Jump to content

User talk:Yoenit/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

section break

Why did you delete that page I made? i was simply expressing opinion, how is that hurtful to others? Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsparks706 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for expressing your opinion. Start a blog or go post on a forum if you want to rant about facebook. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Yoenit (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandboxing

Thanks for working on my sandbox here. I think, as a matter of form, maybe you didn't start a new section before posting your comment. (And I'm still puzzling how your new comment associated with my old Securities Industry Association go-round, which sits there above your bit about my work today on the Oscars. But your new page for me looks good.) Maybe I need to adopt your big green "This is Yoenit's talk page" block to channel comments into new sections on mine. Anyway, on we go. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh, you got me confused. I did start a new section on your talkpage, but I didn't change anything in your sandbox, I just moved it to a different location. You created it with that comment on top. whatever, no problem Yoenit (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince Gharios of Ghassan

Dear Sir, Unfortunately you're making mistakes regarding Dynastic Law. There's no legal difference between a monarch who ruled yesterday or 3,000 years ago:

Professor Dr W. Baroni Santos, Doctor D'etat (post-doctorate/ habilitation) from the University of Reims in France in his book "Treaty of Heraldry and Nobility Law" Volume II page 52.:

"Neither the elapsed time, even for centuries, or non-use of the acts of sovereignty exercised by the Prince Pretender, Head of Name and Arms of his house, may be derogated, prescribed or canceled. He/She Retains these rights until the end of times ' ad perpetuam rei tenendam ' which are inserted in the person of Prince Pretender. "

According with the former president of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation Professor Doctor Renato de Francesco in 1959.

"... It's simply ridiculous, from a legal point of view, the distinction intended to be done about Dynasties that have reigned until recently of those who ruled in the distant past. It's not understandable how you can launch at the foot numerous pages of history, only to give luster to this or that family, who, aided by good luck, has managed to remain on the throne, after the year 1815. A Dynasty or reigned or not reigned. If reigned, even in very remote time, deserves the historical and legal treatment as a Dynasty and all its effects."

Also, the Prince's ancestors ruled until 1747 not only the 7th Century. See Sheiks Chemor Gharios JPDante 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Finbarr Mcgrath

Hitler was was Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and served as head of state as Führer und Reichskanzler from 1934 to 1945 - I'm surprised you didn't know that ;) --Kudpung (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

when I nominated for A7 all the article said was: Finbarr Mcgrath an English person, currently living in Wales. Gonna hunt down the IP who added the nazi stuff to the article. Yoenit (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Laura Story

Hey, thanks for checking out the page I created for Laura Story. Anyway, I was in the process of adding sources when you tagged it. Feel free to check if the added sources are enough for the article. If I find any other source, I will add it later. Thief12 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I will be honest: Those references are not very good. The two biographies are identical and according to amazon they are reprints of her official biography (There is download link on her website, but I get a 404 error). Neither counts as an independent source. That leaves you with a mention of a price nomination and mention she was in a band, not enough to establish notability in my opinion. However, I have no desire to take this article to wp:AFD and for a wp:BLPPROD almost any sourcing is sufficient. Yoenit (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Yoenit. You have new messages at Talk:Nominated Member of Parliament/List of NMPs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk Back

Hello, Yoenit. You have new messages at Erikpn's talk page.
Message added 04:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Joe Dudgeon

Hello Yoenit. I am just letting you know that I deleted Joe Dudgeon, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Happened to notice this: just in case I can clarify, I'll point out that wikibin is a Wikipedia mirror. When we seem to have copied from them, it's almost always going to be because somebody is restoring an article that has previously been deleted. Sometimes, these articles were deleted by PROD, and we restore the history for attribution. When it's been deleted at AfD, though, G4 is the criterion of choice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am pretty sure I was not the person who applied the original tag, I just reverted the creator when he removed it. I didn't really stop to evaluate the tag as I was cleaning up copyvios from the creators other articles. Yoenit (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, right you are. :) I should have looked further back in the history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

About the notability and Revenge of the Titans.

Hi, I'm really new to all of this. I had no idea there was a notability requirement. It's a bit odd to me how much is needed for the page to stay up though (even after reading about the notability). This is my first article on Wikipedia and asked others to help contribute to it to get it started and contribute so it doesn't get deleted. I contacted the developers on their site and asked them to provide more information on the page as well.

Is this a page that could be moved/redirected to my userpage so it can be edited there instead of the public page so it's not deleted? I found small reviews of the demo back in May for this game on Rock, Paper, Shotgun and IndieGames. This though might not be considerable for notability but it would be nice to have something here about the game so people have a general idea of what it is so far and possibly have it into a full article later on.

