User talk:Asher196/Archive 1

A word of friendly advice

Hey, I just wanted to say that even though I agree 100% with what you are saying/doing on Nintendo GameCube to combat Mega Man 5 and his sockpuppet, you may want to look at your methods of pursuing your goals. This isn't about beating Mega Man 5 in an edit war, it's about making Wikipedia better, and I would like to recommend that you tone down your comments somewhat. Also, I have been speaking to the admin who protected the page and he seems to be supportive of your/our position. (see User talk:Jj137#Protected Nintendo GameCube) Here's to an end to this conflict when Nintendo GameCube goes "live" again. Regards, Thingg (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I let him get under my skin. I won't do that again. Thanks for the advice!-----Asher196 (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I noticed you reverted my edit in the Popular Culture section of the Pac-Man article. In case you don't know, this is no lie. I've seen that particular episode which is why I think it should be mentioned. Again, if you still disbelieve, maybe you should have a look at it. 61.9.126.41 (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include it in the article, then maybe YOU should look into it and provide references. Every item in that section is footnoted.-----Asher196 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

South Manitou Island Light

Happy to return the favor. Nice box and picture. Kind of bare, but I'm sure I can help. Happy ot return the favor.

BTW, take a look at Point Betsie Light, if you haven't already. I took it up several notches. It could use more substantive article, but all the internet sources are there, I think. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

I took a whack at it. I probably won't be back for a couple of weeks. I'm going to Vail for ten days of skiing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Have a great trip!----Asher196 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I will. I've great accommodations right in Lionshead, great friends (one of whom is a Vail ski instructor, and other is a Vail visitor guide). What could be better? Anywayz, I did not track it all down, but there seems to be some conflict in the sources. Someone (that would be you) needs to actually read the size of the two towers, and get their heights correct, as well as the focal height. I would do this, but I'm up to my ass in alligators trying to get everything done before I go out the door. I'm sorry to duck out on you and leave the job incomplete. Although the history needs to be fleshed out, too, probably from the sources that are listed as external links. I'll miss you. Best. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

When I was putting the infobox together I found conflicting sources of information. The bulk of the information came from terrypepper.com, which I've found to be pretty reliable.----Asher196 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lenawee County, Michigan

Dear Asher 196 I don't know if you can help, but the coordinates for the county are on a peculiar place on the page. Not sure if you're teh right person to address this problem to. In any event, if you can help, Thanks. 7&6=thirteen 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

I looked at it. The coordinates appear to be in the correct place. Perhaps someone fixed it already.Asher196 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you at the time. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Wendy Smith, and your request for help

Hi Asher!

I've looked at the article, and have to admit I laughed out loud. No, we can't do that, i.e. "cite" other Wikipedia articles. I've never, in four years on the project, seen anyone do exactly that--put in inline cites to other Wikipedia articles--that are themselves completely unreferenced! So those cites should come out and other should be found ... or the article tagged as unreferenced and as original research.

Regarding TV episode articles, there's a lot of original research on Wikipedia, at least in the sense that people are writing up plot outlines just by watching the show. Since I don't work on TV show episode articles I really don't know if any special conventions have been developed, but I would suggest looking around to see what sources other cited TV episodes use -- hopefully you can find some -- then tagging completely uncited articles with the "unreferenced" tag. Maybe you can help find some reliable sources for some ... I know a lot of editors take a dim view of people just slapping on the tags without helping out with the hard work of citing. Hope this helps ... Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I thought something was wrong, but the boldness of it made me think I was missing something!Asher196 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally and this has been working lately, AFD's are closed generally within 5 or 6 days when there is enough discussion and even when there is no consensus. I've seen no consensus for deletion at least although some of the keepers suggested some form of merging. Another option is the DRV. Closing the AFD's as no consensus or keep does not mean that merging options are shelved or not considered, merging proposals can be discussed here if necessary.

