User talk:Yksin

Any conversations started here I will answer here, so if my response is important to you, you may want to put this page on your watchlist, or just check back. Thanks.

BG

Please do not add "future" info for characters in episode articles were it has not occurred yet. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Got it. Thanks.--Yksin 03:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I may of come out overly hostile, sorry, it's just fiction is written in the present tense as if everything in that episode is happening and also there exists a small tribe of "spoiler police" here (hehe) who try there best to remove anything they deem over spoilerish etc etc :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!

Hi, Yksin, welcome to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies! We are a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, aromantic, asexual and agender people. LGBTQ+ studies covers people, culture, history, rights, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Joining the discussion at WT:LGBTQ+ is a great way to get started. At LGBTQ+/Collaboration, you can find a list of WP:LGBTQ+ participants and task groups. Visit LGBTQ+/Editing for tools to help create, assess, and improve articles on LGBTQ+ topics. LGBTQ+/Resources has style guides, external links, templates, and other tools that support researching and writing articles on LGBTQ+ topics.

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you're using my Poetry userbox. Welcome to WP:LGBT! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be glad to help. I just checked your talk page & got further information, & tried one one out following the instructions given on the "unassessed" page, & it's pretty straightforward. I'll try to do at least a few every day.

(This way I also come across articles in my areas of interest that I might be able to improve.) -- Yksin 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: did a bunch of assessments in a couple of stints yesterday & today, primarily of A&E bios, & wiped out the Unassessed listing of A&E folks whose first name begins with letter A. Now back to my own projects, but will continue to contribute to this effort. Yksin 05:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out! The community already seems to be banging out a good amount of assessments on the unassessed list. Here is to hoping we can at least get that number belong 100,000 before the end of March. --Ozgod 06:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Persian literature

Hi!

Persian literature was previously a GA. However it was silent about contemporary literature. I added information about "contemporary persian literature". The section needs copyediting and also shortening. In case you are interested in the subject, I would like to ask you to help me in improving the article. Thanks alot.Sangak 16:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not too sure why you tapped me for this. I know very little about Persian literature, & it's outside the field of my own endeavors. I've got a couple of major projects I'm working on myself. However, if you come back here to see my response, I will say that the article looks great other than that it doesn't seem to have enough sourcing for its facts. Yksin 05:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved a comment

Hi there. You left a comment at Talk:Joseph Estrada/Comments instead of at Talk:Joseph Estrada. I moved the comment to the main talk page, and tagged the subpage that was created for deletion. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already written on your talk page the following:

Interference with WikiProject Biography assessment

Re: your initiation of speedy deletion on the comment from Talk:Joseph Estrada -- My comment was created as part of the WikiBiography Project standard assessment techniques, intended as a comment note for biography editors seeking information on how best to improve an article. See the WikiProject Biography page on the Talk:Joseph Estrada page. Such comments get lost in the general hubbub of talk pages otherwise. Yksin 20:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Yksin 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started prefacing my comments on the (usually new) comment page with

WikiBiography Project assessment:

so that other editors running across them won't make the same well-intentioned mistake. I've suggested this as a practice for other WPBiography assessors also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. --Yksin 21:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Sorry for the mix-up, Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your amazing work on Alan Boraas. I can't help but notice how the article has been significantly expanded in such a short time. Keep up the great work! Cheers PeaceNT 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Yksin 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Becker

I found it by doing a search of documents relating to "Steven B Stanton" at the Pinellas County Clerk of the Circuit Court website. It seems a bit of a non-sequitur to cite a random housing agreement from that website just to give her a maiden name, but if you do a search, it is there. The documents are all public knowledge as well, since I could easily access them. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The LGBT Barnstar
		for your phenomenal diligence in creating and expanding the Steve Stanton article

Well done! You've been doing awesome work :) - Alison^<talk> 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! --Yksin 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steve Stanton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks again! — coelacan — 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Yksin 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Native Alaskan Tribal Entities

The page that I created is List of Native Alaskan Tribal Entities, and so the list on my user page is accurate. If that's changed over time, then the redirects should appropriately follow.

