User talk:Yaris678

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

We need your help testing latest huggle[edit]


I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!

Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

regarding aggressive[edit]

I think they serve a purpose, searching those terms is how I googled this Wikipedia entry. I have no reference for aggressive, but have heard it several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon[edit]

Hi Yaris678, we are to release a new major version of huggle, but we did receive almost no feedback from our beta testing team, which you are a part of (see It would be of a great help if you could download it (if you have windows, all you need to do is getting and putting it to a folder where you have installed huggle) and test it. You can always get a help with making it @ #huggle connect!

Major changes:

  • Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.
  • Ranged diffs - you can select multiple revisions and get a huge diff that display all changes done to them.
  • Fixes of most of bug reports we had so far

In case you found a bug, please report it to bugzilla: thank you! Petrb (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:Personal acquaintances[edit]

Hello Yaris678, nice to have met you in real life! If you would like to spread the word on your user page, you can add {{User Personal acquaintances}}. To check for other people you have already met and are registered, too, please go to --.js (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC Closure at Bharatiya Janata Party[edit]

Hi Yaris678,

Regarding this RFC closure by you, I wanted to clarify:

  1. This RFC was responded to last, 24 days ago. There were three in favor of keep, including one not-involved editor, saying the author is notable (he has a detailed Wikipedia page too) and the book is precisely on the article topic. And two in favor of removing citing fringe theory and reputation of author without providing any reference.
  2. You have said: Those arguing for inclusion appear to misunderstand Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and general practice. Excluding this book from further reading is not the same as excluding it from Wikipedia. But "Excluding... from Wikipedia", was never an argument for keep by anyone. and as a matter of fact this book is mentioned on three other WP articles.

Pinging @Cunard: as he requested assessing the closure by an experienced editor. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra 07:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Several of those in favour of keeping the book in further reading alluded to or explicitly mentioned notability. That is why I felt the need to mention "exclude from Wikipedia" in the close. This was one example of the keep side not understanding how Wikipedia works. In contrast, those in favour of not having the book as further reading showed a good understanding. Yaris678 (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that(exclude from Wikipedia) was not the argument by anyone. It was not my argument also. Yes, appropriateness of the book and notability of author was mentioned by the three keep`voters (including one non-involved editor). And fringe theory and poor reputation of author was mentioned (without reference) by two (involved) remove`voters. Also this book is already mentioned on three other WP articles, no one has commented on the lines of "exclude from Wikipedia".--AmritasyaPutra 07:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You appear to want to rehash the argument you had on the article talk page with me, here. I suggest you instead reflect on what has been said and consider the possibility that the arguments in favour of keeping the book in the further reading section better reflect Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For example, how might WP:BURDEN and WP:ELPOV relate to this? If you see an aspect of this that doesn't make sense to you, I urge you not to seize on it as proof that you were right all along. Rather, think about what it might mean and how it all fits with the aims of Wikipedia. If it still doesn't make sense, I am happy to explain further. Yaris678 (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that is not the intention at all. I am truly at a loss and wish you help me understand. I do not (in all sincerity) understand how it fails WP:BURDEN or WP:ELPOV. It is not fringe (no I can't present any source saying "it is not fringe" -- this is never done in my view, those who claim fringe have to prove fringe, no one has to prove "not-fringe" -- I can produce source showing that the author is noteworthy and the book is specifically about the subject). --AmritasyaPutra 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The point about WP:BURDEN is that is there is a reasonable disagreement about whether or not something should be included, then the burden is on the person who wants to include it to show that it is supported by reliable sources. No one has to prove that the theory is not fringe. There are some indications that the book is fringe so, unless someone can provide significant evidence that it is not, those who do not want to mention it in the further reading section are going to win the argument. Please don't feel down hearted about this. The book is mentioned in the article about Koenraad Elst. Yaris678 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You say There are some indications that the book is fringe -- but I see no such reference! Maybe I missed, could you point me to it? I may be stupid to have missed it the first time but this request is sincere. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of negative comments out there about author's views on India. That is sufficient. Yaris678 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Was I not clear? Point me to '1' reference? About: There are some indications that the book is fringe. Give it to me and I will shut up right away. --AmritasyaPutra 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You were clear. The point is that finding such a reference is not necessary. Yaris678 (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I see no consensus for delete when the majority of votes were for keep. The discussions on this were unfortunately spread over more than a handful of pages: have you read all of them before closing the RFC?
I have now asked for a second opinion on this from an admin who has not edited this topic area before (you just recently edited this topic area, i.e. the Indo-Aryan migration article). Regarding your comment that there are "plenty of negative comments out there", first, wikipedia is not censored, so even controversial books should be included, second, this book is not even one of his controversial ones, like his books on Negationism, Islam or Indo-Aryans. That the book is notable and cited by other academics, and his views on BJP are cited by the top senior BJP leader, has already been explained in the previous discussions (have you read them?). If this is how "wikipedia works", I could go to the Featured Article "Yasser Arafat" and remove half the books in the Further reading sections, because I believe that they are not up to the highest standards, as half of those books were written by mere journalists, who are less qualified than somebody like Elst.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

For your convenience, here are all the previous discussions on this issue. Because they are spread over several pages, it is not obvious to find them all.

1. RFC This talk page
2. talk page,
3. External_links/Noticeboard
4. Koenraad_Elst_in_further_reading
5. RFC_Closure_at_Bharatiya_Janata_Party
6. Discussion
7. Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party/Archive_2#Koenraad_Elst_and_LK_Advani_book

--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Calypsomusic. I had seen most of those conversations already and none of them change my view of the discussion.
I notice that the discussion is continuing with several other parties at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article). I don't think I have anything else to add so I will leave it at that.
Yaris678 (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Yaris! Yes, I want to use STiki on wiki-pt one day. I think that is very interesting to use. Thanks! Vitor Mazuco Talk! 23:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)