User talk:Yandman/Archive2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yandman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. For further clarification, read the edit you just reverted, and then read what you reverted to, and ask yourself, which one is in all honesty the more neutral. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you!Nwe 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- The one I reverted to. You've been warned and reverted, by myself and others, for not respecting wp:npov on this article. yandman 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- How exactly? Firstly the version you keep reverting to does not mention the fundamental background to the Israeli-Lebanese conflicts, the existence of Palestinian refugees. Secondly the "failed to control" phrase in the first sentence has connotations far too negative towards Lebanon, and ignores the fact that Lebanon has suffered far more greatly than Israel from militancy within its borders. Thirdly the background mentions that Hizbollah continued to make attacks on Israel after Israeli withdrawal from most of Lebanon (attacks whose frequency have incidentally been greatly exaggerated), yet it doesn't mention that Israel also carried out incursions into Lebanon during this period. Once again I re-iterate, it is you and others who are not respecting the neutrality of this article, and no-one has has yet explained to me how I in any way am breaching WP:NPOV in this articleNwe 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, Yandman, are you American? I only ask because a lot of Americans are ignorant of the Arab position in middle-east conflict and instictively pro-Israeli,even when Israel commits the most horrific war crimes, they therefore often misconstrue otherwise lucid neutrality for pro-Muslim bias.Nwe 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No I'm not, and I'm frequently criticised by American editors for being pro-muslim/arab/terrorist/evil etc (all the same thing for certain people: just have a look at User:Cerebral_Warrior!). However, the version you were inserting, whilst being in my opinion perfectly true, did not keep the neutrality required of an encyclopaedia: instead of just stating the facts, you went further by trying to justify the lebanese position at every step: A justification which wasn't false, but which in my opinion has no place in this chapter. This wouldn't shock me in an editorial (especially here in France, where the whole "war on terror" thing is seen with great wariness), but doesn't fit in an encyclopaedia. yandman 09:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, my apologies I took you to be more pro-Israeli than you actually are. However I am absolutely not trying to justify the Lebanese position at every step, as I explained in the above message I'm merely correcting Israeli POV in the alternative background.Nwe 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden
Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa AkalpTC 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
George Bush is the commander in cheif according to the US constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkpat2011 (talk • contribs)
Another edit summary like that and you'll be blocked. Anyway, QE2 is commander in chief according to the UK constitution, but we don't put her in. These titles don't mean anything. ANd why do you keep removing the reuters citation link? yandman 13:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So, look at the thanks I get for reverting vandalism on Cerebral Warrior's page. See if I ever do that again. I suggest you don't revert it anymore either if that's the way he's going to handle things. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 03:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reverts Guv'nor, but not so much for the insults! Cerebral Warrior 04:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why is this thing between all of you still going on? A user page is a page that only the user them self can control. The only time this ends is when someone of ranking in Wikipedia is forced to step in for the good of the community. Rather than having edit wars on this person's user page, you all should go through the appropriate channels and see if what he is saying really isn't allowed on his user page. This will end this dispute and end the frustration. The controversy this user's page has created warrants nothing less then an official decision. I don't want to get too heavily involved, and I know that I haven't been involved up to this point, but please at least consider what I have said. In the end, do what all of you think is best; not what is best for you, but what is best for the community. -- THL 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You told me on my talk-page that you would help me out if any Administrators started bothering me about my userpage, as long as I agree to have the disclaimer on my userpage. I have kept my side of the bargain, now would you please ask Guinnog to stop telling me to remove certain content from my userpage? Also, he says that since you aren't an Administrator, I shouldn't be following your advice. Is that true? I was under the impression that the issue had been amicably resolved and had resumed editing mostly non-controversial articles, and do not wish to be dragged into that whole process again. Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 12:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I said "Any editor removing content from your page without permission". Guinnog is an admin. While I personally feel that starting to censor offensive userpages such as yours will create more problems than it will solve, we have to abide consensus. When we agreed to the disclaimer solution, the consensus of the editors present was that this was acceptable. However, more and more people are complaining, so maybe the consensus is changing. I'll have a chat with the relevant people to see where this is going. yandman 15:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's also perhaps worth pointing out that I haven't edited CW's page, merely urged him to follow our guidelines and remove the offensive material himself. I think a consensus is emerging to get rid of the nonencyclopedic content now. I would never edit another user's page unless to revert vandalism, add a barnstar, or where every other avenue of dispute resolution had failed. Thanks for the good sense and kindness you have shown here Yandman, I appreciate it. --Guinnog 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the thanks... I'm going to post here so we don't have to keep track of five different conversations on different pages. yandman 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You may well be right. Fortunately, enough people monitor these pages and I don't think such changes will persist for long. Nice to bump into you again! Don't worry, I knew you were trying to act for the best there and I think it has all been happily resolved now, partly thanks to your efforts. Best wishes, --Guinnog 14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yandman - you need to leave JamesAVD alone regarding removing warning templates from his talk page. It's a common misconception that it's appropriate to try to force users to keep some kind of brand of shame on their pages. Please see "User space harassment" in Wikipedia:Harassment, and several threads currently on WP:ANI, e. g. this and this. The templates about not removing warnings, and the block threats, are for anonymous vandals, not for cases like this. He has a right to remove anything he likes from his userpages. Rarelibra 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about this. I've already seen many registered users blocked for removing warnings from their talk pages. If you don't, you end up having to trawl through the entire history to see which warning (or block) you should give. I wasn't trying to shame him, the warnings were only 30 minutes old, and the user in question was still making questionable edits. yandman 17:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just keep in mind if a user removes them, they are within Wiki guidelines. If you, as another user, were to continue to try to revert to put them back, you will end up violating the 3RR rule. Rarelibra 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- 3RR only applies to article pages. And I'm not sure that removing legitimate warnings is within guidelines. There was a discussion about this when someone proposed the deletion of the Wr templates, and the overwhelming consensus was to keep them. yandman 07:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. Please do not use warning signs to intimidate other Wikipedia users. Many thanks. JamesAVD 17:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hopefully 24h will be enough for you to cool down and stop acting like a bull in a china shop. yandman 07:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Rarelibra is right. If someone removes a warning it is a sign they have seen it, and it is still there in the history. There's no need to revert it back. I don't blame you for not knowing that though. The guidelines are confusing. And I know you were acting for the best with this problem user. Just remember you were new too once. Several of us will be keeping an eye on him when he returns; get help rather than edit warring next time, although I too hope he has learned from the block and there will not be a next time. Best wishes, --Guinnog 07:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK. I've posted a reply on Kingboyk's talk page. By the way, I commend you on your patience and courteousness. I just feel that the templates shouldn't be on the template page if they're not to be used. yandman 08:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yandman - be advised your statement of "3RR only applies to article pages" is incorrect. It applies to user pages as well. But thanks for understanding. If JamesAVD comes back and behaves inappropirately again, we'll address it from there. Like Guinnog stated, we can always see from the history (heck, I've violated things at times - no one is perfect). Rarelibra 15:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I never said you were... :) My bad, I got fooled by the phrase "on a single Wikipedia article" on the policy page, which I'm going to fix. Have a pleasant morning/afternoon/evening/night (ahhh....timezones). yandman 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Numerous admins and editors here failed to assume good faith from the very start. I saw an edit which was non-standard, potentially POV and which had not been discussed before being posted; I reverted those edits and started a discussion; Yandman and others jumped in and stated using warnings and the rest; I deleted those warnings, within policy. My actions might, if taken wrongly, seemed disruptive; if any offence was caused by me, none was meant. But Yandman has a history of jumping in with warnings where his POV on an article is involved; this is abuse (in my humble opinion). As a casual editor I'm unimpressed with how some of you are handling yourselves; you're only harming Wikipedia. JamesAVD 12:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- We have a policy here called WP:RS. While it doesn't apply to attacks made on talk pages, it helps to respect it. When an accusation is made ("Yandman has a history of jumping in with warnings where his POV on an article is involved"), proof should be given (a diff showing my PoV and another showing me using warnings against other users to protect this PoV). Otherwise, it's just libel. By the way, what caused a problem wasn't so much your reversions as the fact that you continued to revert after having politely been asked to wait a bit. yandman 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to meet your own standards Yandman. I didn't notice you demonstrate a proof of 'the fact that you continued to revert'! Your use of the warnings was (to my mind) misjudged and it was outside Wikipedia standards to revert the deletion of these on my talk page. Please assume good faith in future; your tendency to lash out against contributors whose edits you dislike has been noted. To show good faith I'll