User talk:Yakushima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Yakushima, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Lectonar 09:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Sara Mednick[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Sara Mednick 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 or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lindsey8417 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Hi, Yakushima. I noticed your comments at Talk:Leonard Horowitz regarding Rentir's editing of the page. Please don't hesitate to inform me or another administrator if he continues editing without discussion. Some large articles don't even have talk pages, but if there's a disagreement, that's what talk pages are there for. Good work on the article, and best of luck with your continued efforts on Wikipedia. Cheers.--chaser (away) - talk 10:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

... and ongoing ...[edit]

Regarding this edit: I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but I think you made the article less accurate.

If you have read the two referenced articles (enough times) you will have noticed expert opinions regarding MK Ultra:

Although the CIA insists that MK-ULTRA-type experiments have been abandoned, 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti has stated in various nterviews that the CIA routinely conducts disinformation campaigns and that CIA mind control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MK-ULTRA was abandoned a 'cover story.'.[6][7]

and regarding Mockingbird:

In February 1976, George H. W. Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA announced a new policy: "Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station." However, he added that the CIA would continue to "welcome" the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists.[21]

Your current edit suggests that the operations ended the year in which they were created. Both articles indicate that the activities went on for years -- and there is no indication that they ever ended. I liked

  • ongoing, but
  • continuing
  • subsequent

or something else might be a better word. I'll leave it to you. We had the same thing with the protocols of the elders of zion. is there any indication that the Czar's people stopped it the year they started it? (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out where I made an admittedly hasty edit. In fact, I'd known before deleting "(and ongoing)" that MK-ULTRA had been multi-year. I just didn't like "ongoing" because it strongly implied "...even now, as you read this," which you must admit is highly unlikely in the case of MK-ULTRA, a program whose records were reportedly destroyed in 1973.
One solution is simply to delete the starting year for each proven conspiracy. Another is to provide a (likely) span of years where a conspiracy was multi-year, perhaps with a question mark following if there was any doubt about how long it continued. (E.g., Iran-Contra might be considered a "1985-6" conspiracy.) It's somewhat procrustean either way. I guess I'd prefer the latter, so long as this section is deemed a legitimate part of the article. Yakushima (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've amended the relevant descriptions (included a rewording the "ongoing" for the Dreyfus affair). The changes do some violence to the parallelism of the list, but I'm not bothered by that.
(The parallelism is rhetorically deceptive. If I may paraphrase Tolstoy? "All persistent conspiracy theories persist unproven in the same ways; all proven conspiracies get proven in their own ways." ;-)
This section of the article makes the good point that, not only have real conspiracies existed, but that almost everybody believes in some conspiracy theory. My own conspiracy theory beliefs are pretty garden variety, I think -- I happen believe the Bush administration lied to get popular support for the invasion of Iraq, which puts me in the company of a majority of U.S. citizens, last I checked. However, the section overstates the point, and really ought to be cleaned up and substantiated a little more, from authoritative sources. Maybe it should even be its own section: "'Garden-variety Conspiracy Theories"? I might circle back around to it and do this cleanup, but I'm midway through a couple other articles right now.

Personal attacks[edit]

Your recent edits seem to contravene our personal attacks policy. I let your attack on myself in the AFD pass since I am, in fact, well-qualified in this area but the point is irrelevant. Now I notice that you are extending your ad hominem attacks upon Mr Burgin to our article on Super-recursive algorithm. I have reverted this as improper. Please focus upon the topic rather than attacking those associated with it. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Colonel Warden about whether the article should be deleted, but he is right about your last changes to the article. Perhaps you could check that you are not getting too emotionally involved in getting rid of this crap. Your arguments are actually quite convincing (although I am not sure that's enough to bring about the desired result), but when they are proffered with too much zeal they can easily become ineffective for psychological reasons. You are undermining your credibility; this could be what happened in the case of DGG, although it's not clear because he also has a general bias against deletion. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to look at this is in detail, I am just assuming that you are right about the facts because they are 100% consistent with Multipundit's behaviour. The point is that there is no valid reason to put details about Burgin's career into the article. It's not in the scope of Wikipedia to expose non-notable idiots as idiots. There is no valid reason to put these things into the article. You have been in the project much longer than I, but you are acting as if you had never heard of WP:BLP, or as if it applied only to biography pages. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael[edit]

Hi Michael! Just a little message to say hello and let you know my handle. Vincent (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

By "computer" I meant HW and SW, it's all the same thing anyway, and f(c) would generate a unique answer since all computers are finite and deterministic. Unless you included random sources in your code like input from a geiger counter. Also the halting problem notwithstanding.
BTW, you wrote "smaller values of ∞". I always assumed Aleph null, the smallest value of ∞. But here's an idea: what if we had an uncountably parallel computer, each processor of which was also an uncountably parallel computer? You'd need a whole new way of thinking about solutions. You'd need... superDUPER-recursive algorithms! Vincent (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Late reply re Aids conspiracy theories[edit]

You could be right. I would probably link early to conspiracy theory, but it's a point on which reasonable people can disagree. I have no special expertise with the AIDS theories, and there are several good editors following the page, so I'll leave it to you guys. In any case, don't let me or anyone else being an admin inhibit you. Happy editing, Tom Harrison Talk 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz[edit]

Agree with your assessment (Leonard Horowitz). That IP needs banning - it's clearly partisan editing. Give me a nudge if you need any support. "...even though he's clearly around the bend." - chuckle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monoape (talkcontribs) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't aware of your intention to bold particular points that need citations, as bolding is not typically used for such a purpose. If you really want to clean it up, then by all means, revert my edits. I dont think I have the patience to clean it up though.--SilverOrion (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Frank[edit]

Hi. A few days ago, on Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#The Weekly Standard: A reputation of accuracy or inaccuracy?, you said

"Footnote 28 takes you to a Weekly Standard article based (apparently) entirely on a book whose reliability has been questioned (see Wikipedia article on its author.)"

