User talk:Ask123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussions pertaining to the user Ask123.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

                    WELCOME TO ASK123'S TALK PAGE.
  • Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here
  • Be complete and descriptive in your comments. Do not assume I know what you are talking about.
  • Provide links to both the subject and any relevant policies if needed.
  • Do not edit any other users comments.
  • Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Please remember to: be polite, assume good faith, be welcoming, not to personally attack, show etiquette and stay cool.

Comments which fail to follow these requests may be deleted immediately.

Please click here to leave me a new message.


Samurai Champloo[edit]

I notice you've made some comments on the Samurai Champloo page. Frankly, I was surprised. I'm responsible for most of the recent revisions since it looked like this back in March. Since then, there hasn't been much in the way of talk or progress on the discussion page. So I'm very happy to see another proclaimed fan who seems anxious to improve the quality of the article. If you ever want to discuss anything, or want any input on changes you make to the page, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. SpiderMMB 06:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do! ask123 14:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read through most of your suggestions, and I think they are sound. I would invite you to be bold, as you suggested you'd be on the talk page. Make the changes you think are necessary to improve the article, and we can always discuss revising them later. SpiderMMB 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've already begun... ask123 18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

no prob[edit]

on the vandal catch. The real person to thank is Alison, as she actually performed the block. VanTucky (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that and sent her a shout too. Thanks for the note tho... As a former vandal myself (in the real world that is), it's kinda fun seeing these no-nothings try to play a game I helped write the rule book for. It's just too bad that it's all virtual otherwise we could really scare the daylights out of these 'em... ;) Cheers! ask123 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fork Swimming into Competitive Swimming[edit]

You say you have some ideas? Lets see them. I'd be interested in helping out. I created USA Swimming, which I think some people are using as a stand-in for Competitive Swimming, but it really isn't. It doesn't seem like there are is a group of constant editors to swimming since your comment hasn't been replied to for almost 2 months now.Cpierswim 04:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

re:your vandalism query[edit]

If you check out the IP's talkpage, you can clearly see they have been blocked today. The normal procedure to deal with vandals is to go through their contribs, revert all the diffs, and then give the standard four warnings (using the appropriate template for the particular type of disruption). This is often painstaking work, but it's all you can do. Some users, especially admins and tech nuts, use an external editing program to speed this process up. If they vandalize after reception of the fourth warning, you may report them at WP:AIV. Admins are usually quite savvy when it comes to long-term vandals and shared accounts (such as at a school), and may enact accordingly long term blocks. VanTucky Talk 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I didn't realize that random IPs were afforded user pages. But now I can see (via the user page) that this IP's vandalism has been dealt with. Thanks again! ask123 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
They only get talk pages, so we can warn them. If you click on the IP address it goes to the contribs, not a user page. VanTucky Talk 21:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL, gotcha! Cheers, ask123 21:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop[edit]

I don't have time to update, but I found mention of the staggared Japanese release, followed by the full release on the WOWWOW network on the english version of the Bebop site. No mention of Eva being the cause though. If I can find more later I'll edit it myself, but it might be a start for citing that section. Hewinsj 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

shōnen or seinen?[edit]

To be honest, I don't know the difference between the two. From looking at their Wikipedia entries, I'd say SC is more of a seinen. It definitely feels like it's targeting an older crowd than Bleach or FMA, which are two examples I see given of shōnen. But as I don't know more about the categories, I can't say for certain which it is. SpiderMMB 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

kafir article[edit]

I already tried to file a full protect request. It was denied. VanTucky Talk 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Woa! Some kind of mediation is necessary... ask123 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Post at WP:AIV[edit]

You posted the following at AIV: [1].

Please post this at WP:ANI instead. AIV is meant for simple vandalism. --Chris (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ask[edit]

₪ ask123 {t}

₪ ask123 {t}

Reply on "Separate Entry Needed for Competitive Swimming"[edit]

I came acros your opinion on a seperate entry for competitive swimming as a sport (your comment can be found here. Since you've posted it some months ago, I thought I'd reply here, since it's some time ago. Anyway I agree on your opinion. In fact I wanted to start the same discussion on the talk page, but then I saw yours. I think that competitive swimming as a sport indeed needs it's own article. So you have my back-up on it ;-). -Jort227 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Genshiken tagging?[edit]

Would you care to elaborate on the article's talk page as to what specifically you feel is original research or unverified claims? As a whole, the article seems to be pretty well-sourced.--Julian Grybowski (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Done... See my response here... ask123 (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fire sale[edit]

I just turned Fire sale into a disambig page. Do you want me to cut and paste your changes into the appropriate articles, or do you want to? — Reinyday, 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you could do that, it would be great. I have to leave my computer for many hours... And since the wording of some of it was pretty bad (and referenced an action movie!), it should be changed. Thanks! ask123 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007[edit]

Information.svg Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Animum (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What is this about? I've been on Wikipedia for a long time and have never had a problem. Over that time, I've been a major advocate of Wiki policies and often police for vandalism, original research and other inappropriate material. I haven't created that many articles, and none of them have been controversial or had suspect notability. Please explain what this is about. Thanks. ask123 (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think (after parsing 7+ pages of archived contributions) that it had to do with User:L33t. Are you him? —Animum (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not me. Don't know why there was confusion. Sorry for jumping at you. ask123 (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved Page[edit]

The history of the poage in question was merged into the page

Fire sale (attack)

here is the history that was merged Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ask123 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 11th dimension[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, 11th dimension, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11th dimension. Thank you. --C S (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hip_hop_music[edit]

Please pay attention to Talk:Hip_hop_music#Rename.2C_poll Netrat_msk (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not leave condescending messages on my talk page. I made a comment about the title of the article, hip hop music, before the vote over the title was ever made. So there is really no reason to be telling me in your didactic tone to "pay attention" to some vote that occurred after I made the comment. Regardless of the vote (the result of which I respect), the phrase "hip hop music" is a misnomer. The correct term is rap music. Fortunately and unfortunately, Wikipedia is all about consensus. But regardless of the consensus among the opinions in the Wiki community, the title of this article is incorrect, and it will continue to misinform. ask123 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

About Bobby Jindal and his wikipedia page.[edit]

