User talk:Yaris678

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Desi page protection[edit]

@Yaris678: This is related in regards to the Desi page which you protected until July 26, 2019. I don't think it's really working as the latest edit to the page shows a registered user removing sourced information. I still think "indefinite pending changes" or even "Require administrator access only" would be more suitable for that page because it is both IP users and registered users who are vandalizing the page. ( (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC))

Pending Changes protection would not help because the editor is autoconfirmed, i.e. has more than 4 edits and 10 days tenure. Full protection would be a massive over reaction. I suggest that you discuss the edit on the articles talk page. You can also revert the edit, if you want, but don't get drawn into an edit war. If the other editor is being unreasonable, other editors will help and admins may eventually block him/her. Stay civil, as this will make it more obvious which is the unreasonable party.
Yaris678 (talk)
@Yaris678: Thanks for replying and yes I would revert it but I'm not a registered user and at this moment I'm not interested in becoming one as of yet. Would you mind reverting the edit? I'm just following what the two sources state so I decided to bring it up. ( (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC))
There are lots of good reasons to get an account, one of them is that you will be able to edit that page after 4 edits and 10 days.
Whether or not you create an account, you can discuss the edit on the talk page now. I notice that PAKHIGHWAY has started a discussion at Talk:Desi#Pakistanis are NOT Desi 2.0. Why don't you reply to that post?
Yaris678 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay thanks @Yari678: ( (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC))

Assange RfC[edit]

I don't think your closing of the Assange RfC (here) accurately summarizes the responses, and I suggest you amend it. The argument made by most of those who oppose inclusion of Assange's statement in the lede is that including his statement would make his statement seem equivalent (in plausibility) to the statements of American intelligence agencies. The argument made by most of those who support inclusion of Assange's statement is that he is a central figure to the subject, and that his statement was widely reported on in the media. The balance is 16 (oppose) to 10 (support), which is hardly a ringing endorsement of either side. I think the fact that it's not closer to 0 - 26 is a sign of the extreme partisanship in this subject area, since including a widely reported statement by one of the key figures in the subject would normally be a no-brainer. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your summary above doesn't differ massively from what I said. I didn't mention the raw numbers or the partisanship - I agree with you on those points, but I don't see how that would change my closing statement. Yaris678 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Peace Corps Director[edit]

Hi Yaris. I saw that you were active on the Talk page of Sargent Shriver (the first Peace Corps director) many years ago and was wondering if you had a minute to review some content for the page on another former Peace Corps Director Aaron S. Williams here. I am asking for review, because I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


Yaris678 is a friend of Gurch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to User:Gurch? I'm afraid I don't know him/her. Yaris678 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection to PC[edit]

Even if there haven't been many contributions lately, reducing semi-protection to PC as you did here is never a good idea since it can easily lead to IP/new account disruption sooner than it otherwise would have with semi-protection running its full course. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see disruption come back before the PC period ends. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Never a good idea? We will see if it is a good idea in this case. There was only two weeks left on the semi, so at some point it was going to get opened up IPs. If the we get disruption in that period, we can easily go back to semi. I know we don't want to be constantly changing protection levels, but I thought it was worth giving PC a try in this case. Yaris678 (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes never; reducing anything from semi-protection is basically asking for disruption, and is especially bad for pages with long histories of that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that article should be indefinitely semi-protected? If you aren't, I don't get your point. Yaris678 (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
That would be much better. My point is that when something is semi-protected (particularly referring to limited periods of time), it shouldn't be cut short since it means IP/new account disruption can return sooner (which of course should be avoided). Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, it does allow IPs and new accounts to disrupt if they want to. It also allows them to contribute productively, if they want to do that. Yaris678 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


Can you semi-protect Hands (Mike Perry, Sabrina Carpenter and The Vamps song), Night & Day (The Vamps album), Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1, I'm Not Alone, Eurythmics and Yeezus to persistent long-term abuse of Wikidesctruction vandal? (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)