User talk:YuMaNuMa

Awards and other items

	The Civility Barnstar
	For keepin' it kewl during a heated debate Zach Vega (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	We did it! Zach Vega (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, YuMaNuMa, today you made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thanks for all your hard work on technology and Australia-related topics. You rock :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

For all the contributions you have made to the iPhone 5 article.

Anonymouse321 (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That's much appreciated, thanks! :D YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussions

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Yo. I've seen that you've never edited the OS X Mountain Lion article, meaning that you can review for it for GA status. Could you do that? Thanks. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Move

There was no consensus in removing that stuff in the first place.

I put up the inuse banner because I am in the process of sifting to ind out what need to be retained and what deleted.

Returning information to where it came from is a rather different matter to deleting it. It shouldn't have been removed from the article to which it pertains directly.

Amandajm (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, the protest section should be restored as it was one of the initial sections of this article when it was create. If it was to be removed, this section should definitely be discussed in the talk page before its removal. Anyways, until that happens, I'm just going to transfer the protest section to the reaction section of the film article. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And so, what did you find, when you went to the film article.. Grandma is nobody's fool! I am keeping an eye on about four articles simultaneously and attempting to prevent the insertion of a) conspiracy theories, b) bias, c) idiocy, d) lack of balance, e) misuse of terms such as "alleged" which get shoved in by people with no comprehension of grammar. I have been at this article for the last four days. Amandajm (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A6

Please read up on the difference between A15 class CPU and A15 CPU before you make changes to the page.User931

Sorry, I misread the source and what you wrote, my apologies. Also to prevent further errors of misreading and whatnot, do you think it's more appriopriate to use the CPU class' other name, Krait instead of A15 which can be mistaken for the CPU itself? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A15 is a CPU made by ARM, possible for anyone to license and manufacture. Qualcomm just as Apple holds license both to ARMs CPUs as well as their instruction sets meaning they can either manufacture an unaltered ARM CPU, as in previous Apple SoCs or do as Qualcomm has done for many years now, build a custom CPU based on ARMs design, like Scorpion and Krait which are Cortex A8/A9 and A15 like CPUs. So Krait is not a name of the "class" but the name of Qualcomms latest CPU.User931

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Embassies

Did you check every one of those news reports individually? I was just in the process of doing it.Amandajm (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have requested a block on the racist dickhead on whose page you placed a warning. Amandajm (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that :), also in response to your first post, I actually didn't check the news sources itself before removing the countries hence I restored it by reverting my edits. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Map instalation

Hello can you re-install my map into the Mohammad movie page. Thanky you :)--Camoka5 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wireless standards support on the iPhone 5

FYI - the CDMA iPhone 5 does support GSM and UMTS. See Apple's official specs here: official specs. Under the Cellular and Wireless it says, exactly:

• CDMA model A1429*: CDMA EV-DO Rev. A and Rev. B (800, 1900, 2100 MHz); UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); LTE (Bands 1, 3, 5, 13, 25)

As you can see from the above, there is GSM and UMTS support in the CDMA model. Therefore, please do not modify the "all models" specs. Wikiliki (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh fuck, my bad, thanks for correcting me, however this article does say that CDMA models are not compatible with GSM networks 1 and I was basing my assertions on that being the case for previous models. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In reality there probably isn't even any difference in the hardware between the A1429 "CDMA" and "GSM" models. iFixit shows that the A1429 has a CDMA amplifier on board, in addition to the GSM, UMTS and LTE amps. That would make sense also given that the only difference between the A1429 CDMA and GSM is that the CDMA version just adds LTE bands 13 and 25. So if all it does is stack a couple of features "on top" of the GSM model, then given Apple's constant strive to have as few actual hardware models as possible, there probably isn't any actual hardware differences between the two variants (otherwise, why would apple name them the same model ID as they did?). I guess, in reality there's probably just two versions out there, the AT&T (and future T-Mobile USA [since the bands it supports will support TMO's UMTS after their "refarm" as well as their future LTE] and maybe a couple of Canadian carriers) variant (A1428) and an "everywhere else" variant (A1429). Wikiliki (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Photos, Sydney protest

Thanks for alerting me to those. I have no idea how to upload them. this is a really good pic. It would be good to have this as well.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49283475@N00/7991799867/in/photostream/

Amandajm (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded that image for you, here is the WikiCommons link. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Softnyx logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Softnyx logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Android (operating system)#Usage share

...ICS is 25%+ now and should be easy to source for you if you can update it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You might need to find a source for that, the data that's in the table and graph was directly sourced from statistics that were released by Google yesterday. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I appear to have misread this, where it clearly states Android 4, and not ICS lol. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a classical music edit-a-thon Saturday week (13 October) in Sydney. The theme will be Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown between 8-14 October. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online during the countdown. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/October 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Unreasonable reversion

There is a discussion in place on iPhone 5 talk page which you requested a response and made a statement of intent to revert if there is no response. You went and and reverted it six minutes later. Do you serious think that wait 6 minutes, declare no reply, revert is reasonable?