If you think I have acted in bad faith, report it to a moderator. Otherwise, please do not warn me away from activities that I have no intention of participating in. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you correctly interpreted what I wrote on the Bobby Jindal talk page, you would have realized that I am saying that it is, in my opinion, OKAY for you to edit the article so long as you provide credible sources and abide by other Wikipedia policies. So far, you have, and, thus, I see NO problem with your edits. Perhaps if you were less aggressive, you would be more popular and, ultimately, successful in your ventures. ask123 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did say that IF I post in a manner consistant with Wikipedia policy that I should be able to continue to edit the article. Of course, everyone has to follow the rules and guidelines of editing pages on wikipedia so restating that seems to be a little redundant. However, the tone of your post, including "One thing to point out is that his interests are clearly not with providing any useful information on Bobby Jindal." and "But, be advised, Mr. Zimmerman, you may not turn this article into a negative campaign ad or use any part of this article to that end.", is what prompted me to leave a message on your talk page. I see no aggression in my post to you. Just a suggestion and a request. DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, yes re-stating Wiki-policy is a redundancy and not an unnecessary one. There are necessary and unnecessary redundancies in the world (although your comment is phrased in a way that suggests that all redundancies are unncessary and a result of sloppy reasoning). For example, a traffic sign on the street may be redundant but, perhaps, a necessary one. Many systems of the world (DNA, for example) have relied on redundancies to work and develop properly. Re-stating Wiki-policy is a redundancy that many users find necessary -- hence, there are those that "patrol" Wikipedia for policy violations. In fact, many users are entirely unaware of policy or try to manipulate it for their own ends. The bottom line is that re-stating policy is not an unnecessary or inappropriate redundancy.
Second of all, I made many statements on the Bobby Jindal page. I stated that your edits to that page were, perhaps, not made in altruistic nature because you ran for public office against Mr. Jindal. That was a conclusion I drew on my own, and, frankly, it was not an umimaginable one. In fact, it was really an opinion. It was my opinion that there was a reasonable chance that your edits were for personal gain (pending a line-by-line analysis, of course). Obviously, in America, you come across opinions frequently and must deal with them in one way or another. You ran for public office -- you must be used to opinions of all kinds. So don't mind my opinions or what you perceive my tone to be. Have a thick skin. That's one of the most important traits of a public figure (politician no less), is it not?
Also, you culled a second sentence from my comments. This sentence is direct and unambiguous. It's fine that you felt the need to respond to my comments or to these two sentences. Frankly, I don't really care. But, as I said, that sentence is unambiguous and requires no further explication. So I won't say more of it.
Third and last of all, if you didn't find your response on this talk page "aggressive," then I believe that you are either not observant (which I doubt is the case), in denial or consciously avoiding recognition of this fact for your own personal reasons. It's not the only aggressive comment I've seen you make. In fact, I doubt that I'm the first person to tell you that a comment you made was aggressive. So, please, don't act so surprised. Do not feel the need to respond to this third point. Just think about it.
Cheers, ask123 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You made an assumption of bad faith (against a wikipedia guideline) and restated that I should follow the rules (after at least 2 others had already stated that I should be able to contribute to the article as long as I follow the rules). So yes, your statement was redundant and unnecessarily so. And the fact that you went against a wikipedia guideline while pointing out wikipedia guidelines makes you a bit of a hypocrite.
My skin is plenty thick (in more ways than one). People with thick skin need not be silent when they feel others are acting out of line. I think those comments made by you are out of line. That is my opinion.
And perhaps you should consider that there is a difference with confronting someone with aggression and responding to an aggressive comment in kind. Of course, I have dealt with others in an aggressive manner when called for.
As for what you find reasonable (pertaining to why I edit the wikipedia page) I find your views completely flawed. I have plenty of outlets to shine Bobby Jindal in a negative light when I feel the need. I would just suggest that you not make assumptions about why a person is here and instead look at what work is done by that person. I would suggest you look at previous comments made by me in the Bobby Jindal talk page. For example: And while I would argue that, it is not my job to post my argument in the article. It is my job when editing this encyclopedia to present the facts. and Political spin may be able to do it but policial spin has no place on wikipedia. Objective facts that are well sourced have a place on Wikipedia and However, my personal opinion is irrelevent to wikipedia. I have also removed statements attacking Jindal that were placed on the site. Removed unreferenced statement about his lack of support for Louisiana State Police. Definitely not within wikipedia inclusion guidelines for many reasons and I think if you eliminated the word "although", it would eliminate the "negative tone" of the sentance while keeping a factually relevant event that was well covered in the media.. I have even recently taken steps to protect the article because anonymous users where placing incorrect and unsourced information about Jindal. This doesn't seem like the actions of someone who has an agenda other than to maintain the integrity and encyclopedic value of the article does it?
And you accused me of being sneaky. If I wanted to be sneaky, don't you think I would have used a "sneaky" name and not my own? Just something for you to think about. DanielZimmerman (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Wrong wrong wrong again. There was a discussion in progress. Just because one or two people on a discussion page express opinions does not mean that the debate ends there. You are not pointing out an unnecessary redundancy; you're pointing out commonalities that occur in discussions all the time -- particularly on Wikipedia, where policy violators are rampant. You may think certain repetition is unnecessary, but it happens all the time. It's what happens in a discussion. People discuss things. In any event, you're changing your argument on redundancy. Before, the redundancy you had a problem with was my stating a policy that was already stated on a Wiki policy page. That is even more common; it happens all the time when Wiki users police the site for policy violators. Regardless of the argument you make though, both instances are common and acceptable. People recite and discuss policy all the time for various reasons.
Regarding the assume good faith guideline, I DID assume good faith by writing before that "it is, in my opinion, OKAY for you to edit the article so long as you provide credible sources and abide by other Wikipedia policies. So far, you have, and, thus, I see NO problem with your edits." You see how that IS an assumption of good faith? Some others, though, didn't assume good faith. They didn't do so because, when they connected your name with the election, they felt that good faith was compromised. This is not against the rules though. Obviously, everyone tries to assume good faith to whatever extent possible. But that's about all that's required. Assume Good Faith is only a guideline, not a policy. And guidelines are "more advisory than policies" (to quote the policies & guidelines page). In other words, it's a stong suggestion, not a hard rule. Some, however, seemed to feel that it was appropriate not to assume good faith and to question your actions. As of now, that's OK on Wikipedia. And, frankly, I don't blame them for questioning you. However, when discussing my actions, don't confuse me with others. I did give you the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding thick skin, you may think whatever you want about your level of sensativity. As you said, that's your opinion. I have mine. Frankly, Wikipedia is not the place for discussing/debating these types of things. And, anyway, I just don't care what you do or don't think on that topic.
Regarding my suggestion that you were, perhaps, being sneaky in editing your opponents page, I'll tell you what I thought might be sneaky about it. Nobody knows who Daniel Zimmerman is. Since your name is relatively unknown to the public, it doesn't matter if you use it or use a pseudonym instead. Nobody would know the difference. Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone caught onto the connection.
Lastly, regarding your editing of the Bobby Jindal page, as I said before (apparently, it needs repeating), "it is, in my opinion, OKAY for you to edit the article so long as you provide credible sources and abide by other Wikipedia policies. So far, you have, and, thus, I see NO problem with your edits."
Cheers, ₪ ask123 {t} 19:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Samurai Champloo, without explaining the 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. Thank you. Also, do not remove hidden messages and refrain from using unhelpful redirects, like shonen over shōnen. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You must have me confused. I practically wrote the entire lede and character sections for the article, Samurai Champloo, (and no one's had a problem with them - aka changed them) and for at least a year "policed" the page against just this type of negative editing. Regarding templates, the "chambara" and "comedy/drama" designations are appropriate. I have no issue with them -- never have. So save your form letters (or messages in this case) for users for whom they may actually be helpful. Thanks, ask123 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Swimming[edit]

