User talk:Yaksar/Archive 5

Great move
I see you redirected Peoples Students Federation to the much more appropriate Pakistan Peoples Party. Great idea, well done. The article was languishing in what was a completely unacceptable form that I believe didn't meet the criteria for reliability or notability. The redirect takes care of all of that, as anyone who actually types "Peoples Students Federation" into a search will still find what they're looking for, in a more encyclopedic form. Agent 86 (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Apparently, user has tagged over a dozen articles I've created or significantly edited with one sort of tag or another. In the span of about TWO hours  p  b  p  06:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just went through his list of created pages, is that disallowed? Also, pbp, to say that you have "significantly edited" any of the AfDs is beyond silly. You've made just 1 edit to KOXY, 4 edits to Chilli burger, and 10 to PPoBC, so I seriously doubt you've improved any of the content there. It looks to me that you just pulled material out of existing articles and "created" new ones, which you then ignore. You havn't improved Chilli Burger since 27 June 2010! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As Reyk pointed out, most of the content added was mine, because generally I try to get my editing done in 1-2 "home-run" edits rather than a bunch of little ones, as you do. Going through an editor's creations and then summarily finding something wrong with every one of them is OK if a) you do it over a period of weeks or months, instead of two hours, or b) the community has agreed that all my edits are shitty and indeffed me, which hasn't happened either.  p  b  p  01:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I quote: "Also, looking at another editor's contributions from time to time is perfectly acceptable, so nobody is going to tell me not to do it ... Finally, 'now and again' doesn't make it HOUNDing; for it to be HOUNDing, it'd have to happen way more often than it does." (emphasis added) I quote Ryan Vessey: "Whether or not Purblebackpack is following Dream Focus' edits is irrelevant. If an editor is worried about the quality of another editor's article work or arguments, following their edits is a good way to correct errors." That's all I was doing. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "rather than a bunch of little ones, as you do", is yet another thinly veiled insult. Yaksar, do you at all see what I mean about pbp? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not an insult, that's an observation about editing patterns. You've got to stop taking unnecessary umbrage at everything!  Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that over a dozen tags in two hours is hardly "now and again".  If you'd just stopped at Crab puff, we would not be having this discussion.  I'd have voted Keep in the AfD, but I wouldn't have accused it of being disruptive.  The problem is that you went through all my edits when you clearly have an axe to grind.  p  b  p  01:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pbp, I didn't go through "all your edits", all I did was look here, once, for about an hour. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pbp context
Please see here, here, and here. Also, I looked at your contribs because I have been wikistalked off-and-on (not by pbp) for about 9 months, so when someone I don't know pops up at my talk page and starts reading me the riot act while defending someone I am in a conflict with, I look to see how "new" they are, and if they are Wikibuddies of anyone I've recently had issues with. Sorry I misjudged you, I wish I had explained myself instead of reverting you. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Months-old edits involving an editor who's a nosehair away from an indef are germane why? p  b  p  01:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Needs You!
Hi there Yaksar! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add Tick (✅) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Dan James White
I want you to stop taking the name "James'' out of Dan James White.By taking out a vital middle name,you seem to be constituting vandalism.He is known as "Dan James White",not "Dan White".From the dectective-The Maigne Event (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please check out WP:Common name. It looks like a few people have already had this discussion with you. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Mark Chapman
Have a read at your freind above's post on my talk page. He seems to think that "Christians don't go around murdering other people", and that using this logic Mark Chapman cannot be a born again christian. I think he's in for a shock, don't you? Britmax (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Maigne Event
I will be renouncing my account as a Wikipedian.I have had a good life.I thank you all for correcting me.Once I get a response from you ,I will be shuting down my account.From the dectective's last words-The Maigne Event (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary. I think if you just simply read up on the guidelines people have recommended you and try to work for a consensus rather than plow through against what you know is the common view, you could easily become a helpful and productive editor. I'm sorry I haven't been too communicative--it's a hectic month. But you don't have to leave. Maybe take some time and get involved with less controversial issues? Correct typos and grammar, expand stubs on easily researchable ideas, and watch how discussions and conflicts usually play out. Once you get more of the hang of wikipedia you'll fit in just fine, I'm sure.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am intrested in crimes because I am Mark Fuhrman.From here-The Maigne Event (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for not immediately believing that, since some of your opinions (such as the incorrect view on how people involved with that case were commonly known) gives me some pause. But ok.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would venture that Mark Fuhrman can spell the word dectective. Britmax (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What are your personal opinions about the Trayvon Martin case? From here-The Maigne Event (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My personal opinions? Why do you ask?--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I just would like to get to know about your personality.From here-The Maigne Event (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Good day sir, I am really a 28 year old man named Tracy Brown who is learning to be a dectective.I want to ask how do I redirect things? Just call me Tracy.The Maigne Event (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I am semi-retired now.From Tracy,the dectective in training.The Maigne Event (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tea egg
Sorry about that. I always thought BRD is about two editors. I thought I could just slip and and break the tie. :) See you at the talk page, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah, no worries!--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - September 2013

 * Posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 01:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Food
It would be appreciated if you joined in the conversation occurring at WT:Food regarding the layout and presentation of the project's main page. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - October 2013

 * Delivered by Northamerica1000(talk) 20:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Ramsay Hall
Who is the banned editor? Drmies (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I figured it out. I will semi-protect the redirect. You'll have to admit that the AfD was inconclusive, and you'll have to live with the fact that a legitimate editor might come along and revert you, in which case there's little for an admin to do--except to point you, as the IP/sock has done, to (another) AfD. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd actually have no problem having a legitimate discussion with a non-banned editor about the page. Although I think a merge discussion rather than an AfD would be better?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ally Burnett
Please participate in a conversation on the article's Talk page concerning recent edits. Dwpaul Talk   21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=597338100 your edit] to Blow (Kesha song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8, 2011 {{cite web|url=http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases|title= Home {{red|&#62;}} Top 40/Mainstream {{red|&#62;}} Future Releases|publisher=All Access|accessdate=2011-01-31|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/
 * 8, 2011 {{cite web|url=http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases|title= Home {{red|&#62;}} Top 40/Mainstream {{red|&#62;}} Future Releases|publisher=All Access|accessdate=2011-01-31|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=597338192 your edit] to Only Time may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [{{fullurl:Only Time|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+typo+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3ABracketBot%7CBracketBot%5D%5D}} edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014
Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This message has been sent by p joe f on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

?
Did you fail to read my edit summary -- the editor who had last added that material to the lede, whom I had reverted -- and whose revert you had restored -- and I had discussed this, and he had after reading wp:lede which I pointed to saw and agreed that his reason for deleting the material from the lede was not correct. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Epeefleche is referring to what was written on my talk page, the comment "saw and agreed that his reason for deleting the material from the lede was not correct" could not be further from the truth. I don't understand why he continues to revert. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxx

moving ec comments from my tp, so they are all in one place ...

This is just silly. You're an experienced editor, not someone that needs 3RR explained to them, and you should know what edit warring is. Come to a consensus on a talk page rather than continuing to push through a change.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you failed to read my edit summaries. I agree -- it is silly.  Please read them, and revert yourself. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is this editor you are referring to, and where can I find this discussion?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxx


 * I will give you some diffs.


 * I'm referring to the last editor (IP 70.44.136.245) to -- without understanding the role of a lede, per wp:lede -- delete that sentence from the lede (before I reverted him, and then you reverted back to what IP 70 had). The editor made that deletion on October second.  Here. Not understanding wp:lede, his explanation for his deletion was: "Already stated in Political Issues/Isreal where it is more appropriate".


 * I reverted IP 70's deletion with the explanation, continuing our discussion, stating: "Undid (the lede summarizes the major elements of the text, so it is not a reason to delete that it is mentioned in the text) revision 627968899 by 70.44.136.245".


 * IP 70 subsequently wrote -- and I give him credit for this -- "I am not Hammer and do not know them. However, I did remove part of the lede and cited my reason as it was already stated in the main article (re anti-boycott resolution) - which I did in good faith. Both that and editing the page after clicking directly to the History page (from Twitter's @congress-editors) before reading the Talk page or noticing the banner ref to WP:BLP/N are admittedly my mistakes and I apologize. I appreciated your mention of WP:lede in your more recent undo of Hammer's edit which showed that my rationale for my previous edit was not applicable."


