User talk:Yilloslime/Archive 6

Your odd reversion
You wrote "(Undid good faith revision by Desertphile. You need site reliable sources not self-published websites and youtube.)" Valid references are valid references no matter who supplies them, regardeless of where the sited material resides. If you have any valid objection to the references I supply, make them known to me and we can discuss it: do not engage in "edit wars" nor vandalism, unless you have damn good reason. --Desertphile (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS for what's considered to be a reliable source on wikipedia. In a nutshell, we can't use the sources you cited for the same reason we can't use www.fuelfromh2o.com, aquygen.blogspot.com, and www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YYUOx6fBU: they are self-published and lack editorial oversight. In general, things like blogs, personal websites, and youtube videos are not considered to be reliable. On the other hand, books, articles in newspapers, magazines, and academics, and government sources are generally considered reliable. There are, of course, exceptions and gray areas. For what it's worth, I entirely agree that HHO and "water as fuel" is total BS. Nonetheless, we need proper sources for our articles. Yilloslime T C  01:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also: Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits. Per Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. The rule of thumb is that only vandalism/test reversions or edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modifying content should be flagged as "minor". You marked your edits (to Water-fuelled car and to my talkpage here) as minor, when clearly they are not. I suspect that under "my preferences" under the "editing" tab you have checked "mark all edits as minor by default." You should be careful with that. Yilloslime T C  01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Updates to Lindane
Dear Yiloslime,

Your reversion of this page to a less accurate, more biased entry runs counter to the guiding principles of Wikipedia editing and does not serve the benefit of the reader.

First, the majority of edits made on 20 November, 2009, were to correct objectively inaccurate statements and to provide overall balance to the article—ie, a more neutral point of view. These edits were not only extensively researched but are also fully supported by the authoritative references cited. Please refer to the discussion notes, which provide the rationale for each edit.

Further, you cite the length of the article as a reason for your global change; however, the length of the article is in line with those of other chemical entries (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia as two examples) and is not a sound reason for undoing all of the editorial corrections made previously. Indeed, abbreviating the information on a scientific subject as complex as lindane skews this article towards bias and, again, does not serve the reader well.

If there are specific sections or statements that you find to be in need of additional editing, please do so in a constructive way, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, that allow for the advancement of content quality. I am happy to assist in this regard and am open to constructive dialog on this subject matter so that a consensus can be reached. Please note that I have retained your recommended shortening of the Legal Status in the "ChemBox".

Blancer707 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note; I'll reply over at Talk:Lindane. Yilloslime T C  18:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia–Kosovo relations
This article has been renominated for deletion by User:Libstar. Since you took the time to comment in the first discussion, you deserve to be notified of the situation. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Yilloslime T C  04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that articles related to climate change are particularly sensitive at the moment
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

General comment
Hello! Here you are probably correct to hat that obviously sidetracked and unconstructive discussion. As for AfDs in general, please note how many times and to how many editors you disagreed with you or the nominator replied to at Articles for deletion/Armenia–Portugal relations (2nd nomination) as with many other such discussions on the bilateral articles. That is what I mean by when I see the same accounts that typically say to delete replying to everyone who says to keep as it being hypocritical for any of those counts to the challenge me and especially if any of them replied to me first. Anywway, my current approach to AFDs is if I can get away with simply leaving my initial comment and walking away and/or just focusing on improving the article, then that is what I hope to do. If no one replies to me, then I try to make it a point not to reply to anyone else. I only start replying once people start replying to me. Consider:


 * My initial argument. I provide policy based reasons for keeping and mention no other specific editor.
 * The next edit is a direct reply to me that refers to the Article Rescue Squadron as "Arse", another word for "buttocks," and as the "enemy."
 * In my initial argument I looked for and added sources to the article. I did not reply to anyone there until after you had replied to someone who said specifically to keep per me.

The same handful of accounts keep baiting me in these discussions and sometimes I take that bait. So, it gets frustrating when their behavior is excused or ignored. Yes, I will try harder to follow WP:DENY with regards to these accounts and not allow myself to take the WP:BAIT, but others should not be baiting me either and as such I will take more seriously any criticism from accounts who are willing to warn/caution those on the delete line of these discussions that are replying to everyone who argues to keep and frequently in a hostile manner (as cited above with the "arse" and "enemy" comments. Anyway, though, I've had my fill of arguing for today, so have a nice night!  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Carson
Thanks for your input, and not merely insisting on a specific wording. It's not perfect as it stands, but it's better. To the point, many (including many conservatives) like to perpetuate the myth that free-market is the same as conservative, and vice-versa. As much as participants in the US two-party system would like to have people believe all thought is bipolar, it really isn't. More to the point, while conservatives often express support for free markets, they often are not consistent. Their global war on drugs is a perfect example, though certainly not the only one. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

More weight problems
Thanks for helping with the anti-Lambert IP editor. I've seen some weird ones, but suggesting it's OR to know who was the co-author of my own article takes the cake.

