User talk:Yappy2bhere

Hello, Yappy2bhere! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion nomination of Everything (software)

A tag has been placed on Everything (software), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Chzz  ►  18:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Everything (software)

The article Everything (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

For inclusion, an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I cannot find appropriate references to satisfy the general notability guidelines. (Declined speedy deletion as blatant promotion)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Everything (software)

I have nominated Everything (software), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything (software). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Triplestop x3 03:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you're not going to like this, but please accept I am trying to be helpful. The argument you make at WP:Articles for deletion/Everything (software) is so common that Wikipedia has a page on it called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It's worth a read if you want to make a stronger case to keep.

To answer the points you make at AfD:

• 7-Zip won an award (referenced to sourceforge.net);
• sed is the subject of several books by third-party authors (referenced in Further reading);
• XYplorer was prominently mentioned in several magazine articles (referenced in External links);

After you mentioned Mp3tag at AfD, an editor added links to a review and two books to make sure it met WP:Notability.

The weak one from a notability point of view is FreeOTFE and frankly, I don't think it would survive AfD either in its current state.

My advice still is to try to find books, magazine articles or reviews that mention Everything and add them to the article if you want it to be kept. If it should be deleted you can always ask for a copy and work on it in your userspace, once you've found sources that establish notability. Hope this helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My, this just keeps getting better. Losing the very useful article on FreeOTFE was certainly not a result I wanted. My point was not that "other stuff exists" and this is no worse, but that "other stuff exists", it's good stuff despite its warts, and so is this. I'd add as a corollary: Leave them alone - they're good enough for now, and can only get better. An encyclopedia should be comprehensive, and that includes "RexxS's Two Cats" if you like as long as you tell no lies and disclose your relationship with them against potential conflicts of interest.

Explaining why 7-Zip et al. are notable is very helpful. I had a narrower view of which references were relevant to notability. I admit I completely overlooked the books cited in the sed article; I've wasted so much time chasing down print works inappropriately cited in Wikipedia that I'm blind to them now.

That was fast work on Mp3tag. The links point to two books auf Deutsch which have not been translated into English by a single author who has copied the relevant text verbatim from one book to the other. Fine by me, if it preserves the article on Mp3tag, but is it acceptable for an editor to cite his own book? It was illuminating that a CNET review carries such weight; I hadn't expected that.

You needn't worry that I'll kill the messenger. I believe I'm right, I've aggressively advocated my position, and I'm sorry if I somehow roughed you up in the process. I understand your points, indeed they represent accepted academic practice. However, the sources that we really consult about technical magic like software are marginalized by these standards, and we don't really consult the sources deemed reliable by the standards because they just aren't very useful. I assure you, I don't start at microsoft.com or apple.com when my laptop falls ill, and I'd wager that few people do.

Until yesterday I believed that Wikipedia collectively recognized on some level this discrepancy between the formal and useful value of sources and tolerated it for the sake of comprehensiveness, functioning more as a peer-reviewed blog than as the online incarnation of the pedantically correct but incomplete Encyclopaedia Britannica. You see, I don't use Wikipedia for information available from conventional sources, so my understanding of Wikipedia was biased, and I find it a bit trying to be told to cleave to standards that would doom many of the articles most useful to me on Wikipedia. I understand the utility of standards, but I wonder if killing all the ugly babies is good policy. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

In Chzz's RfA I made a claim that you had a conflict of interest regarding Everything (software).

I was wrong and I apologize. I based this claim on a misreading of the talk page of the article, where you were asserting that the author of the software should be considered an authority. Clearly that was meant to defend your use of primary sources, not a declaration that you were the author. It was wrong of me to place a COI tag on the article.

I still believe that the article does not merit inclusion at this time. Our verifiability policy and reliable sources policy both declare that the sources used are not appropriate. But at the same time, your use of them as references does not count as original research, and Chzz's tag was also not appropriate.

Both tags have since been removed from the article, and I would not reapply them. In fact, if they were reapplied I would remove them.

You are not a bad editor. You are a new editor, and I think you've made mistakes, but I made mistakes when I started and I still make mistakes (as you well know!). It's very likely that your first article will be deleted, and I hope that if that occurs you aren't soured by the experience. More than once I have seen articles deleted that I spent hours of work on. It's not a good feeling. But I've looked at your contributions and you've made a number of very good changes to articles that I'm sure will stay. I particularly appreciate this edit you made to Comparison of 3D computer graphics software (I'm a fan of Sketchup by the way). You're definitely a better editor than I was when I started.

