Aspro

Welcome to the Wikipedia community, Aspro! And thanks for weighing in on the MMR page...

Here are some of the perfunctory useful tips (mostly borrowed from ClockworkSoul), to speed your indoctrination into the Wikipedia experience:

A google search reveals that triple jab seems to exist as a phrase only in the UK. Which would make sense, since you seem to be from there. I did do a google search before I deleted it and because the first page was mostly anti-vaccination sites like whale.to, felt that it was most likely NPOV like much of the vaccination articles, unfortunately. If it goes back in, it should mention that it is only called that in Britain. As for what I say to a poor, unintelligent housewife (?) - "this shot is three vaccinations in one." Simple as that - I always opt for straightforward descriptions instead of confusing (at least to me) jargon. InvictaHOG 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is only to do with allopaths suppressing anything critical to allopathy, any other reason is just a cover story, which is why they want to delete the main anti-vaccinator, Viera Scheibner, and Vaccination critics. There is some specious reason on that one. Lily Loat, the main anti-vax person a few years back, got wiped out and directed to National Anti-Vaccination League. I suppose it will be only a matter of time before that gets deleted, although as it is in the past they may ignore it. john 22:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. You mentioned scientific support for I think the statement that the various drugs named are "first line". I'd look in teh manufacturers' summary of product characteristics; in the British National Formulary, but overwhelmingly (apart from knowing it from a medical coruse and later experience) the question of what is first line in a particualry milieu is answered by looking at local prescribing policies, and at accounts of what doctors treating the conditions actually use. Which the TMAP seems to be a very mundane example of. In the UK try NICE, whcih is trying to do something similar on a wider front. First line doesn't mean that there is only one drug to use first and it must be used first, it distinguishes some which are only used after failure of others, and in fact it probably would be better for the article to say something less specific, such as "routinely used" to avoid arguments over whether Vnelafaxine is first line or second (second now) and whether Lithium is (first line by specialists for bipolar; third line for depression). Helpful? Midgley 01:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Even NICE gets influenced by pharmaceutical stake holders siting on the board.

Psychiatric drugs are 'palliatives', no more no less. They either mitigate, and thus bring some respite or they don't.

The poor understanding about the aetiology of mental distress and thought disorder means these conditions are still beyond rational treatment... So it is a case of suck it and see.

Psychiatrists don't ( not the ones I have talked to) believe a word that is written by the manufactures.

Think back to 'negative feed back systems'. Anything one proscribes, the body will start to immediately compensate!

Tell you this: when something appears to work, its only because it coincides 'by chance' with spontaneous improvement that would have happened anyway. Also, I have come to believe in the 20% rule. Only one in five will benefit from any treatment. Definition of First line: it is sales and marketing Jingoism. [ Mania is something else! In the old days they used laudanum ( and some times barbiturates) because it seemed to help. Today - nothing seems to help.]--Aspro 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I deleted all the links you added to Trolleybuses for West London. The site in itself is not particularly notable, nor is it directly related to the articles you added it to (eg The general article about Uxbridge should have links to general sites about Uxbridge). See also item 3 here. --Dtcdthingy 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aspro,

I left a message in Talk Antipsychiatry page: you can convert references now if you wish. There’re other related articles that need rework and/or merging. Have you seen the tagged Psychiatric imprisonment article? —Cesar Tort 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I already merged this article. —Cesar Tort 17:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No worries! Sorry about that. Cheers Donama 00:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aspro. You are absolutely correct according to policy, i apologise. The odd thing is i don't think i have ever seen commentary added to see also lists before, therefore i was boldly attempting to maintain a consistant style as i understood it. Even Wikipedia's best work appears to refrain from commenting on lists, see recent featured articles, Wayne Gretzky, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, F-35 Lightning II. However, if not already done so by someone else, i'll revert. Rockpocket 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

A merger of Speech therapy, Speech-Language Pathology, Speech pathology, and Phoniatrics into one article has been proposed and a name suggested for the new page. I note that you have contributed to one page or the other in the last while. If you have any comments please make them on the talk page of Speech therapy. --Slp1 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for experimenting with the page Joseph Lucas on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Xdamr^talk 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to enlarge a little: article pages are not the place to communicate with other editors. If you want to discuss a particular aspect of an article as it stands then you can use the article's talk page.

Xdamr^talk 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

--howcheng {chat} 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be familiar with pharmacology, and an outside opinion would be welcome at Talk:Dextroamphetamine#keep_your_eye_on_the_ball. KonradG 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Arrghh! Spoke too soon! Grr. Thanks for reverting so quickly ;) _TheIslander 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Douglas Adams are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aspro. I noticed that you removed my revision to biopsychiatry controversy. You may not have noticed that I posted a rationale for the revision on the article's talk page. Could you please respond to my objections if you don't agree with my edit? Thanks. 152.130.6.130 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, by the way, for your reply to my question at Talk:Electroporation, which I just noticed. 152.130.6.130 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Havidol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (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. Some thing 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Havidol, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havidol. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have made some significant updates to the Havidol article that I believe addresses the concerns about notability. Please review the current article to see whether you believe this will be sufficient to save the article from deletion.--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Reverted that sorry. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, I see the article is up for deletion. I do not think this should be deleted, going to vote "Keep". Thanks, and sorry. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that you and Wikipedia would be best served if, at AfD/Direct metal deposition, you inserted a “vote” of “Redirect to X”, where you replace “X” with a specific article to which you think users should be redirected. —SlamDiego_←T 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

