User talk:Yankees76/Archive 3

NHL team pages & diacritics

Hello, Yankee76. You may have noticed recently pro-diacritic editors have been forcing diacritics on NHL team pages (ignoring NHL teams non-usage of diacritics). Suggest we & other editors (against these diacritics), take turns reverting those erroneous edits (in order to avoid 3-revert penalties). Example Colorado Avalanche, if we get together against that annoying anon-user, he'll easily break the 3-revert rule against our combined reverts. GoodDay 22:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If he's going against the consensus of the community, then it's just vandalism (disrupting Wikipedia), and reverting simple vandalism does not fall under the 3RR. Report the user or simply have the article semi-protected until it blows over. I'll revert it if I see it, but I'm not going to go out of my way to seek out and revert any and every change I can find. Yankees76 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, that anon-user is quite stubborn. GoodDay 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Then have the page semi-protected. Anon users can't edit it and new users have to wait 4 days. He's already violated the 3RR, report him and have him temp blocked. Yankees76 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reported him/her to the Investigations page. GoodDay 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I'm sorry, but I'll continue to attack you. Why nobody can accept my edits? Why in your opinions I'm always wrong? Why do you continue to think that I'm ignorant and always make wrong edits? Maybe should I give some reason to Criticism of Wikipedia for your possible abuse of power? --Baxtaba 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, nothing that you say has any merit of truth other than yes, you're making personal attacks against a number of editors in your edit summaries (including Jimbo Wales), which a casual review of your user contributions will reveal. I don't think you're ignorant and always make wrong edits - I think you make poor decisions when it comes to working with others on this encyclopedia, and don't seem to understand basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Abuse of what power? Please enlighten me - I have no more power than any other editor on Wikipedia. If you do feel the need to continue to be uncivil and engage in personal attacks however, you will be blocked. Yankees76 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And yes before anyone mentions it, I realize the irony of potentially making an attack by talking about the lack of knowledge of guidelines etc. of this user, but it's still the truth. Yankees76 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche

Yankees76, to discuss edits with a possible IP address shifting anon-user, who likely isn't aware he/she has a 'personal discussion page', is near impossible. Indeed this anon-user(s) don't seemed to be in the negotiating mood. My reason for this edit war is, the anon-user(s) are unaccountable for their actions. Could you direct him/her to the Consensus that is againt diacritics on NHL team pages, he/she is either unaware or simply ignoring this fact. GoodDay 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Contacted, the anon-user(s) disrupting the Avalanche page. He/she was soooo understanding. GoodDay 22:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Yankees76. Due to lack of 'discussion' participation, by the previously active anon-users (who favoured diacritics), and having viewed their lack of participation, as consenting to deleting diacritics on the page. I've requested the Avalanche page to be unprotected. GoodDay 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I tagged the two users who similar names to yours with sockpuppet tags as well. Yankees76 04:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My Bad

I totally missed that watermark on the Designer Whey Protein image. I'll remove the photo and go find another one. Kudos for being so diligent. Quadzilla99 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it caught my eye while I was trolling through recent changes. Alot of online stores insert their watermarks to discourage competitors from "borrowing" images to use on their own sites. Cheers. Yankees76 19:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WPT & WPP

Hello, Yankees76. I've proposed compromises on these two Project pages. Why? I wish to end the diacritical debates/disputes once & for all. Personally, I dislike diacritics (after all this is the English Wikipedia]] however continued disputes on the 30 NHL team articles & NHL players/former players Euro/French bio's could lead to more frequent Pag protections, page moving, blocks ,bans etc. Seeking your opinons on my hoped for compromises. GoodDay 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your position, but I've posted my opinion on this already. Let me know when there is an official vote, because right now all I see are same tired arguments that have been brought up for the past year and a half. Good luck. Yankees76 00:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've begun a vote now, feel free to cast your opinon. GoodDay 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And you've scratched out the vote less than 24 hours later. Please don't bother me on this anymore until you get a serious RFC going. Yankees76 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Yankees76, due to lack of participation on my proposal (by anyone), I thought I wasn't being taken seriously. Furthermore I'm not sure, how to make a vote official. I felt my compromise was still-born (no one was interested), caused me to pull the plug. Didn't mean to mislead you. GoodDay 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Checked out the RFC, can't understand most of it. It's all a mumble jumble. Checked the Village Pump as well, no clear opinon of diacritics there either. GoodDay 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the resolving disputes policy and decide on the next step. Thanks. Yankees76 21:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll follow the Second Step (I'll take a break). Besides, the Diacriticals dispute, seems to have cooled down (for awhile). Thanks for the advice. GoodDay 22:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I can see this eventually going to the Arbitration Committee. Yankees76 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ok

sounds good. Buffalo Sabres fan, gotta love that! Roadhockey 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Long suffering one - so this (and last) season is totally sweet - I'm enjoying it! Yankees76 04:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

