User talk:Ashanda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ashanda.

Welcome!

Hello, Ashanda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Dan Beale-Cocks 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Should I delete dead links?[edit]

This is pretty much a FAQ, but I don't see an answer looking around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_stock contains a dead link, the second in External Links, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/991220/archive_004456.htm

Does one remove it or otherwise mark it as a dead link?

Mattack (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delayed reply.
In a typical article, the external links section essentially serves as a "further reading" section where people can go to read about the subject beyond the scope of the article. As such, a dead external link wouldn't probably cause a stir if it were removed. You could flag it using the {{dead link}} template for someone else to evaluate, or be bold and remove it yourself.
However, in some, nonstandard formatted articles, external links may be serving as cited references for the material in the article. If that's the case, then such a link should not be removed; rather an archived version of the linked-to page should be found. Using the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive is a good way to find archived versions of web pages. You may then use the {{wayback}} template in the article to replace the bad link with the archived version.
Hope this helps, and again, sorry for the delayed response! Ashanda (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ari Teman deletion discussion and the no personal attacks policy[edit]

Having been called "sexist" in the discussion on deleting the Ari Teman page, based on an article that is just plagued with inaccuracies (Category:American women novelists still exists, I did not create it, just to name the two most obvious), I very much feel an unacceptable personal attack occured on that page. I went to the administrators notice board, but saw no place to report personal attacks. Is there a place to do that?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, normally I would recommend ignoring or gently reprimanding a first attack, as is advised in the WP:NPA policy; however this anon has repeatedly attacked others including myself. There used to be a separate noticeboard for these, the appropriately named WP:PAIN, but it was deprecated years ago. The appropriate place to bring up problems now is simply at WP:ANI. Just be sure you really want to do it, reports at ANI can often WP:BACKFIRE on the person reporting. Thanks! Ashanda (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
If this was the first time such attacks had been lobbed at me in totally out of context situations, I might avoid taking action. However, this is not the first time such has been done this year. Others have persisted in trying to deny me a void based on a caricature of what happened, and outright lies about what my role in it was. Discovering who the creator of a category is is very easy. Much easier than with an article since categories have been edited much less. Repreating this falsehood is a show of laziness both in the media and on the part of wikipedia editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
John Pack Lambert, Ashanda: For a good giggle and some brilliant off-wiki socking as well read The Strange Tale of NextGen and NextGen. Best, Sam Sing! 07:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sam Sailor and Johnpacklambert: Nice find! Indeed very amusing, and all too familiar. That old proverb about Leopards and their spots yet again rings true. Ashanda (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you ganging up together[edit]

  • Quoting RS is within WP:Policy. You are all over the press for your sexist work. :
NYClay770 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Quoting sources that are just plain wrong to engage in totally out-of-context attacks on editors is not acceptable. I did not create Category:American women novelists, no matter how "reliable" you claim a source is, that claim is a lie. Wikipedia has rules like "assume good faith", and you can't get around them by quoting outside sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Motherboard is just plain off base. I have created lots of categories like Category:German male dancers. That was before they published. If we want Wikipedia discussions to be informed, we should not treat as "reliable sources" the work of people who spread anti-white male lies. Motherboard has the attitude that gave us the Gang of 88 and 3 Duke lacrosse players dragged through court on totally trumped up charges just because they were white males. They have a clear and present agenda, and they are willing to mock me and others and misrepresent the work we really do to try and accomplish this goal. To cite such enablers of racism, sexism and false prosecutions is not to cite "reliable sources", it is to continue lies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: The reliable sources guidelines apply only to articles, so this is just another personal attack by the laundry load of socks from the Ari Teman AfD. I wouldn't sweat it too much though, it's unlikely he'll be editing much any more now that the article had been deleted and the discussion I started at AN/I has concluded. Ashanda (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

2000s Fashion Edit[edit]

It doesn't matter what you remember about spiky hair in Junior High, the idea is to generalize, as men over 25 have adopted the spiky hair trend. Also, pointed shoes were not popular from mid 2000s onwards. They were early 2000s onwards. There are sources that prove this in the women's section of early 2000s fashion. I added them myself. 2002 fashion trends saying pointed shoes were chic, and also 2003 is early 2000s, not mid 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistsCry13 (talkcontribs) 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice job![edit]

Nice job trying to get 71.106.220.44 to stop vandalizing by welcoming him! Maybe he/she'll stop...I hope. Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jwoodward48wiki: Face-smile.svg Thank you! My logic is that it makes more sense to tell people the rules first before complaining about how they're breaking them. I can't say how often it works, but at least I'm philosophically satisfied, lol! Ashanda (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Column overflow errors[edit]

Ashanda, if you wouldn't mind, please take a screenshot of what these 30em overflow errors look like in your browser, upload to imgur or similar site, and send me a link. I'm not aware of anyone reporting this before, which is really unusual as 30em has become the de facto standard for columns on Wikipedia. Also, what operating system and browser/version are you using? Huntster (t @ c) 15:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A picture's worth a thousand words, but they can be hard to read when they're too small
@Huntster: Thanks for your question. Here's a screenshot I uploaded of what these errors look like on the United States Constitution article. The 30em columns are only standard for small text, such as is used by the {{reflist}} template, in fact 30em columns can be used with {{divcol}} and not cause errors if its small=yes parameter is used. That is, in fact, the compromise solution I implemented on the US Constitution article last week when I got my first ever reversion of these columnation adjustments. However, unlike that other editor who never explained his objections, your own edit summary complained about the number of columns created in a wide screen format; using small text would likely have simply reproduced the same problem for you. Since this see also list is actually pretty short, I figured columns were silly in the first place and simply got rid of them.
As to my browser and OS, I'm using a native Android browser. But what I think really matters is that I'm viewing the pages in a narrow screen environment as opposed to your wide screen one. Over the many months I've been making these corrections, I've had other editors hit the Thank button a few times, so I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in getting these problems.
I've thought a few times of starting a discussion about removing selectable column widths from the various templates and making them simply 30em or 20em depending on the text size selected, but before this past week nobody had objected to my gnoming and fixing them one at a time, so the wiki-drama didn't seem worth the effort. Perhaps I'll reconsider starting such a discussion some time soon.
Thanks again for writing! Ashanda (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Your use of the |small=yes is the first time I've seen it. I would definitely encourage you to head to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎ and detail what you're seeing, as this is a significant display issue. I'm rather of the opinion that all such columnation should probably be stripped out of mobile browsers accessing the site, as they are pretty narrow to begin with. I'm sure it would be technically possible. Huntster (t @ c) 16:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)