Hi there, Ive recently joined the WP:WikiProject Swimming team. Im committed to getting on top of the project. Since you have listed yourself as a participant i thought i'd let you know what i've done. Ive got a bot thats going through the relevant catagouries that apply to the project and tagging them with our banner. Ive done all the stub class articles and assessed them automaticlly, and im starting on the 3000 other articles that ive identified. So this will mean that we will have all the articles in the scope of the project together and we can start working on them. So if you have any spare time theres going to be thousands of articles that will need assessing. There are around 2000 articles Just in Stub-Class swimming articles, and most of these will need the importance assessed. I think it's important we get all this assessing done, so we can start working on the articles.

Don't fell pressured to start assessing articles, i just thought that since theres going to be so many articles, you should know that theres heaps of work that needs to be done, ill be trying my best once my exams are finished. Remember many hands make light work.

Cheers Printer222 (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work on some if I have time! ask123 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Supermodel and Janice Dickinson[edit]

Will you stop putting in "erronerously" beside the part in the Supermodel article where it says that Janice Dickinson claims to be the first supermodel? It is POV to add your feelings that it was/is erronerous; it is also against Wikipedia policy, which you most likely already know. Not only that, but since it is pointed out that she is very likely wrong (though it does not say it that way), your POV word is beyond not needed. Readers can see all by themselves that the claim seems or is thought to be erronerous. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not POV. It is a fact. Her claims are erroneous. A POV statement would be to say something like "Janice Dickinson is a liar. Her claim is a lie." The sign of NPOV is stating just the facts, blandly. I think the word "erroneous" does that quite well. If Janice was actually the first supermodel, then you would be correct and the word would be pushing a POV. But, as we all know, she wasn't. This fact has been cited ad nauseam; it is not debatable. If you want to put it another way (i.e. use a word or phrasing besides "erroneous"), that's fine with me. Or, better yet, take the Janice Dickinson stuff out of the section entirely. Since she wasn't the first supermodel, she really has little to no relevance in the sub-section on the origin of "supermodel" (that is to say, the word and the profession itself). It seems that all anyone has to do to be mentioned in this article is to falsely claim to be the first supermodel. If I publish a book with HarperCollins in which I claim to have been the first supermodel, will you add me to the supermodel page and call "POV!" when people add the word "erroneous" next to my claim? Of course not. So let's just cut Janice out of the section entirely? Sound OK to you? ask123 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not sound okay to me. And your adding erroneous to that after that statement is POV, no doubt about it, especially since there is no reference attributed to your stating erroneous. As I already stated on your talk page, your POV word is also completely unneeded. Also, do not come to my talk page with an attitude, as if I am defending Janice Dickinson; I am simply following Wikipedia policy. And a big part of that is no POV. Your POV addition of that word in that part of the Supermodel article is particularly unneeded. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And, oh-looky, another editor has called your type of addition, which was recently added back by an IP (was it you?) POV as well.[2] Needless to say, that editor reverted that and other mess. Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And you say, "If Janice was actually the first supermodel, then [I] would be correct and the word 'erroneous' would to be pushing a POV"? Whaaaaaaaaat? Uh, no, then that would be just plain false. POV is anything where an editor (or anyone) is adding his or her own thoughts to something of fact. Saying "Best couple"...."ludicrous claim"..."Greatest supermodel" are all examples of POV. That said, if we have valid sources backing up any of that POV, then we attribute those sources to those statements or titles. We would not say that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are the best celebrity couple in the world. We would say that People magazine has cited Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as "the the best celebrity couple in the world". Or not mention it at all. In the same way that we do not (well, you apparently do, but, still against Wikipedia policy to) put that "Janice Dickinson has erroneously claimed" blah, blah, blah... If a valid source specifically states that her claim is erroneous, then we state that that source has stated Dickinson's claim to be erroneous. Your addition of erroneous is not even anywhere close to being needed, anyway, considering that (like I stated on your talk page) readers can easily see that her claim is clearly disputed. I mean, jeez. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Woa, woa, woa! FIRST OF ALL, YOU NEED TO TONE IT DOWN! ASSUME GOOD FAITH MAN! YOU'RE TONE IS WAY OUT OF LINE! I had no "attitude." Rather, I simply responded to your (rather aggressive) comment on my talk page.
Second, if I edit under an IP, it is because I forgot to sign in. That's all. I never sockpuppet, so don't even try that.
Third, you needn't explain what POV is, we all know that. So stop infantilizing. And if you're done with ad hominem arguing, I'll get to heart of the matter: the word "erroneous" is an adjective meaning "false," plain and simple. It's not POV unless it's attached to a true statement (in which case, it could be slander). Something is either erroneous or it's not; there is no "close to erroneous" or "almost erroneous" -- there's no middle ground. The word "best," on the other hand, is a adjective indicating a judgement based on comparison. One person's best may be another person's worst. People can differ on their interpretation of what the best is. But not with "erroneous." If it's erroneous, that's that. There are no opinions, there are no judgements on the "trueness" of something. A statement is either "true" or "false" (i.e. "erroneous"), even if, at the moment, you don't know which. For this reason, your analogy between the words "best" and "erroneous" is absurd.
