User talk:Ashanda/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mother of the President

I see you added a "Mother of the President" title to Barbara Bush. Question: who gets this title for being Abraham Lincoln's mother?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You saw incorrectly, lol. I repaired an IP's attempt to add the succession box as I believe I explained in my edit summary. It looks as if I added it whole because they deleted their attempt before I could finish fixing it. Ashanda (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hank Steuver page

Hi Ashanda. I tried updating the page on author Hank Stuever, to replace the unflattering photo with a better one. I've gone through the Flickr Creative Commons process and also posted the image on the Wikimedia page. If there is anything else I should be doing to get this image approved, please let me know. I'm a fairly light Wiki user and would appreciate learning more. Thank you -elissapoma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elissapoma (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that simple patience has paid off and the image has passed muster. You do know that if you're the owner of the photograph you can skip Flickr and just go straight to uploading and licensing it at Wikimedia Commons. Ashanda (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Ashanda whats up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.163.180 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wiktionary definition of up might be of help! Ashanda (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Micro v. Milli

Moved from User talk:Cwill151 § micro vs milli

Regarding this edit the reference gives the prefix as micro [1], of course journalists often do get thing wrong - but that's not what you said in your edit summary. Ashanda (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes,

You are quite correct. I read the source materials too and the quoted prefix was Micro...

However looking at the context of the article, the situation and the way in which the measurement was used suggest that the journalist did make a mistake. The source claims that the radiation readings increased over time to 1.015 uSv/Hr, but earlier it was reported from the same location that the readings were 385.5 uSv/Hr so the only way for the reading to have increased with a value of 1.015 is for it to have shifted magnitude. Also, the source (and article) both claim that the radiation levels were "equal to the allowable dose for a normal adult over one year". In order for this to be true it would have to be measured in "Mili" Sv as the LD 50 dose is around 2 Sv in a year.

So, based on these incongruencies I believe that the source quoted incorrectly but as I have no objective proof, there's not really a way I can "prove it". Change it if you wish... Cwill151 (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough! I just wanted to be sure you were aware of the discrepancy. Ashanda (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Np. Though it really doesn't affect the article overall, so I couldn't care less if someone wanted to be consistent with the source. Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Albania

I'm not adding promotional content I'm just addind a website which contains a lot of information on the topic. Don't delete it anymore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArlindHo (talk • contribs) 21:52, 25 April 2011

I'm not adding promotional content, I'm just adding a website which contains a lot of information on Albania. Don't delete it anymore. Just trying to help here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArlindHo (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I visited the website. I had to click past a security alert from my browser that the site's security certificate isn't from a trusted authority. Looking around the website, after scrolling past the giant advertisements, I found very little information that wasn't already covered better in our own article and its subarticles. Please read WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTLINK, and the External links guideline. Quite frankly I do not believe that the website improves either the article or the encyclopedia. I would recommend that you submit the site to the Open Directory Project for inclusion there; you will note that we already have a link to the Albania section of that project in the article. I thank you for writing and wish you a good day. Ashanda (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

ANSWER ARLINDHO: I don't know what's wrong with your browser but I never had a security problem with this site. As I said the site is updated every week or so with 3-4 articles and it's been very useful to me. The advertisements don't mean a thing. If wikipedia doesnt have ads doesnt mean that all internet shouldnt have ads and if a site has ads its BAD and can't be trusted. Also if you Google "albania" this site comes a sponsored result which means if google trusts it to put it in sponsored results you should trust it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArlindHo (talk • contribs) 26 April 2011, 22:33

