User talk:Yurivict

Welcome!

Hello, Yurivict, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 04:21, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Water Memory

Just catching up with your comments and want to say 'hallo.' I have not read the whole discussion yet, and it is very late but I support your concerns. Jeffrey Newman 02:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Peter-mintun-pianist.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter-mintun-pianist.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 11:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly

The TIME tag is actually quite misleading. For a fair use image to be considered "fair use" there must be a valid fair use rationale given. None was given, and the image wasn't being used for fair use purposes (please review fair use before telling me it was actually being used appropriately), therefore I deleted the image from Wikipedia. We had a glut of TIME covers, and they had to be culled. It was certainly an unpopular move on my part, but one which I do not regret. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kozin04.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kozin04.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:CadenceDesignSystemsLogo.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:CadenceDesignSystemsLogo.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:MentorGraphicsLogo.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:MentorGraphicsLogo.GIF. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:SynopsysLogo.GIF

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SynopsysLogo.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MagmaDALogo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MagmaDALogo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HaroldGeneen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HaroldGeneen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Akamai Foundation

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Akamai Foundation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Lahaina and Kipahulu

Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style for proper naming of articles and discuss the idea before making unilateral moves. Thanks. --travisthurston+ 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Consuelo velazquez.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Consuelo velazquez.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alex Spade (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Robertino-loretti-jamaica-front.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Robertino-loretti-jamaica-front.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Adjuntas, Puerto Rico, Central Square.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Adjuntas, Puerto Rico, Central Square.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Dorado,_Puerto_Rico,_Central_Square.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dorado,_Puerto_Rico,_Central_Square.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mresort-logo.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Mresort-logo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

speedy tag on Rob Kardashian

Hi, I removed the tag you put on this article. I don't think this qualifies for a speedy delete, since there is some question about notability. If you still think the article should be deleted, perhaps you should prod it or send it to AfD. -- Deville (Talk) 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Walter Ritz Physicist.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Walter Ritz Physicist.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassador needed

Hi! My name is Annie Lin - I'm the Campus Team Coordinator at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm contacting you because you're listed as a resident of San Francisco, and we're currently looking for a friendly Wikipedian to teach students in a University of San Francisco class how to use/edit Wikipedia. This is a role titled the "Wikipedia Campus Ambassador," and you'll basically be doing in-class presentations about Wikipedia, running Wikipedia labs/workshops, and in general providing face-to-face Wikipedia help for the professor and the students in the class. The time commitment is about 3-5 hours a week (with variations throughout the semester), and for this particular University of San Francisco class, most of the workload will be between March and May.

Please let me know if you're interested!

Thanks. Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Vivek Kundra

This has been resolved by a very lengthy discussion as posted in the Archives. There are walls and walls of text where the administrators such as User:Horologium have cautioned about WP:Undue in a biography of a living person.- MaryGD (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Kozin04.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kozin04.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi Yurivict,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi, Yurivick!

Here you said that there were Russian and Kazakh nationals on board. However the original BBC source only said Italian, French, German, and British passengers.

I'll see if I can find a source for Kazakh (I already found Russian) Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. When you recently edited United States visas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yurivict. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
Message added 20:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In relation to your contribution to the Robin Hood page entitled the 'Evolution of Concepts'

Hi,

Thanks for your contribution to the Robin Hood Wikipedia page.

I wrote a Masters degree on the origins and development of the legend of Robin Hood (RH) earlier this year, and ever since I have been endeavoring to tidy the Wikipedia page up, and to that end I find your contribution to be useful.

I especially like your opening, where you discuss how Robin Hood has evolved. However, might I suggest that you take the time to revise your contribution slightly? Immediately after your opening you talk of Robert de Locksley. Whilst useful, I believe that your contribution here might be more usefully located under the sub-title 'Robin Hood's of history', where you could start a new sub-section on de Locksley, to go along with the Robin Hood's of York and of Wakefield etc. I believe that such action would make the information easier to find for someone searching for evidence of historical Robin Hood's. That said, you have unfortunately failed to provide a footnote citing from where this information derives. As a part of writing my thesis I tried to locate information on Robert de Locksley, but failed to identify a valid historical source, and so if you have a citation to back-up this point it would be a very valuable addition. Otherwise, strictly speaking, under Wikipedia's Terms and Policies, the information should be deleted. But I believe that that would be a shame because, as I say, its useful stuff, and accurate citations relating to Robert de Locksley are hard to come by.