Just saw your (very appropriate) reversion to remove a web ref on the All Along the Watchtower page. However, you flagged it as spam. surely it was irrelevent promotion or fluff? Isn't spam when something is repeated to the point of ad nauseum? Candy 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it's classified as spam under the Wikipedia guideline WP:SPAM. Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Yankees76 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Then the Wiki guidelines need some work to make sense. I'll look into it. Thanks. Candy 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, use of the term "spam" for something that is commercial and unsolicited has been common for years. The guideline seems pretty clear in the respect. Yankees76 17:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben Johnson (runner)

Sorry, I want by the rest of the article which mostly (except for intro) mentions his first world record of 9.83 ('87). The intro is a bit misleading with the statement – He was briefly the "fastest man in the world" after winning the 100 m final in the record time of 9.79 seconds during the 1988 Summer Olympics. I will correct the various references to mention both records. --Deon Steyn 05:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that - I can see how it can be confusing. Good job on the edits. Yankees76 14:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NHL Euro/French Canadian Players bio articles

Hello, Yankees76. Check out Krm500's compromise, at my talk page. I think the compromise is great. GoodDay 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. Yankees76 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rfc on this compromise, isn't goin' anywhere. As you've said, this 'Diacritics' Schism seems headed towards the Arbitration Committee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Seems like it. As concvincing as yours and Masterhatch's arguments are you'll never convince foreigners to see your side. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is: When the New York Rangers add diacritics to Jagrs jersey or the Ducks to Selanne's, I'll side with them. Until then, they don't belong on NHL team pages. Period. Yankees76 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Yankees76. Are you sitting down, you should be. A pro-diacritic is arguing that the Arbitration Committee wouldn't make a ruling on 'Diacritics'. He seemed to suggest the AC would have no authority, in the 'Diacritics' dispute. see Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format. GoodDay 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Like you said, no matter how good the argument (either for English titles or a compromise of some sort), pro-diacritic editors will never be convinced. GoodDay 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is definitely required by a third party who has not been involved. Those saying otherwise are not working towards a solution that is in Wikipedia's best interest.Yankees76 04:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Chien-ming Wang

Chien-ming Wang is from Taiwan. But Taiwan is not a country. It is governed by the Republic of China. I added ROC after Taiwan to make it accurate. That is correct and verifable. Please read Republic of China article. -Nationalist 06:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No it's not correct - please view any Major League Baseball website or network that covers the sport and report back on this birthplace. You're adding original research to the article. As per WP:BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. Yankees76 13:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that when I say Republic of China, that does not mean the "China" that you had in mind. The "China" that you had in mind is Communist and big. That "China" is officially called the People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China has no relation to the Republic of China.

I will tell you a brief history about the ROC (Republic of China) and the PRC (People's Republic of China). Once upon a time, dyansties ruled China. In 1911, the last dynasty was overthrown and the Republic of China was established. A civil war ensued and the Communists of China rebelled against the Republic of China government. In 1949, the ROC government retreated to its last strong hold of Taiwan. And the Communists established their own "People's Republic of China," which you are most likely referring to when you say "China." So you can see, there are two governments, the ROC (based in Taiwan) and the PRC (based on Mainland China, what Americans refer to when saying "China"). So Chien-ming Wang is from Taiwan, which is true. But the official name of the country/government governing Taiwan is the Republic of China. Please read the Republic of China article for further information. I have not done anything wrong and this is 100% verifiable. Wang is a citizen of the Republic of China. (Which since 1949 has been based in Taiwan) -Nationalist 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice and my sincerest thanks for the history lesson, but unfortuneately it has little value in regards to changing what has been published far and wide with regards to Wang's birthplace. The threshold for inclusion of information into Wikipedia is verifiability - not truth. Please review WP:VERIFY. The following reliable sources list Wang as being born in Taiwan: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5]. Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. I have yet to come accross such a source that states Wang is from anywhere other than Taiwan. Yankees76 04:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if you fully understood my history lesson and the Wikipedia articles. Wang is from Taiwan correct. Taiwan is a province (state). Let us have another example. George W. Bush is from Texas (state). But the state of Texas is part of the United States of America. So Taiwan is a province (state) part of the Republic of China. Is that not true and verifiable and correct? Please explain your position further. -Nationalist 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you fully understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Bush being from the United States is verifiable and you'll find numerous sources that say that. Again, please find me a baseball-related source that verifies Wang is from China. Shouldn't be too hard if what you're saying is correct. Yankees76 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What is "China?" What are you saying. There is no such thing as a country called just China. Which China are you talking about? The Republic of China is equal to Taiwan. -Nationalist 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just posting strawman arguments (not to mention canvassing for support on the issue)[6], 3RR violations and attempts to game the system). I'll ask for the 3rd time: Find a reliable source or stop spamming my talk page. Since I've listed 5 baseball-related reliable sources already that say Taiwan and not Repbulic of China, China or any other country or state, the page will remain as is. Yankees76 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. I suggest you keep your cool and stop being mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Taipei_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics This article shows that Wang Chien-ming was playing for the Chinese Taipei (Republic of China) team. He is from the ROC so he plays on that team in the olympics. This site: http://www.weblo.com/celebrity/Athletes/ChienMing_Wang/412342/ , a collector of baseball stuff also says in his biography that he is born in Tainan City, Taiwan, Republic of China. There are plenty more sites. The fact is that Wang Chien-ming is from the Republic of China on Taiwan. Republic of China is equal to Taiwan. This is verifiable. www.gio.gov.tw and www.president.gov.tw (click on English site) Look for yourself and keep cool. -Nationalist 06:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that's funny. You can't quote Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirror sites as a reliable source. I could go change that information right now myself to say he was born in Brazil if I wanted to. And Weblo is a commercial site that falls far short of meeting criteria to become a reliable source . Let's try to get serious here shall we? Again, please review WP:VERIFY. And trust me, I am keeping cool. This is my talk page, and you're spamming it. I'm doing my best to educate you on how Wikipedia works, but it's disrespectful when someone doesn't bother to attempt read any of the material I've presented on this issue and instead posts strawman arguments over the wording of China. Yankees76 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And before you post again here - look: FIVE reliable, baseball-related sources, all meeting criteria under WP:VERIFY; all following the reliable source guideline by being reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [7],[8], [9], [10], [11]. Yankees76 06:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have already told you two reliable sources pointing that the Taiwan is part of the Republic of China. www.gio.gov.tw and www.president.gov.tw I can show you more if you like. These sources are too easy to find. Why don't you just visit the website instead of telling me your BS. -Nationalist 08:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