Anyway, I just wanted to leave a note to apologize and hopefully to let you know that at least one person appreciates what you're doing at Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not leave personal attacks or name-calling in edit summaries, as you did at Feral child. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly personal, but if you want to claim credit for that bit of lazy editorial work, fine. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Priceless. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I too would like you to stop with the personal attacks. You've called my edits vandalism [1][2], called me dishonest [3], and made sexist and offensive comments [4] while telling me to "cheer up". I appreciate the feedback you've been providing as a process moves from essay to policy, but please comment on content, not on contributors. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agism, perhaps, but not sexism. You simply pouted ("*Sigh* Whatever.") because I had reverted your edit instead of cogently addressing my objection. Repeatedly redirecting an article to skirt WP policy is vandalism, as is redirecting an article into a dead-end. You've been treated fairly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly believe my edits are vandalism, do something about it or stop harassing me. Personal attacks are not an appropriate way to handle disputes. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Priceless. Yappy2bhere (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(And now User:Explodicle is wiki-dead.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jaikoz

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jaikoz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaikoz. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

AfD nomination of Tha Grustle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tha Grustle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tha Grustle. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave me alone. --NewOrleans4Life (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop cribbing copyrighted content. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(And now User:NewOrleans4Life is wiki-dead.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Through the pain

This edit looks a little iffy. Why do you feel it isn't notable despite charting in three countries?—Kww(talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Because there's no article really save for the chart ranks, and no material from which to improve the article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On another topic, is the UK R&B chart tucked away inside Template:singlechart somewhere? Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. No online archive to point to. I usually remove the UK R&B chart when I spot it because it isn't verifiable online.—Kww(talk) 19:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Billboard/Keri Hilson

Actually if you bothered to read discussions at WP:record charts you would see that AllMusic is the most credible source along with aCharts for U.S. charts. it is widely known that Billboard's website constantly plays up and show's incorrect info like it intially not showing that Get Your Money Up had charted. Allmusic is so credible that Billboard discographies are actually mirrored from allmusic. I have not inflated any of keri hilson's chart achievements. im not even that much of a fan... Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, squirt, Billboard is the primary source for all Billboard charts. AllMusic is a derivative source of Billboard charts, so if you want to argue that AllMusic is "the most credible source" along with the WP:BADCHARTS aCharts then you'd better cite a reliable reference for this extraordinary claim and not vaguely refer me to a WP Talk page. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ODNB articles

You claimed that I would be illegally distributing a copyrighted article if I sent you a copy of the ODNB article. That is untrue. The ODNB website includes an "email this article" feature. I suggest you ask at your local library for access, you would find it a wonderful resoource to help you improve your editing. DuncanHill (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"You may request privacy, and I may honour such a request, but I am not bound by it." You are an unprincipled boob, DuncanHill. Of course I am not going to give you my email address. Go away. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rude.

You're rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.60.1 (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Disney

I am not writing from Disney.com so I have no idea what you are talking about so byeeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.60.1 (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC) You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia forever if you keep adding stuff that is not true so stop before you become banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.60.1 (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

(And now User:PassaMethod is wiki-dead.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Xmas socks

Hi.

In this comment, you have accused me of sock-puppeting.

In addition, I find it grossly insulting for you to claim that "Chzz had been evicted from Wikipedia after he was caught trying to steal an admin for himself with a sockpuppet army"

I would like a full retraction and apology. You are grossly mistaken. I hope you will discuss this, and we can come to some accord without further action.

On my part, if you will simply strike your comments, I'd be happy to move along. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You recall of course this investigation during your disastrous bid bid for adminship. The truth is ever a defense against the charge of libel, Chzz. Get stuffed. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "charge of libel" above. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  22:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't put up with a comment saying I thought Chzz had been evicted from Wikipedia after he was caught trying to steal an admin for himself with a sockpuppet army squadron.. You can strike it, or you can raise your concerns at an appropriate venue. That's the choice. If you will not, I shall raise the concern on an appropriate forum. You must either strike the comment, or prove your accusation has any validity whatsoever; I suggest you choose the former path, immediately, because I assure you that the latter is absolutely untrue,  Chzz  ►  00:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Exerpted from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz/Archive:

• "An issue has been raised at User:Chzz's RfA that he may have been engaged in sockpuppetry." User:GrooveDog
• "All available technical evidence is unusually strong in supporting the finding of sockpuppetry. Technically, it doesn't get any better... Confirmed User:Chzz = User:Fish4Trees =User:龗" User:Rlevse
• "The overlap on the two elections is definitely suspicious" User:Nathan
• "What I found on CU goes way, way beyond chance level." User:Rlevse

Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are merely quoting from allegations what were unproven, or you are misinterpreting what was said. And you are jumping into a lynch-mob from two years ago.

"Confirmed User:Chzz = User:Fish4Trees =User:龗"? Of course. I used "User:Fish4Trees" and I emailed it to arb, telling them, before I even used it. The other one - of course it is the same PC; I never said it was not.

"overlap on the two elections" - he (龗) tried to vote in an election; yep. He wasn't eligible. Do you think I wouldn't know that?

I accidentally made *one* edit from the account of my ex-landlord, about 2 years ago. When he left the PC logged in as him. He'd edited some pages I had. And for that, you're hanging me?

If you don't believe anything else, ask yourself one question - why would I do that? What would be the point?

Just listen a bit;

Maybe we can break it down.

1. "I thought Chzz had been evicted from Wikipedia"
2. "after he was caught trying to steal an admin for himself"
3. "with a sockpuppet army squadron"

Any basis whatsoever for any of those strong accusations?

You're claiming I'm sock-puppeting as Lexein - who is a person I know very little, and who is, I believe, in a different damn continent to me.

So - do you have any basis for this strong attack on my character? Strike it, or put it forwards for further discussion. But I will not stand for accusations with no basis. Best,  Chzz  ►  01:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISPUTE, WP:SPI

Yappy2bhere, about this edit - as I always say (if you'd read my edit history), please go ahead and just start any dispute resolution process with/about me, anytime, and in this case, please start an WP:SPI investigation. If I were to confront you about it, I'd say, "Stop mumbling and making insinuations, be a grownup and get on with it." Cheers. --Lexein (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you stating that Lexein is not a sockpuppet of Chzz, or merely claiming that it can't be proven? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be better for you to stop lying, stop insinuating, and stop assuming bad faith. I, User:Lexein, am not a sock, and any and all investigation will prove that, to the extent that any proof can be made of a negative. But thank you for so publicly declaring bad faith. Begin the investigation. --Lexein (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Either provide something more concrete that Chzz and Lexein are the same user (i.e. something substantially more than that they have agreed on something), or else call off the hounds. Your attacks on both editors are undermining your credibility and are becoming disruptive towards both said editors. --MuZemike 02:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You've got your facts wrong, MuZemike. I haven't attacked either editor, I've made no accusations, I own no hounds, and I'm a WP editor so I have no credibility to undermine - that's why we cite, MuZemike. I did express my surprise that Chzz, who'd been caught using socks in his RfA discussion, was again permitted to edit. Since editing another user's Talk contribution is a bit unusual (and suspicious, given Chzz's history as a puppeteer), I did ask Lexein an obvious question. I've responded to Chzz's subsequent complaints and questions with facts and citations to support them.

What exactly is your purpose here, MuZemike, and what do you hope to accomplish? Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"I've made no accusations" and "Chzz, who'd been caught using socks"? "suspicious, given Chzz's history as a puppeteer"? Sounds like accusations to me. How about, "he was caught trying to steal an admin for himself"? Or "with a sockpuppet army squadron"?  Chzz  ►  04:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

supra Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, seen that. So, will you please strike out your accusations?  Chzz  ►  04:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Only those that are unsubstantiated. Now shooo! Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the whole sorry affair [5]. I hope that is the end of this; if it is, fine. If it's not, I'm quite happy to pursue it on whichever fora are necessary. But, if we're done, we're done, and can move along. Best Xmas wishes,  Chzz  ►  04:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, deleting other users' postings from a Talk page in order to suppress an unpleasant fact is bad practice, but if you apologize for misquoting me in order to insult and abuse me, then fine. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A) I doubt we will agree about much, but B) I still respect your opinion, and C) especially if we can at least agree to disagree; D) happy to forget this, but E) regarding the background, I'd actually really like to explain that, in private, if you want. chzzlive.co.uk and, well, that's about it. With respect,  Chzz  ►  05:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hugh "Skip" McGee III

• - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hugh_.22Skip.22_McGee_III

Hi - I have removed your disputed desired addition , as is usual with BLP articles under dispute - there is a report at the noticeboard - please join in there and see where consensus resolves, thanks - Youreallycan 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

blp - if in doubt leave it out

Hi, please don't replace the undue version without consensus - there are three good faith objectors to your enlarged version at the noticeboard report, wait for consensus to arise. It is standard procedure to revert such disputed recent additions to the stable version during discussions. As to the coi question - I live in the united kingdom and am only interested in the weight of your version being undue and the low quality of some of the sources. Thanks Youreallycan 12:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind you that it was you who began bowdlerizing the disputed section after it was taken to the noticeboard by another editor, who chose not to remove it, then cautioned me to seek consensus before continuing to edit before continuing yourself to edit the disputed section without further discussion. The first might have been a WP:GOODFAITH edit, but your subsequent activity belies that assumption. This is the second time you've excised this episode from the article in this manner, although only the first time using the account "Youreallycan". Your complaints about sourcing are spurious and indefensible - all referenced articles rely on the subject's own letter for support, and your issue with Gawker, for example, is your own peculiar quirk, one not shared by other WP editors. In the future if you feel that a source is flawed, please cite precedent for your opinion before removing it, or at least fully explain your objection on the Talk page. Otherwise, your edit will be reverted as vandalism.

It doesn't matter where you live now. Please answer my question directly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(And now User:Youreallycan is wiki-dead) Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at LittleBenW's talk page. LittleBen (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)  

• Please see Talk:Comparison of web browser engines#Requested move. LittleBen (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Also proposed that categories be fixed. LittleBen (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Happy (Yappy?) New Year! Looks as if Comparison of web browser engines RM is going nowhere. :-( LittleBen (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wu's method of characteristic set‎‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This attack started as WP:OUTING and WP:Hound in the summary of your edit [6]. It is WP:Hounding, because the only plausible motivation of your edit in Wu's method of characteristic set‎‎ is that you are unhappy of the tags {{notability}}, {{unsourced}}, {{primary}} and/or {{coi}} that have put (or restored after you had removed them without addressing the issue) in several articles, which are or were linked to by comparison of computer algebra systems, and for which, viewing the information given in these articles, these links give an undue weight. D.Lazard (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC) ‎

Disclosing your WP:COI is not a personal attack. Please stop WP:EDITWARRING with other editors. Since you are a mathematician and prima facie adept at logical reasoning, your analysis here can only can only be construed as willfully disingenuous, and too your systematic dismantling of Comparison of computer algebra systems after your attempt to delete it was uniformly opposed at AfD. Several of your recent edits border on WP:VANDALism; please try to contribute constructively in the future. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no connection with any of this, and I have to say that I am concerned by the behaviour of User:Yappy2bhere. If you believe that an editor has a COI, or any other issues with editing an article, you should raise it with that editor, or in an appropriate forum such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Terse notes in a edit summary are not adequate. Deltahedron (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The context that may be needed here is that D.Lazard has made himself the hunter of conflicts of interest, and I'm aware of one occasion where he was rather persistent about a COI accusation that was not entirely warranted because it had lapsed and other people had taken over the relevant article. For him to have edited with COI himself would rather undermine his standing on Wikipedia, imo. My view is that D.Lazard could have made more constructive efforts to rectify the situations he highlights, for instance by editing the articles to re-establish neutral POV. Instead, he has sought to get entire articles deleted, seemingly wherever possible. Given D.Lazard's very persistent/bordering on obsessive behaviour, I could understand that other contributor's feathers get ruffled. Now, having said that, IP addresses can be sensitive business, so let me just place the link to WP:OVERSIGHT here in case it needs to be pursued. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about this claimed behaviour by D.Lazard addresses my concerns about the behaviour of Yappy2bhere. Deltahedron (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

... and my concerns are not allayed by this either. I suggest that you review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and especially the summary Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. Deltahedron (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You're on the wrong talk page, son - take yourself to User talk:D.Lazard and discuss your concerns there. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned here with your behaviour. Meanwhile, after this, I suggest that consensus at Talk:Comparison of computer algebra systems on inclusion criteria should be reached before either of you makes further reverts. Deltahedron (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, that edit's been reverted by User:D.Lazard who elected to misread WP:CSC in order to do it, once again playing WP:GAMEs to promote a personal agenda. Please stop posturing on my Talk page; you're becoming tiresome. Take your opinions on Comparison of computer algebra systems to Talk:Comparison of computer algebra systems, and your hollow solicitousness to User talk:D.Lazard. (I wonder why an even-handed fellow like yourself hasn't done that already.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Forced Entry (band)

Hello Yappy2bhere. If you are having difficulty understanding template messages, please take a look at the documentation. You may find these helpful: Wikipedia:Template messages, Template:Notability, Template:Fanpov, Template:Refimprove, Template:Unreliable sources. On the page for each template is usually information regarding use of the template. These and many other template messages are often placed on articles as part of the Wikipedia:New pages patrol, providing information about issues that can be corrected. Removing template messages should occur only after the issues they address are fixed. Removing them without fixing anything is considered disruptive, and increases the amount of work other editors must do to improve wikipedia. If you don't understand a template message, leave it were it is and allow other editors to work on the article. Alternatively, you may want to start a discussion on the talk page for the article, or on a user talk page, so you can gain a better understanding. As Template:Multiple issues says, "Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page". You may also find these helpful: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, more boilerplate. I understand the messages, Becky dear; I don't understand to which elements of the article you think they're applicable. Unfortunately, you've been unwilling (or unable to improve the article yourself, and unwilling or unable to explicate your objects so that I can improve it myself. One suspects that you'd rather the article wasn't improved at all to improve your chance for a kill at AfD. Oh, and I see too that you've been playing fast and loose with the truth at AfD. Naughty, naughty. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2020

Your recent editing history at Stop Funding Fake News shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 09:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 --DBigXrayᗙ 09:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't waste your time, son -- you're not in the right, you're not an admin, and you either don't understand WP policy or cynically contort it to achieve your own ends. Whether it's stupidity or audacity, you'll need more than chutzpah and a template to bully me. Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Yuva_Morcha. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

You should remove the personal attack there DBigXrayᗙ 10:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't cry wolf, boy. You've not been attacked, neither there nor at AfD. You're a WP:BULLY with a big axe to grind. Take care that it doesn't fall on you, friend. Yappy2bhere (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yappy2bhere, I am neither a boy, your son nor your friend. Kindly keep these relationships for your loved ones. If you keep repeating these personal attacks, I am going to drag you to ANI or WP:AE for sanctions. DBigXrayᗙ 11:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You should heed my advice. Yappy2bhere (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yappy2bhere, you too. DBigXrayᗙ 11:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(And now User:DBigXray is wiki-dead.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yappy2bhere, the discussion has been closed as too convoluted, it is stored here. After DBigXRay pointed out that you called him son, diller, boy, and talked about axes falling on him, two admins concurred that your behaviour was condescending and unambiguously rude, and one of them stated that the next incivil edit should certainly result in a block. I hope you will take this opportunity to change your behaviour to avoid further sanctions. Much as you were aggrieved in your conflict, you should avoid such language. You might not come off scot-free next time. starship.paint (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020 (2)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Stop Funding Fake News. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(And now User:SharabSalam is wiki-dead.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sherry Jackson

The source is the LA Times. Paenggoy (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies; it was a bad edit. There was no cite in the infobox and I didn't see the covering source below the fold in the article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I apologize for the recent edits, but some of the things that I edited, which the given sources, I can prove are correct, like Bad and Boujee being in the key of E♭ Minor, and Static Major not being the producer of Lil Wayne's Lollipop. Let's talk about this before you decide to wrongfully block me from editing ever again. (P.S., I'm admittedly new to Wikipedia, so I'm not going to do everything perfect, but the things I do know I should be free to correct.)

--SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Cite a source that says "B and B's in a minor key" and I'm fine with the change. The cited sheet music has a G-flat signature and starts in E-flat minor; the problem is that the title of that page says "in Gb Major", so you either need a more definitive source for the key or a source that strongly suggests that the signature should be interpreted as the minor and not the major.

You need a WP:RELIABLE source that names Static Major as featured performer in Lollipop; your most recent change used a user-generated source, not a WP:RS. The Vibe article doesn't really say what role he had in Lollipop, so you can probably strike off "produced" as WP:UNSOURCED.

The real issue though is that you appear to be hiding questionable edits: marking substantive changes as "minor", writing edit summaries that don't summarize what was actually done, and most recently removing the vexing source that (mis-)identified the key of Bad and Boujee and replacing it with an irrelevant source so that you could make an unsourced change on the sly. That's just wrong.

Changing a fact is never a minor edit. A misunderstanding perhaps; the rest, not so much. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Bro... as a musician and someone who studies music I can guarantee every edit I've made is justified, and given how every other person is dissatisfied with the way you've removed their edits or personaly attacked them, I don't necessarily think you were in the right to do what you did but carry on I guess...

--SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROVOKE#Examples of poking #10: "Addressing an editor you're not on particularly good terms with as 'dude'". Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDing.

I now have reason to believe you are hounding new users, so consider this your one chance to explain yourself. —moonythedwarf 22:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't; you only wish you did. "Hounding ... is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Hasn't happened. I've (1) replied to a question SHUTUPGOODLORD placed on my talk page, and (2) expressed concern about SHUTUPGOODLORD's tactics in evading editorial policies at a discussion I was summoned to. I've (3) repeatedly WP:WARNed SHUTUPGOODLORD in the order I reverted edits, though not since replying at ANI save for a bad move made contrary to consensus tagged, predictably, as a minor change [7].

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Which edit do you have a problem with, and why?

"Hounding" would be, well, going to someone's talk page, accusing them of bad behavior without saying where or how they behaved badly and implying you were sole judge and jury though lacking any real authority, suggesting that he was afoul of WP policy when in fact he'd only run foul of your own standards of wiki-comportment. It all seems very familiar, but it doesn't sound like me. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

First off, please maintain WP:CIVILity and do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS toward your fellow editors. You have consistently failed to do this in every single encounter I have had with you, and I do not have the time nor energy to deal with editors who cannot act civilly and feel the need to resort to policy violations in order to make an argument.

Second off, you are WP:BITEing. You know this, and have been told off for it already in the AN/I thread. You need to review how to properly use warnings, as you are consistently misusing them.

Third off, your "wiki-dead" comments are absolutely unacceptable, and I must insist you immediately cease violating WP:NPA. You have a strong history of this, and WP:GRAVEDANCING is absolutely unacceptable. —moonythedwarf 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

And here you are again with no other purpose than to put the fear of God in me. Don't presume to tell me what I know; what I do know is that you have a very loose snap on WP policy.

1. It isn't WP:UNCIVIL to point out that your behavior toward me is a much better example of WP:HOUND than my behavior toward user:SHUTUPGOODLORD. You haven't reverted, revised, or even reviewed the relevant edits, neither here nor at ANI. You didn't provide any factual basis for your unfounded accusation and ignored my request that you substantiate your claim. Instead you attacked with still more unfounded accusations.

   Nor is it WP:UNCIVIL to ask two editors who arrived at WP within a year 3 months of one another, fully-formed as if from the head of Zeus and with a common interest in editing the German WP [8][9], whether they were two users or one given that they arrived here within hours of one another to tag-team me [10]ff. even though only one of them showed up at ANI.

   You're evidently tracking my edits, have apparently found nothing wrong with them, yet continue to harangue me here with a melange of misinterpreted WP policy and untutored opinion. That is not an aspersion, that is a substantiated claim that you are engaging in the very behavior that you accused me of.

2. By comparison, I clearly explained to user:SHUTUPGOODLORD how he might make his changes conform to WP policy, and why they would. I explained that his "minor" edits seemed WP:SNEAKY, that replacing a source with a "source" was definitely WP:SNEAKY, distilled WP:MINOR into one line for guidance, and linked the info page. Evidently it was helpful [11] but not persuasive [12].

   There are 18 points in WP:BITE#Please do not bite the newcomers. Take a moment, read the guideline, then kindly enumerate those I've trodden upon and explain exactly how I've done that.

3. WP:GRAVEDANCING is an essay, opinion, WP:NOTPOLICY. (Which is itself an essay, not policy.) "Absolutely unacceptable" is a hyperbolic misrepresentation of the article you reference. Not everything WP: is policy--an experienced editor should know that.

   The "epitaphs" are not an attack on anyone (for goodness sake read the policies before you try to apply them) but rather footnotes summarizing an outcome. I didn't believe context was necessary, but user:SHUTUPGOODLORD ("given how every other person is dissatisfied with the way you've removed their edits or personaly attacked them") made me realize that some context is necessary.

   You're not the first apoplectic editor to make an unsubstantiated accusation here and then double-down on the error by contorting WP policy. Let the "epitaphs" be your Beatrice, lest they be your Cassandra.