I searched for this game on here to find out what it was since it was included in the Humble Indie Bumble pack and needed some more information on what it was at all and nothing came up. On the Humble Indie Bumble article it notes this game being included but it's also the only game without a link to what it is. Is there a deadline or something for however long it takes for the article to kick up some dust? HaakonXCI (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Indiegames and Rock, Paper Scissors articles are a nice start and in addition there are articles on shacknews, destructoid and a massive amount of coverage on the humble indie pack itself, which has got to have some decent coverage of the game hidden somewhere in there. It seems my initial assesment was wrong and this has received a lot more attention then I thought. I can move the article to your userspace temporarily if you want, but I honestly don't think it is necessary. Yoenit (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
No need to move it unless it's necessary would be fine :) Thanks for finding other sources too. HaakonXCI (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fitnessthroughexercise

Yoenit, I am wondering what where the specific problems you found with the page, I am relatively knew to wiki and want to get it right, help is always appreciated.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by U01gsc6 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I nominated the page for speedy deletion because it did not "indicate how or why the subject is important or significant", or in other words: say why the website should be included in an encyclopedia. There are millions of websites, but only a select number of them is of important enough to be included in wikipedia. Our guideline for which websites are considered important enough (or "notable") can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (web). If fitness through exercise meets these criteria feel free to remake the article, but be sure to make clear why the website meets the criteria given in the notability guideline. Usually the best way to do is to find reliable sources which cover the website. Yoenit (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


Thanks - ill look into it in greater detail, thanks for the advice.

U01gsc6 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For your continued work on copyright cleanup in general and specifically in diligent resolution of this now completed CCI. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Since you aren't accumulating these on your user page, I don't have to worry about being redundant. :D I can just use it as I mean to do, as a kind of pretty way to say "Great job!" Thanks for knocking one off the list. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User: Qui Tam Relator

Hello Yoenik, sounds like I'm in trouble already. I'm sorry that I'm not familiar with the Wikpedia forum but want to conform to the guidelines that are apart of how Wikpedia does business. This is my first attempt to create a page so please forgive my ignorance about how to post information. I read that you want to delete my site and I'm asking you to hold off on deleting until I get a handle on how and what I can post. The only reason for posting my information is for historical reasons only I have nothing to gain 24 years later. The False Claims Case I'm referring to was the first to be won both criminally and civilly and thought it would be of value to future Qui Tam Relators. I would like your advise/opinion about an acceptable way to post this information. Again I'm not looking to Grand Stand just to know how to edit this information so it would be palitable for Wikepedia and their readers. Please help me find a way Yoenit I want to help future Qui Tam Relators. Wikileaks should know that there is a proper way to have information revealed through the False Claims Act and not just posting crimes against Taxpayers on the Internet. U.S.C. 3729 - 3733 is the best way we have so far to expose crimes like fraud. If you have invested any time in looking at what I'm posting is all true and can be proved through newspaper and magazine articles along with thousands of pages of legal documents. I feel I owe future Whistleblowers this information. You tell me how to edit it and I will do as you ask. Its much easier for me if you could e-mail if thats possible if not i will look on the site for your response. Thank you 12/28/2010 (Qui Tam Relator (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

Catch the Beat

Do you think it was a useful redirect? Deb (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I commonly use sentence case instead of title case and if I was looking for something called catch the beat I might forget to capitalize the B. That being said, I have no interest in this particular redirect. It happened to be on my watchlist for some reason and it's deletion struck me as odd. Yoenit (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure about the technicalities of this, but when I search on "catch the beat", I get "Catch the Beat", so I don't really see that the redirect serves a purpose. Deb (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

soon

Soon, the reactions section will be so large people will cut it out or down. This is why a new article is written. Do not speedy delete it. It is not an emergency to delete it now. Think about that. Discuss but do not railroad the process. Thank you. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a split, but then you would have to remove the material from the main article. Right now it is just being duplicated. Yoenit (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't. The reactions section has been trimmed a lot. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't when I checked the page before nominating it for deletion. Still this may have been a bit premature. Yoenit (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, you may be blocked from editing. Yoenit (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus to my change. I agree that there is little discussion so far but I have made changes to reflect the consensus. Mad? Then add your voice to the discussion. We should abide by the discussion, not your idea or my idea. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WT:CP

Hi. :) Hope I didn't sound too abrupt here. I was kind of just breezing through! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, I am glad you pointed my error. Yoenit (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pratt Lambert & Brown Insurance

