User talk:Yintan

Please click here to leave me a message and don't forget to sign it. I will respond on this talk page unless requested otherwise.  Yintan

Hi

Hi,

Sorry about that. I just wanted to check how effectively wiki works.

I had a college time experience when one of the guys changed our college ranking in wikipedia and then shared the link.

But one of my friend pointed out that in wikipedia anyone can edit. Sorry about it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.12.11 (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No sweat. Please use WP:SANDBOX for tests and such. Disruptive editing, even as a test, is not appreciated and could eventually get you blocked. Cheers,  Yintan  12:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nurul Islam Edit

I recently made a change to Nurul Islam's (broadcaster) wikipedia page and you removed it due to having no source. The change that I made was to add the names of his children and I did not provide a source as one of them is my father and I did not have a relevant source to prove this.

I would be very grateful if you could re-do this change as it would make a difference to my family to be remembered alongside their loved one.

Many thanks, Isobel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.49.79 (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Isobel, but Wikipedia needs verifiable sources for its information, especially when it concerns biographies. Kind regards,  Yintan  23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Akahi Nui

I assume you are an admin. Could you do anything about 212.214.13.26 who is now operating under 213.86.93.33? Using the personal website of either Akahi Nui or his followers, he is editing the article of to make him sound like a legitimate royal descendants when there are no prove any of his genealogical claims are legitimate. I reverted him for now but I know he will be back. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kavebear. No, I'm not, and I'm pretty sure I've explained to you before that the place to report vandalism is WP:AIV. Kind regards,  Yintan  10:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Top 300 Home Run Hitters

Hi Yintan, I'm the user that deleted part of your "Players to Watch" section of the Top 300 Home Run Hitters. Under Wikipedia rules we have to keep that section updated daily. Traditionally, that section has only listed players within 40 home runs of the cutoff to make the Top 300. It's arbitrary but it makes sense - it's nice to know who's coming up but keeping track of more than a dozen or so players every day who aren't even close to the cutoff is a big hassle. Hence, I think the cutoff should be Brian McCann, who's 40 home runs shy of the cutoff. Otherwise updating the section is a greater hassle than it's worth.

Best, Bobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyBigWheel (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bobby. First, it's not my "Players to Watch" section. I know f all about baseball . But you removed a chunk of the article without any discussion or edit summary. That's bound to raise the eyebrows of RCP patrollers like myself. I understand your reasoning but maybe it's better if you discuss it on the article's Talkpage first. Otherwise other editors will (probably) undo the change again. Cheers,  Yintan  13:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

wheatgrass page

You claimed I did not leave a citation ,and I did. So what is wrong with this citation: http://www.jbc.org/content/152/2/215.short

Dr. Kohler is a renown scientist. Why are you disregarding his work????

Further, you have a chart on that page that is clearly bogus. It is comparing wheatgrass juice, which was probably grown in someone's kitchen, and trying to claim that this was the same as what Dr. Schnabel produced. That is a boldfaced lie! Then you compare this bogus nonsense with brocolli and spinach with no reference whatsoever to how much of each plant was used, what form it was in, etc. How dare you claim that my reference from a very well known scientist published in a respected journal is not legit when you allow that bogus and absurd chart, which has no reference whatsoever, to stand?

Also the tone of your article is to make Dr. Schnabel out to be a crackpot. He was a very respected scientist whose work was published in numerous medical journals.

I would set up an account, but first I wanted to see if what they say about your supporting non-scientific baloney over scientific fact is indeed true, and it appear it is.