When I asked Mannheimer why he included poor quality studies in his metastudy, and I asked for the raw data to plug into my own analysis, he refused. Happy to provide correspondence. Mccready (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There was some discussion of this topic on Mccready's talk page... as I said then, Mannheimer's position that he will share the dataset with other academics, but not necessarily anyone who asks, is well within accepted boundaries. regards, Jim Butler (t) 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The world is changing AcuJim and many researchers don't take this view. There is now tiny overhead in emailing a file. In fact in the time Mannheimer spent denying the request he could have met it. The correspondence shows he clammed up as soon as I asked about why the lousy studies were included. Mccready (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The report I had in mind asked two of the most outspoken advocates for a particular intervention to summarise the field; their review was dominated by their own work, included known errors in that work, and ignored all evidence conflicting with their pre-existing opinion. Meanwhile, that intervention had been tried in several real populations and the measured effect was, instead of the 70-80% they predicted, actually zero. So: my opinion of Cochrane is somewhat tainted :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are altmeders in Cochrane. The email correspondence on my page shows the top level of Cochrane is unwilling to act. Of course they have a right to be there, but not a right to pervert science to their own ends. Unfortunately Cochrane is allowing some appallingly lousy research to go out under its name. Pity, I had high hopes for the project when it started.Mccready (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you obviously have a lot of info on the Bath Festival of Blues and Progressive Music 1970, would it be possible to add references to the sources?, or is it all from personal experience (I'm guessing :-).— Rod ^talk 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like you had a great time - I was too young & started festival going with Knebworth in the late 70s before discovering Glasto in the early 80s. I will try to add some refs to the article.— Rod ^talk 19:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. I've made a few observations about how I understand the taxonomy worked - and announced the discussion at WPE and WPLondon. I suspect England geography, and possibly United Kingdom should also be advised.

When these were put together - about a year, or so ago, we did our best to set up something that made sense, there was no distinction then between anything. I've made my vote on the basis of my initial feelings about the matter. I will continue to read the discussion and take note of any convincing arguments to collapsing the categories back into one. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I think something you did had unintended consequences. I have no problem with Category:Barking & Dagenham disappearing per the CFD; however, if removed before the sub-categories are moved into the new parent category, then the linkage of borough components is lost. The bot did this for some boroughs, but has never completed its work. The bot did about half of London - ignoring the rest. Let's discuss how to move forward, so it gets sorted out correctly. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I found the CFD note now; you seem to have it in hand; pls let me know if I can help. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, Aspro. I think you're right that you don't want someone thinking that Wikipedia copied Barrett. It's word for word the same. I was reading it because it was put through my door a few days ago in an attempt to justify Barrett's supposed status as good neighbours. Well on the whole, I think they would have been better neighbours if they hadn't partially demoloshed and weakly restored one of our best-loved listed buildings, and built 771 flats at the end of our road, but never mind. I was just reading it and thought 'hang on....this sounds very encyclopaedic!' so I checked and...bingo! it's the same! I will get a scan uploaded. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

File:Viaduct hanwell.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Viaduct hanwell.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Viaduct hanwell.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Hanwell Wharncliffe Viaduct 205167 3b413d4c.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Hanwell Wharncliffe Viaduct 205167 3b413d4c.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You may or may not watch the Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum talk page, so allow me to draw it to your attention. I do not think you should have backed down, but your argument was more about historical usage; mine is about modern day acceptability. Anyway, since the hospital had several names, there is no particulat reason to stick with the first one as the page name. Feel free to contribute there...

Thanks for uploading File:Bath Fesival 1970 ticket reverse.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Bath Festival ticket 1970.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:PA System Bath 1970.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Think I’ve taken care of the last three items. Have included File:Bath Festival 1970 stage.jpeg to the OTRS, because I shot it at the same time. It just appears to have been the two sides of Admission Ticket above that was wrongly licensed; the dozens of other uploads appear OK. Any more queries let me know.--Aspro (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aspro, on the science ref desk, you make the comment "...would also alert any critters of you presents." The words may sound identical in some accents, but presents = gifts; presence = existance in a place.

I'd have phrased it "...would also alert any critters to your presence."

--Psud (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Psud. I didn't look right to me when I typed it but I couldn't think why. Early onset of pre-senile dementia I expect ;-)--Aspro (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Even in a little place like Hanwell there is more than one cemetery so you need to give your articles more formal names so that people wont have to guess which ones you writing about. There are three cemeteries in Hanwell. Two inner London boughs have one each and they both refer to them as “their” Hanwell Cemetery just to add to the confusion.

Also, I have had a look at your link to the Westminster cemetery website and I think they meant to say that the cemetery was originally owned by St George, Hanover Square, before being taken over by City of Westminster and thus having its name changed (from St George's) to become the new “City of Westminster Cemetery

There is a brief bit of history that might make things clearer, and that you may want to include in you article: [1]

This composite image will show how much confusion the present article could create with the current title . Think that a new title “City of Westminster Cemetery, Hanwell” fits in well with the WP naming convention. Don't forget to go back and check any articles you may have updated in error.--Aspro (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your note - I hope this finds you well! I came at this from wanting to write an article on the Not Forgotten Association (on a personal stub presently, in development), which lead to me writing the article stub on its founder Marta Cunningham, which lead to me writing the article on Hanwell Cemetery, where she is buried! I notice that Mill Hill Cemetery, which is also a City of Westminster location, is far more interesting (lots of war grave stuff, so lots of refs), but again doesn't presently have an article. Not being a local I defer to your greater knowledge, and happy that you move it to the suggested title of "City of Westminster Cemetery, Hanwell." What would be your suggestion on the naming of any article on Mill Hill Cemetery, and equally should the article on East Finchley Cemetery be named in the same convention? Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aspro, you commented in an AfD about this article last week. It has now been recreated and I think it is significantly similar, but my request for deletion under WP:CSD#G4 was declined. I'm unsure whether to renominate it as one source may just about provide notability. Could you possibly drop by the talk page if you have a minute to discuss the best course of action? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sir william ellis 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly ^hi! 04:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was able to fix it using the template with the parameter align set to left. Nevertheless   Thanks for your help. Appreciate it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am writing to notify you of this discussion at WP_Talk:RD. -- Scray (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I know your heart is in the right place – and it's unfortunate we didn't nip the question in the bud earlier, before other editors chimed in with their advice about how to subdivide the original poster's medication – but please don't keep putting back your instructions about how to divide the contents of pills. In this situation, the best thing we can do (and the only thing we're allowed to do) is refer the poster to his pharmacist. He obviously doesn't understand what he's doing, because he didn't know that his pills weighed more than a quarter of a milligram. He's apt to do himself harm if he half follows the instructions from random strangers on the Ref Desk. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I consider this comment to have been unnecessarily rude and abrasive. Dragons flight (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out to him/her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.1 (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your answer of a few days ago, about the 'balls from space' mystery - if you're interested, here's the solution solution - I still don't understand why they're falling only in Namibia, Australia etc. - anyway, thanks again Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