"I now have reason to believe..." suggests that you've been stalking me, awaiting the chance to attack; "consider this your one chance..." is a threat. "consistently failed to [treat me civilly] in every single encounter I have had with you" is a misstatement of fact. You can't be bothered to cite even once instance because "I do not have the time nor energy to deal with [you]", betraying your intent to waste my time by forcing me to defend myself against accusations that you cannot defend. You've made several accusations against me, supported none of them with policy or diffs, and when asked to substantiate your claims responded with yet more specious accusations. You presume my conscious, malicious intent to contravene WP policy ("You know this...") even though the edits in question were deemed correct per WP policy, and misrepresent your own opinion at ANI as a consensus finding ("... and have been told off for it already..."). (Or is "encourage" a euphemism for "punish" or "humiliate" where you're from? Certainly it isn't here.)

Stop tracking my edits, and stop editing my talk page, per WP:HOUND. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

If you continue with your sarcasm and snark such as your edits at WP:AN/I, then I or another admin will likely block you for disruptive editing. — Ched (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. If you mean my reply to user:LindsayH, it wasn't intended to be sarcastic or snarky. She stated her opinion without seeming either biased or malicious, and did seem genuinely interested in providing helpful advice. I wanted to acknowledge the latter without seeming either combative or abrasive; I've been repeatedly accused of both. I can strike it or remove it if it offends. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

... OK, evidently it did offend [13]. I'll change it now. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. You may be right about the music items, IDK. But historically if there's a thread discussing sanctions of a person, then it's best to be on your best there. Giving them fuel to add to the support block/ban/sanction cause doesn't usually end well. Also, with respect to 4TheLuvOfFax/SHUTUPGOODLORD, I'd ask for a bit of space for them. They are obviously new, and as such will make mistakes. If you are the only one pointing out those mistakes, or if you are pointing them out often, it just has the appearance of hounding. You can ping another editor, ask an admin, or even post to me about issues that concern you, and I'll try to talk to them. They seem to be open to being corrected and nudged in the right direction, and I really hate seeing people leave with the "well I guess I can't do anything right" attitude or belief. Just my own take on it all. Thanks again and best. — Ched (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it won't end well, and you're not the first to say it ("...and (dear me, a bit silly) within this very report..."). I'll give 4TheLuvOfFax/SHUTUPGOODLORD more space. My primary concern was that he replaced a source with a "source" [14]; very hard to detect after it's added, but he hasn't done it since. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

richard cheese

hello. i don't know how to update wikipedia pages, i apologise if this is not the proper way to report.

 all of the albums you removed from the richard cheese discography sections are listed on iTunes, Spotify and Amazon.

richard cheese has another new album, releasing on july 30, 2021, entitled "Snappier Than Ever: The Original Songs", and it is also visible on iTunes.

also, the richard cheese band did indeed appear on the Jonathan Ross Show on ITV in 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7WyYspqycw

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6D00:C9B2:2629:85DB:943C (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll look at the end credits again. If you have a URL that definitively connects Richard Cheese to an album then I suggest you restore that album to the article followed by <ref>https://the.url/you/found</ref>. Not the best, you'll have a bare URL as the reference, but it is support and can be always be improved later. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm visually impaired and I have trouble reading/typing html. Perhaps you could undo the changes you made and add the links?

And yet you pored over 8 minutes of densely-packed end credits to find Richard Cheese in the fine print? Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw the movie in a theater on a giant screen. I watched the credits on that YouTube video on a 32" TV monitor which I use because my vision is so poor. Do you need me to give you my ophthalmologist's contact info so you can ask him about my eye surgeries? It's really disappointing that you are willing to be hostile to a person with a disability, about a Wikipedia entry. I have been nothing but polite and constructive. Please be nicer to strangers.

In an earlier thread you wrote about "...being combative or abrasive; I've been repeatedly accused of both." Accusing someone of not being visually impaired is also combative and abrasive. Clearly this is a pattern. "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it". You can edit pages and make comments without being rude and hostile. According to this talk page, you do this all the time. You should figure out a way to change yourself so you don't constantly get people telling you that you're rude. Perception is reality. If a lot of people call you abrasive, then guess what? You are.

And there's nothing more awful than being willing to mock a total stranger with a disability. If you can't be nice to strangers, to your fellow humans, then maybe you shouldn't be editing wikipedia pages.

I don't use wikipedia, I don't care about that one dumb richard cheese page. But if YOU sincerely care about wikipedia, and you sincerely want to improve it, then first you need to improve yourself.