hiya, nationalist directed me here. I think maybe we can say he's born in "tainan, taiwan (ROC)" or something like that. This issue really has nothing to do with verifiability or reliable source or whatnots. The official name of the state commonly known as Taiwan is Republic of China. People now just refer the ROC as Taiwan, and the People's Republic of China as China. Remember, back then during the Cold War, Taiwan was also known as "Free China" and the mainland as "Red China", so yeah it can get confusing. BlueShirts 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion of information into Wikipedia is verifiability - not truth. Please review WP:VERIFY. I'm amazed that you find this such a difficult concept to grasp. All I'm asking for is a reliable source that says Wang was born any place other than Taiwan. Nationalist seems unable to comply with this simple request or unwilling for personal reasons that may include a non NPOV. He/she has done nothing other than to post original research, links to sites that don't even mention Wang, or sources links to other articles on Wikipedia. No sources show ROC or Republic of China as Wangs birthplace. Nationalist, please stop canvassing your friends for support, using strawman arguments and outright lies on other editors talk pages, and please stop spamming my talk page. The next instance where I waste my time on this subject will be in an RFC on the Talk:Chien-Ming Wang page. Any further posts on this subject from anyone related to Nationalist (talk · contribs) on my talk page will be viewed as vandalism. Yankees76 16:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You saw my reasons, right, Yankee76? Chien-Ming Wang is from Taiwan, because of those reasons+the information given at Yankees.com. Nationalist is just being annoying.--Jerrypp772000 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, and it brought new thoughts about naming conventions and popular usage to light as well. Thanks! Yankees76 21:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate :)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Just wanted to say a big thank you for all your help with the queries on my talk page, especially those made whilst Im vacationing, appreciated!  Glen  07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Anytime bro! Glad I could help. Yankees76 07:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist

Seems like this user doesn't get the hint.. I've been watching your discussion for a bit and he just doesn't give up. I support you on this. --Borgarde 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed. Thank you!. It seems there are a few more of us. Yankees76 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll be happy to know this user has had a 24 hr block for using profanity. I didn't see that cause coming.. --Borgarde 13:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are still going to watch this user when he returns to editting, but his block is over. If you have a look at this, you'll see he has been blocked before for a 3RR violation earlier this month. --Borgarde 15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him. Yankees76 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Sid212 (talk · contribs) also. I suspect him to be a sock puppet of Nationalist. Because he edited the exact same articles as the ones I edited earlier, and has the same POV as Nationalist.--Jerrypp772000 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's him. Though it appears Vic226 is already on it. Yankees76 04:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WARNING

# Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits . If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring.-Nationalist 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

haha, I find this hilarious. Technically, this warning means nothing because you did nothing wrong, just thought I should add this for anyone reading this page. Check out Nationalist's talk page for further information. --Borgarde 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL He just copied and pasted the warning I just gave him for constantly reverting the edits of 3 other editors and going against consensus on the Chien-Ming Wang article. Nice. What's the point in getting blocked over the inclusion of 3 words? Senseless. Yankees76 14:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

haha, he also tried to block me one time! But he didn't know how to, and asked another user, the user said I had did nothing wrong!--Jerrypp772000 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what he needs right now is a serious read-through of WP:DICK. Vic226_(chat) 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You see how complicated the relationship is between Taiwan and China? There are just too many Chinese editors in Wikipedia!--Jerrypp772000 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Vic226, there are other Taiwanese pitchers in the majors and yet, none of them say ROC on Wikipedia. I think perhaps this is being done to simply disrupt Wikipedia, more than to actually bring about positive change. Yankees76 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a really hard time dealing with Nationalist in the article of Guantian, Tainan. There had been a discussion of this before. And there is a 3rd opinion too. However, he just can't stop editing the article to make it more confusing. I think I kind of need your help, please.--Jerrypp772000 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Where?