Hi, I am trying to create an article about Pratt Lambert & Brown Insurance and it keeps getting removed. From what I have seen from other insurance companies articles, a biography seems to be the appropirate way to post. I thought that was what I did today, but again it was removed. Could you please offer some advise as to how i can post this appropriatly? Thanks Fandrews01 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • You don't. You wait until an established editor with no COI decides they are notable and writes an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hey Fandrews, as RHaworth says above it is strongly discouraged to write about your own company. I suggest you read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which should answer some of your questions. However, if you can present me reliable, independent secondary sources, which provide significant coverage of your company, I am willing to create an article for you. If you could provide some examples of similar companies which already have Wikipedia articles that would be great as well. Yoenit (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Thank you, but in the beginninng of the Village pump miscellaneous stands: The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Futhermore, I am not alone with my opinion, referring e.g. the 2500th anniversary oh the Battle of Marathon. --WPK (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussions on the village pump miscellanous section should still be relevant to Wikipedia, it is not a general discussion forum. The discussion did not appear to be relevant. Why are you discussions this? What do you want changed? Yoenit (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! If the year 0 does not exist, why the age of Galba has been marked as 72? Logically, the age should be 71, because he lived 2 whole years (+ 1 week) before chronology and 69 whole years (+ 0,5 month) after chronology, but if is claimed that year 0 does not exist, then the age of Galba should be 70 years. --WPK (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the age in that article is incorrect. It should be 70. I will try again to clear up a misunderstanding: Nobody was saying the year 0 does not exist, but only that it does not exist in the Gregorian and Julian calender. Both the astronomical year numbering and ISO 8601:2004 have a year 0. It is no different that saying the Binary numeral system does not have a number 2. Yoenit (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

--Kumioko (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

For Information - Gutenberg Parenthesis

On 30 Nov 10, you mentioned on the page and my talk that you couldn't find anything on google (scholar) about the Gutenberg Parenthesis, and suggested that it "seems wp:MADEUP." I was searching for orality topics and found the article again. Rather than create a new article again as a stub, the information is now referenced on secondary orality. For your own edification and in the spirit of continuous learning, the term was from a lecture given at MIT by Tom Pettitt [1] DeknMike (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Both you and Tom Pettitt refer to it as the "Guten Parenthesis", but the article was named Gutenburg pause. Had you used the proper name I would have been able to find sources and it would not have been deleted. It is a good idea to include at least one source when you create an article to prevent these kinds of problems. Yoenit (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

RegardingRamsey Clark Complaint

Sorry I've got to many thing open here Yoenit's I do have a hand givin in N.Y. by a Special Investigator comming from N.Y.City to California just after that date its on a google server a copy that I've had since just after that date. Love for you to help me Mr. Yoenit's, what do you say will you help me? it is a well written complaint I believe it was one of his best ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Could somebody please tell me what was in Ramsey Clarks Civil Action The United States District Court for The District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 88-0981 filed 4/13/1988 (deleted under A3), so I can try and help the confused editor above? Yoenit (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The complete text of the deleted article was
"Qui Tam Relator has this PDF file I'll be the shirpa and do the heavy lifting I have the file "complete" the first 4 transcripts given out just need help to transfer the file and would love to do soQui Tam Relator (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)"
I'm not sure what he's trying to do, but it sounds as though he may need counselling about copyrights, and about WP:NOTREPOSITORY and Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try to communicate that to him. Yoenit (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Zelder Paradox

Good point about original research. I will change this to include a citation count from Web of Science instead of the conclusion that the work has been widely cited.Barkrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

copyViol

I've posted additional info regarding the edits you referred to the noticeboard [2]. His edits were worse than that, and he pushed those specific violations in at least 2 articles (warring). Anyway, he's since removed my comments, as well as yours. I understand it's his talk page, but is he allowed to just remove any comments he feels? See [3]. He has a habit of ignoring me, so I can't get through to him.Ebanony (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black. Is Ebanony allowed to just remove any comments he feels?[4], [5]. He is waging a vendetta against me, restraining me from fixing the copyvio problem. Tobby72 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh my, the drama. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about anything else than the copyvio issue. Go cool off, edit some unrelated pages and definitely stay away from each others talkpages. Wikipedia is not about winning but about building an encyclopedia. Yoenit (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

section

Hi Yoenit!

I had this on my post:

22:06, 9 February 2011 Yoenit (talk | contribs) (1,001 bytes) (→Published Quotes from Retail Week Conference: Hi, welcome to wikipedia. sections consisting purely of quotations are not allowed per wp:QUOTEFARM. None of these is quotes is relevant to the subject in any way, so I am removing them) (undo)

Thanks for helping me out!

