User talk:Yandman/Archive8

831:

are opposed to regulation and explicitly said so; but they didn't. Instead, the english literally reads that JS has a number of issues which are labelled as Junkscience. It strikes me that "so labelled" in the second sentence clearly refers to the phrase "label of junk" in the first sentence, and not the verb "attacking"; i am not even sure it is plausible grammar. What is clear is that this is not explicit; there were a raft of ways to make the case explicitly, and these have not been used. If it was explicit, the authors could have provided references for what could potentially be a defamatory statement. Instead they relied upon innuendo, and it is the innuendo which is now on wikipedia, misrepresented as a statement of fact.

31: 935: 1010: 830:

Unfortunately, "implicit" and innuendo is all that it is. If the authors wanted to state explicitly that JS is "opposed to regulation", they could have done so and provided a reference proving the motivation of JS. They could also have provided a reference to show that JS attacks science because they

171:

The Knowledge article on Lift and Carry was so complete, so thorough, and ultimately so incredibly RIGHT ON that I actually linked to it on my Lift and Carry site as a reference link. Recently, it was brought to my attention that this wonderful reference article is no longer available. Whomever wrote

481:

Thanks, Baris! Work has become pretty hectic since early March, so I've not been as active as I should have, and the administrative backlogs sap the rest of my wiki-time... Unfortunately, I now spend more time deleting and banning than I do editing. When I've got a bit more time I'll try to sit down

470:

Hey what's up.. I just picked up on the fact that you have become an admin - congratulations!! Maybe it is because we don't seem to edit the same pages these days or maybe because you are not as active as you used to be, I don't know. I was also away for a while.. Anyways, just wanted to drop a line

450:

Yeah, to be honest I wasn't sure about that one, but Yamla's protection of the page (for "unblock abuse") had just expired, and he'd already posted an unblock request. Seeing as he's been indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account, I prefer to leave this in the hands of the blocking admin (who has

1033:

status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient

637:

There was some discussion about this incident, I think the best thing would be to ask him to explain. From what I gather, he edits from his local headquarters, and "forgot" to log in a few times. I don't think it would be correct to label the IP of an entire branch of an organisation as a sock of

374:

Sorry, didn't see this. Yeah, I was here for the Essjay thing. I feel kind of bad for him with how much he did to help this place, but lying about it rather than admitting his mistake was unacceptable. If he comes back in sock form and rises to BCrat agan without repeating this mistake I wouldn't

117:

Thanks. I leave on March 9th, so I will stop editing the evening of March 8th. I will be back on the 21st. I live seven hours different from Wiki time (Mountain Standard Time, USA), so it may seem like I'm hanging around longer than I should be. However, when I add the template to my page that is

803:

If you think there is a serious problem, and several people agree with you, you can take the case to arbitration. However, if you are the only editor defending a particular version, there's not much you can do. What seems to be the problem? Reading the unabridged paragraph MastCell quotes, it is

64:

Hi Yandman. In March I am going to be taking a vacation for 10 days. Would you mind if I told my adoptees that they could ask you for advice while I'm gone? They are all very low maintenance, and you will be the third person they could ask if they needed advice should you accept. Peace,

1225: 626:

I didn't think a user was allowed to remove sock warnings from accounts that have the same IP address as theirs. Although the user asserts these accounts are not socks, we have no independent way of knowing if this is true. Letting this happen might set a bad precedent.

848:

Fair point, and a good reason for me not to continue. I note that this argument is no defence for wikipedia if it evers has to contest an action for defamation, nor is it a good method to determine truth. Not your problem, I know: I appreciate you are a volunteer.

985:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 786:

I have made the point in the discussion page -clearly- that the version of words used is not what is in the paper, and that a conclusion is being drawn in wikipedia which isn't in the original paper. That conclusion is arguable, and is arguably defamatory.

1190:

Indeed, but you're tagging images for deletion just because the source information hasn't been formatted correctly. That's not the same thing. For example, consider the logo you warned me about (above). The source information was present

309:

What I meant was, could someone please put a description of how to pronounce "Antero" into the article? I would like the article to be changed to include a pronunciation of it. Does putting it that way make the question more appropriate?

418:

It's annoying when that happens. Maybe we should set up a guideline: we need everyone to either block first and reply on WP:3RR after, or reply first and block after. When one does the latter and the other the former ...

175:

I have now joined Knowledge and am still novice on how to be further involved. However, I will start by doing whatever is asked of me to reinstate this extremely accurate reference article on "Lift and Carry".

451:

been contacted). This account has a history of abusing the unblock template, so I prefer not to let him waste everyone's time. Please feel free to unprotect and unblock if you think he can be trusted, though.

959:, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found 981:

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

172:

this article really did their homework and I cannot say that I could have done a better job myself. I can say that it is a loss not to have this reference article available on Knowledge any longer.

978:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

291:

Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article ("Should I add a new chapter?" etc..), not for discussing matters relating to the subject. To ask questions about topics, use the

812:

has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation ... One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been

168:

In the field of "Lift and Carry", which is the subject at hand, I am considered a leading expert. Feel free to review my site www.liftgoddess.com and you will see that to be true.