I checked Richard B. Frank, but I don't see anything in its history of Talk page questioning the reliability of Downfall. Am I missing something, or are you confusing this book with something else?
—WWoods (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To "SPICE a circuit"[edit]

Hello. Yes, people actually say this. The people in the circuit simulation groups in which I've worked never did, but design engineers have said this in my hearing a number of times -- one of the (possibly dubious) advantages of doing circuit simulation development in an industrial setting is having lots of contact with design people. I'm not sure anyone would write 'SPICE the circuit' but they've certainly said it. So, the UCB article was accurate in this aspect. YoungGeezer (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vision Thing[edit]

Hi, I've removed your comment at Talk:Paul Krugman as it doesn't belong there, it's not improving the Paul Krugman article. [1] In the first place you should talk to Vision Thing, and bring these matters to his attention. He may just not be aware of this being plagiarism. In any case you'd be expected to talk to him before taking it any further, perhaps at WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. let me know if you have any questions or need any help. Rd232 talk 09:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let's see what Slim says. I do suggest you moderate your tone though, as it risks distracting uninvolved people from your substantive points. Rd232 talk 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's not an unusual experience; and in response it's a good idea to disengage from the topic for a while. Thanks for your contributions, and do come back when you're ready! Rd232 talk 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


You did a ton of good work on the Krugman page. Much of it wasn't discussed because it was uncontroversial, but that doesn't mean it was unnoticed or unappreciated. Gruntler (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Sorry for not speaking up more on your behalf. I have been trying to duck more Wikidrama, but it seems impossible in this wikilife. LK (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz[edit]

That section has nothing of substance, nothing serious, nothing verifiable. It cites an anonymous comment on a random blog. An anonymous quote anywhere on the internet that has no substance behind it is not a legitimate source in any discourse, especially not on Wikipedia. For example, see "Be very firm about the use of high quality references" in WP:Biographies of living persons. There is no evidence at all of any connection between Horowitz and the film I am Legend. In fact, those statements on Wikipedia only serve to create the false impression on the internet (due to web searches) that there is evidence of a connection when there is absolutely none, i.e., some third party could cite Wikipedia as the authority that says there might be a connection when there is no substantive evidence at all of any connection whatsover. The section fails WP:Verifiability due to the lack of absolutely any reliable sources. The sources cited fail under WP:Verifiability.

The section is rife with original research in violation of WP:No original research and your speculation that someone could have sued Horowitz would be a violation of WP:No original research if used to put that section back in the article. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence at all that anyone involved in the production of I am Legend is even aware of who Leonard Horowitz or any of Leonard Horowitz's activities. As an example of your speculation that is in violation of WP:No original research is your comment "Actually, there is excellent indirect evidence: Horowitz would probably have been sued if what he wrote on his website about the connection was a lie." Regardless that I believe that reasonable observers would find this claim of "indirect evidence" to be absurd on its face, it violates WP:No original research. Again, there is no evidence at all that anyone associated with the production of the film is aware of anything about Leonard Horowitz, and that includes there being no evidence of any consideration or non-consideration of lawsuits against Leonard Horowitz. Your comments are speculation and against Wikipedia policy.

The section cites a press release purportedly from Leonard Horowitz that is actually taken from, so it could have even been from a web site that was taken down (one could easily speculate, in a manner inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, that Leonard Horowitz might have had to take his web site down due to false claims; I only offer that comment as an example of speculation that has no substantive support, I do not claim that it is valid). Regardless, even assuming the press release is truly from Leonard Horowitz, its use in the article is another example of a violation of WP:Verifiability. For example, see the comment in WP:Verifiability "it does not involve claims about third parties", i.e., the press release makes claims about a third party (Warner Brothers) for which there is no verification. Also see "the material is not unduly self-serving" (regardless, whether one wants to claim that the material is not unduly self-serving, it is explicitly self-published material that "involve[s] claims about third parties".

The last two paragraphs are entirely original research in violation of [WP:No original research]]. For example, there is speculation about Warner Brothers may have done, speculation about what Will Smith meant in various comments, and what inspired the film I am Legend.

--Rentir (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GeneTurnerObit.JPG[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:GeneTurnerObit.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Plagiarism issue related to Eugene Turner[edit]

Hi. I don't know if there is any Wikipedia policy regarding when other sites use text from Wiki without attribution. Have you asked at the WP:Village pump? Kolindigo (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Skater BLPs[edit]

Hope this helps you prioritize you noble BLP referencing project Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Unreferenced BLPs by notability. I only did the first 25 or so skaters on the bot list. Ill add more when the list starts getting short. --MATThematical (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


No problem. I am not really interested in bed bugs, since I usually write in medical articles. However since the article has received an evaluation from the google project, and yesterday I did not feel like searching for references I decided to be bold with a one-day-only task and eliminated the worst parts (which I have to say were simply horrible prose) of the bed bugs article while trying to preserve info that could be referenced by some other editors in the future. It is great to know I was of some help (Both you and me elimited more than 25.000 characters from the article... Quantity clearly does not equal quality). Best regards and good luck with the article.--Garrondo (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Since that user is using sources, maybe the best idea would be instead of eliminating it creating a (very) small summary (no more than a paragraph) in main page and creating a sub-article with the elimination section. That way it could main article would be clean and anybody interested could improve that desinfectation sub-article.--Garrondo (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeap, I noticed. Nevertheless I feel that many times is simply better to move to a secondary article than eliminate. That way wikipedia does not loose a contributor, there are less bad feelings, and still the main page remains fairly clean. However as I told you some time ago I am a passer by in this article, so do as you feel is more correct.--Garrondo (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at Malcolmxl5's talk page.
Message added 13:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BLPs and non-English sources[edit]

Hey, thanks for your message. There's been some policy debate about this in the past, but it rarely comes to any useful consensus, either to explicitly forbid or explicitly allow foreign-language sources as evidence of notability. Some of the more extensive discussions on this topic include:

In the absence of a formal policy, everyone at AfD pretty much decides on a case-by-case basis; the main concerns are:

  1. Verifying what the source says
  2. Verifying that the source itself is reliable

Google Translate, as you mentioned, solves most of #1. So the main remaining problem is #2; the best thing anyone can do to solve that problem is to ensure that Wikipedia itself has well-sourced articles about foreign newspapers and publishers. So I figure I'd rather spend my time creating/fixing articles like Munhwa Ilbo or Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House rather than having the same discussion with the same dozen people on the policy talk pages which never seems to go anywhere.

Cheers, cab (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism[edit]

"Is it really too much to ask that you write sentences that parse?"

I was going to address that comment on the article talk page but on reflection decided it would be better to do so here. On reading what you had written I let the first one pass "Give me a sentence in English that actually parses, please.", assumed good faith and just replied to it, but when you do it for a second time and then reply to the sentence indicating that you have understood it, then in my opinion you have stepped over the line into a personal attack.

I could have replied in the same vain using similar debating tricks by asking you what is a "freshman?" and when you replied of answered "Please remember that not everyone who reads the page is an American, you are showing cultural bias". Now it would not have directly addressed your points about the complications in the paragraph, but it is an effective tactic at obfuscation, as I would be indirectly implying that the reason you did not understand the paragraph was because you are an illeducated American, not because of any objective reading of the complexities of the paragraph. Several exchanges later and most people reading the paragraph would have been distracted by the personal exchanges from your original point and that is not the way to improve the content of the guideline.

