User talk:Yaron K.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Budgiekiller 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

discourse db links
hello yaron. you look like a great editor, but on the subject of Discourse DB links - please stop adding them. if you read WP:EL, you will see number 12 says: 'Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.' i've checked the recent changes of the wiki, and it takes around a month to rack up 500 edits for the entire project; this does not demonstrate stability and substantial numbers of editors. perhaps when their user base is stronger adding their link to certain EL sections would be appropriate, but for now it just isn't. if you have any other questions about this, please ask Wikipedia talk:External links about it. they are a great resource and very helpful when it comes to concerns. cheers. JoeSmack Talk 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Discourse DB is a wiki, it's true, but it differs from conventional wikis in that the information presented on there is not original content; it's a database of article titles, authors, quotes, topics etc., that happens to be user-editable. So I think common sense dictates that the standards for editing volume can be looser for such a site than for conventional wikis; it's much easier to police, and thus much harder for it to become unstable. Compare that to SourceWatch, which is evidently a wiki considered so useful that it has a Wikipedia template for links to it; but which contains articles like "War on terrorism", in which one paragraph begins, "Consistent with the duplicitous nature of the Junior Bush Regime..."


 * I'm not at all suggesting that two wrongs make a right, and certainly not that SourceWatch should be removed as a source. I'm bringing it up just to show that, in my opinion, even a popular wiki like SourceWatch will have more problems with unauthoritative information than a data-centered wiki like Discourse DB. So I'm asking you to please reconsider the guidelines; I think they should apply less to this site, because in some important ways it's not like a regular wiki at all.


 * One more thing: tied in with that difference is the lower editing volume - because there's much less creativity in creating the content, there's much less need for multiple edits to the same page in order to achieve consensus. Essentially, usually once a page is done, it's done. But I'd like to hear your thoughts. Yaron K. 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the concern of the guideline this: nothing is stopping me from making a seeming innocuous link on a Wikipedia article to Discourse DB, then a week later going to Discourse DB and changing the entry to something horribly offensive or into an advertisement, etc. This is where 'stability' comes in. Because Discourse DB has a small user base, such changes can go either unnoticed for long periods of time or even unchanged all together. For this reason open wikis like this are unreliable as ELs, and thus the EL guidelines exist. Hope this helps. JoeSmack Talk 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, though I think stability is affected by two parameters: not just the number of contributors, but also the type of information. In the case of data-centered wikis like Discourse DB, I think it's much harder to add offensive information or spam in a way that goes unnoticed. I don't believe any such information has been allowed to languish on Discourse DB more than a day or two previously, for instance. Again, contrast that with the SourceWatch article, where that "duplicitious nature" statement has been allowed to stay for something like three and a half years. Again, I don't mean this as an attack on SourceWatch, just an indication that it takes less people, and much less work, to keep a data-centered wiki stable than a text-centered one. Yaron K. 19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not to thrilled with SourceWatch for the most part myself. Even still, if a link does or does not meet EL guidelines, that is grounds for inclusion or exclusion. The current guidelines approach wikis from the quantitative standpoint of user numbers to assess stability. If you'd like to ask the wider community about Discourse DB, ask at WT:EL - you'll get a few different voices on the matter and perhaps that'll help you out. JoeSmack Talk 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I will. Yaron K. 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Was a bot used to delete all links to http://discoursedb.org ? If so, it may be a violation of some wikipedia guideline. Because I don't believe one can make blanket blocks of all links to websites such as http://discoursedb.org

External links is a guideline not a policy. So deletions of external links should be left to the discretion of the talk pages for the articles. It looks to me like http://discoursedb.org pages are basically directories. We allow external links to directory pages such as those at Open Directory Project. Of course each directory page has to be judged on its own merits. --Timeshifter 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Techwiki
Hi, you prodded the subject article; however, it is ineligible for prod due to being discussed at AfD in 2006. I have opened an AfD and copied your original deletion rationale at Articles for deletion/Techwiki (2nd nomination). &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

== Collaborative software‎; Removed massive content added by Ahmed Fouad(the lord of programming) on February 12 - a lot of it is useless, and its sheer volume makes it hard to separate the good stuff from the bad) ==