It's not my article and I'm not going to argue over Dr. Schnabel's work. I just suggest you read WP:RS and WP:NPOV, guidelines that were adopted to prevent the rise of non-scientific baloney over scientific fact. Also, please sign your message next time (WP:SIGHOW). Kind regards,  Yintan  22:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Prism

I removed a paragraph criticizing PRISM from Ron Paul. Those are not references that belong in an unbiased article. I gave the reason. This is a free encyclopedia, not a place to enforce libertarian views, here is the paragraph in question:

Ron Paul, a former member of Congress and prominent libertarian, said, "We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk.... They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret."[68] Paul denounced the government's secret surveillance program: "The government does not need to know more about what we are doing.... We need to know more about what the government is doing."[68] He called Congress "derelict in giving that much power to the government," and said that had he been elected president, he would have ordered searches only when there was probable cause of a crime having been committed, which he said was not how the PRISM program was being operated.[69]

A former member of congress is not a good source for current domestic response. A news source, organization (EFF, ACLU, etc.), or current member of congress are all sources. A retied member of congress has no more sway than an average person on the street. If we leave Ron Paul's response there, then why don't we put other normal citizens' quotes as well?

The section "Domestic Response" also has no claims by those not supporting Snowden. Wikipedia is a place to show all views on the subject, so they should be added. If you leave the Ron Paul quote, then Dick Cheney's response must be added as well.

"A reti[r]ed member of congress has no more sway than an average person on the street"? Interesting opinion. And a retired president? George W. Bush now equals John Doe? In any case, you removed sourced content. If you want to add Cheney's opinion too, go ahead, just make sure it's sourced. And please sign your post next time (WP:SIGHOW). Regards,  Yintan  22:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the Elbert Frank Cox Wikipedia page -- source addresses incorrectly entered --sorry.

hallo Yintan,

I was trying (my first attempt) to enter the source addresses for the text on Elbert Frank Cox and his PhD studies at Cornell University (PhD 1925), which was missing from the Elbert Frank Cox Wikipedia page.

I made a mistake -- entering two http addresses in the source address WITHIN EACH of the brackets instead of each BETWEEN these brackets. Sorry.

The sources of the additions are:

http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/PEEPS/cox_elbertf.html (this is where the text came from) and http://www.maa.org/summa/archive/Cox_EF.htm (this confirms the added information)

Can you see the source addresses and help me fix them. Thankx 89.204.137.215 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Give me a minute, I'll take a look.  Yintan  22:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yintan,

OK, my second attempt to fix the error has resulted in messing up the titles of two sections of the Wikipedia Text entitled COLLEGE YEARS and WEST VIRGINIA STATE COLLEGE -- sorry again.

Can you or anyone help to fix this? (Sorry for the error, but the info on Cox is important because the Wiki page completely left out that Elbert Frank Cox did, in fact, earn his PhD from Cornell University in 1924/5, and, that he was the first African American to earn a PhD in Mathematics, ever. In addition, the information is important because it shows that Cornell University was open to such advanced scientific work by African American (Cornell University was also one of the first US Universities to admit women to graduate law and science programs).

Thanks for your help.

89.204.137.215 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That error has already been fixed. Considering your first question, is this[1] any help? Short version: just enter <ref>the URL</ref> at the appropriate spot(s) in the text. Regards,  Yintan  23:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yintan, I fixed the problem on the Elbert Frank Cox Wikipedia page after all. Thankx. 89.204.137.215 (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy editing,  Yintan  23:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

3G Changes

Hey! Sorry about any confusion. I saw that user 119.154.40.61 had removed a lot of information from the page (particularly bullet points following "The following standards are typically branded 3G"). I reverted to a change prior to 119.154.40.61's deletion. I noticed that you reverted back to 119.154.40.61's deleted changes. Feel free to post to my talk wall if you've got any questions! It's late here and I'm starting to get kinda tired, so I could easily miss something! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimurphy (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we both wanted to revert the same IP vandalism and confused the WP server. I restored your edit, thanks for pointing it out. Cheers,  Yintan  12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries at all! I'm quite new at this, so don't hesitate to let me know if I step on toes, commit faux pas of various sorts, etc. Thanks! :) -jimurphy Jimurphy (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you're doing fine. One remark: if you revert vandalism do add a warning to the vandal's Talkpage. The more warnings, the sooner they're blocked. Cheers,  Yintan  12:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

for the heads-up about G.K. Vasan. I've block the anon user again. Regards. Ground Zero | t 21:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes are needed to Hermann