BTW I have not replied at the end of the points you have raised, because I think it will be better if others voice their opinions. I do however think that lack of adequate attribution is usually the problem that causes plagiarism on Wikipedia and that most other forms of plagiarism on Wikipeia is usually crude copyright violations which are better dealt with as copyright violations. -- PBS (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


A list-serve or bulletin board is not a reliable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not have a copy of the book and I do not know what it says. All I know is that it quotes a letter from Marx, a letter the meaning of which is open to interpretation. I do not know what other research the author of the book has done, or what other evidence he found to support the claim. And you didn't spell this out on the talk page. Have you read the book? Can you tell me what other evidence he found, and what his analysis of the letter is? Maybe I misinterpreted you because I did not get the sense that you knew what other evidence he had and what his analysis was. If I am wrong, I apologize. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, understand "by now?" Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Complain all you want about my deleting a lousy citation. But the fact that it was from a chat room or somee list-serve, and the top portion was a private individual quoting a BBC report quoting Sue Laurence, when all of the sudden you are really referring to something below that, shows what a lousy citation it was. Better to provide a proper citation to a proper source. All I deed was deletee a lousy citation. If you have a proper citation to a proper source, I will not stop you from adding it. Why haven't you even tried to add it?

My starting point is something you wrote: "This is multiply-sourced, from Marx's own correspondence. You can see more of his letter at the link into the mailing list archive. Whether Marx actually engaged in trades or not is worthy of speculation (as it were), since it's reported to be thought by some (um, yeah? [who?]) that he might simply have been trying to impress somebody." Well, okay, I am waiting to hear about what secondary sources say about whether he was trying to impress someone or not, and whether there is evidence that he actually speculated. You raised these questions. All I am doing is taking what you wrote seriously, and asking that you follow WP policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on your lates comment on my talk pages, I wonder whether you believe my deletion had anything to do with the content o fthe edit. You have not actually asked me so maybe I am mistaken. But, just in case: If you believe this, or are wondering whether this is the case, I can tell you you are wrong.

You ust wrote on my talk page;

You're thinking I'm so serious about this that you have to pull out the policy guns on me -- without first asking me whether I was actually proposing hashing out -- in the article text itself -- the question of whether Marx actually engaged in such trades. Well, as it happens, that strikes me as a hideously stupid thing to do. I mean, look at the sources. The only known item of stock ownership they've turned up looks like 4 pounds of equity in a newspaper Marx helped start, or something like that. It seems that nobody has solidly settled this question of whether he actually spent any money buying stocks, much less made any money. He might have done it but destroyed evidence of earnings to dodge taxes. Who knows?

And that is precisely why I deleted it. You have just provided a full explanation for my action. Now, you have provided what amounts ot a long list of secondary sources that mention the letter. I do not posess some of these sources, and I do not have the time right now to re-read the ones I do. But if you wish to research this and are able to produce a "hashed out" contribution to the article in which it is plain why some scholars find this significant, and explains the significance, with proper sourcing, I would thank you for making a positive contribution. But so far you are the only one who has researched this and you still write, "who knows?" That tells me that putting this in the article right now is, to use your words, a hideously stupid thing to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for that! Good point. I've incorporated it in the 20 article tutorials. Anthony (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

is t== Bedbug extinguishers ==

Yep, that's right, supported only by ads with typos, but wadda expect of Swedes and Jerseys? Still, the only reason I wound up on the bedbug article was because BBC broadcast about them swarming NYC, and a guy freezing them out with CO2, who has more business than he can handle but can't find anyone with smarts enough to handle the equipment who'll work for what he's willing to pay, so I tried to go ogle up what's so hard about it and how does it differ from putting out a fire. Goggling further, I found a bedbug sufferers' blog with a discussion archived for anyone who wants to see it: freeze them dead. I won't bother further with it as I'm 12 time zones from NYC, nor do I have a CO2 extinguisher to play with. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'm gonna leave it alone as I simply don't know enough, much less have good SRs. I would like to point out that bug extinguishers do NOT employ dry ice, a solid at atmospheric pressure, but liquid CO2 kept under about 3 atm. until released. The picture in the ad resembles CO2 extinguishers parked in front of aircraft on ramps during my USAF career. I don't know if those could have put out an aircraft fire anymore than I know if they'd kill bedbugs. How do you do it at your inn? --Pawyilee (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ender's game[edit]

Having read your intro (with footnotes, for chrissakes!) I'd like to ask what you think of adding something to Ender's Game about how Generals read “Ender’s Game”. And for that matter, adding something to Fabius Maximus' legacy about the FM website. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your cogent addition to Ender's Game. What about tweaking Fabius Maximus' legacy? --Pawyilee (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

PowerPoint worse than bedbugs[edit]

You'll see what I mean if you go ogle up powerpoint afghan. The Manhattan Samurai started Is Google Making Us Stupid?, but doing so must have made him stupid as he and his alter egos got lifetime bans for sock-puppetry. Wonder what lies in store for anyone who attempts something similar with PowerPoint's cultural impact on the military? PowerPoint Hell - Military excesses has a bit to say, but not enough. I first heard about PowerPointPoison when it seeped into the (ongoing) 2010 Thai political crisis, but there's no SR there, either. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Here is the direct quote "International travel, immigration, changes in pest control practices, and insecticide resistance may have contributed to a recent resurgence of this blood-sucking insect in developed countries.1, 3 Bed bug infestations have been reported increasingly in homes, apartments, hotel rooms, hospitals, and dormitories in the United States since 1980 (Table 1).1, 21-22" from JAMA. The whole paper is free online from were I am.

Also wrt medical content we try not to refer to patients but prefer to refer to people. Will be working more on this over the next few weeks. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is just a cut and past from the JAMA article. I did not write the other stuff were I agree with removing it until after I had read the rest of your comments on the talk page. Hope that clarifies things. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals[edit]

Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC).


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
Message added 12:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity[edit]

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot[edit]

Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 0[edit]

   The Downlink   
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 0, December 2010  
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1[edit]

   The Downlink   
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 1, January 2011  
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 15:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

You have a message[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Downlink: Issue 2[edit]

   The Downlink   
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 2, February 2011  
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC).