Considering the sources are rather weak, merging might be a good option there--JForget 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wii edit

Concerning your recent edit to the article: the next time you're "not sure" about another person's edit, please ask. Thank you. Just64helpin (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page: If you check the reference, you'll see that the "we" and "if" are not at the beginnings of the sentences. Capitalizing them is an editorial change, which is supposed to be distingushed with brackets. I forget which specific WP guideline mentions the use of brackets, but you are free to flip through the WP:MOS to find it. I could use a refresher myself... Just64helpin (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that they are an editorial change, I don't agree the the first letter of the first word should be in brackets. I can't find anything to support your use of this. The WP:MOS is kind of fuzzy in this area.

Square brackets are used to indicate editorial replacements and insertions of text. They serve three main purposes:

To clarify. ("She attended [secondary] school"—where this was the intended meaning, but the type of school was unstated in the original sentence.) To reduce the size of a quotation. If a source says "X contains Y, and under certain circumstances, X may contain Z as well", it is acceptable to reduce this to "X contains Y [and sometimes] Z", without ellipsis. When an ellipsis (...; see below) is used to indicate material removed from a direct quotation, it should not normally be bracketed. To make the grammar work: "She said that '[she] would not allow this' "—where her original statement was "I would not allow this." (Generally, though, it is better to begin the quotation after the problematic word: "She said that she 'would not allow this.' ") The use of square-bracketed wording should never alter the intended meaning of a quotation.
Asher196 (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original contribution to the wikiarticle preserved the lowercase "we" and "if". It was later changed by another editor to "We" and "If". If the capitalized version by the other editor (whoever it was) is grammatically correct, the brackets would then be a way of "mak[ing] the grammar work" while clarifying the editorial change. Since you agree that it is an editorial change, but don't agree that the brackets should be where they are, what would be your suggestion? Just64helpin (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would simply include the entire quote. This is really a small matter. I originally reverted what I thought was some kind of mistake on your part. Obviously there was more thought put into your edit than I gave you credit for. I've been watching your edits for a while now and I know you are one of the good guys, so I'll drop any objection I had. Asher196 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Acupuncture edit

You reverted a good edit on this page. Would you be so kind as to explain your reasons on the acupuncture talk page. Thank you. Mccready (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A good edit? You eliminated the introduction.Asher196 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw your work edit on the Folk Nation can you do the same for the People Nation

Hey i noticed that you edited the Folk Nation and added accurate sources can you do the same for the People Nation seeing it as they both go hand in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.248.13 (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can do.Asher196 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Upper Peninsula

Thank you. BTW, I've noticed your work and you're doing a lot of good. I was wondering if the particular ski jump (Suicide Hill in Ishpeming, Michigan) I had added deserved its own article. It really is important, notwithstanding the opinion of some others. Take a look at the link I provided. I'm sure there is more information if one googles it.

BTW, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at Tawas Point Light. I think there are some issues that you do (info boxes) that could use your assistance. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

I looked at the link before I reverted the deletion of Suicide Hill and couldn't understand why it was removed. That's why I referred to it as vandalism. It's obviously noteworthy. I'm sure you could make it into a stand alone article. Take a look at this link.... http://info.detnews.com/redesign/history/story/historytemplate.cfm?id=149

I'll look at Tawas Point Light next chance I get.Asher196 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think a Suicide Hill article would be good. The Detroit News article is really good, and certainly has its uses in the new article. I'll take a whack at it. After I do, please feel free to jump in. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Thanks for moving he coordinates on Tawas Point Light. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Stan

Leland, Michigan and Peshawbestown, Michigan

Both needs an information box, etc. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Thanks for doing the box on Leland, Michigan 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Leland look better every day. Thanks for your unheralded attetion. Now if you could do something about Peshawbestown, Michigan, I'd be even more flabbergasted. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

Port Sanilac lighthouse

Asher: New article. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

I'll get to it this evening. Have a great day!Asher196 (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's kind of fun being on the ground floor of a new project. It helped very much. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Nice additions. This is starting to look like a real article. Best. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Forty Mile Point Light

Here's another one. Thanks in advance. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Port Austin Lighthouse

Built this up. It needs a box. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

A request

I am working on a website for the Junior League of Saginaw Valley and found your picture of Bay City at dusk. The license information says it is free to use, but we would like to give you credit. Can you provide your real name? If you prefer, you can fill out the contact us form at jlsv.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entrecon (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

Your insistence on removing perfectly sourced material from Sean Hannity is unjustifiable and smacks of a desire to censor. From WP:NPOV:

The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

If you dislike the POV of the material added from verifiable quality sources I added, the solution is to find quality sources that assert a contrary POV and add the material, not simply remove cited material. This is what collaboration is all about. FYI, I found no positive reviews written of the book via searching the EBSCO academic database or I would have added some, but feel free to search other quality sources.