Further, Janice's claim of being the first supermodel has been disputed in sources such as The New York Times ("The First Supermodel," Rosemary Ranck, 2/9/97), Parade (Walter Scott, page 2, 6/10,07) and the frequently cited Michael Gross book, Model: The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women. In fact, the Janice Dickinson page has a whole sub-section devoted to her tubthumping of this false claim. The Janice Dickinson page also includes citations to each of these sources. I am not going out on a limb by stating that either Dorian Leigh or Lisa Fonssagrives was the first supermodel. This fact is substantiated by the aforementioned sources -- whereas Janice's claim is supported by, well, only Janice. So, unless you believe Janice's self-substantiated claim that she was the first supermodel, someone needs to remove the Janice stuff from the supermodel article. Alternatively, if there's a good counter-argument as to why Janice's claim should remain, then someone should add wording that indicates her claim is unsupported. Citing that should be easy since there are plenty of reliable sources contradicting her statements. But there is absolutely no reason to give her dubious claim of origination an equal amount of gravity as those claims that have sources! The question of whether or not Janice was the first supermodel has been pretty well settled: there are no sources supporting the claim, and there are many sources contradicting it. Thus, Janice's claims do not meet the burden of edivence. If this issue was still up in the air, then you'd have a point and I would be wrong in jumping to conclusions. But, no, it's not. Instead, it's been well settled with reliable sources. Janice's statements are unverified, unsubstantiated and, as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests, erroneous. ask123 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that I was in any way out of line. I also was not really saying that you are that IP. That IP is simply an annoying parasite that wants to inject a lot of original research into the article; he or she was simply just restoring the article back to "his" or "her" version. But he or she does seem to love to inject the word erroneous beside Dickinson's claim as much as you do, and even switched up the word's position as if no one would notice. As for what you just now stated to me... You say, "the word 'erroneous' is an adjective meaning 'false,' plain and simple. It's not POV unless it's attached to a true statement (in which case, it could be slander)." And you also say, "...your analogy between the words 'best' and 'erroneous' is absurd." Oh, come off of it! Another editor already cited your addition of erroneous as POV as well. Your trying to teach me the word erroneous is also absurd (and insulting!), as well as your pointing out to me the ways in which Janice Dickinson being the first supermodel has been challenged. You act as though I have been unaware of this, examples that you even cite from the Supermodel article, as well as hers. It just further shows the complete POV of adding the word erroneous, especially where it's not even remotely needed. Something is either erroneous or it's not? People throw around the word erroneous without knowing whether something is true or not. Or to express something that they do not believe; therefore erroneous is by all intents and purposes an opinion word. Using it in this case that you feel quite strongly is erroneous is still POV. Erroneous is POV because you are saying that she is lying, something that is completely unneeded, when the article is doing enough to suggest that itself. We do not straight-out call people, like Dickinson, liars on Wikipedia; we leave that up to readers to decide after presenting both sides. First, we present Dickinson stating she is the first supermodel and how she claimed the term; the second side shows opposing information. In cases like these, the readers can most of the time grasp what is likely ture or not. Two editors so far (I was/am one of those, of course) have reverted the POV of erroneous. I'm sure that other experienced Wikipedian editors would as well. Anyway, I really do not have anymore more patience to continue to "debate" this... If you want the word erroneous in there so badly, take it to the talk page and file an RfC (Request for comment). Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1) So is my "teaching you" the definition of the word erroneous as insulting as your explaining to me what POV is? I have no idea who I'm conversing with. Half the people on Wikipedia are barely out of middle school. When I get someone trying to teach me what POV is my first thought is that this is a child. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but please see where I'm coming from.
2) Just because someone else confuses something as being POV doesn't make it so. The argument, "this other person agrees with me so you must be wrong" makes no sense.
3) Since you are already well aware of all of the sources contradicting Dickinson's claim, why are you pretending like there is still a debate. I could say that New York is the capital of France, but that doesn't mean there is suddenly a debate on the issue. There is no debate on whether or not Janice Dickinson was the first supermodel. The only ones debating it are the citizens of St. Janice somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy.
4) You think the article is doing enough to suggest she is "lying" (your words). I don't. Whether it is a lie or she believes it, either way, it is false and, if it is to be included, it should noted as a misconception. Wikipedia is not in the business of subtle (to the point of confusion) suggestion. If something is false, delete it or indicate that it is a misconception. I'm all about letting the readers decide for themselves, but Janice's claim isn't even legitimate, i.e. worthy of offering up for judement. If tomorrow Christie Turlington claims to have been the first supermodel, are you going to add that to the article so that readers can decide for themselves? Allowing the reader to make his/her determination is, of course, the right thing to do, but only between verifiable/reliable choices. As you are aware, Wikipedia vets information based on reliable sourcing. Where is that here?
5) The only reason that I can see for including Dickinson's claim is that she's a figure in pop-culture whose claim of origination is well known. For that reason only, its inclusion can be argued. But, if one is to include her claim at all, it is also the his/her responsibility to note that, based on the sources we are both so familiar with, this is a misconception.
6) I don't really give a damn about this particular word or topic, and I don't care for your infantilizing comments. So I too would just love to drop this. But, rather, than RfC, perhaps I'll just Be bold and delete all of the Janice stuff. It doesn't meet the burden of proof for inclusion - especially not in its current form.
ask123 (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. I'm the child when you are the one trying to inject silly, unneeded POV into a Wikipedia article? I am not pretending that there is a debate. As I stated on the Supercouple talk page: "Her claim that she is the first supermodel is notable; it is a well-known claim, and has defined her career as much as anything else. All we need is her claiming that she is the first supermodel, with a valid reference showing that she has done so (no matter how familiar we are with this claim), then present evidence that disputes her claim. That is what that section in [the Supermodel} article is doing. That is how many "issues" like this go, not just on Wikipedia."
As for your feeling that the article is not doing enough to refute her claim, you have got to be kidding me! Take your problems with Wikipedia policy on not calling people liars up with someone else. Leave this "child" out of it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is quite clear that Dickinson has engrained the first supermodel claim enough into society's psyche that she is often referred to or introduced as the self-described first supermodel, sometimes simply being called the world's first supermodel:
Janice Dickinson Defends Hewitt In A Bikini As Healthy: "Tyra Banks Is Fat"
Janice Dickinson: the self-proclaimed first supermodel
