User talk:Ashill

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

Please leave me messages here. I will respond where the message was left to avoid fragmenting discussions, and I will watch talk pages where I leave messages for a few days. -Alex

Cargo at Logan Airport[edit]

OK. First thing is I'm glad we are discussing this. Whether or not you realize it, the whole cargo thing is a huge issue at many airports. I had to make a cargo list at several other airports. Most airports that can't find anything on their first click just don't have any list. I personally think having anything is better than nothing and the more, the better. I believe having nothing is not a good thing. Unfortunatley, as you stated, it is hard to be 100% accurate, since these are controversial, but I thank you for your help. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs)


That's a really important article to me, and it's not a good idea to remove illustrations from the top. The XDF images really needed to go, but leave that manifold on top because it is a good illustration for the readers. It's better to be on top. It gives some life to the article Tetra quark (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair argument, best discussed at Talk:Universe. I've replied there. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly confused by this objection. I've undone two revisions in almost a month at IC 1101 and began a discussion at the talk page before the second revert. There was and currently is no objection expressed at the talk page. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


I just thought it would be easier for admins to know that your message is related to the block instead of an unrelated thing, but it's ok :) Tetra quark (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; no worries. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Prime of life" sentence[edit]

Why did you remove it? Alright it might be stylistically flippant, but it convey important information: stars in the main sequence are in the "adult" phase of stellar evolution, neither young enough to be protostars nor old enough to begin fusing heavier elements. Serendipodous 09:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The full sentence I removed, for reference: "Evidence suggests that the Sun's position on the main sequence puts it in the "prime of life" for a star, not yet having exhausted its store of hydrogen for nuclear fusion." First, the "evidence suggests" bit suggests that there's something remotely controversial about the sentence, which obviously isn't true. Second, the "prime of life" phrase suggested to me that it is at some especially prime (or something?) phase within the main sequence, which I don't understand. If that phrase was just meant to say that the entire main sequence is the "prime of life", that meaning wasn't clear to me. That whole paragraph I think fits better in the formation and evolution bit since it's about changes over time (which is why I moved it there); I realize that the paragraph doesn't say that the main sequence is the main part of a star's lifetime, which I tried to clarify just now. Third, the quotes around "prime of life" suggested that it was quoting the cited source, but it isn't. Is the tweaked version better? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your revert[edit]