No problem. I must say I am used to new users getting angry when I remove some of their hard work, pleasantly suprised to be thanked for doing so. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. Yoenit (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The spam part

Well it was because I was under new pages and there were pages being added like that were spam and didn't know it was done by a user like that until after I tagged it and then I looked at his info and realized it was accidental. ' Kamkek (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not a problem, but I would advice you to be more careful when tagging pages for CSD in the future. CSD tagging is not a racing game and quality > quantity. Yoenit (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Im new to wikipedia and whilst translating a page for Monteblanco race circuit i did not realise that the redirect could be employed instead. Is it possible to keep the pages? or convert them to redirects?

P.S. what were the other problems with the article. i would rather ammend them than have them deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsutton (talk • contribs) 12:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsutton (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Max, thank you for your reply. I already converted the pages to redirects, so that is not a problem. However the text in the article Monteblanco race circuit is directly translated from http://www.circuitomonteblanco.com/. That text is copyrighted and you are not allowed to copy or directly translate it. If you want to use that information you have to rewrite it in your own words. In addition the article currently reads like an advertisement. All articles on wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. Yoenit (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yoenit,

Content ammended so that it is neutral. Technical specifications given only. I hope that this is ok.

Max

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsutton (talk • contribs) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is significantly improved, but needs a bit more work. I will try to work on it over the weekend. This track definitely deserves an article. Yoenit (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

Yoenit:

Thanks for taking me on w/respect to Wikipedia!!

Plainsman89 (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yoenit: Feel like I'm getting Wiki-harrassed. I learned how to upload a image file w/appropriate copyrights, now I'm being told that I can't use images that I pulled directly from WIKI by a bot in my User page. Will I get harrassed if I just pull all this into a Sandbox? Plainsman89 (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I will reply on your talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

stolen chart from CNN

I don't owe the "author" any apologies. Here's another example of the chart which PREDATES THE WIKIPEDIA UPLOAD.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?hpt=T1

See that? May 6th. The image on Wikipedia was uploaded almost TWO WEEKS LATER.

Go look on google images at all of CNN Money's charts. Many of them match the style of the chart that was uploaded to wikipedia EXACTLY; same fonts, colors, line weights, grid styles - even the image width is the same across most of them. So which is more likely?

Who owes who an apology? *You're* the one who jumped to conclusions.

Hi, your original report did not show any of this. I don't like your tone and suggest you keep to our civility policy. Yoenit (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

{{db-reason}}

No I didn't, thanks for that. I usually try and avoid the meta-wiki-bobbins outside article space. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

your welcome. I have no idea what a meta-wiki-bobbin is supposed to be though. Depends on the deleting admin whether the out of process speedy will be declined or not, we will see what happens. Yoenit (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Kinetic wotsit

I've redirected to to Kinetic energy. Saves hassle and it's a plausible search term. Peridon (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Signature

Nah I got that. I guess I was hoping that Wikipedia would do something about fixing that bug at some point. I don't see why they have that setup on their page if this evil bot is going to do that. I don't really like having the other thing displayed though. =( Then again it does mess up everyone's watchlists if they don't have ignore bot edits on.

I am afraid I don't follow you here, what bug and the setup on which page? what other thing? You can tell sinebot to ignore you, but you should really get at least a link to your talkpage in your signature. Yoenit (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning authors of speedied pages

Hi. Thanks for patrolling new pages, but after you tag a page you should copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you towards the bottom of the template. Also, if it is a newbie with no previous messages, it's useful, and less WP:BITEy, to give them a Welcome message before the speedy notice. {{firstarticle}} is a useful one, which can include the article name - {{subst:firstarticle|articlename}}. There is an oddity about that template: it adds your signature automatically, so for once don't put ~~~~ after it.

For the common case where the article is an absolutely non-notable little bit of autobiography - "Timmy X is in year 3 at Blankville High School" and the like - there is a useful template {{userfy}}, used as {{subst:userfy|articlename}}, which points them to their user page, while pointing out that WP is not a social networking site. That's a little friendlier than simply deleting the article, and it's just possible that the user may find out more and become a useful contributor.

