User talk:Yandman

Archives

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Talk to me

In public

In private

The Hybrid 3

Hi Yandman. In March I am going to be taking a vacation for 10 days. Would you mind if I told my adoptees that they could ask you for advice while I'm gone? They are all very low maintenance, and you will be the third person they could ask if they needed advice should you accept. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Have a nice holiday... yandman 11:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I leave on March 9th, so I will stop editing the evening of March 8th. I will be back on the 21st. I live seven hours different from Wiki time (Mountain Standard Time, USA), so it may seem like I'm hanging around longer than I should be. However, when I add the template to my page that is when I am officially gone. Thanks Yandman, 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Leggoddess

I would like to protest the deletion and offer any necessary improvement of the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_and_Carry

In the field of "Lift and Carry", which is the subject at hand, I am considered a leading expert. Feel free to review my site www.liftgoddess.com and you will see that to be true.

The Wikipedia article on Lift and Carry was so complete, so thorough, and ultimately so incredibly RIGHT ON that I actually linked to it on my Lift and Carry site as a reference link. Recently, it was brought to my attention that this wonderful reference article is no longer available. Whomever wrote this article really did their homework and I cannot say that I could have done a better job myself. I can say that it is a loss not to have this reference article available on Wikipedia any longer.

I have now joined Wikipedia and am still novice on how to be further involved. However, I will start by doing whatever is asked of me to reinstate this extremely accurate reference article on "Lift and Carry".

Sincerely,

Lift Goddess Leggoddess 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the arguments for deletion put forwards here. Basically, the lack of verifiable, independent sources is the problem. yandman 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

YouthCouncil

Does Wikipedia have a youth council for teenagers? Tom70 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would it? There is no need to be an adult to participate in Wikipedia, so there is little need for a specific council for those who aren't. yandman 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

LazyLaces

I'm an adoptee of the hybrid. Just thought I'd say Hi! LazyLaces 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. yandman 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

KeithCu 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted a question in the Mount Antero section: "How do you pronounce Mount Antero?"

You deleted it, but I didn't understand your explanation: article, not subject. Can you explain that better? Thanks!

Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article ("Should I add a new chapter?" etc..), not for discussing matters relating to the subject. To ask questions about topics, use the reference desk. Cheers. yandman 11:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was, could someone please put a description of how to pronounce "Antero" into the article? I would like the article to be changed to include a pronunciation of it. Does putting it that way make the question more appropriate?

Ah, OK. Good idea. In that case, could you ask at the "languages" desk, and then add the info in the article? We'll get an answer much faster that way. yandman 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Hybrid 4

I'm back. So, did anything interesting happen while I was gone? -- The Hybrid 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been rather inactive myself, so I wouldn't know. Were you there for the whole Essjay thing? yandman 12:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this. Yeah, I was here for the Essjay thing. I feel kind of bad for him with how much he did to help this place, but lying about it rather than admitting his mistake was unacceptable. If he comes back in sock form and rises to BCrat agan without repeating this mistake I wouldn't cry. Peace, -- The Hybrid 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Sorry about that, I think we crossed wires there! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's annoying when that happens. Maybe we should set up a guideline: we need everyone to either block first and reply on WP:3RR after, or reply first and block after. When one does the latter and the other the former ... yandman 08:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Phlox

Doesn't seem like unblock abuse to me. It's been more than 2 months; looks like a valid request. Patstuart^talk·edits 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest I wasn't sure about that one, but Yamla's protection of the page (for "unblock abuse") had just expired, and he'd already posted an unblock request. Seeing as he's been indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account, I prefer to leave this in the hands of the blocking admin (who has been contacted). This account has a history of abusing the unblock template, so I prefer not to let him waste everyone's time. Please feel free to unprotect and unblock if you think he can be trusted, though. yandman 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim X

Hey what's up.. I just picked up on the fact that you have become an admin - congratulations!! Maybe it is because we don't seem to edit the same pages these days or maybe because you are not as active as you used to be, I don't know. I was also away for a while.. Anyways, just wanted to drop a line to congratulate your adminship. Cheers! Baristarim 09:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Baris! Work has become pretty hectic since early March, so I've not been as active as I should have, and the administrative backlogs sap the rest of my wiki-time... Unfortunately, I now spend more time deleting and banning than I do editing. When I've got a bit more time I'll try to sit down and get some proper editing done, but until then... Have fun. yandman 09:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your report

Please refer to the reply at my talk page. - Privacy 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There wouldn't be much point now you've been sockblocked. yandman 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination

On April 11 you expressed an interest in this proposal. The WikiProject has gone live. Your participation is welcome. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Off I go then. yandman 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

The following article is being peer reviewed. see here Your input will be appreciated RaveenS 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User page

Uuuhhh...why don't you have a user page? --Defender 911 01:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Someone must have nicked it. yandman 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori

As a user who has previously been in contact with this person, I am asking if you would be willing to be the second person to certify the basis for this dispute. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

CoS/Sock

I didn't think a user was allowed to remove sock warnings from accounts that have the same IP address as theirs. Although the user asserts these accounts are not socks, we have no independent way of knowing if this is true. Letting this happen might set a bad precedent. Tim Vickers 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion about this incident, I think the best thing would be to ask him to explain. From what I gather, he edits from his local headquarters, and "forgot" to log in a few times. I don't think it would be correct to label the IP of an entire branch of an organisation as a sock of only one member of that organisation. In the same way, we wouldn't label a school IP as being a sock of one of its students. yandman 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Advert3

Template:Advert3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rlest 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hybrid

Hi Yandman, it's been a while. How's everything going? The Hybrid 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't complain. I must fight my inherent laziness and start editing again, though. How about you? yandman 09:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing well. I'm currently making plans to expand my horizons after a period of inactivity. It seems like everyone is coming out of a wikibreak right now. Cheers, The Hybrid 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

strange message

I've replied at User_talk:Alexia_Death#strange_message.

NCDave

NCDave is back from his block at Steven Milloy and has managed a 3RR violation as his opening move.JQ 10:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Peroxisome

dear yandman i would be grateful for your advice as to how to proceed, and how I may avoid "edit-warring".

I have made the point in the discussion page -clearly- that the version of words used is not what is in the paper, and that a conclusion is being drawn in wikipedia which isn't in the original paper. That conclusion is arguable, and is arguably defamatory.

I have also been somewhat restrained in the number of my edits, though I did go up to 3 edits in a day on one occasion in the last month. How can I proceed ? Peroxisome 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think there is a serious problem, and several people agree with you, you can take the case to arbitration. However, if you are the only editor defending a particular version, there's not much you can do. What seems to be the problem? Reading the unabridged paragraph MastCell quotes, it is clear that the AJPH is saying that JS.com is one of "those opposed to regulation". The fact that this is said in two seperate sentences does not mean it isn't explicit. "Attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of "junk" has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation ... One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been so labeled". The verb in the first sentence (attacking with the label of junk) is referenced in the second (so labeled). That's more than implicit. yandman 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "implicit" and innuendo is all that it is. If the authors wanted to state explicitly that JS is "opposed to regulation", they could have done so and provided a reference proving the motivation of JS. They could also have provided a reference to show that JS attacks science because they are opposed to regulation and explicitly said so; but they didn't. Instead, the english literally reads that JS has a number of issues which are labelled as Junkscience. It strikes me that "so labelled" in the second sentence clearly refers to the phrase "label of junk" in the first sentence, and not the verb "attacking"; i am not even sure it is plausible grammar. What is clear is that this is not explicit; there were a raft of ways to make the case explicitly, and these have not been used. If it was explicit, the authors could have provided references for what could potentially be a defamatory statement. Instead they relied upon innuendo, and it is the innuendo which is now on wikipedia, misrepresented as a statement of fact. Peroxisome 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"However, if you are the only editor defending a particular version, there's not much you can do."

Fair point, and a good reason for me not to continue. I note that this argument is no defence for wikipedia if it evers has to contest an action for defamation, nor is it a good method to determine truth. Not your problem, I know: I appreciate you are a volunteer. Peroxisome 00:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Every outside editor who's commented has agreed that your claims are groundless. You have been pointed to the BLP noticeboard innumerable times. Yet you choose to keep making legal threats instead. MastCell ^Talk 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave again

I have proposed, on the community sanction noticeboard, that NCdave (talk · contribs) be banned from the Steven Milloy article and talk page for long-term disruptive and tendentious editing. As you have had some marginal involvement with this editor, I am notifying you of the thread. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LennonAndOno.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LennonAndOno.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Bbfc logo.gif

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Bbfc logo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yandman! I think warning all uploader is the best (sometime source should be given from last one, because he upload different version). If you read {{Di-no source}} it says : Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others.. Thanks!--OsamaK 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Do you have some examples for bot's problems? If there is one let me fix it. Thanks!--OsamaK 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

mmm, if i understand your point well. At English Wikipedia any unsourced images should delete after 7 days from tagging. I can't understand this problem :). Thanks Yandman.--OsamaK 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC

Indeed, but you're tagging images for deletion just because the source information hasn't been formatted correctly. That's not the same thing. For example, consider the logo you warned me about (above). The source information was present (the copyright holder of the image can be considered the source, and here the copyright holder was explicited in the description). However, this image would have been deleted. yandman 08:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sky Eats Airplane. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins

Hi Yandman. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Advert2

Template:Advert2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Advert3

Template:Advert3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Advert4

Template:Advert4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Advert5

Template:Advert5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Juan Martin

Hi,

You have sent me a message saying, "please don't start this again"

I have clicked on your name next to this and scrolled down the page, but can find no reference to Juan Martin.

I don't know what you mean by your message. What exactly is "this" referring to? Whatever "this" is, I am sure I haven't started it before, so how am I starting it again?

With reference to Juan Martin, I have been trying to find confirmation of his place of birth and nationality, but can find none, except for on the Wikipedia website, which I suspect is wrong (and there seems to be a huge quantity of anecdotal and first hand accounts which deny the information you have presented, which is why I would like to have some hard factual evidence to confirm or deny it).

There are no sources cited, which seems highly dubious, as you do not seem to have any proof of the information presented. I would dearly like to have evidence of this information, so I can lay this issue to rest. Please provide this.

In the absence of any such evidence, I believe that the fact that Juan Martin's own website does not state either his place or birth nor his nationality is more than enough evidence of the fact that he was neither born in Malaga, nor is he Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorro666 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

His website says he's a native of andalucia, and "esflamenco.com" clearly states "Birth: 1948 Málaga". Where can I find proof that he wasn't? yandman 09:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any proof either way, which is entirely my point. A newspaper and an online shop list his place of birth as Malaga, but his own webiste doesn't... you can be sure he would trumpet it loudly from the rooftops if it was! "native of Andalucia" is (deliberately?) vague, his publicity used to say "from his early days in Malaga" which was even more vague, but perhaps he is becoming more confident... the whole thing seems highly dubious to me. If a newspaper or online shop stated he was born in Honolulu, Gdansk, Brighton, Jerez, would that be proof? zorro666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorro666 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, a newspaper seems to be a pretty reliable source. If there was any reason whatsoever to believe he wasn't from Andalucia, we'd have to mention it. However, I can't find one reliable source stating otherwise. yandman 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Texas chainsaw massacre.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Texas chainsaw massacre.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Texas chainsaw massacre.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Texas chainsaw massacre.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hawthorne Heights - If only you where lonely - 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hawthorne Heights - If only you where lonely - 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hawthorne Heights Re-Issue.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hawthorne Heights Re-Issue.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HawthorneHeights.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HawthorneHeights.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sky Eats Airplane

Hi, I saw you A7ed this article. Could you please userfy me the history? I'd like to see if I can source and restore it. Chubbles (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Advert5

Template:Advert5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

People may blank their own talk pages whenever they feel like

Re: [1] See WP:BLANKING. If they read the message, they read the message. We don't force people to keep warnings visible inperpetuity. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't. That's why I asked him to desist, at least while the block is in effect. I didn't revert the blanking, nor did I lock his page, so I hardly forced him to keep warnings visible "inperpetuity". yandman 07:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Zyxwvuabcdef (talk · contribs)

I get the feeling he's going to start up again.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

please dont tell me not to blank my talk page

ITS NOT AGAINST THE RULES I CAN DO WHAT I WANT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyxwvuabcdef (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I asked you not to. If it had been against the rules, I wouldn't have asked. yandman 15:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Advert5

Template:Advert5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR (alleged) case and block

Hi, it's been some time since this incident but if you please I would like you to participate in this discussion-to-be, on the talk page of the reviewing admin. All details for the case are provided there but clarifications will follow as well as a possibly simple, time-stamped showdown of the incident and its escalation. Thanks --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Care for a response? If my understanding is correct the reviewing admin (User:Sandstein) has proposed some short of dispute resolution between us. To be quite honest I do not understand the relevance of this in our discussion, so I would greatly appreciate your input. Just to be sure that we start on the right track here, I am not looking for "bad blood" from you or indeed User:Sandstein (nor I am in some short of bruised-ego-quest or something). Please join us. Thanks --157.228.x.x (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting your time with Asdfg12345 in Falun Gong page

