User talk:Ashley Y/2005

Talk:Gliding action

I withdraw my comment on talk:gliding action because it was late

This withdraw means that all is well now.  I sure am glad I did not write anything else silly.

--

Ŭalabio 06:36, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Charles Enderlin

Hi ! Thanks for your excellent work on Charles Enderlin ! Rama 08:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce

Just out of curiosity, why are you listed as having created the first few edits in Robert the Bruce's user page? —Ashley Y 09:10, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

I encountered Robert in late November. At that time I would often go to his talk page via the user page (which was empty) to try to dissuade him from being so rude. I inserted a placeholder there for my own convenience. Later on I wikified some of the emails that he was most fond of quoting, in the hope that he would take the hint and start quoting the Wikilinks instead of the full text. He didn't seem to mind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I bodged things a bit on your user page. I meant to reply to your previous query, but accidentally put the reply on your user page. I think it's fixed now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stroking

Why did you add stroking and fluttering to Meissner's corpuscle? I specifically stated in the talk page why I didn't include those in my rewrite. In case you didn't notice, your original addition of these points caused a debate which is still ongoing. Are you purposely fueling the fire? Unless you have some compelling reason, I will be reverting your change. --jag123 16:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should have listened to what I told you in the first place. - Robert the Bruce 17:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with Jakew's last edit myself. —Ashley Y 03:29, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

I'm glad you're happy with Jakew's last edit. When someone removes something from an article and states his/her reasons why, the decent thing to do is usually explain why you'll be changing it again. You haven't done that before changing the article, nor when I asked on the talk page and still fail to do it here. Considering that most of the debate that is occuring on Robert's RfA involves your additions to the articles, your lack of concern in keeping the peace (or even making an effort) is disappointing. Futhermore, since you can't provide any reasons for your changes, I can't help but think that your edit is in fact POV, and at this point, only serves to anger pro-circumcision activists. In case you didn't realise, the uncertainty in the POV of your addition was an important issue in order to prove that Robert was acting unreasonably and you've just clarified that. He obviously knows you better than I. Your edits will be reverted. --jag123 03:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, "pro-circumcision activist" Jakew didn't seem to be angered since he added to my edit. As for the RfA on Robert, I trust that will stand or fall on its merits. If you're looking to see me edit in a certain way for the purposes of finagling that somehow then I really can't help you. —Ashley Y 04:07, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

I'm sure Jakew bit his tongue. Unlike you, he appears more interested in having a neutral article than reverting and causing more problems. The problems caused from your previous edit aren't even over and you're doing it again. It's completely mind-boggling. You're right, you can't help me; you obviously are editing articles with a POV. --jag123 04:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doing what again? —Ashley Y 04:23, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Autofellatio poll

Hi. There is a poll going on at Talk:Autofellatio. We'd appreciate your vote. —Cantus…☎ 04:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Buck's Fizz and Mimosa (cocktail)

I don't understand why you want these two articles to be merged. While I agree that both drinks have very similar ingredients, that is where the similarity ends. On top of the different proportions of the main ingredients, and the obviously different names, they have distinct cultural histories. For these reasons I believe that the negative effects of a merger would considerably outweigh the positive. Carruthers 14:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Temp page

Medical analysis of circumcision/temp has been marked for deletion. Are you still working on that temp page or is it okay to delete it? Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 07:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Oh My Gods! link

I am currently working on the Oh My Gods! article to be linked to and you deleted the link, any reason why? --Shivian Balaris 03:55, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Mao

There are pretty good reasons to introduce the game properly. I dislike edit wars and I'd rather work this out amicably. Can't we try to seek common ground here? — Xiong 熊 talk 05:14, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Agnatic vs cognatic

Please read the discussion page of primogeniture and please present your credentials in the science in question.

Places of worship

Would you care to tell me why you consider a horgr to be a religious place and not a place of worship?--Wiglaf 11:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I removed the whole category Category:Places of worship. —Ashley Y 23:30, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Skolemization

I've reverted the article since your characterization is completely wrong. Skolemization completely eliminates existential quantifiers such that the variables whose scopes lie within those quantifiers are replaced by Skolem functions.