Bulletin: Janice Dickinson Looks Hot!
Janice Dickinson
Let's not forget how her being a judge on America's Next Top Model helped this claim. Often, when people think of the world's first supermodel, Dickinson's claim comes to mind. She has created enough of a debate with it. So I would not say that there is entirely no debate about it. When presented with sources, like the Supermodel aricle does about this issue, however, it is easy to see how disputed her claim is, and I do not feel that the word erroneous helps to point this out any more than the way that section does already; all the word erroneous does is make it seem like a person is knocking the reader over the head with a bat even more than that section already is, asking "You see? You see?" I mean, yes, the person sees that her claim is significantly disputed. To suggest that readers need an added bonus of the word erroneous to grasp that fact is insulting to the readers.
In any case, that addition about Dickinson's claim is clearly notable enough for inclusion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1) Ugh! It's not POV unless it represnts an opinion.
2) I am all about subtelty too, as long as the article is clear. This article is not. The section in question devotes more space to Dickinson's claim than to any other. In fact, the text is practically written around the Dickinson claim. I agree that we don't want to insult readers, of course not -- we're not here to tell them how to think - that's a given, Expository Writing 101, knowledge anyone who's picked up a book has. But we are here to present clearly and in a proportional manner material that's backed up by reliable sources. There is no proportionality here. Dickinson's claim should have one terse sentence if it's included at all, not 4 verbose ones. The Dickinson claim is the side note, rather than the current version's take, in which the other claims -- those backed by evidence -- are presented as tangential.
3) As I said, the only debate over this claim is St. Janice of Dickinson somewhere is a nebula far far away. There is no debate among those informed on the subject. As with any matter, those who are uninformed may debate till the cows come home - they don't know enough about the topic to have an informed argument. But that is not what we are talking about. We're talking about debate among those in the know. Also, her show does far less than you claim to promote a debate on this topic. We're talking about a worldwide issue, and her American syndie has done little to give her claim creedence on the international stage. You're presenting a purely American point of view -- as you know Wikipedia speaks to a global audience.
4) I don't care about the word "erroneous," as you keep on suggesting with your own sledgehammer. I do care about clarity in encyclopedia articles though. So pls don't suggest harp on one word or another. It's not about words; it's about ideas.
ask123 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It is POV; you see it as otherwise; I don't. I also see that part of the article as quite clear. And I did not state that "her American syndie" has given "her claim creedence on the international stage". I stated that her claim is notable, and Dickinson has engrained the first supermodel claim enough into society's psyche that she is often referred to or introduced as the self-described first supermodel, sometimes simply being called the world's first supermodel. I do not care if you reduce that to simply being the American audience. And I am not the one harping on one word. You are the one who so badly wanted the word erroneous in there, as if it would actually improve that section. And now you're saying that it's about ideas? Whatever. In any case, I'm done with this discussion or whatever the hell it was/is. I see nothing wrong with that section, and am for it staying how it is. You want it miminized as though it should be. Take it to RfC if you feel that strongly about it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you see nothing wrong with that section? I mean the entire article has problems - glaring ones. Whatever, that's besides the point here. Go down that road, and we'll be at it for weeks. I'm just gonna repeat what I said on the Supermodel talk page: you keep bring up the word "erroneous" - as if I care about that term or not. C'mon, man, I placed the word in once or twice, and that was after it was already there and I saw it get deleted. So just get over it already. The redundancy is starting to ring in my ears. As I said before, Dickinson's appropriation of the "first supermodel" moniker makes that particular point notable only to the topic, Janice Dickinson, not the topic, Supermodel. I can see where you're coming from if you use a exteremely loose interpretation of the concept of "notability," but, again, that just opens up the door for anyone to say, "Hey, I was the first supermodel," and suddenly be notable. Under your rationale, simply saying that enough times makes you notable enough not just to get into the Supermodel article but also to take up a pivotal position in the section on origination. Even taking that loose interpretation of notability, her claim is still worth only a sentence or two at most - it's just a tangential note. I doubt a fashion historian would devote as much space to Dickinson's claim as you have. Lastly, as I mentioned before to you: Assume good faith, AGF, AGF, AGF! Throughout this whole discussion on this page and on the Supermodel talk page, you've been a live-wire with a major attitude. You need to pipe down and stop trying so hard to infantalize. A little good faith goes a long way... ask123 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you! It's that damn simple. I see you with the attitude, and the one acting like a child, with your silly insults. Including Dickinson's claim in the Supermodel article does not open "up the door for anyone to say, 'Hey, I was the first supermodel,' and suddenly be notable." It is not about simply saying something enough times and becoming notable enough to get into the Supermodel article or taking "up a pivotal position in the section on origination." I disagree with you. No, we will not be at this for weeks, because I am done with you; it's that damn simple.
You make it out as though I am unaware that the Supermodel article needs work. I did not write it. I just keep crap out of it. You see Dickinson's claim being in the article as crap; that is your opinion. This whole thing started with your need to put erroneous in that section beside Dickinson's claim, and now you've made it about something else. I don't see how there can be any surprise that one would be a little "what?" at your sudden change in direction. I have stated that I disagree with you. You clearly disagree with me. I told you to take it to RfC if you feel so strongly about it because that is the next logical step. Not to give you an attitude. Done is done. Or at least I hope it is in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Woa, woa, woa! Pipe down...for the last time... That's fine that you disagree with me. But you keep coming back with these aggressive posts. You're using my talk page as a personal forum for your venting. Do that in real life, not here! You may have the ego to say things like "I'm done with you," but not on my personal talk page. If you can't be civil, then get lost! Yes, "it's that damn simple" indeed... ask123 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

