User talk:Ashley Y/2007

Offices of Arms

Dear Ashley, Thanks for working on making sharper categories for the various British offices of arms. Would it perhaps, be possible to make the category "English offices of arms?" As it stands, the extraordinary officers are not actually members of the College. Also, I'm not sure the "former offices" section belongs in the template. There have been many offices which are extinct now that will fill up the template very quickly. Keep up the great work.--E va ^bd 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not members, but "extraordinary officers" are surely "officers" as the name suggests? —Ashley Y 06:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely...would it be OK, then, if I changed them to English offices of arms? Perhaps it would be better to just call them all offices of arms again?--E va ^bd 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they offices of the CoA, though, even if they're not members of the CoA? —Ashley Y 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly no expert, but I don't believe so. They are definitely English officers of arms, but are generally only appointed at times of ceremony such as a coronation or the investiture of the Prince of Wales. The only connection that they have with the College is that they are all heralds. --E va ^bd 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've moved the extraordinaries to Category:English offices of arms, but kept Category:Offices of the College of Arms for the CoA offices. —Ashley Y 04:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAT and WP:NPOV

Please see WP:CAT and Category talk:Anti-Zionism. Also, please re-read WP:NPOV. Removing a reliably and verifiably sourced category, which was added in accord with WP:CAT, to hide one POV and thereby promote a different POV is a violation of WP:NPOV. Enough sourced debate exists to confirm the linkage, and a proper reading of WP:CAT demonstrates Directed acyclic graph form, not proper subset form. Please refamiliarize yourself with the applicable guidelines and policies. Thanks. -- Avi 08:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper subsets form a directed acyclic graph, actually. —Ashley Y 20:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I'm at 3RR. —Ashley Y 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROD to review

Can you look at Congregationalist Wiccan Association. The article is under prod, and I'm uncertain if it should be deleted. If you are also, I'll bump it up to AFD. I don't see any reliable sources in the Google search. But I continue to believe that you have more expertise in this area than I do. GRBerry 03:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It might be notable for the reason it claims in the first para. No idea, really. —Ashley Y 09:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've bumped it up to AFD then. GRBerry 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldists

You wrote: I don't think "heraldist" is a word. Do you mean "heralds"? Or do you mean "people interested in heraldry"? —Ashley Y 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Heraldists certainly is a word. You have summarized it quite well with with "peope interested in heraldry." Heralds are people that are paid to be interested in heraldry. The category includes people that have written extensively about heraldry or are otherwise involved in the subject--without actually being an officer of arms. It is definitely a word and I hope this clears up any confusion. Thanks for the note.--Eva ^bd 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places:

Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
User contributions - list of all your edits
Watchlist* - list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only)
diff page - shows the difference between two edits
Recent changes - list of all recent edits
Wikipedia IRC channels - real time list of all edits
Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.

* Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

Will (Talk - contribs) 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I hereby award you the Barnstar of Good Humor, for coining a most excellent and hilarious neologism, on a page where far too many people take things far too seriously. GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Ashley Y 10:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balthus

Hi Ashley. I noticed your comments on TALK:Balthus and generally agree with them. I think it would relevant to note that Balthus is still being listed as Jewish on List of French Jews and List of Polish Jews using the Nicholas Fox Weber source. 141.212.55.207 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes/Faith

Dear Ashley Y

I added a "Faith" page to the Userboxes gallery. The vast majority of faith-based userboxes bear your username, so I thought that I should let you know! As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia I don't know if this means (a) you created all these boxes or (b) you created a template from which other Wikipedians have made them. Either way, please feel welcome to visit the new page of the gallery and say on its discussion page what you think. If you know of faith-based userboxes that I have not included, please contribute them to the gallery page!

Motacilla 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A he!