See here. Just a mistake or have I done something wrong? Dismas|^(talk) 21:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Don't know what happened there. You certainly haven't done any thing wrong. It might have been due to an edit conflict or something that I did without realising. Please do resubmit it.--Aspro (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove useful information and links that I added to the article on Ealing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracehbd (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Erucic acid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I did not spot it. --Aspro (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think you might have missed Trovatore asking you if the "sodium chlorite" in your answer to WP:RD/S#Saltiness of salt was a typo. Cheers. -- 110.49.225.158 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aspro, I left a reply to you here in case you miss it. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Aspro: your article mentions clearly visible boundary stones on the eastern border. I have looked for these but cannot find them. When did you see them? Can you provide any more information on them? Mikegahan00 (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Unless you live in one of those countries that just trains its pupils to mechanically pass exams". Which countries do you think in this category? Electron9 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

That was an gross simplification on my part, since teaching ideologies spread erratically; metastasis like, one might say. Only after a generation or two can the effects be noticed in the slowing technological advancement in any individual country. Therefore, there is not clear dichotomy. So to attempt to answer your question I'll put it in more detail as I see it. What might add further illumination is criticisms such as this: [2] which shows how the potential of a nation is wasted. Also, if your involved in education then a book by the polymath Ivan Illich called Deschooling Society will put things clearer than I ever could. To my mind, the present problem came about during the Second world War. The average survival rate of a pilot was about 120 hours of operational flying. As it took about a 160 hours of intense training to get them to a state of combat readiness; the US government looked for the most effective way of selecting the right people and train them with only what they needed to know in order to compeat their missions. In war time this is understandable, especially as the the trainers where responsible for spending the tax payers dollars in a way that created the most pilots and air crew for every buck. However, after the war this ideology has appeared to spread out across the world and into general education. As I said above there is no clear dichotomy as to when this ideology becomes endemic in any particular country. Yet over the years I've come to notice how more and more students come in to industry on work experience programs only to find that if they are given a novel problem that they haven't had the answer already programmed into them – they are lost – and say its unsolvable – without even trying. They graduate thinking they have a meal-ticket for life but by 35 years of age many find they are unemployable has beans because they don't know how to think for themselves and what they got their brains programmed with is now 'old stuff'. India, Indochina and China is the place to find new graduates theses days. They don't get pumped with facts but discover how to use their minds. You look at the short list of applicants from any progressive company today and I will put money on it that the majority have be educated in countries that still educate in the proper sense and not simply train pupils to pass exams. </rant> It might be better if I finish by saying that the real question is not: which countries but to ask you to look around and ask yourself, how far done this same road your country has gone, so that you become more aware of it and can press for educational reform.--Aspro (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think it can be differentiated as rote learning vs think learning? Electron9 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, very much so. I'm not against rote [per sa] as it is very useful for times tables and the like. But the definition of 'education' is best defined as 'to bring out'. It requires a balance of methods to enable an individual to achieve s/he's full potential.--Aspro (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Aspro!

I recently posted a question on The Reference-desk about the rights of acknowledged illegitimate children in Ancien Regime France. You seem to have knowledge in the question and participated, but the question has now been archived, and perhaps you did not have time to see that I specified it on request, which may make it easier (or perhaps more interesting?) to answer.

The situation is as follows:

a married French nobleman in the 1730s, who has two sons with his wife, also has two sons with his acknowledged actress-mistress, and one daughter from a secret affair with an unmarried noblewoman who has runaway from her family and secretly lives on an allowance from him. The nobleman (he is a marquess) choose to recognise all three of his own free will and have them brought up on his expense.

My question is: was it possible for him to recognise them legally in some way, was there a procedure? I have read that Louis XIV had some sort of declaration made when he acknowledged his "bastards" with Montespan. And: did the acknowledgement in itself give them some sort of rights or informal social status? Was the situation of the daughter different in some way, because her mother was noble?

I you have an answer, I would be very grateful if you would be willing to help - actually, this does have some real importance to me. Thank you very much! --Aciram (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Per this edit, I take it you don't realize that I am an administrator, and that declining a speedy request that I don't think meets the criteria was a perfectly appropriate action on my part? LadyofShalott 01:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agreed 100%. I've removed the speedy tag again (which, as another administrator, I'm allowed to do as well) and added a comment to the article to the effect that speedy deletion is inappropriate; as LadyofShalott said there's an assertion of notability. If this article is to be deleted it needs to go through WP:AFD. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you don't mind me saying so, LadyofShalott's point is a non sequitur. Collins, being a major publisher, indicates that it can have an awful lot of authors and authoresses on its roll. It is a logical fallacy therefore, to claim that each and every individual author is automatically notable or important for the reason of the company's size. If however, this was 'true' then any flight-attendant working for the world biggest/most favourite/ect., airline, by your reasoning, would be also eligible for a WP article. This is plainly daft. The only ref given is a book of her's and books in themselves do not confirm notability nor importance. If umpteen pages of Googling for a modern author does not come up with anything, then is that a perverse form of notability? Obviously not... So-what-is-so-wrong-with-speedy? Aren’t supposed to be helping, rather than thinking up hoops for us to jump though? Oh! don't you just love this Dilbert sketch? I know just how he feels just now. [3]--Aspro (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You need to reread my comment. I did not say she is notable; I said there is a claim of notability (really importance) in the article. In other words, there is plenty to make A7 not a valid deletion criterion. Not being eligible for speedy deletion is not the same thing as worthy of keeping. This article is not eligible for speedy deletion. I have no opinion on whether it is worth keeping. I suggest you take the article to AfD if you still feel it should be deleted. LadyofShalott 17:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Moved Dolphin's comments to the ref desk. --Aspro (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your prompt response. I have raised some questions at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Original research and conspiracy theory. I hope you will join the discussion. Dolphin (t) 06:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