• Response request

• You reverted 6 minutes later

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Firstly sign your comments please, secondly, I readded it because I had a further source that correctly verifies the claim (first claim), I also removed the problem that you seem to have an issue with(second claim), that is why I restored it. I honestly, didn't think that even after that you would have problems with it but clearly not. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been editing long enough. If you found something verifying a claim, then you know better that it needs to be cited. Not just claim you've found it so. Done playing edit warring. Sent off for RfC. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfC, it's long overdue. And I did say in the iPhone 5 talk page that I would cite it, it wasn't cited before because I didn't think it was that much of a concern especially when references above mentioned Scuffgate numerous times. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

both of you, please do not carry on your conflict on my talk page. And when you want me to look at a particular issue on WP:RS, or elsewhere, just call my attention to the general nature of the issue, without trying to convince me. I will go by what I judge for myself, not by your arguments. After all, when you ask me for an opinion, it's my opinion that you want, isn't it?.

And, with my admin hat on for a moment, I strongly advise both of you to try to avoid each other, There are quite enough articles, and quite enough sourcing issues, that you do not need to work on the same ones. I am not interested n who is right or wrong, either in a particular case or in general--that's not the sort of thing I like to decide. I am interested in helping each of you avoid getting into difficulties here, and I need to warn you you seem to be heading that way rather fast. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm determined to improve the iPhone 5 article to GA status and intended to do so from the start. I have encountered Cantaloupe in the past and found his edits to be quite rational and improved the quality of the article and believe that this is probably just a one off incident - hopefully. However when issues that I find concerning do I arise, I don't enjoy sitting idly by while content from an article that I have extensively worked on gets removed for reasons that I believe are invalid. Cantaloupe initially removed paragraphs of information under the rationale of it being based only on user experience and not on scientific analysis, that is simply not how consumer technology articles are written from my experience on Wikipedia and dealing with similar articles that have now achieve GA status. Sorry if I went blabbering on again but I believe in this situation, his/her perception of the policy would restrict the comprehensiveness of similar articles that I would most likely work on in the near future. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Cantaloupe's actions

Hey sorry to bother again, but I just want a third opinion here. Cantaloupe has been ravaging other articles after he gave up on iPhone 5, and the current place is at Pizza delivery. Do you think his claims of the article being American-centric are valid/relevant when he attempts to add "United States" after Amherst, Massachusetts, when topic of the article is already specified with the state name appended after the city name? I find it quite ridiculous. And this is just one of the types of edits he's doing. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't give up on iPhone 5. In that article, it uses various articles and various stories from multiple countries. For example, you made an improper synthesis of its common for pizza delivery men to become targets based on one article about faux house in Britain. You're now using article from the US, so I just appended United States. What policy says this is improper? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow Cantaloupe, are you serious? You're just giving some confusing excuse for your weird reasoning when you added that edit. Why would there be a need to specify that Massachusetts is in the US? We don't append "England"/"UK" after Bath, Somerset or some other city. If you want some policy to "prove it" or whatever, see WP:USPLACE and WP:MOSLINK. And on your illogical comments about the viewpoints: the article about the incident in Britain gave another viewpoint outside of US topics, so how is that US-centric? There is nothing wrong with using US sources after UK sources. I find your reasoning very odd. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I would be a neutral party if I got involved as Cantaloupe and I just had a fairly lengthy argument against each other and I probably developed some bias against him in the process. Sorry for disappointing. Cantaloupe, I'll be nominating the iPhone 5 article for GAN soon after it has been thoroughly copyedited, I suggest you forward your issue and/or request to the RfC forum where it will gain more exposure so we can resolve this once and for all. Furthermore, it really does look like you gave up as you didn't address the argument I presented and instead addressed something else that's quite impertinent, so if you do want look as if you didn't "give up", attack the issue at hand and take the initiative to appeal or forward discussion if arguments flow circularly. I just want to make one last comment to aid you in your disputes and edits, Cantaloupe, please assume good faith, assuming otherwise automatically creates a hostile environment in which tensions rise and rash decisions occur. From what I've notice you have a history of assuming bad faith and similar to vandalism, incivility or disruption, it can get you banned. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I put it up for RfC and so far no further comments. With just you and I messaging, it was getting nowhere. You had your own way, I had mine and you weren't receptive of what I had to say until we got DGG's input on it. From there we moved forward a bit. If I'm not editing every single day, it doesn't mean I've given up on it. Editing Wikipedia isn't urgent after all. I'll do it when I feel like it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Then stop trying to counter every edit I make like you did to YuMaNuMa at iPhone 5. It's like you want to "win" or something. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a poor reason for not replying to my messages when you continued to edit other articles particularly the one m0rphzone came forth to me with, it basically comes down to two reasons, you don't care enough to settle disputes in a timely manner or you have nothing left to say, which to put it simply means you gave up. Nothing wrong with either, the disputes were regarding minor issues that could've simply been resolved by citing other references instead of removing content and checking the content and what's normally included against other good quality articles on similar topics, iPhone 4S, iPad 2 to name just a few. The real concern or wrong here is dragging disputes on for months because you "edit/do it when you feel like it", which isn't the case here at all(in terms of you editing whenever you feel like as it seems like you edit every day). I'm willing to compromise if you can provide logical reasons why with the help of Wikipedia policies - STOP, don't list them here, go to the iPhone 5 talk page and discuss it there if you wish. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

