User talk:Yandman/Archive7
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
You didn't block 90.184.29.2 because of "none since last warning". The user got a second "last warning" on Oct 24, and clearly vandalized 9 times in a 17 minute period today, and then I put up a third "last warning". Why doesn't the second last warning count as a last warning? If I had not put up another last warning today, would the Oct 24 last warning count as a last warning? Bubba73 (talk), 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean 70.184.29.2? I blocked him for a week. yandman 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Sometimes there's a bit of a log lag. yandman 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! I'm pretty sure I didn't remove the user after he/she was blocked though; I just listed them as a vandal. MetsFan76 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, it was NishKid64 who removed it, not MetsFan76. Have fun! yandman 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem! Thanks again! MetsFan76 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yanman sucks! why did you delete the page about Sean Patrick Molony??? I found this very interesting in my college course on the history of astronomers! Please repost it or else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99938 (talk • contribs)
Could you look at this from ANI? It was archived with no comment or admin action, and has now been sitting on ANI, reposted, without any comment from admins. It seems a clear policy violation to me. I am not involved in the dispute, but do think it deserves attention. Thanks. Jeffpw 10:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Maud(e) Petersham: Thanks. -- Dominus 09:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. yandman 09:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the speedy deletion tag here, yet the page was NOT certified by 2 people WITHIN 48 hours , the second certification came nearly 2 months after the first one and was only added after someone tagged the page for deletetion due to not meeting the 48 hour threshold of RFC. Could you explain why you removed the deletion tag? --CltFn 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- The deletion tag was addede by a participant in the dispute (Karl Meier), which is a bad idea. Moreover, many people have participated in this discussion, so it's rather uncivil to delete the lot on a technicality. What could would it have brought? They'd have just recreated it, this time signing faster, asking everyone to come and comment again etc... i.e., wasting everyone's time. yandman 14:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Policy is policy and the same standard needs to be applied to all RFC notices and not selectively applied. The RFC was not certified by 2 people 2 months after the page was posted. The rule is if not certified by 2 people within 48 hours then it gets deleted. If people want to recreate an RFC they can go ahead but the one of 29 november is long overdue for a delete.--CltFn 04:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. yandman 09:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I was about to offer this user advice to the effect that "Dude, there are better ways to go about this," when I saw an edit summary that you've blocked him indefinitely. While I've no objection to this - I was the one who first speedied his two hoax articles a month ago - I'd like to add my voice to his in one respect. All the kid is asking for is to recover the text of one of those deleted articles. If that's even possible, and if an admin will do that for him, I think he'll go away happy and with a better impression of Wikipedia as a whole. Those two brief, rather bizarre articles he wrote were whimsical enough that I contemplated suggesting them for BJAODN, but wasn't sure whether I should, so I didn't. Regards and thanks.... Karen | Talk | contribs 09:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you give me the names of the articles, I can get the text and email it to him, or post it on his userpage. yandman 09:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks! I'm having trouble remembering the title of one of them (I think it was a spurious history of a fictional fisherman's organization), but the one he's asking for was titled Fisherman's Choice. He recreated that article name at least once yesterday just to ask for the deleted text, which according to my note to User talk:68.39.174.238 (who helped me with the speedies) he originally posted as User:Lord Tortville II. Thanks again! Karen | Talk | contribs 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Yandman,
I'm sure your aware of the dispute surrounding the Pontian Greek genocide article. I'd appreciate if you could add your name either in favour or opposition to an arbitration attempt to reach a solution here. Thanks, --A.Garnet 20:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you asked me to send you a mail to confirm the intellectual property of the Advanced Concepts Team page, but I do not know your mail address!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darioizzo (talk • contribs)
- Click the link that says "in Private" at the top of my talk page. yandman 14:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
 |
Yandman/Archive7 for your Support! |
- ...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Bassam al-Fara
I'm from wp:fr and i don't have an account here .You've created this article and it has been the subject of repeated vandalism but no has reverted the editing , can you put in your watch list .Sorry for my English 81.220.185.194 00:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep a closer eye on it. yandman 10:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep closure
It is considered a rather unwise action for you (as an outsider) to jump in like that with an irrational remark on the issue. You're not User:MER-C, are you? You cannot know his motive for the decision or which policy he followed. See my response on talk page and keep in mind that I'm asking for MER-C's explanation, not you, yandman. Arfan (Talk) 07:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
AFD
If you notice, I haven't removed any comments from any AFDs, much less legitimate ones -- febtalk 12:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
hey dude
im not sure whats wrong with the article i have wrote also im not too sure how to use this site so im sorry if i have not got back to you straight away!!!!
