User talk:AsteriskStarSplat

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Yes, this might be a false-color image of me, I think

You might also find me in the original photo this woodcut was based on

Important notes: please read before editing here.

1. The user name references three words used to describe the following typographical character: *
2. For convenience sake, you can refer to me as Asterisk, Asterisk**, Aster, Aster*, **Splat, Asterisk*Splat, or the full AsteriskStarSplat. I may consider usage other than this as rude, depending on context.
3. I reserve the right to redact, disemvowel, or edit any wording added to this talk page which I find vulgar or foul; fowl language, on the other hand, is welcome.
4. I previously edited for several years from an IP address, and people who are familiar with the particularities of my editing patterns may be able to recognize what that long time IP was, but I prefer to not document that IP at this time, out of privacy concerns. Your cooperation with this request is appreciated.
5. Given I have edited for a significant amount of time, and have been welcomed many times, I consider it impolite for generic welcome templates to be added to this talk page, and I reserve the right to delete or archive them without comment. Non-templated messages added to this talk page will be welcomed in the same spirit that they are left.
6. I may archive rather more quickly than some editors might expect, and when a conversation is removed from this talk page, I consider that topic/subject/section closed. Please feel free to open a new section on this talk page and refer to the old conversation if you have more to say about it.
7. Please make all edits to this page below the following line. All edits to the material above the line are subject to William Tell-style summary execution.

Thanks! ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 00:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent revert you made on this article regarding the category of Warner Bros. films, would you take a look at the IP's other contributions as he has made quite a lot of edits this week regarding film company categories. Do you find the same factual error in all/most/any of the other edits? The IP has a conspicuously large number of warnings about disruptive editing, and I wonder if he's doing this on purpose. I don't know enough about the films in question to say if they are or are not belonging to those studios. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not currently know enough about those other films to immediately help, and I'm honestly not interested enough to make the detailed analysis of sources that would be necessary to audit the accuracy of this persons edits. Sorry. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you were involved in one edit one (but are not the focus of).--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Asterisk! I wanted to thank you for your contribution to the ongoing discussion about revisions to Missouri Executive Order 44. I also wanted to let you know that I have posted on that article's talk page a redirect to my sandbox, where I have some proposed revisions to the article waiting for feedback. As a fellow editor on this subject, I would solicit your opinion of my proposed changes, prior to my posting them, if you have the desire to do so and the time. Thanks again for your input! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think that Institute for Religious Research is a reliable source, you've got a lot of notifying and editing to do across Wiki. Plug it into search and have fun with that. I'm also wondering, do you and ARTEST4ECHO tag team articles often? This almost smells like sockpuppetry. --Kbabej (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "almost smells like sockpuppetry"; if you don't think it is, then why did you open a sock investigation? → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ARTEST4ECHO

Either we are or we aren't; as I am unlikely to convince you otherwise directly, I replied there, volunteering to have a check user done on me. As that will not find any IP's used in common between me an ARTEST4ECHO, I have nothing to fear from it. However it's not very useful to turn conflicts about content on Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith into personal attacks and I consider a false accusation of sockpuppetry a serious personal attack; I expect an apology from you for your accusation when the checkuser comes back negative. Also see WP:TINC. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 20:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had already opened an investigation before mentioning it to you. This is in no way a personal attack, though you can interpret it however you would like. Noticing your quick synchronized edits and that both accounts have worked on the same pages together before, it's reasonable to assume. I've had many pages edited, etc., and have never personally attacked someone or nominated others for a sockpuppetry investigation. It's there to look into legitimate concerns, and if you have nothing to fear, then don't stress about it. The fact that an Institute for Religious Research source has been used dozens of times on Wikipedia and you choose this article to challenge it with another account supporting all edits looks suspicious. --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes over the validity of using IRR as a source related to Latter Day Saint movement articles has happened on Wikipedia in several places; disputing that usage is no way is new or unique. That you have not run into this before only indicates that you do not edit very widely in this topic sphere. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 20:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you should take a stance on that now, instead of challenging that on a myriad of much older articles where those have been around quite some time... --Kbabej (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, it's already been challenged before; I guess what I should have said is that it has been successfully challenged in several instances. If you want the specific locations, you'll have to give me time to go find them. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 20:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point your focus on me and articles I've written has turned into wikihounding. Focus on someone else please. I haven't requested an IBAN before, but I guess there's a first time for everything. --Kbabej (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not focusing on you! Cleaning up an article you wrote has nothing to do with you personally. You were the one that involved me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ARTEST4ECHO, and you are the one that keeps moving this from a discussion about content, and instead making this about editors. How am I "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics [you] may edit or multiple debates where [you] contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit [your] work"? I edit broadly on topics I find interesting, usually having something to do with the Latter Day Saint movement, including Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith on the last couple of days. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 02:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can confirm that there have been a number of concerns expressed about the use of IRR documents/webpages as a source, especially when it comes to Latter Day Saint topics. I personally do not find it to be reliable or at all framed in a NPOV manner. That's to be expected, since it makes no bones about the apologetic nature of its mission. I think it can be fine to use in some contexts, but generally I wouldn't be citing it as a reliable source for much Latter Day Saint-related material. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was finding it odd that three of the articles I've written were tagged for merging/notability by you within a day (Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith, Margaret Backenstoe Reed, and William Moroni Gibson), but after Good Ol’factory vouched for you two and I took a step back and looked at the situation from a different point of view: the common theme between the articles is something that you focus on (early Mormonism). You said it, but I wasn't hearing it. I was like "Three articles at once?" But the Reed and Gibson articles were some of my early ones, and really shouldn't be up at all. I just tagged the Gibson one with a self deletion tag, and I'm going to see if I can do some research on the Reed one to expand it. If not, it should definitely be merged. The Desdemona one is different in that it is a very recent one I did, but it's that I don't necessarily agree with the wp:NOTINHERITED view in this case. Different issue though.

