User talk:Skyerise

Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.
See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Walker

Thanks for fixing it. I found it in the Commons last night by accident. I had no idea it was there when I first wrote the article and was concerned about getting a photo of one of his knives. He onlydoes 2 shows a year and I don't make it to either.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as well for those parameters in the infobox!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the knife related articles, it seems like a one-man-task at times!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Tube

I have added a couple of references from primary literature, as requested. Perhaps you can help me by tidying up the snytax -- I don't have much experience with citations & Co.

Dulciana (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slumach

A user called Fred Braches has created a page called Slumach and another page called Pitt Lake gold find. On Fred Braches talk page he states that he has a slumach website. The articles Slumach and Pitt Lake gold find links directly to his website. Fred Braches is using the articles to advertise his website. Is this a conflict of interest. His website is located on the external links section of Slumach and Pitt Lake gold find. It looks like he is advertising a book on his website.Msruzicka (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is an essay

Please be less insistent on having things your way.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sensitive to users with disabilities. Yworo (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the page you're citing. BRD, or bold-revert-discuss, would indicate in this situation that once your edit was reverted, you should discuss, not try to make your edit again. In this situation, it was you who first "violated" BRD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's after "if your edit was a revert" in the flowchart. My first edit was not a revert. I've made one revert, you've made two. Yworo (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was bold, Wehwalt's was a revert, the next step should have been discussion - instead, you reverted. I've made no reverts at all, not sure where you're getting that from. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, my brain must be getting fuzzy. I could have sworn BRD effectively said "Discuss rather than revert a second time" instead of "Discuss if your bold edit is reverted". Of course, policies, guidelines, and even essays change frequently around here, it's possible I'm remembering a previous version of the flowchart from years ago. I've been here long enough that that sort of thing trips me up occasionally. Yworo (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adyashanti

I was wondering if you could evaluate the new sources that I added to the AfD. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Four look good. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added three more sources after that though. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos magic

The book exists. However, the editor who cited the book did so specifically to support the inclusion of "semenancy", which is not mentioned in the book.

To claim that (book X) supports (statement Y), when (book X) makes no mention whatsoever of (statement Y), is to make a false reference. DS (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That statement was originally added by a Hilarious Prankster, and brought to my attention by a "Funniest Garbage On Wikipedia" thread on a discussion forum. It's been difficult to remove: anons keep trying to restore it because it's Hilarious And Funny. And now one of them tried registering an account and falsely citing a source. DS (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier if you added a section on the article talk page explaining, then note the talk page section when making an edit involving it. Many editors check the talk page for reasons for various actions to determine whether they should be reverted or not. Yworo (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Salvatore Harmon

Curious what your deal is with the Raymond Salvatore Harmon page I created. I have also noticed a pattern of you removing cited references to him without reason from other wikipages in order to orphan that page. In particular the Stan Brakhage page.

While you complain that I reverted your "work" most of the columns you "fixed" were in fact tables that can be sorted either way chronologically. Additionally you removed a ton of reference links to his work that took me much time in hunting down and adding to this page. While you complain that I reverted your work you have spent a considerable amount of time attacking a page I have been working on for years without consideration.

So, do you have an excuse for your behavior or is it another case of "wikilord will rule the interwebs!"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the page. Wikipedia has standards. They can be found in the Manual of Style. I am improving the article by improving its adherence to these standards. One standard is, that bibliographies, discographies, etc. should be displayed in chronological order. It doesn't matter that they are sortable, they should be listed in chronological order to start. Not reverse, not by title, chronological.

We also have standards for what is considered a reliable source. Some of the sources you used did not meet those standards. We also have standards for prose. Article sections should not read like resumés or timelines. They should be composed of well-written paragraphs. Try your hand at writing some.

External links are allowed in some places, and not in others. In general, all external links belong in the Notes, References, Further reading and External links sections. No text links like this are allowed in the body of the article, which is all of the article before the See also section.

Sites such as blogs, forums, mailing lists are not only not reliable sources, they are not even allowed to be linked from the External links section.