My first reaction was to delete that comment as being off topic/insulting, but instead I would like to ask you to reread the talk section as I rewrote 80% of it, added context, included citations and added links where needed. It was not very friendly of you by accusing me of trolling when I have in the last half year made several posts about issues, given each time a long duration for it to be fixed (sources in lead had a "not in source" template since March), and in general trying to find people that could help fix the issues of the article where sources is the largest issue. The article has been lacking sources since at least May 2009, which is a very long time for no one to fix it. Belorn (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Aspro. I noticed that in the AfD you first wrote: "Keep for now".[4] Then, below, you commented: Comment: Following on from what W. D. Graham and others have said. It would be easier to start a new article properly named as Timeline of the Mars Science Laboratory mission, and properly laid out. The time-line only needs to be a simple wiki-table list for the 'minutia' (without images) that doesn't belong in the two other articles. Then delete this one. --Aspro

Since you have apparently changed your mind, I wonder if you could please update your first comment from "Keep" to "Delete". I also wanted you to let you know that I look forward to planning the layout or format with you of the Timeline article, whether it will be deleted or not. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The section is not only about Queen of Suburbs though, it seems to cover 20th centuryish history including the Pevsner bit. If the section needs to have an image it could do better than one of a lampost. It could also do with a great deal of expansion but that's another matter. JMiall₰ 21:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

? The section is named 'Queen of the Suburbs' not Queen of Ealing 'and other things'

Any 'other-things' need to go in another section. It covers the golden age of a particular part of the current borough of Ealing. All Pevsner did, was comment upon it and delineated that part of the 'whole' borough -which was 'Queen of the Suburbs.' Ealing-Village existed within this time period (just) but at that time this small estate represented just homes for overseers, foremen and the like, the like of which could found in many other parts of English cities. The fact that these apartments now sell for silly prices, is near here nor there. They held no architectural merit back then and are thus not includable. It is only now, that the arty-farties people forn over their galvanised window frames, art deco lines and such (a bit like Ealing's 'Longfield House' on the corner of Longfield Avenue). Another blot on the landscape if you ask me. Another example of horrid utilitarianism. Hardly anything majestic about them really -is there?! Maybe there are some old images that are more representative of those bygone days to suit the article. I will look out for some.--Aspro (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Tripods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ken Freeman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

How does one tell a bot that the link was correct?--Aspro (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I answered your questions you asked about my project in the help desk thread about dredging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi may I ask you about your post at RD/S that I hope to understand? I appreciate that you began by commenting in good faith on the first answer to the OP's question that came from an IP address that was only later identified as being a banned user. That first answer contained a unequivocal "No" as its first word and provided a solid reference. Your post adds understanding about why "No" is the correct answer, but you confuse me by castigating the IP's reply as "so gabbled and inaccurate that it does not start to answer the OP's question." Did you have a reason at the time not to treat it as an answer in good faith? DreadRed (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi DreadRed. The fact that an editor can contribute in good faith doesn't mean that he can't garble (I know -I spell it wrong in the post) his solid reference. On the various 'Reference desks' we endeavor to answer the 'Posters' questions according to our particular skill set. Therefore, 'Reference desks' are not a forum for people to just pull something from the internet and without reading them -just comment. As you may have read, researchers study Wikipedia and study the accuracy -or otherwise- of what we write. --Aspro (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for explaining here your reasoning that you did not explain in your retort on the desk. I think it unfortunate for the Ref. Desks when someone who has volunteered time to answer a question, including "pulling from the internet" a reference whose appropriateness no one questions, is seen to be met with a harsh attack on his/her effort. Just insinuating that the poster did not even read the reference that they provided does not make it so. Please consider redacting your misspelled criticism to be less abrasive. DreadRed (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

How can it be, that pointing out to an 'Original Poster' that a certain reply is garbled, then gets to be taken as an “abrasive” and “harsh attack”?--Aspro (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

This discussion is ended on my side. DreadRed (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You've made a personal comment on the ref desk that violates BLP without a good source (and reason for meantion). Before hiding the comment I figured I'd let you address it if you will. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

List the reason(s) you think it violates BLP--Aspro (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Aspro. Can I gently set you straight about something, in the spirit of yuletide generosity? You often confuse the words 'were' and 'where', and it makes for challenging reading.

• 'Were' is a verb, the past tense of 'to be' - I was only kidding; you were the one I wanted; he was driving on the wrong side; The Way We Were; you were never lovelier; they were flabbergasted, etc.

• 'Where' is an adverb: "I know where I'm going", "Where did you find that awful dress?", etc.

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is to notify you there is a discussion here about a matter in which you may have participated. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do realize, everything I said on that thread was satire, and the above comment was smalled to try to hint that. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of and didn't mind my ass pro crack. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would have thought based on your outrage that there would have been based on at least one item in the paragraph that was actually referenced in the source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

By the number of edits you have done since -and quickly, I seem to have caught your attention at the very out set. Why didn't you explain your what your intentions where/are on this article's talk page? That is what it is there for.--Aspro (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article List of microbreweries) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh666 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You tried to cram a lot into your intitial edit note and while you may have a point, right now it doesn't make sense. I opened a section for you to explain: Talk:Canola#Deletion_by_Aspro_re_toxicity. thx Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

we got off on the wrong foot somehow - i take it by now that you have seen the edits to erucic acid etc and are ok with them - and that you see i am not some fringe nut? :) Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impact33 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You are now on my watch list, so maybe we can collaborate on West London articles. --Aspro (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2#Category:Microbreweries

