User talk:Yappy2bhere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Yappy2bhere! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

October 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Yes (band) has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s):, (matching the regex rule \bblogcritics\.org\b). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Everything (software)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Everything (software), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Chzz  ►  18:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Everything (software)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Everything (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

For inclusion, an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I cannot find appropriate references to satisfy the general notability guidelines. (Declined speedy deletion as blatant promotion)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Everything (software)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Everything (software), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything (software). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Triplestop x3 03:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you're not going to like this, but please accept I am trying to be helpful. The argument you make at WP:Articles for deletion/Everything (software) is so common that Wikipedia has a page on it called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It's worth a read if you want to make a stronger case to keep.
To answer the points you make at AfD:
  • 7-Zip won an award (referenced to;
  • sed is the subject of several books by third-party authors (referenced in Further reading);
  • XYplorer was prominently mentioned in several magazine articles (referenced in External links);
After you mentioned Mp3tag at AfD, an editor added links to a review and two books to make sure it met WP:Notability.
The weak one from a notability point of view is FreeOTFE and frankly, I don't think it would survive AfD either in its current state.
My advice still is to try to find books, magazine articles or reviews that mention Everything and add them to the article if you want it to be kept. If it should be deleted you can always ask for a copy and work on it in your userspace, once you've found sources that establish notability. Hope this helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
My, this just keeps getting better. Losing the very useful article on FreeOTFE was certainly not a result I wanted. My point was not that "other stuff exists" and this is no worse, but that "other stuff exists", it's good stuff despite its warts, and so is this. I'd add as a corollary: Leave them alone - they're good enough for now, and can only get better. An encyclopedia should be comprehensive, and that includes "RexxS's Two Cats" if you like as long as you tell no lies and disclose your relationship with them against potential conflicts of interest.
Explaining why 7-Zip et al. are notable is very helpful. I had a narrower view of which references were relevant to notability. I admit I completely overlooked the books cited in the sed article; I've wasted so much time chasing down print works inappropriately cited in Wikipedia that I'm blind to them now.
That was fast work on Mp3tag. The links point to two books auf Deutsch which have not been translated into English by a single author who has copied the relevant text verbatim from one book to the other. Fine by me, if it preserves the article on Mp3tag, but is it acceptable for an editor to cite his own book? It was illuminating that a CNET review carries such weight; I hadn't expected that.
You needn't worry that I'll kill the messenger. I believe I'm right, I've aggressively advocated my position, and I'm sorry if I somehow roughed you up in the process. I understand your points, indeed they represent accepted academic practice. However, the sources that we really consult about technical magic like software are marginalized by these standards, and we don't really consult the sources deemed reliable by the standards because they just aren't very useful. I assure you, I don't start at or when my laptop falls ill, and I'd wager that few people do.
Until yesterday I believed that Wikipedia collectively recognized on some level this discrepancy between the formal and useful value of sources and tolerated it for the sake of comprehensiveness, functioning more as a peer-reviewed blog than as the online incarnation of the pedantically correct but incomplete Encyclopaedia Britannica. You see, I don't use Wikipedia for information available from conventional sources, so my understanding of Wikipedia was biased, and I find it a bit trying to be told to cleave to standards that would doom many of the articles most useful to me on Wikipedia. I understand the utility of standards, but I wonder if killing all the ugly babies is good policy. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

In Chzz's RfA I made a claim that you had a conflict of interest regarding Everything (software).

I was wrong and I apologize. I based this claim on a misreading of the talk page of the article, where you were asserting that the author of the software should be considered an authority. Clearly that was meant to defend your use of primary sources, not a declaration that you were the author. It was wrong of me to place a COI tag on the article.

I still believe that the article does not merit inclusion at this time. Our verifiability policy and reliable sources policy both declare that the sources used are not appropriate. But at the same time, your use of them as references does not count as original research, and Chzz's tag was also not appropriate.

