User talk:Yakuman/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Yakuman in The Dock 1.1 The warning below isn't true, but some guy demands I keep it here. 1.2 warning 1.3 The warning above isn't true, but some guy demands I keep it here. 1.4 Yakuman The Vandal 1.5 Yakuman The Censured 1.6 Epilogue 1.7 Hm. 2 The Great Citation Rampage of 2006 2.1 Paleoconservatism: Amount of Citation Requests 2.2 Reguardless 2.3 Caution 3 Misc. 3.1 I hate canned messages. 3.1.1 Image tagging for Image:Iriver-clix.jpg 3.2 Dabney 4 Broken url antifeminism 5 Yakuman in the dock II 5.1 Another policy you should know about 5.2 3RR 6 Editing tags 7 Regarding my talk page 8 Replacable fair use images 9 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Old river logo.png) 10 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kiwame.jpg) 11 Blogs 12 Minor edit 13 "3RR" on Nadine Gordimer 14 Buckley 15 License tagging for Image:Patbuchanan037.jpg 16 William F. Buckley edits

[edit] Yakuman in The Dock

The following is the record of an ordinary guy being harassed and threatened by an obsessive-compulsive band of vigilantes with no social skills. Some material may not be suitable for children. Parental discretion is advised.

[edit] The warning below isn't true, but some guy demands I keep it here.

(You know, it isn't just the baseless warning that irritates me. It's that stupid GIF with the hand on a stop sign that really honks me off. This guy owes me an apology. In the source he has me tagged as a "Blatantvandal," which is demonstrably false.) --Yakuman (数え役満)

[edit] warning

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.

You vandalized Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and I warned you for it.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The warning above isn't true, but some guy demands I keep it here.

Well, I deny the vandalism charge, but now I'm forced to leave defamatory statements against myself standing. The case involves an unofficial group of mediators who are calling themselves "a cabal." This is the paragraph that is being termed vandalism:

(The term and usage of cabal here dates back to the heyday of usenet, when some people believed that sysadmins acted in concert without consideration for users. Before the boom in commercial ISPs in the mid-1990s, administrator action could disrupt or even cut off one's only route to Internet services. The term cabal invoked a sense of powerlessness and frustration on behalf of users, which those with technical power were free to inflict. Presumably the use here is tongue in cheek.)

I told CQJ who deleted my addition: "You deleted my text without cause. If you think you impress people by calling yourself a cabal member, go back to the 1980s." I elaborated on the cabal's talk page: "Last time I checked, this was a public forum and apropos changes were INVITED. So go ahead and call me a clueness newbie. I'm a big boy. I can take it."

I also complained about False Prophet's use of canned messages. I responded: "If you wish to talk to me, send your own messages. Do not send me auto-generated spam." I elaborated on the talk page: "Oh, wait. I __DID__ get called a clueless newbie. You see why I was complaining about the name "cabal." It suggests an army of little tin gods with perl scripts."

This was my last comment on the subject in this forum:

Like I said, the cabal joke isn't funny. It wasn't funny in the 1980s. My intent was reconciliation, not vandalism. The term and use of the word "cabal" is itself uncivil because it asumes a threatened arbitrary use of power, which is not helping toward a healthy working relationship. Yakuman 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, I intend to restore the deleted warnings. Yakuman 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yakuman The Vandal

False Prophet's message above refers to content below:

Maybe it would be better to bring the issue on the talk page, and allow user group to decide for themselves what do they want to write on their page? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 01:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that you think that you were helping, but I am going to ask you to keep your POV to yourselves and the real world. Wikipedia is to be written from the NPOV. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Let's see here. "This "cabal" stuff is anachrnistic. Some comment is deserved, And the threatening, conspiratorial graf was excised; it does not help arbitration; rather, it seems like an attempt at intimidation.", and in addition: This is a public forum and it deserves comment. If they want to "decide from themselves," countless ISPs will sell them server space! I don't expect my changes to last, but I do expect these people to take notice.Yakuman 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC). And as I stated in my edit summary reverting your change, be that as it may, you should probably do as CP/M suggests and discuss that on the talk page instead of summarily making a change. Revert to last version by Jsw663.