HOWEVER, be VERY careful that you're not using conventional terminology inappropriately. This list comes from the U.S. Government, and if they use the term "Native Alaskan", then we should use it in that context, and use the most commonly used term elsewhere (perhaps briefly explaining the difference inline). -Harmil 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see where the discussion on this change took place. Can you point me to that? -Harmil 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right: I did fail to start discussion on this before making the change, but simply took it on myself. My apologies. I have now started a discussion at Talk:List of Alaska Native Tribal Entities, and commit to making the change back again if consensus is that the name should have been retained as it was. However, I think I justified the change there pretty well. But -- I will know better next time (should there be one) to seek consensus before making such a change. --Yksin 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Stanton

WikiThanks

Hi there. Thanks for your commentary on my recent editor review. It was most unexpected!

I'd also like to apologise for running off like I did. I should have stuck around that bit longer until we sorted it all out. That was wrong, and I'm sorry. The reason I bailed was because I admire you a lot as an editor and I didn't want us to fall out over the matter, or drive you from an article which you've devoted so much time and effort to.

You've been an amazing asset to Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to hopefully working with you again. - Alison^☺ 05:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. :) No I didn't want a falling out either, & I'll be very glad to start over with a clean slate & work together again. I'm relatively new to WP, as you may have noticed -- a very interesting collaborative atmosphere, which is something I really appreciated about working on the Stanton article, but at the same time I've gotta put the control freak inside of me in restraints for that kind of work. Thanks for giving me a second shot.

Congrats on your successful name change bid. How's the editor review going? --Yksin 16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. The name change was great - I was getting tired of people calling me 'Ali' (it's Allie :) ) I had to kinda put the editor review on hold as I got surprise nominated for RFA. When that ends, I want to get back to the review (and the Stanton article!). It'd be nice to add some quotes from both sides of the fence. Thanks again! - Alison^☺ 16:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Did any of 'em ever mistake you for a comics pages caveman?

Yeah, that article def. needs some work in that regard. Whether people want to believe it or not, some of the commissioners had other reasons to distrust Stanton than the TG stuff, at least so they stated it. Some of the stuff I've got from my search in Newsbank from earlier in his career is also interesting from a balanced POV perspective. E.g., once when his contract was up for renewal, there was a heap of controversy about him being a finalist for a city manager position in Colorado. Some commissioners felt he was using his bid for that job as a way to turn the screws on them to renew his contract not just for 18 mos. or whatever the usual term was, but for three years. Another controversy was about his firing of a city worker -- a cop or fireman or someone -- because the guy didn't show up for work during an emergency situation (hurricane) -- because the guy was taking care of his 81-year-old mother, who otherwise would have been completely on her own during said emergency.

I've been meaning to add those details, but I got a bit burnt out with all the intensive editing I already did on that article, & I needed to go on to something else. But I'll get back to it too.

Good luck on your RFA. --Yksin 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stanton again

• sigh* - it's official. He's been fired. I've added a para to the the article but as the news is now breaking, expect another flurry of activity on the article. I'll keep watch over it and add what I can as news is confirmed. - Alison^☺ 10:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, damn. I'm just catching up on the news. Had a long weekend, didn't turn the computer on even once. Thanks for keeping up w/ it. --Yksin 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And hey - congratulations on Steve Stanton getting a mention in the press. Well done! :) - Alison^☺ 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[grin]. The article mentions Wikipedia as follows: "Then the news broke that their longtime city manager, Steve Stanton, plans to ultimately live his life as Susan, and the world went a little nuts. How nuts? Today Stanton has his own entry in Wikipedia." --Yksin 01:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you so much for your recent support of my RfA, which has been successful. Phew! While most voters wrote a word or two, you wrote a few lines of support. I really appreciate you taking the time out to do that and giving me a chance. Thank you so much! - Alison^☺ 10:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. You're doing good.  :) --Yksin 16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Terve!