anyway if you could please tell me what im doing wrong and i will correct it
-simon
- The problem is that you don't seem to be notable enough to warrant mention in an encyclopedia: As far as I can tell, no major newspapers or magazines have written articles about you. (Yet...). We also don't like people editing articles about themselves (Conflict of Interest). The article you created was deleted several times, so I suggest you wait until you're famous before trying to get an article about yourself written here. yandman 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi; I noticed that you closed this AfD as delete, and another user and myself feel that you should reconsider changing the decision to no consensus or keep the AfD open for further comment. The AfD features four comments, two keep and two delete. Even the new editor considering the keep vote noted the reliable sources being used in the article; plus, the two users voting keep were expanding the article with reliable sources during the RfA. Currently, the article is userfied, but I ask that you change your decision. Thanks. — Deckiller 08:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, I saw that no edits had been made since the 9th (be it on the AfD or on the article itself), and W.Marsh's arguments finally swayed me to choose deletion: the Washington Post is usually a good source, but the article in question wasn't really an article (more a sort of "what's on guide"), and the other article linked to was similar. Maybe deletion review? Anyway, if you can wait a few hours, I should be back online around lunchtime to discuss this further. Cheers. yandman 09:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Strong. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Elonka 09:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Your block of TJ Spyke
Allo.
I thought I might point out that your blocking of TJ Spyke was actually somewhat unnecessary. (This is assuming that it was over edits to the Everybody Votes article. If not, then please just ignore this)
It is true that he made more than 3 edits, but there are two things which should tend to discourage a block:
- It's very hard to assume the other editor is acting in good faith when they're using edit summaries like, "So then you don't have a soul? =( I guess that's why you'd want to hurt a poor, defenseless, little page. You may not have a soul, but these pages do!". There was no rationale for not redirecting, and trying to start arguments about whether articles have more souls than people do is proof that Steve HP wasn't actually cooperating. (which is barely different from vandalism.)
- When Spyke realized that he was in danger of being blocked, he immediately ceased any "edit wars", and instead nominated the article for deletion/redirect, so other people could handle it for him. See here for his explanation.
Blocks, when used strictly for punitive measures, tend to work very poorly. In this case, he realized that he was technically violating the rules, so he stopped doing it, and then actively pursued other means of dispute resolution that stayed within the bounds of the rules.
After a person realizes what he's doing wrong, and makes absolutely every attempt to make it right, it's (at the very least) unnecessary to still block him. And, frankly, it's rather inappropriate as well. Blocks for 3RR were meant to stop edit wars. But since he'd already stopped, what was the point?
Again, this is based on the assumption that this was in connection to the Everybody Votes article. If it was based on anything else, then please just disregard. Bladestorm 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I wasn't sure whether to block him or not (RockMFR posted a 3RR report on him), but after seeing his long history of edit warring, I decided he needed (yet) another warning. 3RR blocks are always a bit peculiar in that they're rarely preventative in the short term (nearly all the cases posted are at least a few hours old, if not a day or two), but hopefully this will make him understand that he's got to be more careful. It wasn't obvious vandalism, and even if Steve was trying to be humorous in his summaries, he wasn't acting in bad faith, so there's no reason for breaking 3RR, especially if he's already been blocked half a dozen times for the same thing. I split the customary 24h in two, one for each. yandman 10:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Except, Steve did then proceed to, in my opinion, vandalize. Rather than edit warring, spyke decided to first put up a template for 'suggested to merge, discuss'. (That is, realizing he'd gotten into an edit war, he instead left the version he didn't like up, and added a tag) Then steve deleted that tag here. Removing such tags, to me, is vandalism. Refusing to discuss, using nonsensical edit summaries, and then removing such tags, at the very least, shows that both sides weren't equal. I know spyke has a bit of a history (I've gotten into them with him before as well), but he's genuinely trying since his previous block. And choosing to punish a person after they do all they can to fix their mistake simply isn't right. Especially when blocking isn't really supposed to be a "punishment" at all. Anyways, that's all I have to say. Just keep it in mind. Bladestorm 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I wasn't sure whether to block him or not (RockMFR posted a 3RR report on him), but after seeing his long history of edit warring, I decided he needed (yet) another warning. 3RR blocks are always a bit peculiar in that they're rarely preventative in the short term (nearly all the cases posted are at least a few hours old, if not a day or two), but hopefully this will make him understand that he's got to be more careful. It wasn't obvious vandalism, and even if Steve was trying to be humorous in his summaries, he wasn't acting in bad faith, so there's no reason for breaking 3RR, especially if he's already been blocked half a dozen times for the same thing. I split the customary 24h in two, one for each. yandman 10:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The Hybrid
Some idiot moved Carly Colón to Carlito Cool, and then in an attempt to fix his mistake Big Boss 0 moved that page to Carlito (wrestler) rather than revert him. Since many double redirects and existing pages are involved I, do to my lack of admin powers, am not able to fix this mistake with the page history in tact. The page is currently located at Carlito cool, but I'm pretty sure that the history is at Carly Colón. Could you take the appropriate actions to fix this? If someone moves the page while I'm gone I apologize, but I can't fix this. Peace, -- The Hybrid 06:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Whoah... Looks like something for our technical friends. I'll ask around at ANI. yandman 10:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Protection
