you both for the advice (and the training).  Claret Ash  23:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. :-)  Claret Ash  22:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello
if you would please follow procedure of wikipedia (unless there is some other you know of) as shown in this link and leave the appropriate comments on the talk page of Infinity (philosophy)Drift chambers (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)