User talk:Yae4

DYK for GrapheneOS

On 15 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article GrapheneOS, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that GrapheneOS, a free and open-source operating system for selected Google Pixel smartphones, was recommended by Edward Snowden? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/GrapheneOS. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, GrapheneOS), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It's on the main page! Nice work! — Newslinger talk 00:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, Thanks for all your help too! The charts are interesting; looking forward to see how it goes. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, Yesterday the chart looked like no change; today it looks like a big spike - 3,800 isn't 5k, but it's not bad. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 climate change. 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.

Doug Weller talk 11:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for NearlyFreeSpeech

On 1 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NearlyFreeSpeech, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that NearlyFreeSpeech was considered a "safe haven" for alt-right Twitter alternative Gab? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NearlyFreeSpeech. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, NearlyFreeSpeech), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 06:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Precious Plastic

On 1 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Precious Plastic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dave Hakkens founded Precious Plastic, an open hardware plastic recycling project, to enable individuals to set up "their own miniature recycling company"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Precious Plastic. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Precious Plastic), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 06:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Dave Hakkens

On 1 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dave Hakkens, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dave Hakkens founded Precious Plastic, an open hardware plastic recycling project, to enable individuals to set up "their own miniature recycling company"? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dave Hakkens), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 06:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 12:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for MicroG

On 5 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MicroG, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the LineageOS operating system refused to integrate MicroG software, the project forked its own version, with MicroG pre-installed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MicroG. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, MicroG), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Warning

I am very close to filing a complaint against you at WP:AE to ask for a topic ban for your tendentious editing on climate change articles. I think you need to take a step back.

jps (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Mototaka Nakamura for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mototaka Nakamura is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mototaka Nakamura until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...independent review of Draft:Harold_Ambler. Someone good at BLP, please. Is he notable, and is the Reception section too critical? Thanks in advance.

Yae4 (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

We do not do speedy reviews like this, please submit it to the queue and someone will take a look at it when they have time. Thanks, Majavah ^(t/c) 08:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Harold Ambler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harold Ambler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Ambler until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jlevi (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Harold Ambler.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Harold Ambler.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Yae4. Guy (help!) 14:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Harold Ambler.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Harold Ambler.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete away, B-bot. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Climate change AE

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

So, about the AE... there's a consensus there for a full topic ban, and even though I'm not 100% on board with it, I'm closing it anyway because it needs to be closed. It's not the end of the world. It is what you make of it. I've seen people come back as better editors after appealing indef topic bans. I do hope to see you appeal it as it's clear you have some knowledge about the subject. Anyway, I have a couple pieces of unsolicited advice for you in navigating the topic ban and bouncing back after:

• First, remove everything related to climate change from your watchlist. You don't want to get tripped up by accidentally reverting something you saw on your watchlist, and continuing to follow the discussions from a distance will make you more likely to mess up and get blocked. And don't continue any conflicts with users you clashed with in the topic area.
• Find something less controversial to edit about for a while. You shouldn't jump sideways into some pseudoscience, alt-med, or politics battleground. Maybe make a goal, getting some obscure article up to WP:GA or something. This will help in your appeal.
• Spend some time reading up on Wikipedia's core policies and mission, and try to make that your primary motivation for editing. It's easy to get caught up in righting great wrongs but the editors who have the biggest impact are the ones who have writing a quality encyclopedia as their primary goal. It's a mindset of "I'm making Wikipedia better by making sure it reflects my (correct) POV" vs. "I'm making Wikipedia better by making sure it reflects the highest quality reliable sources, and maybe sometimes my personal POV may come in handy helping me see in other editors' blind spots and helping me craft phrases in a neutral way."
• Oh, and like I suggested to Hob Galding, remember Graham's Hierarchy and keep all your interactions in the top 2-3 tiers.

Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk. ~Awilley (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

And here comes the generic template with instructions for appealing:

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from climate change, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Yae4

Thank you for creating CrDroid.

User:Elliot321, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please consider breaking up the "history and reception" section into multiple paragraphs.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Elliot321}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elliot321:, Thanks for the review and suggestion. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

