User talk:Yandman/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Yandman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

re: Danny Shea: No need - it's already been pointed out, and admins tend to take these things into account when closing AfD discussions. Crystallina 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind explaining how this image is fair and balanced?

Please sign posts with ~~~~. The NPOV policies that we respect when editing text don't directly apply to images. The image is certainly PoV, however it is presented as such, and therefore NPOV is respected. For example, see Stalin. yandman 08:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

See comments on my talk page under the section "Publicity stills". That should explain my actions. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 13:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

dear yandman ,

you havent answered my questions yet.plus i hope u wouldnt give me any warnings as i was only doing the right edits. i sencerely believe that Bin laden article is erroneous at some points.

--Iwazaki 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What questions? You haven't asked any questions. See Special:Contributions/Iwazaki yandman 07:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not allowed to remove comments from talk pages. You're allowed to come and tell me what you think of my comments but you're not allowed to do that. Besides, everyone discusses things on talk pages. Twentyboy 07:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." yandman 07:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

judging from your talk page, your behavior tends to cause a lot of conflict. Please do not cause conflict with me. Twentyboy 07:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please! Twentyboy 07:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm done arguing with you and I'm done reverting that. Your page has a lot of conflict and I think I should avoid you. Bye! 65.31.99.71 07:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just unblocked Twentyboy and the associated IP address. The user claims to have nothing to do with Chadbryant and WP:AGF requires that without more specific evidence, we assume good faith. I'm going to continue monitoring the situation. Chadbryant remains indefinitely blocked (for now, at least) due to a large amount of abusive edits from that user. --Yamla 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to harass me and go around sending rumors, I will inform another administrator on you. I told you leave me alone 65.31.99.71 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No. yandman 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You're really mean, dude. Just mean. I don't want to have anything to do with someone whose behavior is mean like yours is Twentyboy 01:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Twenty, you've got to learn to respect the rules. If I suspected you were a sockpuppet, it's because you were using the article talk pages as chat pages in the same way as Chadbryant. Maybe you're just both very talkative, and I made a mistake. In any case, don't use the pages for chit-chat (use your talk page), don't make personal attacks on other editors and things will go fine. yandman 07:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new here. Don't be so harsh on me though. I really thought you had just accused me of being a sockpuppet because you hated me. I guess not. I guess you really thought I was a sockpuppet. Anyway, I can understand why you went directly to an administrator. A person who is using a sockpuppet wouldn't admit it so maybe I understand why you just went directly to a adminstrator before talking it over with me. Anyway, I'm sorry to you and I am VERY TALKATIVE :D Twentyboy 09:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please read over Twentyboy's talk page as well as mine, and then tell me what you think? Also, please don't neglect the page histories. THL 09:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to pin you as just another vandal because I've never encountered you on Wikipedia before, so i'll give you the benifit of the doubt. However, you should know that it is protocol to enter :Talk and contributing productively beyond a single sentence if there is disagreement resulting in an articles constant reverting. This is moreso true if you've been requested to enter chat several times.

Also, as per the last edit summary, the New York Times and BBC don't call it a Fatwa, they call it a "Fatwa". The current NPOV rewording now avoids stating whether it IS or it ISN'T a fatwa, and instead merely mentions that the signatories weren't clerics, leaving it to the reader to look further into the issue. Reverting back to the previous version would reinsert a POV.

As satated, if you want the article to state that it IS a fatwa then enter the talk page and present your arguements. Otherwise refrain from inserting that POV, as I now have also refrained from inserting that it WAS NOT a fatwa, and instead it now read a NPOV edit which avoids stating either side and mentions both that the signatories were not clerics or islamic leaders and that it is commonly refered to as a fatwa. Al-Andalus 08:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is a bit more complicated than that. Consider "John says that people are generally nice". Your version would be "Although he has no formal recognition as a sociologist, and has never studied psychology, John says that people are generally nice". You agree with me that the second statement is definetly not NPOV. I think we should just say he released a "fatwa", as the beeb does. yandman 11:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yandman,

Thank you for your comments. I will restore the warnings if Wikipedia policy dictates I need to or if there is a community consensus to that respect. I am hesitant to do so because they resulted from my first edits on wikipedia when I was not aware of the policy, and so I think they leave a black mark on my record that is not reflective of my citizenship as a wikipedian. I know this issue is currently being debated, and if the consensus ends up that they should stay on the talk page, I will restore them.