Keep up the New Page Patrol - a good and useful activity without which Wikipedia would soon become unusable! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I completely forgot about the warnings. Sorry about that. Damn twinkle for being so convenient I forget about these things when I have to do them manually! In all seriousness, {{firstarticle}} is evil and should be deleted, but thanks for pointing me to {{userfy}}, I was not aware of that one. Yoenit (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Gavrilović (company)

If so, then half pages on Wikipedia should be deleted.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, If you have specific examples I will nominate them for deletion. I am sorry, I did not make copyright so awfully restrictive. We can take this to wp:Copyright Problems if you want? Yoenit (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

adminhelp

{{adminhelp}} Hey, could a kind admin please undelete AOR (Raleigh, NC) and userfy it to my userspace? This is part of the Wikipedia:Wiki Guides project. Yoenit (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done See User:Yoenit /AOR (Raleigh, NC)--SPhilbrickT 16:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested...

...in this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! some very nice pictures there! Many thanks. Yoenit (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. They post a new photo album every day or so, and some are very interesting! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Peterstrempel

Sorry for my mistake. I must have omitted "user:" when creating the draft page. Thanks for fixing it. --Peter S Strempel (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

no problem Yoenit (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

New Article

I am not an experienced article writer and have been asked by my employer to post on Wikipedia regarding a charity that he is involved with. I was previously asked to write an article for him and it was removed and I would like to do this properly. I have read through the creating an article page and I am still unsure how to do this properly. Please see the attached link to an article made by the university of new brunswick regarding the charity: http://www.unbf.ca/business/Newsletter/Issue_3/brown.html. I would greatly appreciate your help. Fandrews01 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fandrews. That university interview is a good start, but to start a proper article more independent sources would be required. Searching on google did not show anything which would meet our definition of a reliable source unfortunately. An alternative would be to add a few lines about "sun safe water" on the Solar water disinfection page. This page already contains a section "world wide application", where we could mention the sun safe water organization. A redirect from Sun Safe water could then be made to that page so interested people can find it. If additional sources turn up we can expand that section and eventually turn the redirect into a separate article. Let me know what you think. Yoenit (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yoenit I do actually have another article that was published about the Sun Safe Water but I can not find a web link for you to read. The Article is called "Water Man" and it was written in the March 2009 edition of Insuranewest magazine. I have a PDF'd version of the article on my desktop but I was unable to find it online. I do like you idea though of adding a few lines about it on the Solar Water disinfecction page. How do we go about doing that for now? Thank youFandrews01 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the late return, forgot about this post. Policy strongly discourages editing something when you have a conflict of interest, so if you email me the pdf I will have a look at it (there is an "email this user" feature on the left). Depending on the amount of material I will then either make a new article or add a bit on the solar water disinfection page. Yoenit (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I really appreciate your assistance. I just attempted to email you the second article I have via the email user link but it does not allow for attachments. Is there a way to attach a PDF? Fandrews01 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I came back when a student of mine had an article he made deleted due to lack of importance and reference. I hope you can help Learn To Be stay on Wikipedia. I will also write about the work of other organizations featured on Philanthroper.com. 4Forks (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added the page to my watchlist and at first glance I see nothing which would lead to deletion. Great to hear you plan on writing more articles. If you run into any problems you can always ping me for advice. Yoenit (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It's fun to be back. 4Forks (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft RfCs from Wikiguides project

Thanks for your help on the draft RfCs we started at the Wiki guides project. Four of the five have been changed from drafts to RfCs. You had some concerns about the summary for the Minimize talk page templates RfC. I'm not sure that ever got resolved. Could you stop by TomStar81's talk page and comment on how the Summary should be handled? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at TomStar81's talk page. - Hydroxonium (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Movend

Was Movend deleted and then re-created? Seems that way, but I don't know. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Welocme

Welcome!

Hello, Yoenit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wipsenade (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping out by renaming 'Secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley'- 'Secondary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley' for me. It is a better title.Wipsenade (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

80% of new articles

Hi I was curious about that stat you gave about 80% of new articles by newbies being deleted. Could you tell me where that came from and what proportion of those articles were correctly deleted according to our policy? I ran a little experiment in late 2009 where we had an almost opposite experience. At Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion a group of us created new accounts which created articles, and though quite a few were tagged for deletion, less than a fifth were actually deleted.. Obviously we were creating articles that shouldn't have been tagged for speedy deletion, and a high proportion of new articles definitely do need deleting, but 80% seems high to me. ϢereSpielChequers 21:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a small test here User:Yoenit/CSD research. That sample size is actually way too small, but I never got around to doing a larger test. User:Mr.Z-man did a much larger scale experiment at User:Mr.Z-man/newusers and also found a 80% deletion rate if the user started with creating a mainspace article. I asked if he can could rerun that script, but I have yet to get a reply. Yoenit (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal at the pump