He's so obviousely editing in bad faith (after numerous blanking by him I ca no longer assume good faith). The edit in question was cleared by numerous admins, but he still removed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Asdfg12345_Please_put_the_PRC_government_sourcyou_BLANKED_BACK

What can I do to get the Admin's attention? Some action from the admins? Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got my attention... The problem is that this is more of a content dispute than an obvious troll or COI campaigner, so I can hardly block him for having a certain POV. I think it's unfair to say he's editing in bad faith: he's taking into account our comments: look at the talk and article changes these past 2 days. The issue here is more of an english language one, in my opinion: he seems to think that "controversial" is a criticism, and not a neutral statement. Don't worry, sometimes small things here take months to change, but there's no need to rush. Cheers, 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try, but take a look at the stuff he's been blanking and give me your opinion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_fletcher#Editor_Asdfg12345.27s_blanking_of_facts_from_notable_source

Thanks Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI the link cleared by multiple Admin in the ANI is once again been removed by Asdfg12345 Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with extensive discussion, drawing on research, logic, wikipedia policy, historical context, etc.. I thought this is what we're supposed to do. A relevant article, FYR: [2].--Asdfg12345 04:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, consensus is a two-way street. I don't see why anyone has to "discuss" with you to make changes, yet you think you have the right to remove material even if consensus is against you. PS see WP:PROBLEMLINKS and WP:BADSITES--PCPP (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that consensus is a two way street. There has been good discussion about both the controversial thing and also the xiejiao thing, on the Falun Gong talk page. It's ongoing. I would invite you to participate. I noticed that you reverted, but did not explain your decision or engage in any of the discussion. I would be interested to understand why. It can be hard to refuse to polarise discussion or interactions in this context. I read the links you provide, and I appreciate your providing them. In the Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links section, it says "This is not to be confused with legitimate critique." We may figure out some way of having community feedback on whether posting this link about Bobby fletcher is legitimate critique. To be noted, he has chosen to use the same name that he is well known for in editing wikipedia, so it does not seem inappropriate in that light. My thinking is that if he did not want his identity to be known he would not have used that name. Perhaps others have different views, and I would be open to amending my own. For example, we could do an RfC about this, perhaps. If the community felt it was felt inappropriate to post that link then I would remove all instances where I have posted it and apologise. For now (sorry to use yandman's talk page like this!) you may consider contributing to the discussion about the material you inserted, which is ongoing here, I think.--Asdfg12345 07:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please opin

Hi, you watched my ANI and helped edit a little on the FLG page, but the issue presists. I have placed an informal RfC in the relevant Talk page, do you mind giving me your opinion? Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_on_Repeated_Removal_of_Adminstrator_Reviewed_Edits Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Note

Gave you a reply on my page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD on Order of the Cosmic Engineers

Hi, I'd ask that your restore the article on the basis of http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/blackford20090123/, published on the 24th. Given that there was a fairly solid sense that there were 2-4 debatable sources to begin with this would clearly put it over the top. I suspected it was a random blog, but given the board of directors for the site, I'd say it is a solid (if fringe-ish) source. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must say this source is far more useful than those that were proposed at the time of the AfD. I'm worried the blog itself is a bit too "specialised" to be taken as a major source (it's hardly the guardian). The guys who founded the site seem pretty important, and so does the guy who wrote the article (to a lesser extent), and I'd see no problem in having a page about the website itself, but does this make it enough of a major source to be used as the foundation of an article? I'd suggest you take this to deletion review, but I'm worried that (with it being an organisation and not, say, a specific technical article) without at least one (if only passing) mention in a "classic" source, the deletion won't be reverted. Tell me if you do decide to list it, I'll follow the discussion. yandman 08:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be sending to DR when real life allows. Could you provide me with a copy of the article as it last stood so I can see the sources that existed at the time? Either a history undelete or userfication or just a list of the sources would be great. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. User talk:Hobit/Temp. Give me a call when you don't need it anymore. yandman 13:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:3RR

Thanks for at least having a look at my case on the 3RR board. However, I must disagree with your verdict because unlike the other editor, I didn't go over 3RR. I actually specifically avoiding doing so since I was well aware of said rule and respect it. I don't expect you to take my word for it. So here are difs as proof: My first revert; my second revert; my third revert. That's three reverts in the space of 24 hours, the maximum allowed per 3RR:

Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.