Happy editing!

PStrait 15:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would have but them back on automatically, but it didn't look like you were a vandal. What you can do, if you want to start from a clean slate as it were, is create a new account. Anyway, best of luck on the 'pedia. yandman 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make pointless silly edits as you have done to the King of Queens page. First of all, the edit you made was so unimportant and it didn't even sound right. I encourage you to stop nitpicking and trying to start trouble here at wiki. There's a wiki page called don't be a dick. I'm not sure exactly how to write it out, but please read it. thankyou yandman! Happy editing! Twentyboy 11:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That page is on meta, not wikipedia: [1]. Anyway, the sentence in question was rephrased by 65.31.99.71, your alleged sockpuppet. This version was not, in my opinion, consistent with the tone of an encyclopaedia, having a more informal grammatical construct (replacing "she usually admits it" with "she'll usually admit to it" etc). Therefore I reverted back to the previous version. And as for your insult, if you feel this is "pointless", why did you make the edit in the first place? Nitpicking is what makes the difference between an FA-class article and the rest. yandman 16:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just telling you that I am going to revert it back to my way because if you read the next sentence, there's a source of it. Melinda saying she was one of the worker ants to a queen bitch is basically calling her a bitch. Happy editing! Twentyboy 21:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And where's the source? yandman 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to go into the history and find the person who wrote that sentence, then track him down on wikipedia and ask him. Be civil about it. Happy editing! Twentyboy 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a source. You should have a look at WP:source and WP:BIO. Any statements made about living people that could in any way be considered negative have to be backed up with links to third-party sources that say the same thing. yandman 09:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You've been blocked for being a sockpuppet, but not of the guy I thought you were. My apologies... yandman 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes my friend, Twentyboy is finally gone:) Man that guy/gal was annoying. I now see why he/she was so defensive about being accused of being a sockpuppet; though I guess he/she was telling the truth about not being Chadbryant. Well, it is now over, hopefully. I look forward to seeing you around. Cheers, loud and deafening cheers. THL 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey yandman, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Hi Yamla, would you mind rolling back [2]? I've reverted today's with popups, but it's rather slow, and from what I gather, you have a faster tool. Is there a way we can automatically remove any links to that site? User is a serial linkspammer, but was not given a final warning until today, so I've not listed him at wp:vandal. Yet."