Stumbled upon your userpage, you're fascinating!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tryphé[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tryphé requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ConconJondor (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at ConconJondor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at ConconJondor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at ConconJondor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hi! I noticed that you proposed a merge for this article, and the consensus agreed with you. However, it seems that no action has yet been taken. I'm unsure of how to go about merging this (although I'm sure a fair amount of the trivial info can be taken out), and I was wondering if you could help out so that the original page can be removed. Maybe this might be a good place to add the info? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Another request[edit]

Hi again! I noticed the in depth research you did on a term's history at this discussion, and was hoping you could potentially do the same in researching the background of this one, since the scenarios seem to be very similar. I was the one who [it for deletion], but I'd certainly be willing to change my mind if a way was found to make the article acceptable. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3[edit]

   The Downlink   
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 3, March 2011  
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Response On Dr. Chris Busby[edit]

Hi, I am new to Wiki and learning fast. Thank you for your strong remarks. I strongly disagree with your malicious characterisation of Dr. Busby and bias. A C.V. to me is considered reference material. You appear to be single handedly Judge Jury in a trial by internet. I think you are well aware of what you are doing and your behaviour is reprehensible. I hope this response in with the guidelines. Oz Waver (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE Starting to familiarise myself with Wiki including of significance WP:HONESTY WP:CLARIFY WP:GAME WP:NOTSCANDAL WP:RRULE in regards to your editing and material found on Dr. Busby's Page. I also would like to thank you for pointing out Wiki and how to familiarise myself with the protocols a steep learning curve. You may also be aware that Dr. Busby's extensive experience in Court and current cases of libel. Oz Waver (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your work on correcting some very worrying biases and inaccuracies surrounding Chris Busby. I was first drawn to his page by a link on the Fukushima accidents page (subsequently and quite rightly removed) where he seemed to have been stating that hundreds of thousands were now going to die from radiation in Japan.

I was both shocked and appalled that such scaremongering and ignorance was on display in such a prominent and relatively trusted place as wikipedia that I immediately started investigating Chris Busby. I was motivated in a way that I haven't been motivated to write or research for wikipeda before.

As I started to learn how out of line Chris Busby was with the scientific community, the more appalling I found the bias or unintentional inaccuracy in his page. I have had to restrain myself a great deal in order to try and be as factual and as useful as possible without getting overly emotional about the huge amount of damage I felt Chris Busby was causing. Particularly as it's well known that the psychological effects of radiation exposure can be more damaging than radiation exposure itself, with increased suicides and a reckless attitude towards safety being adopted by people just because they thought they had been exposed at Chernobyl, irrespective of actual radiation and health effects. MatthewFP (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Busby's heart is in the right place. Even if it's not, someone once quipped that a narcissist will do anything for attention, including benefit humanity. (Or try to, anyway.) What matters here is to report clearly and honestly on the debate that has made Busby notable in WP terms.
In the section on the Second Event Theory, you'll find an exchange of views in the literature. In the details, you'll notice Busby admitting some error (a factor of 2). A clearer summary of SET and criticisms of it would do much to improve the article, perhaps along the lines of this [2] review.
For all I know, SET qualifies for a Wikipedia article in itself, in terms of notability, if not in terms of legitimacy -- because, although WP:FRINGE prohibits giving WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe theory in an article on a non-fringe topic, if the theory itself is sufficiently notable -- see, for example, Worlds in Collision -- it's fair game. (For all its flaws, SET is probably still more rigorous science than anything Velikovsky produced.)
You may be disinclined to give Busby et al. the satisfaction of a whole article on his theory, but consider: for the time being, treating the theory rather than the man might go a long way toward reducing both the polarization of talk-page debate and the frequency of edit-warring. This should result in improvements in the treatment of both Busby and Second Event Theory on Wikipedia.
I can no longer edit the Busby article directly, but am open to giving you any advice you might need about improvements to the article. A good place to start might be to moderate some of my own contributions where they could be seen as tendentious, insufficiently specific, or flirting with half-truths. I recommend it. There's actually kind of a Zen-like "NPOV high" you can get from de-emotionalizing yourself about a subject that used to inflame you, through disciplined Wikipedia edits on that subject. I know. I've gotten it myself. It's just that this subject is probably way too close to home for me, literally and figuratively. (I actually live, with my wife, in the same building as this business of ours that's been hit so hard by this radiation phobia.) Yakushima (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at the article for improvements when I have a bit more time! You seem to be very proficient at knowing what makes a good article and what wikipedia requires.

Personally I try to invest my emotions in the truth, whatever that truth turns out to be. I have had a look at the sources for Second Event Theory, but they are pretty tenuous. I am very willing to listen more about this theory, but theories are only where science begins. Theories don't mean anything unless validated by testing. That is the essence of science itself. I'm not aware of any valid test data supporting Busby's theories. If someone wanted to take Busby's side (like a courtroom has two opposing sides to find a truth) then it's in trying to validate his theories with good data that would be the best way, personally I don't think data will ever support his theory, but I recognise I must be willing to listen if the time ever came.

The issue is that the theory and the man are somewhat one. What really makes the theory seem a bit silly to me is that there have been extensive studies into radiation exposure from high natural background sources, from atomic weapons testing fallout and from the atom bombs dropped in the second world war and Busby seems to ignore the large amount of data these studies have generated. It should be stressed also that those scenarios and studies did indeed deal with ingested radiation too (unlike studies on aircraft crew who get more cosmic rays). In that sense alone, he seems to pick and choose what to pay attention to, this is what makes his science very dubious. I would speculate that he has got far too absorbed in the study of depleted uranium from a radioactivity standpoint, when perhaps it's chemical effects on the body may warrant a lot more exploration. Heavy metals are known for there toxic effects. I would stress though that I'm not a professional scientist!

BBC's Horizon did a truly wonderful and eye opening program about radiation, with numerous notable scientists providing input and interviews. The program is called "Horizon - Nuclear Nightmares", it may be available on Youtube. I'd strongly recommend watching it, it has some fascinating stuff in there. If I was living near the Fukushima exclusion zone I would take great comfort in having watched the program.

I've been paying attention to radiation levels outside the exclusion zone in Japan. As far as I'm aware, they've never increased to amounts higher than natural background radiation elsewhere in the world. The highest natural background radiation recorded is in Ramsar, Mazandaran. It's well worth a look to see what effect that has on the residents of Ramsar. They have attracted a lot of scientific attention.