Also, if you have a moment, could you take a look at Seat belt legislation. Same kind of weight dispute as at Passive smoking and other public health articles.JQ (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I get a chance, I'll take a look. I'm just editing in little 10-15 spurts these days, mainly as a distraction/procrastination from real life, so I may not have it in me to wade into a dispute in an unfamiliar area... Yilloslime T C  20:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

MMfA not RS on AFA
Hi. MMfA is not a RS on AFA. I left all the text in because I am not attempting to remove what may be legitimate criticism. MMfA is not a reliable source for legitimate criticism, so I removed it and added a fact tag. Citations it cites, if any, may be reliable sources, but MMfA itself is not a reliable source except as to things related to MMfA. Among other things, it's kind of like a glorified blog of people well paid to promote one-sided views of political issues. I ask you to reconsider your edit restoring MMfA. It is not appropriate on Wikipedia.

Oops, my mistake! I see two different MMfA issues here. One is the above where I added a Fact tag and removed the MMfA cite, and the other is my removal of an entire section that treated MMfA as such a reliable source that it actually made it into the text of article as if it were wikiworthy in a non-MMfA wiki page.

In both cases, the removal of the link and the removal of the entire section, my edits to remove MMfA made the wiki page more encyclopedic. I urge you to reconsider your edits regarding MMfA. MMfA has been removed from other pages for not being a reliable source on matters other than MMfA itself, and it should be removed here. I will take this matter to the appropriate authority if I have too. Really, I am being totally wikifriendly with you and just believe that MMfA is not a RS just like it is not a RS on many other pages. So I am asking you to reconsider your edits, in part to save us any trouble from defending our positions in another forum. Further, if you feel the section removal that was mainly about MMfA should still remain in the article with reliable sources instead of MMfA and with removal of any mention of MMfA, I will support that 100%.

Thank you for your consideration. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You assert several times that it's not an RS, but you haven't said why you think that. It looks fine to me, or should I say: the way it's being used on the AFA page looks fine to me. As the content is not new, and it is sourced, so the burden is on you explain why it should be removed. MMfA is absolutely a reliable source for their opinion, which is how they're being used in Anti-semitism section. (And note that there are other, non-MMfA sources in that section as well.) So removing the whole section on the basis of WP:RS doesn't seem justified to me. I also reverted this edit. Here, the MMfA is not being used solely for their opinion of AFA, but rather as source for the quote. The MMfA link you removed has an audio clip of the quote in question, so I don't see how you can question reliability here either.Yilloslime T C  06:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot to respond to you, sorry. So I understand what you did on the page.  Just know that at some point, when I get the time, make that if, I am going to do something on some RS notice board to address this issue.


 * MMfA is so prominent in the paragraph that it has become part of the story, in Wikipedia, mind you, not in reality. My argument is with using MMfA as a source, not in the material being sourced.  To the extent the material being sourced is sourced only to MMfA, then it must be removed.  If that story cannot be found in MSM, then the story is not wikiworthy, and if it can be found, then those sources may be reliable and the unreliable MMfA should be removed.  So I'll take this up officially somewhere because as it stands now its MMfA using Wikipedia as a soapbox to broadcast smears.


 * On a separate note, I read the comments we made to each other about a month ago and I simply do not recall them!!! Well, at least I know I am consistent! ;) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If/when you take this up at WP:RSN or somewhere else, please let met know. Thanks. Yilloslime T C  23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Waiting
for you to actually take part in this discussion? mark nutley (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Swimming pool sanitation
Hi Yilloslime, I noticed you had made a small factual correction to the Swimming pool sanitation article recently. If you've looked at the History page, you may have seen that I've done some work on the article. I'm still working on it -- I believe it needs a substantive overhaul, and have been working toward doing so. However, I've also been careful to seek consensus on big changes, because I have a potential conflict of interest in that a client (American Chemistry Council) of my employer could reasonably described as interested. (See my original Talk page disclosure here.) They've helped with research, but all editorial judgments are mine. That all said, I've just completed a revised version of one out-of-control section in my user space.