Both tags have since been removed from the article, and I would not reapply them. In fact, if they were reapplied I would remove them.

You are not a bad editor. You are a new editor, and I think you've made mistakes, but I made mistakes when I started and I still make mistakes (as you well know!). It's very likely that your first article will be deleted, and I hope that if that occurs you aren't soured by the experience. More than once I have seen articles deleted that I spent hours of work on. It's not a good feeling. But I've looked at your contributions and you've made a number of very good changes to articles that I'm sure will stay. I particularly appreciate this edit you made to Comparison of 3D computer graphics software (I'm a fan of Sketchup by the way). You're definitely a better editor than I was when I started.

Anyway, I just wanted to leave a note to apologize and hopefully to let you know that at least one person appreciates what you're doing at Wikipedia. -- Atama 22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Please do not leave personal attacks or name-calling in edit summaries, as you did at Feral child. Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly personal, but if you want to claim credit for that bit of lazy editorial work, fine. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Priceless. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I too would like you to stop with the personal attacks. You've called my edits vandalism [1][2], called me dishonest [3], and made sexist and offensive comments [4] while telling me to "cheer up". I appreciate the feedback you've been providing as a process moves from essay to policy, but please comment on content, not on contributors. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agism, perhaps, but not sexism. You simply pouted ("*Sigh* Whatever.") because I had reverted your edit instead of cogently addressing my objection. Repeatedly redirecting an article to skirt WP policy is vandalism, as is redirecting an article into a dead-end. You've been treated fairly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If you honestly believe my edits are vandalism, do something about it or stop harassing me. Personal attacks are not an appropriate way to handle disputes. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Priceless. Yappy2bhere (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jaikoz[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jaikoz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaikoz. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Re: Jaikoz image[edit]

We do allow non-free (copyrighted) images in very limited circumstances, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free content. In the case of album art, this is typically limited to use for identification of the album in its own article, and nowhere else. Images which contain album art are therefore considered, at best, to be derivative works of those copyrighted images. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Right, usually we would allow a screenshot of software to help identify the product in that article, but not in most other articles. If you can get a screenshot that doesn't have any copyrighted images contained in it (perhaps another screen that doesn't use album art), that would be easier to use. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

LDLO redirect[edit]

Hello. In response to your request, please feel free to change the redirect at LDLO. I don't see any problem with it since Lowest published lethal dose already a hatnote that mentions the redirect and provides a link Lošinj Airport. To answer your other question, I'm not really familiar with the island or the airport; I created the redirect to filling in some missing redirects for ICAO airport codes. -- Zyxw (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Please comment on the proposed merger here.

Do not vandalize by removing content[edit]

You vandalized oxalate by removing content. I conclude that you view removing content that I contributed as a form of revenge for my removing your merge tag. Tags and content are viewed rather differently within wikipedia. One is information, and one is an opionion. Within Wikipedia, we value information above opinions, because information is directed at readership, and opinions are directed toward a handful of other editors. I consider your proposed merger tag as capricious in the sense that you have demonstrated no familiarity with the Chemistry project and your advice is contrary to a long running policy. Rather than being embittered, I encourage you to use your energies to edit.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's your conclusion, then you're weak-minded as well as whiny. Don't quote policy unless you're prepared to cite policy. And do so on the article's Talk page, not here, so everyone can benefit. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rude Boy[edit]

Song article genres don't go by the artist's biography. It goes by influence and music, so when the IP user changes the genres again I might have to put the sources and report the IP user. Charmed36 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I could be persuaded, quickly persuaded if you can point me to the relevant policy. However, I don't intend to mix it up with either one of you. What I offered was a rationale for both you and the IP to leave the box alone, at least until the single is released (if it is released; no announcement yet) and everyone stops tingling with excitement. That is, I think if you accept the rationale, then s/he will accept the rationale too (or else see it enforced by other editors), and you'll be free to do something more rewarding in the meantime than argue with an IP. If you can refrain for that long, I doubt you'll need three sources to support your edit. Though I am usually partial to copious citation. But opinions differ. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of J. Futuristic[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, J. Futuristic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Futuristic. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dinner and a Movie (album) tracks[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yappy2bhere. You have new messages at Mizery Made's talk page.
Message added 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