You may be interested in this proposal, which was prompted by a proposal of yours.  --Lambiam 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest you refrain from these kinds of messages? It could very well be seen as wp:CANVASSING. I was aware of the discussion, but am not yet sure if I still support the proposal. Yoenit (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Letting you know

about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of manual labour tasks as your prod was declined. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not canvassing - informing interested parties... Peridon (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the message, I am pretty sure this is not a joke page though. Yoenit (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this; I'd intended to create that link myself, but got distracted by something shiny. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

I just wanted to congratulate you on your excellent response to DavidWBrooks. It looks like the proposal is gaining momentum; might it be time for an RfC soon? Feezo (Talk) 07:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I was planning to start one after Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow IP editors to create articles ends. The issue is kinda moot now as the discussion has been listed at cent. Yoenit (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Alix Strauss copyvios

This should show the second possibility I was referring to. Think it was deleted here with this change. We hope (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

edit on satellite sentinel project

thanks so much! Nell 17:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yoenit. You have new messages at SunCountryGuy01's talk page.
Message added 00:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Simplifying hangon tags

I just wanted to let you know, I still think this is a great idea, even if we've come to a short standstill over the implementation. I'm not forgetting about this and I don't think you should let this drop either. I've been very busy but we should discuss this soon, work up something more completed, and once it appears done, collaborate on a formal and well thought out proposal to list at a new section at WT:CSD. We're not just tweaking some CSD wording—this would be a really major change in operations that would affect the whole (very ingrained) process of speedy deletion, so this should be widely advertised: possibly be accompanied by an RFC; a listing in {{cent}}; a note at the village pump to see the discussion; maybe a note at community portal, etc. Hope to hear from you soon (though there's no rush:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens

Actually there is consensus for hyphens in page titles, but it was never implemented. See WP:NC-SHIPS. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Russell Vale

Hello Yoenit, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Russell Vale, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not redirect to a different or incorrect namespace. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 11:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you are correct. I have been blindly tagging these under r2, but that only applies to pages in main space. Funny how a dozen have been deleted before somebody notifies me of this. Yoenit (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I thought it applied as well. This may be one of those cases where policy is behind practice. It may be worth bringing up at WP:CSD either to alter policy to coincide with practice or to make sure that others are aware, if consensus doesn't support that. But I'm not going to do it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah, I am not even sure why I was tagging those redirects at wp:AFC for deletion in the first place. I suppose I read it in some set of instructions somewhere, but there really is no reason to delete those redirects anyway. Reminds me of the time when I got several redirects deleted with PROD before somebody told me PRODs are article only. Yoenit (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Avs5221's talk page. Message added 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC). avs5221(t|c) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

fait accompli

just out of curiosity, what makes you believe that Wikipedia:Fait accompli is not a policy? The main reason that I created the page was because people cite "fait accompli", regardless of the fact that a policy page about it hasn't existed until now. Incidentally, not least of the "people" who cite it are ArbCom (which is where I pulled the actual text from, by the way), which tells me that it's policy regardless of what we mark the page as ((or even if it exists).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So, you plagiarized the text? Nice start... If you wanna make it a policy/guideline feel free to propose it on the village pump, but I stand by my opinion it is redundant to current policies. Arbitration rulings are an interpretation of policies/guidelines (in this case Wikipedia:Disruptive editing & wp:Editing policy), not a new policy. If you think arbcom makes new policies you are sadly mistaken. Yoenit (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
RE: plagerization: I certainly copied it. I never claimed to have written it, however. As to the question itself, I'm certainly not going to argue with you. If you truly believe that the text on the page is not "de facto" policy, then that's fine by me. I don't particularly care what the page is marked at (if you feel up to MFD'ing it, or posting about it on the Pump, knock yourself out). I do think that it's kinda hilarious that someone wants to argue about it, though! Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Here, in deference to the fact that you objected, I haven't re-tagged it as a policy or a guideline. I couldn't leave it so obviously mistagged as an essay, however (I mean, really... an essay?). So, I've tagged it with {{proposed}}. I'll leave it to yourself and others to deal with it from here on out.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I dont care what happens to it, so in all likelyhood it will linger around proposed forever. Yoenit (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reichsmarschall