What city/town do you live in? Kamope · talk · contributions 01:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but if I wanted Wikipedia to know where I live, I'd post it. Yankees76 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're really super-interested, shoot me an email. Yankees76 13:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: so-called Vandalism

Dude, I have worked on the St. Catharines article and built most of the content with my own two typing hands for the last two years. If you're going to put info, at least make it up to date and/or in the correct section, otherwise I will continue to edit it. If you don't like it, take it to the :talk.

Snickerdo 03:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lose the hostile tone. The warning I left you was a standard templated warning given when sourced material is removed from an article. Also, please review WP:OWN. Working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article. While I appreciate the effort you've put into the article, not assuming good faith with other editors who add verifiable information to the article and engaging in personal attacks on the article talk page is poor etiquette and against Wikipedia policy. Stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil - the information isn't going anywhere. I've added information that has been published by a reliable source, which is the threshold for inclusion of information to Wikipedia. Yankees76 06:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell ya what, when you stop plastering my :talk page with logos to try and emphasize a point that I'm already well-aware of, then we'll talk. Until then, stop annoying me. Snickerdo 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that when you stop violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These "logos" are called warnings and are given out when required. What makes you think you deserve any special treatment? I'm tagging your talk pages, just as I would any other user who is unable to work within the community and follow the rules. Yankees76 03:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you became an administrator when? So you now are the final and last word on Wikipedia policy and direction? Who's the strongarm now? Bring it on. I want this to be taken to an administrator, and from now on all further comments from my talk page from you will be deleted. Snickerdo 08:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind you that you don't have to be an administrator to give warnings for behaviour that does not adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yankees76 13:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Snickerdo, as per your request above, I have indeed involved an admin [12], Glen, who is noted for being someone who is able to fairly and quickly resolve content disputes, edit warring and uncivil behaviour. Note I did this nearly 12 hours before you decided to persue mediation. While you have been editing with a cooler head over the last 24 hours it should still be noted that it's in your best interest to continue editing in this fashion. Thanks. Yankees76 05:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal regarding St. Catharines, Ontario

A request for informal mediation has been lodged with the Mediation Cabal, and I have taken the case and will be serving as the mediator. The request page for this case is viewable here. I'm going to have a read through of all the material and post all discussion on the article talk, although if you have any specific queries feel free to add them on my talk page. I just want to remind you that participation in mediation is voluntary, but should be a good starting point for discussion and help to prevent sanctions or administrative solutions. I look forward to discussing the article with you. Jem 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. It should be noted that I filed an AMA request [13] for this dispute already that has not been assigned. Also it should be noted that I have filed a formal complaint against Snickerdo on the Administrators Noticeboard. I'm not sure how this will affect this case, however in the meantime, if there is any background information I can supply you with for this, please feel free to let me know. Thanks. Yankees76 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The AMA request should not affect this case, however, when an advocate is assigned to you, it would make life a lot easier if one of you is nominated to discuss, not both, to prevent confusion. It may also be worth noting to them that the case is involved in Cabal Mediation, for their own preparation. As for the Administrator intervention, it is entirely your perogrative to file such a complaint. If you feel that you would rather wait and see how this mediation pans out before following up your complaint it may be beneficial to all concerned, especially in the interests of preventing any further personal attacks and avoiding official sanctions. Administrators may also wait until such mediation has finished. Thanks for being receptive to the process, and I shall be shortly posting on the article talk page. Your views on the post and any other information would be very welcome. Jem 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. I've tagged my AMA case appropriately. Yankees76 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you still want an Advocate? Geo. 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think so Geo, but thank you for inquiring. I think the situaton worked itself out. How do you close an AMA request before it starts? Should I simply remove it? Yankees76 ::Actually, I might. It appears that despite resolution on the dispute, the other party involved now wants to make more out of what he perceives as me "unfairly" placing vandalism warnings on his talk page (they were not vandalism warnings - the user apparantly cannot tell the difference between types of warnings). His case is here.[14]. Thanks. Yankees76 21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not even going to bother with this issue or this user any longer, or waste your time on it. Thanks for the offer, I'll withdraw my request. Yankees76 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you had read the request, you would have saw that it had more to do with my inappropriate actions and wanting to get advice and assistance on how to clear up the situation rather than you. Respectfully, I must submit, that the world, indeed, does not revolve around you. I highly recommend that you refrain from communicating with me, just as I have done you - post titled "Are you kidding?" included - until mediation and the sort is cleared up. I can quite clearly see by your response and your attitute that third-party mediation rightfully needs to be involved. If you no longer want to be involved in mediation, I will submit that your request be withdrawn. Snickerdo 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, if you want to get advice on the situation, it's probably a good idea to ensure you have your facts straight about two other Wikipedia users, one of whom is myself and the other an admin in good standing in the Wikipedia community - so you're damn right I'm going to call you out on it.