remove the warning sign I posted above. Be nice in future. JamesAVD 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's see. This is where you were asked to stop. This is where you continued to remove EU accession info after having blanked the request from Guinnog. Now how about your claims? yandman 16:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Let it lie, Yandman. Just put more consideration into your comments in future. Looking forward to seeing constructive edits from you in future. JamesAVD 12:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll take that as an admission of guilt, and won't press matters further. I know that editing can be frustrating at times, but try to remember that making unsubstantiated accusations can annoy others. Anyway, good luck on the 'pedia! yandman 13:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I just don't see the need to qualify the statement on the George W. Bush article with commentary on person of the year. I can't say I remember Time Magazine putting it as the most influential, good or bad. It's simply person of the year. To avoid expressing a POV, it's always best to state the facts and let the reader decide. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've replied on your talk page. yandman 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think I've pinpointed the confusion. I believe you've been talking about the Criticism of George W. Bush article, while I've been talking about the WP:BIO, George W. Bush. In the criticism article, you are correct. The text does not have a wikilink within the image caption. I'll go ahead and do that now. Thanks, -- AuburnPilottalk 22:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Bang on. In which case, there's no reason to say "good or bad" on the WP:BIO, but I think that criticisms can. yandman 07:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yandman,
Sorry, we weren't trying to spam. We were told by Wikipedia Foundation members that posting on article talk pages was appropriate since the research will help the Wikipedia community.
Do you have any suggestions about how to get this information out that wouldn't look like spam? We don't want to offend the community.
Thanks, Corey 14:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid article talk pages are only for discussing changes that have been, or should be, made to the article. What you can do is post notices up on the talk pages of the users you see in these talk pages asking them to take your survey, which I'm going to take right now. Who are the Foundation members you contacted? Maybe I can contact them and see if you'd be allowed to post a notice up at the village pump or something similar. Good luck on your project! yandman 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- The problem as I see it is that although this project seems laudable, any unscrupulous advertiser who comes across the idea will cackle with joy. Imagine: Free advertising targeted at users interested in a particular subject! yandman 14:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I understand your concerns. We will go with personal talk page approach. I and my fellow researcher really appreciate what you are doing on Wikipedia and don't want to offend the community. I will also write my foundation contact about the Village Pump posting. Thanks for the idea.Corey 14:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Please comment (the Cerebral Warrior issue): User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie crazyeddie 15:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I could see this coming...(don't you love watchlists?). Will do. yandman 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Your comments at User talk:Skinuteam, while well intentioned, might have been better done I think. Remember WP:BITE. It is almost always better to give a calm and patient response in such situations. If nothing else is achieved, one at least keeps the moral high ground. I appreciate your bringing the matter to my attention and I have protected the deleted article to prevent its recreation. Very best wishes, --Guinnog 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I knew you were going to say that...I did get rather annoyed, but bear in mind that the comments at User talk:Skinuteam are only the tip of the iceberg, most of them being on the (repeatedly deleted) talk page of the article in question. I had helped this user out the first time his article was prodded, putting the hangon template up for him and explaining to him (very calmly) why the article couldn't be included, and how he could help the 'pedia in other ways. This was deleted with the article, and when he recreated it, I explained (patiently, although slightly less so) that it wasn't a good idea to recreate exactly the same article, and that we have to respect WP:Notability, and WP:NPOV, and that we're not a "database" (his words). He seemed to understand. To my suprise, he then went and created the article a third time, accusing me and the admin who deleted the page of misconduct and saying he'd "report" us, which is when, I admit, I started getting really pissed off... Thanks for the help, anyway. yandman 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I have speedily-deleted the reposted article and warned the editor too. Don't forget that you can issue warnings to vandals as well and that at least one warning should be issued before coming to WP:AIV. Regards, (aeropagitica) 10:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I will in future. I just thought that as the guy had obviously just reconnected his modem to get a new IP, it wasn't worth it. Thanks for your help. yandman 10:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I just saw you editing. This was cool. You can also review WP:WEASEL. In case you want to reply, you may do so here. I am watching this page. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- A fan of Mrs. Rowling, I see... Glad to see I'm not the only one crusading against the evil weasels. yandman 10:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Fuck You WHat THe Hell Do You Think Your Doing Because Your An Admin ON A Power Hungry Strike Doesnt Mean You SHould Tell People WHat To Do You Dumb Faget......You Fucking Jap Bitch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrow118 (talk • contribs)
