User talk:Aspening/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Aspening, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Aspening! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Aspening, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Aspening, good luck, and have fun. Montanabw(talk) 04:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Aspening, wanted to see if you'd like to swing by and join Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing, if you haven't already. Montanabw(talk) 07:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've already done so. Aspening (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Aspening. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Rescue Heroes Edits

Thanks for telling me why you reverted the edits; I did not realize that they were considered incorrect. 142.162.190.101 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Aspening (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for thanking me on my edit. I always love it when I get some appreciation. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping revert vandalism! Aspening (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: May 2018

The article itself already states that Conde's cousin was Mary of Guise (Queen Mary's mother). Why doesn't that factoid need a citation, if mine does? --SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.130.177 (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I just said yours needs a citation because I saw it on recent changes. Both facts should have citations. Aspening (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Athina Onassis

Hello Aspening, I edited said page to remove trivialities that do not belong in an encyclopedia, such as the number of champagne bottles purportedly consumed at the subject's wedding. Please restore my edits, thanks. 2003:6:13F5:A05:922B:34FF:FE68:862D (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of the deletions you made were about information that may seem unflattering, including information related to the subject's divorce and wealth. That information cannot be removed, however, I can see how some of it may be written in a way that is biased. I'll tag the article as needing to be looked over for neutral point of view so a third party can look it over. Aspening (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Please take a few minutes to review the article yourself. I understand that you may be wary about people whitewashing bios of rich or famous people, but this article is a travesty. The information I removed is either pointless and/or trivial, or based on speculation. Why would anyone be interested in the fact that David Geffen was named a billionaire the same year as her, or that her divorce lawyer previously worked for Marla Maples. 2003:6:13F5:A05:922B:34FF:FE68:862D (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This is precisely why I have nominated this article to be checked over by a neutral third party not involved in this dispute. Some of the information you removed probably shouldn't be there, but some was deleted unnecessarily. A neutral third party can help sort out which is which, and the unneeded information will be removed. Aspening (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I cited three parts that do not belong in an encyclopedia, which you seem to agree with, so let me try again. 2003:6:13F5:A05:922B:34FF:FE68:862D (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Because of this dispute, I would like a neutral third party to look over the article. I do not feel comfortable making edits when there is a dispute about what is considered appropriate to include and what is not. Some of the things you removed were things that I felt like were removed unnecessarily, and some weren't. Aspening (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I will refrain from editing. But which parts do you think were removed unnecessarily? Please be specific. Maybe the customs have changed as to what is generally deemed inappropriate on WP in the 12 or so years since my last (serious) edit, and I am willing to learn. 2003:6:13F5:A05:922B:34FF:FE68:862D (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the things I saw that were unnecessarily deleted included references to the sources of interviews, cited information about not being a "legitimate billionaire," a reference for information about a property she sold (while the information remained in the article), and a cited fact about a marital separation. Aspening (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I assumed the two interview sources were included in the reference, but as it turns out, both of them are unsourced. The billionaire thing is already clarified in the intro with "the extent of her wealth is unknown". On second thought, since there is no quote of her claiming to be a billionaire, not being a "legitimate billionaire" sounds like an accusation. It seems the property sale ref was removed by mistake when I used the Visual Editor, sorry. And the whole marriage and separation blabber should not be more than two sentences, if you ask me. But anyway, I hope someone will step up and make the article better some day. Looking at the backlog, I am not holding my breath, to be honest. I also appreciate the work and effort you put into this, but when you see edits you agree with only in parts, it would be more helpful – and in fact, more respectful of the other party's effort IMO – to take the time for a review and do a partial revert. I guarantee you, people will be more willing to start a meaningful discussion with you. 2003:6:13F5:A05:922B:34FF:FE68:862D (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Untitled comment from 2.86.77.193 (title retroactively added)

Σαμαράς: Η ιδεολογία της ΝΔ είναι ο κοινωνικός φιλελευθερισμός https://tvxs.gr/news/%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%AC%CE%B4%CE%B1/%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%82-%CE%B7-%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CE%BD%CE%B4-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%BF-%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82-%CF%86%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82

translation: Samaras: the ideology of ND is social liberalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.77.193 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you were blanking sections of this page without explanation, not because I disagreed with your assessment. I am no expert on Greek politics, but if you have facts cited by a credible source you can introduce them into the page. Deleting entire sections of pages without good reason is not acceptable. Aspening (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I keep bumping into you on Wikipedia, which means that you're doing an excellent job with locating and reverting vandalism and disruption. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy on Wikipedia and with patrolling recent changes. It's a thankless place to participate and it's definitely not for everyone. You're doing an amazing job; keep up the great work and please don't hesitate to message me on my user talk page if you need anything. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks!! Aspening (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Aspening:I just had to stop by and say you are really fast on the revert. I've managed to bump into you several times! Keep up the great work! Operator873CONNECT 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Change

Hi there, thanks for being in touch. So I am new to Wikipedia Edit and was not sure how to add the citations for the two facts I added. Being a regular concert goer I'm aware of these facts but they can also be found in the links below. Could you please leave my changes up and maybe add the citations please? Or teach me how to do it ideally.

