User talk:Yoenit/Archive 3

Copyright question
You flagged Action of 6 February 1945 as a copyright violation of this page with the comment "hmm, at least one section is directly copied from this website". Can you specify which section? And, as would be more appropriate, only flag the offending section, rather than the entire article? I cannot find any text in the Wikipedia article that substantially copies the text of the website you noted, but my search has not been exhaustive. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I quote the source (section "Norwegians to raise German World War II U-boat"), note the bolded parts

"'U-864 a Type IX long-range U-boat went down in the North Sea west of Bergen, Norway, with a loss of all hands. It was on a highly-sensitive, long-range, covert mission codenamed 'Operation Caesar' to deliver highly sensitive technology to their wartime ally, the Empire of Japan. The U-864's top-secret manifest included jet-engine parts from the German high-speed Me-262 jet fighter plane that the Japanese were going to try to clone, missile guidance systems from Peenemünde, Guided missile development, of the type used on the V-2 Rocket, and several tons of mercury, a raw material that was in short supply in Japan but that was vital to the industrial production of ordnance since it was a necessary component in the fabrication of detonators. U-864 had originally set in to the U-Boat Pens in Bergen to repair damage from having run aground during their first attempt to set off on the mission (they had to take very round-about routes that were often less safe and not well charted to avoid the deadly mass of Allied anti-submarine warfare patrols (ASW) in the main shipping channels). During this voyage, however, their normally quiet engine started to make an abnormally loud, rhythmic noise that could be easily detected by any ASW equipment in the area. Since the area was crawling with Allied (primarily British) ASW ships, submarines, and aircraft, U-864 returned to the pens at Bergen to repair the problem. Little did he know their Enigma code, Germany's naval encryption system, had been broken by British mathematician Alan Turing and his team at Bletchley Park. Unbeknown to the Germans, all naval communications to the Nazi U-Boat fleet were being read by Allied commanders, and they already knew of 'Operation Caesar.' The Royal Navy quickly dispatched their submarine HMS Venturer to intercept and destroy U-864'"

I quote the article (beginning of section background). Sections in bold extremely close paraphrases: "The U-864 was a Type IX U-Boat, designed for long, ocean-going voyages far from home ports with limited re-supply. It was on a highly-sensitive, long-range, covert mission codenamed Operation Caesar to deliver highly sensitive technology to their wartime ally, the Empire of Japan and also carried a number of Japanese experts[1] On 6 February 1945, U-864 passed through the Fedja area without being detected. During this voyage, however, their normally quiet engine started to make an abnormally loud, rhythmic noise that could be easily detected by any ASW equipment in the area. Since the area was crawling with Allied (primarily British) ASW ships, submarines, and aircraft, Wofram decided to return to the pens at Bergen to repair the problem.

Little did he know (nor did anyone in Germany's U-Boat Command, for that matter) that the Enigma code, Germany's naval encryption system, had been broken by British mathematician Alan Turing and his cryptanalytics team at Bletchley Park using a device called the Bombe.Unbeknownst to the Germans, all naval communications to the Nazi U-Boat fleet were being read by Allied commanders, and they indeed knew of Operation Caesar.[2] Wanting to avoid giving the Japanese any advantage that might allow them to extend the duration of the war in the Pacific, Royal Navy submarine command dispatched Venturer to intercept and destroy U-864."