Finally for now, I would like to say that I know of no more a resilient and resourceful nation or people. I have an enormous amount of respect for Japan and would love to visit one day. I wish you all the best! MatthewFP (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth – Paradox of thrift[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
(another one)

Unit Cohesion[edit]

When I first saw the article and the way it was composed, I initially did not think that it could be much expanded beyond a POV use of a term covered in other articles, and feared it would just stay as an offensive coatrack. This seems to have been proven not to be the case, which I'm very happy about. Good job.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rescuing Unit cohesion from deletion. I was beginning to feel like the RCT at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir there for a while. I guess all the article needed was a little homespun Japanese hospitality. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Socio-stub from unit cohesion[edit]

... and with no edit summary? Morris Janowitz's work on this subject was not sociology? Reason? Yakushima (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not it's Sociology — which it obviously is — but whether or not something with 21 footnotes currently showing and 5 further reading links constitutes a "stub" — which it obviously does not. I listed this very conservatively as "Start" class now, although it's pretty clearly a "C" as it stands, and have made the appropriate stub tag removals, with an edit summary. Sorry about missing the edit summary before, I try to always leave those in article space... Carrite (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Peace. Yeah, C is about right (unless there's D ;-). Yakushima (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

unit cohesion - ideas about organization?[edit]

See [3]. Your thoughts much appreciated. Yakushima (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a biiiiiiiiiig topic, for sure. Outside of my area of expertise, but it looks to me like you're on the right track. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderated nuclear explosion (2nd nomination)[edit]

Please see this page. If you want Moderated nuclear explosion deleted, you will have to supply the reason in the AfD. (The page had previously been nominated for deletion in the past, so a "2nd nomination" had to be created.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Thanks for fixing broken links on the Keith Henson page.

If you want to edit it further, there are things that could be added to update the article, such as

Keith Henson (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your helpful criticism and advice. Please let me know if my edits today help the situation.

Scottsandler (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


FYI, it is perfectly acceptable to delete material from your own talk page. See:WP:OWNTALK. (So please hit delete after reading this comment!) Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Misessus. (S/he deleted your comment and you reverted.) --S. Rich (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry! The page was User talk:Byelf2007 and the edit was here. --S. Rich (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Capitalism[edit]

Please do not use WP:UNDUE to be WP:POINTY. I see you are a member of the Animal Rights Project. Some/many people think animal rights is a lot of hooey. Would it be appropriate to expand the scope of the AR Project to reflect those views? Some/many people think PETA is a criminal/terrorism organization. Would it be appropriate to expand the scope of the AR Project to reflect those views? Again, most certainly not. The Capitalism Project is in the first stages of development. With that in mind, I ask that your contributions as a member be tailored to build esprit de corps and group cohesion. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you raise a Project related topic outside of the Project Talkpage (as you did here: [4]) you should notify Project members. I will do so on the Project Talkpage. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. This message is regarding the "don't get cute" comment which was directly towards another editor and not useful in improving the project. Please. --S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Milton[edit]

Thanks for your edits on Milton. They are helpful pushed on the WP:POLE.--S. Rich (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Yakushima! Thanks a lot for your help editing! Especially for formatting the references, which I didn't have time to do when I started the article. For several days at least the article was second in Google searches for "", topped only by itself. Coppertwig (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman[edit]

I knew that article would come back to haunt me; I sort of quietly slinked away in frustration some time ago. I'll take a look at what you've described some time in the coming weeks, but will also be quite busy and can't make any promises on timeframe.. Cheers for the notice. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Your edit comment "(no matter how obvious to those who know the subject)" here betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. The essay You do need to cite that the sky is blue partially makes the point, but the more direct point is that the audience for Wikipedia articles isn't exclusively for those steeped in the subject matter, it is closer to the opposite. It isn't literally the opposite, as the intended audience is both those familiar with the subject matter and those unfamiliar, but the latter group is far larger. The Wikipedia goals of writing for that audience are not significantly in conflict with how one would write for the first audience, it simply means a few "obvious" statements are spelled out and/or cited which could be omitted for the narrower audience.--SPhilbrickT 14:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A modest proposal[edit]

In the interest of being nicer to other participants, can we agree that if you want to make a point to me, that you do so once on the relevant talk page, and if you are unable to restrain yourself form saying it again and again, that you post subsequent reiterations on my talk page or yours, whichever makes most sense?

For example, you are somehow convinced that I think guidelines trump policy. I don't, although it is very possible I used imperfect wording somewhere and you picked up on it. In fact, I don't recall doing that, but if I did, I'd like to correct it, so I request that you identify the edit where I mislead you to this repeated rant. Now that I've told you I don't elevate policy over guidelines, I trust you will have no further need to say it again, but, I don't want you to think I am telling you that you cannot repeat yourself, I simply request that you do so in a way to minimize disruption.

Is your mistaken assumption based upon my statement that removing uncited material is an improvement? Despite the fact that I did copy it to the talk page per PRESERVE, are you making the narrow point that I failed to state that removed material should be moved to the talk page?

I have no idea why you've developed such antipathy to me, but it isn't reciprocated. I see you as someone who cares about improving the encyclopedia, as I do. We have different views of some of the minutiae, but I'm not sure why that creates such verbosity, although perhaps that it your usual style, I don't really know you very well.

Does my proposal work for you, or do you have a better idea?--SPhilbrickT 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Paul Krugman, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Robin Wells (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, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD[edit]

Adding material which has been removed, and failing to obtain a consensus is not the way we do things. Please treat this as a friendly warning, but additional such attempts may bring a block.--SPhilbrickT 13:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You said:

you have never, to my knowledge, responded to the following repeated point:

I have responded, more than once. I'll say it again: I honestly thought it was a joke. If you wish to pursue it, the right venue is BLPN.

You said:

N.B, YK: I'm not even in 3RR territory but Sphilbrick is crying "vandalism".

3RR is not the same as vandalism so I'm not sure why you brought that up. Some editors feel that repeated addition of material without getting consensus constitutes vamdalism. However, as I'm not one of them, I agree with the notion that your actions are better described by edit warring, I regret the use of the word. However, be forewarned that some others might take that view.--SPhilbrickT 14:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

More responses[edit]

You said:

How about finally reading my rationale for why you're committing WP:BLP violations, and responding to it?

As noted above I have, diffs on request. I even told you how to pursue it, if you really believe it.

You said:

Sphilbrick initially removed useful material in violation of WP:PRESERVE,

You keep saying this, even after I quoted the relevant part of the policy. One more time: If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Are there any words in this passage you don't understand?

You said:

maybe that's why he keeps missing my point about WP:BLP vio

It is possible I'm missing the point, because it sounds silly. You honestly think readers come away with the view that Krugman is a dinosaur after looking at the entries in the influences line of the infobox. Seriously?