Small world and nice to run into you here! If you can't figure out who I am from the weird userboxes on my page, let me know and I'll send you e-mail :) -Yupik 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

SatyrBot 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

Hi,

I editted the page on the the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which you undid. Fine by me - I was just pointing out that the information on that page is hopelessly outdated, and just simply wrong. If you don't care, leave it like it is... if you want to give correct information, and not just any information, then deleting that entire introduction would be better than this.

I don't have time to write more of an introduction than I did, but you can find more information elsewhere (online if you like, try earlyjewishwritings.com or earlychristianwritings.com - or offline, try "The testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" by Hollander & De Jonge or "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" by Kugler). (Note to self: this unsigned comment left 11:15, 4 April 2007 by 66.124.207.33 | talk | contribs.)

Discussion arguing about problems with an article belong on the article's Talk page, not on the article page. So I'd suggest (1) editing the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs itself to bring it in line with current knowledge -- even if it means restarting the article from scratch; and (2) discussing the problems with the article, and changes you've made to it, at Talk:Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. If you're unable to do (1), then do (2).

My deletion of your edit came as part of general vandalism patrolling of recent edits. It's not a subject I myself have any knowledge about. Perhaps I would have done better not to simply remove your edit from the article, but to transfer it to the talk page. But perhaps you can do so?

I'd respond on your talk page, but you didn't sign your message so I don't know who you are. I'll research the article history to find out who you are an add my reply there as well. --Yksin 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(Note to self: I left that comment at User talk:75.13.236.177 because that's the original IP my correspondent used to edit the Twelve Patriarchs page (the edit I reverted). 75.13.236.177 talk | contribs)

I editted the talk page, and wrote a shorter, more correct introduction. (Note to self: This unsigned comment left 17:18, 4 April 2007 by User:Tdbiii | Talk | contribs.)

Hey Tdbiii. Good job! I left a comment on your Talk page. As I said there and at Talk:Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, it does look liked you've improved the article. Although I'm not knowledgeable about this particular book of the Apocrypha, I'm pretty knowledgeable about biblical topics in general (actually, I've got an undergrad degree in Religion), & looks like you know your stuff.

I've had an incredible time giving you feedback, because you haven't been signing your comments on Talk pages, & you apparently use multiple computers, at least two IPs. I've had to research my page histories to figure out where to write back to you. So just to keep track, I've added all the above "Notes to self" to help me keep track. Please, it's a really good idea when you comment on content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. Or, you can click on the signature button located above the edit window, which will automatically insert your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when, and makes it easier for them to respond to you.

It's also good practice to include an edit summary for all your edits, as it helps both you & other editors when looking at history pages get a quick & dirty history of edits for the page.

Now that you have a registered username, I'd really encourage you to continue using it, as it makes it a lot easier for you to keep track of your own contributions, & also for other editors to give you feedback or otherwise know where to contact you. It also helps to tell you apart from those editors who engage in vandalism & spam from the same anonymous IP.

In any case, thanks for your contribution. I'm really glad you weren't discouraged by my original revert of your edit, & that you've persisted in following up on this. Keep up the good work. --Yksin 18:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jean Keene

Thanks for the additions to Jean Keene! I was hoping someone with that book would come along. I don't have a copy. Wrad 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book, but I spend a lot of my Saturdays and Sundays at the Kaladi Brothers cafe next to Title Wave Books in Anchorage... so I just stepped over to Title Wave & found the book & took a whole lotta notes.  :) Thank goodness Title Wave had an enormous Alaskana section. --Yksin 05:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just sent an email to the photographer. Hopefully we can get some of her eagle pictures, too. Wrad 06:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

She replied and said she would love to share them, so I sent her the license agreement to look over. Thanks for that, by the way. Wrad 21:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Did 209 talk to you about her change? It would appear not. She left this message on my talk. I told her to tell you. I honestly don't know much about it:

"Actually, Anderson's book is correct on Jean's birthday. The book says October 20 and is confirmed by Keene, herself."