I would encourage you to kindly review WP:POINT at your earliest convenience. While the cabal term is indeed deprecated (sp) and anachronistic, the Mediation Cabal is an accepted procedure for dispute resolution on Wikipedia and nonetheless a recognized sort of WikiProject. If you're upset that someone's filed a Mediation Cabal case that involves you, we apologize, but that does not permit you to break WP:POINT and essentially and outright vandalize the Mediation Cabal page. If you feel as strongly after I am done posting this message, you can go to the Mediation Cabal talk page and discuss your feelings, but please don't change the page without consensus in the future. Thanks. CQJ 01:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read our policy at WP:CIVIL concerning civility in dealing with other users here. While a block isn't due yet for this in my opinion, you're doing yourself harm by causing yourself to look incivil in the eyes of others here, and your reputation on Wikipedia is far more important than your block history. If you have questions, please feel free to ask, but read the policy first. Thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

<eof>Yakuman 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yakuman The Censured

(edit conflict)First off, you deletied the line, we are the mediation cabal, or are we. Secondly, my name is False Prophet not dark prophet. (fixed it myself) Third, that is a standard warning and is the proceedure for warning vandalism. Fourth, Ive replaced the warning with a new one, and finaly even if you were right that it wasnt vandalism, you removed warnings over a contested edit without talking to the editor that placed the warning. That in itself is vandalism. Your removing of the joke is vandalism. It shows that the place is informal and supposed to be a bit funny, and removing it helps destroy that idea. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 03:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm forced to leave defamatory statements against myself standing. I deny these charges of vandalism, but am not allowed to present a reasonable defense. Yakuman 03:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yakuman, you're quite allowed to "present a defense" if you want, though try to assume good faith and see warnings for what they are: Warnings that your actions may be over the line. I'd actually suggest you read a few of the policy pages involved (they point them out, above) before continuing to edit, to make sure you're in compliance with the policies established by our community. It'd be nice to gain a valuable contributor, but it'd be sad to lose one because of an unwillingness to be familiar with the rules of the site you're posting to. Also, please be aware that attempting to change the Mediation Cabal isn't likely to change the outcome of the case that you have pending there. It's informal, and if you really don't want to be involved that much, say so, and move to a different venue. Take care, and have a good day! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not allowed a reasonable defense. My understandably pointed explanations were answered with threats of censure.
I'm even flamed for accidentally referring to "False Prophet" as "Dark Prophet." This may fit Wikipedia's definition of civility,
but not mine.
Yakuman 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I should mention another defamatory statement in the interest of full disclosure. Someone derided my cabal discussion as
a "pointless topic[1]" I still get no right of response. This is civil behavior? Yakuman 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I say below, no one's trying to defame you, and there's no reason to cite things like "full disclosure" or "threats of centure". Cowman referred to the topic as a pointless one because, well, it was pretty much you and me going back and forth on each other with False Prophet added in on the backside, and that was pretty much pointless and didn't really do anything except piss both of us off. See my apology/explanation below. CQJ 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epilogue

I found a paragraph[2] that sums up my analysis of this whole mess:

>Any casual review of edit-histories at Wikipedia suggests that power users, who spend several hours a day making small edits to numerous pages, often dominate discussions, and comprise the most active elements of the administrative ranks. Yet, people who are qualified and interested in administrative functions can hold quite different interests from these power users. Thus, outsiders, new users, and those constructively critical are often blocked from discussions under vague allegations, such as "trolling", or being a known "problem user". Such disputes are not limited to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's administrators regularly invoke the power of their community, reasoning that such people are excluded for "behavioral reasons", not for critical policy arguments, when the truth was quite the opposite. Some administrators might not be adept at the personal or editorial skills which can best resolve conflicts among contributors. An inability or unwillingness among such untrained administrators to consistently articulate what they find problematic contributes to a less productive collaborative environment, and exacerbates conflicts.

Here's the way I explained it to Kylu[3]:

I dealt with "cabals" on FidoNet, Usenet and other *nets back in the day. It isn't really a joke. Consider how quickly I was met with threats and defamation. People who enforce "civility" on others, but do not apply it to themselves, only create problems. Have we learned nothing over the last two decades?

Yakuman 06:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

On FidoNet? When was it?

P.S. And if you dealt with the Fidonet Cabal, even the Bomis Cabal here should seem quite innocent... CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 09:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I had the misfortune of running a FidoNet node. Usenet was actually an improvement. The greater the distance between the users and the sysadmins, the better. Y'all seem to want the bad old days back. Yakuman 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Misfortune? I'm still there, and it doesn't seem quite bad - only dead silent. Cabal control everywhere, IMHO, gives Fidonet some originality today, which is not found elsewhere.