The reason I tagged it with copyvio is because it is very likely there are more problems and the page requires full investigation. Yoenit (talk)20:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why have you done this for Action of 6 February 1945? If you read the discussions you will find that editors wanted to merge German submarine U-864 Operation Caesar HMS Venturer (P68) Jimmy Launders I think you will find copyright infringements on these pages as well. Pfifer11 (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which discussions? How on earth should I know they exist if you do not mention them. if you copied/merged material from those pages you should have mentioned this in your edit summary (see Copying within Wikipedia for more information). Yoenit (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I stated it in Talk:Jimmy Launders and I say the same thing..... How on earth was I supposed to know that these articles contained copyrighted material? Pfifer11 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Almost every article on Wikipedia contains copyrighted materials; Wikipedia's content is not public domain, but liberally licensed for reuse. Copying that content anywhere else, even into other Wikipedia articles, constitutes a violation of the copyright of the authors of the material unless you give proper credit. When copying within Wikipedia itself, this requires at minimum indicating the source of the content in edit summary where you paste the material. Noting it at the talk page of the source article does not meet that minimum requirement, I'm afraid. That said, it's a good idea to do that also; it's recommended that you use copied on the talk pages of both articles when the copying is extensive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) If the copyrighted material was already in the article you are not to blame for that. *lot of stuff which is now redundant as MRG's explanation is beter* I assume Action of 8 June 1945 is also from some other wikipedia article? Yoenit (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No that is entirely my own doing. If you give me the article back I will re-edit it straight away Pfifer11 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh. :/ I'm afraid they aren't public domain, either (although it would be nice if they were). Since our policy prohibits us from publishing copyrighted content even temporarily, we ask that you rewrite the article in the temporary space now linked from the template (direct link here). Once it's finished, we can switch out the articles and delete the copyright concerns from history. Copy-paste gives a basic overview of some of the problems with copying content. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I need the article back... it is blank in the page. I know I'm new on here and this is a lesson for me to save these pages in word but this article is not saved. Perhaps you can send me the article so I can re issue it? Otherwise I leave it until it gets fixed by someone else Pfifer11 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I copied the Infobox, references and stuff to Talk:Action of 8 June 1945/Temp. I can't give you the text as MRG explains above. Yoenit (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The good news is, though, it's not really gone. :) We keep it around for a week or so in case you can use it in crafting a new article. You can see it as it was here. Please be sure that you write over anything from their website from scratch, though. The danger with rewriting copyright problems is creating a close paraphrase. Although it's about plagiarism, not copyright problems, I'd recommend a look at Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". It can help avoid inadvertently creating a derivative work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much I will get it sorted right away Pfifer11 (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have put forward the article now, as it has now been modified fully. I have removed the copyrighted material and used other sources to reference the article instead. I have kept a little part of the infringed website in. Hope this helps. Pfifer11 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking for reverse infringement
Now that we can see the actual age of the material, I have reason to hope for reverse infringement. :) Not only did we have it well before the date it was published at the website (not in itself definitive), but shows the correction of a typo which is not in the external source. I'm poking further at this aspect. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, this does appear to be a reverse copyvio, I have already reverted the copyvio notice from the article Yoenit (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay; I'll keep looking so I can place the backwardscopy template with confidence. :) Of course, it could be a transcript of or something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoot. Coffin nail. I consider that sufficient evidence for the template. (I love clearing copyright problems. :D I wish it happened more!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Action of 8 June 1945 may be a different story. It appears to be taken from the royal navy website. Yoenit (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing the notices from the VP discussion
Please don't take the notices off. They're not clutter, they're signposts to related discussions about what we're working on here. I have replaced them, and would kindly ask that you don't remove them again. Thank you. Fish Barking?  12:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They are definitely clutter. I will comment on the talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

adminhelp
. Hi, I would like to request help in dealing with a legal threat issue. per Don't overlook legal threats the normal legal threat = block reaction might do more damage than good here, which is why I did not report this to ANI. If an admin confident in these issues would be so kind to comment on the users talkpage? Yoenit (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll speak to him. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks MRG, I your skill in explaining wikipedia policies to new users is pretty much legendary. Yoenit (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Village Pump
My comment on translations comes from my own experience. I can take some English WP articles about places of interest to visitors and make a simple translation into French & German (which I have some rudimentary skills in). In turn I'm encouraging some Spanish, French & German collaborators to do the same and to polish each other's translation. It would be far harder for me to do this if I also have to explain how to set up a new user name. Ephebi (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposal would indeed make it more difficult for editors from a foreign project to translate an article to enwiki for the first few times. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing AfC feedback
Dear Yoenit,

Thanks for taking the time to read this article before, it has been redrafted, please let me know if there are now any Wikipedia guidelines which it still needs to address. Sincere efforts have been made to bring this draft up to main space standards. The feedback and suggestions from the mentors who support this draft are on this >> Discussion tab <<.