I did not go over that, unlike the other editor who's POV campaign compelled him to breach it anyway. I just wanted to set the record straight, even if you don't decide to revise your verdict. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Midnight, thanks for being polite about this. It's not always easy keeping a cool head. Actually, you did breach 3RR (see my reply on the 3RR board), but that's not the point. Discussions need to take place on the talk pages, so that others can weigh in and consensus can be reached, rather than in edit summaries. Cheers, yandman 08:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarizing buddy

He's at it again. I don't want to go to the trouble of filing a sock report, but just look at his two edits so far: inserting the entire text of news articles into WP (and the first one is the same news article that 121.72.249.112, whom you recently blocked, was stealing). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. yandman 10:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On revertion

I did not revert anything, I sumarized it. Read it carefully!. On poor english, please make it good english, by non-reverting, but by editing it. And, on the edit war, actually, I think we should find a suitable solution. Thanks. By the way, you may join us in Talk:Cham Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination)

Hello! Please reconsider your close here. When it closed as can be seen in the edit history I was in the process of revising it substantially using search results from Google News and Google Books. And in any event, there was clearly no consensus in this discussion to delete. Moreover, the comparison in the closing statement to similar articles being deleted is not really fair, because this article contained out of universe information on innovations, history, and reception that is absent from similar lists and this makes it more of a contrast to those lists than a comparison. But most importantly the content was previously merged to Age_of_Mythology#Units some months back and so at a minimum the edit history needs to be undeleted with a redirect created instead. A satisfactory result here would be either a re-close as “no consensus“ or undeletion of the edit history and a redirect to Age of Mythology#Units with a note on the AfD explaining that. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think there was a broad consensus to delete (especially if you count the redirects, merges). The precedents set as well as the various points put forward in favour of deletion (especially WP:GAMECRUFT #6 "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts.") were more convincing. The arguments, and the decision, had nothing to do with the state of the article, but rather its goals. I didn't redirect, because I can't imagine people typing it in as a search term, and seeing as the main article already had a pretty good section on units, I didn't think people would want to merge much. I can always undelete and redirect if you're that worried about the GFDL, but to be honest, I can't see any blatant copy-pastes from one article to the other that would necessitate a GFDL history. Do you know when this copy was done? yandman 16:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I count 10 keep 7 delete 4 merge redirect. Ikip (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9th_Level_Games 2 deletes, 3 keep/merges, it was deleted.

and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Order_of_Cosmic_Engineers 5 delete 9 keep, it appears as if you are not taking consensus into account, and are using AfDs closures as a platform for your own policy views. Ikip (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your assumption of good faith, Ikip. I userfied 9th level games, so that the content could be merged (some of which I did myself). Therefore I satisfied 4 out of 5 !voters. As for cosmic engineers, the point is to look at the quality of the arguments put forward, and just because a string of IP editors chip in with comments such as "This organization promotes revolutionary scientific ideas and works towards building a better future for humanity" does not mean the arguments weigh towards keeping. It is interesting that you omitted my most recent AfD close, which was a keep. Next time, please keep the accusations to yourself. Thankyou. yandman 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you count the redirects and merges, those are calls not for it to be deleted, but to redirect or merge which is in between keeping and deleting. The video game guidelines call for exceptions and they are a guideline. The policy of WPPRESERVE trumps that by calling for preservation of content. In any event, the content was merged by myself and others back around August (at the time I was regretfully ignorant of having to say "merged from" in the edit summaries; but the various edits that I and others made to make the unit section in the article and some was merged to the reception section of the main article, too) and I believe some content was also merged earlier. If you would be willing to undelete and redirect and just leave a brief note in the AfD explaing as much, i.e. in effect it being a merge and redirect (even if it's a protected redirect), I would greatly appreciate it. I truly do believe that the article does have additional potential and perhaps it would be helpful undeleting its talk page as well to discuss the other sources I hadn't yet added. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you as to the "position" of redirect/merge. For me, those are "deletes". The main point is that they don't think the article needs to be there. The rest is relatively secondary. For a start, who is going to type in "List of units in the Age of Mythology series" instead of "Age of Mythology"? Secondly, I always userfy (or main-article-talk-pagify) deleted articles if the authors feel they need to extract some content (just read my talk page). If you feel there is content that merits including in the main article, ask me and I'll put it on the main article's talk page. yandman 21:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no other way to read "redirect" or "merge" than as "redirect" or "merge." If those editors wanted it deleted, they would say "delete." Otherwise, they are saying some of the content is salvageable, so keep the edit history available from which we can add that content. Or it's a legitimate search term, so don't just redlink it. We don't make inferences opposite of what people outright write. Who is going to type "List of...", well, I do that all the time here and I reckon the thousands of people who create, work on, and come here specifically for lists do the same. If you are okay with userfying it or posting the content on the talk page, then it would actually be much simpler to just undelete it and redirect in mainspace, which no one will realistically have a problem with, especially since deletion was the minority opinion in both AfDs. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to side with A Nobody on this one. On the surface, it doesn't look like there was a consensus for deletion especially in the light of viable alternatives such as merging or redirection. I would also kindly urge to reconsider restoring the article in some sort, at a minimum as a redirect. MuZemike 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a DRV on that AFD so we can get some other eyes on this AFD closure. I'm using the exact same rationale I mentioned a couple of minutes ago. MuZemike 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, what would be the point of redirection? Who on earth is going to fall on the redirect first? yandman 21:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I and I know from others who create and work on these articles actually search for them by typing in "List of x". Anyway, regardless of the DRV, I respectfully request and hope that nevertheless you will please still undelete and redirect, even if as a protected redirect, as I wholeheartedly believe that there is mergeable content from what I added last night and in any event, it is a case where there was not decisive calls for deletion and really, an undelete and redirect to the obvious location would be a fair and reasonable compromise solution as much as I'd prefer it be kept or changed to no consensus. As I am a strong inclusionist who has history with a half dozen or so editors, sadly, any DRV I participate in is like clockwork going to be flooded by those accounts just reflexively calling to endorse as some have even admitted on and off wiki to go counter to me regardless of the actual merits of my argument. As you can tell from the AfD, the DRV is likely to just needlessly escalate tensions and what have you and I urge you to make the case moot, by just undeleting and redirecting as a fair and reasonable middle ground. The deletion people are satisfied by not having an individual article, the keepers are satisfied by at least having their edits still visible and having a place from which to draw possibly useful and mergeable content. Please help resolve this. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about I put it in your userspace so you can pull what you want out of it? As for the redirect, you have my blessing if you think it's that important (remember that this project is for the readers, not the editors), the page isn't protected. yandman 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Were I to merge anything from a userspace article, I would still have to leave the history from which I merged from public, which means keeping it in my userspace indefinitely. Thus, I think it would be more simple for all of us to just undelete the main space article and redirect after undeletion. And given that the page has thousands of monthly page views, it does indeed benefit not just the editors calling for undeletion here, but also and thus most importantly the readers having the mainspace redirect and the edit history in which curious readers can see the old versions of the pre-redirected pages, i.e. it's a way to make everyone happy in some way. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Email