I made two reasonable changes to Hermann both of which I think are justified. I assume your deletion of my changes were made out of ignorance of the purpose of my changes. Therefore le me state them clearly First, since Herrmann redirects to Hermann, the word "herrmann" should therefore be somewhere on "hermann". Second, "Herrmann Hall" is the major building on the Naval Postgraduate School and is the old historic Hotel Del Monte renamed. Since (a) Herrmann is a disambugation page, (b) people might search for "Herrmann Hall", and (c) it is common practice on such pages, there should be a link from "Hermann" to "Hotel Del Monte". I suggest that we adopt my changes. If you still stand by your quick deletion of my work, please explain. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You are completely correct. My apologies, I jumped the gun.  Yintan  10:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you attempting to support libel on Wikipedia?

It appears that you are using your authority to support the libelous content on The Spamhaus page. Please note that The STOPhaus Movement is backed by The Homogeneous Party, a registered Political Party in the State of Florida and we will not tolerate deliberate libel to be published on your site and you continue to revise corrections that mitigate the damages of libel. Before the edits were made, there was a lengthy discussion on your IRC Chat on this topic and I was advised to edit the Page. Citations were properly added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.12.126.18 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I support well sourced statements on Wikipedia. Most of your refs don't support what you're saying and are merely explanations of a technical term or websites of mentioned companies. Also, there are a lot of unsourced statements. That's why I reverted. Please check out WP:RS for more info. Thanks,  Yintan  10:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you attempting to support libel on Wikipedia?

It appears that you are using your authority to support the libelous content on The Spamhaus page. Please note that The STOPhaus Movement is backed by The Homogeneous Party, a registered Political Party in the State of Florida and we will not tolerate deliberate libel to be published on your site and you continue to revise corrections that mitigate the damages of libel. Before the edits were made, there was a lengthy discussion on your IRC Chat on this topic and I was advised to edit the Page.

No, I support well sourced statements on Wikipedia. Most of your refs don't support what you're saying and are merely explanations of a technical term or websites of mentioned companies. Also, there are a lot of unsourced statements. That's why I reverted. Please check out WP:RS for more info. Thanks,  Yintan  10:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Be it known that the content that was published concerning "Cyberbunker DDoS Spamhaus" was libelous in nature, published by a party with a conflict of interests and the only sources that were used were provided by New York Times, while the author herself, Nicole Perlroth admitted to publishing a false article fed to her by Cloudflare and Spamhaus. In other words, you are using content provided by Spamhaus and Cloudflare as both the article and the citations. I edited the libel out and added independent citations from sources such as Heavy.com, Softpedia, and Ars. Your avid discomfort in the truth is leading to an investigation into your own bias toward Spamhaus and/or Cloudflare and there is currently rumor that Anons are considering an Operation to thwart further malicious publications from you.

If you are seeking additional citations, we can supply them. If you want to interview Sven, myself, or any other member of STOPhaus we can support that. If you would like to see the admission of Nicole Perlroth from NYT stating that she was fed the article she posted, we can supply that as well. What we will not do is continue to allow you to maliciously libel a protected political entity or it's couterparts. This action is deemed a violation of Civil Laws and known as libel-per-say and you are responsible for continuing to support libel with your reverting of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.12.126.18 (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Investigate all you want, and don't even think of threatening me. It's considered bad manners and utterly pointless. I'm not impressed. You are aware of the fact that a single Wikipedia article is written by hundreds of people? Also, don't delete my answers from my own Talkpage. Lastly, seeing that your stuff keeps being reverted I appear not to be the only one who has problems with your sources.  Yintan  13:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, you were not threatened. You were notified that your actions, if continued, will lead to litigation. That is not a threat, that is a legal remedy to libel. We are filing for an injunction of your site today. I guess we will see if it was a threat. We will also be launching an Operation against Wikipedia for being libel-mongers and will test the capabilities of your staff, system, and personal lives. That, my friend, is a promise!