A123,

Thanks for all the good edits on Bernard Madoff. It looks like it is pretty much consistent with Wikipedia's goals and policy now. Perhaps we've clashed on grammar or what you think is trivia on the page, but that in itself is trivia.

Thanks again,

Smallbones (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to help! Thank you too for your assistance with the article! It's very much appreciated. ask123 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In lieu of a barnstar[edit]

I hereby award you with the sign of the TANSTAAFL. Do be aware that the last editor I awarded this to User:Samiharris was banned! Well, a little tarnish on a medal, in my view only increases its worth. Congratulations. Smallbones (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha! Thanks! I really appreciate it, Smallbones! I'll have to send the .jpg to my friend. ask123 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I "steal" [from] your user page?[edit]

I would like to make a change on my user page, but I'm still asking you first. Namely, I'd like to imitate or copy some of your way of arranging your userboxes, because mine look like crap. Also, I might want to copy some userboxes. Please contact me soon if you have any objections or reservations, because if I don't hear from you, I'm probably going to do it anyway. Thanks! Shanoman (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes you may. Of course, these aren't really my userboxes. They belong to everyone. So use as many as you want. And feel free to "steal" from anyone else's page as well. ask123 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Madoff, his wiki article & anti-Semitism[edit]

What conclusion did you reach about the antisemitic/living person bio on Madoff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodIron (talkcontribs) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Although Jews were disproportionate among the Madoff victims, I still believe that the "Jewish factor" was a tangential element re: the fraud and had no causal relationship to it. The fact that many of Madoff's victims were Jewish can be explained in a much less interesting and exotic way than "he targeted Jews." It happened that way because he was a Jew and he associated and socialized with Jews and Jewish organizations. So, naturally, there was a disproportionate number of Jews in his coterie and client pool. But, make no mistake, these victims did not give Madoff their money to manage because he was Jewish. In fact, I don't think that was a factor at all. Instead, it went like this: they knew him because he was Jewish and so were they. Then, based on his "success" and reputation, they gave him money to manage. These things are never as interesting and complicated as people would like them to be. They're usually simple and all about one thing: money.

Circumcision[edit]

Hi Ask123,

I wonder if you could explain this edit on Talk:Circumcision? Your edit summary seemed rather too vague a statement of the problem(s) which you perceive. Jakew (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to answer your question. I placed the tags there because the article is unmistakably slanted toward the view that circumcision is a negative procedure. For example, the section Sexually Transmitted Diseases begins with the sentence: "The origin of the theory that circumcision can lower the risk of a man contracting HIV is disputed." This sentence is clearly biased toward the idea that circumcision has no effect on the transmission of illnesses. However, there is plenty of research indicating that circumcision does have an effect in this area and in a number of other areas as well. You can find many articles whose conclusions support circumcision in the following medical journals: the British Medical Journal, Sexually Transmitted Infections, the Journal of Urology, the International Journal of Urology, the Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, the American Journal of Pathology and many others. There is also material published by the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (drawn from articles in accredited medical journals) on the subject that demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, the benefits of circumcision. Given that there are numerous accredited studies supporting this practice, the section on STDs should begin with a neutral sentence, not a biased one whose sole purpose is setting up an argument against the procedure.
To be honest with you, I found bias similiar to that present throughout the article, and it's quite intense, undue and consuming of the entire entry. The article doesn't so much describe circumcision as it sets out with the agenda of negating the potential benefits of it. And it does this despite the fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Now, please understand, I am not suggesting that there is a consensus among medical professionals that circumcision is something for all men. There is certainly some controversy over whether circumcision is an imperative procedure, one that should be recommended for all males or, alternatively, should be optional. Many doctors feel that it should be elective, the administration of which is determined by the child's primary or the adult patient. But this doesn't change the unmistakable POV of the writing contained in this entry.
I hope this sheds light on my edit for you. Please feel free to ask me any further questions you may have. I am happy to work with other editors. ask123 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ask123. Thanks for your response.
I wonder if you'd mind if one of us copied the above to Talk:Circumcision, and continued our discussion there? I would prefer it if others interested in that page can read and understand your objections. I'd like to comment further, but would rather do so there than here, again so that others can read. Thanks! Jakew (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Jake, that's fine. Please do so.
Also, please allow me to add the following points: there are many sections in the article devoted to certain issues surrounding circumcision like the transmission of illness, the loss/gain of sensativity, and ethical issues. Rather than presenting both sides equally and in an unbaised manner, many of these sections are structured to prove the point that circumcision has a negative effect on the individual in that given regard. These sections sometimes, in my opinion, stray from the topic in an effort to dispute circumcision, marginalize evidence that supports it, and, almost invariably, present supporting evidence after negating evidence and in a less prominent way. The overall effect is the minimization and deflation of very credible studies supporting circumcision. Whether intentional or not (I presume not), these tactics are designed to push an agenda, prove a point, sway a reader.
There are also a number of viewpoints in the article that are extremely controversial but are still presented as issues that undergo only minimal (in any) debate in the medical community. An example of that would be the idea that circumcision creates psychological trauma. This is not an idea held strongly by the medical community. The number of doctors that disagree with this opinion is many multiples of the number that supports it. Yet the section on the issue states first and most prominently, "it is now widely accepted..." The contrary position is given one marginal sentence.
Now I'm not trying to parse out each sentence in the article, but I am concerned with the overall tone and structure of the article. And I don't think that the tone and structure of the current version are even-handed. So thank you, Jake, for posting my comments on the talk page. I look forward to a productive discussion and, hopefully, changes. ask123 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've made a copy at Talk:Circumcision#Possible bias?, and will comment there in an hour or two. To keep things simple, I hope you'll reply there, too. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'll do that. Thanks. ask123 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

multiple columns/horizontal display of userboxes[edit]

Greetings! I am writing in response to the following comments you made on my talk page:

I was able to create clean column of user boxes, but I had trouble making multiple columns in a clean fashion. When I tried, I got a result like you have with your current version of your user page (with all due respect) -- boxes would not stay aligned and spaces popped up everywhere. Maybe I was writing the code incorrectly. I really don't know. Making multiple, neat columns is still a mystery to me. As you refine your user page, if you figure out any insights into this, please pass them along. ask123 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have found what you want or not; I got it by copying it from someone else's userpage, and as you can see, I'm still playing with it and my userpage looks crappier than ever. Still, maybe you can make it work for you. Just thought I would pass it along. Shanoman (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S.---Maybe also check out User:Wintran 's user page. Shanoman (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, Shanoman. A retooling of my user page is long overdue! Cheers, ask123 (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention[edit]

Hi -- I made some changes to your edit, and explained them on the talk page; just giving you a heads-up. Looie496 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. ask123 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tags[edit]