You said:

ALL of the "influences" names are those of genuine, and quite strong, influences on Krugman's economic thinking.

I've never disputed this. Nor am I agreeing. I has more than a passing familiarity with the views of Krugman, but I've never spent any time considering who may have influenced him, It just doesn't interest me. That said, it may interest some readers. So I support the inclusion of it in the article, if the influences are material and can be properly written and sourced. At which time I'll support the names in the summary. This isn't rocket science, it is easy to understand.

Or come up with a cogent rationale for violating the guideline. Either one, and the BLP claim doesn't cut it with me.--SPhilbrickT 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

My plan is to stay away from BLPN until others have had a chance to chime in, unless I receive a specific request. Thanks for posting there, I think it will help.

I'm attempting to respond, on this page, to all the points you've raised. You've developed a habit of claiming I'm not responding, even after I have, in some cases, more than once. I fully understand that you may not accept my response, but if there are any important points you've made where you are waiting for a response, please point them out here, and I will respond. In return, I respectfully ask you to respond to some of my points: specifically, what part of the PRESERVE policy that I've quoted do you challenge. I followed it, I believe, and you keep saying otherwise. The burden is now on you to explain what I did in violation of the policy. Or if you've abandoned PRESERVE, and want to hang your hat on BLP, that's fine with me.--SPhilbrickT 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Another response[edit]

You said:

But since I wasn't joking, I wonder if SPhilbrick can explain why he thought I was?

I tried to imagine a reader of Wikipedia coming acorns the Krugman article, reading the whole thing, checking some of the references, then glancing at the influences section, and when not seeing Dornbusch exclaiming "Wow, I was thinking that an advisor to Presidents, a winner of the Nobel Prize and the Clark medal, must be a very accomplished economist, but no Dornbusch? Must be a dinosaur."

And that image left me laughing.

I thought treating it as a joke was the most charitable thing I could do. You've decided to insist it is a serious position. I'll be interested to see how many buy into it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Paul Krugman[edit]

The material you are reverting on Paul Krugman is not a BLP violation. It is a content dispute, and without comment on which content is "right" or "wrong", neither version violates WP:BLP. You should not be expecting an exemption from WP:3RR. Since you've breached 3RR already, I'm going to ask you to self-revert and await more input to resolve the content dispute. Failing that I will likely block you for violating 3RR.

It's not worth fighting tooth and nail; no one's opinion of Krugman is going to be markedly enhanced or reduced by the number of influences listed in his infobox, so it's probably worth emotionally divesting a bit, particularly since you've toed the line on incivility and personal attacks during this dispute. MastCell Talk 18:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A brief summary[edit]

I had hoped we could resolve this without getting others involved. You are now edit warring. Please stop. I now see I'm too late, others have felt the need to get involved.

I've never reported anyone to the Edit Warring board, in the naive belief that reasonable people could always work something out. I could be wrong. I will hold off my report, but I'll summarize below the first cut.

  • Someone Boldly added some name to the influence section of the infobox, without adding any material to the main article text (First step of a BRD cycle)
  • I reverted, and explained my reasoning on the Talk Page (second and third steps of BRD)
  • You reversed my revert, mentioning WP:PRESERVE, but not citing what part of it applied, and suggested I should add the text to the main article. I'm happy you joined the discussion, but the reversal of a revert should occur AFTER reaching a consensus, not immediately
  • On the chance that you didn't fully follow the rationale, I removed them again, and explained in more detail why they were being removed, and what should be done to include them again.
  • You did add a paragraph to the article, and added them to the infobox. My reaction was, problem solved. [Already told him once I didn't add a paragraph, but a sentence -- one that he has since quoted. Now all he remembers is "paragraph". *Sigh*.]
  • Inexplicably, you decided to remove your own addition to the text. Leaving us back in the situation with a violation of guidelines. ["Inexplicably" is either his memory loss or a lie. I explained. He protested I hadn't explained. I explained again. He protested I hadn't explained again. And here he is doing it again.]
  • I posted to the Infobox talk page, and you posted separately here. Unless I missed something, I see no support for an exception. [This is coming from someone who has admitted a time or two that he hasn't read what I've written.]
  • I also posted to some other places, to see if anyone would support your position. I've yet to find one, please let me know if I missed it.
  • You continue to add the material to the infoboxes, and refusing to add it to the main text. No one has supported this.[Either his inattention, or a lie. I re-add influences to the infobox, and have been slowly but steadily adding material to the article that would bring it into compliance with the economist infobox guideline.]
  • You raise the clever argument that the omission is a BLP violation, even though the material has not been there for years. Calling it a BLP violation allows you to circumvent consensus and edit warring restrictions, if it fact it qualifies. I urged you to report it to BLPN, [This makes it sound like I'm looking for loopholes. The fact of the matter: leaving Paul Krugman's "influences" list at just "Keynes" makes him look like a dinosaur in his own field. SPhilbrick doesn't see this because he's not in the least interested in Paul Krugman's theoretical influences, and has openly admitted it.] hoping you would wait to hear form them before attempting to add it again.
  • You continue to add it, and do so in such a way that mere reverting mess up some of the references. I've fixed them in some cases, but my patience is being tried. [He keeps reverting my improvements, and it makes a mess of references.]

You need to gain a consensus to make this edit. Please do so. [He needs to gain consensus that my position on WP:BLP violation is incorrect.] --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring over the infobox on Paul Krugman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MastCell Talk 05:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed that it WAS AGF[edit]

You said (@ User talk:MastCell):

Another "personal rule" for you, SPhilbrick, and also a Wikipedia rule: don't assume that an editor who obviously put considerable effort into arguing that an edit is a WP:BLP vio can only be joking. If you suspend AGF and take up the assumption that the editor IS joking, don't assume that others are similarly suspending AGF for the same reason, and that nothing needs to be said. Just say, when first encountering what you think is a joke, that you're suspending AGF on that editor, at least on that particular point.