The above is closed. Please feel free to implement. (And my apologies for the late notice.) - jc37 08:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This does not look like you. -- BenRG (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can't say I'd agree. Aspro has been publishing anti Microsoft stuff for a long time Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 April 23 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 June 4 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 March 19, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 April 13, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 April 27, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 January 19. That particular comment may have been particular weird (especially the spelling etc), but I don't think the Heartbleed one (first link) was really much better and I'm fairly sure it's not the only one by far. Oh yes and in retrospect I probably should have just left the comment stand on its own, particular since I should have remembered from the history suggests Aspro's reply wouldn't have been much better. Still I didn't and I guess you'll agree going all in when someone replies to me (and I don't just avoid reading the post) with something I strongly disagree with does look like me. Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for noticing. I realized that the proponents of fluoridation are guarding those pages. They rather have 19 "historical" references to Dr. Strangelove denigrating opponents rather than a single reference to Doctors, Feltman, Waldbott, or Roholm. It's a variation on another technique. The best posts opposing fluoride on forum pages mysteriously disappear. Happened on my local newspaper where a handful of national supporters who post on local newspapers in Alaska, Oregon, Missouri, Kansas, etc. overwhelmed the site. I had no idea until I googled the names after reading positively vitriolic character assassinations. Discovered that there is an organized internet campaign, led by PEW and ADA, to discredit scientific opposition postings online. I know how Galileo felt. But tide may be turning. See: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fluoridate-anyway# Seabreezes1 (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ho, ho, ho. I noticed your cunning scheme to confuse us all here. Cafe is so down market, and only café will do. But then it's the marvellously creative rondevu for rendezvous. 8/10. Keep up the good work.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Must admit, my fingers did hover over the keyboard for an instant, as the OP was asking a serious question. Yet, as café is an abbreviation for coffee house, and caffeine is a drug... I thought I'd throw it in to see if another editor tried to correct my spelling of rondevu. Didn't reckon though, on some smart-arsed antipodean spotting it. Don't know what the antipodean equivalent of a Wikipedia Barnstar is but as Rolf Harris might say (and Dame Edna Everage certainly would), you are worthy of a of being awarded a wombats arse hole ;-)--Aspro (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I consider that an award of greater moment than many others I could name. I will toss it into the cardboard shoe box along with my countless other trinkets, baubles and fripperies; encomia, medals, honours and awards; and fawning expressions of gratitude from grateful nations and persons. You know, one grows tired of unremitting benevolence, and yearns to be able to go for a Big Mac, Fries and Coke (silver service, of course) without being mobbed. Such is the lot of a doyen. But now that Gough has gone to treat his Maker like an equal, who else is there to be the Elder Statesman now? When all is said and done - and most of us have been - one must do one's duty.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Alas yes. Taking off my Hobbly-Bob, laying it on my chest and lowering my head, I too, utter the mantra one must do one's duty Amen. Mind you, this is hard these days, what with all the clanking of those dangling aluminum cans of Fosters (which are no substitute for good old fashioned corks.) --Aspro (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Elder Statesman? Easy...Sir Les Patterson of course. A vegetarian, a teetotaler, someone that loves animals and children ( I wont explain that any further). A connaisseur of art and culture. Sobriety is his middles name. He would make a great diplomat and representative of the Australian people, camels, kangaroos and gladioli farmers. Also, he can whoo all those undecided women voters, with his skills of tossing and catching his baton or didjeridu, which he himself, modestly declares to be a big one. Give me the air-fair and I'll come over and vote for him too! --Aspro (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I fully expect to see Sir Les at Gough's memorial service next Wednesday. No doubt he'll be escorting Dame Edna (who was personally knighted by said Gough, you'll remember). In fact, I've often wondered why those two don't get married; they have an almost spooky similarity in some undefinable way.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agree. They would make a good match as they both share explicitly good tastes. They both exude the self-effacing modesty which would be fitting of a great statesman and his shy and demure sheila. The familial similarity to which you allude is to be expected. After all, as Dame Edna Everage sang: [5] and so is her heartthrob Les. Gosh doesn't Edna look young in that clip! Actually, I imagine that they already do have the odd little I joey here and there but that they want to shield them from glare that mega stardom attracts, so Les and Edna keep their joeys existence secret (Unless of cause, Australia meets its nemesis, in which case, their joeys shall make themselves known and deliver you from evil... and reluctantly accept prime-time TV slots). Thus. you will never see Les and Edna together at the same time. --Aspro (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Rondevu, i.e., "Turn yourself in!" is German for Haende hoch, oder ich scheisse!" μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's "clique", not "click". HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh boy. Is the English-language spelling reform now so dead that I have now to spell 'fish' as "ghoti"?
the gh = f as in rouGH
the o = i as in wOmen
the ti = sh as in naTIon

Oh, I give up! ;-)--Aspro (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned your medical advice on the depression question at the ref desk talk page. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

It was a general question that received a general answer. So I don't see where your pointing.--Aspro (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. In Rusyn we say "Christ is born" (Hristos Rozhdajetsja) which is more of a call and response and doesn't exactly sound like wishing anyone well, so I'll use the Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Reminds me of that Soviet spy I once met. As he got called away at short notice, he muttered “I hate to be Rusyn but I Moscow”. Perhaps most of that got lost in translation but I thought it was funny.--Aspro (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I realize that's a joke, but the Soviets considered the Rusyns (as Catholics and former Austro-Hungarians) to be unreliable; had their bishop Theodore Romzha murdered by the KGB; confiscated their churches; outlawed the use of their language; and forcibly resettled them piecemeal across Poland and the Ukraine to prevent them retaining majority status in their homeland. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Did you intend to delete Wnt's and Medeis's contributions with this edit? -- ToE 19:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the deleted material — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Does Wikipedia offer medical advice now?. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

1) Your Civility

2) Or my Civility

3) Or WP editor telling it, as it is ?

Some times a point comes where one has to say enough of this nonsense. Think about it... We are supposed to be an encyclopedia

Your Call.--Aspro (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

[from a thread at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#Photo management software]

why is it, that when a widows approved app crashes it OK because its the bestest software in the whole universe but when a non-widows app crashes its something to steer clear of? Just asking.--Aspro (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a nice example of an interesting linguistic phenomenon. Not uncommonly, the words "why is it that" often actually mean "I don't like it that" or "It's unfair that". --Steve Summit (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK then, rephrase: For what reason?--Aspro (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Often the only answer is "Because it just is" or "Because life is unfair", and the implicit part of my comment was that often, I suspect the person asking the "question" already knew that, and was basically just complaining.