 * Here is the live section now: Prevention of diseases in swimming pools and spas
 * Here is my proposed revision: Prevention of diseases in swimming pools and spas

I've also placed a request for comment on the Swimming pool sanitation Talk page, explaining that it's way TLDR and contains almost no citations. I'm also going to post a notice on the page of another editor, Jayron32, who has been helpful before. Basically, I want to make sure there is consensus before I seek to make the change, and work to attain consensus in case it needs further revision first. Any thoughts? Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill. I don't have the time or, frankly, the interest to look into this too deeply, but I totally agree that the current page way WP:TLDR. If were you I'd just go ahead and make your changes--they don't appear to be controversial, at least at first glance. You've declared your potential COI, and that's good. If this was a highly watched and edited page, then you could suggest edits on the talkpage and let others do the actual article editing, in order to avoid COI-issues. But since there's not too much activity on the page, this is probably just a formula for stagnation. So if I were you in this situation, I'd go ahead and edit freely. If you do get push back, you can hash it out on the talkpage, etc, etc... Yilloslime T C  17:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Sounds good to me; I've been working on replacement sections for the rest of the article, and while they're not quite ready just yet, I will post notices on the Talk page as I go forward with those, as well. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen
Can you explain why you deleted my edits to oxyhydrogen? I don't understand what's unreliable about my sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbopper (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Superbopper. First of all, I didn't revert all of your edits, only these two. While I agree with the gist of them, and suspect that your chemistry is correct, I had to revert it nonetheless because wikipedia policy precludes "original research" and requires that statements of fact be back up by citations to "reliable sources." The relevant policies are No original research and Identifying reliable sources. If you think the article should say something to the effect that "Oxyhydrogen flames only appear to melt tungsten. They are actually oxidizing it and then subliming the tungsten oxide," then you need to find a reliable source that says this and cite it. You did cite this source, which does say that, but the source doesn't appear to be reliable. Some of your other are sources are reliable (per the criteria cited above), but you are using them to advance an argument not made by any of them, a form of original research called WP:SYNTHESIS, which is also not allowed on wikipedia. But don't be discouraged--we need more editors like you who are willing to sort the through the bullshit on pages like oxyhydrogen and water-fuelled car. Just familiarize yourself with the policies mentioned above, and go to work! Yilloslime T C  16:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

MMfA
As you object to material about Hillary Clinton on the basis of emphasis, please consider proposing at MMfA Talk your own wording to address problems you see in emphasis. I don't assert that the material has to go in its own section or right after the lede. Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've believe I've been pretty on the talkpage: I am not category opposed to mentioning this information in the article, but the proposed wording is unacceptable as it affords far too much WP:WEIGHT to this factoid. If I have any concrete ideas on how to best represent this information in the article I will be sure share them, but remember, the burden of figuring out sourcing and wording is on the editors seeking to change the long standing consensus. If you want this info in there, figure out wording that'll make everyone happy. You can't expect me to do your work for you. Yilloslime T C  23:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking for you to do my work for me in coming up with the (final) wording. I was asking that you put your own proposal in the hopper to be considered. Badmintonhist also asked you to suggest wording as well.  Some of the other editors seem determined to keep this information out of the article completely regardless of the wording or sourcing.--Drrll (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Where?
Where? I assume you know that BBC is WP:RS? Nsaa (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look the talkpage, particularly #Blanking of cited content and #Lets take this one at a time, you'll see the issue is not so much one of sourcing, but rather one of relevance/WP:WEIGHT. While no disputes that the BBC mentioned the blog directly, it is disputed whether this passing mention deserves to be noted in the article. The BBC article isn't about the blog, and tells us nothing about the blog, other than that it is a skeptic blog--(which is already documented in our article)--and that commenters on it ridiculed the MP's report on Climategate. The mention comes in the very last paragraph of the article, and it's obvious that it's cited only as an illustrative example, and not because it's actually involved in the story. As extensively discussed on the talkpage, the other newspaper/blog mentions that are similarly trivial and irrelevant. Wikipedia is not Verifiapedia--we don't include every source-able factoid we can find in our articles, rather we include only the relevant ones. Yilloslime T C  22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * N.B. Guettarda's analysis at the top of this thread addresses the BBC citation and others directly. Yilloslime T C  23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Blog article
Thanks for reverting yourself, YS, much appreciated. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 08:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

inre this diff
The reason for my comment was that as currently being rewritten, PORNBIO no longer specifically or remotely addresses Playboy models, as all its current subsets are set to deal only with individuals actually involved in the making of porographic films... IE: the winning of AVN Awards or other such "notable awards" (subjective term), the winning of "well-known" (again, a subjective term) awards in multiple years, making unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, or being a member in a porn hall of fame such as AVN Hall of Fame or XRCO... again, criteria best applicable only to those actually involved in the making of porn films. The only part left that could even remotely apply to a pictorial model is being multiple times in notable mainstream media... though still intended to adddress circumstances where a porn actor might leave the porn genre and get into a mainstream film production... and my thought that with her not being a porn actress, and with her being in repeated publications from the Playboy empire, she might get in as "multiple times in notable mainstream media". Since the guideline has been rewritten to be inapplibale to cases such as hers, this creates an interesting conundrum. Hence my discussions at the AFD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)
Hi, Yilloslime. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America mediation
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Media Matters for America was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation should request to the talk page. Thank you, AGK   13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Media Matters for America, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Soliciting your input
Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Charles Cooper Nott, Jr. (2nd nomination)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

I would thank you not to assume motive on the behalf of other editors, myself included, nor their inability to comprehend sources.

There is no strong evidence that Knox was the target rather than simply Nott. Nor is this especially relevant here: if the bombers attacked Nott as he was the better known and more obvious of the two, then if anything that supports his notability in favour of Knox. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If we must: Your !vote in that AfD was clearly a driveby, as shown by your edit history:

22:54, June 4, 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hamilton (reverend) (2nd nomination) ‎ (Keep) 22:51, June 4, 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Cooper Nott, Jr. (2nd nomination) ‎ (Keep) 22:49, June 4, 2010 (diff | hist) Alexander Hamilton (general) ‎ (tag uncat) 22:48, June 4, 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Benedict Cushing (2nd nomination) ‎ (Keep) 22:42, June 4, 2010 (diff | hist) Steam whistle ‎ (→Uses of steam whistles: ref) (top) [rollback] 22:31, June 4, 2010 (diff | hist) m Brinelling ‎ (para) (top) [rollback]


 * and the fact that you thought that Nott had "attract[ed] targetted bombers", when the article, the sources it cites, and the AfD comments preceding yours, make it clear that he was probably not the intended target. Maybe you misspoke, and you didn't mean to say he was targeted, just that he was bombed, and that regardless of whether he was the intended target or not, the bombing makes him notable. But that's not what you wrote. It seems plain as day that you didn't consider your AfD vote very carefully, and I hope in the future you'll be more careful. We should be striving to find consensus, not to turn AfDs and WP in general into a battlefield. But if we're going to find common ground, we need to consider the facts before opening our mouths at AfDs and the like.


 * Also, nowhere have I "assume[d] motive on the behalf" of you or anyone else. I don't pretend to know why you !voted "keep" in this AfD without having thoroughly read the article or the preceding comments, and without having examined the sources closely, if at all. I just I have a strong suspicion that this is what happened, and I'll note that so far you haven't even denied this. I also don't see how this is an attack. But why don't we drop it? Yilloslime T C  16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The only things stopping me from raising this at RFC/U are firstly lack of time, secondly lack of faith in WP processes. If you'd kindly stop assuming bad faith on my comments to an AfD, I'll refrain from pitying your poor reading speed.
 * As to Nott, then "targetted" can have different meanings for motive or for action. They planted a bomb on his doorstep. There's little claim that they just dropped it in passing. They were mistakenly targetting him perhaps, but his address can reasonably be said to have been targetted by them, even if he personally wasn't.
 * As to my choice of reading, then yes - these were articles linked from the current inexcusable hounding of RAN (and if you happen to be taking part of that, you should hang your head in shame). The ones on which I commented were those in which there was some clear and obvious cause to assume notability: if you read my comments, you'd see that this was largely on the basis of the NYT (which I still consider as a good guide). There were several other AfDs too which I happened to read (here's a hint, it's quicker without the finger) but as in those cases I couldn't see clear evidence to support them, I stayed quiet. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't think I've done anything wrong--I haven't made any personal attacks (as implied by your choice of template), I haven't speculated about your motives, I haven't resorted to name calling, etc. I've only pointed out that you've mostly likely engaged in some driveby !voting, something that I did with the hope that it would be appreciated by others participating in the AfD, especially the closing admin, and would make you consider your future !votes more carefully. You and I aren't likely to see eye to eye on this, so please stop bringing it up here. If you feel the need to pursue this more, feel free to bring it to the drama-board of your choice, but realize that your actions will also be examined. Yilloslime T C  17:07, 6 June 2010 (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)

Additional comments needed

 * Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.


 * Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.


 * Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man. --

Possibly unfree File:Alancaruba.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alancaruba.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

MeI
Hi, I am trying to lead some conversation about the methyl iodide news story. You have a lot of experience, and I agree with the clear sentiment - this is probably a dumb ruling - but I am viewing this addition as a semi-strict wiki-editor. Talk:Methyl iodide. I log off soon but will check back tonight. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied over there. Thanks for the note. Yilloslime T C  20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)