User talk:Yclept:Berr

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

I am yclept berr, and can occasionally be found on my old unregistered User Talk page (since 2008) and have also made edits before and since prior to this account in 2010.

Welcome[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Islamic metaphysics[edit]

Hello, you mentioned the article Islamic metaphysics in this discussion. I see it redirects to Metaphysics. Do you have any more information on whether there used to be a unique article on Islamic metaphysics? Thanks -Aquib (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess they deleted that article outright. I have only been following the discussion upthread on the talk page for medieval Islamic science, they identfied the five pages that were blanked. By the person who blanked all five pages on Islamic science, philosophy, etc. under a ruling of some sort. Yclept:Berr (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on RFC regarding the stubbing (deletion) of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article[edit]

You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You -Aquib (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on a new RFC/U for Mathematics in medieval Islam[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for your participation in the RFC regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, and speaking out against this outrageous behavior. The issues surrounding this RFC are complex. I believe it is important they be dealt with in a way that provides support for further actions in the near future. This problem goes beyond the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, but it needs to be dealt with one step at a time in order to avoid confusion and build a comprehensive foundation for further action.


I need your help in order to move forward. The next step I hope hope to take is opening a separate RFC/U (user) to deal with inappropriate behavior in the original incident involving Pjoef, Ruud Koot and WMC (William M Connelley). The proposed RFC would deal with the sequence of events that led up to the intial stubbing, as well as the repeated re-stubbing of the article when I have attempted to revert it.

The subject matter must be narrowly limited to that appropriate for an RFC/U (user behavior) action. It covers the provocation of Pjoef by RK, the insults and attempted intimidation of Pjoef by RK and others, the lack of discussion on the talk page before the stubbing occurred, the lack of proof of problems with the article, the agreement of RK and WMC between themselves to stub the article, the way the article was initially moved rather than being stubbed (causing the temporary loss of article history), and their refusal to subsequently revert the article.

  • Remedies should include reverting the article to its pre-stubbed state, and I also believe Pjoef deserves an apology.
  • In addition, I also suggest these two users should withdraw from the editing of Islamic articles and JAG-related issues.

In order to proceed, I need at least one other user to agree to certify the RFC/U (the more the better). This is done by placing specific language on talk pages at the right time, after the RFC/U has been prepared and we agree on its contents. I cannot proceed to RFC/U by myself. I also need suggestions on how the RFC/U should be worded and what should be included. I can write the RFC/U and drive the process, but I need you support.

Please reply on my talk page to let me know if you are interested in helping me recover this article and correct this injustice. If you know anyone else who would like to participate, please invite them to reply to my talk page as well.


Thank you very much,

Aquib (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Aquib, I appreciate your message. I am an infrequent editor and so, while I've familiarized myself with all sorts of wiki procedures over the years, I've never participated in an RFC. My inclination would be to take action that is global with respect to all the pages involved and addresses the abuse by overzealous editing without respect to individuals (as was the case with the apparently flawed Jagged process). That doesn't mean these people aren't individually abusing a blind spot in the system though. I am simply too new to the discussion and too unfamiliar with the "cleanup" crew's edits to make claims against them personally. However I will happily participate in an RFC/U as an unbiased observer of the discussion that has transpired recently.
I would more happily participate in a global process that allows us to suggest remedies that apply to all pages in question, since at the very least folks cannot accuse me of having an "axe to grind". An AfC listing the pages that were deleted or stubbed in response to the Jag cleanup would be a great place to start. On the two talk pages for math and science, I listed the ones mentioned upthread on the talk page for Talk:Science in medieval Islam. Does anyone have a complete list?
Regarding the RFC/U, I suggest you confer with Pjoef on how best to proceed, since he seems to be the most affected party, being the person who has taken it on to review and clean up the article and the persons who deleted it wouldn't let him. I only know enough about the subject to criticize the process, and the persons involved seem to be using that loophole (what I like to call WP:BLINDSPOT) to keep articles where there is a lack of expertise (compare WP:BATHWATER) stubbed by placing the burden of proof on anyone attempting to add anything even when citations are properly sourced and not overstated.
Also note that the existence of a {{Verification failed}} / {{Not specifically in source}} template, [not in citation given] used to tag individual claims in an article, makes the entire Jagged 85 verdict to completely stub all pages on the subject obsolete and unnecessary.
Like I said, I'll happily participate, but I can only speak to what I've seen and read in the recent discussion, not to past shenanigans by these editors. And I'll actively second any request for a new AfC (?? I'm not familiar with the correct forum) addressing all the "Jagged" pages. Part of the problem is that the guy who actually went and outright deleted / stubbed some of the pages was a hit-and-run and I can't tell what his motives were. Yclept:Berr (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Music venue page[edit]

Oh, this is great news! I am a huge fan of The Clash (the only band that matters), but I like all music from the Renaissance to the Mars Volta (great band). If you need a helping hand for that article as well as for others, do not hesitate to ask me. I will take a look at that "headache" tomorrow morning, I'm too tired now. Gabba Gabba Hey! –pjoef (talkcontribs) 20:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Hi Yclept, saw your latest note, thought you might be interested if you have time -Aquib (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing[edit]

Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Seaborgium, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

HTML element page[edit]

Not sure of the word, maybe ironic, but the use of the font tag is depreciated as it says on the HTML page, so use the span tag. In the article in the font section, it says "Sizes are from 1 to 7. The standard size is 3". On Wikipedia, the standard size is 2. I changed the font sizes in the example to percentages based upon Wikipedia standards, so you might want to change the percentage to what it needs to be. Bgwhite (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elvis operator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NULL (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) 09:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)