It is not incorrect! Direct translation from German to English means Empire Marshal. I appreciate that if one wants to fiddle around with it to mould it into a more understandable English phrase it it would read how you suggest. But Empire Marshal is appropriate and correct - certainly not wrong. Dapi89 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes you so sure you are right and I am wrong? Why do you not accept my explanation about the genitive? Yoenit (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't! I think you're right about that! I accept the explanation and thought it might be used. Using layman logic, one must explain why it means Marshal of the Empire. The direct translation is important so the lay reader understands - Empire Marshal - Reichsmarschal. Once this pretty easy direct translation is understood, then I see no harm in writting it how one would in the English language. After all, the German language is back to front (or is ours the one that is screwed up?) Dapi89 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually English is the same but uses a space and a ' between the word and the s. The direct (or literal) translation would be Empire's Marshall, but that is somewhat clumsy. You would only get "Empire Marshall" from the word "Reichmarschall" (without the s), but that does not exist. Yoenit (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, then this needs to be taken into account. I don't mind to be proven wrong be technical debate. I just object to transient IP's (the one I'm having trouble with at the moment), to reveting everything, refusing to employ logic, and then scouring the internet to find anything to back up his claim. As you say, the article needs changing then. Dapi89 (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I see you've done the edits. Okay, fine with me. Dapi89 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback 2

Hello, Yoenit. You have new messages at this page regarding your comments there (slipped off your watchlist?) - If it's ok with you I'll move the discussion to the article's Talk page tomorrow to clear up the head of the page for new visitors. Thanks Geoffjw1978 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my apologies, I do not normally watchlist AFC submissions. I will have a look. Yoenit (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries, take all the time you need. Geoffjw1978 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinion

I would like to ask your opinion on something. Do you think the article Badminton at the 2011 Pan American Games – Mixed doubles should be put through WP:AfD. In the tables on the article, It does not show any persons participation who got GOLD SILVER or BRONZE medalists. Shows no name in the tables below which are suppose to show the two persons who won the round. And on top of all it cites no references. Do you think I should put it through the WP:AfD process. Cuz' from the prospective of a person who would never miss a Pan-Am game, this is a disaster. Jessy (talk) (contribs) • 23:13, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

It does not show anything because it has not happened yet. The games are not gonna happen until 15-20 oktober this year. It will be updated once more information is available. Yoenit (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Yoenit/CSD research

Did you create User:Yoenit/CSD research manually, or do we have an automated method to collect this data?

I'd like to be able to run it for a whole month at a time, to match Mr.Z-man's work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Manually unfortunately, which is why I never expanded it. Yoenit (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. That won't do. I wonder if we could find someone who could do this for us. User:Δ, maybe? (He's already agreed to do something else for me... I really need to get the details to him.) User:MZMcBride? User:Snottywong was working on a script about AFD outcomes, I think. Do you have any ideas about who might be able to help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really, perhaps head to Wikipedia:Bot requests? It shouldn't be to difficult to make a script/bot which reads the new pages feed, looks up whether the creator is autoconfirmed (and perhaps edit count?) and dumps all that information in an offwiki table. A second script/bot could then compare this table against the deletion log at the end of the month and match keywords such as "PROD", "AFD" and "A7", which would give us a wealth of information about how our deletion processes actually works. Yoenit (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
So I think what we'd need is this:
  • Find articles created by users that were not autoconfirmed at the time of the article's creation.
  • Determine which of these articles were sent for deletion (by any process, divided by the type of process).
  • Determine how many were actually deleted (also split by process).
This should tell us, for example, that"
  • n articles were created by non-autoconfirmed users.
  • a of these articles were tagged CSD, b as PROD, and c as AFD.
    • I don't know what to do about articles that were tagged under multiple processes, e.g., a declined CSD that was subsequently tagged for PROD.
  • x of the CSD articles were deleted y as PROD, and z as AFD.
Does that sound like a complete list?
What's a reasonable time scale? Do we care more about deletions within 1–2 weeks after creation, or within, say, the next six months?
Also, I wonder if you might look at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Slow Your Roll

I never censored anything. Even if I did, which I didn't, you are not admin, so chillax. You can't go around assuming. Coming off the way you did is bad for Wikipedia. We are trying to retain editors, not drive them away. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 12:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't on my computer when I added my view. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