40 Glocc[edit]

Hello. I realize I've forgotten to introduce myself. You can obviously call me "JpGrB", or "JP" for short. Moving on.... Please note, I am not "stalking", but I do thank you for the confidence. I purely have many, many interests, and, from those interests, I edit and monitor on Wikipedia. In regards to the 40 Glocc page, I'd like to point out that on the MoS guideline page, it specifically states:

It then goes on to show how this should be done. In the case of rapper 40 Glocc, his legal name should come first. Thank you for your time and happy editing. --HELLØ ŦHERE 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tha Grustle[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tha Grustle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tha Grustle. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave me alone. --NewOrleans4Life (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop cribbing copyrighted content. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Through the pain[edit]

This edit looks a little iffy. Why do you feel it isn't notable despite charting in three countries?—Kww(talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Because there's no article really save for the chart ranks, and no material from which to improve the article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
On another topic, is the UK R&B chart tucked away inside Template:singlechart somewhere? Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope. No online archive to point to. I usually remove the UK R&B chart when I spot it because it isn't verifiable online.—Kww(talk) 19:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Billboard/Keri Hilson[edit]

Actually if you bothered to read discussions at WP:record charts you would see that AllMusic is the most credible source along with aCharts for U.S. charts. it is widely known that Billboard's website constantly plays up and show's incorrect info like it intially not showing that Get Your Money Up had charted. Allmusic is so credible that Billboard discographies are actually mirrored from allmusic. I have not inflated any of keri hilson's chart achievements. im not even that much of a fan... Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, squirt, Billboard is the primary source for all Billboard charts. AllMusic is a derivative source of Billboard charts, so if you want to argue that AllMusic is "the most credible source" along with the WP:BADCHARTS aCharts then you'd better cite a reliable reference for this extraordinary claim and not vaguely refer me to a WP Talk page. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

Hi Yappy2bhere. Remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TXR2? I'm inviting those who participated to related a discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials. Sole Soul (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirects as "non-notable"[edit]

