User talk:Ashley Y/2006

Artisson

Watch your reverts on the AfD page -- I think you've got one left. I've warned Ravenflight too, since he might not know about the three-revert rule. (What a mess this is.) Madame Sosostris 21:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I just reported him... —Ashley Y 21:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the deletion page and trying to prevent it from becoming too cluttered...--Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help... —Ashley Y 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, that's my third RV in 24h, so no more from me for awhile. I might just leave it alone until deletion. —Ashley Y 17:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your favorite trolls

User:Lupinespirit just got banned. Gather up the sock puppets, do a request for checkuser and post a note on WP:AN/I to get it handled more permenently.--Tznkai 09:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender

Please weigh in on this AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Male privilege

Thank you for your help and contribution to making the article better. David91 06:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hermeticism

Why did you remove it from Category:Religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Vegita (talk • contribs)

It doesn't belong there. It's already in Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements, it shouldn't also be in the supercat. —Ashley Y 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Palesrael

OK. See this Israel-Palestine - maybe you'd wanna contest prod here too - and then I'd move it into one AfD. Crummy reason given for contesting prod, of course. Either you object to deletion or you don't - that's what prod is for - to save AfD time and effort.

As for "genital integrity" "intactivism" - sorry, HAD to comment - like with the Anti-Shechita protesters and the Christian-child-blood-in-Purim-cookies people - it's very thinly veiled Anti-Semitism, among other anti-'s. Intactivists oughta leave us alone to circumcize our baby boys in the eternal Jewish way. Sheesh!

Kindest regards, - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please move both articles to AfD. —Ashley Y 05:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please contest it formally, preferably with a reason, and I'll be happy to oblige. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Or like that :) Whatever. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The AfD has been proposed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palesrael. Please come and opine. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Been deleted. Courtesy notice. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral editor

I found your comment of "There is no such thing as a neutral editor" quite interesting, and was wondering if you could indulge me in an experiment. On my userpage, I have three userboxes (suitably subst'd) so all it says is that I'm Irish, live in the UK, and spend lots of time on wikipedia. In otherwords, no POV or bias userboxes. I've 1000+ article edits, over multiple pages so any inherit bias I have should be recognisable by now. Please feel free to browse my contributions to wikipeda articles, and let me know what biases I should be aware of. As I said, this is only my own curiousity, and there's no time limit, nor any need for you to do anything at all. But if, as you say, there is no neutal editor, that means I must have biases that affect my editing. (I'm not dening I have bias, but I don't believe they affect my editing materially) So please review my edits, and if you can find a bias that affects my edits, please let me know. Regards, MartinRe 22:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

T1 Debate Summary

Um, Ashley... I don't think you noticed, but you're inserting comments in the middle of an outline that a bunch of us are building... do you see the structure we're working on? The point is to summarize the main points in an orderly fashion because the debate has been getting so repetetive. Do you think you can work with that structure, rather than interpsersing signed comments? I don't want you to refrain from commenting, it's just this thing we're trying to put together, y'know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't clear. Tony just said "Please edit the above in place, alter it freely and add further points.", so I did... —Ashley Y 07:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't want to discourage your input... you'll notice I've done some more organizing; does it make sense, what's coming together there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Thanks for helping to tidy up the Christian DRV. Stephen B Streater 20:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! User:Tony Sidaway reverted it for some reason, though, and I had to copy it back. —Ashley Y 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know your intentions are to help, but please don't do that "sorting" thing anymore. We actually have reasons for not splitting DRV discussions like that. Did you ask Tony why he reverted you? I'll bet he'd tell you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I had assumed you hadn't been in a revert war over this. Stephen B Streater 21:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony is very communicative. Perhaps he didn't want to lose the information about the flow of the argument. Perhaps he's pointing out this isn't a vote. Anyway, I'm sure he'll tell you if you ask. Stephen B Streater 22:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Y, thanks for trying to make the Christian userbox discussion better. I should explain that sorting discussions on Wikipedia is generally thought to be a bad idea, because by segregating opinions it encourages people to just pop in and vote without looking at how the discussion is progressing. The only advantage it has really is that it makes it easier to do some simple counting. I won't revert it again myself but I don't think that attempts to sort debates on Wikipedia tend to prevail. Unless you think it's a really important thing to do (and I could be convinced) it's best not to do so. --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone else also reverted it, so I won't do so again. —Ashley Y 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming and Redirecting of Reconstructionist Pagan articles