Hi Yaron, How are you i want to know why you find my content bad or something like this, i want really to know your opinion ?? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed Fouad(the lord of programming) (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, a lot of it was bad, as I noted in my comment - not all of it, but a lot. It's also clear from your writing style that English isn't your first language; which should make you doubly cautious about adding massive amounts of text to an article all at once. Yaron K. (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Origin of Love (album)
Hi Yaron, Albums are only notable once surfactant information is known such as the title, release date, track listing etc.. However because not all of this information is not present and only the album title can be confirmed by one reference, this article is not notable, and should be deleted unless more information and references are added. Thanks Freshpop (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One line fix
There was no consensus to delete the content, so if you want to boldly merge and redirect please be sure to actually merge the relevant content into an appropriate section of Patch (computing). Steven Walling &bull; talk   19:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Ourproject.org
Hello Yaron. You added the "notability" tag to the article Ourproject.org. I have improved the article, added additional references, and update several parts. I'd like you to inform me if that's enough to support its notability and remove the tag, or I should work more on it. Thanks a lot. --Samer.hc (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'd say it looks good - though of course, more references are better, for just about any article. Yaron K. (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes sure, I will keep improving the article, but in a slow pace. I removed the notability tag. Thanks for everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer.hc (talk • contribs) 11:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA
Hi Yaron, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there,  Sloggerbum  ( talk ) 00:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I added my comment. Yaron K. (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Sloggerbum  ( talk ) 13:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Hackathon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social gaming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Aneuch...
....a page your proposed for deletion, and which was duly deleted. The PROD was contested at WP:REFUND, and, according to policy, had to be restored. Lectonar (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wizards of OS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wizard of Oz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted a wee bit early
Hey, I deleted the article a bit early for This Space. From what I can see, the original editor was the only main contributor to the page and they tried to blank it a few times in the past, so I just speedied it as a user request. I left the original rationale up in the deletion summary as well just in case anyone tries to ask for it to be restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List of 3D animation software
Hello, Yaron K.

"Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason" is vandalism. That is what you have been doing in list of 3D animation software.

Even if meant well, it should by now be clear that your change is contested. You need to achieve consensus for it first. I recommend WP:DR for fastest results.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove any actual text content, I just changed the formatting. Also, don't the "consensus" rules apply to you too? Yaron K. (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. Are you seeing a consensus I am violating?
 * —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No. As far as I can tell, there's been no consensus established for any structure for that article; thus I don't see why there would be any greater responsibility on me than on you, or anyone else. Yaron K. (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears you are well aware that another editor (that's me) has contested your edit, yet you disregard Editing policy and continue to try to redo the destruction. That means you are now engaged in edit warring. If you continue, you may lose your editing privileges. I advise you to proceed with WP:DR instead.

I see that you have several times said "there was no content removed". This is not true. Either you do not know that you are deleting content (in which case you must assess what are doing) or you know (in which case you are a liar). The primary requirement for any dispute to be resolved amicably is to acknowledge the nature of the dispute.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What content did I delete? I seriously don't think I deleted any, in terms of actual information; I just changed the format (to be more readable). Also, please try to stay civil. Yaron K. (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you not aware that you are deleting licensing terms?


 * Also, speaking in general, what makes you think changing formatting alone, on a change for the sake of change, is acceptable in Wikipedia? MOS:STABILITY says don't do it.


 * In the past, the article layout was changed from bulleted list to tabulated list to accommodate licensing terms. I didn't like it, but there was nothing I could do: There was no policy barring the new contents, and since I do not own the article, I was not allowed to delete them. But you are doing just that?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't believe a single licensing term was deleted - can you point to one? The formatting change wasn't done for the sake of change; I specified the reason (readability, and room for more info) in my initial edit. (Did you miss that? This is the 2nd or 3rd time you've claimed I never gave a reason.) This would hardly be the only article that puts licensing data in section names rather than a table column, by the way - see List of word processors, for example. Yaron K. (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't believe a single licensing term was deleted - can you point to one? Yes, I can. Art of Illusion. Do I need to point to two? Also, in some cases, you mislabeled them. For example, Photoshop has become a trialware while it is in fact a software as a service trialware. When you refactor stuff, details are often lost.


 * readability, and room for more info. These are weasel words. You are giving an illusion of saying something meaningful while you are saying nothing. Both your version and the other version have ample horizontal and vertical room. If anything a table is more expandable. And "readability"? Do you even know what this word means? "Readability is the ease with which a reader can understand a written text." Not matter where you put the word "Photoshop", in a table or a bulleted list, the readability is unchanged.


 * The fact is: You tore down a table. What was it preventing you from doing that you accomplished afterwards?
 * —Codename Lisa (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, please be civil. This could have been just a straightforward discussion about formatting, but instead so far you've accused me of vandalism, ignorance and lying, among other things. I don't know why.
 * Yes, the Art of Illusion license was accidentally removed. If this were really a massive removal of content, you could presumably point to many more examples, but I doubt that's possible. As to Photoshop - is it your contention that it's no longer available as a standalone application?
 * I know what readability is. The licensing type of a software product (open source, etc.) is a huge component of a product, and I think that most readers would want to see the overall list subdivided by licensing type, instead of having to scan through the table to see, for instance, how many freeware applications there are. Certainly many other software list articles are divided in this way; in many cases, there are even separate articles for open source vs. proprietary, etc. Yaron K. (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears we have pinned the problem: The article has lost its resolution about licensing term; you strongly believe this is not an issue while I strongly believe it is. We can call a WP:3O on this, then proceed with other forms of resolution. Anyway, let's tie up other loose ends before taking it to the article talk page.


 * The table is sortable. With one click the reader can group stuff by license, with another, the by name. In fact, if more resolution is required, we can use sort keys to alter the sorting process. Color codes helps finding stuff by license quicker.


 * As to Photoshop - is it [...] no longer available as a standalone application? What? When did I say that? To be available as a standalone app means to be available outside a larger offering; i.e. a software suite like Adobe Creative Suite. (I know this is the second time I am correcting you but how can I understand you if you use the wrong words?) Software as a service entails periodical payment as opposed to the commercial one-time payment scheme. A traditional trialware stops working at the end of the trial period. A trialware as a service continues to work but the user's credit card might be automatically billed.


 * Again, please be civil. "Again"? Also, I did none of those things in my last message. Of course, if it helps, I grant you've demonstrated the ability to stop doing what is disputed and discuss. This is a quality worthy of appreciation. (No sarcasm intended.) Also, I did correct you twice, which is very uncivil in a classroom, but is the essence of editors' relationship in Wikipedia.


 * Yes, "Again", because I had said it previously. No, you didn't accuse me of lying, but you accused me of deliberately using weasel words, which is similar (and uncivil). No, correcting someone is not (by itself) uncivil. Anyway, it's strange that you're arguing strongly for a table format, because you said before that you actually preferred the article as a bulleted list. Which is it? Yaron K. (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears we have pinned the problem: The article has lost its resolution about licensing term; —Codename Lisa (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. What do you mean by "resolution"? Yaron K. (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Granularity.
 * Granularity.


 * I don't believe granularity is an issue? I don't know what that means - the layout I switched it to is more granular. Yaron K. (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "you strongly believe this is not an issue while I strongly believe it is."
 * Call me when you at least acknowledged what is happening. Only then we can work towards a resolution.
 * —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know what it means to "call" you, and I don't understand this request - surely I understand my own opinions better than you do? Yaron K. (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please let me know when you two love birds reached a consensus. I need to add a few things to article. Fleet Command (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not funny. Anyway, feel free to make any changes you want - none of us can claim ownership to the article. Yaron K. (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Do I look like I am laughing? Not being able to add two entries in the article is not funny especially when it is because of some edit warrior who disrupts everyone's over a color of the bike shed matter, refuses to get the point too and gives me attitude too! It is definitely not funny. It is lamentable.


 * I am mad at you too, Codename Lisa. Although, technically, you didn't do any of these. Fleet Command (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that astute analysis. As I said, feel free to make your changes; no one is stopping you. Yaron K. (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipixel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipixel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Wikipixel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 08:53, 14 April 2016 (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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of IXL (interactive agency) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IXL (interactive agency) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/IXL (interactive agency) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. William Graham talk 01:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)