In the case of low expectations about Windows software (which is indeed unfair), I suspect it's a version of the argument from authority fallacy, or maybe groupthink. --Steve Summit (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will put it bluntly: Please stop bashing Windows and promoting *nix at every turn at the helpdesk. -- 143.85.169.18 (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Where am I bashing window? The OP asked a question (which is what the ref desk invites). I gave a suggestion. Another editor said he would 'steer clear' of the app of it on dubious basis of coming across a bug. All software has bugs. The least buggy 'free' application may be what come installed on Apple. However, the OP states he has some ~100,000 items. There are horses for courses. The OP 'may' find that my suggestion, offers the logistics that he hurts for, to organize his above average image library size, (whilst not locking him into a proprietary app that costs him $$$$ year after year). ~100,000 images is a very big library. One needs an app that can cope.--Aspro (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Aspro, this was an inappropriate use of the article Talk page. As you know the article was the subject of an Arbitration case and Discretionary Sanctions are authorized for use by uninvolved administrators. If that sort of disruptive behavior continues at the article Talk page I will take it to Arbitration Enforcement. I suggest you remove your own comment. Thanks. Zad68 22:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Replied to you on you on your talk page. --Aspro (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you don't mind I'd like to keep the conversation in one place. The "nah-nah-nah" comment you wrote serves no purpose other than to fan flames and turn focus onto editors as opposed to content. Please don't do it again. Zad68 14:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comments on ANI - from one low paid scientist to (I think) another. Cheers. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Given that you aren't a member of ArbCom, I suggest that you remove your misplaced post in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter [6] before someone else does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're too late.--Aspro (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aspro,

I saw your recent comments at the AN/I and the arbcom filing. While your issues are likely outside the scope of the arbcom case, breakdowns in AN/I and dispute resolution more generally are a real problem. Whether it is gaming the system intentionally, or just following bad precedent, more complex AN/I cases often get overwhelmed with repeated boomerangs, calls for banning editors not mentioned in the initial filing, etc. In some cases it does feel like an intentional effort to derail the discussion. I see this as somewhat inevitable given the lack of structure on the board. I posted several months ago on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) suggesting that editors outside of the filer and those named in the initial filing be limited to 500 words, like statements are at arbcom. The proposal didn't gain much traction, but I am interested in seeing how these issues can be addressed without imposing too much bureaucracy.Dialectric (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, User talk:Dialectric. Are you referring to ANI discussion structure and lack thereof? Have my thinking cap on...--Aspro (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is the posting I'm referring to. I mentioned it at the time on the AN talk page, too, but haven't worked on these issues since then.Dialectric (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Aspro, I removed a comment of yours placed in the arbitrator discussion section. That particular section is only for the use of arbitrators in deciding whether to accept the case request. If you'd like to make a statement regarding the request, please do so in a section of your own; you can have a look at how the others have commented to see how to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that User:Seraphimblade. This issue has muddied the water so much that I have trouble seeing where I am posting.--Aspro (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your response to a question about moving a page, at the Help Desk, was remarkably uncivil. The original poster asked a reasonable question about how to edit Wikipedia. While Google or Search are reasonable ways to get answers to questions about how to edit Wikipedia, so is the use of the Help Desk. That's what it's for. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bart Simpson is a cartoon caricature created by Matt Groening. Not by me. Or are you really objecting to the Simpson's being Satire. Ah!

It is your choice whether to get instant answers for such quires on google or wait an age to get one from the WP Help Desk or to take offence from satire. So, what would you have me done? Write long paragraphs, on how there are actually more efficient ways that will save one much time in the future? It is a help desk after all. If you just tell kids the answer to all their questions instead of teaching them math & science and how to find their own answers, will that make human society better and more illuminated? Or are you now going to accuse me of being patronizing for providing guidance?

Now that the two of you have lectured me, allow me to point out that my post was in the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Happy editing :¬ ) --Aspro (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Just saw your post over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with regard to the Monkey Selfie.

I presume you meant to say "hatting" - but I have to admit "hating" is probably just as appropriate. Anyway, it made me laugh regardless of intent so thanks for brightening an otherwise dreary morning! Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Yes, I did mean hattting. --Aspro (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You recently used my signature as a user name template, when a troll had created a page based on my signature as if it were a user name (confusing, nicht wahr?). So I have asked that the Greek-alphabet name be deleted. Since you are mentioned at that AN page, I am required to advise you, not that you have done anything wrong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_the_deletion_of_a_forged_username. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can't believe your snarky comment here! Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dearest Raquel. You may have look upon my edit as startling abruptness. Yet, I and other editors here are not mind readers. It was meant as a guidance to look deeper into our upload policies (you know what looking deeper means). As for snarky: Usually accepted as a complimentary term. so, I thank you for that compliment. Many regards. --Aspro (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I want to thank you for defending my edits on Andrew Wakefield talk page in the face of clear POV-motivated hostility. I would have involved myself in the discussion, but I had been blocked for an entire week following my edits that I had discussed with you. I kept appealing as admins refused to address the substance of my unblock request, until I was finally threatened for doing so.