Your "version" of what happened - the one you're telling a potential AMA advocate is not even correct. Pull the edit history of the St. Catherines article and your talk page for that. I made the edit[15], you pulled it quoting unverifiable claims [16], I reinserted it stating as such [17].That's when I tagged your talk page with a template regarding removal of material (which I even stated i the edit summary - I did not even state vandalism there) [18] But you blanked it again [19] again quoting unverfied POV and proceeded to post an uncivil comment on my talk page. [20] That's when I warned you again [21]- for removing material - not vandalism. Then you personally attacked me [22] on the article talk page and post another uncivil post on another users talk page (one who was engaged in civil debate up to that point)[23]. That's a far cry from the "story" you're telling your future advocate.

Not only that, but you lie about the treatment you received with regards to "vandalism" warnings and threats of being "banned".

So I'm challenging you - provide the differences that show:

• 1) I posted vandalism templates on your talk page. ("Yankees76 then posted a vandal template on my :talk page and restored the line to the exact same place in the article. I removed the item again, recommending that the user see the article :talk page if he wanted to discuss its merrit in the article. Again, he continued to post templates on my own :talk page")

and

• 2) You were threatened with being banned from Wikipedia by an administrator. ("I was threatened with a final warning saying that I would be banned from Wikipedia.")

So, yes "I can quite clearly see by your response and your attitute that third-party mediation rightfully needs to be involved" it does, however I'm leaning more toward the administrators noticeboard, than a mere informal mediator. Yankees76 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get pulled into another argument with you, and frankly, I don't answer to you. I will, however, offer an olive branch validating my claims and recommend that you take a look at [24] and further read that I do admit to uncivil tone to loosing my temper as submitted in my AMA request. It is because of these identical false claims like the one you posted just now, mentions of the noticeboard, and your constant placing words into my mouth, that I am asking for member advocacy in dealing with you and anything you may cause. I don't disagree with many of the points in your AMA request, but I do disagree with how you are saying things did not happen that quite clearly did, and how you are still, even now, posting stuff like 'are you joking' on my talk page with regards to how seriously I am taking all this. I don't know how much more clear I can make it that we should not be talking to each other until this is resolved. I have not contacted you directly since the mediation was initiated and I requested that you do the same. I don't know in what other way or what other language I can post that says we should not contact each other until this is all sorted out. Simply put - stop it. Snickerdo 02:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Snickerdo, I'm not interesting in fighting either. But put yourself in my position, I did not even look at the article, your talk or anything related to this for 2 days - I'm cooled off, calm and ready to close this up and let both of us put it behind us. But, when revisit the dispute, I find out that during mediation, you iniated another AMA case. Okay fine, I guess - but when I read what's inside that AMA case, I find numerous half-truths and outright falsehoods regaring myself and Glen. That's why I'm back on the warpath here. When I posted "Are you kidding?" on your talk, it was quite literally a question.

But let's be reasonable here, I've posted above the order that everything took place - see links 3-10 above, that's how it happened, from my first post to your attack. Have I put words in your mouth? No. You losing your temper once I can live with - all Wikipedians have done it, but to blatantly disregard my request for calm, cool and civility [25], and then dig up material from my user page to use as a personal attack/argument? That's not called "losing your temper". Be honest with yourself - there was more to this than that. Maybe you didn't want any negative information on the article you work so hard on, even though you know that it's not your own article or maybe you're overweight/obese and felt embarrassed - I don't know. There are definitely NPOV issues here.

And then this AMA case, where as I noted above, you accuse me of labeling you a vandal. That's not true. I used the following tags on your page: {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}, {{uw-agf1}}, {{uw-agf2}}, {{uw-agf3}} and finally {{uw-npa4im}} - none of which are vandalism tags. Secondly, Glen never threatened to ban you. He may have posted a delayed civility warning (for this [26] - which was posted bofore your mediation cabal request was even an hour old), but so did Mel Etitis. Glen's exact text "You removed my comment so you obviously read it, yet as noted by Mel above your incivility continues. Consider this a final warning. Either tone it down a notch or action will be taken." does not threaten a ban from Wikipedia Where do you get "outright banning from Wikipedia" from that? Do you see why I'm bit ticked off here? I don't pretend to speak for Glen, but I doubt he's even seen your AMA request. And I certainly am not impressed by constantly having to read that I'm calling you a vandal at every turn (and now even stating that I was "requesting that the admins ban me for this one single issue in an otherwise spotless Wikipedia record." - again not true - I asked for a 24 hour block [27] after your initial wave of personal attacks to let you cool your head - something you obviously needed).