You fail to address the point. Please read the policies and guidelines I linked to above and then please tell me how a link to that website improves the encyclopedia. Oh, and a sponsored result on Google means someone paid to have it there, it doesn't imply an endorsement by Google. Lastly, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ as I don't like having to do it for you. Ashanda (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Before appearing to sponsored links the website is reviewed manually by Google and if it's approved it appears there. The website is useful for all who want to know about Albania. What do you want to know more? ArlindHo (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that you don’t like reading the policy pages do you? Thank you at least for signing your post this time. Again you fail to address the question, let me say it one last time. How does a link to that website make the article better? In other words, what does the website have that the Albania article and its subarticles don't already have? Ashanda (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete the link. How can you delete a site like that :O?! ArlindHo (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was not I who deleted the link these last two times. Really, if you think the link's that important to the integrity of the article, start a discussion at Talk:Albania requesting its inclusion rather than edit warring to try to force its inclusion. Ashanda (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of unusual deaths, without giving a 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. Much of what you deleted as "not unusual", has been discussed at length by regular editors who either kept or deleted content per consensus. Please review the Talk Page and its archives before mass-editing. Thanks. JeffJ (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I was toying with the idea of putting {{don't template the regulars}} on your talk page just for the pure irony of it, but you know how they say, "Two wrongs don't make a right". Anyways, if you subscribe to the philosophy described at Do template the regulars, it's a good idea to follow the guidelines in the "Explaining the obvious" section of that essay. In this case the above template is inappropriate because I did indeed leave valid edit summaries, you simply disagreed with my reasons. I do apologize for failing to notice the presence of multiple archives on the talk page. Now, shall we follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and have this discussion on the article's talk page? Ashanda (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest - and I'm trying not to sound bitey here - I didn't think you were a regular by the way you chewed through the article. You did leave edit summaries, but they offered little more than "...not unusual enough...". I will admit to a degree of article ownership (and some over-sensitivity), but it's a by-product of having to constantly monitor the article for vandalism, inappropriate entries (i.e. Not unusual enough), regular deletion nominations, and over-zealous editing. But we're not an exclusive club,and help with the article is most welcome. Please, just do us a favour and delete one entry per edit. And read through the archives; There is a massive amount a debate history over individual entries and the overall question of what makes a death "unusual". Thanks. --JeffJ (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Welcome

Thank you. --Veyneru (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Ashanda (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

how i can edit articles..........?

i want to edit some of the informations but not getting properly how to do this.........please need your guidance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Abdullah Azam Khan (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of helpful general information in the links provided in the welcome template on your own user talk page. Is there anything I can help explain more specifically? Let me know! Ashanda (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

New comment

How can I help myself when you just go about deleting stuff without detail explanation what to change or modify? Please understand that not everybody is Wiki-Master-Doctorate like yourself. There are millions - and in soon future billions - will start contributing to Wiki. Your behavior will simply intimidate new users and will deprive Wiki from millions and billions from contributing. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjpsingh (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 May 2011

Hello and thank you for writing. I believe you mean this edit. I thought my edit summary, "Delete non-encyclopedic section per WP:MOS" would be sufficient because I meant for you to click on the included link so you could read the Wikipedia:Manual of style where you might learn that question and answer sections are not appropriate in an article.

I do, however, have to take issue with some of your own edits:

• When you reverted my edit here you failed to follow the instructions that very clearly come up when you click the "undo" button, "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." You treated me as a vandal instead of as an editor with whom you had a difference of opinion with, a very rude thing to do.
• I might have put the above down to inept fumbling by a new editor, but you then proceeded to make this edit and this edit which both claimed to be reverting edits I had made, however I never did make those edits!

This is something known as harassment (not to mention bald face lying!) and I will give you this opportunity to apologize. Ashanda (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have noticed you vandalise pages - I will report you should I come across another vandalised article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.145.220 (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Wynter Gordon article, my edit was most certainly not vandalism. In fact I tried to improve your edit enough that it might have a chance of sticking around long enough so you could find some citations to back it up. I think you need to read up on the rules and be nice to people because you're being nasty to someone who tried to help you. Ashanda (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You are a vandal and a cyber bully - I read up on the rules, you want citation, why don't you call them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.145.220 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[2][3], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=32320406 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, but I do not wish to participate. Please select somebody else in my place. Ashanda (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hello, Ashanda. When you changed the redirect of Fender to point it to a disambiguation page (although technically, per WP:MDP, it would have been preferable to move the disambiguation page to the unqualified title), you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Fender" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that, but I see that someone else has already rectified my error. Thank you for letting me know about it! Ashanda (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Maria Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carte blanche (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) 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Should I delete dead links?

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

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

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

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

Hi, sorry for the delayed reply.

In a typical article, the external links section essentially serves as a "further reading" section where people can go to read about the subject beyond the scope of the article. As such, a dead external link wouldn't probably cause a stir if it were removed. You could flag it using the {{dead link}} template for someone else to evaluate, or be bold and remove it yourself.

However, in some, nonstandard formatted articles, external links may be serving as cited references for the material in the article. If that's the case, then such a link should not be removed; rather an archived version of the linked-to page should be found. Using the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive is a good way to find archived versions of web pages. You may then use the {{wayback}} template in the article to replace the bad link with the archived version.