The last thing I want is for the page to have any reasons for templates {expert}, {needs cleanup} or a million [citation needed] tags peppered through it, so before going to main space I would appreciate it if you have any constructive feedback on any perceived weaknesses.

RfC request - 25-Apr-2011 - Intimate Relationship Skills - all your advice incorporated

Many thanks, Geoffjw1978 (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have done a lot of good work on the article, but there are still some problems, mostly manual of style related. For example, using a big flashy orange bar as you did in the "seeking support" section is not allowed in articles and navigation boxes such as Attachment theory are normally only used in the bottom of an article. These are the kind of fixes which can very well be dealt with after the article has entered main space though. To be honest I am still a bit ambivalent about the article subject and content in general, but that is mostly because the entire subject area is not my cup of tea. I would advise you to jump in the deep now and move the article into main space. If the article gets tagged with maintenance templates, see them as feedback how to improve it further (and remember you can remove a template if you adress the problem). A worst case scenario would be that the article gets nominated for deletion, which would lead to more (if rather harsh) feedback. Yoenit (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Romance advice being offered on Wikipedia. Now I have seen everything. Forgive me for saying so, but isn't that sort of thing more for Wikibooks or Wikihow? I mean maybe I misunderstand it, but isn't that kind of going against WP:NOTGUIDE? That is how it seems to me anyway. =/ Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
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) 05:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
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) 00:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sysadmins
Per this: totally unfair! Nemo 17:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Yoenit, that was a bad trout. Sorry, but Starling was acting upon requests from the community and properly announced it on Foundation list.  You owe him an apology, I'm afraid.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I do not own him an apology. The default setting should have been off or it should have been widely announced (sitebanners, watchlist notice) several weeks before being enabled. That non of the devs stopped to think about the confusion it might cause (affecting how many user accounts? millions?) before making the change means they deserve a trout. Yoenit (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As explained on community forums, there was considerable support for it to be enabled by default for everyone prior to Tim et al working on it. Power users know how to disable it and it's just a few mouse clicks to uncheck it. Killiondude (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to link to the relevant discussion? Yoenit (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion is in the usual places. There were several links on Village_pump_(technical) and I added some more. Nemo 19:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how that discussion demonstrates "considerable support for it to be enabled by default". In fact there is a discussion linked which show the very opposite . This bugzilla discussion is also interesting, as it shows user:Xeno getting told off when he mentions support is for "opt-in implementation". Yoenit (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points were already addressed in the village pump discussion I linked. Nemo 10:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you refer to the reply by Stwalkerster, which mentions some software problem with opt-in implementation. Doesn't make any sense to me, but I am not a computer programmer so I will take it at face value. It don't see anything adressing the lack of proper notification prior to the transition or the unsupported claim of "considerable support" by Killiondude above. Yoenit (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
I'm posting here, because the commentary at Village Pump (policy) is clearly getting Disruptive. Tony made a simple request for input at the RfC and quite a few editors seem to have nothing better to do than snipe at his request, rather than take positive action and deal with him in a good faith way. My collapse of the thread was in order for it to be on track. Your revert of it takes it back toward being disruptive and in that sense it is disruptive as well. If you put back the content of the disruptive edits again, I will take this to the Admin's Noticeboard for review. This issue has been contentious enough without people continually adding fuel to the fire. I hope you can appreciate and understand the need for courtesy and civility here. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having a bit of harmless fun over an announcement is not disruptive. Disruptive would be if people actually made fun of it inside the RFC itself. O wait, that is exactly what happened. I would have reverted you again, just because you threatened me with ANI, but I see Treasurytag has already done so. Shame, would have been fun wasting time at ANI. Yoenit (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yoenit, I can see both sides but would have erred slightly in favour of collapsing it. Technically the reverting was in violation of the 1RR rule defined by the arbitration motion (and someone asked whether we'd need one...) - but let's just move on. Hopefully we can keep the final voting page readable and not buried in reams of text. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh fuck, I never realised this is an ongoing Arbitration case. I don't see the 1 RR rule being violated though. Yoenit (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought there was another revert in there. Never mind, we are just trying to, anyway, there are motions and stuff to read and voting etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope my comment above didn't make you feel like I was singling you out or something. I was just aware of the gravity of the situation for some of these editors, and the Arb case, and wanted to make sure things continued working well.  I know I mentioned ANI, but shortly after, I figured a polite note to the Arb admin would make more sense.  ANI seems to get heated and silly at times.  Anyway, best of luck. -- Avanu (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles
Hi Yoenit. This has now been closed with a consensus that I anticipated and hoped for. There was a strong consensus that the reform should take place on the basis of a finite trial. The proposal for the trial need only address the basic requirement of the resolution to require require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles, and to agree and establish the duration of the trial. What are your thoughts  on  this? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a quick note to say thanks for your NPA work on my user talk page the other day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War
I have added the following comment to the copyright violation page and hope you will agree. I have notified User:Kirk who brought the original complaint and will notify others who have commented. Thanks. The two editors who have worked on this article most recently have reviewed the entries and checked them against the citations; and added additional citations and a few entries. We believe there should now be no objection to restoration of this article. Donner60 (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fire and Ice characters
and again. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback
╟─TreasuryTag► co-prince ─╢ 15:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any reason to reply to this anymore. Yoenit (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Good compromise
In my opinion. :) What a headache. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. I will have a chat with CanadianLinuxUser and see if I can persuade him to leave reverting the IP to me, which might take some of the tension out of the situation on both sides. Yoenit (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That could be great. But I have to caution you. :/ Attention may simply shift, as it has before. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We will see. At least I am not a major contributor to Jesper Olsen (runner) and making edits like this or this, which can only have been due to frustration. Yoenit (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I got to go to work; I'm a bit behind my self-imposed start time. But I really wanted to thank you for your excellent talk page stalking, and I felt like I needed an image to do it with. :D Generally, flower bouquets are the accepted form of thanking people, but I like animals much more than flowers, and baby rabbits are about as cute as animals get. Plus, you don't have to feed this guy. And he won't poop on your floor. Did I mention cute?

