User talk:YMVD

Welcome!
Hi YMVD! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Longhair\talk 21:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Ranges
In your recent edit of, you removed a citation after I had flagged it with. In this situation, there was a claim, a source, and an observation that the source was no good. If you're going to remove the bad source, then you need to either remove the claim (e.g. if you believe the claim cannot be supported) or find a good source. You might instead leave the claim in and add a tag, though this is not really making any progress.

On another note, the paragraph listing numerous credit scoring models, without any structure, strikes me as going well past the "excessive detail" mark. I am not sure who is responsible for having created or inserted it, but it is just miserable, IMO. Fabrickator (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I put my preceding comment on your talk page as a way to avoid cluttering Talk:Credit score in the United States with something that seemed to be just about your personal misunderstanding of the proper way of dealing with the tag.  Absent good reason, this discussion ought to continue here on your talk page.  Towards that end, I am moving the comments you posted on my talk page to immediately follow. Fabrickator (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ranges" is great. Excessive detail ?. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Very good information on "Ranges". "Ranges" is a credit score data source in some finance data websites, and in at least a credit union site. "Ranges" data detail is not miserable. I appreciate your job.YMVD (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you've chosen not to respond to the issue about your handling of the tag, I will set aside the issue of the appropriateness of the issues with the excessive "ranges" details.  You could resolve the present issue by just reverting your own edit.  (BTW, exactly what is the "job" of mine you are referring to?) Fabrickator (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Facts and figures in Animal
Hi, sorry to have to remind you but the lead section is just a summary, so it is not the place to introduce "new" claims; further, all claims must be reliably cited in the article body. If you have more such changes, it might be helpful to propose them on the article's talk page so we agree on the way ahead. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tagging at Race and intelligence
Hello, I reverted the "citation needed" tag which you added to the lead of Race and intelligence because there is an existing consensus that the lead of that article does in fact accurately summarize the article body, and per MOS:LEAD additional citations are not required in such a case. I see that you've just now re-added the same tag, albeit in a different part of the lead. The question of whether to include citations in the lead of this article has been discussed several times already, and no one has been able to convince the community that they are necessary (see e.g. here and here). If you'd like to make your case for why we should overturn the existing consensus regarding citations in the lead, feel free to start a new thread on the article's talk page. But continuing to add unnecessary tags after you've been made aware of all this could be considered a form of disruptive editing. See in particular the section that discusses "disruptive cite-tagging". Thanks in advance for your understanding, Generalrelative (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edit at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: C
This edit where you added an image of Raúl Castro to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: C was purely disruptive, as I'm sure you know. As the first paragraph of the lead states, Famous people who are simply suspected or rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed. And I'm not aware of any reliable sources alleging that he was anything other than straight, given his long and apparently passionate marriage to fellow revolutionary leader Vilma Espín. If you have access to any such sources, please bring them up at Talk:Raúl Castro for consideration. Otherwise, it is obviously inappropriate to add him to this list.

I would really prefer to avoid bringing your behavior to one of the drama boards, but if you continue to edit disruptively in this way I may find myself forced to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of prima ballerinas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carolyn Carlson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
FYI: this edit was not a correction. It's simply misleading. Please see the prevailing consensus on the matter. And this is WP:PROFRINGE. Please take greater care when editing within this topic area. Generalrelative (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Block request?
Generalrelative is not an admin, so they cannot block you. I am. Do you want me to block you? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring
I don't know what's going on with you. After posting a flagrantly racist comment on my user talk page, and then asking to be indefinitely blocked only a few days ago, you're now edit warring over the opening sentence of a highly watched article. Is this an experiment to see what you can get away with? Generalrelative (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced changes
A large proportion of your edits also seem to be changing numbers and dates without providing a source or explaining how existing sources have been misquoted. This is also against policy. See e.g. WP:PROVEIT. Generalrelative (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)