Dear Ashley,

This is what I just put on the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism page:

This subtle renaming/caps issue is actually a rather large problem. Since 1992 at the latest, "Celtic Reconstructionism" and "Celtic Reconstructionist" have been established as tradition names. This is different from "Celtic reconstructionism", and brings up a lot of the "method and/or tradition" issues we juggled at the beginning of this process. I think it is inappropriate to subltly refocus the article this way, and without any discussion on the talk page. Therefore I am returning this to the name we agreed on. I would also note these changes have just been made to all Reconstructionist traditions over on the Polytheistic Reconstructionism (now Polytheistic reconstructionism) page. Interested editors may want to go look at that, too. --Kathryn NicDhàna 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Religion userbox directory in userspace

Hi Ashley Y, thanks for everything you're doing to help end the userbox wars. I thought I could help by starting a mirror directory of Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery. As part of that process, would it be okay with you if I updated User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Religion to show the userboxes listed at User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion? I've already linked to your page in the "See also" section. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. —Ashley Y 06:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Political userboxes

Hi, I posted a message here, wanting to check in with you before userfying any political userboxes to your space that seem to need userfying. You appear to be the one hosting political boxes, according to the nav template, but I don't know whether you were being choosy about which ones you host. After a few days, it occurred to me that maybe you haven't got that page on your watchlist, so I'm posting here.

The userboxes in question are {{User Australian Democrats}} and {{User Social Democrat}}, which are currently delete protected, but used to look like:

AD	This user supports the Australian Democrats.

This user identifies as a Social Democrat.

There's also apparently a variation on the second one, {{User Social Democrat (OSV)}}, which was never deleted. Anyway, do you object to having those templates moved to your space, as has been requested here? If you have no objections, I can go ahead and do undeletes, history moves and soft redirects, checking "what links here" for redlinks. It would be up to you whether you want categories to be attached to the boxes or not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd rather just stick with the religious ones. The political boxes I have just happen to be ones I use myself. —Ashley Y 02:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked then. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you lend a hand?

I'm trying to help out at Mami Wata, which appears to be a neo-ancient spirit type topic. This is an area where I have a serious POV risk if I get too deeply involved. I see that you have self-declared as a pagan, and I liked what I saw of your participation in the most recent round of the userbox wars, so I feel that you could be a helpful contributor. There is relevant discussion both at Talk:Mami Wata and User talk:BrianSmithson#Mami Wata & Vodou. I'm asking you and two other editors I respect to come lend a hand, hoping that having more participants in, or at least eyes on, the discussion will lead somewhere. GRBerry 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

cat lovers

Thanks for the spelling correction, you'd think I'd have caught that. Chris 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ps-I wonder if there is a similar userbox?

Just wondering

Do you know User: Slimvirgin (in real life)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuizQuick (talk • contribs)

Not that I know of. —Ashley Y 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 08:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

Hi. You have removed a category tag from the A Course in Miracles article. I am fairly new to editing at WP and have much to learn. Would you mind helping me to learn more by explaining why the category tag was removed? Thanks.—Who123 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

Thanks for reffing my userpage, that tag had been up there for months! I only just noticed :-) Karwynn (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Political userboxes

Hi, a question has come up as to whether or not you want your political userbox page to appear at User:GRBerry/German userbox solution. I was hoping to get an answer from you. Thanks! —Mira 06:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably makes sense not to. Far better to have those userboxes included in someone else's collection. I might even remove the page (but not the userboxes), and stick to collecting religious ones. —Ashley Y 07:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clearing that up. :) —Mira 08:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox listings

Hi Ashley Y,

See this [1] I was wondering if you want your pages listed on User:GRBerry/German userbox solution and User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Nav. Regards, Rfrisbie^talk 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm slow on the trigger! ↑ :) :) Rfrisbie^talk 21:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, if they're not there already, feel free to add anything to User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes. Rfrisbie^talk 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This User Prays...for the old graphic!

Hi, thanks so much for hosting all those userboxes, but I wanted to ask about tonight's change to the art of "This User Prays." I loved the old graphic, and I can't stand the new one! Is there any chance that both could be made available? Thanks.
DanB DanD 05:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the old art, but it appears to be a copyright violation. See Image:Praying hands2.jpg. But if it turns out to be OK, I'll restore it. —Ashley Y 06:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know!