Even if it's a request designed to help you, the very least you can do is be honest with the advocate.

So if you wonder why I posted on your talk page - that's why. Once this edit (which has now dragged on for about 5 more days than it should have) is taken care of, I'm done with you. Get over the warnings, get over the "Fattest" city tag, and just move on. I will to. I'm not going to mention your AMA case or anything esle about you except that little sentence until this whole dispute is over. This has gone way to far. Yankees76 05:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we obviously have a disagreement as to the way the events unfolded and I am both too tired and too flustered to post each and every one of my disagreements and grievances in detail yet again. This is why we both need outside help to resolve this. The cabal on St. Catharines appears to have been successful, now let's let the AMA deal with the other issues between us as needed. Needless to say - and I'm sure the feeling is mutual - I look forward to moving on and not having to deal with you ever again. Snickerdo 07:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia records a history of every edit. Perhaps your interpretation of words can be different than mine (one reason why I used templated warnings, instead of risking misinterpretation), but the history of events themselves really isn't up for debate. Yankees76 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to AMA Request

Hello Yankees76, I'm Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) and I'll be your Advocate for your case: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Yankees76. It is apparent that the user that you have been involved in conflict Snickerdo (talk · contribs) has launched a counter-AMA Case Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Snickerdo. I will find a resolution to this, however, you must be patient and civil. You have done the right thing in requesting an Advocate.

If you have any questions, just ask me at my talk page. Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an AMA request will acheive at this point. We have reached a consensus on the material in question through mediation, and the user and I have had extenseive discussion regarding civility etc. I am concerned regarding some of the "facts" presented in Snickerdo's AMA case - as I feel two main points are simply not true. However I am willing to work with you on this if you feel you can smooth over hard feelings and improve overall civility in this dispute. Thanks. Yankees76 06:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. There are still some disputes to be resolved, and it may take me a few days to get started, I have to understand what is happening from the records. Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your patience.

Official Response

I have spoken to Snickerdo, it seems that now he acknowledges the wrongdoing on his part and wants to make positive out of it. I'm working on getting an apology from him. He's making steps to become a better user. I think a "forgive, forget and co-operate" mentality should be adopted here to prevent further conflict.

I don't think any real wrong doing has been committed on your part, however, Snickerdo would have, I'm sure appreciated if you had a little more patience. I future, try to give full warnings and propose a resolution in the face of personal attacks, in the stead of getting involved.

The only point of conflict that remains is is:

• Do you still want the information in the Article? If so, then we will find a solution and compromise as to where to put it and how to put it in there?

Regards, Dfrg.msc 07:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I did give the full warnings, however I should have also simply left the talk page to allow a cooling off period. With regards to the information, a compromise has been reached and the article was updated with the last 12 hours. Thanks. Yankees76 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. With that would you agree to a "case closed"? Dfrg.msc 04:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We're good. Yankees76 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Case closed. Dfrg.msc 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much - although good luck getting an apology - not that I'd expect one considering that after going through his history of edit summaries (examples: ^[28][29][30]and^[31]), it's easy to see that this sort of behaviour was not new for this individual and based on recent doesn't appear to be changing ^[32]. Does all this guy does on Wikipedia is get into arguments? First the St. Catharines article, and now that he's had his wrist slapped, he's immediately on to another arguement that requires mediation Highway 401 (Ontario). Seems your time was probably wasted. Thanks again though. Yankees76 06:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Mantle

If the information I removed comes from the Castro book, it should be directly attributed to that source. As it stands, it reads like the article author's opinion. As for the quote, I'm sure I could have found a source for it, but it didn't really have a context without the assumption about Mantle's father. If you want to keep the sentences in question, please cite the source(s) directly. Right now there are three books listed as references, and the casual reader isn't going to take the time to figure out which, if any of them, a given statement came from.

I'm going to go through the article and tag the statements that definitely need citations. Please don't misinterpret it as sarcasm. I'm merely giving you and the article's other editors a chance to verify information that might otherwise be removed. --Djrobgordon 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize there is much that is unquoted, however if you're going to simply remove sections of text, it might be more prudent to discuss your edits on the talk page before simply making deletions. Also, let's try to not to tag items that are easily found and verifiable - tagging a quote from Bob Costas eulogy with a {{fact}} for example is dubious as it is not unlikely information, nor it is information which is particularly difficult to verify. Please read Wikipedia:Disputed statement. Particularly:

If you come across a statement which seems or is inaccurate, please do the following:

• Correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article citations for any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources.

Thanks. Yankees76 19:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mauro Di Pasquale

I was considering changing the lead to reflect the fact that he is known best a bodybuilding author, I figured I'd come to you beforehand to see what you thought. Currently it mentions he was a professor but he's really known for his bodybuilding books, columns, and articles. It doesn't mention his work as a bodybuilding author until well into the article. Quadzilla99 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. Yankees76 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick links to RFCU and SSP pages, etc.

