User talk:Yandman

Archives

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Talk to me

In public

In private

Juan Martin

Hi,

You have sent me a message saying, "please don't start this again"

I have clicked on your name next to this and scrolled down the page, but can find no reference to Juan Martin.

I don't know what you mean by your message. What exactly is "this" referring to? Whatever "this" is, I am sure I haven't started it before, so how am I starting it again?

With reference to Juan Martin, I have been trying to find confirmation of his place of birth and nationality, but can find none, except for on the Wikipedia website, which I suspect is wrong (and there seems to be a huge quantity of anecdotal and first hand accounts which deny the information you have presented, which is why I would like to have some hard factual evidence to confirm or deny it).

There are no sources cited, which seems highly dubious, as you do not seem to have any proof of the information presented. I would dearly like to have evidence of this information, so I can lay this issue to rest. Please provide this.

In the absence of any such evidence, I believe that the fact that Juan Martin's own website does not state either his place or birth nor his nationality is more than enough evidence of the fact that he was neither born in Malaga, nor is he Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorro666 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

His website says he's a native of andalucia, and "esflamenco.com" clearly states "Birth: 1948 Málaga". Where can I find proof that he wasn't? yandman 09:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any proof either way, which is entirely my point. A newspaper and an online shop list his place of birth as Malaga, but his own webiste doesn't... you can be sure he would trumpet it loudly from the rooftops if it was! "native of Andalucia" is (deliberately?) vague, his publicity used to say "from his early days in Malaga" which was even more vague, but perhaps he is becoming more confident... the whole thing seems highly dubious to me. If a newspaper or online shop stated he was born in Honolulu, Gdansk, Brighton, Jerez, would that be proof? zorro666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorro666 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, a newspaper seems to be a pretty reliable source. If there was any reason whatsoever to believe he wasn't from Andalucia, we'd have to mention it. However, I can't find one reliable source stating otherwise. yandman 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Texas chainsaw massacre.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Texas chainsaw massacre.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 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Texas chainsaw massacre.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Texas chainsaw massacre.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 (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hawthorne Heights - If only you where lonely - 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hawthorne Heights - If only you where lonely - 1.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 (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hawthorne Heights Re-Issue.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hawthorne Heights Re-Issue.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 (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HawthorneHeights.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HawthorneHeights.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 (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sky Eats Airplane

Hi, I saw you A7ed this article. Could you please userfy me the history? I'd like to see if I can source and restore it. Chubbles (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Advert5

Template:Advert5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

People may blank their own talk pages whenever they feel like

Re: [1] See WP:BLANKING. If they read the message, they read the message. We don't force people to keep warnings visible inperpetuity. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't. That's why I asked him to desist, at least while the block is in effect. I didn't revert the blanking, nor did I lock his page, so I hardly forced him to keep warnings visible "inperpetuity". yandman 07:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Zyxwvuabcdef (talk · contribs)

I get the feeling he's going to start up again.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

please dont tell me not to blank my talk page

ITS NOT AGAINST THE RULES I CAN DO WHAT I WANT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyxwvuabcdef (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I asked you not to. If it had been against the rules, I wouldn't have asked. yandman 15:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Advert5

Template:Advert5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR (alleged) case and block

Hi, it's been some time since this incident but if you please I would like you to participate in this discussion-to-be, on the talk page of the reviewing admin. All details for the case are provided there but clarifications will follow as well as a possibly simple, time-stamped showdown of the incident and its escalation. Thanks --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Care for a response? If my understanding is correct the reviewing admin (User:Sandstein) has proposed some short of dispute resolution between us. To be quite honest I do not understand the relevance of this in our discussion, so I would greatly appreciate your input. Just to be sure that we start on the right track here, I am not looking for "bad blood" from you or indeed User:Sandstein (nor I am in some short of bruised-ego-quest or something). Please join us. Thanks --157.228.x.x (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting your time with Asdfg12345 in Falun Gong page

He's so obviousely editing in bad faith (after numerous blanking by him I ca no longer assume good faith). The edit in question was cleared by numerous admins, but he still removed it.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Asdfg12345_Please_put_the_PRC_government_sourcyou_BLANKED_BACK