If you believe that an article is POV, like the John C. Turmel article, you can explain why you think so on its talk page, e.g., what parts you think are POV, and then add the POV tag to the article. THis way, other editors can clean up the article in order to remove the tag. Just adding the POV tag doesn't help get the article cleaned up. An even better way of addressing the problems you see in the article (and I have no idea what they are) would be to edit the article yourself in order to remove the POV you believe to be there. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've thoroughly responded on the page, John C. Turmel. Tags are not the enemy. They alert editors who are invested in an article that that article has problems. I'm not invested in the John Turmel article. I have too much on my plate at the moment to spend time pouring over the details of it. I can only edit so many articles at once. Therefore, I'll make a small change here or there, but that's about it. Larger changes need to be addressed by those who are already invested in the topic. If I see a problem with an article that I'm not invested in at the moment, I point out the issues to those who are already committed to the piece. In this case, I didn't have time to make a talk page post at that moment. That's why I simply left a tag. But a discussion post was forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time. I work. I can't spend all day on Wikipedia. If I see an problematic article, I'll tag it and come back later that day to leave talk page comments. That is acceptable practice. Further, one doesn't always have to be bold and edit every article. It's OK to focus on a few articles and, if you come across problems in other articles, to point them out to others via tags and/or talk page comments. You can find further and more specific explainations of why I POV tagged the article on the talk page. Here's my post. ask123 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbers under 100[edit]

"Numbers under 100 must be written out."

I wouldn't say "must". It's a point of style. It is neither fixed (e.g. many apply the rule to much smaller numbers), nor is it mandatory. (I do agree that, when describing ways to speak 4'33", spelling out "four minutes and thirty-three seconds" is necessary; but for a different reason.) ☺
überRegenbogen (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, conventionally speaking, numbers under 100 are written out. Another way of looking at it is that all numbers that can be written out with two words or less are written out. Of course, the rule does not necessarily apply in all situations (as you point out). Hours, minutes, seconds, degrees, radians, etc. do not necessarily need to be written out. But that's obvious. And, despite this exception, most numbers are supposed to be written out. Age is a good example of a form that is almost always written out. The bottom line, is the rule is applied case by case. There are obvious exceptions, but these are exceptions not the rule. The rule is to write them out if you can do so with less than two words (hyphenated). Also, this is not an arcane rule. It is widely used. I know there is some dispute on Wikipedia over this. In fact, the MoS does not promote one or another rule for numbers; it suggests that editors choose between alphabetical and numerical forms for numbers over nine. However, this is a choice created by Wikipedia editors. Grammarians have been writing out numbers that can be expressed with two words or less for a long time. Frankly, if I had more time on my hands, I'd lobby to change the MoS. ask123 (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Supercritical Water (properties)[edit]

Hi. just wanted to let you know, that I changed a description of supercritical water, made by you.
I'm positive that supercritical water (like all supercritical fluids), does only have one phase, so there is no destinction between liquid and gas - the two phases become one above the critical point (you can still have a solid phase though, if the pressure is extreme enough).
The remarkable thing about superfluids, is you cannot tell if they are a fluid or a gas, and actually you can heat a gas above the critical temperature, then raise the pressure above the critical pressure, then lower the temperature below the critical, and the pressure below the critical. What you get i a liquid, but although you started with a gas, there were absolutely no phase-change during any of the steps!
Personally I find that quite amazing :-)
Anyway, Critical_temperature#Vapor-liquid_critical_point clearly states this (only one homegenous phase above the point), so I hope you'll agree with my edit (or the meaning of it. I'm not native english, so feel free to correct my spelling and grammer!). Tøpholm (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange... I didn't write the sentence that you are referring to from the article water (properties). The language that you are referring to was written by other editors, not me. I simply rearranged the sentences and made some additions here and there. If you look at the history, you will see that that sentence was in the article well before I made my first edit. I took that sentence about supercritical fluids from the previous version of the article and incorporated it into the new version that I was writing. In other words, I just moved it around; I didn't write it.
This is what the article looked like before I edited it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_(properties)&oldid=306104870
As you can see, the old sentence read: "Above a certain critical temperature and pressure (647 K and 22.064 MPa), water molecules assume a supercritical condition, in which liquid-like clusters float within a vapor-like phase." The language is identical. I changed nothing there.
Since that particular sentence was written by other editors, please comment on those editors' respective talk pages. But thanks for the helpful changes. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Morimoto[edit]

Morimoto wears (purely aesthetic)[citation needed] glasses.<<do...somethin.he never wore glasses til he opened nobu watch iron chef japan... or any old photo. it is aesthetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.12.129 (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Look in the history tab. I did not add that fact. I simply moved it to another section. Regardless, your simple observation is not proof that his glasses are purely aesthetic. Often times, people acquire vision problems later in life, not in childhood. Furthermore, the fact that you saw him wearing glasses when he opened Nobu is irrelevant. You have no idea if he wore glasses before that. Maybe he wore contacts. Maybe you don't know him personally and have no idea if he really wears glasses in real life. Bottom line: you're "evidence" isn't really evidence of anything except your own potential gullibleness. You have no real proof. Whatever -- I didn't add the damn citation tag anyway! ask123 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Debenture[edit]

You might want to trim your long comments at Talk:Debenture#Debentures are bonds NOT secured by any assets or income. Reading the preceding sections, I see that as far back as January someone explained that the word is used differently in the US and UK, but you didn't seem to respect that.

I'll say this in your favour: at least you wrote "differently... from" as opposed to "differently than" like most Americans! Kind regards, Fayenatic (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wd1[edit]

Hi, just made a small change to the edit you made to Wd1 because it changed the meaning somewhat. Your edit had "It is currently the most massive of the known star clusters", which is no longer correct - globular clusters are (considerably) more massive than Wd1. The important thing with Wd1 is that it's the most massive young open cluster known in the local group of galaxies, so it's close enough to study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westerlund1 (talkcontribs) 04:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. Wd1 is the most massive of the known young star clusters. Globular clusters are certainly more massive. By the way, I like your user name. It's very apropos to our conversation. ask123 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Ask123! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 1,422 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Paul Warwick Thompson - Find sources: "Paul Warwick Thompson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Happy New Year! But please do come back and add further information to this tiny article. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help... Don't have much time for Wikipedia at the moment... ask123 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Reviewer userright, Courcelles! I'll use it in good conscience! ask123 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there a wikiproject for Macross?[edit]