Long story short: I am going to try to find out how to remove/delete the sockpuppetry inquiry. It's not that I was trying to personally attack you; I was just overwhelmed with three articles being merged/tagged and you two editing almost in sync. Tagging Gibson and Reed was needed, though, and I get where you're coming from on Desdemona. Sorry for the hissy. Let my cleanup begin!

--Kbabej (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, what three caused the issue? I tagged Smith and Patty Bartlett Sessions on the same day, but I haven't seen or edited Reed or Gibson in a long time. It seems that AsteriskStarSplat tagged Gibson. I can;t tell who tagged Reed. Just to be clear, I had the same concerns on Smith as AsteriskStarSplat had. The only reason I didn't tag it right away is that I wanted to give you time to improve the page. That didn't happen. I admit I tagged Smith because AsteriskStarSplat started a talk page about the problems, but I did it on my own.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 12:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: Thank you for this note, and for your willingness to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation. I've been doing some re-evaluation as well, including contemplating the costs/benefits of continuing to contribute to WP along the same lines as I have recently (see the note below at #Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in). You aren't the direct cause of this, nor even the proverbial last straw, but as you see if you look at all of the disputes I have been a party to recently, this has been accumulating over several weeks. At heart I see myself as an editor along the lines of a wp:WikiGnome or wp:WikiHobbit, and just like Bilbo & Frodo I keep getting involved in things that are much bigger than I am, and which continues changing me in ways I'm not entirely comfortable with; I'm not Sam, but that's where I need to be. I keep finding more evidence that, if this were a story, it's not hero's journey, and instead is a farcical dark comedy: among other things there is simply too much schadenfreude here at WP, and I fear I will be tempted to turn down that road myself. I see through a glass, darkly, as it were, and it's time that I start making some changes to my own narrative. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 23:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had to laugh when I saw this. I hope you do also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbabej/Archive. Apparently Kbabej was a sockpuppet account. Talk about irony, accusing us of being sockpuppets, but doing it himself. LOL--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 20:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking of doing a modification of Template talk:LDS sects/Mormon fundamentalist. However it being such a big change, I though I would seek some input before making the change. If your interested in commenting, I would love to here from you at Template_talk:LDS_sects/Mormon_fundamentalist#Unweildy--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 21:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Gordon B. Hinckley. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]

@TransporterMan: I'm sorry but with everything else I have recently been involved with here on WP (see #Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith above, Talk:Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith, wp:Sockpuppet investigations/ARTEST4ECHO/Archive#03 February 2015, Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44, wp:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive871#Behavior of Keepitreal2, Talk:Mark Paredes, Talk:Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in conjunction with interactions with users Kbabej, Keepitreal2, 104.50.126.207, 152.179.23.138, and InfiLaw), I'm at the limit of drama I can deal with for the week, and possibly the month. I have found Mormography (in my personal opinion) to be needlessly uncivil, confrontational, antagonistic, and disruptive; to my eyes it seems that instead of trying to build consensus, Mormography has made a series of attempts at "winning" reminiscent of textual fourth-generation warfare. I may choose to participate later, but at this point I simply don't have the energy for all of that. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome!

I believe that I've now signed up for the project - are there any more requirements than making an edit once a month? Christian.schanner 21:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.schanner (talk • contribs)

No, and the making at least an edit a month is not a requirement; it's really a suggestion, and a way to see if you are "active" in participating. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 21:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Priesthood (LDS Church) to Priesthood (Latter Day Saints), not the other way around.--Broter (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake; I've now corrected it. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 19:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your efforts to find a communitiy consens very much. I think it would be great if we all look at your page and vote which articles to include and which to exclude.--Broter (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you wait on this until I finish, which I have not yet done. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 19:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When do you have your list ready with the articles to include and to exclude?--Broter (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When it's done I will be changing the name from User:AsteriskStarSplat/sandbox1 to something else (new name TBD). As for when I will be done, I suggest looking at this link. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 17:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of Book:LDS Church;DraculavanHelsing; created another book called Book:Mormon Texts. I think we can still make the Book:LDS Church as a small book about the church and the book Book:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was created by me, as a comprehensive, big book about the Church. But I do not find use for the Book:Mormon Texts.--Broter (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could make the Book:Mormon Texts, as a book about Doctrine and Covenants. But I hesitate to edit it and ask the community first.--Broter (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - thanks for letting me know it wasn't used anymore --Trödel 18:05, 17 February 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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in England—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have contributed to the {{LDS}} template in the past, I just wanted to give you a quick heads up that I have proposed a revamp of the template to use the Wikisource versions of LDS scriptures as its default source. Any feedback you may have would be welcome as part of that discussion. Thank you. ― biggins (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]