I also note that you have provided information which states that Robin Hood originated from either Swannington in Essex or Loxley, Warwickshire. Personally, I really like the Loxley idea, especially given that the Loxley tombstone which marks the grave is identical to that which formerly resided at Kirklees. Alas, there is no other evidence to suggest that the outlaw operated in Warwickshire, and as I am sure that you are aware, all of the early evidence suggests that RH originated from northern England, and predominantly Yorkshire, as did Robert de Locksley. Therefore I believe that, in all probability, the grave at Loxley is not that of RH. Still, it is worth a mention on the Wikipedia page, but should, I would suggest, be located under the sub-heading of topography. Here, once again, you have not provided an academic footnote. Yes, you have cited Brian Benison, who says that he is so confident that the man who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor is from Swannington, near Ashby, that he will give money to charity if he is mistaken. Brian's new book, Robin Hood: The Real Story, sets out the case that Robin was actually Roger Godberd, a farmer from Swannington. But this is a piece of original research, and is thus in violation of Wikipedia' 'No Original Research Policy' under its Terms and Conditions. Indeed, the work contains absolutely no works to specified historical sources. In short, the citation is not fit for listing on Wikipedia. Besides, Benison has quite clearly missed the point, because the evidence of the Berkshire Rolls of 1261-62 prove that the Robin Hood legend was by then already well established. However, Roger Godberd did not become an outlaw until AFTER the end of the Second Barons War (1264-67), which proves that he cannot be Robin Hood. I would suggest that he give that money which he has promised to charity!

Finally, you give other information pertaining to the topography of the legend, but again, this would be better suited under the sub-heading topography.

In sum, I really like your contribution, but would request that you divide it into suitable sub-divisions. And, of course, you really ought to work on providing suitable citations. I could make the said changes myself, but in truth I don't want to undermine your efforts as I understand that that is very frustrating.

Wishing you well,

Siggasonswein (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Siggasonswein, you made a mistake, my contribution was only cosmetic. You need to identify the user who made a change you want to talk about and send him/her a message. Regards, Yurivict (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you "blacking" out the stats from the table in the section Puerto Ricans in Hawaii in the article Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii? You know, I believe you to be a good editor and that you did it unintentionally, therefore I fixed it once more. Remember my friend, when you make an edit, check it out before saving it. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look at the result in browser, was fixing syntax errors in an automated system. However, text there said <<< {| style="background:"Black" border="1" >>> , which is the broken style which looks like it was set to black. But because of the broken style syntax, it was ignored by wiki-engine. I fixed the style syntax, and this made it work as black, as written. And you also didn't look, and just brought it back to the broken state. Sorry, next time will look better. -) Yurivict (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well done and well said. Your fix looks real good now. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Finis Farr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilson County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sedimentary rock may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Governance page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Howard Menzel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Miahuatlan and Oaxaca, Mexico. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the ParaView page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Yurivict. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fruit

Did you know that you never knew the true meaning and definition of fruit? That's right, you don't know what a fruit is. A Banana, Tomato, strawberry... Not fruits. A fruit is a food that grows and makes you fart. This means that you have been telling lies when you say that you are eating fruit. Beans are a fruit. The most common one as a matter of fact.

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Instant messaging, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ring. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yurivict. 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)

Please don't promote fringe theories on Wikipedia

This and this are not appropriate uses of an article talk page per WP:NOTFORUM. Discussions about improving the article need to be based on reliable sources, not WP:FRINGE theories. Being that you have done this before here and here, please consider this a final warning that if you misuse the article talk page again, I will report it to WP:AE. - MrX 🖋 12:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't promote anything in any of the instances you mentioned. I suggested improvements/corrections to the articles based on applying of the common sense. Yurivict (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yurivict. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Mar 2019: Raloxifene edit reverted

[This edit] was reverted due to its being inappropriately promotional. Do you have a conflict of interest to declare?--Quisqualis (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

That's just a bit of information, there's nothing promotional in it. Yurivict (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Bomull" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bomull. Since you had some involvement with the Bomull redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Important notices

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Also, regarding [1] and [2], I would like to remind you not to promote WP:FRINGE theories or try to insert material that is not supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi They,

That edit contained truth, not a fringe theory. Wikipedia's reliable sources mechanism is broken and it doesn't allow really reliable sources to be cited. Yurivict (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You should do some reading of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your edits did not contain "truth", and the Washington Examiner is an exceptionally poor source. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

They contain "truth" as per the definition of truth: "true facts, genuine depiction or statements of reality". Yurivict (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No, they really don't.

1. Donald Trump did not win the election.
2. The bullshit in Washington Examiner was, in fact, total bullshit. Fact check available here: [3]

Please review the policies regarding reliable sources, they are there for a reason. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are so brainwashed and so devoid of the ability of independent thought and analysis. Best, Yurivict (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts is right. If you distrust our RS policy so much, you really shouldn't be editing here, at least on controversial topics. You have a duty to follow that policy and prioritize verifiable information from RS, not your subjective ideas of "truth". That information must come from what we consider RS (IOW accurate sources, regardless of any left or right bias), not from the fringe and unreliable sources that you consider reliable. They are misinforming you. -- Valjean (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't information in Wikipedia reflect what is *really* happening? Otherwise what is the point of editing or even having the articles? Yurivict (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

We document what RS say. We do not give undue weight to the views from unreliable sources, and we label lies for what they are when RS do so. -- Valjean (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And when RS is not really RS, your documentation is garbage, garbage in, garbage out. Yurivict (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yurivict, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Or, in this case, verifiability not Truth™. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability implies comparing, what are you comparing with? Yurivict (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

When you write that Wikipedia "doesn't allow really reliable sources to be cited," what sources do you think we should cite? We know you consider Newsmax as reliable, but what other sources would you have in your personal list of reliable sources? I have such a list, but I'd like to see yours. -- Valjean (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The One America News TV channel does honest, excellent reporting; NewsMax accurately reports current US news; The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/) has very reliable information; same can be said about American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/) and Big League Politics (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/).