Don's kids are musical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njX2E5jG88U

Confirmation of the two bases he lives in https://don-mclean.com/2010/08/23/don-mclean-with-son-and-band-members/

Hi DarrenRichmase, thanks for reaching out. For the first source, YouTube videos are generally not considered to be reputable sources by many editors. I would recommend finding something with more credibility, like a news article, about his music. For the second source, I'm only seeing a link to a picture of Don McLean with his son and band members. Are you sure you pasted the right link? Also, in the future, you can cite sources using the visual editor by clicking "Cite" on the toolbar. You can either paste a URL to create an automatic citation, or you can manually enter data from your source in order to cite it. Let me know if you have any more questions. Aspening (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you a lot

Thanks for thanking me. I always appreciate it. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping revert vandalism! Aspening (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Untitled comment from 178.48.105.73 (title retroactively added)

It is sourced on Salbutamol's wikipedia page under 'doping'. Go read, and then maybe put that line back. It's odd to see there are a few people who are so much insisting on something poor and less informative and just make wikipedia a little worse place every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.105.73 (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In order to introduce a fact into an article, it needs to be cited directly in that article. If you would like to add your contribution back in, citing an independent, reputable source (not another Wikipedia article), feel free to do so. Aspening (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Shasta

Hello, My name is Andrew and I am from Kenya. I'd like to know what you Americans difine as a "reliable " sources, because in the summary I provided sources. Captchas won't load for me so I can't site it myself. thanks.

199.101.61.24 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources you cited are not considered credible because they are blog/forum type sites. You can use the source code editor to cite your sources by using <ref> and </ref> tags, with an appropriate cite template. Copy the code from Template:Cite web and put it in between the <ref> tags. Also, not all users on this Wikipedia are American, just English-speaking. We have users from all over the world. Aspening (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it disrespectufl to my culture that Shasta's meaning as an African name is nowhere on Wikipedia. It's always Americans reverting me for bad reasons, and they revert me within seconds without looking at sources. I've edited from 19 locations around the world because I always move. Please tell me where I can put that Shasta is an African name meaning precious water, because it is.

199.101.61.24 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not revert you because of cultural bias. If you would like to add that information, please find a credible source. Examples could be from reputable news outlets, colleges/universities, etc. Aspening (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried the tags but they always give me a captcha that never works. 199.101.61.24 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you try editing from another device, or using a different Internet browser? You can also create an account to edit, which might allow you to bypass captchas. Alternatively, you can make a post on the talk page of the article you're trying to edit with what you'd like to add and your source. Aspening (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would cerate an account, but I edit once in a while, and will forget the password. Please tell me where on the Shasta article I can mention that Shasta is an African name meaning "precious water"? This name has existed long before any people were in the deserts of the U.S.A. Also you have not defined what reliable means to U.S> people like yourself, and the policies are TLDR. They need a short version that non-native people like myself can understand. Though I came to North America from Kenya I was born in Armenia, and Armenian is my native tongue. 199.101.61.24 (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Untitled comment from 76.189.141.88 (title retroactively added)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Duttaphrynus himalayanus, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 76.189.141.88 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop reposting warnings other users give you on their own talk pages. Aspening (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Untitled comment from 2600:1008:B145:B7CB:E1DC:1112:602E:7710 (title retroactively added)

She is a dude ma’am — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B145:B7CB:E1DC:1112:602E:7710 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Per consensus, please leave pronouns on Caster Semenya alone. Aspening (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kentucky Oaks top three finishers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Before Dawn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Oops! Aspening (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sauron article

I do know that it should be in British English, but with Oxford spelling in this particular case, which uses -ize endings instead of -ise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.232.253 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Checking MOS and not sure if there is a preference for Oxford spelling over standard British English. In that case, it's best to leave the article as is. Aspening (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The second paragraph here clarifies what I meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic. Also, in the beggining of the source of the article it specifies that "British (Oxford) English" should be used. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.232.253 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry about that. Aspening (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Santos Cardona

You left me this message:

Hello, I'm Aspening. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Santos Cardona, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Aspening (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess you jumped at a conclusion without looking at the article and the change I made... And maybe you should go look up some basic math. The article states that he was born in 1974, BUT joined the Army at 17 in 1993, can you see the discrepancy? Look up things before you correct others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.181.21 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked up the original source cited in the article. In the article, it states that Cardona was 34 years old at the time of his death. If he was born in 1976, it is impossible for him to have been 34 when he died in 2009, as someone born in 1976 would be turning 33 in 2009. It is, however, possible that he was born in 1974 and died before his 35th birthday, which would have been later in 2009. Another source, in external links, states that Cardona was 32 in November 2006, further supporting the 1974 birth date. It is more likely that there was an error in the case of a single source stating that Cardona was 17 at some point in 1993 than the case of two sources giving evidence suggesting he was born in 1974. News articles sometimes contain minor errors, and it appears as if the year he joined the army is incorrect. Aspening (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft talk:邯郸办证 领英.

Just a quick note on Draft talk:邯郸办证 领英. I declined your patent nonsense speedy deletion request -- you might want to review the criteria for WP:G1, as it clearly did not meet the criteria. However, it was a copyvio of another page[1], and I deleted it on that basis.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just tagged it as that because there was some nonsense on the bottom of the page and though it looked like a copyvio I didn't know how best to figure out if it was actually one or not. Aspening (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: User talk:UDESHYA KASHYAP

Hello Aspening, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User talk:UDESHYA KASHYAP, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G1 does not apply to user and user talk pages. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. LinguistunEinsuno (Linguist111) 20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Addition of duplicate template

Hullo, Aspening! I just wanted to let you know that you added a template to a userpage regarding blanking (to this page) which I reverte. I'm sure that you just didn't know that I reverted it instead, but I thought I would mention it for your information. Thanks for your help with vandalism! :) —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 22:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems like that was probably just Twinkle being weird and letting me give that person a warning despite the fact that you were the one to revert it. Sorry about that! Aspening (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


You are now a pending changes reviewer and rollbacker

Hi Aspening! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the rollback or pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and you consistently view and undo vandalism and disruption to articles. I believe that these user rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of both tools. Instead of having you formally request them at WP:PERM, I just went ahead and just gave them to you. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right
Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a "[Rollback]" button next to a page's latest edits - that's all.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war. If abused or used for this purpose, rollback rights will be revoked.
  • Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask.
Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see this tutorial page.
Pending changes reviewer user right
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