- Ok Yandman. I'll keep that in mind for the next time. If Marrow 118 does anything like that again, he'll be getting an early bath. --Guinnog 14:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Guin. Mr Pumpkin, I'd advise you watch your step. yandman 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I took the liberty of copying your talk page "keep" comment to the main project page so it can be considered in the discussion; I figured that's where you wanted it. If I've been too presumptious, please feel free to revert my edit. Your comment also remains on the talk page. --A. B. 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- My mistake, I was replying to Tnakagawa and slipped into "vote mode". I'd already had my say in the project page discussion though, so I've removed the one you added. Not that it changes anything, I think that this article is heading for the big dustbin in the sky... Thanks for pointing out my slip up. yandman 07:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosha666 (talk • contribs)
I have blocked for 24 hours and explained on User Talk:Lcnj. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. yandman 16:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I got a strange message from you after editing the minesweeper article. The information I edited was not factually correct, and now is still not. Jake Warners record is not yet accepted by the IMC (International Minesweeper Committee), so it is not the official record. As of yet, the official record is still held by Dion Tiu for Int. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchuBomb (talk • contribs)
- Sorry about that. I thought that you were yet another kid trying to put his name in the record slot (I've reverted a lot of these, on Minesweeper and elsewhere). However, I'm concerned that unless we can find reliable sources that talk about the world record, this entire section will have to go. I'll remove the message. yandman 10:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Here are the sources for world records:
- http://www.metanoodle.com/minesweeper/worldinfo.php (click "world rankings" on the drop down menu)
- http://www.planet-minesweeper.com/bestever.php?p=ranking
- Both these lists are run by members of the IMC I mentioned, so they are reliable. They have not updated Jake Warners 9 because they are requesting further verification from him. So his 9 is the unofficial record but Dion Tius 10 is the official record. I'll be sure to update when his records are accepted. I just wanted the go-ahead from you before I change this again. SchuBomb 01:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, sounds good. It would be nice if we could find a "normal" source (i.e. known newspaper) though. I'll have a look. yandman 08:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good luck with that, but I doubt any exist.SchuBomb 13:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
For my last edit, it is not research, just generalisations of the examples of patterns that were already in the article. You may note similar examples on the sudoku page.SchuBomb 16:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. I should have been clearer. It's not the content that's the problem, it's the fact that you use the wrong tone. Never use the second person in an article, and try not to sound like a guide, if you see what I mean. If you can rewrite the section using the same phrasing as in Sudoku that'll be fine. I'm sorry to have deleted it, but I prefer an incomplete Wikipedia to an imperfect one. Anyway, all you have to do is edit your previous version ("history" tab). Once again, thanks for your contributions. yandman 16:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no problem- you might actually note that I was in the process of changing to the 3rd person "one....", now I've gone for passive. Alrighty, thanks! SchuBomb 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This link does have relevance and in my opinion is in no way misleading. Actually, there is interest both locally and nationally about this team that "participated in an american university baseball championship 15 years ago" regardless of the fact that you might not have any whatsoever. Before you write an entry off why don't you allow the author to complete his/her entry before you render an opinion? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchantilles (talk • contribs)
Regarding the "allow the author time" comment, my opinion on this is: [1]. Anyway, the article in question is misleading, its title is "NCAA College World Series appearance (1991)", not "Creighton University's appearence in the NCAA College World Series". But that's not the major problem here. The team is notable, which is why it has an article. However, it is not notable enough to justify creating an entire article about their participation in a championship 15 years ago. The best thing to do would be to take the stuff you've written (quickly, before it gets deleted) and incorporate it into the article about the Bluejays. yandman 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Eagle 20 Fox 4: Twin tags = edit conflict. Happened a few times today. Didn't manage to revert that one though! Cheers. Bubba hotep 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Too early for a CheckUser at this time, but User:Slightlyright is the latest Scientology gallery duck to pop up. Apparently originally posting as 24.18.239.151, starting about 4 hours after Terryeo's final post. May have nothing to do with Terryeo at all, but this brand-new user has jumped in swinging, well-versed in Wikipedia terminology and on the major attack towards me. See this. wikipediatrix 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cue total lack of suprise. yandman 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will jump to it if I see legitimate reason for speedy delete. Tractorkingsfan 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)