User talk:Yankees76/Archive 2

Update
All the suspected socks of 6317 have been indef blocked by myself or other admins because they are causing an inordinate amount of disruption while the investigation is going on. They may be unblocked if the investigation shows they are legit accounts, but I really doubt that will happen. I am not blocking 6317's IP range, however, in case of "collateral damage". --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Yankees76 23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reinstalled link on Female Bodybuilding.
As much as I'm inclined to agree with a fellow Yankees fan, I must respectfully take issue with the matter of the link to Kate's blog on Women's bodybuilding. It -- the blog -- is as much relevant to the subject as the other links. But the reasoning you give is such that all of the external links should be removed. Kate's blog is not about one person but ALL female bodybuilders and thus should be part of the group. Indeed, it's read by the owners of the other sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zennie (talk • contribs).
 * Please sign your posts with four of these (~). Secondly this site falls under the criteria for links to normally avoid (Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.). See WP:EL. Thanks. Yankees76 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. As to the other matter regarding forums. GeneX Magazine is a duscussion forum, so I'm confused by this. Plus, I don't understand the matter of blogs and linking. If a blog's a source, link to it. Not logical. I'll take it up with Jimmy W. Addded by: Zennie
 * See the talk page of that article for detailed discussion of why GeneX Magazine is still there. With regards to blogs, they're generally considered POV and original research which is why they're not linked to. I would suggest following proper channels for such as RfC instead of taking this directly to Jimmy Wales. Good luck, but until a change is made the link goes. Yankees76 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Zennie has recently threatened to have my position on the Wikipedia (presumably, my adminship) removed if I continue warning the user for his insertion of inappropriate external links, as per WP:EL. I have reported this to the admin noticeboard here and would appreciate any comments you have to offer, one way or another. --Yamla 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've posted on that user's page about it, I'll add a comment as well on the noticeboard. Yankees76 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Removing text that is part of a content dispute is not vandalism. Please be clear on what Wikipedia considers vandalism and especially what is not vandalism before throwing this word around. Thank you. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know - I used a Removing content template - the wording doesn't really work, but I didn't want to to appear that I was just making up warnings. Yankees76 21:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That user?
Sorry mate I've been away. I guess if he's got a dynamic IP then I may have interacted with him/her but I haven't got a clue who he is. Assume anyone making claims of the sort to be full of the proverbial. Anything I can do now whilst I'm online? Gl e n 04:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 3RR blocked for now. Will give me time to look into it a bit more. Gl e n 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG - check this out!
Seems he's not just my friend now...  Glen  02:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Buffalo Sabres
What is the problem with adding the fact that Buffalo lost their first regulation game against the Maple Leafs? This is what happened and this is by no means vandalism. True, their first loss of the season was against the Thrashers, but it was in a penalty shoot out. Their first true loss in a REGULATION TIME, was on NOV. 4, 2006 against the Toronto Maple Leafs, a 4-1 decision. Why do you keep changing the facts? This is how it all happened and this is the way it should say in Wikipedia. Are you trying to change what really happened?

Norum 11.Nov.06
 * As was mentioned, one regular season loss is not permanently encyclopedic. The loss has no historical significance, didn't break any records, or contain any individual acheivements that broke a record or can be considered notable. Yankees76 14:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It indeed has a significance, because this was Buffalo's first actual loss. The shootout loss would have been a tie by the old rules. At that point the Sabres got one point, while when they actually lost a game, they got no points.

Norum 11.11.2006 18:15 EST
 * So have you gone around to each and every team the Leafs have defeated for their first loss and posted it on that article too? While you're at it why not update the article with Buffalo's first loss for the 87-88 season as well? Or even last season? Obviously that's a joke, but doing so would be about as assinine. Again, it's not permanently encyclopedic, and it's not of historical significance. Yankees76 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

IM et cetera
Hey Yankees76, do you by any chance have an AIM screen name or anything that can do any sort of instant messaging? Or an IRC channel where you hang out? I'd like to talk to you about the development of the soy protein article and I feel it'd be a bit more effective if there was real-time conversation. ★ MESSED ROCKER ★  05:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Add me to msn (-), other than that I don't use IRC etc. I have Yahoo messenger as well if you want that let me know. Yankees76 05:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey mate
Two things lol  Glen  23:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) MuscleTech/Hydroxycut articles, see if you have any additions
 * 2) <-- READ THIS!


 * Iovate?? Did they buy it off Gardiner?  Glen  23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Holy shit?!  Glen  23:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your revert on Ice_hockey
Hello, sorry about putting my url on the page... But I was thinking it's a good link for the Swiss Ice Hockey results. (results on Internet since season 1995-1996, and all the results are always available now). How can I do to have it added, or where can I put it ?

Thanks for attention.

