Jump to content

User talk:Skyerise: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Your comments at "Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace": Unforgettableid has been requested to desist from posting further on my talk page
m →April 2013: Editing expanded templates, and signing one unsigned one.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 136: Line 136:
<small>Message delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]] ([[User talk:MediationBot|talk]]) on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|behalf]] of the Mediation Committee. 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)</small>
<small>Message delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]] ([[User talk:MediationBot|talk]]) on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|behalf]] of the Mediation Committee. 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)</small>
}}
}}

== April 2013 ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to [[:Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace]] can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. &mdash;[[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] ([[User talk:Unforgettableid|talk]]) 22:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Hello, I'm [[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page [[:Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace]] that didn't seem very [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:Unforgettableid|my talk page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> &mdash;[[User:Unforgettableid|Unforgettableid]] ([[User talk:Unforgettableid|talk]]) 22:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:39, 4 April 2013

"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"
"Have a cuppa... Coffee?"
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archives:
2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013

3RR reminder

Just pointing out that you have now made the same edit (removal of material) twice at the article Very Serious People. I'm sure you are aware of the 3RR rule, but I wanted to make sure you have this particular case on your radar - in case others restore it and you are tempted to keep removing it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, no. Two is my personal limit (usually). Then I go do something in real life, like take some visiting friends downtown to see our magnificent library. :-) Yworo (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"personal attack"

Don't call me "Buckwheat", that's a personal attack

Don't spout nonsense, Sport, it makes you look ridiculous. --Calton | Talk 20:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And see, that's condescending. But you're just like that, you can't help it and you look a bit funny to boot, so I'll forgive you. But does your mother really have to dress you so funny? Yworo (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Sorry that you had trouble finding the others at Allegro. If you want to talk about Seattle Wikipedia stuff I would meet you personally on Skype or by phone. I live in NYC now so I am not going to meetings anymore but I still support them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at BDS

Hi. I've reverted (most of) your edits to Bush Derangement Syndrome, for reasons I've explained at Talk:Bush Derangement Syndrome#March 2013. I welcome any response you might have. Best wishes, CWC 12:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you join the discussion at WP:BLPN first? Edits were based on that discussion. Yworo (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As you found out within four minutes of posting that. Can I suggest you would do well to adopt a policy of not editing harshly until you have done some reading? For instance, I would love to see some evidence that you read (the last few sections of) the article's talk page before turning it into a misleading stub. Radical edits without consensus create bad reputations. CWC 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly the only editor who know the relevant policies better than you do. I'm a regular on BLPN. I've observed, read, and apparently know a lot more about what's acceptable and what's not than you do. For the record. Yworo (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW (very little), I was fixing tricky BLP problems before you registered your account. In fact, IIRC (not guaranteed), I was fixing BLP problems before Wikipedia had a BLP policy.
Since quoting is easier than original thought, here's something for you to think about: "I beseech you, in the bowels of [Wikipedia], think it possible that you may be mistaken." Cheers, CWC 11:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever. Somehow, what other knowledgeable editors are saying and doing about the article doesn't seem to correspond with the little you think is needed to satisfy BLP. I guess I and they are all plain wrong and you are somehow right. Fortunately, common sense about whether reporting political name-calling and mudslinging from primary sources is seemly is prevailing this time. Enforcement of BLP issues has greatly improved since the good ol' days of the Wild Wild Wikipedia, and you may now be a dinosaur. I'm sure you'll catch on though, eventually (I hope). Yworo (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added one of the paragraphs you deleted

In "Friedman Unit," part of the impact is that it gets people discussing Mr. Friedman's rhetorical tactics and slipshod thinking. I concur that my third example was trivial and did not derive naturally from Friedman unit, but the second was very much in the same vein. Statements from opinion pieces are allowed to establish the writer's statements. The term does not need to stand on its own as a neologism but it is a good example of the original term stimulating political discussion. Monado (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do consider, when we are writing about neologisms, we are writing about linguistics and the history of language development... That's encyclopedic. Political discussion is all very fine, but why are we down in the pits where it is occurring, rather than a step removed in actual academic - such as linguistics, political science, or sociological - sources? When it reaches that level, we know that it's notable. Seriously, we hold "in popular culture" items to a higher standard than is being used here. Do you really think this term will pass the 100 year test? or even be remembered in 20 years? Yworo (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might not pass the 100 year test, but then, neither would much of the waffle about popular culture for which Wikipedia is such a good source. I am not trying to be a History of Language professor but to note some of the history. I like the piece of information but I'm not going to get into an edit war. Monado (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still sourced to its coining. We don't do that. I'm not going to get into an edit war either, but it needs citation to a source about it, not to the source where it originated. Yworo (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Semi-protecting user talk pages. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A word to the wise re WP:POINT

Greetings Yworo! I don't anticipate becoming too much involved in the debating over at Template:Modern Dharmic writers. But in looking at your recent edits, a question/concern came to mind: are you keeping in mind WP:POINT? Perhaps you have a good argument that you are. But some of what you are doing suggests otherwise (i.e., your change-logs are offering rationales that you were arguing against very recently). Regards -- Presearch (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only real point here is that User:Trphierth has stuffed {{Modern Dharmic writers}} with his favorite writers, and then spammed the template into hundreds of articles, as can be seen in his contributions, here. He has spammed the template onto articles which are not included in it and into articles on people who are not even writers. He repeatedly refuses to provide sources for either the broad categorization or for the inclusion of specific writers. He is using Wikipedia to proselytize, and has been doing so for some time. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will also see that I clearly changed my mind right here and have been completely consistent in my approach from that point on. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syncretic

Yes, be bold! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement

Thanks for your referral to two pages regarding images. Nevertheless, I did not find anything that would forbid the normal publication practice of facing images into a page rather than out of it, if at all possible. Can you quote the rule or regulation, or even dictum, if you can find one. I really would like to know. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are talking about. Don't think I ever said that was forbidden. There might be other problems with an image placement that might indicate that it should be ignored in a particular case, especially if the subject is facing near center. For example, having a left-placed image that indents the next level 2 heading is always a bad idea. Having the first image in an article at the top left can be awkward on mobile devices. Having images on both sides of text. Numerous other possibilities. I suspect you misunderstood me. Yworo (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I did. It wouldn't be the first time I have misunderstood an editor here. By the way, I admire your cup-of-coffee trick. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I borrowed the code from somebody else who did the same trick with a different image. Feel free to borrow it yourself. Yworo (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Realization Fellowship

Hello Yworo, there is a editor - Tormod Kinnes - ‎46.9.197.230 - who seems to be with Swami Satyaswarananda or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailendra_bejoy_dasgupta (he just created this page) He is using sources that are questionable - websites that don't seem scholarly. He seems to be on an attack mode to put down SRF and promote Satyaswarananda rather than improving the page. He is spamming Satyaswarananda, on this page and on the Kriya Yoga page. Using opinionated words like "cosy sex", created sections called Regrets and Critiques from sources that no one would use on Wikipedia etc... I reverted him once asking him to bring ideas to the talk page. Then I deleted most of what he wrote and left one sentence to refer to the Articles of Incorp because he thought it was important. The page needs your expert editing. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok trying the barnstar again -

The Special Barnstar
For reaching out to new users and helping them get started on Wikipedia and for eloquently bringing the truth in a difficult situation.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't look like any kind of official barnstar code. Are you getting it at WP:BARNSTAR? Yworo (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I used your link and found the one for you! Thanks again and again...Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Unforgettableid. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skyerise&oldid=548740645"