Wrad 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, 209 didn't, but I just checked out the messages between you two about it, so I'll go back & fix it -- but leaving in the mention that there are discrepancies between sources. --Yksin 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Wrad 23:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: (User talk:Ais523/catwatch.js) Script not working

Sorry about the slow reply, I'm having Internet connection troubles at the moment. The 'no skin' warning is correct but doesn't affect the operation of the script. You seem to have installed it correctly, and it's working for me at the moment; do you have any other idea as to what's wrong? (Are you getting error messages? Does anything at all appear on your watchlist? What browser are you using?) --ais523 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no error messages. I get the standard stuff on my watchlist -- changes to actual pages. But, I understood that this script was intended to show when a new item was added to a particular category. So, for example, if I add Category:Alaska Natives to a particular article, the name of the article shows up on in that category and also, thanks to the script, in my watchlist as an addition to that article. But that's not happening. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what the script is intended to do? --Yksin 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry again about the late reply; I haven't been online for a while due to problems getting an Internet connection) If an article is added to a category on your category watchlist, or an article in such a category is recategorized, it should show up as a change to the category, with the article name given as a fake edit summary (it's not in italics, so you can tell). Also, you have to have at least one other change on your watchlist on the day in question (this doesn't come up as a problem very often, though, as most watchlists have at least one change a day). Does that help, or is there still a problem? --ais523 10:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed a problem with the script that was preventing it working in Firefox. Does it work for you now? --ais523 13:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply: the script is working for me now. Yes, I'm a Firefox user. Thank you very much! --Yksin 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Eskimo shamanism

Hi, Yksin. Since you know more about these issues than I do, do you think you might be able to take a look at the Eskimo shamanism article and respond to my concerns on the talk page? Thanks, and take care, --Miskwito 00:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Miskwito, talking a look now. --Yksin 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

bartlett fire

the article written in the anchorage daily news about the fire is completely false, i think the news made up the jackass stuff, and the tampering with evidence charge was for throwing away the gas can...such crap. and if you want a completely factual revisit of the situation, i can set up an interview with the violators. its just ridiculous that the news made up something about the tv show just to make a headline. Robkehr 04:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you dispute the detail about "Jackass" you made a good choice deleting it. However, any other information about the case needs to be from documented sources. An interview wouldn't do it: that would constitute "original research" under Wikipedia policies. Police reports & court transcripts, on the other hand, are legit documents & information can be used from them if you cite them properly. --Yksin 19:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Even if the tampering with evidence charge was only for tossing the gas can, nonetheless it is a charge that was made, per 3AN-03-11888CR State of Alaska vs. Epperson, Jonathan James. --Yksin 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

oh no i understand that, i was sharing my opinion with you that it was crap. Robkehr 23:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

theres no need for anything else really. just as long as that jackass comment stays out, because thats not in any police reports. Robkehr 23:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup'ik

id like to work with you instead of against you. we live in the same place, probably have similiar academic training, probably have worked with or worked for the same agencies, and probably know the same people. i'll make it a point to contact you more frequently in the future. παράδοξος 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. --Yksin 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Coordinating

i am ad libitum! people from tynonek hunt beluga. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paradoxos (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Governors of Alaska

Thanks :) --Golbez 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech shootings

Thanks for reverting, I made a mistake, insteed of revert a vandalism version of that page, I saved that version again, meanwhile the other version was deleted, so it seems I am the vandalist. It was certainly not common vandalism ;). Tukkaatje 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comments on the big edit on the Eskimo shamanism article. Physis' native language is Hungarian, which I happen to speak. I see you are working on Finnish and Alaska-related articles. What's your connection? I grew up in Anchorage and come from a Finnish family, but have not really done much with Finnish materials thus far.

Best, -Fenevad 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Yksin,
Thanks for doing the research to clarify the City and Borough of Sitka mystery. Dkreisst 04:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shamanism among Eskimo peoples + Siberian Yupik tales

Terve Yksin,

Thank You for Your letter.