So, this baby rabbit and I are here to thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Getty Villa Article history
I was having some difficulty getting the tags to show up properly. I removed the history in order to place a tage for renomination that read the correct information. I knew someone who understood this better would fix it as we are an open source edting site and generally people see the mistakes and take the proper action. It wasn't meant to hide anything and I appreciate you fixing and replacing it. Sorry that I am not as capable at that as others. I am learning.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just didn't get why you would delete everything. I believe it is fixed now? Yoenit (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get any of it. I read and reread the GA instructions but they didn't work and purging the page didn't work either. But it does appear to be fixed and I really need to thank you for that.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The technical problems with the templates is the least of the deficiencies with this transaction. Amadscientist failed to notify me of the GAR, and his GAR lacked specifics that I could fix.  However, I have provided a point-by-point response to his findings and believe that his reassessment does not make sense.  Rather than close the reassessment as "delisted" could you please read Talk:Getty Villa/GA4 and come to your own decision on the substance?  I have also posted a GA nomination template to try to get someone to look at this.  Absent this reassessment of Getty Villa, I was prepared to nominate a "Good Topic," but I now suddenly have a missing piece. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pin-Ups For Vets Article Issues
The bolded blockquote you removed was intended to be an Executive Summary, for those too in a hurry to read the whole thing. If you noticed, it was original material, different from what came after. If there is a better way of doing this, please let me know.

Pin-ups For Vets (PUFV) is a non-profit service organization whose stated mission is to benefit hospitalized veterans and men and women currently in the service of their country. For that end PUFV produces, sells, and distributes calendars and raises other funds by organizing events at area clubs and service organizations--usually in a 1940s theme. Visits to VA Hospitals across the country and active service men and women in the field are ongoing throughout the year. The Pin-ups For Vets was founded in 2006 by Gina Elise. Its headquarters is in Redlands, California, USA.

Can the Issues Warning tag be removed now that the requested changes have been made?

Thanks!

Dlschgo (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Copyright violations"
I've replied on my talk page, and will continue to do so for this thread. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No biggie, I would just have continued here and used whisperback. Yoenit (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

NARA images
Hey Yoenit, I thought you might be interested in File:Indiana (BB1). Starboard side, ca. 1900 - NARA - 512955.tif and File:Massachusetts (BB2). Starboard bow at wharf, 06-1901 - NARA - 535432.tif, which were uploaded as part of a large image upload to Commons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also File:Oregon (BB3). Starboard side, 1898.tif. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed article creation trial
I'm contacting you because you participated in the proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles a few months ago; and particularly because you had some interesting ideas on how to implement the trial. I have set up a discussion page for various aspects of implementing the trial at WP:ACTRIAL. Please feel free to join the discussion if you are interested. I am not initially contacting a large number of users (in an attempt to keep the discussions contained and manageable), but feel free to invite any other users who might be helpful. Thanks. &mdash;SW&mdash; speak 00:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:CENT
Why? Its a WP:VITAL article, its been in dispute for years, giving it the widest possible coverage is useful and makes it much more likely to avoid having to go to arbitration. Besides its not as if there is anything else useful to post in its place. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:CENTNOT, "article content discussions". That is all this is, the content for a single article. Start an RFC, advertise on the pumps, but it does not belong on CENT. I understand you want a lot of participation, but if we start allowing things like this on Cent we will eventually only have wp:BIKESHED disputes on there. Yoenit (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True its article content, but its a WP:VITAL article. Its hardly going to open the floodgates to allow move requests which involve WP:VITAL articles - I can't imagine they happen very often at all given they are all about major major topics and there are only 1000 of them.
 * I suppose though you might get major merges, and then minor merges and then it probably does get a bit silly. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny stuff those vital articles, candle? Syphilis? Stove? The selection of countries is just laughable: Ireland, Bangladesh and Nigeria are included, but something like Turkey is not? Also, the fact that China is one seems to be an oversight, as it is the section with current countries rather than the history section. Yoenit (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the "China" link at WP:VITAL links to the People's Republic of China ;). With regards to Ireland I agree and Turkey should probably be included, but Nigeria and Bangladesh both have very large populations with 155 million and 142 million people respectively - and they both have English-speaking elites. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of note I've suggested adding Turkey at WT:VITAL. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

An error
comment placed in error below your message in, moved above to correct area. I had to leave the error in place because it's against policy to edit talk/discussion pages after posts have been placed, but I placed an explanation that the message was placed in the wrong place below the statement too.Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of a redirect at WP:RFD
I nominated a redirect you created at RfD (see Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 5). Sorry for the late notification, I forgot to check the history of the redirect. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * np, I noticed it earlier but decided not to comment. I left my thoughts now. Yoenit (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

False Accusations
I do not appreciate the false accusations you and one other editor made against me. Given the highly circumstantial evidence, I can see why someone would suspect chicanery, but how about backing up a half-cocked theory with evidence, particularly behavior? I didn't create any accounts, I didn't ask anybody to vote with me, etc. Not to be ignorant, but why was good faith only assumed on the single-purpose-acount which started this bullshit as opposed to an editor who is a mentor, ambassador, coordinator of 2 projects, responsible for 8 FA's, 11 GA's, over 40 DYKs, and a supporter and donor to the Wikimedia Foundation? I have never been blocked, I go out of my way to help people, revert vandalism, and provide sources. Check my edit history, I even sourced the article that the single purpose deletionist did a half assed job of creating.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have had no prior interactions with you, so I don't know you. From your userpage I noticed you where an experienced editor, but that is no garantuee for anything. The capitalization of KEEP pointed to you. I wasn't really sure about it, which is why I started with "Are those people [...] friends of yours? If so" rather than a direct accusation. When I think about it I see my message was overly hostile and I should have included another sentence along the lines of "If not, please disregard this message and accept my apologies for this false accusation." At this point I can do little but offer you my apologies for failing to assume good faith and falsely accusing you of something you did not do. Yoenit (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Its ok. Apology accepted.  We can put this behind us and work together in the future. :)  --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Indiana class battleship
I am sorry, but I have reverted your edit to the article on the Indiana class battleships. Hope you don't mind.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the original, it says that the draught was 24 ft with a small amount of coal, and 27 ft with a large amount of coal. This makes sense.
 * In your edited version, it said that draught was 27 ft whether it had a small amount of coal or a large amount of coal. This would only be possible if the ships employed some kind of balancing mechanism, such as filling the bunkers with seawater as the coal was used up. They didn't.
 * You must be confused, as you actually changed it back to 27 yourself . Yoenit (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right; I got confused as to which version was which. Sorry--Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * no problem, glad to see somebody else is watching the article. Yoenit (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Titan's cross nomination
Hello,. I see that you are a member of WP:OMT. I am reminding you that there is a discussion [here] about whther or not to award Bahamut0013, a member of OMt who passsed awsay a short while ago, the Titan's Cross in silver. your opinion will be welcome. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Colorado class battleship
Hi. Could you comment at Talk:Colorado class battleship? Some of the references are contradictory and can't really be sorted out without access to the books... which I expect you may have as I see you've done a lot with such articles. Thank you. —Portuguese Man o' War 03:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will check with my version of Conway's. Yoenit (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great; I'll watch for further movement. —Portuguese Man o' War 06:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed them. In the 1980 book page 117 and 118 deal with cruisers which were build 20 years later, so I have no idea how that ended up as a source. I also removed the 1987 book from the references as it does not seem to be used and is probably just a collection of the individual books. Yoenit (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. I expect that "Gardiner and Chesneau (1984), pp. 97–100" should be "Gardiner and Gray (1984), pp. 97–100", though; and "Sturton, p. 175" now refers to nothing. This looseness of connection is why I prefer the harv/sfn approach; the connections are checkable. Thanks. —Portuguese Man o' War 00:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Argh, how did I miss that? I replaced the sturton ref by conways118, as that contains the same information as far as I can see. The Gardiner and Chesneau ref is probably used to back up the statement regarding future ship guns sizes, so I have added the 1980 book back in and corrected the date. Yoenit (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, now. Good on ya ;> I'll go fuss with these battleships, again. —Portuguese Man o' War 22:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can I bother you again? See: Specifically the Gardiner & Gray citations; one is 1984 and the other is 1985... same isbn and oclc (which lead to worldcat/google/amazon saying 1985). Is it cool to just 'fix the '84 ones? (I've seen others; would have to find them...) There are many printings of these books, right? Also, I fixed the title-year in a few articles (had not noticed the publication-year discrepancies at the time). Thanks. —Portuguese Man o' War 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Colorado class battleship
 * New Mexico class battleship
 * I am physically separated from my copy right now, so it will take me a few days to check it out. I noticed amazon also claims 1984. Thank you for looking into this mess. Yoenit (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. This is fun. I've been cleaning up Russian battleships, today. I'll let these be for the time being, leaving whatever year/isbn is there. Will peek here for more comments. Laters, —Portuguese Man o' War 11:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I got home earlier then expected, and noticed my 1986 reprint copy says it was first published in 1985, so apparently Amazon is wrong. Yoenit (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see you've fixed this one; I'll do others as I encounter them. —Portuguese Man o' War 06:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:accuse of discrimination
Well i guess your intention was not that bad but as far as i know you were being stereotype. You know your statement would make most of Vietnamese people angry right? That kind of saying Vietnamese people can not be trusted so you think we are inferior? And thanks for insulting me on my English skill. Just for you know i started to learn English about 3 years ago. You want me to consider thing before i spoke, so do i. We both want the same thing, so we should both respect each other aspects. Well i don't want this conversation turn toward hatred anyway. I'm done here.Trongphu (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you still misunderstand my post. I did not say the websites are unreliable because they are Vietnamese, I just noted they are written in Vietnamese and that I was dubious if they are reliable sources. Vietnamese websites can be reliable sources just fine, but I am not sure if these two are. Yoenit (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well problem solved i guess.Trongphu (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

stuff
Thank you yonite for the information. Can you tell me more about the kind of pages that i cant edit. NNKarnani (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your user page
I thought about a mfd for your user page as apart from a redirect here, it only had junk, although a declined my own nom as it is only in the history and probably does not matter. L888Y5 (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhm, oke. Most of us are here to improve the encyclopedia but if you prefer deleting the history of my user page that is fine as well. Would have been easier if you had just asked me about it, as I am not particulary attached to those two vandal edits. Yoenit (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck the sarcastic part, after reading the AFD discussion and seeing the hilarous mistake made there I understand why you checked the history of my userpage. Yoenit (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody delete my user page, recreate it as a redirect and full protect that? Much appreciated. Yoenit (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll delete and protect it, but you could have tagged it with and taken it to WP:RFPP and it would probably have been done sooner. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I should just have asked you, the protection should sort out the vandalism. L888Y5 (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks.
Oops, thanks for repairing Blow (song). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious. :) -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
You need to be a lot more careful with your use of automated tools, my friend. You 1) restored vandalism that I removed and 2)to compound your error, warned me about it. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * my apologies, I responded on your talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. These automated tools have blown up in my face more than once. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Campaign finance / Political finance
Hi Yoenit, it's a pity that you have dropped out of the discussion about how to handle the issues of political funding. As I understand it you missed the point about "cultural differences", which are not "opposing viewpoints" (as was your impression). The rest of the democratic world (as far as I know it) is concerned about "money in politics" not under the label "campaign funds" that is used all around in the U.S. but under diffrent headings like "party finance" or "Campaign and party finance". I am looking forward to your response! Khnassmacher (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I should have responded to this earlier. In short I saw the merit in your points and needed to have a thorough look at the article before I can give further comments. I haven't gotten around to that yet. Yoenit (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

share our step motor experience
hi,Yoenit, we are a china stepper motor manufacturer ,we have some step motor experience to share with others,this is our web list about experience: http://www.ms-motor.com/technical-support/stepper-motor-selection-guide http://www.ms-motor.com/technical-support/motor-torque-calculation

this is not advertisement, we will upload more and more motor experience to our web. can you help us to show the experience to others by wikipedia? any question,contact me, very thank for your help.
 * The link I reverted led to this page listing several of your products that are for sale, it was clearly an advertisement. If you want to share your experience feel free to release it under a CC-BY-SA license, but as long as the information is hosted on a commercial site selling engines there is a very high chance links will be seen as spam and removed. Yoenit (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

hi,Yoenit, http://www.ms-motor.com/technical-support/stepper-motor-selection-guide this page is ok to show?
 * I would consider that spam and remove it, but I can ask for wider review if you want. Yoenit (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, thank you for replying. I understand your point. Would these statistics be copyrighted?

Yours,

--&#38;レア (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * no, that would be type of data which is not copyrighted. Yoenit (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --&#38;レア (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot
Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bot_policy specifically states the village pump and admin noticeboard should be notified of issues like this. That will be my last posting of it in such a newsboard tho. The notability board was perhaps premature, and I should have done my policy research first. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And I told you I have never used a bot in my life to generate content. I wish I could programme a bot, I'd be able to produce 10 times the number of articles with 10 times the quality of content if so!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Template:AIAssessment
Thanks for your question. Please respond at Template_talk:AIAssessment. Dualus (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Belgian photo copyrights
Invariably I am very careful to write neutral messages for on-wikipedia issues when honestly differing views are involved; examine my record if you wish. This however is a stupid over-enforced policy of the copyright enthusiasts on Commons, and I find myself unable to do so in this case. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

header
Hi Yoenit,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright
You were involved in a discussion here, which has been alluded to in a new discussion here. I'm letting all editors in that first discussion, other than those who are already participating and one who has been banned from interacting with me for hounding, know of this newer discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

StarWind Software Page
Hi, I've been working on StarWind Software page (and FalconStor Software as well). Could you please check both pages and provide some criticism? I've glued some history and products in StarWind so you may fix my broken English if you'd have some free minutes :) Just don't delete whole paragraph as you did before :) Your feedback & ideas is appreciated! Thank you! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Barnstar
13:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Clear harrassment"?
I sort of get why you are saying it. When someone says, "this editor has started two ANI discussions, re-opened an MfD, and now a deletion review within the past few days" it may sound terrible, until you actually look at how events transpired. That initial ANI discussion on the list lasted five hours. An MfD was proposed within two hours and closed within an hour and a half after being flooded by a dozen editors who were mostly involved with the ARS, including four actual members of the group. An hour and a half later that closure was used as the basis for closing the ANI discussion by an admin who was at the time voting keep at AfDs through the list. I started a second ANI discussion to provide specific evidence of the list being used for canvassing and a member of ARS closed it within 20 minutes. An admin re-opened it and that same member of ARS closed it again four minutes later.

Only after it was re-opened a second time did it finally get aired a bit, but an admin jumped in to voice support for the list and an hour-and-a-half later, ten hours after AQ's close, that admin closed the discussion for the third time based on a "consensus" among all the ARS people wanting it closed. An hour later the admin re-opens it based on another editor's objection and my own. Then it gets another six hours before being closed again. Now, I am not going to challenge Kim's close of that discussion given the flood of people from ARS would make "consensus for action" a difficult decision to support as opposed to "no consensus" as she ruled, but I will say that it was probably going to get more votes and of those not mentioned directly in the case or otherwise members of ARS there were more people seeing the list as inappropriate than those seeing it as appropriate. It appears Kim's close was partly the result of an editor asking for close because of the MfD, the same reason the first ANI was closed. Given that, I asked for the MfD to be re-opened so I could weigh in on that discussion. Within an hour of it being re-opened and just as I had finished composing my response an admin, who had supported the list in the first ANI discussion about it, closed the deletion discussion again on the basis of there not being a vote, even though the fact it was re-opened should have clearly suggested that someone disagreed with the verdict and it would just be common courtesy to allow that person time to comment.

You can call my attempts to actually get these issues fair time to be aired "harassment" if you like, but the reality is that various people supporting the list have railroaded every discussion to try and keep the issue from being aired at all. Similar shenanigans were attempted with the first ANI I filed on the ARS and the resulting deletion discussion from a few weeks ago. That I am persistent in trying to get a decent amount of time allowed for an open and uninterrupted discussion of the list's use for canvassing by ARS has obviously caused some people who want the list to stay to get quite hostile and accuse me of just about every impropriety under the sun, but please don't buy into it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)