Short ways to supply conditional links

{{rfcu|Messenger2010}} → WP:RFCU page on "Messenger2010"

{{ssp|Messenger2010}} → WP:SSP page on "Messenger2010"

{{ssp|Messenger2010|list=y}} → WP:SSP page on "Messenger2010"^{confirmed socks}_{suspected socks}

{{rfarb|Messenger2010}} → There is no WP:RFARB page on "Messenger2010"

{{rfcuser|Messenger2010}} → There is no WP:RFC/USER page on "Messenger2010"

Add the parameter cond=n to any of these, and the link will simply not appear unless the page exists, i.e. no gray (or red) links:

{{rfcu|Messenger2010|cond=n}} → WP:RFCU page on "Messenger2010"

{{rfcuser|Messenger2010|cond=n}} →

{{usercheck|Messenger2010}}   will give you a group of links:

Messenger2010 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Enjoy! — Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice - thank you! Yankees76 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: "Attacks Warning"

An admin is already involved against the other user, and the other user has been blocked for 48 hours. This issue has been discussed this with an admin, to which last I checked you were not.

This is your first - and last - request to refrain from contacting me. In the future, it is advisable to not get involved in situations that you don't understand. In addition, I'm sure flamebaiting is against Wikipedia's policies. Nice try though. If you want to get an AMA to communicate with me from now on, feel free to do so.

Have a good day. Snickerdo 22:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight. I don't need to understand the situation to see when a personal attack or incivility takes place against another editor - nor do I need your permission to give you a warning about it.

Being right/correct in a situation still does not entitle you to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and you've not been granted any special immunity that allows you to go around calling other editors names - regardless of their stature here. You know, and I know, that this guy is has broken the 3RR and has a flawed argument, so why no be cool in the dispute? Again, please avoid attacking other editors when you're involved in one of your disputes. Please refer to WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA if you require further clarification. Yankees76 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Hi, I'd like to know why you reverted my changes?

Sli723 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Arnold wasn't credited in any movies as Arnie, Austrian Oak, Conan the Republican, Styrian Oak, or The Governator. He was as Arnold Strong, however. If you're still confused, let me know. Thanks. Yankees76 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the info from IMDb and I have reverted the changes already. But you're welcome to remove it, thanks! By the way, sorry for typing "had no reason to remove my changes" because I reverted it before I read the response!

Sli723 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted them back. That section is to list names that Arnold has been credited with on film. He was credited as Arnold Strong for the movie Hercules in New York (1970). The list is not an informal list of nicknames - please review the template for actors/actresses. Thanks Yankees76 03:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! :)

Sli723 04:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ian King

Can you take a look at the article on Ian King. Currently it seems that subject lack notability big time. Aditya Kabir 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I know who he is. He's certainly notable enough for a bio.[33]Yankees76 17:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is trying to improve the article Ian King in a real sense, not counting sources of dubious acceptability (i.e. citing amazon.com, a vendor of the subject's book, as an independent source to validate claims of notability). Rather people are quoting your keep position to validate their keep position. I am facing an allegation of downgrading the article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian King, since I took a delete position and edited the article to remove unsourced claims that had their {{fact}} tags removed a few edits earlier (while also liking it to other articles). Would you care to take a look at the debate and the article again? Aditya Kabir 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not interested. I stated clearly why it should be kept. Yankees76 04:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You really like editing my edits.

Go to the New Jersey Devils' website, and look at the roster, then check out how many points Cam Janssen had this year. Last time I checked it said 41 games, 1 point. Stop editing things just because you THINK they're wrong, when they're really right. ---burgz. 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lose the uncivil tone. I see you've already been issued a final warning for making personal attacks - a block will come next if you continue this behaviour. And the last time I checked, Wikipedia doesn't keep daily stats of hockey players - which is why I removed it. It's already outdated info - he's played 43 games, not 41. Yankees76 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration against Nationalist

I have filed a Request for arbitration against Nationalist as a third person (since I'm barely involved in political issues this past month). Although you are not one of the involving parties, this is a general note about the ongoing situation with Nationalist, and you are free to comment there. Vic₂₂₆ 09:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just saw your changes; now we're even. Quartet 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Stipe&action=history Also, don't break the 3RR. PS. Please don't stalk my edits. Maurauth ^(...) 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple vandalism isn't breaking the 3RR - you're placing a blank sockpuppet tag on a user. Who is the puppeteer? And how am I stalking your edits? I edited the Chinese Democracy page long before you did - this user popped up on the Bono page. If anything you're stalking me. Yankees76 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Read where I said 'the other guy who was vandalising the michael stipe page', or just read what I said here. Maurauth ^(...) 15:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So why are you tagging him with a blank tag? Put the user name/IP address in. --Yankees76 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I already told you, I don't know how to. Maurauth ^(...) 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Then stop putting the blank tag. Who's the puppeteer. I'll do it. Yankees76

