User talk:Yilloslime

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Welcome!

Hello, Yilloslime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better reasons

Greetings!

When you remove content and references from articles, please provide your reasons for doing so otherwise your updates will get reversed.

Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are referring to. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Discuss

talk:endosulfan

Since you mentioned "some ok stuff" request to specify and introduce back on the endosulfan page. the intention here shoould be to present fact based information. Request to support reverts with source links or edit information which may be of concern than reverting the entire edits. there is a lot of blatant POV posted on the page currently from PAN/EJF which are biased due to the nature of their organization. Please check. Also, "quote-mining" is unclear, as many irrelevant quotes are present from unkown parties ex. comparison to Bhopal gas tragedy.Request to please post on talk before rv. Let's be democratic. Webbandit (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have shared my concerns regarding the recent reverts made on the talk page. pls share a suitable explanation for your revert. In lieu of no response, I would consider that the edits I had made are acceptable and revert back to the information shared by me. thanks.Webbandit (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I've been away from my computer until now. I don't see where on the talkpage you've shared your concerns about the reverts--the last edit there was 10 months ago. But to address your comments here: Nothing on the page is cited to PAN other than the brief mention of the fact they sued EPA over the pesticide. And the only EJF thing on there is an external link to one their reports, (which I didn't even realize was there until now--I'd be fine removing that, though I don't necessarily think it needs to go.) As for quote mining, see Quote mining. My use of the term refers to your insertion of text about EPA's conclusion that endosulfan doesn't pose a dietary risk and the quote from APMVA. These additions gave the impression that EPA and APVMA have concluded that endosulfan is safe, when in actuality you are quoting decisions to ban/phaseout endosulfan. If a report/article/document concludes one thing, you can't present a quote from within the document that appears to argue for the opposite unless you put that quote in the proper context. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sic

Hi, I have restored both refs that you removed from the article sic. While you're right that the sources did not discuss those subjects, I believe what happened was that the fact cited and their sources were decoupled through the on-going edits made by various editors. It's not uncommon for people reorganize a paragraph or section to make it read better without bothering to check the sources. In short, please, if in the future you encounter that a ref that doesn't seem to contain a particular fact, try to find another place to put the ref before removing it. Thanks :) —CodeHydro 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Head (documentary)

You put the Fat Head (documentary) article up for AFD back in 2009. I recently remade the article however. I read through the objections on the AFD debate and I feel the the factors that resulted in delete votes have changed so that it would pass an AFD that was held today. In the debate it was mentioned that at some future time, the article might pass the notability threshold even though it did not back then. I welcome your input however and, if you feel that I am wrong, feel free to submit it to AFD again. I wanted to give you notice that the article is back, just as a courtesy, since you were the one that originated the AFD last time. Qaz (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxyhydrogen

Thanks. A very weird situation was it. Last Lost (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Could you please properly format the fist line in the disambig page HHO? After this adventure I would not touch the subject with the long pole. Last Lost (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

I thought this article/diff[1] may interest you. Shootbamboo (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lot's of loonies out there.... Yilloslime ^T_C 18:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NIU & Carnegie

Good call. Thanks for the edit summary, too. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Spring

I'm due to be out of town for a week and an editor has decided to tag the asinine criticisms of Silent Spring as POV. Keep a watch for me while I'm gone.

Tks Cronos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos1 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing?

I have added you to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. It will needed to be deleted if you return. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^{my talk page} is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Uw-v1-h

A tag has been placed on Template:Uw-v1-h requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Eye snore (PC) 19:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Spring

I'm attempting to improve the article and hopefully bring it to FA status at one point. Any help is appreciated. I have recently taken a lot of material from the Rachel Carson article and inserted it into the Silent Spring article to use as a starting point. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain Yourself

Please explain why you deleted the simple, valid, cited articles and positions I just added. Did you check them in the minute between when I added them and when you deleted them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yilloslime. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and pesticide articles

I see you recently had edits reverted at Pesticides in the United States by Kingofaces43. I agree with you that (1)WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE are not policies, and have pointed this out to Koa several times when he has conflated them with policy, and (2)WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE are not directly relevant to the information you added, which is based on independent RS coverage, as long as you avoid explicit health claims. In my personal experience, it is best to limit your engagement with Kingofaces43 as much as possible with articles in this area, as he is likely to try to get you blocked for edit warring / violating the agricultural chemicals section of the GMO arbcom case. Rather than argue with him further, I suggest opening a request for comment about your proposed content on the article talk page, to get feedback from other editors.Dialectric (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits to Michael Gira

Hi! I'm a bit confused about your rationale for reverting my edits to Michael Gira. Could you elaborate further? WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't apply, because Gira is a public figure. Also, the consensus on the talk page was that the allegations should be discussed - the section was removed in opposition to this and WP:WELLKNOWN ("If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.") --Martey (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I not would say there was any sort of consensus on the talk page. All there is one editor asking if the allegations could be mentioned, and another editor saying "As long as you have good sourcing and follow guidelines, I don't see why not." That's not much of a consensus. Then the seection in question was removed without objection, and it remained out for more than year during which time more than a dozen unique editors worked on the page, so I would argue that the current consensus is to keep that section out.

Having said all that, I am not catagorically opposed to mentioning the allegations, so long as they are not given undue weight. The section in question gave way more attention to the allegations than they deserved and featured the controversy in its own subsection. Also, one citation was to Facebook, which is a no no, especially for BLP sensitve material. I'm not sure that stereogum and pitchfork are appropriate sources for this type of material either. Yilloslime (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Maines

Your recent editing history at Nicole Maines shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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.

Please conclude the discussion regarding the use of the term activist before reverting to your preferred version of the text. As you added the information regarding the inclusion of the term from the on 3 August 2018, the text should remain at the previous stable version of the article until discussions are concluded. The previous stable version had its last edit made on 29 July 2018 91.110.126.179 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your information I have requested the reverting/edit war report you made be re-opened as you are continuing to edit war and are not acting in good faith by imposing your preferred version and are not trying to constructively discuss. I would like to additionally point out silence is not acceptance. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]