Hello. I notice that you have been deleting/redirecting a number of biographical articles such as [5] with the edit summary of "not notable". I don't know the ins and outs of each case, but just taking this example, he was a member of parliament, and held minor office in government (thereby passing the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN: Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges.). The article seemed fairly well sourced, and didn't seem to fail WP:N. Is there any reason to not revert the redirect? Thanks. Lozleader (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed one of them [6] was Foreign Secretary, so will revert! If that isn't notable....Lozleader (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Found a few that deserved articles per Notability Guidelines so reverted redirects. A lot of them aren't very good articles yet, mostly family history, but hopefully that can be trimmed or cut out and some content added. Lozleader (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
George Osborne, Commodore of the yacht club? (There's something very appealing about his portrait, don't you think?) You're right, I missed his election to the House of Commons, for which he should be restored. Francis Osborne, though, "was little more than a cipher" as foreign secretary, according to his article, so he was redirected accordingly. Now, I may have read more carefully the biography of the first or second Duke than, say, the ninth or tenth, so there could be other errors as you say. Thank you for correcting them.
Here's the rub: many of these articles appear to be cribbed, and a footnote understates the credit due. Redirecting biographies lacking notability only sweeps the issue under the rug, but it's more expedient than poring through peerages, and preserves content that may motivate original articles on individuals with more than family history. I think it unlikely that family men of past centuries will emerge as notable figures today, but opinions differ. There's always WP:AfD to resolve substantially different views. Let me see first what's been done. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have undone as many of these as I could find, including your bizarre assertion that someone who was twice Prime Minister was "non notable". I have also undone your bypassing of redirects on disambiguation pages, as your actions there were contrary to guidleines and unhelpful to editors and readers. Please cease all this kind of activity until you have a much better understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Very generous of you to credit me with acting in ignorance, but in fact it was probably an outright error if what you say is true. Undecidable as yet, since you don't say which article you're hot about or which policy or guideline you believe I've transgressed. Never mind; where you're correct your changes will stand, and the others you can defend at WP:AfD. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The 2nd Marquess of Rockingham. Did you even bother to read the lead paragraph? You've already been referred to WP:POLITICIAN, which covers all the MPs you chose to redirect. Some of the others were Lord Lieutenants, again this is sufficuent for notability. As for changing the redirects on the dab pages - one generally should not bypass redirects, as it only adds to server load, and it also makes life harder for anyone writing an article to replace the redirect. If you decide to start nominating MPs and prime ministers for AfD en masse you are likely to find yourself blocked for disruption. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:R2D about redirects. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but evidently not carefully, nor the sections "Prime Minister (1765–1766)" or "Prime Minister (1782)" that followed. Thank you for correcting the error. However, if you read to the end of the article you'll see that "Lord Lieutenant" is but an honorary title. A vanity title alone would not establish notability. I doubt an MP by birthright is notable either without evidence of notable activity as an MP, but that's a question to be settled in a larger forum such as WP:AfD. Hyperbole isn't helpful; I'll not be "nominating MPs and prime ministers for AfD en masse." ("I know those words, but that sign makes no sense.") Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
If you think that our notability criteria should be changed to exclude MPs, then propose the change on the relevant page. Using AfD as a backdoor way to change policy helps no-one. Lord Lieutenant has historically been a very important position. I will add that if someone is notable enough for the DNB (an encyclopaedia of record edited by professionals), then they are certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
With respect to Yappy2bhere, the office of Lord Lieutenant is not – as you imply – merely "a vanity title". Whatever you think of the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you should not confuse 'ceremony' with 'vanity'. The Lord Lieutenant of a county or ceremonial county is the Queen's personal representative and the role still confers great prestige on the office-holder; it is, moreover, of historical importance in constitutional terms.
It is indisputably the case that Lord Lieutenant office-holders meet the criteria of WP:NOTABLE: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria... and ...there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention by the world at large to support a claim of notability.
Holders of the office of Lord Lieutenant meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion: so, for that matter, does any person who is, or has been, elected as a Member of Parliament.

ODNB articles[edit]

You claimed that I would be illegally distributing a copyrighted article if I sent you a copy of the ODNB article. That is untrue. The ODNB website includes an "email this article" feature. I suggest you ask at your local library for access, you would find it a wonderful resoource to help you improve your editing. DuncanHill (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"You may request privacy, and I may honour such a request, but I am not bound by it." You are an unprincipled boob, DuncanHill. Of course I am not going to give you my email address. Go away. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


You're rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


I am not writing from so I have no idea what you are talking about so byeeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC) You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia forever if you keep adding stuff that is not true so stop before you become banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yappy2bhere. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merry Christmas[edit]

SantasOnSteps.jpg Happy new year!
We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Xmas socks[edit]


In this comment, you have accused me of sock-puppeting.

In addition, I find it grossly insulting for you to claim that "Chzz had been evicted from Wikipedia after he was caught trying to steal an admin for himself with a sockpuppet army"

I would like a full retraction and apology. You are grossly mistaken. I hope you will discuss this, and we can come to some accord without further action.