I'm sure you'll do fine with these user rights - they're pretty straight-forward and they don't drastically change the interface look that you're used to, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into any troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove them. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism and keep disruptive edits off of Wikipedia - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I had been meaning to ask for permissions but hadn't gotten around to it yet. Aspening (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Whelp... Guess I saved you the time ;-). Like I said, if you have questions please don't hesitate to message me and ask. Thanks again for your hard work! See you out on the battlefield :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Context

I didn't realize the referenced content was still in the Dine Brands Global article. It was removed from IHOP, and if you read the IHOP talkpage, you will see that I was strongly discouraged from starting an RfC to ask the community if they would want to include it or not. I was not very happy with its removal given the weight of RS but decided to drop it for the sake of collegiality. Please reply here and ping me if you want to discuss further, or decide for yourself. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Noel-Baker Sch Update

Everything said was based on factual information. The school records for exclusion and absence by both students and staff are available from the school. The local Unions have records of the meetings and what was said by staff, and also the attempts to have communications with the Head and the LEAD Academy trust. The LEAD Academy Trust publicly does not recognise Union representation at its schools. The staff turnover can be seen in the school records and in the TES job supplement as well as on the school's own website. All the above is not conducive to a good education or work place for both students and staff. The above was supported by conversations by staff, students and parents but this was omitted from the edit because this could be deemed hearsay/opinion. What was written was based on verifiable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.188.27 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw multiple issues with your edit. First, there are no citations in it. Content added to Wikipedia must be backed up by a credible source, especially if controversial. In order to cite a source, you need to use inline citations to place a link to the source directly into the article. It also appears to use biased language, contrary to WP:NPOV, and you just said that you did not cite "conversations by staff, students and parents," which apparently backs up your claims, because it could be seen as opinion, which also violates the NPOV policy. Original research is also not allowed on Wikipedia. The edit summary says you visited the school to get the information you added, and having something "supported by conversations by staff, students and parents" appears to be both original research and adding opinions. Aspening (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The first undo may be valid for the reasons you give because of the restriction and rules adopted by WikiP and I'll admit I was not fully conversant with so apologies. I will try to edit with the information required etc, etc, However,you have just rolled back my latest edit which undid numerous mistakes on the page. These included spelling mistakes and very basic factual information that anyone locally knows about. I have a very intimate, first-hand knowledge and experience of the school. For example the Head GLYN JOHN was a friend of mine so I should know how to spell his name! Secondly there is no such person as Jim Neut as founder. That's simply a made up name and vandalism. It was Derby City Council that founded the school. Everyone local know that. You from your position cannot over-ride such basic information since to do so would bring WikiP into disrepute. This is a genuine attempt by myself to undo numerous errors on the page for the benefit of everyone who reads the page and to ensue that the history of Noel-Baker is correct. I have not finished my editing yet but if you are going to debate everything I am trying to correct then I may as well not bother. You simply click 'undo' while I have to write the content. For example Mrs Wilcox is no longer head of 6th form and has not been for several years. Mrs Gostick similarly. (It's Mrs P now.) It appears to me that it is you that is vandalising a genuine attempt to set things right and enhance the reliability of WikiP. I do appreciate your role and position but it has to come alongside a degree of understanding that some others may know much more about some situations/pages than you. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.188.27 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have just read the WikiP info about a creditable source. How do I make myself a 'creditable source'? Who set up the page originally? It is way out of date and lacks up to date information. Many of the changes that need to be made cannot be verified by publication but simply need to be made by someone with an historical perspective and knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.188.27 (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Personal knowledge or info that "anyone locally knows" cannot be a credible source, as it violates the original research policy. Some examples of credible sources that can be cited in this case include the school website and local news articles. I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it if you updated the out of date information using those sources. Aspening (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

How about you undoing your roll back and giving me time to apply some credible sources so that I don't have to rewrite everything? How can I make changes to things that don't have a 'credible source' or I don't have access to? I.e. Glyn John's birth certificate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.188.27 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to undo my rollback for you to go in and change stuff. I did it to clean up some of the unsourced info. And you don't need a birth certificate to cite the correct spelling - you can just cite any credible source that says Glyn John was the head teacher in the 1970s and put it at the end of the sentence about his leadership. Go ahead and add in any referenced, relevant info you feel is necessary. Aspening (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, you should use inline citations when possible. Use <ref> tags, and copy paste the base Cite web or Cite news template (found under "Usage" on those pages) in between those tags, filling in information about your citation as appropriate. I can help you out if you need. Aspening (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Your rejection of the entry on Amwaj Islands

Hello, I had made an entry under the title of 'Amwaj Islands' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amwaj_Islands). It was about Jarada Islands and had the following content: "Jarada Island is one of the best attractions in Bahrain, golden sands and blue clear water, very clean sand and the best place to swim, the island appears in the ebb and disappears in the tide (ebb and flow)."

You rejected the addition by saying - "Hello, I'm Aspening. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Amwaj Islands seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Aspening (talk)"

I feel your deletion was misplaced as there was nothing in the content that didn't present a 'neutral point of view'. The entry is just a simple fact about an island. So request you to reconsider and accept the edit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazfaruqui (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Using language like "the best" to refer to something is not neutral. It's an opinion, not a fact, and inserting opinions into an article is a violation of WP:NPOV. Aspening (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I updated it without the term 'best', could you please accept/approve it now. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazfaruqui (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The edit is both unsourced and still included a reference to it being "best." Aspening (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent revert on Punjab page

I did a typo: made and-->adn, I noticed that you reverted it in less than 4 minutes. Do you have it as part of your watchlist? I am a researcher on wikitechnology and we are trying to understand the dynamics behind it. I am a scientist from Punjab. Satsriakal - Sudarshan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.170.212 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the edit I reverted was made by you, but by another IP editor. I am a Wikipedia rollbacker and use a tool called Huggle to identify potential problem edits, and that edit popped up on there. The only change in that edit was to change the spelling of "and" to "adn," which appeared to be a test, so I reverted it. Aspening (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Blush With Pride) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Blush With Pride, Aspening!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written and well-referenced article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Templates in categories

I'd like you to go take a look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories. Specifically, scroll down to the bottom and notice that there are exactly 1,000 categories on the list, and then keep in mind that it's a limited list which only displays 1,000 categories even if there are more than 1,000 polluted categories to fix — which means that even after I get all 1,000 categories cleaned up, there will be another 1,000 different categories to clean up the next time the list regenerates. So no, it's not my responsibility to talk to every individual owner of misfiled sandbox content before I do anything about it — given the number of categories I actually have to deal with, it's simply not feasible to ask every individual editor for permission to take it out of the categories it doesn't belong in.