DanB DanD 17:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Info on Islamophobic group

Hello,

What follows are the sentiments, expressed in their own words, and in the 'protest signs', of the obscure, very small, but very vocal 'activist group' known as "Protest Warrior".

"What's becoming clear is how the religion of Islam is addicted to war and mayhem. Not a radical minority, not a rogue sect, but its very essence is about submission and sacrifice and proving your worth by worshipping death in this life to gain a paradise of orgies and drunkenness. Their entire history is of warfare, and any accomplishments of their so-called Golden Age has been proven to be merely parasitic off the cultures they've conquered and reduced to dhimmi servitude. That every country under sharia is corrupt, belligerent, desolate and barbaric obviously gives them no pause, except to constantly drive them into further psychotic rage as they refuse to ever accept any responsibility for their conditions. They are akin to the powers in Orwell's 1984; there must always be an enemy. It's no surprise that women are treated like property in these countries as that's the only way Muslim men can feed their egos, to dominate others rather than ever actually produce something."

Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton, founders of "Protest Warrior"

Their 'protest signs'...

Signs

I thought you might be interested in this group's sentiments. They are currently very actively editing their own article on Wiki and there is a lot of 'group think'. Perhaps you might want to become involved in the editing and discussion process on that page. If you do, please don't vandalize, and try to remain civil. Should you not want to involve youself, please forgive my intrusion.

Protest Warrior

Protest Warrior Discussion

NBGPWS 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic Userbox

Just a heads up, your pictuer for the agnostic userbox seems to have disspeared for some reason. CaveatLector^Talk 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It was probably a copyvio or something. —Ashley Y 00:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Input request

Can you take a look at Mama Zogbé and the associated AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mama Zogbé. Given the reasons that the AFD nominator chose to AFD nominate instead of letting the prod run (not fully stated in the AFD), I think it would be good to have wider input into this AFD. So far there is only one particpant that has contributed to the AFD that has been uninvolved with the problems in the main article about the religion. This article is a biography of a living pagan religous leader. (I can't tell if the pagan religion is a true survival or a modern invention/pastiche, which isn't all that unusual for outsiders with limited interest.)

Since you have an interest in contemporary paganism, which this is certainly related to, and are on my list of users to request expertise from, I picked you to ask. If there is an appropriate project to request expertise from, please reproduce the first paragraph there. Thanks for participating. GRBerry 13:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not my branch of paganism, so I don't have any comment. —Ashley Y 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Process discussions

Hi there! I just noticed this cat you made... I had been thinking of doing something similar so I kind of like the idea - however they aren't really process discussions. Perhaps we should think of a better name for the grouping? >Radiant< 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What would you call them? I was originally going to call the cat "Wikipedia process debate", but decided to follow the example of Category:Wikipedia userbox discussions. —Ashley Y 22:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess, something like "essays related to IAR" (Category:Ignore All Essays?) but that doesn't sound too good either. Hm, maybe toss it on CFD for renaming and see if somebody suggests anything? >Radiant< 13:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Talib 72

Don't change the christian userbox. I designed every single religious userbox and I researched what to put in them, from the background color to the symbols. Christ's blood was not pink it was red. You don't see me changing the muslim userbox to bright kiwi green.

If you're going to "own" this userbox you should probably move it to your own space. See also WP:GUS. —Ashley Y 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

I appreciate your efforts to making the status of WP:SNOW less disputed. However, unfortunately, like the status of IAR, it has been disputed for the better part of a year now. I would like to hear if you have any suggestions on how to resolve the matter that haven't been tried before. Yours, >Radiant< 09:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, gosh, we could follow process and propose it as a guideline. Or would that be too bureaucratic for you? —Ashley Y 19:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. But that has been tried before several times and was shouted down. I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like to know if there's some other way of doing this. >Radiant< 20:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably the pro-guideline people should explain why it should be so from a process point of view, i.e. what its provenance is as a guideline, pointing to the appropriate written principles of what makes something a guideline. This will make more headway with the process-heads who object. The anti-guideline people should explain the possibilities for abuse were it to be given the formal stamp of approval as a guideline, so that those issues might be better addressed on the page.