You've got it exactly backwards. When I see someone claiming that the removal of a name from an infobox constitutes a BLP because it makes readers think he is a dinosaur, my view of the edit is decidedly negative. However, rather than excoriate such a convoluted argument, I tried to look at it in the most positive light possible. And the most positive spin I could put on it was that it was a joke. Secondly, I was giving you an out. I hoped hat, even if you were serious, seeing it in black and white might cause you to regret it, and I gave you an out to pass it of as not so serious. I'm sorry if it bothered you by calling it a joke.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Long AFTER I pointed out I was not joking, in several places, you finally come up with some "explanation" that you didn't respond with at the time. Just as AFTER I pointed out BLP vio repeatedly, you FINALLY claimed you were joking. Simply not credible. Come to think of it, the most moronic excuse I can remember hearing for a long time. I repeated this same "joke," over and over, often embedded in other points, all intended seriously. You repeatedly failed to note that you thought it was a joke. I mean, after the second time, you should have at least said something like, "That joke wasn't even funny the first time." No, you just ignored it repeatedly, no matter how seriously I couched the case.
I'm really tired of your transparent lies. And your unwillingness to do actual work on the article in question. Yakushima (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Emailed you at the address[edit]

Greetings Yakushima, I sent you an email at the address listed on your resume. Since you noted your resume is outdated, I thought I'd leave you a note to alert you to the email in case you no longer use that address. I just wanted to get your insights on a few things unrelated to Wikipedia. Cheers, John Shandy`talk 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please undo your revert[edit]

In your edit summary, you said "3RR doesn't apply to BLP vios"

You made the claim at Wikipedia:BLPN#Paul_Krugman, but got no support, and a clear statement that your view is wrong.

Please undo your revert, and I'll clean up the references, if you aren't willing to. While I will not block you, because I'm involved, you are asking for a block by citing false arguments, and continuing to edit war.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists[edit]

You made a claim, on the Krugman talk page. As it has nothing to do with that article, I'm responding here.

You said: probably a majority of infoboxes across Wikipedia violate WP:IBX. Including the majority of infoboxes in articles originated by SPhilbrick

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a serious proposal[edit]

I'd rather work with you than continue as we have been interacting.

In short, if you help me, I'll help you.

I mentioned before that I have other things on my plate. (No, I'm not asking you to help on basketball articles).

The timing isn't perfect (but then it never is) as I just received a paper on Anterior cruciate ligament injuries, and I want to work on that article.

My plans include:

  1. Basketball
  2. Deleting Copyvio articles
  3. ACL
  4. Reviewing a few hundred articles as part of a CCI investigation

That's a full plate for me, but if you though you could review 50-100 articles for CCI, I could find time to work on the Krugman article.

This is only a bare bones, but if you have any interest, I'll make a more concrete proposal on how we could work together.

You obviously have energy and passion; I'd like to see that channeled to improving the encyclopedia.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I am on the road the next couple days, with limited access to internet.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman[edit]

Paul Krugman[edit]

[Yakushima] is "an editor [who] believes that it's a BLP violation not to mention every single person who influenced the subject (like: oops we forgot to include his Mum)." (From Bishonen's Talk page).

Consider getting up to speed before making comments like this about me. You might start with the fact that, early on (over two weeks ago today), I voiced a negative opinion of the whole concept of an "influences" list for economists, agreeing with Volunteer Marek in his criticisms of it.[5] But I'm trying to be pragmatic here: as long as adherence with the guidelines for such a ridiculous field as "influences" is, in general, a good thing, and as long as the article is moving toward adherence with that guideline without deleting useful information that took real work to dig up (as I've been trying to do), then that's de facto conformance with a guideline that, when applied too directly (as SPhilbrick tried to do, and which other similarly ignorant editors have tried to do), only violates WP:BLP while depriving readers of useful information.

No amount of arguing from some picture of a "reasonable" or "average reader" makes sense until you characterize the larger classes of readers for the BLP. They will be heterogeneous. Here, let me get you started on "average reader": Since Paul Krugman is a polarizing figure, the "average" will probably be quite unrepresentative -- since it would have to consist of people in the middle with no preconceptions, true or false, about Krugman. Which is very unlikely, if they are doing a web search on him revealing the Wikipedia bio, since they probably read something about him earlier. Given how much is false about Krugman on the web, it's likely they read something false. In much the same way, it makes no sense to talk about the "average" ideological disposition of a member of the U.S. Congress -- it's a very polarized body, with two clusters and no middle left to speak of.

Well, then, what about some picture of a "reasonable" reader? Are you game to argue against WP:BLP vio from that angle? OK, then, try here: [6]. Try really reading. Try really thinking. But if you're not up to the complexities that arise at the intersection of BLP+technical+polarizing, try to move on to stuff you can actually handle without making prejudicial comments about an editor who has done more in the last few weeks to get this article into conformance with the infobox economist guidelines on "influences" lists than anybody who's been reverting his edits. That would be me. Yakushima (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you've done in that article is to argue tendentiously that an infobox needs to be stuffed with every single influence that a subject may have had. Do you simply not understand that infoboxes are meant to be a very condensed overview? There is a whole article to explain the nuances, so your claim about BLP violations is complete garbage. You've been told this by a number of editors and still you insist that you're the only one who could possibly be right. Not only that but you insist on edit-warring to impose your view – and you've been blocked for it, and yet you've still learned nothing. If you want to write in detail about Krugman, then do it in the body of the article, and save your explanations for that. You'll also benefit from cutting out the "similarly ignorant editors" crap or your career in Wikipedia is likely to come to premature end. Now you think hard about that - and stay off my talk page until you've got something civil to say. --RexxS (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


I've been letting many of your uncivil comments slide, but I will address your charge here that I've proposed something unethical. I'll AGF and assume my wording was sloppy, and it left the wrong impression. I haven't for a second, considered compromising a principle. You think that influences can be listed in infoboxes even when they are not in the main article, while I think the guideline applies, which means inclusion of a discussion of influences in the main article is a necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) threshold before inclusion in the infobox. You've complained that you aren't getting the help you need to properly add them to the main article.

I'm offering to help.

But yes, I want something in return, because, frankly, I have far too much on my plate that is far more interesting to me. However, if it would help keep an editor who has the potential to contribute positively, I'm willing to work on including the influences in the main article.

If you think that violates some principle, please point it out. I'm not offering to leave the influences in the info box while we work on adding them to the main article, I'm offering to help you work on add them to the main article, so they can get into the info box as quickly as possible, in compliance with guidelines.

As an important aside, inspired by your comment that it isn't clear influences even belong in the info box, and further spurred on by an exchange with respected editor SandyGeorgia, I'm thinking about getting community input about what fields should be allowed in info boxes, tentatively planning to propose that they mean an requirement of "subject to objective measurement", which "influences" would fail. If I find the time to start that discussion, I hope you will weigh in.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My proposal, expressed in economic terms[edit]

Let's see if you understand economics.

I have something I value: my time.

I am planning to spend some of my time doing a couple hundred CCI edits – in economic terms, I am exchanging my time for the edits.

Why? Because I value the edits more than my time. Both sides are better off.