Looks like your entire userspace is currently protected -- userpage indef, archives for 3 days, and talk for some other time period I don't recall. Somebody's been a little too persistent. ;) Let me know if this causes any problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Just wanted to say thank you for the help you provided with the revert war going on at the Battle of Al Qaim--Looper5920 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- More sockpuppets are appearing on this article. I've reverted and blocked a few, but I think it bears close watching. — ERcheck (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
CAT:RFU contrary review
I have posted an weak opposition to a block you issued on User:Marshalbannana. In summary, although the user needs to improve his collaborative skills, I do not see sufficient evidence to warrant the block you issued. I am a non-admin and my voice does not count for much, but it is possible you might have jumped to some conclusions. Of course, I do not know what information you may be able to see that I can not. TonyTheTiger 19:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Explained chez you. yandman 22:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I defer to your higher powers. I am confident that you are properly identifying IP vandalism with admin powers that I am unaware of. His unblock request and his user talk page would not have lead me to the conclusion you made, but I have no problem with your decision. TonyTheTiger 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nice. "Higher Powers". I like that... Seriously, you were quite right to question my actions, we are a collaborative project, after all. yandman 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see that you found the report on WP:ANI. The solicitation of warned/blocked users to use their IPs to revert my edits is almost amusing, if it weren't disruptive to others. However, I'm certainly not going to let a troll/group of trolls keep me from contributing to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia, nor deter me from reverting vandalism and blocking vandals. Just a bump in the road. Thanks for your diligence and for answering TonyTheTiger. That info was helpful — and I won't make the effort to add this group of edits to a checkuser request. Personally, I think a community ban is in order for the solicitation of others to vandalize. — ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete the PlayRadioPlay page?!?!?! I didn't even make that!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabblybear (talk • contribs)
- It's a blatant copyright violation taken from the webpage of a non-notable band. Look at the deletion log. yandman 12:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The Hybrid 2
Hi. Could I ask a favor of you? I'm thinking about applying for admin sometime in late March, and I would appreciate some advice from someone who is already an admin. Could you flip through my contributions and tell me what I need to improve on? I would really appreciate it. 声援 -- The Hybrid 07:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course! yandman 11:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Wild Carrot (shop): OK, you've deleted it......I ask "why?" and it says "copyvio"......I guess this means copyright violation yah? Well, please could you tell me what was violating copyright? And maybe you could have just edited it out? Please answaer ASAP!
Thanks, SuicidalSpider 18:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. My mum has worked there (at the Wild Carrot) for years now, and she was there when I wrote it, so I think I'm authorised.......is it because what I wrote is on the site? Well if it is, I'm sorry, but the site has only just appeared and was written very quickly so soon enough it will be re-done, but I was going to leave the Wiki page the same, to prevent this type of thing happening.......talk soon!
P.P.S. Oh dear, my post-script is longer than my original messgae............
It was deleted for two reasons:
- The business is not famous enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia
- The text of the article was clearlt taken from the website of the business in question, which isn't allowed unless the owner of the website in question releases the text under a GFDL license
You could avoid the second problem by changing the text, but I'm afraid the first problem will mean the article will have to stay deleted. Thanks for understanding, yandman 11:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Work Magazine edit log
I notice that you did the delete for [1]. I am hunting for link spam created by User talk:65.166.218.250 & Co. and I have found a very interesting correlation that I am trying to figure out. I've retrieved a copy of the article in Google cache and it is the rubish I expected. I am curious about the edit log and I can't see it since the article has been deleted. I assume as an adminstrator that you have access to this information. Could you tell me if there are any editors other than 65.166.218.250 and the individual who added the advertisement tag? This tidbit of information might be a helpful tool to me in figuring out this mystery. The edit dates could be a clue too. Thanks. (Requestion 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
- Only bots and editors adding categories with AWB. yandman 11:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- By AWB do you mean AutoWikiBrowser? Hmmm, no new clues. Thank you for checking. (Requestion 16:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
- Yeah, or maybe another automated editing tool. No-one else edited the actual content. No problem. yandman 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you believe it.. This frenchie threatens to ban me because I talk badly upon Foie Gras. I already said once that this page is protected by lobbyists. That includes frog eaters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beostaerling (talk • contribs)
- That's unfair! I hereby swear upon steak and kidney pie, Macclesfield Town FC, Private Eye and Jeremy Clarkson that I'm 100% pure Cheshireman. Please take this small holiday to reflect on what "civility" means. Thanks. yandman 11:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A request
I dont know whether it is in your line of Wiki duty to do neutrality sanity check. I saw you get involved a while ago on a Sri Lanka relatedd bio article om Kumar Ponnambalam. I cretead a new one called Mirusuvil mass grave. I need someone to do a neutrality sanity check before I categorize it and link it to other articles. Any directions will be appreciatedRaveenS 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- If I was you, I'd merge it with Mirusivil Massacre. I'm not sure we need two articles for this. yandman 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK good idea but how about the quality of the merged article itself from a neutrality point of view ?RaveenS 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A different request
I would like to move that user Wrestlinglover420 be banned outright from editing; he is continuing to remove information from the article Ultimate Spider-Man (Story Arcs) for no apparent reason, and spouting abuse when I fix the article. A 24-hour ban is, it seems, not enough to make him learn his lesson. SaliereTheFish 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)