The changes I did after Your concerns are annoted in Beauty of tension between diversity versus unity, containing subpage Bidirectional approach to organize the beauty of tension between diversity versus unity of cultures. I tried to explain my motivations there. But I know only very few things, thus these are only thoughts, i do not stick to them.

Thank You for Your offer to add Yup'ik-specific information to Shamanism among Eskimo peoples later. And I wish much success also to Your Central Alaskan Yup'ik pages (language and people). Do You speak any Yupik language? Do You read tales in them? I try to learn Ungazik by reading tales /uˈŋipaʁaːn/:

juˈɣɨt tal̥iːmat (Five men) — Rubcova (Рубцова) 1954, p. 19

iːmnaŋuq.	People say that it was long time ago.
juˈɣɨt tal̥iːmat aŋˈlɨɣutˈkul̥χit.	There were five men, five brothers.
naˈjaxtɨŋ aɣvil̥qɨlʲ̥uːku.	Their sister, the sixth of them.
naːlɣɨt aˈma ataːlɣɨt.	They have a mother, and also a father.
qujŋiχtupiːxlʲ̥ɨχit.	They have a huge amount of deer.
taːxkɨn tawaːni kiˈjaχsiˈmalʁit.	So they lived there.
maːtɨn iˈlʲaŋaˈni mɨkɨlʁiːq nuˈjɨkl̥iχpiːɣaq iflʲaːmalʁi.	One day, the eldest boy got lost.
taːxkɨn tawaːni kiˈjaχsiˈmalʁit.	So they lived there.
muˈlʲunʁiˈtuq iˈlʲaŋaˈlʲ̥u mɨkɨlʁiːq qujŋiχqwaːχtɨˈŋujalʁi taːnalʲ̥u iflʲaːmalʁi.	Soon another boy, guarding the herd, got lost too.
qɨnˈwat, mɨˈkɨlʁiːʁɨt piˈŋajuˈxaχtut.	Already only three boys remained.
tawaːni kiˈjaχtut.	So they lived there.

I began also with Sireniki language.

Have a nice time on Your two-week vacation.

Physis 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)ŋ

Virginia Tech massacre

As I told ChunkyRice some ten minutes ago, I argue that the names of the victims are quite useful to have the main article. They provide single-click access to those victims with articles - legit articles, I know articles for student victims are getting zapped as we speak but several faculty members passed WP:PROF. (The template with these links is losing its TfD and was just removed from the article.)

More importantly, it needs to be mentioned that five faculty members were killed, and the victims section accomplishes that efficiently and elegantly, giving the reader more information at a glance than what could be given in ordinary prose without greatly disrupting the text flow. Repeated mentions in the text were clumsy and I saw no real way to improve them. And when at least some of the faculty members have proven independently notable, there's no real point in saying that five were killed and not saying who they were, forcing the reader to hunt for that information.

I'm dismayed that there's been no talk page discussion beyond Titanium Dragon's wish to delete both the section and the article. A significant change such as this should be taken up there. --Kizor 23:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that a brief mention of how many people died, whether they're faculty members or students, etc. is relevant, but I disagree with the need for all the names to be listed. But: okay sorry, let's discuss it there. The whole "delete everything" crew is very aggressive, I just found a user who seems to be making a habit of changing all the articles currently in AfD, including the List of victims page, into redirects. I thought this was part of their whole effort. --Yksin 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable. Talking this over should give far better results than undoing each other's work. If that's what that crew is up to, I can't by any means fault you... though you obviously haven't been around me very much if you thought me a deletionist. :P
I never did take the time to thank you for the barnstar, didn't I? Thank you. --Kizor 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just didn't take time to investigate thoroughly, to find out which person specifically added that stuff back, after it had been removed a couple of times before. I did know you weren't the person who has been unilaterally changing disputed articles that are currently in AfD into redirects. I discovered s/he's done that to several pages, all of them reverted by someone or another, & have reported the person to admin.

And... you're welcome! --Yksin 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okei, I took up the discussion there. You realize, of course, that this will call the "delete everything" gang you mentioned out.. --Kizor 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lucinda Roy prod

While the think the continuing prodding user is a sock of a regular editor, I placed a message on their talk page similar to the one you put in Lucinda Roy talk. It's on my watchlist, but I can be rather busy myself. I hope other users pay attention also. --Oakshade 20:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking sockpuppet too. I'll keep an eye out when check in during my trip. --Yksin 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

so were you the one who changed it a long time ago. It read differently and I noticed it so I changed it back. Since you're an expert thank you for correcting us on its meaning. -Sincerely Yours Forever, G

I'm not sure what changes you're referring to. On the Lucinda Roy article I've twice objected to & hence removed 5-day prods for deletion, added a bio infobox based on info already in the article, & added metadata (persondata) based on that -- I haven't done any work on the substance of the article itself. If you want to know who made changes, go to the article's history. Also, the proper way to sign posts is with four tildes (~), which automatically render your username when your change is saved. I have no idea who "G" is. --Yksin 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ASA edits

WHAT!!! some of the info is pretty real ya know. i got some of the info off of a seattletimes article and the eskimos did have shoulders way back then Yksin. if i knew how to do a link i would show u man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Golum4ever (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC). Golum4ever

I don't know what you complaint with me is. I didn't remove the detail form Alaska Airlines about the shoulders, and in fact as of today that detail is still present, several edits past the last edit I did. Aside from that, if you have citations to back up the information you provide in your edits, you should supply them, per WP:V. --Yksin 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Non-admin fwarn

Template:Non-admin fwarn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Alaska on Alaska Natives

i'd like to work on this project. παράδοξος 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

I wonder if you might want to add something to Indigenous peoples of the Americas#United States. Right now all it has is "Indigenous peoples in what is now the United States are commonly called "American Indians"..." and nothing on people in Alaska or Hawaii. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrupt Bastards

Thanks for the updating of the Article on the FBI investigation. Someone needed to spend six hours on it just to make it current. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.209.239 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Good faith vandalism?

I don't understand your edit summary

• Reverted good faith edits by 165.155.192.155; Replacing period at end of sentence removed by Fyslee. using TW

Actually I was just in the process of reverting that vandalism (good faith or not), but you beat me to it. I didn't remove that period. -- Fyslee/talk 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez, I'm sorry! I must gotten mixed up in the head when I wrote that edit summary -- it's clear from looking at the diff that it was the anonymous IP editor, not you, who removed that period. Please accept my apologies. --Yksin 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Da nada! Welcome to the club of humans. We're all imperfect. I was just wondering if I had missed something. -- Fyslee/talk 06:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked in error - please unblock

I am not this user. I am logged in under my own user account, I have never vandalized, & I fail to understand why I should be blocked when a different user with a different username is the person responsible. --Yksin 21:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I'm blocked, too, and so are a lot of others. Wrad 21:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From the user talk page of the responsible admin, it appears s/he may have blocked all of Wikipedia. --Yksin 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be quite a story! Wrad 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now it appears that another admin is fielding a lot of our unblock requests, & has scolded Golbez for the screwup. Other messages alleging all of Wikipedia was blocked have been removed from Golbez's talk page. --Yksin 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm clear now. Thanks to whichever admin cleared me. --Yksin 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

bartlett-begich highschool

its still bartlett begich, and will still be for a couple more years... robkehr

<image of high school showing "Bartlett-Begich" removed per edit summary because: "Per CSD I7 - image has an invalid fair use claim".)>

See Talk:Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska) for my reply. --Yksin 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Native Americans in the USA

why did you change the population to that false 3.4 million? I see that your interested in Native Americans, but it seems to me you don't know nothing about their population, lol 3.4 million your kidding right?