74.233.157.109 (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you remove material from the page again, as you did even from your talk page (this conversation), I will bring it up on the administrators noticeboard. I have reasoned with you repeatedly, as have others, and you insist on censoring the article. For what is now the 7th time, if Hannity's book has received nothing but poor reviews from reputable source, that is not POV, it is fact. And also for the seventh time, I invite you to find positive reviews from reputable sources and place them into the article. I've already searched high and low and cannot find any. 74.233.164.126 (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

you are the only person who has spoken to me on this subject. Don't hide behind your dynamic IP address, as you appear to be a sockpuppet when you do this. the Hannity talk page shows at least one other editor who thinks the neutrality of the section is suspect. I have added information regarding the book's status as a New York Times bestseller for five weeks, which shows the popularity of the book, hopefully balancing the poor reviews you included.Asher196 (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I suggest you create an account for yourself. I will not leave talk page messages for you, as you are using a shared IP.Asher196 (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On another note, your statement "I'll just say I dropped in to read how much education this demagogue has/does not have. My suspicions were confirmed that he lacks one. 74.233.157.192 (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)" shows your obvious bias. Wikipedia is not a forum for your political views, and I suggest you try harder to find opposing viewpoints in an effort to keep Wikipedia NPOV.Asher196 (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've expressed no political views but added perfectly cited materials from reputable sources. I have scoured EVERY source in my major university library's database, including EBSCO and JSTOR, the two largest databases of academic journals and newspapers in the U.S. I can't create positive reviews from thin air. For now the ninth time, how about trying to find some positive reviews of the book, just like I have done for several hours during two nights. Again, good luck with that, and yes I've scoured Google too. 74.233.164.126 (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm curious. If you do not think Hannity is deserving of the title "demagogue", who does deserve it in American political life? Does it help to know that I think Randi Rhodes, on the left, is equally deserving of the title? 74.233.164.126 (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend Hannity. I've found that many of the articles that involve controversial people tend to become articles about the controversy and not the person. Every thing they say or do that someone feels is controversial is added to the article making it unwieldy and non-biographical in my opinion. Can you imagine how long these type of articles would become over the course of time unless someone reigns in the POV and tries to make the article adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons?----Asher196 (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding your reverts more than a little arbitrary, if not abusive. Since when is The Nation not a reliable source. In stead of wholesale deletions, I suggest you try editing the article. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to undo again, but will refer this. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry about reverting your changes to the Sandwich article; the tool I was using tagged it as vandalism (when you were reverting vandalism). Sorry about that! Best regards, Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 04:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I figured it was something like that----Asher196 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Harbor Beach Light

Needs an info box. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

Ok. I'll get to it in the next couple of days.----Asher196 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody was there ahead of you. Thank. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

improving Nintendo GameCube to Featured Article status

I am working on improving Nintendo GameCube to Featured Article status, and noticed that you made a substantial number of contributions to the article recently. If you have time, please help out by improving the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

John Glenn High School (Bay City, MI)

A tag has been placed on John Glenn High School (Bay City, MI), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. kkarma 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tylerperry.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Tylerperry.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Bkell (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links by Wikistalking administrators

Dear Asher: Removal of links by HU12 and Barek was because they claimed it was "spam" which I contested. See discussion at Marquette, Michigan. They then Wikistalked me and systematically started removing whole pages that I had worked on. Take a look at my Talk page, and the page of BKConrad. I quit. But meanwhile, I want these peoples' administrative privileges removed, as they have shown they do not deserve trust. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Stan