User talk:Yachtsman1/archive 3

Thanks
I know, it's meritless and I'm leaving for a nice vacation soon so I'm really not concerned. But thanks for your concern :). Soxwon (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I also came here to thank you, but to note that I'd already notified Soxwon as per my understanding of the present protocol (and had alerted him that I was about to post a complaint), and he deleted the notice. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that he was attempting to make it seem that I was violating protocol. Rather, I think that the deletion was an act of dismissiveness. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And I think you are getting into a fight on my talk page. Please take this somewhere else.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We are not fighting here or anywhere else at this time. Both of my comments here have tried to head-off misunderstanding, and the second was to prevent a mistaken charge from being directed against Soxwon.  I'll try to avoid any further communication with you. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You evidence section in Requests for comment/Viriditas
Hi Yachtsman1, I wanted to inform you that currently your section in the RFC for Viriditas has no difs. I wanted to tell you that it might be a good idea to move some of the content of your reply on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to the RFC page. Sifaka talk  05:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've wanted to draft an essay on "wiki-wars of attrition" for a while because one, in my opinion, has been waging for a while in ADHD related articles. While a certainly don't recommend reading it all, take a look at the latest archive and the talk page of ADHD controversies. Right now there is an arbitration case going on about it. Please note this is my POV of the situation, but what effectively happened was that one editor felt the presence of information and sources about fringe viewpoints of ADHD on the main page was a violation of NPOV. Several other editors, including myself, disagreed because the fringe views are notable even though they not accepted by mainstream scientists. There was a long term disagreement which recently manifested as that one editor wanting to add a Non-Neutral Point of View tag to the ADHD controversies page. Several editors removed an n-NPOV tag, but it was repeatedly replaced by the same editor, in many cases without the expected justification. After about ~17600 words of discussion the editor only brought up two specific points (1) a single source which may have failed RS guidelines which alternate supplementary sources were found (2) the intro made it unclear what level of controversy existed within various circles (i.e. medical professionals, lay people, etc) which was rewritten for balance. Both of these issues were addressed but at the cost of a lot of inefficient and unnecessarily heated discussion about non-content items like the n-NPOV tag. Even though the editor in question and I both share mainstream views on ADHD, I was tired of trying to get this editor to cooperate constructively. I would like to add since this arb is still ongoing and my actions may be under scrutiny that I am not attempting to WP:canvass (it would probably be a good idea to stay a mile away until this resolves). I also want to emphasize that I'm presenting this through my own rose-tinted lenses and it would be unfair to judge the editor in question based upon my bias. Sifaka talk  05:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the RFC, I don't think it was added under the list of candidate pages at RFC/A. I asked the admin User:J.delanoy to look into it, but he hasn't responded. Sifaka talk  22:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reese
I wasn't going to say anything, but then decided at least it should be stated that this was a legitimate summary of the article content, which is why it is a featured article. I know why it was brought up. Thanks for your comments at the other page. If you see anything I should have addressed, please let me know. Also, my email is enabled. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw her response this morning and didn't answer. It's something that can be taken up at a far later date. I tried to run down the editor who worked it up to FA, but he's not been around for a few months. It can wait. I know what is going on, it was taken to a couple other pages where I'd only done minor work and I ignored that too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your note
Thanks. My friend is quitting, though she isn't going to "announce" it. This convinced her this is a toxic environment. Meanwhile, the other one has started hitting actor articles I've edited, though so far not the higher profile ones. What happens when someone refuses to respond to a RFC? At what point does administration determine all of this is disruptive and needs to be stopped? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell her to stay on board, this too shall pass. As for not responding to an RFC, I don't think there is a requirement, but it certainly does not help the editor in question's cause in any way.  Keep track of the wikihounding, and file it away.  She appears to have no idea that this sort of conduct is not condoned and generally frowned upon.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't immediately respond to the SPI when it was first posted mostly because my blood pressure shot up and stayed up for about 12 hours after the first "busted" was stuck on my talk page (that would be part of the health problems). I have to agree with LaVidaLoca that the environment has been sufficiently toxic here recently, but then, this is my main hobby so just leaving isn't amenable to me. It will be up to her, she stays quite busy with her gardening and grandchildren and "stuff" but she may change her mind when winter comes around. Thanks for the AN/I post. I started to look through her edits to see what the history had been like, because I couldn't recall any activity on actor articles that I'd ever seen. The tag in the section on Mickey Rourke saying the article lacked a summary for has nothing to do with MOS for these sorts of articles. The entire career section of an actor article is a summary for the split off filmography. A filmography isn't even necessarily mandated, although an article would probably be incomplete without it. I'm going to pass that particular article on to someone else to look at (an administrator who works on actor and film articles). Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Jane Fonda
I tried to respond to all of this neutrally and in an effort to avert Wikipedia from violating WP:BLP. I know there are people who have very strong feelings about this and feel the way you describe. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about the entire issue in either direction and I'm not very conversant about the minute details of what happened at that time there, except to know the general comments on both sides and the general issues of the times. I'm mostly concerned with the article only containing verifiable and reliable accounts without engaging in what amounts to original research since there's not a wealth of WP:RS/WP:V]] sourcing to address what was suggested should be put in the article. I guess I don't think it is Wikipedia's job to conduct the inquiry and I'm really interested in the court of public opinion not being conducted either. Does that say much besides I don't want to fight any of the wars of the 60s again? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

EIT
Help needed at Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, the usual villain is unrolling weeks of collaborative effort adding blatant POV. Tyuia (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your words of advice. I understand about WP:DERRY and your analysis by religion is, I know, accurate for 95% of the folks on either side. But what got me upset is that unregistered IP users are making unexplained, unjustified, one off changes, and when I use the term "vandalism" in an edit summary someone threatens to "report" me. Did you read my minor opus on the Sharkey talkpage? Please do.

Meanwhile the changes go on back and forth, ad nauseum. I see you were born in Berkshire but don't identify as British on your talk page, so do you reside in Ireland? I'm only asking because if that is so you might be a great source for me to ask questions about Irish-related stuff, if you were willing and able to, of course. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind reply. I'll take you up on your offer, although I will abstain, for various reasons, from questions relating to The Troubles. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. When you referred to "these cats" I had to crack a smile. As a Yank myself, I don't think that is common terminology on the other side of the pond. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your input. ;) Perhaps you may wish to add further evidence or comments, at Sockpuppet investigations/Sherurcij. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

GLAM-Wiki Baltimore meetup
 You are invited to the first Wikipedia Baltimore meetup on Saturday, July 23, 10:00am-12:30pm at the Walters Art Museum. Come meet Wikimedians, learn about GLAM-Wiki partnerships, get involved, and discuss future wiki outreach and activities in the Baltimore area!

There also is a Wikipedia & Cultural Heritage at the Young Preservationist Happy Hour on Friday, July 22, 6:30pm at the Midtown Yacht Club, an unpretentious neighborhood pub.

Note: You can remove your name from the Baltimore meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Maryland
It was recently suggested that WikiProject Maryland might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Terrorism - Welcome Back!
Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

An excellent piece
[]

A heads-up
I noticed User:Yachtsman1/Criticism_of_the_occupy_movement. I noticed it didn't bear a userspace draft tag on it.

For a long time I didn't know any better and didn't have anything that included a __NOINDEX__ directive on the user space pages I created. But it is important, otherwise your draft is read by web search engines, like google, and your draft will show up in google searches. Presumably it is currently a user space page because you don't think it is ready for article space. So letting people find it via a web search engine, and letting them mistake it for an article that is subject to the review of other contributors is misleading.

I noticed your draft started at 17K, and has had relatively minor edits since. I recognize that this could be because you prepared those 17K on your home computer, prior to initiating this userspace draft.

However, it also seemed possible that the 17K was copied and pasted from an article in article space, that was about to be deleted, and which you thought you could work on to address the issues that seemed about to cause it to be deleted. If this is where it came from can I suggest you ask the deleting administrator to merge the contribution history of the deleted article with the contribution history of your userspace draft.

If the source of some or all of the original 17K was in article space, and you weren't the sole contributor of intellectual content, I think you will find that, technically, you are not honoring the licenses of the other individuals who contributed to the article space version. When we click "save" we surrender many of our rights to the material we contribute. One of the rights we retain however, is the right to have our contributions attributed to us. When one of us copies material someone else drafted for another article, and pastes it somewhere else, it will look like we are claiming it is our work.

If you are the sole author of the intellectual content in your draft I will encourage you to place a userspace draft at the top of it. In addition let me warn you that there are quality control volunteers who will admonish you for placing a userspace draft in categories that only include genuine article space articles. Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the userdraft, the remainder of your post does not merit a response, though it did merit a chuckle. The userdraft, which you found while obviously looking/stalking through my contributions, is discussed on the Talk section of the Occupy movement, and reflects an effort to split the article into three separate parts because the article itself is filled with different takes on the movement, and lacks consistency.  Once completed, it will be raised again for consensus, and that section of the article removed, and the new stand alone article created.  You are more than welcome to discuss your concerns on the talk page for the Occupy movement.  I would never cut and paste an article that was about to be deleted, or add it to my userspace as other editors have done, and that ended up with multiple deletions as a result.  See for example -   Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)