User talk:Yoenit/Archive 1

Adoption
I'd be more than willing to adopt you. A few things I do want to know so I can get a sense of where we're both at:
 * What is your area of interest? I know you've mentioned Military History and OMT, but both of those are fairly broad areas of interest.
 * I have a wide interest in military history, ranging from ancient warfare tactics and formations to the seven years war, to 20th century military hardware. For the moment I plan on restricting myself to the United States pre-dreadnoughts though.


 * Do you have any experience in wikimarkup?
 * not prior, although It's basics remind me of TeX with which I am familiar. Mostly learning as I go along and using other articles as templates. It's more complex features are still a mystery to me however.


 * What aspects of policy are the most confusing to you?
 * Mostly the manual of style WP:MILMOS, which makes me afraid somebody is gonna come in and slap me around cause I used a capital instead of a normal letter. Also I understand how the article rank and promotion thingy works, but the exact requirements for an article GA level or higher still elude me. Citations was also very confusing, but since I found the template page that is a lot easier.

As a first question, could you point me towards the exact requirements for an A level article?


 * By all means. My recommendation would be to take any potential article through the GA process first, which I can offer a bit more help with if you wish. If you're looking for a specific list of the A-Class criteria, the actual criteria are located here, while the best explanation is located here. Hope that helps. Cam (Chat) 20:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. My apologies for the lack of notices of adopter status. It's mostly a page clutter thing. If you have questions, feel free to drop by my talk page. Cam (Chat) 05:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Milhist project
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Criteria

 * 1: Well Written
 * Basically, this criteria revolves around two main aspects. The first has to do with the prose. It doesn't have to be of a professional quality (unlike FA, for which the standards of writing are much higher), but it has to flow nicely and have a sense of elegance to it.
 * The second criteria deals primarily with the Manual of Style stuff. Again, the technical aspects with regards to FA nomination and MoS are much more complex. At the GA level, it essentially has to conform to guidelines with regards to layout (properly formatted lead, sub-sections), use of specific words, the age-old question of trivia and uses in fiction, as well as incorporating lists. It also means using consistency with regards to date format (10 April 2010 VS April 10 2010 VS 10 April, 2010 VS April 10, 2010) as well as spelling variants (British english vs American english).
 * 2: Factual Accuracy
 * In a nutshell, stuff that needs to be cited is cited. Statistics, claims, events, and anything relating to numbers and events should be referenced. They need to be referenced by decent sources, and it needs to be free of unpublished research.
 * 3: Broad in its coverage
 * The article has to address the topic without being absurd about it. In the case of a battle, you would summarize the main points of what happened and do so as much as necessary, without giving a survivor-account platoon-by-platoon account of the entire battle.
 * 4: Neutral
 * Especially in the case of military history articles, this means ensuring that one side isn't overly favoured. Most of this revolves around word choice. Por ejemplo, if you write "the courageous allied soldiers attacked the barbaric Nazi hordes", that conveys a non-neutral message that is not needed or permitted on wikipedia. See WP:Words to Avoid for more details.
 * 5: Stable
 * Contentious articles are prone to edit-warring, meaning that several opposing parties constantly revert one another's changes. The best current example of this is anything to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict, current events in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you take a look at [|this], this would not be something you'd want to see on a GA article. It has to be stable enough that the content won't drastically change on a frequent basis.
 * 6: Illustrated
 * Pictures are nice. GA Articles should have them if possible. If they have them, said pictures need to be tagged with the proper licensing (Public Domain, Creative Attribution, etc) and cannot be copyright violations.

Hope this helps. Cam (Chat) 20:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Technical Question
Ah. What you watchlist is this page right here. As for the infobox question, it depends. Since you're dealing with stuff related to ships, I'll use that as my example. Basically, anything in the infobox that isn't referenced elsewhere (usually displacements, speed, range, crew #, armour thicknesses, aircraft count (if applicable), gun calibers. Look at the pages for Iowa class battleship, Yamato class battleship, or Kongo class battlecruiser as a reference point. I know for a fact that the latter two are correct as far as standards for referencing in infobox go, given that one is FA and the other is GA. Cam (Chat) 22:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to do it without breaking the paragraph. Even if you could, MoS tends to discourage doing so. If you've got an image that can be put in the middle of a paragraph without breaking the paragraph, then said paragraph is likely too long. Cam (Chat) 21:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that the paragraph is too long, but the picture, so it is disrupting the header of the following section. So I have to either move the picture up an entire paragraph or split the previous paragraph to get it where I want to be. On a sidenote, I am about to submit Indiana class battleship for peer review and if you could check it in a bit to make sure I didn't completely screw up the submitting part that would be great.Yoenit (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

USS Maine (ACR-1)
I've noticed that you've done some fairly extensive work on this article. I wonder if you'd be interested in collaborating on it to get it to GA-class? I should be able to devote some time to it in a few days, but see what you can do to clean it up in the meantime and I'll nominate it sometime next month after we've whipped it into shape.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dropped the article because the conspiracy part was confusing to me and I didn't have any proper sources for it. I wouldn't mind having another look at the rest of the article though, so count me in. I won't have much time right now, but I should be able to do some work on it later this week. Yoenit (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hohenlohe Regiment
Thank you for your frank and constructive criticism. I will address the issue of the unsourced statements directly. Though I would like to raise one point about your suggestion concerning including more information about the the Regiment's activities in Spain during the French intervention in Spain. I have been looking for days for reliable information about that campaign that is more detailed, but at the moment it is not forthcoming. However my suspicion is that it is burried somewhere is in some obscure primary source material that will take some considerable effort to get a hold of. I just wanted you to know that, in case you do review the article again at some point. Regardless, thank you sincerely for you forthright and constructive feedback. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yoenit, would you be willing to take a second look at the Hohenlohe Regiment page to see if it passes B-class muster?LeonidasSpartan (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Article passes referencing criteria now and I can't seem to find any information about the events of the French Intervention either, so article is now B class. Congratulations! Yoenit (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, brother. That is by first B class article so I got to say that is a pretty good feeling on my part. I appreciate your efforts. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit questions
Copy edits are being completed by myself, as you are probably aware. This is an interesting article, in excellent shape. I have a question: In the section about armour, you mention something called the "Walker Board." This board is unexplained in the article and I could find no info on it. Do you want to elaborate about what this board was, or edit it out, or leave it stand?

I have completed the first round of copy edits and will start formatting the references. A fresh look at the copy editing will take place after that to see if anything got missed. Diannaa TALK 16:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Walker board was a policy board convened to evaluate the current battleships and propose a design for a new class in 1896 orso. They probably deserve their own article or at least a section in the Illinois class battleship article (which was designed by them). For now more elaboration seems like the way to go, so I will have a look at it later. Many, many thanks for your copy-editing work. I greatly appreciate it. Yoenit (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. It is a pleasure to work on such a good article.  I will have to stop soon to go outdoors for a while and will be done my input by the end of the weekend for sure.  Diannaa  TALK 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

USS Indiana (BB-1)
Hi, I am reviewing you GA nomination and have made a few comments at Talk:USS Indiana (BB-1)/GA1. I enjoyed the article very much. Regards, Xtzou ( Talk ) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its passed. Congratulations! Nice work. Best wishes, Xtzou ( Talk ) 18:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your quick review. I hope to take the article to FA eventually and will give you a notice if it ever gets that far. Yoenit (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up about the TFA of Mary Rose. It's very nice to see that it could be featured so soon, but since I believe it's more beneficial to the article and the project, I've made a request to postpone it to the original request date at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article.

Peter Isotalo 14:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:navweapons
Didn't realize the issue was back up for discussion. If they rule against it then bya ll means do remove the site from the resources section. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Frank Juhas
I have not created the entry "Frank Juhas" on Wiki. I did play in several movies shot in Southeast Asia but I was very surprised to find my own name on Wiki. So what I did, I just tried to correct the information somebody has created about me. As far as I'm concerned, it is better if the whole thing is removed. However, I couldn't do it. Yours, Frank Juhas Frugivore (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

congrats

 * Well done! You're a natural at this! Cam (Chat) 05:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know
User:WillBildUnion has been notified of WP:CITE and WP:RS before. If you want, I believe there's a diff where he's also notified of WP:OR. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Asian games
I and other admins have been declining your speedies on these. I do not see the harm in getting these ready ahead of time; take them to AfD if desired.  DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess I must have missed that part of the policy. Please accept my apologies for wrongly nominating these pages, I have no further problems with them, besides missing content for now. Yoenit (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * right--no problems.  DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/USS Indiana (BB-1)/archive1
It's not a big deal, and I'm probably being overly careful, but I edited "nitpicks" out of your reply (silently) because I thought it might come across as disrespectful. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The commenter himself stated he had "a couple of nitpicks", so that is why I used the term. Your concern is appreciated however and a good reminder I need to be friendlier to reviewers in general. Yoenit (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't have edited your comment. Best of luck, I think the A-class review was thorough.  I just re-read the article this morning and I think it will do well at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

2001 anthrax attacks
Hi,

I have seen that you have removed the quotefarm tag from section 3 of the article. The introduction to that section seems o.k., the problem is with the subsections. I have tagged the section rather than each subsection separately. What do you think of the quantity and length of the quotes used in these subsections. In my view, it is excessive. Cs32en  Talk to me  18:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought the template purely referred to the introduction, my bad. Still I would ask you not to reapply the template for now, as all it would achieve would be pissing off user Ed Lake. I am trying to get some improvements in the article and will try to adress the issue anyway, but templates don't see to be productive in this case. Yoenit (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen your comments on the talk page of the article and assumed that this would probably a misunderstanding (which it turned out to be). You are doing good work on the article, and under these circumstances, I will not reinsert the template (which, after all, is supposed to catch the attention of readers and editors). Cs32en   Talk to me  21:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: BBC Blast Changes - July 2010
Dear Yoenit, I am from BBC Blast and am an official BBC employee. Therefore I have the right to change it. If you edit it again then I will be contacting my boss in order to keep the page like that.

Thanks

789123man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 789123man (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The BBC does not own wikipedia. This is a conflict of Interest issue, please read the relevant policy on soapboxing as well Yoenit (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Just noticed that Indiana (BB-1) was promoted too&mdash;congrats! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the notification. I completely missed that as it was a bot edit. Barnstar is greatly appreciated ofcourse, but I should get a move on with Massachusetts and Oregon now or I will never get them done. Damn sideprojects are eating away my wikitime. Yoenit (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Registrant removed StarNow profile. He know longer has this account open.

I'm the copyright owner of Robert M. Rucker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingsetq (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage.  Arjun  codename024 21:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Registrant removed StarNow profile. He know longer has this account open.

I'm the copyright owner of Robert M. Rucker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingsetq (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Registrant removed StarNow profile. He know longer has this account open.

I'm the copyright owner of Robert M. Rucker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingsetq (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

off wiki issues
HI, have you read the thread regarding your of wiki impersonation of Curry ? Is there any update, have you attempted to contact her and explain? Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I have read the thread, but I have not yet contacted Judith Curry. You yourself suggested it might just make matters worse and I am inclined to agree with that. Therefore I have not decided to take any action for now. Please also note that I do not have her emailadres, so contact would be via user:Marknutley or Keith Kloor (administrator of the blog in question) Yoenit (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your impersonation of the living subject of one of our articles like that was a mistake and there was some support for a block, I hope you realize why you were wrong to do it and that if you are to continue as a wikipedia editor such off wiki foolishness should cease. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear violation of WP:POINT, possible bad publicity for the entire project and, most importantly, harassment of Judith Curry are the three main reasons why it was wrong of me to post that comment. If I get a chance to keep editing on wikipedia I don't plan on combining on and off wiki actions ever again. In fact I plan to stay clear of noticeboards and policy pages altogether and focus purely on article construction and Huggle. I most certainly don't plan on ever impersonating somebody again. Your statement that there was some support for a block seems a massive understatement, as Jimbo Wales said he was considering banning me. I wouldn't be surprised if he does so when he gets back from wikimania in a few days. Yoenit (talk)

Well, Jimbo has dropped his ban hammer and time is passing and you at least appear to understand the error of your ways and wouldn't go there again, your honest comments are appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Huftingpost
We dont use the newspaper ! The important one in there the writing of authors read Bruce Fein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.42.14 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again I want to read scientific answers not blocking "threats".Please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.42.14 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Would you like me to assist with the message you posted there? If you aren't sure of your way around you might not be too comfortable moving it to WP:AN3. In the mean time, I protected the page about the Causican peoples, and gave a 3RR warning to the IP. I'm not sure if BRUTE isn't reverting obvious vandalism, so I haven't templated him but I'll remind him to take care of 3RR. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Spotted a personal attack there so blocked the IP for 24 hours. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you have blocked the IP, well that at least resolves the conflict for now. Thanks for the help, I was actually not aware of WP:AN3. Even though that specific edit summary is a personal attack, the edit itself is constructive and the reversion smelled like POV pushing to me, which is why I did not put the IP up at WP:AIV in the first place. Yoenit (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not an expert on the subject, but if it is the wrong version it is easily fixed. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

salman aditya
I confirm that salman aditya is indeed really famous indie musician from Indonesia and he is alumni from SMA 5 Bandung. You can see his notability in here :

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=S6Y&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=salman+aditya&aq=0&aqi=g2&aql=&oq=salman+adi&gs_rfai=

thank you
 * A google search does not establish his notability. I suggest you read the relevant policy on the notability criteria for musicians. Even if he is very notable, do not add him to the list if he does not have an article. Yoenit (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Query
Is the NBA racist? Your revisions of my edits indicate that you believe it is. I suggest you take your controversial ideas somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.46.199 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement "The NBA is not racist" has no place in an encyclopedic article. The NBA is also not a dog, but won't don't include that either do we? Yoenit (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My recent edit
The link that I provided wasn't advertising anything. The link that I provided was to a magazine article. It explained and backed up everything that was in the Wikipedia article that was written. There was truly no reason for it to be removed as a reference.--64.22.204.94 (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it is a good reference for the article. My apologies for incorrectly reverting. The circumstances led me to believe it was WP:LINKSPAM, but I should have checked the link itself. I have re added the reference and removed the "no references" tag. Yoenit (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: OMT table
I'd actually forgotten about that. I will try to set aside some time this weekend to mess with the template and categories, and put in the request with the bot group. Thanks for pinging me on it! BTW, nice editnotice, I'm flattered that you even gave me credit because I myself have merely plagirized Talk header! ;)  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton of Brenchley
You have reversed some edits of mine because you say they are unsourced. May I therefore remove unsourced "facts" in this venomously unfair biog of the subject which you have not edited out, perhaps because you agree with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.99.96 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I have never heard of the guy before. I was just passing by on recent changes patrol and have absolutely no opinion on the content of the article itself. Secondly, I reverted your edits because you added some unsourced stuff directly before a reference, so it seemed to be sourced. Had you posted the same comment behind the reference it would be clear that it was unsourced information and I would not have reverted you (though other might). And to answer your question: yes you may remove unsourced "facts". Please also see Wikipedias policy on biographies of living persons. Yoenit (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, it's highly likely that the IP editor is actually the subject of the article. He was blocked some time ago for making legal threats (see ), so this looks like a case of block evasion and COI editing - not the first time, either. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just saw that he was a possible sock, though I had no idea from who. Thanks for informing me Yoenit (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm glad to say the issue has been resolved now. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job
Sorry for missing out on the review, I'm glad to see Indiana Class Battleship was promoted! Good job. Doug (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. PURPORT The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas." http://vedabase.net/cc/antya/3/255/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.48.118 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Yoenit (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Soarer edit war
Thanks for your help on this, Yoenit. It may not do any good, but I've posted 3RR warnings on all the active IPs' talk pages, followed by invitations to join the discussion on the article's talk page. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope it will help, for now I will just watch the page and see what happens Yoenit (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping to resolve the problem of Soarer forum links vandalism so promptly - cheers - 82.22.149.205 (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid the discussion ain't over yet. Yoenit (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you =)
Cheers for the revert on my user page. Super quick work! katherine_a (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
The first part applies to you too -MBK004 08:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking about "I'm currently on the assessment run, but it's quite a surprise to see you've already gotten some articles. -MBK004 01:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)". In answer to that, yes I have just started on US Battleships, gonna work the list down as far as I get (or untill I stumble upon articles somebody else has already done) Yoenit (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Aww, why don't you leave them for the gnome and get back to work on actually writing the articles instead... (if you insist, stop and leave the New York class and anything more modern for me please) -MBK004 08:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ehm ok... Should put yourself up at Bots/Requests for approval before somebody shuts you down. I will stop after the new Hampshire (BB-25) (last pre-dreadnaught, after that it is all those fuzzy ships with big guns nobody cares about). Yoenit (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I'm better than a bot, I've got the administrator flag, and a brain (something the bot doesn't have). (You don't need to drop a tb for every time) -MBK004 08:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts
Hey Yoenit, remember that Scientific American article on Massachusetts I said I was going to copy for you? I don't remember if I told you, but I did look at it before I left last semester (just never had the time to scan it). It does have some pertinent information and photos I can scan (it's pre-1923). I go back up there on Sunday; I'll try to scan and email it to you asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I totally forgot about that. Would be really great if you could scan it for me. Yoenit (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you did not get around to scanning the article yet. No problem, as I discovered my university has archives of Scientific American back to 1875 in some locked vault, so if you know the issue I can request it myself. Yoenit (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You listed the issue on Talk:Indiana class battleship. :p My uni has them on shelves, so if it's a problem, don't worry yourself&mdash;I'll get them for sure by Tuesday. I didn't expect to be so busy right now, apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary journals and the Indianas
Hey Yoenit, I don't know if you have access to journals like these, but there are many articles on your pets. ;-) I can scan a few, but they have some good images and information you could incorporate. 1.Bombing the old battleship Indiana Scientific American (0036-8733) December 4 1920. Vol.123;p.575 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 3.Stability of the battleship Indiana Scientific American (0036-8733) February 13 1897. Vol.76;p.105 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective  4.Battle-ship Indiana ROGERS, Eustace Barron. Harper's Weekly (0360-2397) August 22 1896. Vol.40;p.826-9 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective  5.First class battleship Indiana Scientific American (0036-8733) August 22 1896. Vol.75;p.172-3+ Source: Readers Guide Retrospective  6.United States first class battleship Indiana Scientific American (0036-8733) August 15 1896. Vol.75;p.156-7+ Source: Readers Guide Retrospective  7.Battle ship Indiana Scientific American (0036-8733) October 26 1895. Vol.73;p.258 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 8.United States battle ship Indiana Scientific American (0036-8733) January 5 1895. Vol.72;p.8 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 9.New battle ship Indiana Scientific American (0036-8733) March 17 1894. Vol.70;p.167 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective

10.Battle-ship Indiana Harper's Weekly (0360-2397) March 4 1893. Vol.37;p.207 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective

1.Repairing the keel of a battleship: Massachusetts Scientific American (0036-8733) February 18 1899. Vol.80;p.107-8 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 2.Engines of the battleship Massachusetts Scientific American (0036-8733) October 2 1897. Vol.77;p.213+ Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 3.Winged victory for the battleship Massachusetts Scientific American (0036-8733) July 3 1897. Vol.77;p.7 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 4.Experimental turret of the battleship Massachusetts under fire Scientific American (0036-8733) December 12 1896. Vol.75;p.428-9 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 5.Speed trial of the United States battleship Massachusetts Scientific American (0036-8733) May 9 1896. Vol.74;p.296-7 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 6.Test of the Massachusetts Harper's Weekly (0360-2397) May 9 1896. Vol.40;p.464 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 7.Our new battle-ship: the Massachusetts KING, William Nephew. Harper's Weekly (0360-2397) June 24 1893. Vol.37;p.595-6 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective

2.Oregon a prototype of the dreadnought? Scientific American (0036-8733) September 9 1911. Vol.105;p.222 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 3.The Oregon's great voyage EBERLE, Edward W. Century v. 58(ns no. 36) (0272-1082) October 1899. p.812-24 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 4.The Oregon at Santiago EBERLE, Edward W. Century v. 58(ns no. 36) (0272-1082) May 1899. p.104-11 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 5.Trial of the Oregon BEARDSLEE, Lester Anthony. Harper's New Monthly Magazine (0361-8277) April 1899. Vol.98;p.699-707 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 6.New warship Oregon Scientific American (0036-8733) January 19 1895. Vol.72;p.33+ Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 7.Photographing a battleship Harper's Weekly (0360-2397) September 22 1894. Vol.38;p.892 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 8.Launch of the battle ship Oregon Scientific American (0036-8733) November 18 1893. Vol.69;p.327 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective 9.United States coast-line battle-ship Oregon Harper's Weekly (0360-2397) November 4 1893. Vol.37;p.1064 Source: Readers Guide Retrospective


 * Also, email me please so I can reply with two of these articles! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Geek and Gamer Girls Song
http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC) This work meets the criteria for musicians and ensembles based on criterias 1 and 7:
 * #1: The work has been covered in a variety of media and as been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
 * #7: Is a prominent representation of a notable style (geek rock).  More importantly it is one of the first geek “girl group” productions to see wide release, making it a seminal work of an emerging style.

Also, please see the improved references to reliable external sources.

As of yet you have failed to provide any indication of why you deem this work not notable, please do so or withdraw your complaint. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernDragon (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both point 1 and 7 are from the the criteria for bands or musicians, they are not relevant to the actual song article. I disagree with your assessment, because of the references you added probably only wired.com is reliable (interviews don't count!). Taking both articles to AFD, so we can discuss it there. Yoenit (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

21:38, September 30, 2010 Yoenit (talk | contribs) (6,071 bytes) (→Lyrics: Lyrics are not allowed on wikipedia because they are copyrighted material. Please see WP:NOT#LYRICS) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernDragon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Noted, my apologies. This is my first entry and I am still learning.  References will be cleaned up over then next few day.  I can tell you are stalking this article, you must really dislike this band. Plan to fight you every step of the way on it. It is relevant to my culture, and I have six days left to try to prove that.
 * Believe it or not, I do not dislike this band. In fact I quite like the song. That does unfortunately not make it suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, for it fails notability standards. At least, that is my opinion and been shown to be wrong about these things before. With regards to my fast reaction, that is because I added the article to my watchlist. If you are willing to take another hint from "evil" person like me: please have a look at how to sign your posts. Yoenit (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, my apologies if you find your welcome here rather hostile. Please don't see it that way, I am just trying to improve the encyclopedia. Yoenit (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 23:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Never called you evil, you added that. Sort of a cheap tactic, but it's cool, I was getting a bit pissy :)

Actually, the more I learn the rules (which I did not bother to read, as you may have guessed by now) the more I realize it'll likely get cut. Still, had to try to do the geek girls a solid. Plus Seth Green rocks, so there's that.

You know, I was about to jump to the conclusion that this was a bit of a hostile place, but really it's not. This is Web 2.0 in action. You're just preserving the integrity of the the resource, and that's important - especially considering how many people consider it "dubious". Really, still?!?!

Actually the back and forth has been a bit exciting. Forced me to focus my arguments and, for the record, I will continue to do so until they take it down :)

But no, not evil, not hostile. Just very focused, and I can relate to that :) Thanks for writing, that was pretty cool!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernDragon (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

fyi
Renaming an article that is currently before afd breaks all the links in the header at the top of the discussion. Other wikitags, like rescue, are also broken by renaming you did. Your alternate name is not superior to the original name, as "warlord" is itself a term with an enormous amount of baggage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that, but forgot to fix it. My apologies, it's fixed now. With regards to the "warlord" thingy, I just used that name because your source does, while druglord is your personal interpretation and a violation of WP:PERP (everybody is assumed innocent until convicted). Like I said in the AFD, I don't really care what you call him, but drugslord is a bad one. Yoenit (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Broomhurst Hall
Hi, I fully realise you  did this in  GF, but  only  creators or significant  major contributors can  ask  for  G7.
 * That is a bit weird. Criteria do not say that the author has to request a G7 himself, just that he has to request deletion explicitly (or blank the page). Nominating for AFD is obviously a deletion request. Reapplying the G7 tag with a link to the AFD nomination out of curiosity. Yoenit (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Elements pages
As I mentioned earlier, an edit of this kind has the effect of removing a great deal of information unless included as subtopics of the merged entry. While I agree with it in a general sense, I think that the way you've performed the merger has had the effect of losing large amounts of information related to Moh's hardness, symbol etymology, and older symbolic versions such as Daltonian and Alchemical symbols, among others. Were you considering your merger to have been complete or is it just a work in progress at this point? -Thibbs (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Work in progress. Please note I did not merge the list of elements by hardness page. There was indeed a significant amount of additional information in the List of elements by symbol which got lost in the merge and I am still thinking what to do about it. Maybe an idea to undo that merge and move the article to a name that better represents the contents? Yoenit (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements and I'll make future comments about this issue there. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edits are not work in progress, they are vandalism! If you would care to improve wikipedia you would make sure to actually add all the information before merging anything which you obviously did not. The page list of elements is nothing more than a stub with only two of the columns complete, yet you did not even mother to notice that which is an indication you did not bother to check anything other than the title and the merge notice. All your edits to those pages will be reverted unless you bother to do the merge work yourself. Nergaal (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets keep the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements instead of insulting me on my talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that was not meant to be an insult. I am simply against unilaterally removing information without an attempt to fix the issue. The merge was proposed a long time ago and was viewed as a good idea, but nobody actually bothered to complete the merge by doing the actual work. I am happy to see that work is being done now to complete the move of information to a centralized page. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For sorting use value-to-be-displayed Nergaal (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of magical negro archetypes in fiction into Magical negro
Hi,

As you have recently edited one of the two articles mentioned, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro. Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Image clarification
Hi, Of those 3 images except File:Jayalalitha Early Star.JPG, all are mine. Please trust me. The jayalalitha image alone was uploaded by Kumarrajendran (talk). This jayalalitha image is already there in wiki page Tamil cinema and Dravidian politics. But it is not there in wiki commons. Clearly note that I found this image was not uploaded in wikicommons. So I uploaded it there and later wanted to add this jayalalitha image in "jayalalitha article" in wiki.

I thought re-uploading a file to wikicommons from already available image in wiki, is allowed. Since it is stated in the original uploaded page Tamil cinema and Dravidian politics description by Kumarrajendran (talk) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jjkumar.JPG -- "I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

The only problem it went is -- I uploaded it in wikicommon saying it is mine. Thats it. As explained above I thought I can do so. Please understand this. This image was already there in wiki main article ONLY. I uploaded it in wikicommons for other purposes, inorder to re-use it for jayalalitha article.

Other than this both other images are mine ONLY. Why are you guys make me go hanged again & again like this. I also do edit and upload after reviewing all the instruction. Seeing everything in doubt is not good and crushes users like me. I am totally got mad when again and again this is raised against me. Please please for God sake try to reach me. !!!

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the Jayalalitha picture and have explained so to the admins. The problem is that I don't think those other pictures were made by you. File:Devar-and-kamal.jpg seems to be a screenshot from a movie/tv show. Do you own the copyright for that movie? Yoenit (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * You have been ever so helpful at various copyright points (including my talk page!) lately, and I just wanted to thank you. I'm particularly pleased that you picked up the ball at Talk:Jenny Morris (musician), since I got distracted yesterday and forgot all about it until this morning. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. A lot of people treat your talk page as the copyright assistance noticeboard and I try to keep some of the pressure off so you can deal with more complicated issues. Watching you handle copyright problems is also an excellent way to learn more about it (like this sweat of the brow article was looking for yesterday but could not find). Yoenit (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Moonriddengirl, your assistance at Talk:Jenny Morris (musician) was much appreciated. I was at a quandary trying to ascertain what problems the IP had with the article. Your edits helped clarify the situation for me, thank you.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

CCI Stuff
William Boyd Profile

Can I ask why you removed most of the information I wrote in the article as the profile of William Boyd? What is left now is simply basic information that reveals very little about this author. I am extremely disappointed that all this work - over which I spend a very long time researching - has simply been removed at your own individual, subjective whim. Also, why did you take off the youtube links - these are all specific to the author and are relevant to his life and the writing of his novels?Ivankinsman (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Raban Article

Can I also ask why you have removed the information I wrote about Jonathan Raban? I SPENT A HUGE AMOUNT OF MY OWN TIME AND EFFORT WRITING THIS PROFILE. I am fucking sick of editors like you and MoonRiddenGirl simply deleting articles and/or stripping them down to their bare bones. Why was this article not put to a general forum of editors to review before you changed it? What give you the right to simply delete important and interesting biographical information relevant to an author and simply leave boring, bare facts? Who can I appeal to on this issue - I know that whatever I say to you or that bitch will simply be ignored.Ivankinsman (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian Faulks Article

Can I ask why you have removed all the information about Sebastian Faulks that I SPENT A HUGE AMOUNT OF TIME ON RESEARCHING. What you have left is a simple list of facts about this writer and IT IS A TOTAL DISGRACE, as you are as an editor. Who can I appeal to to have your work reviewed - I want this done by another Wikipedia editor who is totally independent and objective.Ivankinsman (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have explained to Mr. Kinsman our policy with regards to serial copyright infringers at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

CCIr template
Hi. Related to the above, I have not put this in template space, but you may find User:Moonriddengirl/CCIr useful. If you do, feel free to change "today's cleanup" to include the username you're using. It's easier to paste it that way. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is a nice template. Will switch to it instead of cclean for CCI's Yoenit (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Webhat/Asynchronous_follow
Thanks for the note, I wasn't paying attention when I put it in the main space. Webhat (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I thought you were a new editor, completing missing that you have been on wiki for over 6 years. Yoenit (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Low Carb High Fat
You removed the db-context tag from Low Carb High Fat with the explanation "no context means you don't have enough information to understand what the article is about. It is quite clear this is about a swedish diet". Can you tell me which Swedish diet the article is about? Surely more than one diet has originated in Sweden. To my thinking, telling me a diet is "described in Swedish" tells me nothing, and does not provide sufficient context. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The diet is called "low carb high fat" or LCHF. As Swedish diets using that name are gonna be rare I would consider it sufficient content to pass A1. I see you renominated under A3 which is also not applicable, as the article has content (although minimal). I have decided to redirect it to Low-carbohydrate diet, which it seems to belong too. Yoenit (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)