Closure of the universe thread was requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 17#Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Try again for "Universe/universe" consensus?, and the thread was archived, as closed, in the meanwhile. The discussion was stale, last post on March 26, almost a month ago. The discussion led to an RfC which also had been closed in the meanwhile, even before this discussion. There is no reason to re-open it. The closure of the RfC, by AlbinoFerret, is currently discussed below the RfC, that's the proper place to sort things out, for now. Kraxler (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: It appears you posted this comment as I was typing my comment on your talk page. So we can discuss there. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(copied from Kraxler's talk page) Hi, Further explanation of why I don't think the thread at WT:MOSCAPS should be closed: First, the fact that one editor requested closure doesn't meant that the thread needs to be closed. Second, the RfC was not a direct outgrowth of the thread you closed. In fact, it was started explicitly against consensus in the thread you closed. Third, the RfC was closed essentially without consensus (the closer's assessment was that there was consensus in the exact opposite direction with only trivial differences between the wordings), and the RfC wouldn't even determine how to change the MOS if it did achieve consensus; instead, the thread you closed was the most recent discussion regarding how to change the MOS. This issue is not closed, and closing the existing discussion simply means that yet another thread will be opened to continue the discussion. The fact that there hasn't been discussion in the particular existing thread doesn't change that. Restarting the discussion in yet another thread further fragments the discussion, which I think is harmful. And even if discussion doesn't resume, there's no need to formally close the discussion and preclude it from resuming in the most logical, existing place. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was stale, as pointed out above, and was essentially superseded by the RfC, it doesn't matter much whether acoording to or against somebodies wishes. The RfC was opened, and closed. If you disagree with the closure, say so at the pertaining thread, or take it to WP:AN for closure review. I did not close the RfC, and I did not evaluate the points of the discussion, my closure of the discussion was merely procedural. If you disagree, please take it to WP:AN. But I think that, under the circumstances, it is indeed much better to open a new thread and start a new discussion, if and when it might be necessary. The discussion and the RfC together have already gained a size that make people hesitant to read it. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I just saw that a thread was opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Request for review of close at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Request for comment - Capitalise universe. The result may be that the closure is vacated. When that happens, and only when that happens, please feel free to unclose the discussion too, for the procedural reasons outlined above. I'd revert myself, if I'm on-line at that time. Kraxler (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The point is that the RfC is addressing a subset of the issues discussed in the thread you closed. You still haven't provided any reason why the separate thread needed to be closed. If no one continues the discussion there, it will be archived, so closing is unnecessary. Yes, both threads are walls of text, but starting new threads just means we rehash those walls of text over and over again (as has already happened four times on this particular issue since December). So I find the closure of the existing thread strongly counterproductive and bureaucratic; I'd really prefer that the thread just stay open instead of going into yet another bureaucracy (WP:AN). I frankly think that it should be up to the participants in the discussion whether it's best to start a new thread, not an uninvolved editor closing the discussion for no substantive reason. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't you think that after four inconclusive discussions it would be time to stop rehashing, and drop the whole issue? Please discuss the issue at the proper place which is, for now, at the link to the closure review, given above. Kraxler (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This is why closing the existing discussion (which did not have an RfC and had no need to be closed) makes no sense; we were making progress towards a process towards consensus. This was interrupted by the RfC, but the discussion you closed was the place to move forward instead of opening a new discussion, which has led to rehashing every time it's happened before. (The RfC itself was rehashing; the discussion it interrupted was actually heading in a new direction.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

AA edit warring at Birmingham Airport[edit]

Hi. There has been consistent warring at the article regarding AA service. IPs constantly keep removing the "seasonal" tag despite ignoring the source provided stating that it is a seasonal service. I would keep an eye that page if you get a chance. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Article has been semi-protected for 3 days. Citydude1017 (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


Ashill: Judging from your edits, you seem to have interest in stellar evolution. You might consider giving the evolution section of Sun a working over. Or, please consider working over any other section as well. IMO, the whole article needs help. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Chicken and Egg?[edit]

Alex, I agree, the lead section of each article should give a summary of the content of that article. I think this is a ideal towards which we should strive. I suppose, however, I view the Universe article as a work in progress. I am concerned that some editors seem to perceive the Universe article exclusively an astronomical article, when, in fact, the notion of "universe" is very general (I think you agree on this point). Where we possibly disagree: Perhaps you feel that the article should actually be written in a certain order, such that interior content is developed first, and after it is a certain way along, then, and only then, the lead should be written. Well, that is my impression of what you might think, and I apologize if my summary is not quite right. I'm more certain of how I feel: Material can, will, and should be developed in all parts of all articles, possibly in a non-linear way, and that people should be encouraged to participate. Indeed, it is my attempt to encourage people to participate and add non-astronomical content that I inserted one sentence to the lead of the Universe article (complete with citations). My feeling is that shutting this off has the effect of discouraging participation. Now, as you know, I do a certain amount of editing of other articles, and, yes, sometimes I remove content. But I also leave plenty of stuff, some of which I might not even like, under the assumption that each article is a work in progress and that some things might have a positive influence on the future evolution of the article. Hopefully in a good way. So, those are my thoughts. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: I certainly didn't mean to shut off the discussion or editing. I just think that the specific text you added would be better somewhere else in the text. The same sentence could go verbatim, or it could be expanded in the body. If it were a less experienced editor I were reverting, I would probably have found another place in the article for it myself (and I'll take a look now). But I figure you can probably find a place for it better than I can (since I don't know much at all about the philosophical stuff about the universe). In other words, I just intended this to be part of the WP:BRD editing cycle, not removing the content for longer than it takes you to get back. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
And, in the mean time, we have editors taking out content because they perceive that the Universe article is just a scientific article. Perhaps we need one of those labeling boxes at the top that identifies a significant problem with the article, that is, a need for more inclusive content. In a way, I suppose that is what I've been trying to do by working with the lead. Relegating some of these issues, as stumps, to the interior of the article doesn't really motivate that, at least not in my opinion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
That is a discussion I was planning to start at the talk page there. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


A registered editor did the same thing to numerous airport articles by getting rid of US and combining all under AA as the merger is still not completed yet. (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


Mind to stop caring so much about details? Unfortunately this is a free encyclopedia and you have to deal with other people's opinions sometimes. Undo an edit only if it really necessary (for example, when a wrong information was added). If not, don't bother too much about details. It is necessary to accept other people's edits sometimes. Cheers Buckbill10 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


The duck evidence is strong, and I would support a filing at WP:SPI ScrpIronIV 19:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just did. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You know Ashill...[edit]

it's interesting you should bring up settling the consensus, because usually you don't make changes until the consensus is resolved. And last I checked, it seemed the consensus was moving in favour of mentioning that Pluto was the largest object in the Kuiper belt. Given that Pluto is larger than Eris by volume, it doesn't really even matter how you define the belt anyway. I honestly don't understand why there is such opposition to this. This isn't an ambiguity of fact; it's an ambiguity of definition, and it's a definition that Wikipedia chose years ago. Serendipodous 14:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about making any immediate changes; I'd rather wait until after this nightmare's over anyway. Serendipodous 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry if my edit against is consensus. I was attempting to move forward based on the input at the talk page; when the edits are not just reverting each other but introducing a new variant each time, I generally find it easier to make actual edits than discussing ad nauseum. I'll reply on the substance at the Pluto talk page. (I have not been involved in Pluto before, so I don't have a sense for if there's a long-standing consensus. I don't see a consensus at all based on the very recent discussion alone.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The whole discussion was floating and the different sides were using the arguments of the opponents after three or four discussion cycles. It is not worth going into depth there - it is too puzzling. At the end I did not know what was the question anyway. --Metrancya (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Copernican Principle and the Sun[edit]

Alex, did you get my ping from my talk page about the Sun?

On another subject, there is some material at Copernican principle about which I'm curious. It seems that some observations of anisotropy in the CMB seem to show that it is aligned with the ecliptic of the Solar System. To me, that seems odd. It apparently seems odd to others, as well, though there is some literature argument on the subject. I've cited an article in Talk:Copernican principle that seems to indicate that this seemingly remarkable alignment is really nothing but an artifact of some sort of experimental contamination. I've also temporarily removed the material hoping to generate discussion on the subject, but the response by one editor is to simply restore it without discussion. Right now the material occupies quite a bit of space in Copernican principle, and if the alignment is, in fact, just a mess of measurement error, I am not convinced that it needs to so much space. Anyway, if you have some insight on this, perhaps you might consider helping out? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure of WT:AIRPORTS disscussion[edit]

Please note that just because you dissagree does not mean that you cannot close the disscussion, or prevent a consensus. RMS52 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52: Of course not. Involved editors (including both me and you in the current case) can't close a discussion if the consensus is disputed. And the editor who started a discussion with a particular POV closing the discussion in support of that POV when multiple editors disagreed is certainly not ok. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is not disputed, the fact that you made 1 or 2 comments about the maps and then stated making comments aout verifying information didn't seem to display that even after we made a consensus, you dissagreed. Your arguments where pointed out, you lost, there is a consensus. RMS52 (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not for either of us to assess. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you were the only one who dissagreed, but everyone else agreed, so there would've needed to be more people that dissagreed for no consensus yet. RMS52 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)