What can I do to get the Admin's attention? Some action from the admins? Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got my attention... The problem is that this is more of a content dispute than an obvious troll or COI campaigner, so I can hardly block him for having a certain POV. I think it's unfair to say he's editing in bad faith: he's taking into account our comments: look at the talk and article changes these past 2 days. The issue here is more of an english language one, in my opinion: he seems to think that "controversial" is a criticism, and not a neutral statement. Don't worry, sometimes small things here take months to change, but there's no need to rush. Cheers, 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try, but take a look at the stuff he's been blanking and give me your opinion:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_fletcher#Editor_Asdfg12345.27s_blanking_of_facts_from_notable_source

Thanks Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI the link cleared by multiple Admin in the ANI is once again been removed by Asdfg12345 Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with extensive discussion, drawing on research, logic, wikipedia policy, historical context, etc.. I thought this is what we're supposed to do. A relevant article, FYR: [2].--Asdfg12345 04:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, consensus is a two-way street. I don't see why anyone has to "discuss" with you to make changes, yet you think you have the right to remove material even if consensus is against you. PS see WP:PROBLEMLINKS and WP:BADSITES--PCPP (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that consensus is a two way street. There has been good discussion about both the controversial thing and also the xiejiao thing, on the Falun Gong talk page. It's ongoing. I would invite you to participate. I noticed that you reverted, but did not explain your decision or engage in any of the discussion. I would be interested to understand why. It can be hard to refuse to polarise discussion or interactions in this context. I read the links you provide, and I appreciate your providing them. In the Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links section, it says "This is not to be confused with legitimate critique." We may figure out some way of having community feedback on whether posting this link about Bobby fletcher is legitimate critique. To be noted, he has chosen to use the same name that he is well known for in editing wikipedia, so it does not seem inappropriate in that light. My thinking is that if he did not want his identity to be known he would not have used that name. Perhaps others have different views, and I would be open to amending my own. For example, we could do an RfC about this, perhaps. If the community felt it was felt inappropriate to post that link then I would remove all instances where I have posted it and apologise. For now (sorry to use yandman's talk page like this!) you may consider contributing to the discussion about the material you inserted, which is ongoing here, I think.--Asdfg12345 07:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please opin

Hi, you watched my ANI and helped edit a little on the FLG page, but the issue presists. I have placed an informal RfC in the relevant Talk page, do you mind giving me your opinion? Thanks. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_on_Repeated_Removal_of_Adminstrator_Reviewed_Edits Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Note

Gave you a reply on my page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD on Order of the Cosmic Engineers

Hi, I'd ask that your restore the article on the basis of http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/blackford20090123/, published on the 24th. Given that there was a fairly solid sense that there were 2-4 debatable sources to begin with this would clearly put it over the top. I suspected it was a random blog, but given the board of directors for the site, I'd say it is a solid (if fringe-ish) source. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must say this source is far more useful than those that were proposed at the time of the AfD. I'm worried the blog itself is a bit too "specialised" to be taken as a major source (it's hardly the guardian). The guys who founded the site seem pretty important, and so does the guy who wrote the article (to a lesser extent), and I'd see no problem in having a page about the website itself, but does this make it enough of a major source to be used as the foundation of an article? I'd suggest you take this to deletion review, but I'm worried that (with it being an organisation and not, say, a specific technical article) without at least one (if only passing) mention in a "classic" source, the deletion won't be reverted. Tell me if you do decide to list it, I'll follow the discussion. yandman 08:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be sending to DR when real life allows. Could you provide me with a copy of the article as it last stood so I can see the sources that existed at the time? Either a history undelete or userfication or just a list of the sources would be great. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. User talk:Hobit/Temp. Give me a call when you don't need it anymore. yandman 13:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:3RR

Thanks for at least having a look at my case on the 3RR board. However, I must disagree with your verdict because unlike the other editor, I didn't go over 3RR. I actually specifically avoiding doing so since I was well aware of said rule and respect it. I don't expect you to take my word for it. So here are difs as proof: My first revert; my second revert; my third revert. That's three reverts in the space of 24 hours, the maximum allowed per 3RR:

Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.