That's the only tag I know how to put. 146.180.106.196, like I've been saying the past 4 times... Maurauth ^(...) 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You never said 146.180.106.196 until now. What is your proof that these two are same person, one is from Stamford CT, the other is from Mexico. --Yankees76 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the proper tag, however the onus is on your to provide the evidence on your talk page. In the future, if you're unsure how to do something, just flag down another user. Thanks. Yankees76 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First, an IP address can't be a sock-puppet; secondly, you don't place a sock-puppet template first and then ask for evidence. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - an IP address can be a sockpuppet, and there's a specific template created for it and it looks like this: {{IPsock}} Though the wording is slightly different, it's still a sockpuppet tag from WP:SOCK. With regards to the individual above, I initially removed the puppet tag, however the situation was turning into an edit war, so I simply corrected the tag. I have no problems with it being removed (as was my original edit to the page). Thanks. Yankees76 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why can't an IP address be a sock-puppet, if someone's using a proxy it'll show a different IP address and that's as good as a second username. Maurauth ^(...) 22:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the definition of "sock-puppet": "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name". An IP address can't be one because it's not pretending to be anyone else — there's no additional username. It's sometimes called a mock-puppet if it's used abusively. The template name is "IPsock" for ease of use; the wording doesn't use the term "sock-puppet", though — because that would be incorrect. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, it's still someone using another identity to edit with, you're just talking semantics. Maurauth ^(...) 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't using another identity, because an IP address isn't an identity; such editors are called "anons" for a reason.

If the evidence is more than enough to justify a block, then ask for a block at WP:ANI/I. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How is an IP address not an identity, if wikipedia didn't want you to be able to track people by their IP if they didn't have a username then it would say Anonymous for every edit from a user who isn't logged in. Maurauth ^(...) 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief... it's just not. If you can't see that, then live with our disagreeing. The Wikipedia definition of a sock-puppet, as well as common sense, shows that an IP address can't be one. If you can't accept that, raise it at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious though, if an IP cannot be a sockpuppet, why then, when you tag an IP address with {{IPsock}} does there appear Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of {{{1}}} at the bottom of the IP page? Example: [[34]]. WP:SOCK also provides the means for tagging IPs as sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Tagging_identified_sock_puppets I can see it not being a sock if the IP openly admits they are actually the registered user - however if a blocked registered account continues to edit anonymously while refusing to admit they are the blocked user, they surely they're a sockpuppet. --Yankees76 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only is there all that proof, but why is it any different to edit as anonymous than a second username? In both cases you're controlling a 'sock puppet' that can agree with you without anyone knowing it's you. Maurauth ^(...) 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid featured article candidate.

I have nominated the Anabolic steroid article to be a featured article. Please vote in support of it being a featured article here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive3. Contributors have been working vastly to improve this article since then taking into account criticism of it and improving it on all accounts since it's last nomination and it has gone a long ways since then. Please vote in support of it. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is a great article. I'd like to give it one good read. I am slightly worried about the stability of the article though - but it's only a minor worry based on some recent changes by Chantoke. I'll vote sometime soon. Also thanks for the barnstar. Cheers. Yankees76 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I talked some sense into Chantoke. I don't believe he will try to make any future changes without talking about them on the talk page first. The last changes he made were a few weeks ago and he didn't try to edit war with them. The article is about as stable as any Wikipedia article could be. Be sure to vote before the nomination closes. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I supported as per your nomination. Good work! --Yankees76 22:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I award you the anti-vandalism barnstar!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your prolific work to prevent vandalism to the Anabolic steroid page. Your eye for vandalism is uncanny as is your ability to quickly revert it. Congratulations. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ice Hockey Project discussion of hockey player notability and project scope

Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dedman-88

Situation fully resolved. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks for the help. Apparantly I don't know as much as I think. LOL :-) --Yankees76 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Guns n' Roses

"Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.(diff: [35]) --Yankees76 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)"

Clicked the wrong button in Twinkle - apparently I reverted a vandalism reversion. Sorry =) --Dandaman32 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Easy mistake to make. Cheers. --Yankees76 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding a barnstar to my talkpage. Bucketheader 23:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem --Yankees76 19:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hydroxycut Page

I would like to place a link to an article I wrote on the Hydroxycut Brands, Its not uncommon to see Wikis with negative comment links, I do have a couple of ads on my page, if it meant people getting to read my article I can remove them. As it stands the Hydroxycut page is very commercial seeing as it only lists their brand site. have a look at my article, let me know what I need to do to be able to include it. http://www.w8lossreviews.com/hydroxycut.php

I'm not sure why you're bothering me about this instead of posting on Talk:Hydroxycut but I'll address your question anyway. After a quick glance at your site its obvious that it's a commercial site for a product called Proactol. The site certainly does not conform to Wikipedia's external linking guideline: WP:LINKS Note that links to a page that an official page of the article subject is allowed, however links to a site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article, links to commercial sites, sites that primarily exist to sell products or services and sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject are not. --Yankees76 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees GA/R

New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)