User talk:Ask123/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reply

It was just a welcome message :) It is common courtesy to leave such a note to new users to Wikipedia. Cheers! Baristarim 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not new at this point, but thanks anyway! ask123 19:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hologic

When creating articles about companies, please do adhere to WP:CORP. Hologic sounds notable, but I notice that you rely exclusively on the company's own promotional material on its website. Perhaps some external information might be useful. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jfdwolff: Frankly, I'm not that invested in the Hologic article and therefore am loath to do an alternate source search. I only created the page because I was just surprised that the company had no page on the site. Since this encyclopedia is constantly evolving, I figured that other users (perhaps those who have started a WikiProject concerned with maintaining medical company/organization articles) would help round it out.

I am familiar with WP:CORP and with other wikipedia rules and (as in this case) guidlines. As for its notability, Hologic, a $10 billion company (see [1]), is one of the most prominent manufacturers and sellers of mammography, medical imaging and other women's health equipment in the world. With almost half a billion dollars in sales in 2006 (see [2]), it competes primarily with the medical equipment divisions of General Electric (i.e. GE Healthcare), Koninklijke Philips and Siemens AG (among other conglomerates and medical device companies). In 2006 they actually sold more digital mamography units than G.E., making them (I believe) the #1 provider of such equipment in the U.S. (verifiable via the Hologic annual report and 10-K form with the SEC). Hologic affects millions of doctors and patients around the globe and has been a pioneer in 3-D imaging technology (see information from the Radiological Society of North America, a.k.a. RSNA, at [3]) and digital tomosynthesis (see [4] for a broader definition), two processes most oncologists believe to be superior screening tools for many types of cancers (check American Society of Clinical Oncology, a.k.a. ASCO, archives at [5]). All of these factors make the company "notable," per Wikipedia guidlines, warranting an article. So, although, it's little known outside the medical and financial analyst communities, Hologic has a massive presence in women's oncology and is among the most prominent players in that field.

As for sourcing, you are absolutely right, the article needs more diverse referencing. I'll see if anyone in a relevant WikiProject wants to take up the process of rounding it out... As for my investment, though, this article is unfortunately not high on my list... ask123 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

---

After I posted the above response, I read a bit on your user discussion page and saw that you are a doctor and interested in articles related to certain medical issues. Perhaps you can help direct me to an appropriate WikiProject to help with the Hologic page! Any guidance would be helpful, as I only rarely dabble in medicine-related articles... Many thanks! ask123 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer to spoiler

Well I went on the article and I saw a "quite ugly" disclaimer, I remembered the guideline of the manual of style not to include disclaimer (especially those who create some sort of "ugly" code line).

I also thought that the title of the section "plot" was self explanatory about what was inside. Well perhaps I should change it to "plot summary" to warn more that this summary is not the synopsis that goes in the press package of the film but contain element that could be considered as a surprise. – Esurnir 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the attractiveness of the tag, there isn't anything in the manual of style that covers subjective elements (e.g. what one finds attractive or ugly). Parts of the guidelines cover simplicity and succinctness, but not "ugliness." Nonetheless, if you are concerned with the superficial aspects of a page, you should deal with them alone -- not the content as well.

I am concerned with the disclaimer itself and if it's standard in Wikipedia articles when describing a story in great detail. Simply, there are two types of descriptions that can be given. One is a detailed one, from the beginning to the end of the story. This reveals every pertinent turn of the story in an objective manner (a la the story description in the press pack one receives at a premiere or junket). The other is a merely a summary of how the story begins and gives the reader an idea of what the plot is about without delving too deeply into the second and third acts (a la the story description on the back of a DVD).

Also, there's no need for nastiness. AGF, my friend... ask123 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well first thing is that I did not made a revert, I deleted the mention which happen (or not, I didn't checked the history) to be the exact opposite of your precedent edit but it's in fact a pure coincidence. And I ask you to believed that there was no intent whatsoever that this edit was made in the intent of reverting a change, to push a pov of the ongoing debate about WP:SPOILER that I personally did not took part in it and I didn't really read; that wall of dispute bored me to hell .

Second thing the process was as follow : There was a verry ugly disclaimer that subjectivly reppelled me and objectivly distracted me from the content of the section. I pressed the edit button and thrashed that mention whose aesthetic was to say politely "not artistic". I could have rewritten this disclaimer the same way that I could rewritten this article and push it forward to Featured Article status . I was lazy and I thought "if it's ugly I will toast it".