Mass media outlets like CNN/CBS/MSNBC/New York Times/etc don't seem concerned about objective news reporting, and instead have long turned into the instruments of propaganda.

Just two recent irrefutable examples: (1) They continuously claim that there is no evidence of election fraud when hundreds of affidavits exist that claim fraud (affidavits are a definition of evidence); (2) during the last Wednesday's press conference of Trump lawyers CNN said "We don't show it because it is 'bananas'."; These two recent instances show that mass media doesn't even try to report news, they are just engaged in lying and twisting the information for the purposes of propaganda. They don't act in good faith, and it is preposterous to even consider them to be "reliable sources" for anything, like Wikipedia does. Yurivict (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you checked out conservapedia.com? Schazjmd (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Yurivict (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. From the little I know of it, I believe they would agree wholeheartedly with your statement about the reliability of those specific sources. Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea, because the sources you favor above are totally unreliable, and the ones you don't like are RS. You lack the ability "to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles," and therefore shouldn't be editing any controversial topics here. You will be right at home among friends at Conservapedia.-- Valjean (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If you really believe so I have no choice but think that you totally lack the ability to discern what is true and what is false, and should never edit Wikipedia articles about any subject matter. Yurivict (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at this another way. It's not about what is true or false, but about what Wikipedia considers to be a RS or an unreliable source. You already understand how this creates a problem for you, and we are just telling you that your attitude about this sourcing situation is unsuited for this place, since we use RS here (the ones you don't like), regardless of whether you consider them true or false. Conservapedia is a perfect place for you, and that's a guarantee. Here you'll only end up topic banned or fully banned. It all depends on what and how you choose to edit. On uncontroversial subjects, you might be able to function very productively. That would be nice. -- Valjean (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors approve what is considered to be a "reliable source", and approve it again by editing accordingly or advocating for the system, like you do here. Which, again, brings us to the conclusion that you can not discern what is true and what is false. Yurivict (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. The point remains that your attitude toward the sources we consider reliable is fundamentally against our policies, so you might find Conservapedia a better fit. You can also remain here, as long as you abide by our RS policy, even though you don't agree with it. I know some other editors who do that. -- Valjean (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you not personalize this by making personal attacks about my ability to discern what is true or not. As I stated above, the issue is fundamentally "not about what is true or false" but about what Wikipedia considers a RS. I think we can agree that you do not agree with the consensus among editors on that subject. I do agree with that consensus. That is the most fundamental issue here, seen from a policy-based perspective, which is not exactly the same as the "true vs. false" perspective. On that last perspective, the Bible tells us that "every man is right in his own eyes." (Proverbs 21:2) So we're both in the same boat there. -- Valjean (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This wasn't an attack, rather a statement of fact. Analysis: facts (1) there are hundreds of affidavits of fraud, (2) affidavits are a definition of proof, (3) CNN/MSNBC/ABC all assert that there is no proof of fraud. => All facts (1,2,3) can't be true at the same time. Since (1) is supported by photocopies available online and (2) is supported by reading law textbooks, this leads to only one possible conclusion: (3) is false, or, in layman terms, CNN/MSNBC/ABC/etc are lying when they state that (3) is true. Intentional lying shouldn't be compatible with the source being RS. Yet you apparently agree that they are RS. There is an obvious contradiction. I don't know where does your judgement fail in this chain of reasoning, but it obviously does. Hence, this is almost a mathematical proof that you can't discern what is true from what is false. Yurivict (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to humor you, I'll clarify a flaw in your logic. No. 2 is not true. A court decides that. An affidavit can contain unproven and false allegations. They just got signed. That's all. Some affidavits have been connected to Project Veritas, a well-known source of false and manipulated information, and some affidavits have been retracted. Courts have already rejected many, and Trump’s lawyers have been laughed out of court in several states. They make allegations, but have no evidence of any widespread or systematic voter fraud, so the judge tells them to leave because they have no case.

Now back to the topic, which is RS. Why not take your case to WP:RS/N? Show them your arguments and change our policy. -- Valjean (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No, affidavits are admissible evidence, so my original conclusion is true. Since wikipedia is apparently overrun with editors who seriously think that mass media are RS, efforts to change the policy would more than likely be futile. Yurivict (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

So, regarding your editing here, what's your strategy going forward? -- Valjean (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And why are you asking? Yurivict (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Just curious. -- Valjean (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't be. Yurivict (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)