When searching for a wikiproject for Macross, since some articles related to the series are now up for deletion, I couldn't find one, but did spot Category:Wikipedians_who_like_Macross which has 44 people listed. Your name is first, since it starts with the letter A, so I decided to just talk to you. If there is enough interest in this series, a wikiproject could be created, for people who are knowledgeable about it to contribute on articles. Or if there is no way to save the articles from deletion, help transwiki that information, and the pictures, over to the http://robotech.wikia.com/ Dream Focus 00:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I probably put my name down many years ago. Although it isn't my absolute favorite series of shows, I do very much like the Macross franchise. I've been a fan of Shinichirō Watanabe for over 15 years now, beginning with his work on Macross Plus. That's what got me interested in Macross in the first place. I was aware of the series, but had never watched it in full until I viewed the OVA in the early 90s. I must admit though: I haven't really kept up. I've become interested in many other shows; so my attention is split. Still, I am certainly interested enough in Macross to be a part of a proposed Wikiproject. Speaking candidly, I probably wouldn't be the most frequent contributor -- I already have so much on my plate. But I'm sure there is enough interest out there for a project to be created. After all, it's quite a popular group of shows/OVAs...
By the way, what exactly is the problem now? Are some of the Macross articles up for deletion? You mentioned that, and, if that's the case, it does very much concern me. I can't imagine any reason for deleting a Wiki article on one of the Macross series or OVAs. Please explain. Many thanks. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • So far just two have been nominated, but the rest will follow. That's how they have done this with other series.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boddole_ZerWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno J. Global If you can find some mention in a news or magazine review to use as a reference, you can save them, otherwise they'll just delete them no matter what. If you create a Wikiproject, you just doing it the same way you would any article, Wikipedia:WikiProject Macross, we could then invite everyone on the list to join it, and perhaps some fans could find some old magazines they remember having around their house that did review the characters, or otherwise offer some input.
  • If the articles can not be saved, and I do doubt most of them will be since this past year they've successfully wiped out other series, such most of the Gundam characters, He-man characters, and whatnot, then the only way to save the articles is to Special:Export them to your harddrive, and then import them to a wikia, that bringing over the histories and all. I'd do it myself, but you have to be an administrator to have the import feature. I recently adopted another Wikia, so I can't adopt the abandoned stub for http://macross.wikia.com/wiki/Macross_Wiki . If you were to go to [3] and ask to adopt it, they'd give it to you, since under the rules if no one has posted there in months, anyone can adopt it. Once you have adopted it, you can appoint other people administrators, and I can then help import all the articles over. And the Wikia can grow from there. Just make a few edits there to show you are serious. I can start exporting all the nominated articles now, and upload them once you gain control of that Wikia, if you are interested in helping me. It won't take long at all. Or if you don't want to be bothered, I'll ask another fan of the series, until someone agrees to adopt it.
  • There is already a Robotech wiki, but it was recently adopted by a guy who said he doesn't want any content from the Wikipedia at all, even if its going to be deleted [4], and that he had gone and deleted articles that I had copied over there previously, such as all the famous battles from the series. So no hope there. Dream Focus 15:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Graham's number#Too technical?[edit]

You might be interested in this discussion: Talk:Graham's number#Too technical?. I agree with r.e.s. that this article is as non-technical as it can be, but we'd love your input on what we could do to make it more accessible. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We're recruiting art lovers![edit]

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!
Collections Storage Archives of American Art.jpg
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Siegel+Gale Wikipedia entry[edit]

Hi Ask123. Saw your notes to the Siegel+Gale entry. This page was built with the help of T3chl0v3r and Ten Pound Hammer in compliance with Wikipedia rules so as to be factual and non-promotional. This information has been up for a year+ and found to be neutral per the COI. I understand Wikipedia is always evolving to better the information and would greatly appreciate you helping me understand where you feel this is promotional (other than what has been identified below.)

I saw notes on the following:

It gained media coverage[where?] and industry recognition[by whom?] for using plain English to simplify and clarify legal documents, such as loan applications, mortgage agreements, insurance policies and leases. (I believe I can source that)

In the 1990s, Siegel+Gale became an early investor in digital media[which?] (Would enumerating all the various types of digital media help? The early 90s was the dot-com boom and that is what this is referring to. It also included less revolutionary things- by today's standards- of converting items to CD-ROM.)

Looking forward to hearing your feedback.

Thank you!

Sgnyc01 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no time to deal with this now. But I will make one comment. The article is filled with puffery and excessive length and detail. Articles on minor topics should be reduced in length and not overly detailed. Length and detail creates the sense of legitimacy and importance. In other words, the article on Sony should be longer and more detailed than the article on Skullcandy. And, in the case of these electronics makers, this is certainly true. The article on Sony is at least 4x the length of that on Skullcandy and has 87 sources vs 15 sources for the Skullcandy article. This is appropriate. In the case of Siegel+Gale, the article is MUCH longer than that of even its much larger parent company, the advertising giant Omnicom. The Omnicom article has 5 sources; the Siegel+Gale entry has 23 sources. The Siegel+Gale article is about as prominent as is the Ogilvy & Mather entry; Ogilvy is obviously a MUCH larger and more prominent player than S+G. The S+G article is out of proportion. Also the S+G article is chock full of small facts and trivia and language that sounds like promotion. Now obviously everyone wants good articles. But what we don't want are articles filled with trivia and promotion. That is the problem here. The article reads like a promotion piece with lots of strange and small facts about the company and its founder. It needs to read more like an encyclopedia entry and have a level of detail that is in line with its size and stature as a company. ask123 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Girls with guns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Columbiana, Shiri, Foxy Brown and Hideo Tanaka

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. ask123 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Spofford Juvenile Center[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Spofford Juvenile Center requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GabrielF (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is LUDICROUS. I created this page over 4 years ago. I am not aware of any copyright infringement when it was created. It is possible that someone did place copyrighted material there subsequent to my creating it, but I cannot tell you for sure.
Since you put the tag up, user Alzarian16 removed the tag, claiming that there was in fact NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT on the page. I have also since edited the page with more accurate info. I am considering this issue settled. ask123 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Ice cream parlor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carvell (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, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Neutron moderator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Light water (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, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this was intended.ask123 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katheryn Winnick, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nikita and The Glades (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) 11:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lower East Side, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Street (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) 11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to University of Campinas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 350th best universities in the world and the second best in both Brazil and [[Latin America]].<ref>{http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking/range/301-350<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Shermer discussion[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)