I did not go over that, unlike the other editor who's POV campaign compelled him to breach it anyway. I just wanted to set the record straight, even if you don't decide to revise your verdict. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Midnight, thanks for being polite about this. It's not always easy keeping a cool head. Actually, you did breach 3RR (see my reply on the 3RR board), but that's not the point. Discussions need to take place on the talk pages, so that others can weigh in and consensus can be reached, rather than in edit summaries. Cheers, yandman 08:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarizing buddy

He's at it again. I don't want to go to the trouble of filing a sock report, but just look at his two edits so far: inserting the entire text of news articles into WP (and the first one is the same news article that 121.72.249.112, whom you recently blocked, was stealing). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. yandman 10:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On revertion

I did not revert anything, I sumarized it. Read it carefully!. On poor english, please make it good english, by non-reverting, but by editing it. And, on the edit war, actually, I think we should find a suitable solution. Thanks. By the way, you may join us in Talk:Cham Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination)

Hello! Please reconsider your close here. When it closed as can be seen in the edit history I was in the process of revising it substantially using search results from Google News and Google Books. And in any event, there was clearly no consensus in this discussion to delete. Moreover, the comparison in the closing statement to similar articles being deleted is not really fair, because this article contained out of universe information on innovations, history, and reception that is absent from similar lists and this makes it more of a contrast to those lists than a comparison. But most importantly the content was previously merged to Age_of_Mythology#Units some months back and so at a minimum the edit history needs to be undeleted with a redirect created instead. A satisfactory result here would be either a re-close as “no consensus“ or undeletion of the edit history and a redirect to Age of Mythology#Units with a note on the AfD explaining that. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think there was a broad consensus to delete (especially if you count the redirects, merges). The precedents set as well as the various points put forward in favour of deletion (especially WP:GAMECRUFT #6 "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts.") were more convincing. The arguments, and the decision, had nothing to do with the state of the article, but rather its goals. I didn't redirect, because I can't imagine people typing it in as a search term, and seeing as the main article already had a pretty good section on units, I didn't think people would want to merge much. I can always undelete and redirect if you're that worried about the GFDL, but to be honest, I can't see any blatant copy-pastes from one article to the other that would necessitate a GFDL history. Do you know when this copy was done? yandman 16:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I count 10 keep 7 delete 4 merge redirect. Ikip (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9th_Level_Games 2 deletes, 3 keep/merges, it was deleted.