CopperheadOS

Hi Yae4. I noticed you've made three reverts in the last 24 hours at CopperheadOS. I'm sure you're already aware of it, but please take a look at the three-revert rule. In particular, even if you don't break the three-revert rule, administrators may still block you for edit warring. I won't be doing any blocking myself, as I am pretty much involved with this particular issue now, but I can't speak for other administrators, so it would pay to take extra care here I think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, Thanks for the reminder. I was just about to go to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to ask for more opinions on the 2v3-p name thing. I was a little too careless about the 3 changes because Anupraitsno1 is, to me, clearly closely connected with GrapheneOS and its developer, Micay/Strcat, and has not participated in the Talk about the name. Should I provide links showing the connections, and if so, where/how? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't post links showing the connections in public, as that would probably violate the policy on posting personal information. There is a tension between that policy and the conflict-of-interest policy, and the personal information policy takes precedence. You can see the options available to you at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: I've looked at the list of personal information, and I don't think any of the following would be forbidden. Am I wrong? Let's say hypothetically...A person using an alias is developer of X-ROM, which is a derivative of GrapheneOS. A person using that alias has advocated X-ROM in at least one forum. A person using that alias gives advice on GrapheneOS in communications channels. A person works on development of applications jointly or as forks/spinoffs of the applications in or from GrapheneOS. Therefore, the person is closely connected with GrapheneOS, and its developer, and has COI, which should prevent them from editing the articles on Graphene or Copperhead. Do you agree it would be OK to ask the editor to confirm or deny these connections? And to give them links showing the basis for these statements, if they deny these connections? -- Yae4 (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

CryptoHarlem moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, CryptoHarlem, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). In addition the company is not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DMySon (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:CryptoHarlem has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:CryptoHarlem. Thanks! JSFarman (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Mistaken rollback?

1. Special:Diff/1094471031
2. Special:Diff/1094472051
3. Special:Diff/1094472424

I attempted to fix your rollback to be a partial revert. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at GrapheneOS 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:GrapheneOS#"partly" open-source. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Partial block from GrapheneOS

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of one week for violating the 3 revert rule. Note that you can still edit the article talk page while the main article block is in effect. Good luck. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 01:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

GrapheneOS website as "user-generated source"

I see you've already self-reverted yourself, however I'll comment on your Special:Diff/1094765286 anyway: I don't see it evident the GrapheneOS website to fit into the definition of a WP:UCG source, only as a WP:PRIMARY source, with the assumption that the website's source markup/code is a Git repository somewhere and that requires editorial review of a repository maintainer to commit changes to (or Git push privileges). The maintenance template in this theoretical scenario would be one of these: {{Primary source inline}}, {{Third-party inline}}, or {{Better source needed}}. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Disengaging with you

After Special:Diff/1095862491, I think I should apologize. I'd like to disengage and focus most of my contributions on other articles from now on. Sorry.

But before I do, I would like to point out some trouble I have with your behavior that has frustrated my efforts to collaborate with you:

• Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources (marginally reliable sources for uncontroversial statements or attributed points of view) at Talk:GrapheneOS, to the extent of disputing the reliability of multiple sources for a specific uncontroversial or attributed POV statement (that may have been originally cited by you); what may be judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint. (A few comments were good, such as comments on Origo and Packt.)
• Accusing me of having a preference for sources at RSN (Special:Diff/1095870955), while showing refrainment from critically evaluating the other list items neutrally (imo mostly marginal with one or a few exceptions of generally reliable sources). I was attempting to push the discussion forward with no personal opinion or vote on those sources.
• Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit (examples: Special:Diff/1095828521, Special:Diff/1094307821) – including one WP:UGC source to GitHub (generally unacceptable), including an WP:EXCEPTIONAL citation claim about third-parties without multiple reliable sources to verify those claims (doubtful about WP:ABOUTSELF).
• This potential prejudice what sections an article can, cannot or should not have: Special:Diff/1095679328. Though, I'll have to assume good faith here since you kept that section.

I have no trouble with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Resonantia you've opened, I've expected you wanted to do so eventually (it wasn't sooner than the first time you suspected it, but didn't bring it to SPI immediately: Special:Diff/1094493094). I would've liked to be notified with {{Uw-socksuspect}} on my talk page as courtesy, but I was not notified of this.

Perhaps this message may also come as inflammatory. I've not been squeaky clean towards you with my behavior either. When I've been wrong, at least on a few occasions I've tried to correct my contributions/behavior and listened. I hope you'll understand my frustrations and what leads to my disengagement with you. And I hope, if you can at least recognize some of these problems, it will help you build better articles for an encyclopedia. I do understand you're still here to build an encyclopedia in good faith, but as said, my patience to collaborate runs short. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You either came to GrapheneOS because Micay was recruiting, with a few meat or sock puppets, or you didn't. Others will judge. See my response there regarding notifications, and wiki-guidance to err on not notifying. All I know for sure is the timing overlaps with the off-wiki github "notability" file creation and editing, and I do not usually believe in random coincidences. Then there is the temporary awakening of dormant accounts, and IMO pro-GrapheneOS biased editing. I'll end with this other admin response to Strcat, another well known Micay alias, who was complaining about CopperheadOS in August 2020, "the entire article is on a subject that barely scratches notability and has become a viper pit."[1] This has been the case at /e/, CopperheadOS, and GrapheneOS. So it goes; or Say Law-Vee for /e/ fans. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)