And the higher-order quantification over Skolem's simply doesn't make sense in an explanation of what Skolemization and a Skolem function are.Nortexoid 08:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

categorization cycles

Hi - I just wanted to let you know I'm fine with your proposal (leaving "usually" out until or unless someone can suggest a need). It looks like gracefool has not been active this weekend; I've prodded him to respond if he'd like. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template:DirectionUndecided

Template:DirectionUndecided, which you have edited, has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 10:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really? I'm not seeing any deletion process anywhere. Are you still working on it? —Ashley Y 11:25, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Templates are deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

parasitology

I'm a bit confused about the way you want to organize the categories. I think that many of the articles in parasitology are not about parasites, and should not be listed as such:

parasitologists are all in a subcategory of parasitology but aren't parasites themselves
medicines for treating parasites (e.g. Fumagillin) and concepts relating to parasites (e.g. fecal-oral route) aren't parasites but are parasitological subjects

It seems to me that either the category needs to be redesigned, or parasites needs to be a subcategory of parasitology, not vice-versa. If I'm missing something, let me know.

Dave (talk) 04:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The idea is that parasitology is the study of parasites. There's a broader discussion of the proper relationship between subject and "study of" categories here, which you might be interested in contributing to. —Ashley Y 05:47, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into it. Dave (talk) 12:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I took a look, and I'm still not convinced. Do you have your own reasons for putting parasitology under parasites? Dave (talk) 12:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:Gracefool, who in general supports your organization, supports my version for this case[1]

Category:Tree of life and Category:Life

Please do not arbitrarily empty and then blank categories such as Category:Tree of life, you must list them on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion (cfd) and they must undergo a process before are deleted or renamed. Also Category:Life was listed on cfd and voted for deletion back on Sep. 11, 2004, please do not recreate it without a discussion. Thanks. Lexor|Talk July 2, 2005 11:50 (UTC)

There's no record of the deletion of Category:Life on Category talk:Life, so I must assume that this category is available to be created should anyone feel there is a need for it. I also note that you describe there your own original decision to move as "bold" and apparently did not use CfD first. Please do not delete Category talk:Life, and do not delete Category:Life should it be recreated without listing it again on CfD or providing the original deletion discussion. —Ashley Y July 2, 2005 23:08 (UTC)

Summability criterion

Thanks for responding at Talk:Summability criterion. I was a bit busy that semester and I am just now getting back to articles I created then to see how things progressed. I'm glad someone saw fit to refute Syd1435 in that discussion. - McCart42 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion

Hi , why did U remove category:Islam from category:Religions . category:Christianity is still there , so I thought category:Islam should be there too . Farhansher 05:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Christianity as well. They belong in Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements or perhaps in some sub-category such as Category:Abrahamic religions. —Ashley Y 05:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I know you!

Just saw your name on the history of Worldwide Church of God. If I'm not mistaken, you're also on LJ's "nonfluffypagans" community, and my username will probably be familiar to you. In addition to just dropping in to say "hi", I've made some rather extensive edits to that and related articles, and I wanted to get your opinion on those edits. -- SwissCelt 23:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC my only change to those articles was removing references to the "index" article Herbert W. Armstrong (index) (which I put up for VfD) after it was deleted. —Ashley Y 00:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

This is just a warning that you are coming close (or perhaps already in violation of) Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule on New Orleans, Louisiana. I count two or three reverts in the last 24 hours, but that is not an invitation to go exactly by the letter of the rule. Thank you. (I did revert you once, but then I changed back, to maintain neutrality; to further neutrality I may find someone else to do the block if needed) --Golbez 09:18, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please be sure I have actually violated the 3RR before blocking me. I'm glad you are maintaining neutrality, but if you do choose to participate, I encourage you to use the talk page when making reverts as per the first step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. —Ashley Y 09:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry; this was merely a warning. I don't plan on blocking unless there's an egregious violating. I just noticed several reverts and just wanted to make it clear. You seem to be aware of the rule. :) --Golbez 17:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose this is better than waiting until someone inadvertently violates the rule and then jumping all over them... —Ashley Y 19:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Reconstructed Traditions

I just listed this on WP:CFD, since you emptied it, I thought you might want some input. Salsb 00:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiastical government

Hello Ashley, I contributed to this article and keep an eye on it. Can you help me with getting a RfC or RfA on the Dominion of Melchizedek article? It might be good to have a woman there to help remove the bias. All I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see I need help. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is illegal, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating illegally without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. I also asked Jaxl for help on this today. Am I way off base here? Cordially,Johnski 07:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a woman, sorry... —Ashley Y 02:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley, sorry, but your name sounded female to me. Still need your help. Sincerely, Johnski 07:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kubuntu

Please inform me as to the nature of your comments on the Kubuntu talk page as they do not seem to make sense? -localzuk 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]