and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Order_of_Cosmic_Engineers 5 delete 9 keep, it appears as if you are not taking consensus into account, and are using AfDs closures as a platform for your own policy views. Ikip (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your assumption of good faith, Ikip. I userfied 9th level games, so that the content could be merged (some of which I did myself). Therefore I satisfied 4 out of 5 !voters. As for cosmic engineers, the point is to look at the quality of the arguments put forward, and just because a string of IP editors chip in with comments such as "This organization promotes revolutionary scientific ideas and works towards building a better future for humanity" does not mean the arguments weigh towards keeping. It is interesting that you omitted my most recent AfD close, which was a keep. Next time, please keep the accusations to yourself. Thankyou. yandman 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you count the redirects and merges, those are calls not for it to be deleted, but to redirect or merge which is in between keeping and deleting. The video game guidelines call for exceptions and they are a guideline. The policy of WPPRESERVE trumps that by calling for preservation of content. In any event, the content was merged by myself and others back around August (at the time I was regretfully ignorant of having to say "merged from" in the edit summaries; but the various edits that I and others made to make the unit section in the article and some was merged to the reception section of the main article, too) and I believe some content was also merged earlier. If you would be willing to undelete and redirect and just leave a brief note in the AfD explaing as much, i.e. in effect it being a merge and redirect (even if it's a protected redirect), I would greatly appreciate it. I truly do believe that the article does have additional potential and perhaps it would be helpful undeleting its talk page as well to discuss the other sources I hadn't yet added. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you as to the "position" of redirect/merge. For me, those are "deletes". The main point is that they don't think the article needs to be there. The rest is relatively secondary. For a start, who is going to type in "List of units in the Age of Mythology series" instead of "Age of Mythology"? Secondly, I always userfy (or main-article-talk-pagify) deleted articles if the authors feel they need to extract some content (just read my talk page). If you feel there is content that merits including in the main article, ask me and I'll put it on the main article's talk page. yandman 21:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no other way to read "redirect" or "merge" than as "redirect" or "merge." If those editors wanted it deleted, they would say "delete." Otherwise, they are saying some of the content is salvageable, so keep the edit history available from which we can add that content. Or it's a legitimate search term, so don't just redlink it. We don't make inferences opposite of what people outright write. Who is going to type "List of...", well, I do that all the time here and I reckon the thousands of people who create, work on, and come here specifically for lists do the same. If you are okay with userfying it or posting the content on the talk page, then it would actually be much simpler to just undelete it and redirect in mainspace, which no one will realistically have a problem with, especially since deletion was the minority opinion in both AfDs. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to side with A Nobody on this one. On the surface, it doesn't look like there was a consensus for deletion especially in the light of viable alternatives such as merging or redirection. I would also kindly urge to reconsider restoring the article in some sort, at a minimum as a redirect. MuZemike 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a DRV on that AFD so we can get some other eyes on this AFD closure. I'm using the exact same rationale I mentioned a couple of minutes ago. MuZemike 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, what would be the point of redirection? Who on earth is going to fall on the redirect first? yandman 21:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I and I know from others who create and work on these articles actually search for them by typing in "List of x". Anyway, regardless of the DRV, I respectfully request and hope that nevertheless you will please still undelete and redirect, even if as a protected redirect, as I wholeheartedly believe that there is mergeable content from what I added last night and in any event, it is a case where there was not decisive calls for deletion and really, an undelete and redirect to the obvious location would be a fair and reasonable compromise solution as much as I'd prefer it be kept or changed to no consensus. As I am a strong inclusionist who has history with a half dozen or so editors, sadly, any DRV I participate in is like clockwork going to be flooded by those accounts just reflexively calling to endorse as some have even admitted on and off wiki to go counter to me regardless of the actual merits of my argument. As you can tell from the AfD, the DRV is likely to just needlessly escalate tensions and what have you and I urge you to make the case moot, by just undeleting and redirecting as a fair and reasonable middle ground. The deletion people are satisfied by not having an individual article, the keepers are satisfied by at least having their edits still visible and having a place from which to draw possibly useful and mergeable content. Please help resolve this. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about I put it in your userspace so you can pull what you want out of it? As for the redirect, you have my blessing if you think it's that important (remember that this project is for the readers, not the editors), the page isn't protected. yandman 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Were I to merge anything from a userspace article, I would still have to leave the history from which I merged from public, which means keeping it in my userspace indefinitely. Thus, I think it would be more simple for all of us to just undelete the main space article and redirect after undeletion. And given that the page has thousands of monthly page views, it does indeed benefit not just the editors calling for undeletion here, but also and thus most importantly the readers having the mainspace redirect and the edit history in which curious readers can see the old versions of the pre-redirected pages, i.e. it's a way to make everyone happy in some way. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Email

Replied. God, Wikipedia is crawling today. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Altsoft

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Altsoft. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Userfied list of units

Hello! If you'd rather it be in my userspace than yours, that is fine by me as I am still finding content to improve it with. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure why you're modifying it. Surely you should be making changes to the main article? I userfied this so we could copy across the content we need. yandman 22:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I pledge to eventually make this article not just acceptable for mainspace but into a featured list. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User talk:Constructive editor unblock request

I have reviewed User talk:Constructive editor unblock request. He seems to indicate that he will stop edit warring, and is interested in using proper methods to resolve his dispute. His contribs history just prior to his block seems to bear that out. Can we unblock him, given that he can always be reblocked for longer if he is insincere? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. yandman 13:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Grassy ass.. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bitter sean. yandman 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3rr thread that needs proper attention

Hey, Can you please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Zencv reported by Afroghost (Result: ). There has been lots of background drama behind this issue (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and User talk:Afroghost), but the underlying edit-warring issue was never resolved. The thread needs an objective analysis from an outsider so I'm bringing it to your personal attention. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got much time right now, but I'll try and have a look tomorrow morning. yandman 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Moved from my page:

Ikip, spamming [3] [4] [5] attacks against established editors is a great way to lose the button labelled "edit this page". I respect your devotion to rescuing articles, and you do a lot of great work, but this type of behaviour will get you in trouble. Relax, make yourself a cup of tea, and take into account that everyone here is giving their free time (or, as in my case, their employer's time...) to improve this project. Thanks, yandman 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the message, I know we are all here only to improve wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are a prick

Just thought others might like to know. Mwalla (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Thanks! yandman 14:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yandman, I love you too

WikiThanks

Thank you for your valuable ideas about that template. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: "you are a prick"

Wow, nice to see you have some fans too. Having to work with veteran editors, everyone is so cordial to me by comparison (But that said, working with veteran editors, I am reminded of the New York Review of Books gem, "Your words are polite...but your actions are obscene." . Must be a new user who doesn't know how to be passive agressive yet. If he needs any pointers on making his words polite, but his actions obsene, have him talk to me or any other veteran editor. LOL. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I might just mention that once he gets his edit button back... yandman 16:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh he's blocked. No surprise there. There is nothing on his talk page to indicate that. Ikip (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[6]. yandman 16:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yandman. You have new messages at Kraftlos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Level Games

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Level Games, you deleted BEER Engine (game system) and 9th Level Games. According to the AFD and the talk page of Kobolds Ate My Baby! these have been merged, if they have then the history is still needed to comply with GFDL requirements. —Snigbrook 21:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out, yandman 13:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Illegal number

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Illegal number. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Smallman12q (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for that

Hi about the speedy deletion tagging, thank you for reverting and correcting my tagging, am still new to the issue, and am learning more and more, and thank you for your note Maen. K. A. (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Have fun! yandman 13:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Albums produced by Van Morrison

I don't understand, I placed the "hang on" tag on the article. As far as a similar article being his discography, that is not completely factual. He has produced albums for other artists, as Don't Look Back (John Lee Hooker album) and The Chieftains, etc. Most recording artists do not produce their own albums. As a matter of fact, he has produced more albums than many others with [Category:Albums produced by]. I'm really surprised to find that no consideration of my length of time as an editor and that I have never had an article speedy deleted before, was even considered. (which I assumed would be) Thanks, Agadant (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side note: the above referenced album by John Lee Hooker won a Grammy Award for him. That in itself should help to qualify the category of [Albums produced by Van Morrison] Thanks, Agadant (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I forgot about the specific meaning of "produced" in the musical world. Apologies. Feel free to recreate the article (a good idea would be to write a bit of content in your userspace, and then copy it across). I can undelete the original, but there was no content there, so I'm not sure it would be worth it. By the way, to use the hangon template, don't wrap it with "code" tags (they're used for giving code examples in articles, eg. a C++ program example in the article). Just write "{ { h a n g o n } }" (without the spaces). Again, I apologise, and wish you luck with the article. yandman 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Yandman, I think I've always been too cautious. These incidents prove to be learning experiences, which I have mostly avoided. Appreciate your time. Agadant (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RFA Page

Hey first of all I am trying to something constructive for Wikipedia but everything I create gets deleted for some reason so apparently you don't want me here (read Wikipedia: Please Do Not Bite The Newcomers) Second of all thank you for deleting my RFA Page because I was going to delete it anyway because I had decided that I am not ready to be an administrator Third of all hoax is such a cruel word and sometimes you just need to keep your keyboard shut! thank you-Zacharyisawesome 22:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)User:Zacharyisawesome

Don't push it, Zachary. Can you give me proof of the existence of "MusicMaximum Hot 100"? yandman 08:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Human_Achievement_Hour_speedy_deletion

Just leaving a note to tell you that you've been mentioned in an ANI thread. shoy (reactions) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And in an attempt to keep AN/I nice and tidy, I started a discussion at DRV. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chase Meridian

Hi, you recently closed an AFD for Chase Meridian. I was wondering whether you'd be willing to reconsider the result please.

