User talk:Yanivshn

April 2021
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Online forums are not a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Binksternet Yes, Online forums are usually not reliable sources, but for *fans* attitude they are reliable sources - after all that what was the statement about - how fans deemed Sleeping with the Past. We know fans received the album very well because it was certified platinum in many countries and because Sacrifice/Healing Hands reached no. 1 and high positions in many countries. So the forum was just a support for what we already knew. Yanivshn (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You make an interesting proposal, but so far on Wikipedia, after two decades of operation, the site-wide consensus is still pretty strong against online forum references talking about fan opinions. The hard policy page WP:SPS says internet forums "are largely not acceptable as sources." A few exceptions exist, such as known topic experts confirmed in their identity who post on forums such as Reddit Ask Me Anything.
 * Part of the problem with your addition is that the identities of the forum discussion participants do not reveal notable people such as well-known music critics. The people who posted in the forum are self-selected in favor of the posted topic, which seeks approval of the album. Another problem is WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, giving far too much emphasis to these few fans. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not my addition. This addition was added by some wikipedian a long time ago, in fact you are the one who removed it. As i already said, we know fans love it because it sold many copies. This forum source is minor to the text addition. Without it, it's misleading the reader, because fans reaction to the album has been significantly different than critics reaction. Yanivshn (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's where the fan opinion bit was added, without a reference. Someone from Pennsylvania stuck it in 13 years ago. Something like that would need a WP:SECONDARY source. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Using advertisements as reliable source on Sleeping with the Past
I don't really care much, but the I believe the "source" you used here is a paid advertisement by the label, not material which went through the magazine's fact checking and editorial process. As such, I don't see how it can be considered reliable for anything but saying that the label claims something. I am not going to argue this and I left the source as it is for your discretion, so please consider this message informative only. Have fun editing. --Muhandes (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because this ad told the exact truth (to the time. Since than, sales increased) about other countries (U.S., Australia etc.), that we DO have independent, reliable sources to them. So there's no reason to assume that they lied about Austria and Belgium... Yanivshn (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlike when it relates to other editors, there is no reason to assume good faith when a corporation is testifying about their own products, even if they do say the truth six times in a row. Anyway, like I said, I am not interested in arguing. Have fun editing. --Muhandes (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Please familiarize yourself with the definition of vandalism before making uncivil (and ludicrous) accusations. I may have made a mistake, or I may not agree with you on something, but do you think that I "deliberately intend to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose"? What happened to assuming good faith? --Muhandes (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Muhandes We've discussed it already. You said you "don't care enough", so how come you make the same edit again? To the point: As i said before, i think the source is fine. But i do get your point, so i don't onject to removing the *source* - however i do object to remove the information (Gold for Austria and Belgium), because it is most likely to be true. I also don't object to put a template to these countries ("citation needed"), if you want. Yanivshn (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose your revert, it was the correct thing to do, but vandalism? For the record, I came to the page to resolve an unsourced sales amount and, mistakenly, did not notice it is the same page I already edited. It was a silly mistake, deserving of a trout. Do you think I "deliberately intend to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose"? --Muhandes (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it was a misunderstanding. No, i don't think you ""deliberately intend to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". Yanivshn (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Simple Life (Elton John song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desert News. 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) 06:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

"4 is the number of weeks"
Hello. First of all, you were reverted for not updating the access-date upon updating the peak here. In your edit summary, you acted as if you were correcting the peak from 4 to 1. You cannot seriously be unaware that it was number 4 last week and moved to number 1 this week. 4 was not "incorrect" or put there because it was the number of weeks. Please think in future. Thanks.  Ss  112   12:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello user:Ss112 - Since when is the edit summary more important than the edit itself?! Even if i did a mistake in the summary - so what? You did exactly what i did, the same edit - 4-->1! You could update the access date without reverting - pointless revertion! And you tell ME to think? Think yourself in the future! Yanivshn (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2022 (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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)