On my part, if you will simply strike your comments, I'd be happy to move along. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You recall of course this investigation during your disastrous bid bid for adminship. The truth is ever a defense against the charge of libel, Chzz. Get stuffed. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean by "charge of libel" above. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  22:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't put up with a comment saying I thought Chzz had been evicted from Wikipedia after he was caught trying to steal an admin for himself with a sockpuppet army squadron.. You can strike it, or you can raise your concerns at an appropriate venue. That's the choice. If you will not, I shall raise the concern on an appropriate forum. You must either strike the comment, or prove your accusation has any validity whatsoever; I suggest you choose the former path, immediately, because I assure you that the latter is absolutely untrue,  Chzz  ►  00:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Exerpted from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz/Archive:
  • "An issue has been raised at User:Chzz's RfA that he may have been engaged in sockpuppetry." User:GrooveDog
  • "All available technical evidence is unusually strong in supporting the finding of sockpuppetry. Technically, it doesn't get any better... Confirmed User:Chzz = User:Fish4Trees =User:龗" User:Rlevse
  • "The overlap on the two elections is definitely suspicious" User:Nathan
  • "What I found on CU goes way, way beyond chance level." User:Rlevse
Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are merely quoting from allegations what were unproven, or you are misinterpreting what was said. And you are jumping into a lynch-mob from two years ago.

"Confirmed User:Chzz = User:Fish4Trees =User:龗"? Of course. I used "User:Fish4Trees" and I emailed it to arb, telling them, before I even used it. The other one - of course it is the same PC; I never said it was not.

"overlap on the two elections" - he (龗) tried to vote in an election; yep. He wasn't eligible. Do you think I wouldn't know that?

I accidentally made *one* edit from the account of my ex-landlord, about 2 years ago. When he left the PC logged in as him. He'd edited some pages I had. And for that, you're hanging me?

If you don't believe anything else, ask yourself one question - why would I do that? What would be the point?

Just listen a bit;

Maybe we can break it down.

  1. "I thought Chzz had been evicted from Wikipedia"
  2. "after he was caught trying to steal an admin for himself"
  3. "with a sockpuppet army squadron"

Any basis whatsoever for any of those strong accusations?

You're claiming I'm sock-puppeting as Lexein - who is a person I know very little, and who is, I believe, in a different damn continent to me.

So - do you have any basis for this strong attack on my character? Strike it, or put it forwards for further discussion. But I will not stand for accusations with no basis. Best,  Chzz  ►  01:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


Yappy2bhere, about this edit - as I always say (if you'd read my edit history), please go ahead and just start any dispute resolution process with/about me, anytime, and in this case, please start an WP:SPI investigation. If I were to confront you about it, I'd say, "Stop mumbling and making insinuations, be a grownup and get on with it." Cheers. --Lexein (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you stating that Lexein is not a sockpuppet of Chzz, or merely claiming that it can't be proven? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be better for you to stop lying, stop insinuating, and stop assuming bad faith. I, User:Lexein, am not a sock, and any and all investigation will prove that, to the extent that any proof can be made of a negative. But thank you for so publicly declaring bad faith. Begin the investigation. --Lexein (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Either provide something more concrete that Chzz and Lexein are the same user (i.e. something substantially more than that they have agreed on something), or else call off the hounds. Your attacks on both editors are undermining your credibility and are becoming disruptive towards both said editors. --MuZemike 02:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You've got your facts wrong, MuZemike. I haven't attacked either editor, I've made no accusations, I own no hounds, and I'm a WP editor so I have no credibility to undermine - that's why we cite, MuZemike. I did express my surprise that Chzz, who'd been caught using socks in his RfA discussion, was again permitted to edit. Since editing another user's Talk contribution is a bit unusual (and suspicious, given Chzz's history as a puppeteer), I did ask Lexein an obvious question. I've responded to Chzz's subsequent complaints and questions with facts and citations to support them.
What exactly is your purpose here, MuZemike, and what do you hope to accomplish? Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
"I've made no accusations" and "Chzz, who'd been caught using socks"? "suspicious, given Chzz's history as a puppeteer"? Sounds like accusations to me. How about, "he was caught trying to steal an admin for himself"? Or "with a sockpuppet army squadron"?  Chzz  ►  04:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
supra Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, seen that. So, will you please strike out your accusations?  Chzz  ►  04:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Only those that are unsubstantiated. Now shooo! Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the whole sorry affair [7]. I hope that is the end of this; if it is, fine. If it's not, I'm quite happy to pursue it on whichever fora are necessary. But, if we're done, we're done, and can move along. Best Xmas wishes,  Chzz  ►  04:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, deleting other users' postings from a Talk page in order to suppress an unpleasant fact is bad practice, but if you apologize for misquoting me in order to insult and abuse me, then fine. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
A) I doubt we will agree about much, but B) I still respect your opinion, and C) especially if we can at least agree to disagree; D) happy to forget this, but E) regarding the background, I'd actually really like to explain that, in private, if you want. and, well, that's about it. With respect,  Chzz  ►  05:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