Replied. God, Wikipedia is crawling today. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Altsoft

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Altsoft. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Userfied list of units

Hello! If you'd rather it be in my userspace than yours, that is fine by me as I am still finding content to improve it with. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure why you're modifying it. Surely you should be making changes to the main article? I userfied this so we could copy across the content we need. yandman 22:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I pledge to eventually make this article not just acceptable for mainspace but into a featured list. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User talk:Constructive editor unblock request

I have reviewed User talk:Constructive editor unblock request. He seems to indicate that he will stop edit warring, and is interested in using proper methods to resolve his dispute. His contribs history just prior to his block seems to bear that out. Can we unblock him, given that he can always be reblocked for longer if he is insincere? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. yandman 13:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Grassy ass.. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bitter sean. yandman 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3rr thread that needs proper attention

Hey, Can you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Zencv reported by Afroghost (Result: ). There has been lots of background drama behind this issue (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and User talk:Afroghost), but the underlying edit-warring issue was never resolved. The thread needs an objective analysis from an outsider so I'm bringing it to your personal attention. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got much time right now, but I'll try and have a look tomorrow morning. yandman 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Moved from my page:

Ikip, spamming [3] [4] [5] attacks against established editors is a great way to lose the button labelled "edit this page". I respect your devotion to rescuing articles, and you do a lot of great work, but this type of behaviour will get you in trouble. Relax, make yourself a cup of tea, and take into account that everyone here is giving their free time (or, as in my case, their employer's time...) to improve this project. Thanks, yandman 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the message, I know we are all here only to improve wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are a prick

Just thought others might like to know. Mwalla (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Thanks! yandman 14:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yandman, I love you too

WikiThanks

Thank you for your valuable ideas about that template.

RE: "you are a prick"

Wow, nice to see you have some fans too. Having to work with veteran editors, everyone is so cordial to me by comparison (But that said, working with veteran editors, I am reminded of the New York Review of Books gem, "Your words are polite...but your actions are obscene." . Must be a new user who doesn't know how to be passive agressive yet. If he needs any pointers on making his words polite, but his actions obsene, have him talk to me or any other veteran editor. LOL. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)