Puck.ch 19:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For starters it's in French. Secondly, the link appears to not be official - how can the information be verified as being accurate? Why link to this amatuerish page and not an official entity of hockey in Switzerland at at the very least the Swiss equivalent of an ESPN for this info? To me it looks like you're adding your own website link to increase traffic. Generally it's not acceptable to link to your own website, unless it's an offcial site. Please read WP:EL. Lastly it's rather out of context - notice how there are no links to TSN or ESPN which also have North American hockey scores, standings etc.  Thanks. Yankees76 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I understand now better the reason, and I agree with the decision. Sorry for the trouble. Also thanks to have not removed the official swiss ice hockey web site (even if it is only in geman and french...). And just one remark: puck.ch is not only in french. It's also in english, german and italian. ;)

Image:Brian Campbell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Brian Campbell.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Khatru2 07:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm
Looks like a pathetic attempt at spam. Have warned them :)  Glen   20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo Sabres
How exactly is writing a player's birth state "vandalism" when most of the players already have their birth state listed ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.192.127.194 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Disruptive edits - you've been reverted by more than one editor - continuing to force the edit is vandalism. Also, note how players not from North America are listed by their country, not state, province or territory. Yankees76 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see Ice Hockey Team Pages Format for more info. Yankees76 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of any consensus to treat NA differently from the rest of the world. 86.192.127.194 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you think the format was created - conjured out of thin air? This was partly discussed in 2005 and no objections were raised., and is based on the NHL media guide. Each country is listed with an example so as to keep continuity between NHL team articles. Yankees76 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Biological Value
Hello Yankees I had problems with my laptop and could not get access to a computer for about three months so I was not able to respond to your earlier message on my talk page. There's a couple of things I want to add to the page and will do so perhaps this coming weekend or the next. I do agree with your removing of the criticism section from the Designer Whey Protein article looking back on it I added criticisms of whey protein in general like you said and not the protein product in particular. The Designer Whey Protein article appears fairly unbiased and solid now if a little short. Quadzilla99 01:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I took care of it. Nice to have you back though! Yankees76 03:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

SDCI
Hi there, I added the stuff on the SDCI entry about the addition and the Shotwell, Curie and Wright rooms. Yup Mainprize and Rogo are still there, with Mainprize being the Dept. Head for the past few years as Rogosinzki I think is scaling back to get ready for retirement. Nice to see that you added a page for Pat Stapleton. I was disapointed to see a few months ago that he had nothing on him, but it's great that you're keeping tabs on Strathroy and it's known citizens. Yup, Mainprize still drums.

Not blanking
Please don't revert valid edits with the comment "rv blanking" when information has been removed for a sensible reason, and that reason has been clearly stated in the edit summary. "rv blanking" smacks of accusations of vandalism.

Unless someone's siblings are notable in their own right, lists of siblings and their names aren't relevant which is why I removed them from Jay Cutler (bodybuilder) and will now remove them again. Hope that makes my reasoning a little clearer. Regards, CLW 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could point me to the policy or guideline where this is stated? I don't see anything in WP:LIVING or WP:BIO that lists criteria barring siblings or pets etc. due to notability (maybe I'm missing something - if so let me know). Also as a note, using an edit summary that states "irrelevant" doesn't really qualify as a valid reason for removing material - which is why I reverted. Thanks.  Yankees76 14:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, you say "I don't see anything in WP:LIVING or WP:BIO that lists criteria barring siblings or pets etc. due to notability" - that's uncannily similar to "I don't see anything in WP:LIVING or WP:BIO that lists criteria barring pets etc.", as written by User:Canada13 (and subsequently reverted back to my version by you). Are you also User:Canada13? CLW 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most definitely not. I wouldn't resort to childish tactics like that. It's mostly likely a sockpuppet of an ongoing vandal that Glen S and I have been dealing with for the last few months. The vandal follows one or the other of us around using various sockpuppets and makes a nuisance of him/herself. Yankees76 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - I'm sure you can forgive my suspicion given the identical wording used! I've given that user a temporary block in the hope that it will calm him/her down. Cheers, CLW 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries :) I figured that was the point of the vandal in the first place - to have you think it was me. This unbalanced individual spent all day last Saturday going through my contributions and vandalizing the pages I'd edited (poor fool didn't realize I was out of town and didn't even see any of his handy work until a few days later - after it had all been reverted by admins), so I'm guessing they'll be back when the hour is up. Cheers.Yankees76 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Female bodybuilding discussion
I agree with the spirit of your comments regarding the external links on the female bodybuilding page, but could you please tone down the abusive comments a bit? This is one place where Mr. Legeros has a legitimate complaint - I think you could easily make your points without comments like "I don't give a rats ass" or derogatory remarks about his web site design (which is essentially irrelevant to the issue being discussed). If you haven't already read it, please see WP:BITE. fbb_fan 02:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fuck him. He insisted on pushing the point long after I had politely explained to him why his link spamming wasn't acceptbale. And when an admin gave his two cents (which basically reiterated my own points), Legaros dismissed his opinion too. Legeros took zero initiative to even understand the situation. While I respect the ignorance of new editors as them simply not knowing any better (and I am more than willing to work with them on that level - and have done so numerous times), I do not have any respect for Mr. Legeros, who showed that not only was he not interested in Wikipedia's best interests, but he showed he wasn't even interested in holding an intelligent two-way conversation on the subject. It got the point where the entire debate/conversation was a joke. I have zero respect for the professionalism of that individual. If you want to play the fan-boy, that's your perogative, I have no interest in doing that. Yankees76 04:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 04:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you feel the need to call me a "fan-boy". In case you didn't read my comments in that discussion, I was taking your side...as I mentioned already, I agree with the spirit of your comments, just not the tone that was used. fbb_fan 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not my side you were taking, though I appreciate your input, as always, but the "side" we're on is the consensus of the community, I wouldn't take it personally if you agreed with me or not. And I didn't call you a fan boy, I told you that if you want to play the fan boy - go ahead. Some editors lose their perspective here when working on certain biographies or topics - I hope you don't end up being one. For me, Joe Weider himself could on here and want to plug a link and act the same way, and I wouldn't change a thing. Thanks though for pointing out that I might have been a bit quick to jump down his throat. I will keep that in mind for the next time. Cheers. Yankees76 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)