The discussion closed as a "keep", I believe the result was a "merge and redirect". Two of the "keepers" did not state reasons ("CRAZY`(lN)`SANE" and "Peregrine Fisher") and the other two keepers ("Jclemens" and "Dream Focus") did not reply to the rebuttals to their !votes. Alternatively none of the "merge and redirect" !votes were rebutted.

To summarise, I believe the "keepers" were unable to establish the subject's notability with sources (as requested). Also Wikipedia has no rule indicating any character "played by a notable actress, in a major motion picture" is automatically qualified for inclusion.

Thankyou for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. :) Ryan4314 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yandman, it was good close. The consensus was clear to keep based on strength of arguments. A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. I personally think this would be better as a redirect, but that's purely an editorial decision, and I didn't want to give the impression that I was forcing my preferred solution through. There wasn't much consensus either way, so I think it would be better to keep the discussion on the article talk page (where there will be fewer drive-bys). I'd be more than willing to chip in. yandman 09:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say fairer than that, I shall start a merge discussion on the talk page. Thankyou for taking the time to reply :) Ryan4314 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started that merge discussion. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Last Call (A Cappella)

Hello,

In your decision to delete the Last_Call_(a_cappella) wikipedia page, you mentioned that your decision may be overturned if a legitimate newspaper printed a story about Last Call. After not too much searching, I discovered that the New York Times actually ran a story announcing the results of the 2002 ICCA competitions, where Last Call placed second overall. (Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/30/arts/michigan-wins-in-a-cappella.html). Hopefully this will be enough to resolve the deletion discussion, after which I'll add this to the references of the page and any additional newspaper stories I find later. Thanks for your help!

Hi. There's a difference between an article about Last Call and an announcement in which the only mention is "Last Call, a male group from Cornell, took second place". Have a quick look at [Wikipedia:Notability|this page] to read our main policy. yandman 08:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Monica bicycle path

Hey Yandman, why did you not merge the information from the SM bike path to The Strand? There was a (little) chunk of text there, with half a dozen references from a reliable source, the LA Times. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not knowing the subject well, I didn't want to take any editorial decisions. I took care to make it a soft redirect, all the content is still there ([7]). yandman 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Right--I see that now. I honestly didn't know redirects came in so many different flavors. I would merge the information myself, but I also don't know much about the topic. I'll see if I can find someone more able and willing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up...

On your block of User talk:CENSEI, I am familiar with the background here, so support your block. However, he is going to log in again, and request an unblock. When admins unfamiliar with this case respond to his unblock request, they are going to want a bit of evidence as to what specific recent violations led to this latest block. If you could link, on his talk page, to a few difs of his recent intolerable behavior, it will make the later admins job much easier in responding to the inevitable unblock request. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I've linked to the ANI posting, where FutPerf (and others) have given an abundance of interesting diffs. yandman 12:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hi I just came across an posted article on 'Goans in Field Hockey'. My name was listed as a former Canadian Field Hockey player, but the article appears to be deleted. I am interested in getting a copy of the article that was deleted........and yes, I did play for Canada. I am unfamiliar with the rules but I am interested in ascertaining how administrators would delete an article without validating the authenticity of posted articles. Pdesouza (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Really great

RE: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balita_Alas_Singko_ng_Umaga and rescue tag. I am really happy that you are utilizing the rescue squadron. I will see what I can do to help you and the article. Ikip (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any sources. sorry. Unfortuntatly that is there are major limits to finding sources. :( Ikip (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't find anything either. I've asked Tagalog Wikipedians for help, hopefully they'll have more success. Thanks for trying! yandman 15:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alysah

Re. Alysah (talk · contribs)

I think you might be mistaken in blocking this account; I think that the user simply copied some obscenity onto ANI with this edit but if you scroll down, you'll see their message, ie "This material that is posted here is very vulgar and obscene and i find very offensive and this should be looked into." etc.