what about the tons of Hispanics who have Native Americans ancestry? (40 million + 12 million illigal residents total = 52 million), and what about the African Americans, 40% of them have Native American ancestry (20 million), and what about the White Indians, who have also have Native Americans ancestry (12 million), that's a total of 88 million people with Native American ancestry, lol 3.4 million? where did you get that false population, you know I'm right, or you just wanna show the people that their population is that low?, please do try researching in a while, I know it's kinda hard for you... Unsigned comment left 11:25, 23 May 2007 by 84.26.7.86

If you have sources for your figures, by all means add them back -- with citations. Please also include citations for the terminology "White Indian", etc. which somehow don't seem to show up as ethnic classifications in anything published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Meanwhile I'm seeking sources to back up the claims that were in the article before your edits -- figures which were provided by others before me, not by me. I merely reverted your edits, which, like other edits originating from your IP, appear to be vandalism edits. --Yksin 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

by White Indians, I mean people from mixed Amerindian/White ancestry like Chuck Norris Unsigned comment left 12:35, 23 May 2007 84.26.7.86

and I didn't vandalised, but that 3.4 million is very wrong, who did that?, anyway why don't you change it

But it's not a very encyclopedic term. At any rate, I've looked up the figures at the U.S. Census site, & provided citations for those figures (with links to the original document). It's likely true that there are many more people with some American Indian descent than are reflected in the U.S. census figures (which are based anyway on people's self-reporting), but this is it: the U.S. Census Bureau is regarded as a reliable source per WP:ATT; any sources you can provide that contradict the Census Bureau's figures need to fulfill that standard as well.

I can see that maybe you weren't after all intending to vandalize, but might be someone relatively new to Wikipedia. You might try reading up on Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines particularly those regarding attribution and reliable sources such as WP:ATT before doing further edits. It would also be good if you learned to sign your comments by typing four tildes ~ after each comment before saving. The four tildes then turn into your signature, & make it easier for other users to keep track of who has written to them on their user talk pages. --Yksin 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

lol now it's 1.5 million but

it's ok don't worry I won't change it again

let the people believe that their number is low, I don't care

but you know there are around 88 million or more people with AmerIndian ancestry in the USA, but I don't care, and btw your wrong, so you did looked at the US Census site, so you trying to say that Hispanics and the African Americans don't have Native Americans ancestry? well if you did looked to the Sensus, they don't show the part-Native American descent they only show the pure ones that's around 3.5 million, but you missed out the Hispanics and the African Americans and whites look here and here and doesn't the population I changed was:

In combination with one or more other races?

and so hispanic and african americans and whites have native american ancestry, so what's the problem?

unsigned comments left 01:32 to 01:38, 25 May 2007 by 84.26.7.86

I have no problem. But as a Wikipedia editor, it's my responsibility to deal in verifiable facts, not wishful thinking. If you have better figures that can be attributed to reliable published sources in line with WP:ATT, then by all means provide them. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia articles you're providing on Mestizo and Black Indians don't satisfy WP:ATT for the claims you are making. For example, most of the population figures given for mestizos in the various Latin American countries don't currently have citations to back up the figures claimed -- & even if they are backed up, those figures are for Latin American countries, not for the U.S. To know how many Hispanics in the U.S. have some American Indian descent, you have to go to reliable sources that actually give such figures -- & that you have not done.

Nor does it seem you've even bothered to look at the source given in the citation. So here it is:

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001-05). Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics 2000: 2000 Census of Population and Housing. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved on 2007-05-23.

That source gives the following figures for "American Indian and Alaska Native":

• One race: 2,475,956
• Race alone or in combination with one or more other races: 4,119,301 (Other races counted in the census include: "White"; "Black or African American"; "Asian"; "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander"; and "Some other race.")

Because the second figure includes all the "one race" American Indians/Alaska Natives, it follows that by subtracting them (i.e., 4,119,301 minus 2,475,956) you get the figure for "In combination with one or more other races" which is 1,643,345, which rounds to 1.6 million.