Nope, do special tools that I'm aware of, but I've taken care of the situation.  :) --Yamla 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your special tool there being a big vat of elbow grease... Thanks for the help! yandman 15:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of the discussion concerning the use of the word terrorist in relation to the Al-Qaeda organzation, I have made a RfC. If you would like to comment, you can do so here. Thank you Trojan traveler 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger. yandman 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This was neither an emotional speech or a personal attack. I was merely stating the fact that it is easy for people have not been affected by terrorism to speak of terrorists as though they have done nothing wrong. The mindset of these people usually changes after they have had to identify their mother/father/brother/sister/husband/wife/uncle/aunt/grandmother/grandfather/friend using a combination of dental records and a few pieces of charred skull. Cerebral Warrior 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That, in my opinion, is emotional. And this[3], in Wikipedia's opinion, is a personal attack. As is saying "if you try to prevent us from calling an organisation that kills innocent women and children terrorists, how can you expect to be treated in a civil manner?". yandman 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are not emotionally disturbed by the horrific deaths of almost 3000 people (among them many little boys and girls) intrigues me. May I know whether you are a follower of stoicism, or whether you (in the words of Russel Crowe in the role of Joh Nash) have been bestowed with "two helpings of mind and just half a helping of heart"? [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: "that, in my opinion, is emotional". I think what you meant to say was "why do you stay neutral on disturbing topics?". Because this is an encyclopaedia. yandman 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean do you not feel sorry, on a personal level, for those who died that day and their families? Cerebral Warrior 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I do. So? yandman 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you propose that Al-Qaeda, who caused so much pain both to the victims and their faimilies should not be called a terrorist organisation. Do you think that little Christine knew what the reason was for her to die that day? Do you think she realised the geopolitical decisions and errors, made both by Islamofascists and by the US that were responsible for her death? No, that innocent girl only knew that she was going to Disneyland, but that simple dream was cruelly cut short, for reasons she could not even understand. That is why Al-Qaeda are terrorists. And that is why the whole world agrees that they are terrorists. So, the next time your mind tells you not to call them what they are, please look long and hard at Christine and think about whether or not the people who took that two year old girl's life were terrorists. Cerebral Warrior 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very poignant. However, appeals to emotion are a logical fallacy. You can't build an argument on emotions, and you should always be very careful of those who try to. Al-Qaeda attacks civilian as well as military targets. So does the US. We can't start calling one of them terrorist, because it would mean there would be no reason not to call the other one terrorist. By the way, fascism is an ideology that is both nationalistic and corporatist, which islamism is definitely not. yandman 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not appealing to your emotions. I am only asking you how you would explain to that little girl's friends that the people who killed her were not terrorists. Cerebral Warrior 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not me. I can say that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation, that Ahmadinejad is a dangerous fruitcake and that George Bush is a cocaine-sniffing silver-spoon aristocrat pretending to be a christian cowboy so that those stupid enough to fall for it will vote for him, but wikipedia cannot. yandman 09:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that Christine was not terrorised by the fact that the plane she was on was crashed into a building? You think she just sat back and thought "Oh well, guess I'm going to be incinerated now." Cerebral Warrior 11:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that although Al-Qaeda has commited terrorist attacks, we can not call it a terrorist group. If you look at the 9/11 page, it says "terrorist attacks". As I said above, Al-Qaeda attacks civilian as well as military targets. So does the US. We can't start calling one of them terrorist, because it would mean there would be no reason not to call the other one terrorist. yandman 11:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not using my userpage to campaign for or against anything? What part of it do you find offensive? By the way, the latest addition was a direct quote I picked up from Wikiquote. Cerebral Warrior 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say that your userboxes, along with your choice of quotes, reflect your rather extreme personal opinions on matters that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. yandman 09:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Where have I mentioned that my choice of quotes or userboxes reflect my opinions? Cerebral Warrior 11:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"This user believes that..." is rather explicit. yandman 11:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you find offensive about my beliefs? Do you support terrorism or Islamofascism? Do you not agree that the Koran encourages violence and that Muslims have killed and continue to kill innocent people? Cerebral Warrior 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Err.. the Quran says "And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another)". And as for "Muslims have killed and continue to kill innocent people", that's called affirming the consequent: Terrorists kill people. Some terrorists are muslim. Therefore muslims kill people. yandman 12:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse the Koran encourages violence and genocide. Don't believe me? Check out Jihadwatch Ann Coulter said All Muslims may not be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. Cerebral Warrior 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You act as if only Muslims kill people. What about Christians? Or Buddhists, or Hindus, or atheists or Jews? The Bible also advocates violence, yet you only seem concerned with the violence advocated for by the Koran. Why? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Because none of us should have to die for (in the somewhat brusque words of Ann Coulter, which I do not necessarily agree with) "smelling good and not answering to the name Muhammad". Cerebral Warrior 06:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to have any Muslim try to make me smell bad or convert me. I've had several Christians try to do so though (the converting part, none have tried to make me smell bad, only my crust punk friends have done that). You are attacking a false and bigoted image of Islam. Your argument is a classic straw man. Have you even met a Muslim? Ever tried having a polite conversation with one. And please realize, if a Muslim (or anyone for that matter) did try to kill me for not converting to their religion I'd be fighting to the death. But it hasn't happened. Honestly, I'm a lot more afraid of the local fundamentalist Christians I deal with all the time than I am of the "islamofascist" boogey man that I've yet to encounter in real life. And that's not for lack of encountering Muslims, I've known several, as well as non-Muslim Middle Easterners. My last girlfriend was an atheist who emigrated with her family from Iran, partly out of fear of persecution since their dad was a political writer who wasn't on the governemnt's good side. In other words, I'm well aware that there are serious problems with some Muslims, just as there are serious problems with some Christians, but most of the ones I know are perfectly nice and respectful. Of course, if they continue to be persecuted and hated, it wouldn't be a surprise if they started living up to their false reputation and fought back, because no one likes to be oppressed. Not me, not you, not Muslims. And if you don't agree with that quote, why are you using it to answer a question I directed towards you? I really don't care what Ann Coulter's opinion is. She's no better than Osama bin Ladin and I mean that with no exaggeration. She just hasn't killed anyone yet, but if the tables were turned she probably would. Her rhetoric is just as hateful and ignorant as al-Qaeda's. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm making a final formal request to Cerebral, on his talk page, asking him to accept the current version of his userpage: [4] and generally improve his behaviour. yandman 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You are being cited at User talk:Cerebral Warrior#Your user page as the arbiter of a consensus "that compromise has been reached-I can put what I want on my userpage, provided I agree to a disclaimer stating that my views do not reflect those of the community. The disclaimer is prominently displayed, as is the content I see fit to put on my userpage" (CW on my talk page). That wasn't my understanding of your compromise with him. I have (as far as I know) never interacted with him before this but I don't like the current content of his user page and don't think it conforms to policy or contributes to a collegial atmosphere here. What do you think? --Guinnog 20:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. The bag of snakes... Rather offensive, isn't it? I can't say I appreciate it either, but the problem is that WP:User is only a guideline. To be honest, I don't like the idea of censoring user pages, and I think that the best way of sorting this out is to not feed him (see this discussion). As long as the (slightly tailored) warning is there, we can let this silly little man bask in his own stupidity. As he pointed out himself, there are far more offensive userpages out there (even Ann Coulter hasn't branded the swastika. Yet...). Concerning his other edits, I check up on his contributions at least twice a day to make sure he doesn't spread his bile outside his userspace. He'll end up getting bored and go back to watching FOX News all day. yandman 22:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree with many things you have just said, personal attacks make you look bad to. I'm going to stay out of this, but I'm just mentioning that the personal attack you just made hurt your own credibility. Until next time, cheers -- THL 01:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

While I believe everything I said is true, I agree with you that I should try to keep calm. Thanks for the hint... yandman 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I'm also not sure you have the right to negotiate that the user can carry hate speech on his wikipedia user page, however good your intentions. This would be a bad precedent to set I think. We are trying to write an encyclopedia; anything which distracts from that can and should go. I'm all in favour of harm reduction, but I think, with respect, that this should be removed. --Guinnog 01:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The reasons I was reluctant to censor his page were:

• a) I was the first one to complain about it, and I don't want to come across as a dictator
• b) The other editors weren't unanimous in asking for the removal of the offending material
• c) Any discussion about it would always turn into a slagging match about Israel/Lebanon/Palestine, so I came to question the true motives of certain editors complaining about him
• d) An admin, ThatGuy, advised ignoring him
• e) I'm not an admin, so if he started reverting I'd have to ask around (something I abhore) or, even worse, take this to an RfC...

However, now that you're here, I don't see why you shouldn't remove it. yandman 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your full reply. I have posted again on CW's talk page; I would rather he remove the material himself. Can I emphasise that no criticism of your actions was intended by me; I just thought you were being misquoted somewhat on your compromise, which CW seems to have taken as carte blanche to continue to have unencyclopedic material on his user page. Best wishes and thanks again, --Guinnog 11:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes. Interestingly enough, the Turkish parliament is currently drafting a bill to make it illegal to deny the Algerian Genocide. [5] As for the Turkey article, you're really just wasting your time. :-) Even if you come to some compromise, it will still be removed by various anons and new users, or perhaps users that weren't aware of the previous discussions. Even if you add it to the "see also" section it will still be removed. You have to understand, yandman, that the issue is still highly sensitive in Turkey. Besides, even if it's not mentioned there, we do have a large paragraph about the genocide in the Ottoman Empire page, so that's something. Furthermore the Armenian Genocide article follows WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and doens't make it 50/50 between the majority view held by scholars, and the minority view (that it wasn't a genocide). Thanks for you kind words, it was nice to finally get the mop after being here for a year! Regards, Khoikhoi 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You're the first person here who understood the whole "put your name as the title" thing. Truly, admin material... It's a shame you're so pessimistic, though I know you're probably right. I can't help thinking that if we managed to convince the team of Turkish editors that "guard" this page, we could counter the anons. It's a shame that France still refuses to recognise the Algerian genocide (the worst was that whole "role positif de la l'influence coloniale" debacle). What I find important in the Turkish position is not so much the denial (why should govenments have to recognise genocides that have nothing to do with them?), but rather the "enforced denial" whereby you can be prosecuted for not denying. yandman 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Well, good luck—hopefully you won't get into that many more conflicts. Cheers, Khoikhoi 00:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! you're like a little kid running to tell on a big bully who just kicked your ass. As soon as she blocks me, I will be back here in 5 minutes. All I do is unplug my modem you dumb fuck. :D STUPID BITCH!!! I HOPE YOUR HEAD GETS CUT OFF AND SOMEONE WIPES THERE ASS WITH IT AND THEN STABS YOU IN YOUR HEART!!! NO ONE CAN KEEP ME FROM HERE YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT, NOT YAMLA'S STUPID ASS OR YOU!!! NOW HURRY UP AND SIT IN SOME TRAFFIC SO I CAN SEE YOUR HEAD ROLL DOWN THE STREET

Charming. yandman 10:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

SHUT YOUR STUPID ASS UP NOW!!! GO GET YOUR GODDAMNED ADMINISTRATOR TO BLOCK ME SO I CAN COME BACK HERE AND START EDITING IN FIVE MINUTES!!! ACTUALLY JUST GO OUT AND GET PUT YOUR HEAD UNDERNEATH THE WHEEL OF A CAR YOU DUMB FUCKER AND THEN HAVE ROSEANNE BAR GET IN THE VEHICLE AND HIT THE GAS 65.31.99.71 10:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

AND TO THE PARTY WHO BLOCKS ME, FUCK U! I'LL BE BACK HERE IN FIVE MINUTES AND HOPEFULLY YANDMAN'S HEAD WHEEL BE CLEANING MY ASS AND HIS BODY WILL BE FAR AWAY FROM HIS HEAD

Anything else you wanted to say? yandman 11:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Science could learn a lot from this type of person... Daniel.Bryant 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Intelligent design"? They must be joking. yandman 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Could you block 65.31.99.71 (Twentyboy's IP)? The admin who blocked Twentyboy/HungryGirl etc... indef forgot to, and now he/she's vandalising. Thanks..."

Done. Death threats and blanking other people's signed comments are inappropriate. The block is for a month and even that is on the extreme edge of how long we normally block an IP address for. Hopefully the user will take this time to calm down, but further blocks may possibly be necessary. --Yamla 14:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)