For one thing, not every editor of misfiled sandbox content is actually around to see any talk page post asking them for permission, and it's not my responsibility to sit around and wait for their responses before I do anything — and neither is it my responsibility to investigate which editors are actually around and which ones aren't, and then ask for permission if they are while proceeding to clear the categories myself only if they're not. And for another thing, some editors choose incorrect or nonexistent categories that wouldn't be the ones the page belonged in even if it were in content space, or they place the categories in a weird spot that's difficult to actually find inside the page.

So 99 times out of 100 the only thing I can do when I'm working on the "polluted category" maintenance project is to click on the remove-category button in HotCat and walk away — because with 1,000 pages to deal with and another 1,000 to deal with next week and another 1,000 to deal with the week after that, it's not my responsibility to invest 20 or 30 minutes of time per page into investigation and permission-seeking, or my responsibility to read your mind as to why you think yours should be the one page I handle differently than all the others.

Yes, you're free to restore the categories in a disabled form so that you're not repolluting the category again — that's up to your discretion. But I'm not going to apologize for removing the categories instead of disabling them or for not asking you for permission to edit it first, because it wasn't my responsibility to do either of those things in the first place. My responsibility begins and ends at "get page out of mainspace category" — I don't have a responsibility to preference one way of doing that over another, or to ask 1,000 editors per week for their personal permission before I do anything at all. With the sheer number of pages that have to be dealt with, the only thing I can reasonably be expected to feasibly do is the absolute simplest and quickest thing that takes the least amount of time: remove the category in one click with HotCat. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NOBAN. It says that "[i]f a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request, although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to." Please do not assume bad faith of me for asking others to discuss any issues with me first.
When I'm patrolling, if I see something that is questionable or otherwise different from obvious policy violations, I typically will assume good faith and leave a message on the user's talk page kindly explaining the error. A minor, apparently accidental policy violation from an experienced editor is different from a recently registered user putting nonexistent categories on a userspace draft and should raise some eyebrows. I do this, then go about patrol until I receive a reply. Aspening (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It was not unexplained. Read the edit summary.

It was not accidental. If it was accidental you wouldn't have given me a level four warning. Please explain, or remove the warning. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll wait until after your next edit to report your behavior at WP:ANI. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The L4 had nothing to do with my previous warnings, which also were unjustified. It is inappropriate to issue a warning when you "accidentally" make a revert. I'll wait an hour. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
When using Huggle, the software automatically detects any prior warnings. You had a previous L3 warning on your page and so Huggle automatically gave you an L4. I personally think that if the latest warning is stale Huggle should first give a lower level warning, but that's how the software works as of now. I will go remove the warning as it was accidental. No need to go to ANI for simple errors that are being corrected. Aspening (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
This was not accidental. The truth is, an anon IP removed something from an article that you didn't want removed, so you thought it would be OK to revert an acceptable edit and then intimidate with an L4. That's not the characteristic of a good editor here. Please examine your editing behavior. Thank you. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
If I did this on purpose, I would not be apologizing and reverting my edits, and explaining the technical side of my error. I've also posted feedback for Huggle's developers asking if this can be changed in the future so that situations like this do not occur. I am sorry for my error. Aspening (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ayumu Murase edit

The edit I made, though accurate, accidentally copied the first set of this article. My bad.TBA18 (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Aspening (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please file 3rr against user:Hitlarrrr , a disruptive editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hitlarrrr&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrymangoo (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(Carrymangoo (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC))

Will do. Aspening (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Took another look at user's edits and we can't do anything unless they have actually made four reverts to the same page. I've already reported them at UAA for a disruptive username and am going to file an AIV report. Aspening (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I was filed 3rr ..please follow (Carrymangoo (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC))
Looks like we might have another one on our hands. I've filed a report at SPI too. Aspening (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Disruptive"

I didn't make any disruptive edits. The one you're looking for is User:Binksternet, who is insane and accuses everyone who makes edits he doesn't like of block evading. --74.42.44.210 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't personally attack Binksternet; he is probably acting in good faith because there is a sockpuppet investigation where socks have made edits similar to yours Aspening (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

MIND THE INFORMATION

YOU ******

THE CHART POSITIONS WERE WRONG false positions[edit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rednex_discography

this is the correct one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:2DD3:96E8:9D5B:9471 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:2DD3:96E8:9D5B:9471 (talk)

READ PLEASE READ

false positions[edit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rednex_discography

this is the correct one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:2DD3:96E8:9D5B:9471 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


I REMOVED THE POSITIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE WRONG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:2DD3:96E8:9D5B:9471 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

WRONG CHART POSITIONS

Austria Singles Chart 1 Swiss Singles Chart 2 Australia Singles Chart 1 German Singles Chart 1 Finland Singles Chart 1 Sweden Singles Chart 1 Belgium Singles Chart 1 Norway Singles Chart 1 United States Singles Chart 1 Japan Singles Chart 1 Spain Singles Chart 1 Russia Singles Chart 1 Canada Singles Chart 1 Denmark Singles Chart 1 France Singles Chart 1 Ireland Singles Chart 1 New Zealand Singles Chart 1

DID YOU READ THIS POSITIONS ?