iPhone 5 LTE

Hey, i had a browse through the archives and couldn't find it anywhere talking about which section LTE reception and usability should be placed. I fail to understand why the Reception of the 4G service would not be a feature as apple themselves class it as a feature on their devices (you can check the iPhone 5 feature section on here http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/). I had a quick look in the dictionary and there are few definitions for reception, one of which being 'the receiving of data or a radio/television broadcast' and the other being 'response/reaction'. The 4G service surely receives data and not a response or reaction?! If this had been discussed and settled before please could you inform of the reason to why it is in its current place? Thanks --Tacita620 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I provided before is precedent, the reception of LTE in iPad (3rd generation) article is located in the reception section. This is the section that I was referring to, Talk:IPhone 5/Archive 1#Transferring a portion of connectivity to reception, I guess it's not actually considered a discussion as there is no 2nd party but that is due to another editor failing to reply to the discussion and insisting on the change after I repeating provided him reasons and him providing me nothing other than a Wikipedia essay. In the discussion, I also mentioned that the LTE reception section would be better suited in the Reception section as it's not a feature of the iPhone 5, it is however a section on how it was received by telecommunications company and their ability to integrate the device into their network. A more detailed reason for the revert is in the link I provided before. I repeatedly said to the other edit who reverted that I would be more than willing to compromise if he can provide me with a reason why it belongs in the Feature section rather than Reception section, this applies to you too, if you believe that it better suits the Feature section. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 21:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have looked it over and although i dont think it is completely clear, i understand the point you are coming from. I might re-write some sections of the 'LTE Reception and Usability' and see how it looks in the 'features' section (I will make it applicable to the features section without changing it to much). I will post it on here before publishing it as i am sure you will inevitably revert it! Thanks --Tacita620 (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

IP block exemption

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

YuMaNuMa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Requesting an IP block exemption, because I frequently edit using my school internet, which is often blocked as a result of the actions of other editors. This becomes quite frustrating as I feel like I've been unfairly disadvantaged by the block despite my attempts to always contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner. I have requested for a similar block exemption in the past with success, however the block exemption expired earlier this year. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

IP block exemptions don't expire. In your case, it was manually removed as appearing no longer necessary. I have restored it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit war: Talk:IPhone 5/GA1

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:IPhone 5/GA1. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tagremover (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

LMAO, is that all? Firstly edit wars rules generally only apply on actual articles, anything is else is considered disruptive editing, I'm sure you're familiar with that as you have been blocked for that reason. Secondly I did not even come close to passing the 3RR thus your warning is invalid, also reasons were provided for why I made the change, a GA review page is not an appropriate place to discuss ongoing disputes between two arguing editors. By the way placing invalid warnings, assuming bad faith are all considered violations of Wikipedia policy. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Google Galaxy Nexus

Hey,

I know you're trying to make Wikipedia a better place and I am too. That's why I've modified the Galaxy Nexus page to show a better image of it, also, I figured because the Nexus One, Nexus S and Nexus 4 all have high quality press photos it would make sense that the Galaxy Nexus get a quality photo as well. Maybe we can work together to achieve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffery Keel (talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your work in the Google Nexus article was fantastic as it fixed many outstanding issues and errors, however the image you uploaded needs to be under the correct copyright license. I agree that the image of the phone with someone holding is of poor quality and needs to be replaced but unfortunately due to Wikipedia's strict approach to copyright, images need to be verifiably under the creative commons license, if not it's possible that the copyright owner may sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement. I hope you understand why I removed it and it wasn't because I had a thing against you or anything like that.

Thanks YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5 3RR

In a span of about 2 1/2 hours, you have directly reverted me three times. Please consider allowing some time after change for others to comment before jumping the gun and reverting.

1st

2nd

3rd

- Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop removing content that will be disputed before a discussion has been initiated, oh and stop assuming bad faith and accusing other of advancing their positions in the article. If you adhere to the custom of allowing the stable version to prevail, none of those reverts would have occurred, however you chose to make controversial edits before discussing it hence the reason why I reverted it. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Boys calm down, you just got the page locked. Congrats! (sarcasm) Obtund^Talk 17:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at iPhone 5, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. YumaNuma you must stop edit warring. You have received level 4 warning because you just received a level 3 from the GA1. I have seen in the past that you have edit warred with people. If you continue, expect there to be discipline. Obtund^Talk 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)