 * So IP 70, who had been the last editor to delete that sentence, on reading wp:lede reconsidered his position. And, in accord with wp:lede, agreed that the rationale for deleting that sentence was not applicable. I give him credit.  He appears to prefer not to have that language in the article, but he reads the clear words of wp:lede and acknowledges them for what they are. Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. But I don't see how the third of 4 editors to remove your--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC) addition changing his or her mind after your reversion changes my point or means I should revert myself.
 * You reverted me to what 70 had deleted. But 70 -- after discussion, and against his leanings it would appear, upon reading wp:lede ended up agreeing that the sentence not be deleted. And of course the reasons for deleting it were simply wrong-headed. And there was in fact as you now see ample discussion.  Your reason to revert me to 70 was improper because both: a) there had been discussion, b) 70 was supportive of inclusion (as am I), and c) a reading of the easy-to-read language of wp:lede showed that the argument that it is not appropriate to have it in the lede if it is in the text to be simply ... wrong.  There has been ample discussion of this at the noticeboard, and (unless I misremember) nobody else but the person who started that discussion indicated that they agreed on that point (though they did discuss editing and deleting other parts of the article than the ones he was seeking to quash). Simply put, nobody has on the merits agreed with that assertion (or the ridiculous parallel assertion that it is libel), and the state it should be in is the one that two editors have on the merits said is appropriate under wp:lede (which is the state the article was in at the moment the conversation was started, I believe). Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the contested text in question that was added. Four editors overall have done the same. The third of these editors decided that their rationale actually did not apply in this case. The others did not. I really am quite confused as to how one of those 4 changing their mind overrules the entire idea of WP:BRD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What editors removed it? And on what basis? I've pointed to two editors who gave a reason for it belonging. Which reason matches wp policy. And -- why in the world would you change it by deleting the language in question when the discussion has already started -- with it included? Without consensus? You are, under those circumstances, supposed to leave it in place -- unless the reason given flies in the face of wp policy (which of course it doesn't). Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm done repeating myself. You made a change. It was reverted. Again and again. Look at the article's edit history if you'd like. Therefore, you must discuss it to find consensus on it. You can't simply keep reverting because you think you are right and they are wrong. There are certain cases where this differs, such as with clear vandalism or harmful information violating our BLP policy. This is not one of those cases.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cfredkin, and IP 70, and I all agree that per wp:lede it is appropriate.
 * That's the state it was in when the discussion started -- including it.
 * Why would you then delete it? Without consensus for that further, post-discussion change?
 * I get that you failed to know that IP 70 had changed his mind. So, when you reverted my reversion of IP 70, and your basis was that I wasn't discussing it with the person I reverted, you were completely incorrect -- though understandably so.
 * But you now do know that your reason for reverting me was a false basis -- there had in fact been discussion. And IP 70 had agreed with me, reversing his position, following that discussion. Yet, curiously, even knowing that you don't own up to it.  And plowed ahead as though that were not the case.  And ignored the fact that you are changing it from the form it was in at the time of the discussion starting. With three editors disagreeing with you. Without you having consensus to change it in the direction that you changed it to on your mistaken basis.
 * This is not a BLP case where, in the face of three editors disagreeing with you (and others not agreeing with the assertion at the noticeboard) you can go against the other three editors, and change the article from how it stood when the discussion started. Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. You're now being openly deceitful. Look at the page history and stop playing dumb.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell me what you agree with. And what you disagree with. I've provided many diffs. I have no idea what you disagree with, and your insults don't add any light. Epeefleche (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're just ignoring both what I write and the actual history of the article, so I'm not sure what the point is. Look at the article history. Look at the multiple editors who have undone your change. It's very, very, very clear. If you can read, and have a basic understanding of how Wikipedia discussions work, this isn't too tough.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. First of all, I wonder if you might not be able to be more civil, and not engage in unwarranted personal attacks.  Second, I've read what you wrote carefully.  And responded in detail.  And don't know where your confusion is.  There was a BRD between me and Hammer.  We reached a point of disagreement.  He thinks it is libel (etc.) to discuss a Congressman's vote in the lede. He is obviously wrong in that.  So -- with the state of the article being that sentence being included in the lede -- he began discussion.  At that point, absent consensus (or a blp violation), he (and you) should not edit war, and continue making deletes, absent consensus.  Aside from the original two disputants, two other editors touched that sentence after the BLPN discussion was started, prior to your deletion.  And both of those editors (CFred and IP 70), before you joined in the fray, were of the opinion that I was.  Yet you somehow saw fit to delete.  That makes no sense. Epeefleche (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding how BRD works. It's not BRRD. Or BRRRD. You re-added the information after both Hammer and Cwobeel both opposed the change. Another editor opposed it as well (the IP) but later changed his mind. The fact that the discussion was opened while your preferred change was in the article does not make it the consensus. It should have in fact been you who started the discussion in the first place after your edit was opposed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The "D" was the opening up of the noticeboard discussion. By Hammer.  At that point in time, the sentence was included in the lede.  See here.  That's how it should have been left until discussion reached a consensus.
 * In fact, apart from the original editors who disagreed (Hammer on the basis of "libel"), the next two editors who touched it ultimately - by the time you joined in - agreed with me. CFred and IP 70. CWO suggests that other material be included if we are to include it, and didn't revert CFred -- and as I said to you, you should feel free to cover important part in the text in summary form (ranging from his positions on coal/environment/foreign policy to other material that is notable in the text -- just look at the text).
 * Yet, you deleted it. You changed it from the form it was in when discussion started.  Not what you should have done.
 * And you did it even though the two new editors to speak to the subject both agreed with its inclusion, with the third editors saying more should be included if it is to be included and not disagreeing with CFred when he had a different view. Also, not good.
 * And you did it on the basis of an (understandable) misunderstanding -- that there was not discussion.
 * So, for all of the above, I urge you to self-revert. To put the article in the position it was in before discussion started.  To put it in the position it was in that accords with what CFred and I and IP 70 have said (you don't have consensus disagreement with us -- even if you count as having any weight the "it is libel" assertion).
 * And to not delete the lede language unless consensus develops for that. Epeefleche (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring both what I said in the previous statement along with the participation of Cwobeel. Additionally, while the libel claim may not be particularly helpful, you're ignoring that Hammer has raised other perfectly valid points about the article. And once again, I will quote myself: The fact that the discussion was opened while your preferred change was in the article does not make it the consensus. It should have in fact been you who started the discussion in the first place after your edit was opposed. So no, it would not be proper for me to self-revert.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As to Cwo, please see my (ec; later) fixes above. Not only is the libel claim absurd, the "if it is in the body it does not belong in the lede" assertion is baseless as well. As with AfDs, it is not a vote.  Baseless !votes are weighed accordingly.

And in any event, there is not a consensus - after discussion started - for changing it from the point it was in when discussion started. And what is key is what it's state was then.

I disagree that I "should have started" the noticeboard discussion ... I could have, but I could also have just waited for people to appear at the talkpage, as I was doing at that very same moment. There's not a one-revert rule on this page.

Bottom line -- the sentence was included at the time discussion started. And when you appeared, most of the post-discussion-starting comments were by editors who supported retention of the sentence. Yet, you deleted. That's clearly wrong. (And, you did it on an incorrect -- understandably not knowing all the facts -- assertion).

You do admit, do you not, that the sentence was included when the noticeboard discussion started? And that before you joined in, a majority of those commenting - at the point you joined in - were in favor of retention? Can I focus you on responding to those two points? Epeefleche (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's what I can see. The last time the article was at a consensus was before the contested addition was made. You're equating "when the discussion began" to "when there was consensus". But this is really all just distracting from the fact that this specific fact is absolutely not one of the most significant aspects of his political career worth noting in the lede.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There were innumerable changes before disagreement -- the discussion point is the point that we fix at. And as to whether it is sufficiently notable, while I'm confused why you would not think a 1 against 400 vote that is covered by RSs is notable, the point is that before you chimed in three editors agreed it was notable enough for the lede. The guy screaming "that's libel" disagreed, but that assertion (and the "it's already in the body" assertion) counts little. And the only other editor said "if you keep it in, mention some other noteworthy stuff as well," which is not in accord with the view that "this is not sufficiently noteworthy to reflect in a lede." So that may be your view, but it is not the consensus view. Plus, I again encourage you to add in a summary of the other noteworthy parts of the text. That would also satisfy most of the other editors as well I expect, and me (though if you put in anything about the COIs that are mentioned, certain editors might object perhaps). --Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it isn't a particularly notable vote, which is evidenced by the clearly low importance it is given in enduring coverage of the figure. Is it a sourced vote with an interesting element perfectly reasonable for inclusion in the article? Sure. Is it arguably one of the most significant political actions of a multi decade political career, as evidenced by enduring coverage in reliable sources? Absolutely not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your WP:RFD nomination for Turner
I'm letting you know that I closed your request to "Wrong forum" and moved your request to Talk:Turner (disambiguation); since your request is to establish the lack of a primary topic, your request is to essentially put the disambiguation page at the ambiguous title per WP:DABNAME, which is a commonly-followed article naming standard for disambiguation pages. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok cool, makes sense to me, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles
This discussion may interest you; I invite you to join in. --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