Also, we don't cite "by example". If a writer compares Harmon with Brakhage, you cannot use that as support for "Harmon is often compared with Brakhage" unless the source states that explicitly. You gave an example of one writer comparing Harmon with Brakhage once, how do you get "often" from that?

These are not rules I am making up, they are all documented in our Manual of Style, of which you appear to be woefully ignorant.

Our standards are even higher for biographies of living people than for other articles. I suggest you read through the Manual of Style and try harder to comply with it if you do not want others to have to improve the article. Remember what it says just below the save button every time you edit, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

Thank your for your contributions to Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't addressed the issue I am raising which is that you have deliberately looked for and removed as many references to Raymond Salvatore Harmon on wikipedia as you could find. In doing so you seem to be showing a kind of behavior that is unbecoming to someone who truly wants to improve the wiki community. Having now spent a bit of time looking through your editing history and past interactions with other editors and contributors to wikipedia I am concerned about a focused attempt that you are making toward changing articles related to esoterism, occultism, and specific filmmakers and artists who interact with those fields.

From other discussions and issues I have seen here on wikipedia (related to your user name) it would appear your actions are deliberate and meant not to make wikipedia a better place but to reinforce certain concepts, downplay certain people involved in these fields, and overall change historic fact for personal research on a large scale.

I would like you to address this question. Are you changing articles to reflect an altered version of what is referenced data in order to downplay certain people, and or change how wikipedia represents historic fact involving these fields? It certainly would appear so. Creatcher (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your accusation. But it's not what I've done. I removed unsourced or poorly sourced content from other articles in a manner consistent with our policy requiring reliable citations for information about living people. I will not further address this unless you bring up specific instances, one at a time. And desist with your personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you need to stop this right now. I removed a link from only one article. You put it back, I changed the wording to reflect the source, and the link is still there. Harmon's film, The Philosopher's Stone, is simply not notable and shouldn't have an article. IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and being listed in it does not confer notability. See WP:MOVIE for the actual notability requirements for films. Yworo (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On occult-related articles

I appreciate the work you've done, your edits on different articles keep coming up on my watchlist (and my watchlist isn't too big) — but right now I'm going to have to ask you to slow down a bit, you're putting a lot of work on me. I don't know of anyone else who's ready to immediately do the actual research on these subjects, and I'd prefer to concentrate on one or two subjects at a time without the pressure. Maybe refrain from AfD'ing on this topic for the next week or so? Please? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're not the only editor involved. Don't imagine you are the only one working on this. You are probably right that Lionel is notable. Eshelman isn't, don't waste any time on him. Kaczynski is probably not notable, but might possibly barely squeak by. Sherwin's article should, in my opinion, be deleted and started from scratch, being an unsourced BLP and all.

I do see a real problem here we need to watch out for... It seems that the occult community has gotten the idea that if one of their notable members writes an article about a non-notable member and publishes it on their own personal or group website, they can then get the the non-notable member into Wikipedia. That's not true, because the "recognized expert" exception for self-published sources does not apply to biographies of living people. In particular, we need to watch out for biographical information sourced to Phil Hine's site.

However, I will go put some work into the Harry Everett Smith article, which is atrociously referenced. :-) Yworo (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean about these particular ones, I didn't see anyone else promising to save them, so it seems to be on me. I agree about Eshelman and Kaczynski, I'm going to vote on their AfDs when I get around to googling them first.