THEY ARE WRONG


THE SONG WAS NEVER #1 IN THE USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:2DD3:96E8:9D5B:9471 (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

please help me

please help me there are tons of fake and false and wrong positions of REDNEX chart positions

they are wrong

for example

HOLD ME FOR A WHILE

it is written its was #1 in the US but it was not even in the US HOT 100

i have removed it therefore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:2DD3:96E8:9D5B:9471 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? If so, I can help you add it back in. Aspening (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

High Feather

I am not sure how I would make a citation for the change to the synopsis. The episode "Deep Water Test" is on YouTube (episode 1 which is uploaded in 3 parts). Since the episode is uploaded by a fan, I doubt that they have copyright to the original series. The link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYzgzNT0shg&list=PL5JIwttBOPpGiTwHs9EeFVyzL7OyR949j 71.234.186.175 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I was more concerned with writing over the portion about Tom, quite honestly. In this case I would recommend using a secondary source, or something written about the series from someone not involved, if you can find one. If not, feel free to add what you added back in in addition to what's already there. Aspening (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


Terra Linda High School

This fact is very necessary about its sport's program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornstar69 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What was added to the article appeared to be an opinion. Per the policy WP:NPOV, inserting personal opinions into an article is not allowed. Aspening (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Frank Winkelmann

Hello Aspening. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Frank Winkelmann, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: For G11, the main criterion is that the article "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic"; not the case here. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice that User ?

Hi Aspening , There is an User with a very similar username who copied your userpage . I have reported them at AIV . Kpgjhpjm 16:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Thinking they may be linked to one of the vandals I have been reverting. Keeping an eye on new usernames for now. Aspening (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

CBJ

My apologies for violating any policies. I created an account solely to correct the erroneous statement that the great Mr. Cuba Gooding Jr.’s children were named “ Cuba Gooding III and 2 others”. I will go back and add a source page link to my fact post haste. Thank you and good day sir. JigsawMistress (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't. I have removed the children's names as we do not mention the names of non-notable children. See WP:BLPNAME Meters (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled comment from Marcia Parker SF (title retroactively added)

Hi Aspening. Saw your speedy deletion note. I can add a link to her staff bio on our page. Would that do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcia Parker SF (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Which speedy deletion note are you talking about? Can you give me a link? Aspening (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed Important Misleading Information but you Restored it!

Hello there, I have removed one paragraph from Price SambhajiRaje's Marriage History as it was totally Wrong and Misleading. He was Honest prince of Swarajya Kingdom, ATrue Patriot who never trait against his father and kingdom. Also he never had touched any drinks orany other women with bad intentions. He was very strict. And he considered at other womens as her mother, so I Deleted that Wrong part written in paragraph about sensual pleasure etc. For references You can watch Serial/ Read Chawa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityanraje123 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, you were removing cited information without a proper counter-source. Also, just because something is unflattering doesn't mean it should be removed. See WP:DONTLIKEIT. Aspening (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to July 7. I looked for a source for this date of birth in the DJ Manian and it was unsupported by any source there either.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know... I don't think a lot of PC reviewers are aware of this at all, and date pages are often PC-protected. I'll make sure to let people who edit date pages know about this if I reject their edits. I'll also check articles for inline citations before accepting pending changes on date pages. Aspening (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

My Reason for Removing Content

I removed content from the paraphilias page because being attracted to trans men and/or trans women is now considered a normal sexual orientation by the scientific community, and so neither should be listed as a paraphilia. I will be more specific about my reasons next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratsarecool3 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled comment from Chg1990 (title retroactively added)

I did not remove or do any disruptive editing... If I edited something I should not have edited, show me where and I won't do it again. My apologies, won't happen again. Chg1990 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you were removing substantial amounts of content without adequately explaining why. Next time, please add an edit summary. Aspening (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

ICP edit revert

Hi Aspening. Thank you for taking the time to review my recent addition to the Iterative closest point article. I am one of the main developers of the software library I linked to and have disclosed my conflict of interest in my user page. The library in question is the work of the PRG group at UMD; please see our pending draft and technical report. Our open source contribution (which is steadily gaining attention) has a significant educational value, as it implements many common and reference algorithms, including many variants of the one the edited article is about. Therefore, we believe it appropriately fits the (existing) "Implementations" section of the ICP article. We kindly request that you reconsider the "promotional" tag (we would not (need to) use Wikipedia to draw attention); this is about a relevant OSS contribution, under a non-restricting license, by a university research lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzampog (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Kzampog, please read WP:NOTLINK and WP:ELMIN. There is no need for more external links than are necessary. It also appears that cilantro might not meet WP:NSOFT. Aspening (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for providing specific clarifications on your policies. However, since there already exist externally linked entries of unproven notability in the section of interest, it is still not very clear to me how the decision boundary is decided. In any case, thank you again for your feedback and review work.

Untitled comment from Taypop3 (title retroactively added)

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit on Niykee Heaton's page. I thought it was constructive and I was just wondering what you saw wrong with it, thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taypop3 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What you put looked like original research to me, as well as biased content. Aspening (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

My Edit to American Renaissance Magazine

Good day to you.

You have taken away my recent changes to American Renaissance Magazine on the grounds that they were biased. I have studied for many hours in the field of Jarred Taylor and American Renaissance and I find the preexisting information to be biased itself. To put it it its most simple terms, American Renaissance is a magazine for the identity of white people and has a goal of protecting white and European interests. It is not "racist" and i would appreaciate it if the changes I made were reinstalled.