BTW, Wikipedia, as any large community, is also full of undeclared alliances, cabals, conspiracy theorists and practicioners, it's just that cabals here are less visible. Actually the Mediation Cabal is probably one of the least cabalish user groups - not because membership is open, but because most cases are held by one person, independently, in his (her) own way, with little or interaction with other members in the process, so they don't generally influence the mediation. All other dispres processes are much more collective and cabal-driven, with closed membership and private communication for MedCom or ArbCom, or with strong bias towards submitter, high influence of first comments and groupthink in RfC. Probably that's the point of the joke: one of the least cabalish groups calls itself a cabal. --CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hm.

I've had some time to think this one out.

I apologize for my lack of good faith on your behalf. Please realize that I do tend to be a little tight within the spirit of the policy on Wikipedia policy as well, regardless, it was substantially ill of me to state that you were in an act of vandalism. However, with that said, let me explain where I was coming from.

I noticed that you were involved in a pending case at the Cabal. That, and your edit summary didn't quite sit well with me. Compared to some of the other processes and projects on Wikipedia, we are the most unCabal-like thing on Wikipedia. That's why the first paragraph reads the way that it does. Like I said earlier, this isn't Usenet, and the Cabal is a running joke, from the Rouge Administrator Cabal, to the Jimbo Wales Cabal, to the RfA Cabal, to even the Bot Cabal mentioned on IRC a few minutes ago. I felt as if you were jumping to conclusions about us before you'd even met a MedCabalist or even seen what we can or will do for a disputant in a case. I honestly thought from your summary, your content change, and the fact that you're a named disputant in a current new case that your edit was a sincere attempt to disrupt the project page, and that's why I reverted and said what I said to you. What irritated me more about the whole matter was that we were trying our very best not to break WP:BITE, but to me, you kept throwing the whole deal back in our faces and started to Wikilawyer on us.

Yakuman, no one here is trying to defame you, or belittle you, or to dissuade you from contributing. There are just certain things that aren't cool to other Wikipedia editors, and Wikilawyering is definitely one of them. Not reading policy is another one, hence why we posted links to the appropriate policies. Like Kylu said, the policy reminders are just that, reminders that things you're doing may or may not be within the scope of the policy, and it's a good idea to check them out if you're ever in doubt.

You're a smart guy, and we need more editors here that are intelligent and know what's going on. But that also entails reading and following the policies - including the ones that are established by general consensus. CP/M mentioned one of them - we generally don't mess with project space unless you're on the project or you see something blatantly out of place. Which is why I pointed you to the talk page.

Yakuman, I know you don't know me from anyone, but I've seen a lot of intelligent people who ended up either permanently blocked or in Arbitration. They were smart people, they knew their stuff, but they didn't follow the policies, and the community got sick of dealing with them and their shenanigans. And every time I run across someone that might fall in the same trap, I try to give them the same advice every time. And I usually don't take the time to do it like I'm doing today with you.

So, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to recuse myself from your pending mediation case, and I'll encourage anyone else who's talked to you or warned you to do the same. But with that said, I think you might benefit from an informal mediator rather than the other dispute resolution processes, because informal mediation a la MedCab is the best, IMHO. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't participate in the process, and I wouldn't spend the time to encourage you to stick with it.

In addition, you can get rid of all of the comments that you put back by simply creating an archive. Go to the top of this page, open an edit window, and put in [[User_talk:Yakuman/Archive 1|Archive]]. Cut the text you want to archive, save the page, click on the red link, and paste the text into the window. Save the page and you have an archive.

Let me know if you have further concerns or if there's something I can assist you with in the future. Truce? CQJ 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your openness in following up, CQJ. My point has always been that name "cabal" is a contradiction for a voluntary mediation group, since it implies arbirary force. This has been my concern from the start, not personalities, nor any case concerning me. I comew in peace. 22:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Citation Rampage of 2006

Here's a short piece of a long story about a different type of obsessive-compulsive character.