My apologies. Given that I'm a she who since childhood has gone by "Guy," I should have known better than to assume on the basis of a name...--G-Dett 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ailurophiles

This is to inform you that Category:Ailurophiles, which you created, has been nomianted for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4. Dr. Submillimeter 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Given that I'm a current target of an ArbCom to permanently ban me for my hateful, disruptive behavior and incessant personal attacks and legal threats ... (insert picture of me rolling my eyes) ... it may be hard to believe, but in real life I have a reputation as the Great Peace Maker. I can see the motives behind all sides of the IP debate. It is definitely a complex issue and it demands calm, thoughtful, considerate discussion. Dino 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for abusing editors on talk pages

Your comments at Talk:NAS made me laugh out loud! I haven't checked whether I agree with your politics or not, but who cares? Cheers for being spunky and funny! Kla'quot 07:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the comment re the sock thing, btw. Nice of you to say something. Following your comments on Folke Bernadotte, I've also been glad to run into you on other articles. Always nice to have more kind, thoughtful people around, to help get past all the rancor. Best, Mackan79 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Catholic user template

Template:User Catholic for some reason appears to put four user pages containing it into Category:Roman Catholic Church (sorted under the character "{" ), which should not happen. You last edited the template, so can you shed light on what is wrong? --Blainster 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I noticed that this is not the first time you do that. Please familiarize yourself with what is NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Recent_edit

Religio Romana

Did you by chance save the text of the deleted Religio Romana? I want to save it at WikiPagan. Thanks. --Tsmollet 00:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. There wasn't much there anyway. —Ashley Y 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will start a new one at WikiPagan. Feel free to edit there on this article or any other.--Tsmollet 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MetsBot

Could you please stop your bot from migrating links to userboxes on my talk page? [1] [2] —Ashley Y 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the bot to not edit talk pages with regards to migrating userboxes; you're not the first person to mention that it may be suboptimal, and I'm convinced. Also, in the future, if you wish to not have the bot edit any other pages, just add {{nobots}} or {{bots|deny=MetsBot}} only for my bot. 71.183.106.162 (Mets501) 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Ashley Y 22:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless

I have a copy of the movie in my hand and I know the director. It is titled the struggle for peace in the Middle East. Check the honestreporting website (they made it). Please don't change the redirect. --יהושועEric 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the word "Isarel" isn't in the title, however. I merely corrected the misspelling and duplication. —Ashley Y 03:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your revert

What were you characterizing as "POV", and why did you revert they typofix? Tom e r ^talk 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've restored your typo fix. Thanks. —Ashley Y 01:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...but I'm still curious to hear what you were referring to as "POV" when you reverted my edit. Tom e r ^talk 01:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed I made a typo too, in my original inquiry to you. (stricken now) :-) Tom e r ^talk 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Buber

Actually, Buber embraced the Israeli state once it declared independence, because he recognized it as an expression of Jewish self-determination that fit the circumstances. Strange inspiration for you, no?--Urthogie 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet he still pushed for the refugees to return. I would support such a democratic Israel. —Ashley Y 01:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three things:

Quote please, to confirm your claim.
If he changed his mind about the one state solution, what makes you think he wouldn't change his mind in regard to Palestinian return?
If a Palestinian state was formed, chances are that a great deal less of Palestinians would want to return to Israel, and you'd probably see two-staters such as myself support the idea of return, at least to some degree.--Urthogie 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, a Wikipedia article? Look it up yourself. He never stopped believing in a one-state binational solution, that's why he spent the remainder of his life pushing for the refugees to return. —Ashley Y 01:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find the quote myself, was just wondering if you knew of which book it's in. (I have several of his around the house). Also, could you clarify something-- would you support Israel as a Jewish state if it let in the refugees? Would the refugees?--Urthogie 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an exclusively Jewish state? No. As a "Jewish and Arab" state or somesuch thing? Sure. But I am questioning the one-state solution more, just due to the degree of hatred and suspicion involved on both sides. —Ashley Y 01:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already isn't an "exclusively Jewish state"-- it already is a "jewish and arab state". There are Arab/Muslim MP's, people are free to practice religion, etc. (I'm surprised you didn't know this.)

