User talk:TYelliot

Please preserve the context of replies and keep communication collected. If I started a conversation on your talk page, I'll be watching it, so please leave replies on that page. If you are responding to a comment I've written, please copy that text to a new section here using this template: {{User:TYelliot/quote}} and insert your reply below as usual. Thanks.

Mini Psicosis

Since I don't have rollback rights, I can't undo the vandalism done to Mini Psicosis by User:76.202.250.108.

I've fixed it, but you could have done it: the way to revert several vandal edits (which even rollbackers may have to use if several vandals have been at work) is to find the last good version in the history, and click on the time-and-date entry towards the left of the line. That brings up that version; then if you click "Edit" and then "Save", that version will be restored (with various warnings to be sure you know what you are doing). Use an edit summary like "Revert vandalism to version by MPJ-DK at 23:02, 16 August", so that anyone looking at the history can see what has happened. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful guidance. TYelliot (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I'm not comfortable granting your request for rollback since you only registered yesterday and aren't even autoconfirmed yet; however rollback is an area I don't normally dwell in and you may have better success posting your request on WP: Requests for permissions. —Soap— 15:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait then. Thanks. --TYelliot (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Battle of Aldenhoven (1794) Wonderful Days Kallar Kahar Tehsil Treaty of Leoben Constitution of the Year VIII Center for International Environmental Law Killers (2010 film) Declaration of Pillnitz Cartes du Ciel Jacques Maurice Hatry Iyaz Khairpur, Chakwal Let Me In (film) Ciel (beverage) Crunkcore Charles Bertin Gaston Chapuis de Tourville Peter Quasdanovich Catherine Théot Jean-Henri Voulland

Cleanup Konijeti Rosaiah Pierre Gaspard Chaumette List of The Super Dimension Fortress Macross episodes Merge Timeline of the Mongol Empire Général Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant II Add Sources Date Night Kick-Ass (film) The Best of L'Arc-en-Ciel C/W Wikify List of cabinet ministers of Andhra Pradesh Chaudhry Chaku Khan Tamga Expand Chouannerie Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany Denise Johnson

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page List of school pranks has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. WikiTome ^Talk 13:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact I have always known this as a 'nipple gripple' as one grips the victim's nipple. The other edit I made was because of my understanding that putting "and also" there would signal to the reader that the list has ended. Moreover I have specified in the edit summary about the purpose of my edits. If I receive no further reply from you, I'll strike through the warning. TYelliot (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Format

I have undone a minor edit here at China-Korea Treaty of 1882 . This format change restores a more conventional presentation. In this context, my thinking was informed by File:Wikipedia layout sample Notes References.png and WP:FNNR. --Tenmei (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose they are both acceptable. However, most articles I have seen tend to have {{reflist}} under section titled "references". In the future I'll accept both forms. TYelliot (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered the same thing; but only when there are no bibliographic reference source citations which supplement the inline citation notes. In other words, if the only sources are those captured by the {{reflist}}, then either "References" or "Notes" are likely to be used. In this article about a bilateral treaty, we find both inline notes and bibliographic source notes. I hope this helps clarify what I did not explain well enough. --Tenmei (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Fb round2 2010 D-2 Pro League Playoffs CW

I am creating a standings combined standings table for the USSF Division 2 Professional League using Template:fb cl2 qr which requires that a template be made for each level of qualification in the table. There are 2 in this case, the playoffs and the conference winners. That template is for the conference winners. DemonJuice (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to see it: User:DemonJuice/sandbox/2010 USSF Division 2 Pro League Combined Table DemonJuice (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely you'd simply copy the links from each cell to the next, instead of creating a template. TYelliot (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The documentation for Template:fb cl2 qr states that a new template must be created for each competition. I'd gladly do it without a template if possible. DemonJuice (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. TYelliot (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Momiji Dolls

I identified something on Momiji Dolls as vandalism (it's right at the top of the page) but I can't find it in the source code so can't delete it. Can someone explain why? TYelliot (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious vandalism at the top of the page, right now; possibly you are seeing a cached copy?

Most likely is, one of the templates at the top there got vandalised - the notices about 'fansite' or the 'redirect' note or something.

If you go to this URL;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momiji_Dolls?action=purge

...and maybe do a 'refresh' of the page too, that should clear any cached vandalism.

If it's still showing, please use another {{helpme}} below, and tell us exactly what the vandalism is. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback and reviewer granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I also gave you the reviewer right; see WP:REVIEWER for more information. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: September 2010

Why did you put me on blast for my edit, when User:Ozurbanmusic did the exact same edit as me and was not penalized for it?!?!?!?! Theuhohreo (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I undid your edit is because it contains a rude word, and that your source is less reliable than the one the other user provided. However in the future I will post a message on the talk page of the article. TYelliot (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay so instead of blocking out the word, you undid the post and gave me a warning? and what could be more reliable than the tweet itself from the exact person who said it! Theuhohreo (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I should have only blocked out the word. TYelliot (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry!

I accidentally your whole edit... Looked like vandalism what with the word penis and shit that had nothing to do with the body. Guess the comparison really was ridiculous! Vistro (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Your recent edit to the page Richard Dawkins appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. This is a biography of a living person. Please make sure your contributions are accurate and well sourced. Thank you - DVdm (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my edit. I must have mistaken Dawkins' use of the word "splendid" as sarcasm as he often does in his many other works! TYelliot (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

However, he did denounce Lacan's comparison. Since this is cited information, I'll soon be adding it back. TYelliot (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, erare humanum est :-)

Note that the shaded passages are quotes from the book. It is the authors who denounce Lacan's comparison. DVdm (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Dawkins: "We do not need the mathematical expertise of Sokal and Bricmont to assure us that the author of this stuff is a fake". Dawkins was referring to Lacan as the author of such "fake stuff". TYelliot (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes sure, he quotes the authors and then agrees with them. Have you read the book? Anyway, I don't think we need to include more citations from this review in the article on Dawkins. It says more about Sokal and Bricmont than it says about Dawkins. DVdm (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems a good way to go in terms of expanding the article, as it certainly has the potential (like any other article) to become a featured article. Reviews as such tell the readers about his opinion on issues outside religion and theology. After all, he is more than just an atheist. TYelliot (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these are his opinions on science and pseudo-science (and pseudo-philosophy) in general, but I don't think that the article should be expanded more in this direction, based on this single review. I think other contributors will object to specific examples or direct citations from it -- after all, the book and both the authors are already wikilinked, and reader can easily find their way to the review. Further expansion might be regarded as somewhat overkill. I suggest you propose expanding on the article talk page first. DVdm (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to User:LyingEyes...

You welcomed a new user for a Wikipedia:BLP attack? VictorianMutant (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised when I saw you put a level 3 warning straight away on the above user's talk page. Did he/she really deserve a "bad faith" warning for introducing his/her first article? TYelliot (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When a new user right off the bat with their first edit attacks a person's integrity, adds more crap to the same page with their second edit, and then posts nonsense on both their user and user talk page with edits 3 and 4, it's really hard to assume good faith. They aren't here for any benevolent purpose VictorianMutant (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

From WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. VictorianMutant (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wondergirls

You have to stop to delete The Wondergirls from the templates. The band was a side project of Gordon, Shuck, Leeuwen among others. Use the talk page if you don't want the band in those templates. You are wrong.--Talk Shop (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for my erroneous reversions of your completely legitimate edits. I thought The Wondergirls was the South Korean music group. TYelliot (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

suicide ?

You want to fight with an eagle ? Do you really want to die ?--Elgor007 (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)