User talk:Yellowbeard

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks)

Welcome!

Hello, Yellowbeard, 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! --SivaKumar 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurela

Hi, I noticed you posted a DELETE comment to the European election law ass'n. You have expressed doubts that the association does not exist and that it does not have any membership. I scanned some of the membership applications and publishd them online in order to show you they do exist: www.volitve.si/s103.jpg www.volitve.si/s104.jpg www.volitve.si/s105.jpg www.volitve.si/s106.jpg www.volitve.si/s107.jpg www.volitve.si/s108.jpg www.volitve.si/s109.jpg www.volitve.si/s110.jpg

Please check them and please post a KEEP comment to the page if you are convinced that the thing really exists. Thanks, Topjur01 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Multiple Choice

What research did you do to ascertain that the Definite Majority Choice article was original research? A few seconds of google searching shows multiple references to it, including javascript implementations of the system, and multiple references in voting system related mailing lists. Demerphq 09:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proportional approval voting

I closed this AFD as a delete, and part of that is removing most of the incoming links to the article. I did as much as I could, but since some links entrenched into articles, I thought maybe you might want to look at the remaining incoming links [1] and do do whatever cleanup is still needed in the remaining articles. It probably needs the touch of someone who's studied this topic. --W.marsh 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting - delete nomination

I've nominated Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting for deletion. Please review and weigh in on this issue. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merriment

This ~~was not your finest hour~~ had me going. [2] ~~If you want to continue to participate in this site, you should probably avoid that sort of conduct.~~ Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my comment was meant in a cynical manner and not in an insulting manner. I wanted to say that Abd succeeded in getting unblocked without having to show any insight. And, therefore, he will interpret the recent events as an approval of his attacks against you. Maybe, I should have added some emoticons to my comment to lessen drama

. Yellowbeard 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love sarcasm! Sorry I misunderstood. Perhaps you would join my campaign to restore the snark mark to common usage؟ Jehochman ^Talk 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for disruptive harassment of another user. This edit is emblematic: [3]. You restored a linkfarm, removed with a proper reference to the external link guidelines, for no obvious reason other than a vendetta against the user who removed the links. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I have not set an expiry on this block at this time but have instead invited other admins to come here and discuss the matter. I would suggest that a minimum necessary condition for unblocking would be an undertaking to leave user:Abd well alone. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this until there's an explanation and/or an undertaking to leave Abd alone. You only have two mainspace edits since May, both of which are unjustified reversions of Abd. – iride scent 21:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason for this edit is explained here and supported by this user. Yellowbeard 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since that is a single purpose account with very few edits, that doesn't count for much. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "this user" is Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote, who is COI on the issue. He's manageable; I've been a bit distracted, shall we say, so I hadn't returned to the issue of those links. I think he'd have come on board with paring it all down; I've not found it necessary to do more than occasionally warn him to restrain himself. --Abd (talk)

Well, it shows that I have justified every mainspace edit that I have made. Yellowbeard 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the block of a wasteful single purpose account. Your mainspace edits are non-existent, and your only contributions in recent memory include harassing Abd (talk · contribs) and restoring link-spam. seicer | talk | contribs 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long has this user been blocked for and why wasn't be appropriately templated, which would include instructions for appeal of this block? Bstone (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The length of block is available via their block log link, displayed on the user contributions page, or you can click the link here: Yellowbeard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is no need to use a templated block notice. When a user is blocked, the MediaWiki interface presents them with a message that includes instructions on how to get unblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I said in the note above that I have not set an expiry but have explicitly invited other admins to come here and discuss. This seems to me to be a reasonable way of ensuring that if Yellowbeard has something to say, it will be heard promptly. It seems to me from the discussions elsewhere that Yellowbeard is perfectly well aware that what he is doing is not appreciated, and template warnings are often inflammatory rather than helpful. We had a problem, I have stopped the problem for now, and I have invited Yellowbeard to address that problem while preventing it continuing in the meantime. I think that is not unfair, and it does not seem that there is any significant cost since he no longer appears to edit mainspace to any significant extent. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the block of Yellowbeard. It seems that he had a nuisance agenda when he became an editor [4] where I commented that he voted twice in an AfD. I note that he removed my comments stating in the notes "rv vandalism". --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some history

I posted the below material, here, it was reverted by Special:Contributions/87.115.22.127, which is clearly the banned User:Fredrick day. Yellowbeard can't be held responsible for that, I have no clue of a connection between these except for attitude toward me and a habit of tracking my contributions.

At one point I filed an SSP report for Yellowbeard, about the history of the account. I do not wish to argue on the matter of blocking or unblocking, but I do think the history should be known. Prior to involvement with me, this was an SPA with a clear political agenda, and I came to be perceived as an enemy of that agenda, as can be seen by later contribution history. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (4th) for details about the account history. That SSP report resulted in a checkuser case, based on suggestion by Rlevse that it was "possible but not conclusive." Checkuser came up negative, so if this is not simply a pure SPA, which is possible, the master remains unknown. (I consider possible socking irrelevant to the present situation.) --Abd (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]