db-meta/sandbox2

Okay, last tweak in place. It works now like this. When a db tag is placed on a page and the talk page doesn't exist, the template will display the text from {{Hang on/notice2}}. If the talk page does exist, the template will display instead the text from {{Hang on/notice3}}. I see you tested the talk page so you know the link is now working with the button (I know it may seem simple but creating that button and getting it working was a real pain). The last problem I was having was that when I tested it in its raw form, the parser placing these message worked fine, but when I passed it through to the db templates it wasn't working at all. That is now fixed. The biggest hurdle I see for acceptance is that is does not display a message indicating it was pressed when you press it (equivalent to hangon's message: "The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this page's talk page." I have asked one of our top template coders if this could be added and he told me it was essentially impossible to have this function. Any comments, suggestions, criticisms?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty darn neat and simple. I mentioned the limitation that you don't know when somebody is busy writing a rationale back in the original discussion somewhere, but no commenter appeared to have a problem with it. I honestly expect more problems with the removal of Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion, which you are gonna lose for the same reason. We can ofcourse create Category:Possibly contested candidates for speedy deletion based on hangon notice 3, but you are gonna have a significant number of false positives. One minor concern is the preloaded text and section title when creating a rationale, I think those are somewhat newbie unfriendly. Unfortunately I dont have a better wording/title myself at the moment. Do you want to start an RFC or head to the village pump first? Yoenit (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Below is my draft of a proposal. I take no ownership over this text. Tweak it, reorganize it, reformat it, add to it, revise it as you see fit. Then we can both sign at the end and post it at the pump, and then drop a post at WT:CSD referring to it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

== Replacing the {{tl|Hang on}} tag process ==

When a page is tagged for speedy deletion, the speedy deletion template contains a message explaining to the creator that of they wish to contest the deletion they should place the tag {{hang on}} on the page and then edit the talk page, explaining why the page should not be speedy deleted. Two recent discussions have taken place regarding getting rid of this hangon tag process:

Some of the issues that have been raised for scrapping the process are:

  • Despite the seeming simplicity of the instructions, hangon tags are very often misplaced, and misunderstood: They are placed on the user's talk page; they are placed on the article's talk page; they are placed correctly in the article but not in the correct place, and commonly they are placed in place of the speedy deletion template. A check of 16 articles with hangons was noted in the discussion at WT:CSD and only three were placed properly (this implies that an unknown number of users may have tried to contest a speedy deletion but never managed to place the hangon tag at all);
  • Many new article creators do not appear to understand that the act of placing the hangon tag itself has no ability to avoid speedy deletion, but that it is just a prelude to writing a talk page rationale. In that way, the hangon tag may actually hinder them from doing what is necessary to avoid deletion by giving them a false impression that the tag itself has some power;
  • They are essentially redundant. All administrators are supposed to check talk pages before speedy deleting, and the placement of the hangon tag appears to have little or no affect on whether a page will be deleted or on the timing of that deletion; only a talk page post that addresses the deletion directly does. In other words, one of the ostensible purposes of placing hangons—to inform admins that a protest is going to happen—is ineffective and just forces creators into a two-step process. What matters is whether a sufficient reason has been given not to act on the speedy deletion tag on the talk page, and that talk page post should be seen by the reviewing admin regardless of whether a hangon tag has been placed.

The issue then, if we decide to get rid of them, is what alternative mechanism to put in place? What has been worked on is a direct link in the speedy deletion templates that takes the user to the talk page with a preformatted area to post their reason for contesting the tagging. Give it a try: . Note that the button detects what namespace the tagged page resides in and will say article/page/template etc. in its preformatted headline, depending on what is up for speedy deletion. Meanwhile, the template detects whether the talk page has been created or not. If it remains a red link it displays the following message:{{Hang on/notice2}}. If, on the other hand, the talk page does exist, the template will display instead the following message:{{Hang on/notice3}} The draft of this template incorporating these features is at {{db-meta/sandbox2}}. If consensus can be reached, this would replace the current template that all of the db- templates use, located at {{db-meta}}. You can test the template using {{a7-test}}, created for this purpose (it would be best to use the preview button only when doing so). One note: unless some brilliant soul can find a workaround, this will with not work with Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion, so we would lose that category. What say you?

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) ~~~~~
--Yoenit (talk) ~~~~~
Only comment I have is adjusting that last sentence to "this will with not work with Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion, so we would lose that category." Obsolete implies we got a replacement. Yoenit (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I was wondering if we should address the fact that there is apparently no way to have clicking he button itself change the template to note that it has been pressed. Anyway, I am just leaving to start my day, and will not be back for about 9 hours. What's your schedule like. There is of course no rush. We can post it tonight or Monday—whatever.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I will be gone for most of the weekend, so lets get back to this on monday
Yes, I was really thinking the same thing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Give me a buzz when you're ready.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am here. Yoenit (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Shall I drop it into WP:VPR just as written now? Any last minute changes?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
nope, lets go Yoenit (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It's up. I will now make a referral post at WT:CSD and I think at {{Cent}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That was my mistake. It was because of this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yoenit/Archive_2&oldid=1144607929"