[edit] Paleoconservatism: Amount of Citation Requests

+ There is an absolutely ridiculous amount of requests for citations in the "Intellectual precursors and modern expositors" sections. I mean, does anyone really doubt that Mel Bradford is connected to paleoconservatism? + Plastering the article with citation requests like this is a really irritating and lazy approach, in my view. I should remove them all and request that if anyone has a problem with what has been written, that they raise the issues here on a case by case basis. + Maybe someone has gone on the rampage trying to make a point. + -Yakuman 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)(language borrowed from the talk section in the Peter Hitchens article).

That's your opinion. My opinion is that posting unsourced content is lazy. My opinion is that complaining about being expected to provide sources is lazy. Wikipedia policy is on my side. If you'd like, you can remove unsourced content. The problem wouldn't have happened in the first place if people hadn't put unsourced content in the article. Now we need to do some drastic work to make the article comply with policy. I didn't cause the problem. I'm trying to fix the problem. You call it a "rampage". I say that extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions I know that there have been statements made in the article that, when people complied with my demand for sources and I was able to review those sources, I found that the statements had no support.

Let's just agree to the neutral stance of adhering to Wikipedia policy and we'll create a good article - that is the goal isn't it?-Psychohistorian 19:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dozens of instances of requests in a single paragraph is just nuts. As to Wikipedia policy, well, truth is a defense. Is there really any doubt that Mel Bradford influenced paleoconservatism? --Yakuman

There wouldn't have been dozens of instances of requests in a single paragraph if the problem had been addressed when it was created. And truth is NOT a defense. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that whether content is verifiable (that is, sourced) takes precedence over whether or not it is true.-Psychohistorian

[edit] Reguardless

Hello, It doesn't matter who is at fault right now. He as every right to request an Advocate. I am right now investgating his claims in order to best advise him. Please sit tight while this is happening. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. He gets an "Advocate?" Like, a lawyer? Wow. Is this an encyclopedia or a role-playing game? If so, I want to be a 33rd level Alpha Male with a +2 sportscar and perfect teeth. Yakuman 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocates are not Laywers. We advise and help users who are in disputs to help them either understand policy, under stand the DR process Ect. There are no laywers on Wikipedia and Wikilawyering is frowned upon Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caution

Hello again. Ihave reviewed the talk page of Voice of all and several other pages. You have made a few statements that clearly violate WP:CIVIL. Please donot be uncivil, it harms the community which in turn harms the wiki. Thank you Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote on the page you mention:

"I have no clue who you are, but you seem to be some sort of uber-geek. Psychohistorian is obsessed with verification and wants cites on virtually every proper noun. There are 100+ citations -- and one endorsement from a specialist -- on this article as of now. The George W. Bush page, the most disputed page here, only has 54 cites. The accuser refuses serious discussion, other than to demand MORE citations. This is silly. NOWHERE on Wikipedia is the extent of citations he demands enforced. Please block this troll for disruption, incivility, bad faith and vandalism."

Yakuman 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And requesting that he be blocked because he is a troll is Uncivil. He is attempting to edit in good faith by the looks of his edits. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if I said it this way:

This person is not attempting to edit in good faith. He commits acts of disruption, incivility, bad faith and vandalism. This leads me to conclude that he makes specious demands for no other purpose than to annoy or to disrupt. For this reason, I ask that his access to the article be suspended for the good of the community."

Yakuman 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That would have been better yes. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must ask you not to participate in any issues concerning me, due to a conflict of interest. I just discovered that you are part of something called a "cabal." I explained on my talk page why I believe this group lacks civility, good faith and credibility.
1.) People associated with this group recently blitzed me with threats and spurious accusations. My talk page tells the story. Not only was I browbeaten for what I did not do, I was permitted no reasonable defense. I do not wish to risk repeating this situation.
2.) Also, a "cabal" is the online equivalent of a star chamber. You may claim that the name is merely a joke, but my point stands.
3.) Nothing here should be interpreted as denying PH his rights. I simply ask that this "cabal" leave me alone. If he wants to find an "advocate" outside of this group, I'm willing to communicate with that person. My concerns here have nothing to do with him or the article under discussion. Yakuman 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)(cced from talk page)

Ok, well, they are the same message, so either both is uncivil or neither are. While I understand that you want to keep peace in the community, realize that my note is a serious request, not a flame. Yakuman 04:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The MEDCAB is a cabal in name only we are the informal meens for medation, cabal only exist when you want it to, there are no literal cabals on Wikipedia the MEDCAB's name is ment ot be kind of funny. And since I'm in this as an Advocate of the AMA I'm not representing the MEBCAB for this case Advocates can't be Mediators and Advocates on the same case. And it is not up to you whether I'm involved or not but my advocee. Sorry but you seem to not understand WP:DR and the groups that are with it. Please review them, also keep in mid what I have said, Cabals only exist if you wish them to. Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia, not a cabal nor does it have them (except MEDCAB which is in Name only not literally). Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 14:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.

[edit] I hate canned messages.

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Iriver-clix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iriver-clix.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Bot, its a manufacturer's promotional product shot. I tagged it as such. Why is that so hard to figure out? If I start geeting a bunch of baseless warnings about this topic, I will consider it harassment. Remember, I am an adult and wish to be treated as such. Bot messages ain't it. Yakuman 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dabney

Hi, Yakuman. I had deleted the link you added to R. L. Dabney's Defense of Virginia not because I wanted to hide his politics but because on a quick glance, it didn't seem like there was anything but bibliographic information at that link. So that readers don't make the same mistake, I have put a more direct link in its place. I also deleted the other link from UTexas because it adds nothing that is not already mentioned in the article (cf. #1 under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided), and I removed the stub tag because, while the article could be expanded by a knowledgable editor, it would be difficult for someone else to do so (cf. WP:STUB). --Flex 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we discuss this on the topic's talk page? Thanks. Yakuman 18:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken url antifeminism

One the urls you added to misc external links is broken, typo perhaps? Fwend 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yakuman in the dock II

Here I am subjected to threats, defamation, false charges and outright censorship, yet given no recourse to defend myself.

[edit] Another policy you should know about

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule - you can be blocked for reverting a page more than three times in 24 hours. You've actually exceeded this already, but I'm not aware that you've been specifically informed of the policy, so I'm not interested in having you blocked at this point. You will need to edit in accordance with policy in the future, however. --Michael Snow 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR rule does not apply to articles about living persons! The above constitutes a defamatory statement against me that injures my reputation. I am determined to defend my reputation and integrity. I accordingly request you immediately cease and desist from this and all other acts of harassment or defamation.Yakuman 00:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Yakuman, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Paul McKenna and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. The 3RR rule applies to all articles, including biographies of living persons. In future, please discuss your edits on the talk page with other editors when there are objections. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 03:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I violated no rules and this charge is absolutely unfounded. "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals."

[edit] Editing tags

Removing legitimate editing tags is essentially vandalism. Please do not do it again. Since you kept removing the "unsourced" tag from Ron Smith (radio host) article, I instead removed the unsourced info. Please find sources so that the info in the article is verifiable. Thanks, -Will Beback 04:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing trivially unsourced material is also vandalism. Please remember that admins are subject to the same rules as everybody else. Assume good faith and all that. The above constitutes a defamatory statement against me that injures my reputation. I am determined to defend my reputation and integrity. I accordingly request you immediately cease and desist from this and all other acts of harassment or defamation.Yakuman 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Defamatory statement? No, not intended as such. I do assume good faith, but then you repeatedly removed the "unsourced" tag, while at the same time removing material added by others because it contained, in your words, "unsourced claims". Let's all wok on the same page by contributing material which is verifiable and NPOV. Thanks, -Will Beback 08:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Unfortunately, you accused me of vandalism, a charge that is patently false. See also WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You also removed material from the aforementioned page that is trivially easy to verify. You could have shown willingness to work, in your words, “on the same page” by simply adding easy-to-find cites instead of making an inflammatory accusation towards me. Please stop and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Do not remove legitimate content, nor place inappropriate content on my talk page. If you have a problem with what has been written, then address the issues on a case by case basis. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Yakuman 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your charge of defamation constitutes a legal threat against Will Beback for which you can be banned from Wikipedia. Please withdraw the threat. WAS 4.250 07:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a legal threat, honest, but I will trim language that might make you think so. Yakuman 07:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It makes editing wikipedia so much more pleasant when one isn't running into threats here and there. You have other needlessly agressive language on this page, but everyone has their own style and we do try to let people express themselves, so all in all I think I'll just end with thanks for the quick and appropriate response. I hope you'll enjoy contributing to wikipedia. WAS 4.250 08:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my talk page

I just read the now-deleted warning you posted on my talk page. A couple of things: I was responding to a notice left on our noticeboard. Any action or comments I made were on my own, not in tandem with anyone else. I never mentioned 3RR, the multiple violations I referred to were in regard to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP, and were content-related. My intention was not to defame you, I was just trying to get you to understand that you were probably (in my opinion) headed for a block by an admin, or even higher, if this kept going the way it was. I thought it was totally appropriate for that information to be on the talk page of the article, and totally inappropriate for that info to be in the article itself. The office takes matters very seriously when someone's lawyers contact them. Of course, I could be completely wrong on my analysis of the situation, but I don't think I am. I'm not out to get you or anyone else. - Crockspot 14:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm dropping out of this debate. I stand on principle, but I'm giving up. Its simply too much work to explain. If I defend myself, I risk getting banned. Yet others treat me far worse -- and I risk getting banned if I say anything about that. Go figure. All men are equal, but some men are more equal than others. Yakuman 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that I had no animosity against anyone, but was simply trying to uphold the integrity of one page. As to the legal issues, I suggest you read up on American communications law. See: Carter, Franklin, & Wright, The First Amendment and the Fifth Estate, 6th Edition, Foundation Press, 2003. Yakuman 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You may have brought up WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP, but you never substantiated them in any way. You merely cited them as if it was obvious. I have broken no rules, now or ever. I will defend my reputation against harmful and damaging accusations. Yakuman 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacable fair use images

I flagged Image:Iriver-clix.jpg and Image:Imp-100.jpg as replacable fair use images (that is we could reasonably expect free licensed photos of these things to be created). We should not use fair use images if it's possible to create free licensed works to replace them per Wikipedia's fair use criterea, so unless a reasonable argument against them beeing replacable is provided, they will be deleted after a week (or at some point after that when the backlog has been cleared). See the image pages for details, Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Old river logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Old river logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kiwame.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kiwame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs

Please don't keep restoring links blogs that have been legitimately deleted. WP:ATT and WP:EL both say we should avoid using blogs and other self-published websites as sources or even linking to them. -Will Beback · † · 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They weren't legitimately deleted. Yakuman 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way was their deletion illegitimate? And, for that matter, how was their addtion in the first place legitimate? -Will Beback · † · 01:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained all this on the anonymous user's talk page. Your policy arguments for delection did not match this case. You determined this guy was a kook a priori and treated him likewise. I have no the interest in an edit war, nor do I enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Yakuman 01:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to edit war then don't keep reverting improper material which never should have been added. -Will Beback · † · 06:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated that such material is improper. I've said all I can say on this matter. I'm sure our anonymous colleague can speak for himself. Yakuman 06:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is proper about using blogs as sources? -Will Beback · † · 07:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially blogs written by guys who have "an agenda".[4] -Will Beback · † · 07:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not endorsing an agenda. And, no, I don't support his accusations against TAC. If this is what disturbs you, I understand that. I'm only saying that he has the same privileges as any other published writer here. Yakuman 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! .

---

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are WP:V states quite clearly: "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. . --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claims that I somehow am unfamiliar with protocol are condescending and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. The rule says that one should begin by assuming good faith on the part of other editors, not that one must continue to assume same after an editor has proven time and again to be acting in bad faith. If you look at my past contributions, I have plenty of cited, commented edits. As I have said before, direct citation is not necessarily required when verification is obvious. The existence of a radio show fits this category. Nor should citation requirements jump expontentially simply because a topic is controversial. Yakuman 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First, these are standard templates; your odd claim that I'm assuming bad faith is not only untrue, but obscure. Secondly, what's obvious to you isn't obvious to everybody; citations are still needed. Thirdly, again, these are standard templates in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines; if you disagree, you should go and argue your position at the appropriate place. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:V states quite clearly: "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. You do not seem be challenging this relatively minor statement. While "articles should cite these sources whenever possible," direct citation is not necessarily required when verification is obvious, such as a regularly scheduled radio broadcast. If every possible truth claim required verfification, you would be forced to "verify" the reality of the material universe and the existence of other minds. Yakuman 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As you seem either unable or unwilling to understand, I'll give up. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop posting condescending and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF on my talk page. I have clearly addressed the issues at hand and I don't enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "3RR" on Nadine Gordimer

Yakuman, in your edit summary on Nadine Gordimer article, you reversed a change I made, commenting "Reversion of 3RR violation" (diff). Could you please explain how you characterize my three quite different edits (diff1 (deleting paragraph), diff2 (adding dispute tag), diff3 (deleting one word but leaving sentence)) as a 3RR violation, but manage to avoid so describing your own 5 edits in the space of 36 hours (diff1, diff2 (restoring exact same content), diff3 (variant added), diff4 (restoring variant), diff5 (restoring variant))? --lquilter 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the 3RR policy document, it doesn't make exceptions for the sort of distinctions you make. In the interest of AGF, I will not purse a block in this instance, though I may have to do so in the future. Thanks. Yakuman 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, by all means, please do go ahead and attempt to document a 3RR on me. I've given you the diffs, so it should be pretty easy. I would really like to see an administrator look at this history of edits and conclude that *I* am the one who has violated 3RR. (Even at its most basic level, I have to point out, 3RR is more than 3 edits in 24 hours ....) And you have yet to explain how your edits would not constitute even more of a "violation" of 3RR than mine ...? --lquilter 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please don't abuse my acts of diplomacy. Please be civil and avoid personal attacks. While a block isn't due yet for this in my opinion, you're doing yourself harm by causing yourself to look uncivil in the eyes of others here, and your reputation on Wikipedia is far more important than your block history. If you have questions, please feel free to ask, but read the policy first. I have no the interest in an edit war, nor do I enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to not engage in protracted discussions, but you have now several times implied or stated that I've violated 3RR, without substantiating your claims; for this to be a serious and constructive warning, then substantiation is needed. Regardless, administrative review is a good thing: Pressing personal matters have kept me from taking the Nadine Gordimer page to mediation, but that shouldn't stop you. (-8 --lquilter 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I have no the interest in an edit war, nor do I enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Article talk pages are to discuss the content of articles. Don't waste time and talk page space spreading your campaign to every related talk page. Not only is this tiresome, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Yakuman 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buckley

How can you possibly claim that William Buckley being tagged a conservative is POV? Yes, my response was rude - I couldn't believe what I was reading. Wahkeenah 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that WFB presented a set of views which, during his heyday in the 1950s and 1960s, were equated with conservatism. As it stands, the paleoconservative wing of the American Right claims Buckley is a two-faced deceiver. This fight has been going on since the mid-1980s. See As there is an ongoing debate, calling WFB a conservative becomes a POV issues. Yakuman 06:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would be nice if you could cite some of the specifics of this controversy in the article. I'm guessing it's because he, like Pat Buchanan, won't kiss up to the neo-cons. Wahkeenah 06:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't lecture me on violating 3RR, as you are in the same risky area. And if Buckley isn't a conservative, no one is. Wahkeenah 06:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:Civil:

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Yakuman 06:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • You mistake passion for incivility. Wahkeenah 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if you're going to continue to claim that Buckley is not a conservative, you must provide citations. Your personal opinion on the matter, along with vague generalities about alleged opinions of other unnamed sources, are not sufficient. Wahkeenah 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that WFB is or is not a conservative. I'm not saying anything. Wikipedia is NPOV and does not make a judgement call on the matter. The article states that WFB often calls himself a conservative, which covers the same ground without controversy.

• That does not justify removing the "conservative" template. If you're saying that whether someone is a conservative or not is POV-pushing, then no one can have that template in their article. Wahkeenah 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have asked the user who originally posted that template, nearly 1 1/2 years ago, to join this discussion, on the assumption he knows more than I do about who has the right to be called a "conservative". Wahkeenah 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What you or I think is not the issue. Wikipedia can take no position on it. That's the WP:NPOV policy. That said, you can leave the template in. Yakuman 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Then I assume you're also going to scan every other page connected with conservatives and ensure that they also avoid this supposed POV issue? Or is it just Buckley? Wahkeenah 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just agree to the neutral stance of adhering to Wikipedia policy and we'll create a good article - that is the goal isn't it? Yakuman 18:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Patbuchanan037.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Patbuchanan037.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William F. Buckley edits

I noticed that you put in an empty {{cite}} tag on this article. If you were intending to fill it in later, please leave it instead as a comment (e.g. <!--X-->, X being the text you wish to save to the page without having it displayed). If you meant to call into question the accuracy of the statement, please instead use the tag {{fact}}, which will display the superscript text "[Citation needed]". I'm guessing you meant to use the latter, but in either case, you should avoid misusing tags, since it just makes a mess and no one knows what you meant to do to the page. Fuzzform 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)