Do you honestly think there's some sort of a conspiracy in the occult community regarding Wikipedia? It may seem to outsiders that the occult community is one big incestuous group, but that's simply not true. One writer writing about another doesn't mean they're pals, it probably means they agree (or vehemently disagree) with their ideas. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An organized conspiracy? No. A concerted effort on the part of several individuals to stuff Wikipedia with articles about non-notable occultists by trying to game our notability system? Yes. Yworo (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. An example of one such article? There's some authors that are widely recommended and discussed in relevant communities on the Internet (and probably offline but I don't know about it), but, to Wikipedia, are only "notable" for being covered by other notable occultists. But I've also seen articles on people who, according to my own opinion, haven't made mentionable contributions to the field and haven't been widely recommended — but make a claim for notability for being connected to some or other magic society or such, some examples being James A. Eshelman and Jean-Louis de Biasi. The societies and orders themselves are often of questionable significance. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an example offhand. Most I've found, including articles about the non-notable groups themselves, have been deleted. But take a look through the list of articles on User:Rosencomet (primarily the occult-related ones, he does better on musician and comics-related articles) - many of them are very poorly sourced and may include such examples. Another interesting "ploy" I've found - new groups taking the names of defunct but notable groups. Or publications. See for example the Psychic News article, a defunct publication. A new blog "Spirit of PN", claims to be the "successor" publication, self-sourced of course, and keeps spamming their links into the article. Another interesting one was Alexander (magician), where a group claiming to have revived his "Crystal Spirit League" has self-published his work with a new introduction, privately printed and distributed and with a fake ISBN. Ultimately, it turned out that the editor trying to spam the article with links to this new group was actually the publisher of the book, owned the domain being spammed and was spamming several other personally-owned domains in other articles! Yworo (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what an imprint is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher's mark or name. Some publishers have multiple marks, but I used the word here simply because his second self-published work used the imprint "Baphomet Publishing". He may or may not have put an imprint on his first work, but if he did and anyone knows it, it should be added like I added Baphomet Publishing as the imprint on the first edition of The Theatre of Magick. Yworo (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and did you notice the price someone is trying to get for a new copy of the 2006 edition on Amazon? $2475 and its not even a first edition. The seller is insane, and if anyone buys it, they will be too (unless they are planning to counterfeit it and sell new copies themselves). Yworo (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea about the first editions; but the later edition of that one says exactly that, published by Baphomet Publishing in association with Lulu Press. (Both of those are for the later edition, I don't know who published it originally, it might've been printed out in his basement.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the book may say that, but Amazon, Google, etc just say Lulu.com,so that's what the article should say. Yworo (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is Lulu (company), not a web address. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if every online catalog of the book says Lulu.com. I'll check worldcat to see what it says. Yworo (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quotes on Tetrabiblos

Hi Yworo - I have just noticed that you changed the article titles to be enclosed by double quotes not single quotes. I want to explain the situaion so you don't mind that I change them back. Unaware that you had done this, but with other quote issues in mind, I raised a question yesterday morning about the use of the quotes in the article, was subsequently informed that its OK to follow the format of using single quotes for article titles, and then I posted some typographical conventions to keep a note of what is being consistently applied in the article. See also this post which came over the discussion on the FA discussion page, saying the single quotes should be retained.

It is only this morning that I notice you changed the quotes in the citation box yesterday. I think the footnotes and citations should be consistent with each other, and it will be an easy job to change the quotes in the Works cited panel, but a hell of a job picking through all the code to change the style in the inline citations. The reason I want to explain this is so you don't think I am thoughtlessly reverting your edit. So hope that's OK. And thanks for adding the sister project links - I was struggling with that -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - and thanks for the edit summary note about emboldening - just noticed that too -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double quotes are standard for article citations. They are generated when you use cite templates and I believe that our Manual of Style specifies that double quotes are to be used for this purpose. I'll see if I can find it. Yworo (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it, here: Italics are generally used only for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). Yworo (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But MOS also says that the use of double or single is often discretionary, which is why I raised this for discussion, and the response there was to leave this as it is. The more important consideration is that the article is consistent throughout. I have spent a great deal of time now Yworo making sure that there is consistency throughout the article, so it would cause great disruption to change the style at this stage. This is quite an acceptable style, and more logical when titles and quotes are used together, as in the references. If you feel that this merits a fuller discussion, can you raise the argument on this thread, which I initiated in order to create a clear guideline from those who review articles at a top level. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We use standard citation styles. There is a list of allowed citation styles (Citation, APA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, Vancouver system and Bluebook) at WP:CITE. Which of the listed styles have you selected? What does the manual for that style say? As far as I know, all citation styles specify double quotes for article titles. Personally, I think you should use double quotes. Yeah, it's a lot of work. What I did was a lot of work. Your characterization of Wikipedia guidelines does not jive with my understanding, which is that double quotes are preferred for everything except quotations within quotations. Since scare or sneer quotes aren't permitted (they imply a derogatory reading of a word), single quotes are pretty much only used in linguistic contexts and for plant cultivars. Yworo (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cadborosaurus willsi

Could you check out the article Cadborosaurus willsi. Information was added which was not cited and some information was cited to Youtube videos. Can youtube videos be used as a references?Msruzicka (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, YouTube videos are not generally reliable sources. See Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites for details on this and the reliability other common websites. Yworo (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has cited a video as a reference in the Cadborosaurus willsi article again. Although the video does not appear to be from youtube.Msruzicka (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Lady Lilith pix

Six Rossetti paintings as hung in Leyland's drawing room, 1892. *Lady Lilith* hangs at the far right.^[1] (click on painting for full view)

I appreciate your input on all the pix at Lady Lilith. You may be right in removing some of them. I'll ask that you describe the issues on the talkpage. I may revisit the illustrations. My basic feeling is that this is an article about an illustration, how it developed, and was then displayed, so that lots of illustrations are required. But I'll wait awhile to let my mind clear first. Smallbones (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done editing for today. Will discuss tomorrow. I'd like to try to re-integrate the painting of Leyland. I do think the gallery of paintings it was displayed with is a bit much. I wonder if there is a way to do an image map, so that clicking on each painting in the photo of the drawing room would link to the individual images that were in the room. Then the caption could indicate that this is possible. That would be a rather slick way to do it.

One thing we do need to figure out how to do is to not squeeze text between images on the right and left. That's definitely something the style guidelines say to avoid. I think we can come up with something that presents well. Will discuss more tomorrow on the article talk page. Feel free to copy this beginning discussion there if you like, but I've gotta go now.... Yworo (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it. Thanks for the idea and the encouragement. Smallbones (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Smallbones (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Be Here Now (disambiguation)

Has been deleted. you can go ahead with your move. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback links in watch list

Hi.

I'm not sure if you saw, but I got an answer to your question, via the helpdesk and the Village Pump;

If you edit Special:MyPage/skin.css and add this line;

.page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none}

...that should stop the 'rollback' links showing up in your Watchlist.

Hope that helps. Chzz ► 12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The holiday season is upon us

Hi Yworo. I think we have agreed and disagreed but your contributions have greatly benefited the project and respect to you for that. I hope you won't allow this issue to upset you longer than necessary and that you will return to contributing in the near future. Best wishes and happy holidays. Youreallycan (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Yworo may have made contributions to Wikipedia, my personal opinion is that he has done as much damage as he has constructive work. That's not a personal attack, just as noting his accomplishments is not an endorsement of some of his abrasive behavior. It's just my opinion based on personal experience with Yworo. I certainly will never edit an article again as long as he is a part of Wikipedia; it's just not worth it. And from what I can gather, there are others like me. Irolnire (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is up to you. I see you have only seven extremely minor edits to articles in the four months you have been here anyway. I can tell you now, editing wikipedia is not worth the personal attacks you get from upset new users that want to add anything they want irrespective of wikipedia policies and guidelines. I gather Yworo who I have experienced has a good grasp of our policies upset you by requesting you follow them. Facebook is not a reliable source for a religious status addition to any wikipedia biography. Youreallycan (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Well done dude - don't let it get to you. Ignore them, rise above it, don't reply in kind. Youreallycan (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

I've closed the ANI thread. If it happens again, don't be drawn into an argument: ping an admin directly with the evidence. I'm not sure whether there's a long-term solution, but assuming said IP isn't so obsessed that he starts rapidly swapping IPs a block or two should encourage him to find something more productive to do with his time than following you around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hate to throw cold (or at least room-temperature) water on all this, but the specific content-related edits Yworo gripes about appear to be valid. I especially noted Yworo's continued posting of lyrics of a song, despite the IP's concerns about copyright issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics of a song written in the early 1900s and for which I provided a citation that said lyrics were in the public domain? The IP had been repeatedly informed by other editors that works from before 1923 were in the public domain. He was just being contentious, and had been shouting in edit comments before I arrived. Yworo (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was written in the early 1900s, then the song is probably out of copyright - and then it could be argued that the lyrics belong in wikisource rather than in wikipedia. So basically he griped about the wrong thing. Your one complaint about block evasion also has merit, although I've seen block-evading registered users welcomed back with open arms, so that's not a show-stopper by itself. And, unfortunately, as I've learned from bitter experience, IP-hoppers by definition are not "socks", unless they do something sock-specific such as voting twice. They exploit wikipedia's loophole (or wide open, gaping wound, truth to tell) that "anyone can edit". Until (or if) that fundamental philosophy changes, IP's will continue to do that kind of stuff. I have had many rows over that irritating subject, and I always lose, but it doesn't stop me from pointing it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying. I tried to open a sock investigation but got nowhere. I highly doubt it has always been an IP, but figuring what username(s) it may have used seems impossible, though it may have temporarily have used the account User:Yworohater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a brief time. Certainly the data for any accounts it has used will be stale. Yworo (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers won't comment on IP's. That's another loophole IP's exploit. Is that the correct user ID? It doesn't have any log entries. How old is it? If it's older than a month or two, they can't do any technical review to see if it's the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It made three nasty edits to my user page in August. [1]. I don't recall if it made any other edits, but if it did they were the sort that get deleted. Yworo (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me, I would have let those edits stand, unless they revealed personal information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC (which I may not), they were gratuitously and graphically obscene. And/or they might also have attempted to out my identity, probably inaccurately. I know that I've had that happen in the past, though maybe these were not the edits I remember. In any case, I think they must have gone beyond normal vandalism or I'd not have bothered to have them excised. Or perhaps some admin excised them on their own. I really don't recall. Yworo (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, leave them hidden. On the very rare occasions when someone has tried to "out" me, I've sent an e-mail to a trusted admin who then discretely zapped it. One thing you don't want to do in such a case is call attention to it. If it's just insults, I don't care. Sometimes it can be funny, especially if it's misspelled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you've got a fair start in documenting your problems with that guy, but I think you're going to need to come up with additional specific diffs on specific issues. For example, this[2] is not much of a "personal attack". I've seen admins (including Thumper) get snippier than that. An admin's apparent order to "get an account"[3] violates the fundamental premise I mentioned earlier. No one is required to get an account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just keep a running log if it continues to interact with or attempt to provoke me. What else can I do? At some point, maybe some admin will give him a block or two to encourage him to behave. His edits are not always bad, but he does have a tendency to just tag an article that is easily fixed, then complain that I am stalking him if I notice this and actually fix the problem he has tagged. Yworo (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting it is obviously an important step in the process. Even if the guy stays as an IP, a ban against the user behind a series of IP's presumably could be enacted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for StarWind Software

An editor has asked for a deletion review of StarWind Software. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hu12 (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For converting my bunch of amazon.com book URLs to ISBN / text view during the work on the article marked AfD. That's pure altruism and and excellent example of a team work. Thank you for your efforts! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for weighing in at this discussion. I made a serious proposal to Yakushima; I'm naive enough to think it has a chance. If we get to the next level, one of the conditions I'll ask for is participation in a community discussion about footnotes in infoboxes. I think it is clear they should be avoided, but I'd like to see a robust community discussion about when exceptions are warranted. I'd also like to see a discussion about what qualifies as an influence. I'll go along with what the community wants, but I think the inclusion criteria should be a little tighter than "I found a ref that says the views of X were somehow affected by the views of Y". I think the threshold should be stronger than that.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

communication power imbalance

On a different subject, I just read your rationale for semi protection of this page. Very interesting. I'm not quite ready to adopt it myself, maybe I've been lucky and haven't had much interaction with IPs, but it poses a concept (communication power imbalance), I hadn't considered before.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure is to have a second talk page, i.e. a sub-page, where unregistered users can post whatever they want to when the real talk page is blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated in my message, there is always a more appropriate place to communicate specific things. Yworo (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of a separate sub-page is that (1) it won't trigger annoying "new message" banners; and (2) if you take it off your watch list, you can ignore it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and it keeps a record of harassment or abusive messages. Gotcha! Yworo (talk)

Yep. That's it. It is a good idea to check it once in awhile and see if they've posted anything that could cause real-life harm. But other than that, it's just a "troll sink". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just fyi

looking like this use is not here to contribute content - it's primary function appears to attaching you - one of the sadder parts of anyone can edit, our open environment. Youreallycan (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. It appears to have been instigated by the IP editor which had agreed not to interact with me. Now recruiting meatpuppets to harass me. Yworo (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks all a bit suspiciously smelly sock to me. I would block him now if I was an admin. User not here to contribute to the encyclopedia and the accounts edits have become disruptive. Youreallycan (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It posted a minimum number of edits initially to get "confirmed", and then immediately started to go after Yworo. Almost certainly, some prior history with Yworo, under one or more registered ID's and/or anon IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. Come on Yworo - who is it? If you know a checkuser a quiet request might be worthwhile. Youreallycan (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely this IP editor who may have previously registered Yworohater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As they edit primarily as an IP and have been doing so for some time before it decided it didn't like me, it has been impossible to get a checkuser done. Yworo (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, he mentioned that page in your userspace. I think we have plenty of eyes on him anyway. Back to boring editing articles. .. tch. Rob - Youreallycan (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you could edit more interesting articles? Yworo (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main interests are Rocket science and Official Monster Raving Loony Party and I avoid editing them for fear of COI accusations- lol. Youreallycan (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can understand the COI with respect to the latter. :-) I've been starting a project to review and improve the biographies of Manhattan Project people, which, while not exactly rocket science, would probably be of interest to someone with an interest in rocket science. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a high degree of certainty, speculating about who might be a sock or meat puppet is a risky practice, especially if it's IP's. Checkusers won't comment on IP's. But if you notify a trusted checkuser via e-mail, they might be willing to do some research for you and take appropriate action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, if Irolnire should be shown to be the same user as the IP editor, they would now have an account against which the various IPs could be identified as IP socks, is that not correct? Yworo (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, just that a SPI checkuser won't confirm IPs' possible connections to one or more named users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting a lot of returns to a martial arts net - [[4]] - has there been any such associated editing? Youreallycan (talk)

Not that I have observed. The IPs locate to the Raleigh, North Carolina area and that martial arts net is in the Austin, Texas area. Yworo (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the IP's seem to emanate from the Raleigh area, which suggests maybe an NC State University student, for whatever that might be worth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, wrong road then. He does seem to be upset about your page with the IP details - why not offer him a deal - if he goes away and stops bothering you, you'll delete it for him. Youreallycan (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is there because he continued to bother me after making an agreement on WP:AN/I to stop! How can I believe him when the first thing he does after making the agreement is to hop to a new IP address and break it? Yworo (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, .. like I said if I was an admin he would be blocked and checkusers already. Sorry Yworo that your being harassed, I will keep my eye and help get rid of him as fast as possible. Youreallycan (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rob, I appreciate your concern and support. Yworo (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I saw the report on WP:AIV and have been thinking about what to do while I was at the gym. The account User:Irolnire has not edited an article since September and has stated that they have no intention of editing an article again. So their sole purpose here seems to be to harass Yworo. I am gonna indef-block on that basis. I have these IPs so far and will range-block if the harassment continues: I record them here for future reference:

24.163.37.58
24.163.38.235
24.163.39.217
24.163.39.174
71.49.56.15
71.77.20.26
71.77.21.198
65.41.234.70
69.134.110.78
69.134.110.166
174.99.120.98
174.99.127.20

Please continue to collect any further IPs used as the more info we have, the tighter the range blocks, and the less collateral damage. Please post on my talk page if/when the user reappears; or send a note to Drmies; he is almost always around. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Dianna! Yworo (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Stories Project

Aloha!

My name is Victor and I work with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. We're chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade new people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who use Wikipedia have so much to share.

Until this year, Wikipedia has largely relied upon personal appeals from founder Jimmy Wales to drive our annual fundraising efforts. Now we seek to convey the incredible diversity of people who've come to rely upon Wikipedia every day.

I'd really like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia.

I'm hoping you will elaborate on your story with me, either over the phone, by Skype, by facebook, by email, or any means you like. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project and we'll set up a good time to discuss further.

Thank you,

Victor Grigas

user:victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

My pleasure

Hey, it's always great to collaborate with a fellow veteran editor who can throw in a good cite! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Timberlake (artist)

Check out the external links on Bob Timberlake (artist). One of the links is a furniture store and the other link is advertising merchandise for sale. Bob Timberlake official website is advertising merchandise for sale including lamps etc...Msruzicka (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, apparently those are the perks you get when you design a postage stamp. But seriously, too many primary sources, plus external links have to have related content. Apparently he is noted for his furniture and the first link is his site, but the second link is gratuitous, it would need to link directly to a page with information about the subject to be valid. Yworo (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up some. Guy certainly knows how to do his marketing. Hire the right PR team, and you'll be in all the right glossy magazines. Then you get picked up by real sources. The guy is clearly notable. It's also clear that the article was written by his PR team. Not much we can do about it but weed out the primary and unreliable sources and insist that claims be cited to real sources rather than the promotional material his website is packed with. Yworo (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for the "news" articles sourced from PR WEB. There are a bazillion "sources" that pick these press releases up verbatim, peacock descriptions and all. Bob has told the world he is outstanding so many times via such press releases, that now real but unquestioning sources simply repeat the blather. Seriously, in a few months, I could make my own or even a non-existent business "world renowned" this way, at about $200 per press release for writing and distribution to the "right" sites and newsfeeds (of course, it'd take quite a few well-spaced releases). I'm sure he didn't do it piecemeal like that, he most likely paid $10-20K or more for a complete and ongoing media blitz back when he founded his company. Yworo (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I see that Jerry Bledsoe is in the business of co-writing memoirs and autobiographies for various people. Presumably his customers are too busy or otherwise unable to write their own. If I were Bob, I'd have chosen someone who doesn't write "true murder" biographies to be my ghostwriter, though. :-) Yworo (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ostman

I was working on an article called Albert Ostman. Some have questioned it's notability. Is the article notable, what is your opinion?Msruzicka (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ban discussion at ANI

I've started a discussion on the IP at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed community ban for a harrassing IP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was snowing supported and the IPs and any accounts that are clearly repeating these patterns can now be treated as if banned. You might want to add some of the historic details and a link to the ANI thread, to the Wikipedia:List of banned users page so that if the harassment continues you can point administrators to it for their ease. Youreallycan (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at Wikipedia:List of banned users and users are all listed by name. I don't see how to list a roving IP user there. Do we make up a nickname for it? Or what? Yworo (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could do, you could call him, User:Yworo's follower or similar - something not attacking. Have you thought to ask a checkuser to check the recently indefed account User talk:Irolnire against the evidence you have collected and if there is a return the add the ban under that account. I would say that user was the follower, or closely associated ot the IP addresses. It's not usual, but you don't need a name - Use the made up name and you link to your evidence page and to the ani ban consensus and add a small report and that would suffice, something to direct admins ot that have no memory of the issue. Youreallycan (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they were the same person, but I guess it's worth checking. The IP once claimed to be a doctor and I'm pretty sure is male. Irolnire is "Erin Lori" spelled backwards. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They might not be the same person but they may well have a IP address that is connected to the IP address that have been trying to harass you - If I was you, I wouldn't make a SPI report but I might ask a checkuser by email. If you don't feel to, just at to the banned users page with the created username. Youreallycan (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fixes to Peter Nygård‎

Just a quick word of thanks for your small-but-helpful fixes to [[Peter Nygård]‎]. It is hard to catch such things without a lot more experience...

Alexthepuffin (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARB notice

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

Thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. You can't take it to ARB without going through normal dispute resolution processes first, which you have not done. Since it will never be accepted, I won't waste my time responding to it in any way. But do watch out for the boomarang effect. Yworo (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlize

The statement at the beginning did indeed say "currently." Please look it up. I'm not talking about anything but use of the word "currently" in violation of WP:DATED. If you want to repeat the same words about citizenship twice in one paragraph, by all means, go ahead. I'm removing your uncivil post from my talk page.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to repeat the same words twice in one paragraph. The addition to the first sentence was against consensus and has been removed. Yworo (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we're on the same side and in agreement in this case. Ironic. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice the addition to the first sentence or your change to it. I was reverting the trimming of the last sentence of the paragraph. And you only recently got involved at that article, so don't accuse me of stalking you in edit comments unless you want the same in return. Yworo (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all sincerity...

...just want to say that it's nice to see us, twice now, in agreement (re: Charlize above and Grant Morrison). Emotions aside, I know we have in common that we care for this wonderful, altruistic project, WIkipedia, very much, and we're making the concrete contribution of our time and effort. So maybe we'll be able to find common ground sometime. In the meantime, I would like to wish you happy holidays. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And having now looked at your page, I would also tip my hat to your being a Master Editor II. I've just under six months away from that, and there are very few of us who have volunteered that much service here. I don't mean to overstate anything, but I do have to respect your longevity and dedication.

Now, believe it or not, I've been on a little work break and — 6:38 p.m. NYC time — I've a little more to do before I can take Christmas Eve (and, hopefully, Christmas Day) off. See you later! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Barbecue Society

Is the article North Carolina Barbecue Society notable? Msruzicka (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I've had to modify your userbox per Wikipedia:Userpages#Images, which doesn't allow sexually provocative images. I have replaced it with another that should carry the same meaning. Sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back but just until I decide how to modify it. Just give me a minute. Though I might question whether nudity = sexual. Yworo (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do replace it with a non-sexual image (or at least blank it until you find the time to choose a better image). The images-on-userpage policy is quite clear on this matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed already. Yworo (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. When I had started to edit this page, it wasn't. Thank you for making the change. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I recognized that you found it urgent and did it right away. It was made a bit complicated by subst'ing for efficiency... Yworo (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unwise creation of a userbox

Malleus Fatuorum was unblocked by a fellow Arbitration clerk in order to participate in the request for arbitration. Malleus himself requested twice to be reblocked, which was granted, and has since made it perfectly clear that he does not wish to be unblocked. Your userbox, to my mind, serves no purpose other than to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, wisdom is not a requirement for editing Wikipedia, otherwise we'd have a much smaller population of editors. Yworo (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

contribution to list of blade materials.

thank you for your contribution! however i had the excess space there because the expand button interfere with the TOC.Abc123456person (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the expand template is broken. Don't use it until it is fixed. Bulleted lists should not have additional unneeded indentation, and the use of the expand template can be controverisal. Yworo (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Don't panic. :) There's a discussion there about someone's alleged "attack page". Your documentation page, User:Yworo/IP incident record, strikes me as a model for the right way to build up a case. I have to say that I have not yet looked at the details of the complaint, but once I do, I would like to cite your page. If that's OK with you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm still trying to find the right way to get it out of my user space and into the list of banned users or long-term abuse. I think it's a good example of a neutral presentation of events. Not sure I'd do the same for a registered user, but there would be no other reasonable way to document a dynamic-IP-hoppers behavior. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

Homeland Stupidity

I deleted the article Homeland Stupidity under G10 instead of G3, since it was clearly a page meant to attack Homeland Security. Keep in mind that it's better to tag attack pages under G10, because they're prioritized for speedy deletion and blanked.--Slon02 (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best of the season

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Msruzicka (talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

List of Polyamorists

I understand the policy. The dispute here is about terms. I feel your deletion of the polyfidelitous section was retaliation against me for adding back two names you removed. Polyamory is a wider term - you could have at least copied the polyfideltious section into the main list instead of totally deleting it. I am feeling physically sick right now because of your targeted actions towards me. Cooltobekind (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Waking Dreams, p. 26 (figure 5).

[1] Waking Dreams, p. 26 (figure 5).

[1]