Thank you and God Bless,

Rowland III — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.93.73 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Calling critics ignorant and saying their claims have no merit is introducing obvious bias into the article. Referring to white supremacy as "white identity" is also giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Aspening (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing of Dr. Majid Naini page

Dear Sir: Peace & Greetings Universal Vision & Research started this page in honor of Dr. Naini who travels the world to promote peace, love, and understanding among all. I noticed that you tried to revert some of the posted material. It is very unfortunate that someone using Tashfeen 184 and some other accounts has spent time vandalizing this page with a distorted picture of Dr. Naini and other incorrect and insulting text. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me since I am Dr. Naini's assistant and am trying to correct the texts. My only guess is that this person who is vandalizing the page is anti-love and peace and that is the reason he is doing this. All of the information we have written can be verified with references. Of course there may be some minor errors since we have had to correct the information so many times. Thank you so much for your help. Laura Universalvision (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if you are affiliated with the subject of an article, you may have a conflict of interest. In that case, you are asked to follow these guidelines and are strongly discouraged from editing the page yourself. Recent changes patrol will try to keep the article as clear of vandalism as possible, but if you notice anything that we don't, use the procedure in the guidelines I've linked to if you feel something is not right. And please don't call me "sir," just address me by my username, Aspening. Aspening (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Dick Durbin

Hello. You wrote you changed my one-word-addition to Durbin's wiki-page because what I wrote "seemed less than neutral to me," because I added the word "nominal" in describing Durbin's faith. I don't understand how you can say that; the very same article goes into great detail about how the Catholic Church hierarchy is banning Durbin from participating in the Sacrament of Communion for his non-Catholic stance on the political issue of abortion. How can you claim you are neutral but your subjective feelings of what I wrote (you said you felt what I wrote "seemed less than neutral to me"), and subsequent removal of that word "nominal", clearly lean towards non-neutrality based upon the very facts of the issue and your very own article. My addition of the word "nominal" is a fact-based assertion; you can't get more neutral than the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.237.116 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Durbin's religion is what he defines it as. Inserting opinions about how he is somehow lesser in terms of the religion he chooses to follow is inserting bias and therefore not neutral. Many different factions of Catholicism and degrees of devoutness exist, and complete agreement with the official positions of the Catholic Church is not required for someone to consider themselves a Catholic. Aspening (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wonder Gadot

I have just moved your DYK nominated article Wonder Gadot to prep but I am puzzled by the horse's name. The horse was foaled in 2015 and was presumably given a name then (or is this not the practise with thoroughbred horses?). The actress Gal Gadot did not adopt the role of Wonder Woman until 2016, so how come the horse was named after her? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: It's actually relatively unusual for a Thoroughbred to be given their registered name soon after they are born. Most Thoroughbreds are officially named when they are 1 or 2 years old. They just have to have a registered name before they are used for racing or breeding, so Wonder Gadot technically could have been given that name as late as summer 2017. Aspening (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, which resolves the problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Wonder Gadot

On 20 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wonder Gadot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 2018 Queen's Plate winner Wonder Gadot was named for Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wonder Gadot. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wonder Gadot), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your rejection of changes to "Wharf Distillery"

Hi, I do not understand why you have revoked the changes I made to Wharf Distillery entry. Why have you deemed these factual additions as promotional? The essence of the additions are no different to those of the Cooper King entry which have been broadly emulated to provided richer content. Citations have been provided. Thanks, Conisbee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conisbee (talk • contribs) 10:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Conisbee: The reason I rejected your changes was because some of the language comes off as sounding like an advertisement and not from a neutral point of view. Also, if you are affiliated with the subject of the article or article section, please have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Aspening (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

James Roday

Hello,

Yes, I did leave a note with my edit. Per James' request, I have removed the paragraph about his parents. I work for his manager at Principal Entertainment in Los Angeles. I left my email address in the note as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcurrierphillips (talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kcurrierphillips: You didn't adequately explain what was wrong when you deleted the section. The information appears cited, so I see no reason to remove it. "James' request" is not a valid reason for deletion; please see WP:DONTLIKEIT. Is there a Wikipedia policy-related reason to remove that section? Aspening (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Aspening. The information in that paragraph was given in an interview by James' father and is incorrect and was never fact-checked by James or the rest of his family. So per his request, we're trying to remove it here as we have on his IMDb page.

@Kcurrierphillips: Like I said, subject request is typically not a valid reason for deletion. Have a look at WP:BLPSELF and make a post on the biographies of living persons noticeboard if you have concerns about the factual accuracy of any info in the article. Additionally, if you are making edits to Wikipedia as part of your work, please read WP:PAY. Aspening (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Aspening: So the fact that someone published incorrect information is enough to keep it on this site as "valid" information? And not on the speaker's page, but on his son's page? And the fact that the information is wrong has nothing to do with it?
@Kcurrierphillips: What I'm trying to say is that if you feel there is a factual inaccuracy, there are ways to deal with it that comply with Wikipedia policy. Because you appear to have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from making large deletions on articles yourself. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is a resource for you if you feel like something is not right. The policy WP:BLPSELF may also be helpful; though you aren't the article subject, you appear to represent him and so some of the same guidelines apply. Wikipedia takes factual accuracy very seriously, especially when it comes to biographies of living persons. Because you have said the cited source is inaccurate, I think it would be extremely helpful to start a discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, where more editors can have a look at what's going on. Aspening (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Aspening: Thank you I will follow up with them.