Hope this helps, and again, sorry for the delayed response! Ashanda (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

2000s Fashion Edit

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

Ari Teman deletion discussion and the no personal attacks policy

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

Well, normally I would recommend ignoring or gently reprimanding a first attack, as is advised in the WP:NPA policy; however this anon has repeatedly attacked others including myself. There used to be a separate noticeboard for these, the appropriately named WP:PAIN, but it was deprecated years ago. The appropriate place to bring up problems now is simply at WP:ANI. Just be sure you really want to do it, reports at ANI can often WP:BACKFIRE on the person reporting. Thanks! Ashanda (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If this was the first time such attacks had been lobbed at me in totally out of context situations, I might avoid taking action. However, this is not the first time such has been done this year. Others have persisted in trying to deny me a void based on a caricature of what happened, and outright lies about what my role in it was. Discovering who the creator of a category is is very easy. Much easier than with an article since categories have been edited much less. Repreating this falsehood is a show of laziness both in the media and on the part of wikipedia editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert, Ashanda: For a good giggle and some brilliant off-wiki socking as well read The Strange Tale of NextGen and NextGen. Best, Sam ^Sing! 07:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor and Johnpacklambert: Nice find! Indeed very amusing, and all too familiar. That old proverb about Leopards and their spots yet again rings true. Ashanda (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you ganging up together

• Quoting RS is within WP:Policy. You are all over the press for your sexist work. :

• http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/wikipedia-cant-escape-its-gender-problem (Vice is a reputable source (RS)
• http://newamericamedia.org/2013/05/wikipedias-sexist-turn-men-are-novelists-women-are-women-novelists.php

NYClay770 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Quoting sources that are just plain wrong to engage in totally out-of-context attacks on editors is not acceptable. I did not create Category:American women novelists, no matter how "reliable" you claim a source is, that claim is a lie. Wikipedia has rules like "assume good faith", and you can't get around them by quoting outside sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Motherboard is just plain off base. I have created lots of categories like Category:German male dancers. That was before they published. If we want Wikipedia discussions to be informed, we should not treat as "reliable sources" the work of people who spread anti-white male lies. Motherboard has the attitude that gave us the Gang of 88 and 3 Duke lacrosse players dragged through court on totally trumped up charges just because they were white males. They have a clear and present agenda, and they are willing to mock me and others and misrepresent the work we really do to try and accomplish this goal. To cite such enablers of racism, sexism and false prosecutions is not to cite "reliable sources", it is to continue lies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: The reliable sources guidelines apply only to articles, so this is just another personal attack by the laundry load of socks from the Ari Teman AfD. I wouldn't sweat it too much though, it's unlikely he'll be editing much any more now that the article had been deleted and the discussion I started at AN/I has concluded. Ashanda (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice job!

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

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

Column overflow errors

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

A picture's worth a thousand words, but they can be hard to read when they're too small

@Huntster: Thanks for your question. Here's a screenshot I uploaded of what these errors look like on the United States Constitution article. The 30em columns are only standard for small text, such as is used by the {{reflist}} template, in fact 30em columns can be used with {{divcol}} and not cause errors if its small=yes parameter is used. That is, in fact, the compromise solution I implemented on the US Constitution article last week when I got my first ever reversion of these columnation adjustments. However, unlike that other editor who never explained his objections, your own edit summary complained about the number of columns created in a wide screen format; using small text would likely have simply reproduced the same problem for you. Since this see also list is actually pretty short, I figured columns were silly in the first place and simply got rid of them.

As to my browser and OS, I'm using a native Android browser. But what I think really matters is that I'm viewing the pages in a narrow screen environment as opposed to your wide screen one. Over the many months I've been making these corrections, I've had other editors hit the Thank button a few times, so I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in getting these problems.

I've thought a few times of starting a discussion about removing selectable column widths from the various templates and making them simply 30em or 20em depending on the text size selected, but before this past week nobody had objected to my gnoming and fixing them one at a time, so the wiki-drama didn't seem worth the effort. Perhaps I'll reconsider starting such a discussion some time soon.

Thanks again for writing! Ashanda (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Your use of the |small=yes is the first time I've seen it. I would definitely encourage you to head to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎ and detail what you're seeing, as this is a significant display issue. I'm rather of the opinion that all such columnation should probably be stripped out of mobile browsers accessing the site, as they are pretty narrow to begin with. I'm sure it would be technically possible. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)