As for the "standard" I really would like to make you point toward the talk page of WP:Spoiler. Last time I heard in the village pump it was still a battleground , so the consensus about the standard is perhaps not entirely reached.

(edit conflict) I appologize if you thought my comment were "nasty" I sometimes need to rewrite my comment to make them appear less "aggressive" and authoritative which was not I assure you their original intent, the fact is I made an edit that I considered quite minor. And minute after that I was "stalked" by someone that considered that I deleted his contribution, remembered that there was an ongoing "debate" in which some spirit are going berserk and immediatly thought "oh oh, I think I just walked on the tail of a WikiWarrior" and engaged the protocol "Walk back carefully, launch a smoke grenade, run away don't come back" content dispute resolution protocol (approved by the cabal) . Honestly I won't make a big deal about the disclaimer, if you want to do a disclaimer or revert my edit, go ahead, I just advise that you should try to make it less flashy next time. – Esurnir 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, rest assured, I am not a WikiWarrior. I, too, dislike "ugly" features of Wiki articles, such as misplaced images, poorly laid out sections and grammatical and spelling errors.

As for the attractiveness or "artistry" (as you put it) of my disclaimer, I only put it in that hash-mark box because I thought that was how I saw it done on other pages, and I wanted to remain consistent. Consistency is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia, more important that attractiveness in fact. For example, sometimes an infobox of an article covers up some of the words in a section title. Or sometimes an infobox pushes the succeeding section way down, creating a big blank space. These things are certainly "ugly," by most people's opinions. Nonetheless, they remain, and if you try to change it, someone eventually reverts it. This is to maintain consistency in how each page is edited.

As for the manner of your change, I really don't care if it was a revert or an edit. The result is the same. No matter though. I will check out WP:SPOILER for the discussion on the topic and proceed accordingly. ask123 20:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ploy

Sorry if I bit you back there on Talk:Ploy. I've noticed you making some contributions on some other pages I'm involved with, too, and am glad to have the help. It's good to see interest in Thai cinema picking up. Best regards! — WiseKwai 08:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries... I've been into Southeast Asian and East Asian film for the past decade or so and also have formal education in cinema. So I'm glad to help expanding/revising articles in that realm. If there's anything that needs attention, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'd be happy to help. ask123 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Task Force You May Be Interest In

Hi Ask123,

From seeing one of your userboxes, which states that you are interested in the Salem Witch Trials, you may want to join a new task force another Wikipedian, Cocoaguy, and I created which is devoted to the Trials: Salem Witch Trials task force.

So please check it out.

Thanks,

Psdubow 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do, if I have time. Unfortunately, at the moment, there are many other articles that are on my list ahead of the Salem Witch Trials. But thanks anyway! ask123 19:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Editing userpage

The image had been tagged as a non-free image with no fair-use rationale. Since the image was deleted, I went ahead and cleaned up all references to that image, including the one on your userpage. Incidentally, we're really supposed to keep our limited use of copyrighted images to the articles - never to user pages or things like that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Next time, though, kindly leave me a message, and I will complete the task myself. Please, please do not edit my page without my permission. Thanks! ask123 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And I removed the template from your page due to a [Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_25#Template:User_Against_Srebrenica_Genocide_Denial TfD] vote. I have no problem with people who want permission to be asked for before something is changed on their userpage. But please put a message to that effect on your userpage itself. It's not something that everyone subscribes to. Also, the template itself was simply subst'd. The text is still on your page. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. (Article: Nasal hair) --Dubidub 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the edit summary! My bad... As long as we're reminding others of things they forgot to do or things they screwed up or did incorrectly, here's one for you: please refrain from posting personal pictures on Wikipedia pages. A personal picture of your own nose hair (probably taken at some party) is not okay to post in the nasal hair article. Personal pictures are for myspace and youtube but not here. Thanks! ask123 21:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not posted pictures of my own nose on Wikipedia. If you are referring to Nasal_hair.jpg, this was uploaded by Tristanb --Dubidub 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see... So Tristanb uploaded the image. Well it was taken down a number of times because editors felt it wasn't an apt picture for that article. But you managed to put it back up again twice. You're not the author or subject of the photo, but you seem to be a big fan. (By the way, I'm deleting the picture from my talk page now, since I don't like looking up some guys nose every time I go to chat!) ask123 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)