unlink deleted articles?[edit]

Nice work in cleaning-up the articles, but they're known as WP:REDLINKs not deleted. They may have never had an article. WP:WTAF may be of interest to you, but do the reading after you've done the work! Thanks again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, please stop leaving inaccurate comments. You're just removing redlinks. The articles may have never existed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Maxthon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Screen capture (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) 11:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hugh "Skip" McGee III[edit]

Hi - I have removed your disputed desired addition , as is usual with BLP articles under dispute - there is a report at the noticeboard - please join in there and see where consensus resolves, thanks - Youreallycan 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

blp - if in doubt leave it out[edit]

Hi, please don't replace the undue version without consensus - there are three good faith objectors to your enlarged version at the noticeboard report, wait for consensus to arise. It is standard procedure to revert such disputed recent additions to the stable version during discussions. As to the coi question - I live in the united kingdom and am only interested in the weight of your version being undue and the low quality of some of the sources. Thanks Youreallycan 12:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind you that it was you who began bowdlerizing the disputed section after it was taken to the noticeboard by another editor, who chose not to remove it, then cautioned me to seek consensus before continuing to edit before continuing yourself to edit the disputed section without further discussion. The first might have been a WP:GOODFAITH edit, but your subsequent activity belies that assumption. This is the second time you've excised this episode from the article in this manner, although only the first time using the account "Youreallycan". Your complaints about sourcing are spurious and indefensible - all referenced articles rely on the subject's own letter for support, and your issue with Gawker, for example, is your own peculiar quirk, one not shared by other WP editors. In the future if you feel that a source is flawed, please cite precedent for your opinion before removing it, or at least fully explain your objection on the Talk page. Otherwise, your edit will be reverted as vandalism.
It doesn't matter where you live now. Please answer my question directly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for your efforts at general cleanup. In the process, please don't simply unlink entries in the date articles like October 20 when you find red links. Instead, please delete the entire entry. If there are redlinks, the entire entry doesn't belong. By simply unlinking, you make it difficult for others to spot the inappropriate entries and in the end create more work. If you have questions, please ask. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yappy2bhere. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 04:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

my summary was bad, sorry Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at LittleBenW's talk page. LittleBen (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)  

Algebrator and Cadabra (computer program)[edit]

I see that you removed my tags from these articles. Note that in accordance with the WP:GNG what is need is independent references, 'independent' in this context excluding those people involved in the project. See WP:GOOGLEHITS for why links to search engines are not sufficient either. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What is needed, my friend, are WP:RS and editors who don't WP:DRIVEBY tag the articles. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wu's method of characteristic set‎‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This attack started as WP:OUTING and WP:Hound in the summary of your edit [8]. It is WP:Hounding, because the only plausible motivation of your edit in Wu's method of characteristic set‎‎ is that you are unhappy of the tags {{notability}}, {{unsourced}}, {{primary}} and/or {{coi}} that have put (or restored after you had removed them without addressing the issue) in several articles, which are or were linked to by comparison of computer algebra systems, and for which, viewing the information given in these articles, these links give an undue weight. D.Lazard (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC) ‎