You have hinted that I should work on adding influences to the Krugman article. That might well make me better off, but I could do so only at the expense of not doing a 100 or so CCI edits, so it is a bad trade-off. However, if you did 100 CCI edits, and I worked on the Krugman article, I would get what I want, so it would be a Pareto optimal exchange for me. That doesn't mean you should agree; you might find CCI edits beyond your abilities, and could not agree to do them, or maybe you can do them, but it would be so onerous, that the cost in time to do the edits would not be worth the gain you would get with my help.

Only you can answer whether the trade-off is Pareto optimal for you, but why not address the economics, rather than decline using some mage up argument that I am betraying principles. If you conclude that CCI edits aren't for you, that's fine, then we can't make an exchange, because we wouldn't both be better off.

So far, you offer to me, in economic terms, has been: I should give up doing what I want to do, and work on something I do not want to work on, in exchange for ….nothing. In economic terms, can you see why I am not jumping at your offer?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Multiverse Network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (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) 11:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Paving Wall Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vernon Smith (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) 10:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor you may have experienced[edit]

Hi Yakushima! I noticed that you have been having some similar issues with a disruptive editor, Dennis Brown. I noticed that he blanked your talk page questions to him, I believe without answering your questions about why he had deleted some of your contributions. Since you may have also beens a victim of his recent disruptions and hostility, I wanted to let you know that I have opened an ANI notice about his disruptive behavior here: [7] - Catpowerzzz (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Karen Black, Chris Innis and others[edit]

You are welcome to quote or copy any of this to the ANI I suppose, but I have chosen here to reply as I don't feel it applies to what is going on there. The articles of Catpowerzz that I edited were already reviewed by an admin in the ANI, who felt they were proper and that even more eyes were needed. The deletion of material from Karen Black was simple: it was a bloody mess. The first link I clicked on went to the wrong article, and some of the articles didn't mention her at all. I had every intention of fixing the problem, which I finally got to this morning, but it was better empty than in the state it existed. (again, a topic for the talk page, not ANI) As to tagging, even if you were 100% correct, the way you handled it wasn't. I had just got to my computer and what I saw was a chewing out when it could have been a simple question and decided I just didn't want to get involved further, knowing it could only get uglier. I'm done, you win, whatever, I didn't need the extra stress. Adding insult to injury, your comments over a day later on Catpowerzz page were (at a minimum) rather rude, but instead of arguing, I just quietly left it alone, never reverted your changes. At no time have you ever politely asked me why I did what I did, or even offer "hey dennis, you shouldn't have done that because $x" advice. Even if I disagreed, it would have opened up dialog instead of swapping snide remarks/summaries. I tried really hard to just let you "win" and move on, to just think "he is having a bad day, ignore it". Then as a fourth & fifth comment, you decided the ANI was a good place to vent. You never reverted my edits (WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), never used the talk page of the article, you instead went to ANI and "reported" them, then lectured me about WP:AGF. It was only then that I responded, as I didn't really have a choice in an ANI that is about me.

I'm an experienced editor, far from perfect, but with a long history of being quick to admit a mistake when I make it. You just don't know it. If you had spent the time instead to look at my talk contribs, you would see that while I am passionate about topics when appropriate (something you admit we all can be, maybe a little too much at times), you would see that I'm just as quick to listen and take advice from others, deferring even when I don't completely agree. This ANI against me (the first ever) was quickly dismissed as pure fantasy because it was, and it was obvious to everyone but Catpowerzzz, and it appears, you.

If you sincerely think I have broken some policy, vandalized or that I'm really incompetent, well, then you should do whatever you think is best. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


I assure you that I didn't make that up. I'll try to find the source, but it'll be difficult after all this time; I think I read it in an old book when I was researching the subject as an undergrad.Dlenmn (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I got the ball rolling on looking up that term by requesting some papers and books from the library, so I'll look for "inductron" in them and see if I can help out with that (unless you really want to go it solo :) Dlenmn (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Jekejeke Prolog[edit]

I have marked the article for speedy deletion. The article is not notable. Janburse (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For an account why Wikipedia entries are not good for SEO you can read on here:

Jan Burse (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Animal rights[edit]

You are receiving this semi-automated message because you are a participant of WikiProject Animal rights. If the project is not on your watchlist or you have not visited the WikiProject recently you will not be aware of some of the changes that I have made to the pages, or aware of an a issue that has been raised about my attempt to re-categorise some of the project related articles. Please revisit the project talk page to add your input. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yakushima. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 17:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion of Jekejeke Prolog[edit]

Can I ask you a question: Why are you opposed to the speedy deletion of Jekejeke Prolog? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied on admin's Talk page. Yakushima (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Janburse's User page[edit]

Why are you editing User:Janburse? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied on admin's Talk page. Yakushima (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

SICStus Prolog[edit]

Concerning: The title of the article should read SICStus Prolog and not only SICStus. Maybe then a better handle would be thus SICStus_Prolog and not only SICStus. I don't know how to move an article, but I have already made an edit. Please see also my talk entry on the article.

Best Regards Jan Burse (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, no I didn't make an edit. I don't know how to change the article title without changing the handle. Jan Burse (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)


WND is, of course, the fleabag hotel where sad-sack wingnut reporting goes to drink itself to death.

I couldn't let that one go by without saying: "Nice." --NapoliRoma (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer[edit]

Christmas tree.svg Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Gilbert (2nd nomination)[edit]

I can understand the nominator sending a 1084 characters (183 words) unsourced stub to AFD.[8] However, since you first opined a "delete", I did a little research on the topic and edited the article, we now have a 5832 characters (956 words) start or C class article of someone shown to meet WP:CREATIVE.[9] So far... a 5x expansion. Perhaps you might revisit the discussion? Merry Christmas. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The article now includes sourcing to a few articles/interviews of him that are reasonably substantial. But his notability is asserted through WP:FILMMAKER and his works meeting WP:GNG through commentary and analysis, and not through any personal coverage. Thanks for revisiting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Robotics[edit]

Hi. I see you are listed as a member of the WikiProject Robotics project. Some of us are trying to assess who and how many of those Wikipedia editors who have signed on to the project in the pass seven years are still active, or would like to still be active, in the endeavor of improving Robotics-related articles on the English Wikipedia.

If you have the time and inclination, would appreciate it if you would weigh in on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics Talk page, or perhaps indicate current interest by your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Participants page. If you are no longer interested in participating, please just remove your name from the Participants page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inflation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AEI (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) 11:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ACM (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) 11:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cordell Hull, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angriff (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) 09:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)