User talk:Asc85

A belated welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Asc85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

(I notice you've been around since March, but no one bothered to welcome you since then. So here it is. Feel free to blank or remove this message, though.) Kimchi.sg 00:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I don't know who first inserted the Barbara Eden/Larry Hagman trivia on the Dallas page, but I found it interesting and reinserted it with more clarification. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for comment on Hugh Hefner

Please take the time to go to Hugh Hefner's talkpage [1] and respond to the request for comment on what jerrygraf is trying to add that does not belong on Hugh Hefner's page, but belongs on PEI's, as well as the part I deleted is ment as a "controversial comment on the biography of a living person"Rogue Gremlin 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manson article

If you will visit the Charles Manson discussion page, you will see I have added "Deletion of Watson statement," a section in which I urge you to undo your deletion of a sentence having to do with Tex Watson's autobiography.JohnBonaccorsi 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

I noticed that you routinely mark many of your edits as minor. Adding or deleting sentences, paragraphs, or entire sections of an article are not minor edits. Please mark edits as minor only if they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered rude. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trenton

Okay, it's locked to new/unregistered users again. Also, a geolocate on that IP shows it's someone in Edison - apparently, someone at Bristol Myers Squibb (or rather, someone using their system). Any ideas? DS (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your talk page is now blocked to anons also. Pity about the abuse. DS (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot DS!! Much appreciated. Asc85 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really quite ridiculous. I've left the page "semi-protected" indefinitely. DS (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen McDougal

Thanks for your edit. I ended up reverting it because I believe it is important to indicate that the relatioinship between McDougal and Willis has ended. Unfortunately, the only way to show that it has ended is to show that Willis has moved on. That's why the entry was written like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineros (talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kindness. I really appreciate that. I have been a fan of hers since her Playboy debut. I have also worked on the B-Class assessment and GA assessment of this article, so I would say I am a little bit attached. I also would like to not "dig my heels" on this issue as well and welcome any suggestion in improving it. However I run into some problems: 1) the relationship between McDougal & Willis was part speculation, part fact. 2) The relationship ended in about 9 months with neither sides ever acknowledging it. So it is a bit hard without getting into a PoV and unsupportable position by say the relationship "has ended". The only logical way would be to state that Willis has moved on as McDougal has a very private personal life. In the spirit of completeness, I rather not want a reader to think that McDougal is still with Willis and leave her article hanging like that. If you have a better way to navigate this minefield and still get the message across, I would be thrilled. Mineros (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Garcia

There's no reason to be nasty. Sources should be given for dates of birth per WP:BLP and as the editor adding information, it's up to you to supply a source. Dismas|^(talk) 02:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic users

You can certainly warn troublemakers. If you find your warnings going unheeded, I suggest you file a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. DS (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lambert straw poll on including/removing "Order #" and "Results" columns from the performances section

Hi, this may seem rather trivial but I'm trying to gauge community consensus on including or removing "Order #" and "Results" columns from the performances section on the Adam Lambert article which you have been in some way recently involved. The poll is here. Your time is appreciated. -- Banjeboi 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Millan

Please review wp:dead link before eliminating information that comes from (info labeled as) a dead link — and evn if information "doesn't sound right." The guidelines: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." In other words, something 'difficult' to verify, isn't therefore 'impossible' to verify. In the case of the Cesar Millan info, the link isn't dead, it just now requires subcription, but the Wall Street Journal is still available in many forms. I re-included the information you deleted, adding the specific quote from the article to the citation. Thanks. 842U (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson botanical garden article

hello! I have just been working on the Tucson botanical garden article and have found that it requires more references than what I have just inserted. I tagged it with the template that requires additional references. I'm letting you know about this because you have shown an interest in this article in the past.

Bfpage |leave a message 13:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Sorry, I accidentally put a vandal warning on your page that I meant to do on a person who edited after you, I'm a bit rusty. Pewwer42 Talk 18:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Presidential Election

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=prev&diff=847455492&markasread=139709308&markasreadwiki=enwiki

847398590:

[The] election hinged … on about 78,000 votes from only three counties in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Source:

2. Just three counties – Macomb County, MI; York County, PA and Waukesha County, WI – elected Donald Trump. If those three counties had cast zero votes, Trump would have lost all three states and the election. By the same logic, just three counties re-elected President Obama in 2012: Miami-Dade County, FL; Cuyahoga County, OH and Philadelphia, PA. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170715170550/http://cookpolitical.com/story/10201)

There appeared to be selective quoting from a balanced source, so was revised to:

… on about 78,000 votes from only three counties in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (by comparison, Obama won in 2012 due to three counties in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania).

Reverted to revision 847398590 by Asc85: Not really true.

Is there a source explaining why the Cook Political Report was right about Trump but not Obama?

Peaceandlonglife (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logical quotes

I noticed in this edit that you ignored the logical quote manual of style that states, we should keep [commas and periods] inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the strong reprimand, Walter. I am secretly an evil person trying to wreck Wikipedia. You already edited my horrendous mistake, so thank you for that. Asc85 (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail reference at Shauna Sand

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Shauna Sand. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Feel free re-add the content if you can source it to a reliable source. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of cns (citation needed span)

Hi, after our "meeting" on Terry Bradshaw, I came across an article that uses template:CNS in a different way that seems to be useful. In the Background section of Henry Steele Commager, an editor used it to highlight the specific facts within a sourced sentence that need an additional source for verification. Just thought I'd share. Schazjmd (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Asc85 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenly Kiya Kato moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Kenly Kiya Kato. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Let'srun (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]