Note that the U.S. Census also gives figures for other races both as "One race" and as "Race in combinations with one or more other races." So, to look at the populations that seem to be of most concern to you:

	White	Black or African American	American Indian or Alaska Native
One race	211,460,626	34,658,190	2,475,956
Race alone or in combination with one or more other races	216,930,975	36,419,434	4,119,301
Race in combination with one or more other races (excluding "one race")	5,470,349	1,761,244	1,643,345

"Hispanic" is treated differently because "Hispanic" is not considered a "race" -- i.e., there can be Hispanics can be black, white, mixed race, etc. The figures given in this particular table for "Hispanic or Latino (of any race)" is 35,305,818. Mestizo isn't a category used by the U.S. Census, so far as I have ever seen; but there is probably other data in the U.S. Census that gives racial breakdowns, & also breakdowns for which other races are included for the people who fall into the various "in combination with one or more other races" categories.

If you choose not to accept any of this as valid, that's up to you. But the U.S. Census is widely accepted on Wikipedia as satisfying WP:ATT when it comes to discussing population & demographics in the U.S. --Yksin 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

listen now...

yes I know the Census doesn't verify Mestizo as a "ethnic group".

but the Census also shows the Hispanic population and Black Population as 35 million, but its' 40 million and the african american is at 38 million, so it's outdated.

so the 1.6 million people is just the people who identify themself partly Native American...lol that makes no sense at all, so what your saying let's just ignore the other people (what I said) who has Native American ancestry

and why can't we just change the title like:

People with Native American ancestry

wouldn't that be better and more logical?

Above unsigned comments left through 10:05, 25 May 2007 by 84.26.7.86

So sorry that the U.S. Census only happens once every ten years. As I've already said at least twice: if you have better figures that can be attributed to reliable published sources in line with WP:ATT, then by all means provide them. If you want to continue discussing the issue, go to the Talk page for the article -- in particular this conversation, which directly relates to your concerns, & maybe you'll find people there who will help you find the reliable sources to back up your claims & otherwise address the issues you're bringing up. Meanwhile, please learn to sign your posts. I left instructions on how to do it on your talk page.

(The only reason I know who I'm talking to now is from looking at the history of this page -- then I past the info onto this page so I can keep track. But it grows very tiresome, simply because you are not taking the time to simply type four tildes (~) before you save.) --Yksin 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Spouse" thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Hi, Yksin. I see a potentional problem with the the field "partner" in the Template:Infobox actor which I've outline here --Rrburke^(talk) 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. --Yksin 17:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BAYSWAN thanks

Thank you for your help and any articles you unearth. I know they do good work even if their website is wonky. Benjiboi 09:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Apologies

I wish to apologise for my inproper use of the deletion tag "db-nonsense". I should have added a "refimprove" tag and not a "db-nonsense". I will learn from this mistake and hopefully not do it again.
Thank you for telling me of this mistake of mine, you have allowed me to learn from my mistake.

Thank you,
Deco^talkDa^thoughtsMan 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

Refs

Wikipedia:Footnotes says that "An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain." and further says that <references/> should be used. --Java7837 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia:Footnotes says is An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain. and further says that <references/> can (not should) be used.

But all of that is completely moot anyway, since the template that you are going about replacing is the {{reflist}} template -- a completely different animal from the old {{ref}} template.

Not only that, but the two are/were used for completely different purposes. <ref>...</ref> and its predecessor {{ref}} are both used for the in-text citations -- i.e., they make the teensy little superscripted numbers. <references/> and the alternative {{reflist}} are used for formatting of the notes/reference list at the bottom of the article. Most articles that I have ever worked on in Wikipedia use a combination of the <ref>...</ref> system with the {{reflist}} template.

If that isn't enough, you are making this systematic change to numerous articles without seeking any consensus whatsoever from editors who have longstanding histories of working on those articles. I know -- I've reverted two of your "helpful" edits already. --Yksin 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

here is what an admin had to say

Wikipedia:Footnotes says that "An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common. Converting this older system to the new <ref>...</ref> system can make the references in an article easier to maintain." and further says that <references/> should be used. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_template_changes_by_User:Java7837