Disclosing your WP:COI is not a personal attack. Please stop WP:EDITWARRING with other editors. Since you are a mathematician and prima facie adept at logical reasoning, your analysis here can only can only be construed as willfully disingenuous, and too your systematic dismantling of Comparison of computer algebra systems after your attempt to delete it was uniformly opposed at AfD. Several of your recent edits border on WP:VANDALism; please try to contribute constructively in the future. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no connection with any of this, and I have to say that I am concerned by the behaviour of User:Yappy2bhere. If you believe that an editor has a COI, or any other issues with editing an article, you should raise it with that editor, or in an appropriate forum such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Terse notes in a edit summary are not adequate. Deltahedron (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The context that may be needed here is that D.Lazard has made himself the hunter of conflicts of interest, and I'm aware of one occasion where he was rather persistent about a COI accusation that was not entirely warranted because it had lapsed and other people had taken over the relevant article. For him to have edited with COI himself would rather undermine his standing on Wikipedia, imo. My view is that D.Lazard could have made more constructive efforts to rectify the situations he highlights, for instance by editing the articles to re-establish neutral POV. Instead, he has sought to get entire articles deleted, seemingly wherever possible. Given D.Lazard's very persistent/bordering on obsessive behaviour, I could understand that other contributor's feathers get ruffled. Now, having said that, IP addresses can be sensitive business, so let me just place the link to WP:OVERSIGHT here in case it needs to be pursued. Samsara (FA  FP) 21:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Nothing about this claimed behaviour by D.Lazard addresses my concerns about the behaviour of Yappy2bhere. Deltahedron (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
... and my concerns are not allayed by this either. I suggest that you review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and especially the summary Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. Deltahedron (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
You're on the wrong talk page, son - take yourself to User talk:D.Lazard and discuss your concerns there. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned here with your behaviour. Meanwhile, after this, I suggest that consensus at Talk:Comparison of computer algebra systems on inclusion criteria should be reached before either of you makes further reverts. Deltahedron (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well, that edit's been reverted by User:D.Lazard who elected to misread WP:CSC in order to do it, once again playing WP:GAMEs to promote a personal agenda. Please stop posturing on my Talk page; you're becoming tiresome. Take your opinions on Comparison of computer algebra systems to Talk:Comparison of computer algebra systems, and your hollow solicitousness to User talk:D.Lazard. (I wonder why an even-handed fellow like yourself hasn't done that already.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Asop Vova[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:Asop Vova, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hz.tiang (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Israel Tonge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. 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) 09:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Combat Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Murder in the First (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) 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Forced Entry (band)[edit]

Hello Yappy2bhere. If you are having difficulty understanding template messages, please take a look at the documentation. You may find these helpful: Wikipedia:Template messages, Template:Notability, Template:Fanpov, Template:Refimprove, Template:Unreliable sources. On the page for each template is usually information regarding use of the template. These and many other template messages are often placed on articles as part of the Wikipedia:New pages patrol, providing information about issues that can be corrected. Removing template messages should occur only after the issues they address are fixed. Removing them without fixing anything is considered disruptive, and increases the amount of work other editors must do to improve wikipedia. If you don't understand a template message, leave it were it is and allow other editors to work on the article. Alternatively, you may want to start a discussion on the talk page for the article, or on a user talk page, so you can gain a better understanding. As Template:Multiple issues says, "Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page". You may also find these helpful: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 11:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, more boilerplate. I understand the messages, Becky dear; I don't understand to which elements of the article you think they're applicable. Unfortunately, you've been unwilling (or unable to improve the article yourself, and unwilling or unable to explicate your objects so that I can improve it myself. One suspects that you'd rather the article wasn't improved at all to improve your chance for a kill at AfD. Oh, and I see too that you've been playing fast and loose with the truth at AfD. Naughty, naughty. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yappy2bhere. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
Message added 10:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)