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Page:Saba Mahmood

Hello, thank you for your post. I removed false and unsupported content that was posted maliciously after the page subject (Mahmood) died. As you will see, wiki administrators removed this content from Page:Saba Mahmood after an edit war, which suspended multiple accounts. In my explanation I cited the fact that User:Bbb23, who was following and helping to end the previous edit war, previously deleted this content. User:Bbb23 noted that the content was deleted because of a "block evasion" (which I cited), meaning that the account that added this content was part of a group that was suspended from the site and was now reposting the unsupported and speculative content once again. Thank you for your concern and for watching this page closely moving forward! 173.239.64.2 (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I misread your edit summary thinking you were saying Bbb23 was engaging in block evasion. Whoops. Aspening (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see! No worries at all, and thanks for looking out. 173.239.64.2 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The deleted content is by no means false or unsupported. It is an accurate description of publicly available data, without any insinuation about Mahmood's "scholarship" or her character. Wikileaks documents are cited in similar ways in numerous other Wikipedia articles. It is also not true that the information was posted after Mahmood's death. It was added first on October 2, 2017. I kindly ask users to check the log before making malicious (and easily falsifiable) accusations. The information was deleted after Mahmood's death because that was when people (the person?) with Berkeley and Eugene IPs, who most likely have a personal interest in censoring this information, noticed it. I must add that Mahmood never publicly rejected the e-mails and it is extremely unlikely for anyone to fabricate a mostly mundane e-mail conversation between Mahmood and one of her students. Finally, the information was clearly added and developed by multiple users. There was another user, User:Nowhereian, employing multiple sockpuppets with pretentious names to delete the section. Thank you very much for your interest! MrandMsP (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Aspening, you should edit the article how you think best, meaning whether you think the section is appropriate or not. Don't pay attention to the history, which is at best confusing, or any new person's opinion. As an aside, I've semi'ed the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

swimsuit edit

Hi- I believe the vandalism report on my swimsuit edit was in error. I provided 2 sources in the comment I made to support that there is a second (currently more prominent) definition in use. The sources are: [2] and [3]

I'm new, so if this isn't the way to respond, please let me know. Thanks! Knowinit (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Knowinit: Your edit did look a bit suspicious to me, but it should be OK with a reputable source. Generally, per the policy WP:CIRCULAR, Wikimedia projects shouldn't be cited on other Wikimedia projects. Usually People magazine is not a reliable source, but I think it should be OK if it is used only for a word usage citation and not for anything else (especially not on a biography of a living person). Use inline citations to cite your sources. Aspening (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Luttwak Geoeconomics essay

Hi Aspening,

I posted an essay on Geoeconomics to the titular page on behalf of the essay's author, and the person who coined the term "geoeconomics", Dr. Edward Luttwak. You removed the post for potential copyright violations. Is there a way I can repost the essay in such a way as to satisfy the guidelines?

Best, SecurityStudiesMA

@SecurityStudiesMA: One thing you can do is add a citation to it to the "Further reading" section. Aspening (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Rejection of link on Real estate Technology

Just interested in this please. Assume it was the LinkedIn ones? Just so I know for next time.

J

Yes. Generally speaking, linking to someone's LinkedIn profile within an article is considered promotional. Aspening (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, Thank you Aspening. I have just noted though that the whole definition was also removed. Is that correct? I am going to add it back in, with reference to both myself and the academic who coined the definition as I feel it is an important addition given it is an actual accepted definition that is then referenced in the first article noted there in that page. I am assuming this is okay to do

Okay, but please remember to cite a credible source. Also please note that writing about yourself in any way may be seen as a conflict of interest. Aspening (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Nas

Hello. I wanted to put Inbox person instead of Inbox musical artist. It fell apart. That is why I did that.

It looks like you changed the years active even though there was a comment with evidence supporting the previous date. Also, generally speaking, a rapper should have Infobox musical artist as opposed to Infobox person, because more specific infoboxes should be used when possible. Aspening (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
That IP is User:BushidoBrown evading his block. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Hi Aspening. I noticed that you posted a warning recently on the user page for anonymous editor 84.252.59.254. It looks like they're at it again: I've reverted a lot of their recent edits, which were mainly adding unnecessary job titles etc. to cast & character lists in films. Either they haven't seen the warnings on their user page, or they're choosing to ignore them - either way, do you think it's time to get them blocked? Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised they haven't been blocked at all. I would keep a close eye on their edits, give them an L4 warning next time they vandalize/add unsourced content, and if they ignore that report them to AIV. A lot of the warnings currently on their talk page are at least two weeks old, so they aren't really actionable. Aspening (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable course of action. I'll keep an eye on their edits over the next week ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

RE: Tessa McWatt

you deleted my additions, but I am she. My publishers asked me to update my page, and I did. I'm not well versed in this, first time. What now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternationalWriting (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@InternationalWriting: I reverted your edit because you were adding unsourced information. In order for info to be included on Wikipedia, the info must be backed up by a reliable source, especially in a biography of a living person. Also, please have a look at the conflict of interest policy and our policy on how to deal with articles about yourself. If you have any more questions, please let me know. Aspening (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Will try again or ask someone else to who knows what they are doing. Best wishes. InternationalWriting (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about conflict of interest

Aspening, thanks your feedback about potential conflict of interest. Could you help with a little clarification? I maintain a couple of local history blogs, which are active with local history points on a variety of topics. These don't promote anything and simply provide narratives about the subject, but they are a subpoint of my main domain. Is it OK to link to these articles that are not promotional in any way? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixonhistory (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Basically, this is a case of citing yourself, which you should always be careful about. Aspening (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Clinical Document Architecture

I wanted to add this: In 2016, HL7 and the ONC ran a Rendering Tool challenge, to help overcome some of the frustrations with the usability of CDA documents. The winning entry was the Backbeach Software CDA Viewer.

The availability of an open source viewer for CDA, judged by HL7 and ONC, is relevant to the article. It is also potentially useful to users who are reading the page because they have CDA files they want to view.

I acknowledge the link is to a site I control, but the demo is free for use and does not require registration and has no advertising.

Would one of these alternatives be acceptable: 1. Restore the edit as is. 2. Replace the link to the viewer to the github page of the code repository: In 2016, HL7 and the ONC ran a Rendering Tool challenge, to help overcome some of the frustrations with the usability of CDA documents. The source code of the winning entry is challenge/index.htm available on github .