I believe it could be made an officially marked guideline if people work towards consensus. —Ashley Y 05:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it matches actual practice, then it follows that is a guideline. There are always some people that say "but I don't like actual practice" but that's not a valid argument. The problem here is that the debate has deadlocked between people who claim this is actual practice, and people who claim that it's not. I suppose either party could point out where it has been used to show how it works in practice. >Radiant< 09:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring is also "actual practice", but we don't have a guideline to endorse that. Of course, you mean approved actual practice. The argument is over that approval, not over the practice. —Ashley Y 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashley, do you consider it "approved" practice to bypass process when there's genuinely no question of controversy? I'm thinking of what you said here, supporting what I think is a great example of WP:SNOW in action. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That particular action would likely be approved by everyone. The recently added nutshell statement of WP:PROCESS "Process should be followed except when there is likely no objection" has it right, I think. Other actions might be encouraged by an official "stamp of approval" on WP:SNOW that would not, in fact, carry consensus approval. The degree to which this might be a problem, and how to address that on the potential guideline page, is what should be being discussed if we want a consensus on making it an official guideline. —Ashley Y 20:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was precisely what WP:SNOW says - that if an action is likely to be approved by everyone, go for it. Can you please give an example of the kind of "other action" that you worry would be encouraged if SNOW is marked as a guideline? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Read it again: WP:SNOW is not limited to actions "likely to be approved by everyone" (which is fairly a concrete criterion). You need to discuss the various objections raised to WP:SNOW on that page's talk page. —Ashley Y 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of "a snowball's chance in hell". It appears you'd rather not have this conversation here though, so I'll go away. I'm sorry if I bothered you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note that I'm not saying that SNOW is practice. I'm saying that iff it's practice, it's already a guideline. I am not as yet convinced whether or not it really is practice. >Radiant< 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perl benchmarks

Here's the problem with removing the "editorializing" in the comparitive performance section of Perl: originally, the link to the shootout was added by someone who had a strong axe to grind against Perl, and was adding any link that he could find to essays, IRC chat logs, and this benchmark to demonstrate what he felt were the failings of Perl. I and others pointed out that the benchmark was flawed, and I even re-wrote one of the benchmark tests so that it was substantially faster. In the end, however, because this particular user was very insistant, we agreed on a compromise. We added a disclaimer and the link to the flawed benchmark. If you remove the disclaimer, you really should remove the link, as it's really not meaningful. -Harmil 15:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the benchmark flawed? Say-so isn't enough. Rather than including something which is essentially original research, why not look for a reputable source that indicates the problems benchmarks are prone to? —Ashley Y 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

0.999... != 1

All right. From the looks of your page, you have a strong grasp of the english language, and mathematics. As such, you know the difference between a decimal and an integer. As such, you aren't a moron. Since you aren't a moron, the only reason behind your defense of the obviously wrong "0.999... = 1" argument is that you are being a jerk. Stop being a jerk. --ttogreh 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments on the Kineret on talk

Please note my comments there. There's really no reason that every single place in Israel be under contest. In this case, the International Law doesn't put the sea shore of the lake in Syria NOR does it border with the golan - According to international law line, Israel should control the eastern shore completely. Therefore, in this case international law and Israeli doctrine go together - I think it's enough. Amoruso 07:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) . I appreciate your good faith and everything. Amoruso 07:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements

If you were offended by these statements then I apologize. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. —Ashley Y 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Extended quotation

Re [2]: if you don't like indentation here, can you please come up with some other way to make it clear (hopefully clearer) that this is entire bullet list is an extended quotation? - Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited your Cascadia userbox

I just changed the link in your Userbox Independent Cascadia per Talk:Cascadia#Disambiguation from Cascadia to Cascadia (independence movement). I realize that I probably should have better asked you first, but since you apparently didn't mind the last change I am quite confident that you will agree with this change, as well. — Sebastian (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

spelling

Thank you for the spelling correction. I found your EU expantion userbox hysterical. Carbonate 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand WP:OR

It would be quite wrong to suppose that Jayjg doesn't understand "Original Research". The problem is ours, we don't understand it. As he told us "WP:NOR is a rather subtle rule that a number of people, including most inexperienced editors, simply do not get." [3] 3rd Oct 2006 and "I've been editing here for 2 years, and have made 40,000 edit, I suspect I'm rather a better judge of what's appropriate for a Wikipedia article than you are." [4] 8th Aug 2006. (The rest of these discussions make fascinating and educational reading too. Unless you're actually looking for a tutorial that would enable us to become better editors and not have our edits constantly reverted). PalestineRemembered 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)