The user sent me an email, which I'll copy in below. Please could you reevaluate their block and maybe explain it on their talk. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From: Alysah (email address removed) Sent: 17 April 2009 02:25:34 To: Chzz (email address removed)

IP address: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:ip address removed Blocking admin: Yandman Block reason: Vandalism-only account Block originally applied to: Alysah Block ID number: 1397648 Your account name (if you have one): An explanation of why your block is unfair:

I dont know why i was blocked but i came on to look up stuff for my school and i seen a post that was very nasty as my children were around but i shut the window down before they could see that kind of posting and i said something about it and i came back today to do some research on my next paper only to find out i cant even do that now. i didnt do anything wrong at all. i am a criminal justice student and i will not tolerate this kind of things on me when i didnt do anything wrong here. i was looking up things on informants and came across a posting talking about a females between the legs and a males between the legs and very dirty and nasty and obscene and vulgar language. but it seems to me that kind of language can go on but i get blocked saying im vandalizing and that i have another account here which this is the first time i signed up for an account here on wikipedia. ive come before browsing for my research but this is the only time i got an account here. but i will take my research somewhere else since Yandman thinks i am vandalizing which nothing was said to me at all i never got a message from him before being blocked indefinitely for no reason at all except by that persons terms. i will come on for the next couple of days and check to see if anything is done but if not i will take my research elsewhere. i was falsely accused of having a vandalism account.

thanks and have a nice day

-- This e-mail was sent by user "Alysah" on the English Wikipedia to user "Chzz". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

 Chzz  ►  22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The account has now been unblocked by another admin that I was chatting with on IRC; no worries, and I'll explain to the user. Thx.  Chzz  ►  03:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted the admin. I wish you'd wait for people to respond before acting. Trust me, I know it's a troll (google is your friend). The block wasn't for the obscenities, it was for the blatant trolling (a first edit to ANI posting a diff from 3 months ago?) yandman 10:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mstuzyns

Hello, I am sending this message in response to your deletion of my page on The Johnsonville Press. You asked if we have been the subject of a major newspaper article, and I will direct you to the following article documenting our formation and launch by the Rutgers Daily Targum (circulation 17,000). [8].

We routinely see a daily average of 200 unique visits to our site, and that number is increasing by the day. We have connections to New Brunswick city officials as well as to Rutgers administrators. Let me know if there is anything else required for our page to be reinstated.

Cheers, Mstuzyns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstuzyns (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

By major, I meant something closer to the Times, the Post, etc... our policy states: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources [...] evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.". I'm worried that the Johnsonville press is fairly unknown outside of Rutgers/New Brunswick. Cheers, yandman 10:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:No Personal Attacks

Re: Great, now my colleagues are wondering why I'm laughing. Was that paragraph written by a DPRK official?[9]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Learn to differentiate criticisms of content from criticisms of contributors. It might help you avoid losing your editing privileges. Oh, and please DTTR, it just makes you look silly. yandman 17:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Monorangeosis

You closed the AfD discussion of Monorangeosis, saying "The result was speedy delete. Per WP:IAR yandman 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)"

I feel that it is inappropriate to speedy-delete an article that does not meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, even when the AfD suggests that deletion is inevitable. Note that I !voted to delete the article, but I and other discussants suggested that the article does not meet criteria for speedy deletion.

If I've missed your attempt at humor, just allow me to say, "We are not amused." Cnilep (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the link you need. Most of the comments seemed to be on how this page was obviously inappropriate, but remarking that they couldn't quite spin it to fit into one of the Speedy categories. This is ridiculous: the policies and guidelines are there to codify how we think, not to decide it. yandman 12:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Explicit enumeration of your thinking is usually appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Johnbeyer.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Johnbeyer.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeanMoulinPhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeanMoulinPhoto.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 '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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 16:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

Finally a decision on the whole inactive admins thing! yandman 15:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

=) Welcome back. You can safely disregard the above. –xeno^talk 15:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Yandman,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article, do you suspect sockpuppets?

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. I'm also growing concerned they are using sockpuppets as they have in the past. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Xcover liam.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Xcover liam.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello world!

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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Yandman. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Yandman.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Yandman. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bassam al-Fara

The article Bassam al-Fara has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability guidelines for victims of criminals as there is little independent, reliable coverage beyond the BBC article that the crime had a major effect beyond itself nor that the victim was independently notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DrStrauss talk 10:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yandman. 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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Advert5

Template:Advert5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 08:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)