3. Remove the second sentence altogether?

2 and 3 have these disadvantages: 2 requires users to go to github, download and install the Viewer. 3 requires users to go to the first link, find the link to the demo or github and then download and install. Also, not mentioning the winner in a para describing a competition just seems strange.

thanks, Bryn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brynlewis (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Brynlewis: Inserting external links in that way is generally considered inappropriate for Wikipedia, because it may be seen as advertising or spam. Please do not insert those links into the article at all. Aspening (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Would the following be acceptable?:

In 2016, HL7 and the ONC ran a Rendering Tool challenge, to help overcome some of the frustrations with the usability of CDA documents. The winning entry was the Backbeach Software CDA Viewer. Brynlewis (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Brynlewis: Generally, most users would view that as promotional, because it is not critical to the understanding of what the original article topic is and appears to be advertising the tool. Aspening (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hinojosa Page

Hi Aspening - you sent me a message about the image that I wanted to update on Gina Hinojosa's page. I work for the Representative and am trying to swap out the photo to a better image than the one currently being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpardo210 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jpardo210: I sent you that message because you deleted the entire infobox. It's a common mistake people make when trying to swap out images. Additionally, if you are editing Wikipedia as part of your work, please have a look at our conflict of interest policy and our rules about paid contributions. Aspening (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Radio Station WWWW

I AM the reliable source, son. Now, revert your unauthorized changes. NOW.68.49.167.110 (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What you changed was original research, so it can't be included in Wikipedia. I also don't see how my changes are "unauthorized," since users do not own Wikipedia content and can't prevent others from making changes to pages. Aspening (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Marabou

https://www.facebook.com/CandylandGalway/photos/pb.123064981106519.-2207520000.1535753429./1944754382270894/?type=3&theater

Will this do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.4.194 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Generally, Facebook is not a reliable source. Also, now that I took another look, what you added is not written in a neutral point of view. Aspening (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Eckmann

Sir, I wanted to change my own home-page, so that it contains the correct reference to my membership in the Goettingen Academy.

I understand that this is not welcome.

Note, however, that on the German page referring to me, this membership is mentioned.

Could you please update my English page accordingly?

Thank you

JPEckmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by EckmannJP (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Aspening (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

My edit

Do I have to include a reference when it is merely fixing grammar and spelling of another user's edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:4E41:E700:BD14:589:E0A6:A1D5 (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. Meant to only revert the last one. Aspening (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

My edit

Here's a source. I'm also a member. We are very much not greek. https://dka.org/about-us/current-chapters/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.73.113 (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Please have a look at our conflict of interest policy, especially the section about COI editing -Aspening (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your editing of my "editing":))

Regarding your editing of my "editing":)) you could let it stay for one day.I know that Wikipedia is apolitical (and it should be), but that person did a damnable gesture towards my nation,so I did a lot less damnable gesture towards her. Have sir a nicer day then I have today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.248.242 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

So what? There's no excuse for vandalizing Wikipedia. Aspening (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article is rascist

Dear Aspening

Actually the original person who wrote this article is clearly a racist. The original article written here leads to stereo-typing and hatred. The article told only about one woman who dressed this way that abused her children. The wrticle also only spread lies that were invented about the women who dress this way. If a person wishes to study a subject, in this case a group of people, who should he ask? People who assume things based on rumors and misunderstandings? O should he ask one of that group? For example, imagine if someone would now go up against the Indians and claim all sorts of false things about the women, the traditional, Sari, etc. Do you understand? I myself dress in a Redid and therefore know and can tell you that the original writer has no idea what he is talking about. It is NOT called a frumka. It is called a Redid according to the Jewish book Code of Law - the Shulchan Aruch. It is also a fact that the Jerusalem courts and Rabbis have stated that they know that this is not a cult and that most of the women who dress this way do not abuse their children! Aspening, this article must be edited or removed. A separate article about the woman Bruria Keren can remain but not to stereotype against all of these women! Please let me know ASAP what you will do so I will not have to take legal and public action against Wikipedia for writing such discriminating articles.


94.159.142.118 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, since you have stated you are the subject of the article. I'm going to have another look --Aspening (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Changes to the New Acropolis Page

Hi Aspening.

I apologize for some of the changes made to the New Acropolis page.

Based on personal experience and experiences from close friends with the organization (who have on average been with the organization for 7+ years), I was attempting to remove false and baseless claims regarding the nature of the organization.

The citations, if you look at them in the page regarding the line about it being an organization accused of deception and secrecy are opinion based blogs rather than factual.

As someone who attends the New Acropolis Atlanta chapter, we have noticed that multiple individuals come to the organization and then shy away due to the Wikipedia page making claims that the organization has cult-like connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epictetusfanforever (talk • contribs) 18:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

These are conspiracy theory driven blogs that the user is citing that are opinion based.

Here are some of the citations that the user uses to make the claims about the organization being "secret" and full of deception for your reference: http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/txt/liv-gb.htm http://victimasectas.com/NuevaAcropolis/NuevaAcropolis.html http://thesecretrealtruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_4270.html

Regarding the citation about the French Commission on Cults...the user who put the sentence there has not used any citation or evidence indicating that the organization was subject to the council. This is the citation the user uses: http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-societe/2007-01-17/la-fin-des-listes-noires/920/0/19641 If you look, the citation in fact is just about the fact that the French Commission on Cults was dissolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epictetusfanforever (talk • contribs) 18:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Epictetusfanforever: Please review WP:COI - if you are affiliated with the organization please don't make controversial edits to its article. I'll have another look at it but please be aware of Wikipedia policy --Aspening (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Aspening: Not affiliated with the organization. I've just gone to 2 classes that they offer. Thanks.
@Epictetusfanforever: Any sort of connection to the organization can be considered a COI - at the very least be careful to stay neutral. Aspening (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aspening/Archive_1&oldid=1088370913"