1171:

mmm, if i understand your point well. At English Knowledge any unsourced images should delete after 7 days from tagging. I can't understand this problem :). Thanks Yandman.--

612:

As a user who has previously been in contact with this person, I am asking if you would be willing to be the second person to certify the basis for this dispute. Thank you.

1074:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

1037:

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the

804:

clear that the AJPH is saying that JS.com is one of "those opposed to regulation". The fact that this is said in two seperate sentences does not mean it isn't explicit. "

722:

I'm doing well. I'm currently making plans to expand my horizons after a period of inactivity. It seems like everyone is coming out of a wikibreak right now. Cheers,

967: 943: 928: 790:

I have also been somewhat restrained in the number of my edits, though I did go up to 3 edits in a day on one occasion in the last month. How can I proceed ?

1004: 926: 616: 1025: 999: 994: 525: 605: 314:

Ah, OK. Good idea. In that case, could you ask at the "languages" desk, and then add the info in the article? We'll get an answer much faster that way.

1123:

Hi Yandman! I think warning all uploader is the best (sometime source should be given from last one, because he upload different version). If you read

1117: 850: 832: 791: 183: 156: 538: 1378: 1431: 1407: 1349: 225:

Why would it? There is no need to be an adult to participate in Knowledge, so there is little need for a specific council for those who aren't.

568: 193: 1083: 986: 853: 427: 599: 874: 1354: 824: 740: 713: 646: 526: 490: 393: 365: 204: 147: 108: 816:". The verb in the first sentence (attacking with the label of junk) is referenced in the second (so labeled). That's more than implicit. 459: 322: 303: 270: 1145: 606: 1268:. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 671: 519: 1412: 1383: 1325: 1203: 652: 552: 276: 1158: 1034:

information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

233: 1424: 1395: 1366: 1337: 664: 1320: 1240: 1087: 956: 1298: 982: 975: 971: 952: 638:

only one member of that organisation. In the same way, we wouldn't label a school IP as being a sock of one of its students.

1103: 990: 444: 1064: 532:

On April 11 you expressed an interest in this proposal. The WikiProject has gone live. Your participation is welcome.

1261: 475: 351: 94: 585: 921: 835: 794: 699: 287:

You deleted it, but I didn't understand your explanation: article, not subject. Can you explain that better? Thanks!

186: 1292: 1287: 773: 734: 693: 631: 571: 505: 377: 335: 256: 131: 78: 219: 1195:, and here the copyright holder was explicited in the description). However, this image would have been deleted. 412: 1315: 1282: 1243:, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. 1136: 1068: 754: 357:

To be honest, I've been rather inactive myself, so I wouldn't know. Were you there for the whole Essjay thing?

1247: 864:

Every outside editor who's commented has agreed that your claims are groundless. You have been pointed to the

1058: 783:

dear yandman i would be grateful for your advice as to how to proceed, and how I may avoid "edit-warring".

904: 1052: 38: 1075: 1009: 292: 162:

I would like to protest the deletion and offer any necessary improvement of the following article:

843:"However, if you are the only editor defending a particular version, there's not much you can do." 705:

Can't complain. I must fight my inherent laziness and start editing again, though. How about you?

1403: 1374: 1345: 997: 440:

Doesn't seem like unblock abuse to me. It's been more than 2 months; looks like a valid request.

433: 915:. As you have had some marginal involvement with this editor, I am notifying you of the thread. 1127: 613: 884: 729: 688: 465: 387: 345: 328: 210: 141: 88: 59: 1154:

Hi, Do you have some examples for bot's problems? If there is one let me fix it. Thanks!--

8: 564: 558: 496: 253: 243: 1029:. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 1428: 1399: 1370: 1341: 1309: 1276: 1255: 1091: 1041: 948: 778: 676: 407: 155: 284:

I posted a question in the Mount Antero section: "How do you pronounce Mount Antero?"

1265: 1196: 817: 770: 706: 639: 592: 582: 576: 545: 512: 502: 483: 452: 420: 358: 315: 296: 263: 239: 226: 197: 101: 47: 17: 1420: 1414: 1391: 1385: 1362: 1356: 1333: 1327: 1109: 898: 660: 654: 621: 1423:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

1394:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

1365:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

1336:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

1215: 1080:

Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

955:

as to why its use in Knowledge articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the

865: 724: 683: 663:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

628: 472: 434: 382: 340: 136: 83: 1097: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1114: 1019: 960: 760: 441: 250: 240: 1297:

Hi Yandman. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at

1302: 1269: 917: 908: 890: 870: 766: 124: 119: 71: 66: 912: 277: 1244: 1172: 1155: 1142: 894: 533: 401: 196:. Basically, the lack of verifiable, independent sources is the problem. 934: 868:

innumerable times. Yet you choose to keep making legal threats instead.

748: 947:. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under 668: 216: 1030: 333:

I'm back. So, did anything interesting happen while I was gone? --

1108:

If you believe you received this message in error, please notify

1193:

the copyright holder of the image can be considered the source

482:

and get some proper editing done, but until then... Have fun.

1224: 1048: 192:

I suggest you read the arguments for deletion put forwards

511:

There wouldn't be much point now you've been sockblocked.

808:

the science underlying difficult public policy decisions

163: 1425: