Aszx5000

• Aszx5000 (talk · contribs · logs · block log · page moves · count · edit summaries · non-automated edits · articles created · BLP edits · AfD votes · XfD votes · admin score (beta) · no prior RfA)
  

Welcome!

Hi Aszx5000! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Graham87 01:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, Aszx5000,

I've noticed that you have been closing AFD discussions days early. There are a limited circumstances where an AFD discussion can be closed early (read Wikipedia:Speedy keep) but you can't close a discussion after three or four days just because there is general agreement among participants on a certain outcome. You say you don't want to "prolong" the discussion but there is a reason why AFDs last for four days and as a NAC closer you have no power to just close a discussion halfway through because you believe the discussion has ended. Please also review Wikipedia:Non-admin closure so you can better understand the limited instances where an NAC closure is appropriate. I'm posting this notice now because if this continues and someone takes issue with your closures, you could be prevented from acting on AFD discussions. I've seen it happen before with other editors. Better to be corrected now than to be topic banned in the future. I'd hate to see this happen because, in general, I find your efforts very helpful. Just realize that as a NAC closer, there are limits to what you should do. Thanks for all of your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Am hugely appreciative of the efforts of admins to clear the queues out so wanted to do my bit, but understand the points you are making and will amend my efforts accordingly. Thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sod off

I am sorry Mr. Ivandjiiski, despite your desire for anonymity, you are a textbook case of Wikipedia notability (link)

Whatever your temper or disposition, you can keep these idiotic remarks to yourself, if only because our policies require you to. DFlhb (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Aszx5000, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Administrator noteI'm going alittle out-of-process here as we won't normally consider anyone with less than 20 articles created, but I feel the quality of the few you have created is enough for me to bend the rules a bit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for that Beeblebrox! Aszx5000 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop your edit-warring

You seem to be too close to the subject. Don't worry, it is not like anyone is going to take away her world record. 2001:2020:329:A113:202B:CD52:5E28:C7F3 (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

When an editor engage in an edit-war, one can get blocked. Around two more instances of removing the same information, will quite likely get you blocked. 2001:2020:329:A113:202B:CD52:5E28:C7F3 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There seems a lot of sockpuppeting at the Kristin Harila blp to turn it into an attack page. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Kristin Harila

Hello! Please delete the Controversy section from the Kristin Harila page. Regards Szelma W (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that now and have reverted them per the Talk Page discussion. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

––FormalDude (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The TP of Rich Men North of Richmond has the warning on it already, but thanks for pointing it out. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

SATOR square, Markovich translation

Moved to Talk:Sator Square

You are completely right, Markovich does not have "the". I added it in the citation ino order to make clear that, obviously, while M. intended "checks" as a verb, he also intended "toils and tortures" not as verbs (the commas suggested that) but instead as the object of "checks": Latin words can only be translated in this sense. I see that you also tried to solve the ambiguity, using "keeps in check" instead of "checks" - but this also is not respectful of Markovich's original text... What do you think of "The sower Horus/Harpocrates checks [the] toils and tortures"? I find this would be accurate enough while not inducing readers in any misunderstanding... Or, "The sower Horus/Harpocrates checks [=keeps in check the] toils and tortures" which is perhaps better English? Signo (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yashwanth Naik

For a better understanding, take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amansharma111. Thank you 111.92.118.50 (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"Climber (climbing)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Climber (climbing) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 16 § Climber (climbing) until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Query about Draft:Chris Jones

Moved to Draft:Chris Jones (mountain climber)

Hi Aszx5000 - I saw your comments on my draft for Chris Jones. I did read the WP:NCLIMBER sources and I still think Chris qualifies and I think many of the sources I pulled also have justification.

"Articles about contemporary climbers should include reliable sources from the main climbing media (older/historical climbers may not always be referenced in the climbing media) per Category:Climbing magazines. Climbing WP:BLPs, whose main notability is based on climbing, but who have no record in these publications, are unlikely to be notable.

Quality sources from the climbing media (with well-regarded editorial control), who maintain online-accessible archives"

Given the era that Jones was active as a climber, I think I did a relatively good job of finding the contributions regarding his climbs in the AAJ and some other online references to the era. Plus, the AAJ had pretty strict limitations on who was permitted as a member and which climbs were merited for inclusion in the 60's and 70's. Jones was admired by his peers in that time period.

I know that he was probably discussed in other climbing magazines that have since fallen apart (well before the internet). There are plenty of articles created about other climbers in that era who have far less documentation and may not have done as many groundbreaking alpine climbs.

Anyway, I don't mind the edits you contributed - I think it tightened up the article and arguably I had tried to pull more justifications for notability with unnecessary quotations. Also, I'm sorry if your talk page isn't the appropriate location for me to argue my case. I'm still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia article creation. Feel free to delete this as needed or shift it to my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellowish126 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Female climbers

Hi Aszx5000. I see you've made several categories for female climbers by nationality. Could you please mark these as non-diffusing with the non-diffusing subcategory template? Any people who are in the Category:Female climbers or its subcategories should also be in Category:Climbers or one of its subcategories. See WP:CATGENDER for the guideline. Thanks, gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Understand and will do that. Thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Keep climbing higher Tamoraboys (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that ! Aszx5000 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"The" in article titles

Hi - in general we don't put "The" in article titles. So for example we have the Mona Lisa, the United Kingdom, the North Face of Everest, etc. Therefore if the article on the Dawn Wall is created it should be the Dawn Wall, not The Dawn Wall (though the latter would be acceptable as a redirect). See WP:THE for more details. — Voice of Clam (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The climbing route is actually called "The Dawn Wall" and not "Dawn Wall". It is a quirk of the naming of routes on the southeast face of El Capitan (e.g. The Wall of Early Morning Light and The Reticent Wall). See the main climbing route databases here, and here. I don't know how this started, but that is the actual name. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

And of course the most prominent example on El Capitan of this naming convention is The Nose (El Capitan), which is the correct name per here and here. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Several of the references for El Capitan refer to it simply as Dawn Wall, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. If the page were ever to be expanded from a redirect, it would need to be debated about the correct title, but it seems to me that Dawn Wall should not be simply tagged as incorrect. — Voice of Clam (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There are many sources who drop "The" from "The Nose" (and other El Cap routes), but the actual names (per the databases and Yosemite guidebooks) have the "The". Anyway, no problem and I think I see your issue now. If a bigger article is developed, we can have the fuller discussion then. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Aszx5000, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:History of climbing has been nominated for merging

Category:History of climbing has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"athletes" categorization

Hi, thank you for your contributions related to climbing. I noticed some of the climbing pages you created have "athlete" categories, for example Category:French female climbers was a member of Category:French female athletes. I don't think this is correct, because if you click on Category:French female athletes you can see "This category is for competitors within the sport of athletics, comprising track and field, road running, cross country running and racewalking."

If there is a category for "French female skyrunners", you could potentially add that to "French female athletes", but for climbers as a whole, I don't think it should be added to the "athletes" category because that's only for events mentioned in the sport of athletics page. If you just want to say that they are "athletes" in the sense of participating in physical activities, Category:French sportswomen should do the trick (which I can see you have already added).

Thanks, --Habst (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that Habst, and that makes sense to me now. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit on 19 March 2024

Hey there! Just wanted to let you know that I’ve reverted your recent edit here on Talk:Dune: Part Two - please do not add replies to closed discussions that are marked with the {{hat}} template. However, feel free to add the reverted reply as a new thread on the talk page. TIA, ‍ Masterofthebrick ^{‍ talk} 23:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't re-open the closed discussion but added a comment outside of the hat which is not by my understanding a problem? Reverting and editors talk page comments should only be done in very very (very) rare and specific circumstances .... I don't think this is one of them. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding 'discussion' here refers to the entire thread belonging to the topic in question, which includes any subsequent replies underneath the header. The main reasoning behind the revert was to keep the heated discussion closed and to prevent the conflict from potentially escalating between the previous users. Under normal circumstances I would've shifted your reply to a new topic instead of removing it entirely, but I felt it more suitable to clarify this with you first. In any case, if there are sufficient sources available for the proposed section then the discussion in question will be able to proceed more efficiently. ‍ Masterofthebrick ^{‍ talk} 13:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it would be inappropriate to re-open a closed discussion (although some closed discussions can be reopened), but you can visit WP:ANI to see many closed discussions that have additional comments under them.

It is not big deal to me, but some will get very upset on other editors editing (and particularly deleting) their TP comments, which is a big no no (per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. ‍ Masterofthebrick ^{‍ talk} 22:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)