wp:cathedral
i was making that up, but i've seen it before 24.131.80.54 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Greg Orman
As an editor that recently edit Greg Orman, could you please weigh in at Talk:Greg_Orman. Thanks. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests
New request on page move is discussed. By the way, what's your response in Talk:Somebody to Love (Jefferson Airplane song)? --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, George Ho. I'll respond on the Somebody to Love talkpage in a second.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Many others opposed, so I notified only another person who supported the other. That person is semi-retired, so... it depends. Notifying many others is too risky because many opposed. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Randykitty (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Concerns this personal attack. --Randykitty (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for unblocking Jack. Yaksar, my deepest apologies. The comment above yours was unsigned and I didn't notice that it had been made by a different user. This was a horrible mistake! I only just got back online to discover the mess, but see that fortunately Jack took care of correcting it. I was in a hurry, not a good thing to do. Again, my apologies! --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, Randykitty! Mistakes happen, and in the scheme of things this one was sorted out pretty quickly, so don't feel too bad. Thanks for the apology though! Cheers, Yaksar (let's chat) 16:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Was" or "was"?
If "Hungry was a Man" is commonly used and the title of original publication, and "Hungry Was a Man" is also commonly used, would you capitalize "was", which is a verb? Compare to Talk:A Boy Was Born. --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry George Ho, just noticed this, are you referring to a specific case or just a hypothetical here?--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can choose either way because I was talking both (but leaning toward hypothetical). --George Ho (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

IP addresses and Move requests.
Since when do you think that IP addresses have been able to express support and opposition (as opposed to commenting on) Wikipedia move requests? It opens the process up for abuse as in the old Irish saying "vote early and vote often".-- PBS (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * PBS, I don't believe there's any prohibition on it. It does seem to be a fairly common occurrence and normally no issue is raised about it. If you can point to a policy or guideline that says otherwise, of course, that would be different.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is common practice to disregards the opinions (but not the comments) of IP addresses and has been since before you opened you account here see Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10 (from 2007) for a RM were there were dozens of discounted opinions. -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's neither common practice nor accepted practice to discount the opinions of IP editors.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, a more recent discussion would make the point more strongly -- a lot has changed since 7 years ago (and I'd note that the linked discussion is actually not from before I was around). But these are also totally different situations -- the linked discussion was without a doubt filled entirely by SPA editors, while the remarks you struck out were by editors who clearly had no SPA intentions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing on this issue has changed over the last seven years. IP addresses can comment but their opinions are discounted. I didn't not strike out their remarks just their opinion. The reason for this is that without striking a cucury view of the conversation may give a false impression of the current support or lack of it for a particular action. "By SPA do you mean SPA if so why not link to the article to make it clear what is what you mean? There is no possible way one can know if those IP addresses are socks of others hence the reason that their opinioins are discounted. -- PBS (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry PBS, wasn't able to get to this now. Were you able to find some sort of policy or guideline that states this? Because I'm pretty sure that quite the opposite is true, and that non-SPA non-sockpuppet IP editors are more than welcome to fully participate in every aspect of the discussion process.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is explained explicitly here Requests for adminship, but it is also implicitly true for RfD and contested RMs for the same reasons hence the discounting in Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10. The explanation for why is given in RfA. If an IP editor is knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia policies and guidelines to express a worthwhile opinion then they ought to have a user account if they want those opinions noted. The problem with trying to judge what is a "non-sockpuppet IP editor" and a "sockpuppet IP editor" complicates a simple rule (discount the opinions of IP editors, but read their comments) and is open to interpretation, and hence the contesting of a consensus. Let us take the case of an AfD discussion where all user accounts are for keep but there is one IP address for delete, would you argue that a speedy keep was inappropriate? -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * RFA is a unique process, and one which has guidelines for it and it only. One of the possible reasons is that, while anyone can have an opinion one way or another on a content discussion, the decision of granting adminship is an entirely in-Wikipedia process -- users who are not otherwise invested in the Wikipedia workings have no reason to give an opinion. But, the main issue with your argument is that we don't just close discussions by counting bolded !votes. Admins assess the expressed consensus, emphasizing logical, policy based rationales. And these admins are not robots -- they can easily find out, for example, if an IP editor is a frequent contributor to RM discussions perhaps, or an editor in the field that the AfD concerns. And if there is doubt, this can be investigated. But in terms of your hypothetical AfD discussion, it's really a case by case decision. Let's say there's 3 keep !votes pointing out that Bob Smith is inherently notable as the governor of a state. An IP editor comes along and points out that the foreign language articles discussing him were all actually hoaxes, and he does not actually exist. It doesn't matter if the IP !vote is bolded, or struck out, or whatever -- the administrator assesses the proper policy based consensus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see that we are going to have to differ on this issue. -- PBS (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)