No, what I mean by a Jewish state is a democracy with Jewish laws coded in, such as aliyah, which has the star of david as its flag, which has a jewish pledge of allegience, which has an essentially Jewish character. Not a theocratic state, but a democracy that is essentially Jewish in its ways of doing things. A jewish state.--Urthogie 02:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean by an exclusively Jewish state. It's a Jewish state in a way that it cannot also be an Arab state. I would support a state that had an essential character derived from its entire population. This would mean a "Jewish and Arab" character and so forth. —Ashley Y 02:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism wasn't an experiment in American or European democracy. There are 22 arab muslim nations, which exist not because of any morally subjective validity, but rather because they have conquered and imperialized colonialized and converted huge portions of the Earth. But there is a problem with one jewish state? It seems like a double standard.--Urthogie 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if there's anyone who wants to return to Arab lands and has a good case, I would support that. That includes the Jews expelled after the creation of Israel. But if Zionism isn't interested in democracy, I'll oppose it, thanks. —Ashley Y 02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but how does having Jewish elements to the ceremonies of the state equal "no democracy"? Are you sure there's not perhaps some element of anti-semitism coloring your logic here? Last time I checked democracy involved having a constitution, checks and balances, and voting by every citizen.--Urthogie 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing your statement "Zionism wasn't an experiment in American or European democracy.". —Ashley Y 02:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an experiment in Jewish democracy. In the past, the whole idea of Muslim or European people having democracy with us as a minority didn't work so well... a couple of unfortunate historical events come to mind.--Urthogie 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the concept of "ethnic democracy" makes much sense. I suspect the unfortunate historical events you refer to involve some kind of "ethnic democracy" rather than a democracy for the whole citizenship of a country. —Ashley Y 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you have to distinguish here-- the backlash against fascism (perhaps somewhat rightfully) causes westerners such as yourself to view anything which doesn't look like pure American or European democracy as equivalent to the 20th century ethnic "democracies". There's an essential difference. Any Arab or Muslim can vote in a Jewish democracy. Any Arab or Muslim has the same rights as citizens under law in a Jewish democracy. To overlook this difference, and compare Israel with the mass movements of the 20th century is therefore intellectually dishonest, and unfair to Zionists such as myself, who believe that there can truly be a Jewish state that is egalitarian and free for Jews and gentiles alike. It may not make a gentile feel proud to pledge allegience to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses, but in my view it's not exactly comparable to any sort of real oppression. And for thousands of years of oppression, it seems like a relatively fair deal for any immigrant to this Jewish state to accept such traditions.--Urthogie 02:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh btw

It's misrepresenting because (1) that's not how you make policy, and (2) keeping it open for two years does not give a representative sample. It's now archived on the talk page, where it belongs in the first place. >Radiant< 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to Good-Bye Depression

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article How to Good-Bye Depression, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DGG 00:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EndUN Userbox

Hi, you recently participated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN discussion. I have reluctantly submitted the closing statement by User:Tony Sidaway for deletion review. Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_1#User:DieWeisseRose.2FUserboxes.2FEndUN. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 02:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heimdall/Vanir link

Hi!

I dug through the Vanir history to find you added the comment about Heimdall and the Vanir. I was hoping you could explain it or point me towards the specific source from Davidson, mostly for my own studies though more detail in the article would be good. I will watch both pages so if you can reply, you need not reply at both.

I've also mentioned this discussion in the Vanir talk page in order to (hopefully) satisfy the request at the top of this page.

Thank you, Liastnir 14:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid proposal

Due to your interest in the Allegations of apartheid article I think you may be interested in this proposal Talk:Allegations_of_apartheid#Proposed_Move. Lothar of the Hill People 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random message

I just wanted to thank you for your work on Wikipedia! Reading your userpage, you seem like a really interesting, intelligent person. ^_^ --Alexc3 ^(talk) 06:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox Master

You are the best userbox maker that ever created an accout! Well you, UBX,and Disavian. You both deserve to be admins! You guys rule!--Angel David (talk•contribs) 22:16, 29 August, 2007 (User Talker Contibutor)

Your userbox subpages

Hello, did you know that your userbox subpages:

User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion
User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Politics
User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion/Christianity
User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion/Eastern
User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion/Judaism
User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion/Islam
User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion/Western paganism

Are in Wikipedian categories? Please take them out of these categories or delete them. -Sox 207 22:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? Wikipedian categories are for user-space pages. —Ashley Y 05:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion "-isms" discussions.

An editor has proposed to delete virtually all user categories regarding theological positions (i.e. agnosticism, atheism, deism, pandeism, pantheism, theism, etc) as well as many other -isms (Marxism, feminism, realism, materialism, cynicism, etc). Thought you'd be interested in those discussions. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Wikidemocrat userbox

Not at present, no, but I'm sure you could create one. Walton^One 11:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-feminism

If you feel strongly please feel free to revert and discuss. I provided a link on Talk:Feminism--Cailil ^talk 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]