Anyway, I've continued the discussion from where it left off if you're still interested. You are always welcome to comment on my talk page. Realskeptic (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from using talk pages such as Water fluoridation for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. This is regarding this comment. Zad68 17:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Think my comment speaks for itself. My reply to you on said talk page speaks for itself also. Notice how Smokefoot (below) has introduced a secondary clarifications. I was not born yesterday! --Aspro (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I dont think that these comments are so relevant to the discussion at water fluoridation, but I wanted to clarify my comment on Ralph Nader, which seemed to alarm you. Nader is a critic of fluoridation of public drinking waters. My point is that just because he is famous (justifiably in my book), Nader does not have any particular standing on water fluoridation and we dont cite in the article. My point being that fame does not equal authority, nothing more. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

So too. Your Argument from authority could perhaps, maybe, if it is not examined, with an open-mind, be a fallacy also -don't you think?--Aspro (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not sure I follow you there. Usually, when a colleague invites me to have an open mind, they are asking me to accept their logic and abandon mine. Probably we see things differently, but not quite as differently as these digital exchanges make out. So let's leave like that, cheers and best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Water fluoridation that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Water fluoridation. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 13:17, 25 April 2016‎ (UTC)Reply

Reply. First: Please remember to sign your edits here. Second: Please stop your constant Wikilawyering. It does your cause no good and is becoming tiring and boring. Third: Work with us to improve Wikipedia. Four: You have reminded me that this article promotes a minority 'world' view so I am adding {{Globalize |date=April 2016 |discuss=Talk:{{subst:PAGENAME}}#Globalize }} If you're now going to find issue with that also, then place them on the articles talk page before making anymore unexamined and unwarranted reverts. Thankyou.--Aspro (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Water fluoridation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The pot calling the kettle black didn’t get anywhere did it. WP has a way of getting to the grist of the matter.--Aspro (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The pot calling the kettle black didn’t get anywhere did it (yawn).--Aspro (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for explaining the photo (File:ArakhvetiSpring1.JPG) to me. I suppose you are a geologist. If you think this photo is of any value, would you cooperate and write the correct caption? One of us can then insert it in Tufa or other relevant page. Etan J. Tal^(talk) 21:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, User talk:Etan J. Tal. I think your image is of value but just in case there exists a different explanation, I have asked for a second opinion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Tufa. Hope you did not get your feet wet when taking the photo – I always some-how seem to manage it. --Aspro (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please note the warning I put on DrChrissy's page here. I wanted other people to see it too, in case somebody else had an equally bad idea for posting there as you did, and that's why I posted it there. But it was especially meant for your attention. If you attack Roxy the dog again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC).Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buttercups Sanctuary for Goats, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Boughton and Charities Commission. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to Buttercups Sanctuary for Goats. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Buttercups Sanctuary for Goats requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, for heaven sake Zackmann08! Some WP editors may succumb to laziness and add tag’s without reading and comprehend the proto articles. When I first started editing Wikipedia (many years ago), editors disused, any reservations they may have - on the talk pages first. You seem to be of one of the new breed of editor authoritarians going against this credo and just adding tags. --Aspro (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aspro,

Thanks for your input to Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#AHRQ_addendum. This page is in need of much more input from all points of view and (as You have been an editor much much longer than me) I hope you may be able help reach consensus on edits to the page that reflect significant recent (and fast changing) developments. We need input that does not annoy editors with different view points as we want to reach a consensus on the talk page as we want the edits to stick. "The Times They Are A Changin' " , thanks C7762 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aspro,

I'm not quite sure I understand what you were doing with this edit. It removed several (not terribly well formatted) citations, extended the first section without adding a citation there, and created several new sections, only the last of which you cited.

Where did you find the other information? Presumably you have a source in mind.

I think we should move to having the article fully cited in the modern Wikipedia style: it is still largely dependent in a vague early-Wikipedia way on the "Further reading" section, which may or may not cover the points actually made in the article (and of course, nobody has any way of telling which book or article covers which point). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chiswick Chap, Have been contemplating this change for some months. The references given and now removed, although verifiable to a publication have no bases in archaeological fact. Therefore, have bitten the bullet. The reference now given, gives a more reliably overview to the section. This subject, being of fringe interest, has little RS in the literature so am half-way to contacting researchers directly for getting more current RS (which is often hidden behind pay-walls). Also, have to be careful not to commit OR and back it up with readily accessible RS and this progress doesn’t happen overnight. Stay posted.--Aspro (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, I haven't restored the deleted refs, but have made use of others. I've removed the uncited material, and have found that by combining the existing text which was about the manufacture but which was in 'Cuisine', there is already enough to be going on with in the new Manufacture and export section. I have repaired several existing refs, and used others for a 'Legacy' section which seemed to be necessary. I agree that we can now take care not to permit any WP:OR, most obviously by cutting anything uncited. The article already looks better for it. It's not as fringe as you think - it's in the Oxford Companion to Food, among other things. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Glad you don't think this is fringe but many people do. See what I mean about biting the bullet – of course you do – you have done it. The article is now better than before because more eyes are now on it. The next thing to be tackled (well, perhaps not the next thing by 'priority' but rather for completeness), is that the Greek word garos is so similar to garum, (and take into account Latin and Greek grammar), that they get confused. To my mind 'garos' means little fish like anchovy and sprats not Roman 'garum' from the blood and intestines of mackerel. Pliny and Isidore come across as no different from modern journalists – they were prone to making presumptions. The product Garum & Garos are not interchangeable. With luck I'll find some RS references to show that these indeed referred to two different products. --Aspro (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

No indeed. I'll put Garos into Greek. Pliny is fairly reliable; Isidore's Etymologies are marvellously flaky, even if they're now a GA! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Bath Festival ticket 1970.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The above also applies to File:Bath Fesival 1970 ticket reverse.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Watch what you say to other users and for all others see the copy below:

Hillingdon is a large Borough. Come visit sometime. Ruslip according to even Hillingdon Council Ruslip is in the NW. So hope that you will understand that anymore of your malarkey here on, will be reverted as just vandalism.--Aspro (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

My response to "Any more of your malarky": I have lived in Ruislip for 40 years and it is in west London as CLEARLY shown on the WEST LONDON page of this website.

Don't be so rude when clearly there is no need to.

Pam-javelin (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh for heaven sake, you are confusing this with the 'arbitrary' Economic Development regions of GL where the boundaries keep changing with each reiteration! Most WL references given on this WL article that you refer to are so iffy that they now come up as 404's. So if you like? I will withdraw the word of malarkey and replace it with autoepistemic logic. Quote:

“Manor Farm is located at the top end of Ruislip High Street in North West London (emphasis mine) Hillingdon Council. Gov. UK 

Statute does not and cannot alter geographic locations. P.S. Born in NW London more than half your time ago and I know where Ruslip was and still is today.--Aspro (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Grandstand.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi B-Bot. Image is not orphaned now but used in article under fair use for which reason it was uploaded. So tag removed. --Aspro (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Sundancer-bottle-cream2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi B-Bot. Image is not orphaned now but used in article under fair use for which reason it was uploaded. So tag removed. --Aspro (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Twickenham-Brewery.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Note B-Bot. Image is not orphaned now but used in article under fair use for which reason it was uploaded. So tag removed.--Aspro (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re: this edit....

The Spell-Checker Song: Owed to a Spell Czech Her (Ode to a spellchecker)

Eye halve a spelling chequer.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my Rhea view,
Miss steaks aye Ken knot see.

Iran this Poe Em threw it.
Your shore lee glad two no.
It is core wrecked in every weigh,
My chequer tolled me sew.

A Czech her is a bless sing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right stiles ewe can reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

Eye strike a key and type a word.
And weight four it two say.
Weather eye am wrong oar write.
It shows me strait aweigh.

Each frays come posed up on my screen,
Is trussed two bee a Joule.
The check Ur pours o'er every word,
To Czech sum spelling rule.

As soon as a mist ache is maid.
It nose bee fore two long.
And eye can put the error rite.
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Bee fore a veiling cheque curs,
hour spelling mite decline.
If wee R. lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid two wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling,
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den,
With words sew fare too here.

2 rite with care is quite a fete,
Of witch won should bee proud;
and wee mussed dew the best week Anne,
Sew flaws argh[7] knot aloud.

Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays.
Such soft wear four pea seize.
And why eye brake in 2 averse
With righting sure too please.

^{Attribution: I composed the above as a modification of various versions found on the web labeled "author unknown" or some such. Later I discovered this page, which appears to document the original sources, and my version is clearly a heavily modified derivative version of what is listed on that page. To whatever extent the above is my own work, I release it under the Creative Commons CC0 license. --Guy Macon}

Merry Christmas! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [ Citation Needed ]Reply

LOL. U seam two ave the same Czechá, adze watt eyes got! Mary Chris Mass.--Aspro (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for trying to defuse the situation between j and me, but I think it inevitable that j and I will end up in an ani. The following is your fault!   OK, so the book is notable, buy why isn't the article still considered to be blatant advertising subject to deletion? Seriously! There is no information in the article about the mechanisms of wp. It appears to me to be just a way to bring attention to the book, and thus increase sales. Seriously! I'm not about to flag it for deletion, but this seems to me to be a violation. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

And, more importantly, for the encouragement to continue the struggle to keep the Junk Yard Trained Dog at bay!   However, I was supposed to give the first issue of the BB to you as the number 1 recipient! I keep checking, and as of last night, it wasn't officially a Barnstar yet. Thanks again, DennisPietras (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Are there any linux users who use the Astrophysics simulation 'Celestia'? The saints feast day is the third of July and so I was wondering if the church axis (which is not exactly east-west) lines up with the sunrise on this day or whether this alignment was to fit the plot of land available. Churches face East, don't they? Armed with a Silva compass fixed to a piece of wood with brass screws, over 10 years Ian Hinton surveyed almost 1,750 churches in England and Wales. He resolved an old belief – but uncovered a new mystery. [8] Aspro (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Cutting-edge science has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't take this a being a pendant but For warned is for armed should be Fore warned is fore armed!!. Cheers and thanks for your advise on WP:MCQ. ww2censor (talk)

Thanks. Have corrected post. Aspro (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Template:SDLR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

In case that wasn't a typo at the science desk about "wreak the environment", be aware that wreak means "to work" (as in "to shape metal"--work and wreak come from the same root), past tense "wrought", German werken, schmieden; while "to wreck" is ruinen, verschotten. The phrase "to wreak havoc" is useed to mean "to cause distruction, disturbance", but without an object noun like havoc it just means to work something into a shape, as in "God wrought the world in six days, and on the seventh he rested." "Wreak" is considered archaic, and is pretty much only used in set phrases like "wreak havoc" or by poets and writers trying to sound fancy or old-fashioned, so I'd just avoid it. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss the reason for reverting my edits at the CFS page, rather than just reverting without discussing the reasons on the talk page. Also, it's not cool for you to wield your reviewer badge against a new user when I'm the one following wikipedia policies. Reviewer privilege is for protecting articles against spam and vandalism, which my edits clearly weren't. --HotSection (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Template:Like resume" says: An article that merely summarizes the subject's career is okay, so long as it's written in a neutral tone and the subject meets the requirements for notability.

Please explain how or why the article is not a summary and/or is not neutral. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

It goes on to say: This tag is meant for biographical articles that promote the subject. In that way, it is much like an advertisement.

Please explain how or why the article "promotes" the subject any more than any other biographical article does. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, will add some observations and comments on your talk page. Aspro (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

FYI: Discussion continued at Talk:John B. Prescott#user:Aspro's opinions Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

If the service acted as a normal encyclopedia instead of psuedo cryptographic code(s) it might be possible to actually find the energy to explain. Underachieving volunteers mocking actual work is backsliding. abdulfez 22:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You have now been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. Aspro (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your wonderful Ref Desk contributions over the years. I realise that this is a really small thing, especially besides all of those, but I hope you don't mind that I just added a missing datestamp to one of them; I've done this silently for myself and some other editors I know better, but I felt it would be better to tell you about it (and I'm really sorry if you consider it improper, and will self-revert in that case). Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Look, it doesn’t matter how it came about, when someone asks that their IP address be removed, we do it. I asked you to please stop repeating it and you repeated it two more times. I don’t know why you would do that, but it has to stop. Now. No exceptions.

Instead of replying there again, since this is well off the subject of the help desk at this point, I have removed your remark entirely. There is no reason to keep repeating it and you are creating work for others in removing and suppressing it it again and again, so please, just let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Grandstand.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Sundancer-bottle-cream2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply