User talk:Skyerise/Archive 2013

Santa Fe Institute

Hi. You recently undid several of my contributions to the Santa Fe Institute page, but you did so without citing appropriate wikipedia policies as to why. I am going to restore much of the material, and I am adding external references as requested. Let's not start an edit war. If you'd like to talk about the changes, let's do it on the Talk page. Paresnah (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace

Hey, Yworo, I saw your revert of the IP on this page (on my watchlist for some reason or other), and I noticed that you also reverted a foreign language link, too. Did you mean to do that? I was going to re-add the link, assuming it was accidental, but I thought I'd check with you first (I can't read whatever language that is, so I can't judge whether it's a good link to have myself.) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, accidental. Yworo (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Great work on Georges Yatridès Thanks Theroadislong (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to show special this video link: Slovenski utrinki. Doncsecz^talk 14:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Swartz & 3RR

I prefer not to go to the limit of 3RR as you have, so I won't revert for now. If someone else does, you would do well not to carry on yourself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

All you have to do is add supporting text to the article with citations. We never include any categories which aren't supported in the text. See WP:CAT#Articles, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable." Yworo (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's verifiable via the source provided on the talk page, which you have clearly had the opportunity to read. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no source which provided self-identification. There is maybe support for inclusion in "American people of Jewish descent", but until the text and support is in the article, the category must remain off. I don't have to add anything I don't think is pertinent to this biography, and his alleged Jewishness is not part of his notability in my opinion. If you have a different opinion, then act accordingly, but you may not add or return categories based on what's on the talk page, only what's in the article. So stop bitching at me if you're too lazy to do it properly, that's your problem, not mine. Yworo (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Swartz

Hi Yworo. I know you and Nomoskedacity both have the best intentions regarding Swartz's ethnicity. Let's see if we can hash it out at the talk page. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've suggested a proposal on Nomo's talk page. Please come by and let's stop the bickering and just sort this out. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Paramahansa Yogananda

Hello Yworo - please check out the last edits - It made the page a mess and was filled with opinions. I reverted and asked editors to discuss it on the talk page. Need your mentorship here. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• is it appropriate to add a signature of someone onto Wikipedia? Not sure why it is necessary? I haven't seen it on other pages - see PY TalkRed Rose 13 (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yworo, I googled "Autobiography of a yogi wikipedia" and this was the third option - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yworo/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi - Shouldn't this be hidden because it isn't the page on Wikipedia but a sandbox? Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Google indexes all of Wikipedia. There is no possible reason to hide this from Google. Yworo (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it cause confusion for someone looking for the Wikipedia Autobiography of a Yogi page and find two separate pages and one that is a rough draft? Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not my problem. There is a lot of discussion on the associated talk page regarding the restructuring of the article, which we typically do not delete. While it will show up on a Google search (after the official article), it won't show up on a basic Wikipedia search, only an advanced search which includes user space pages. We do care and can control what Wikipedia returns, but we don't really have any control over how Google indexes Wikipedia, that I know of... Yworo (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would say that people wanting to search Wikipedia simply come to Wikipedia and search. If they are searching on Google, they are going to search for "Autobiography of a Yogi", they are not going to add "Wikipedia". If you do that search, you will see that the user space draft doesn't show up until page 4 of the results. I really don't see this as a problem, and am not sure why you do. Yworo (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I added a {{User sandbox}} template at the top. That should avoid any confusion should someone atypically perform the identical search you did. It might even tell Google not to index it. OK? Yworo (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you that helps to clarify what they found - I added a link to the authentic article below your template. Thank you again for your consideration and harmonious resolution once again. Btw, I consider you my mentor. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed it. You don't have the right to edit in my user space. Don't do it again. This is a non-issue, you are making overly much of it. There are dozens or perhaps hundreds of copies of articles in user space, none of which have such a link to the "real article". We have specific templates for it. No more is needed. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanksRed Rose 13 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion on Spirituality

Hi Yworo. Could you give a third opinion on Spirituality? See Talk:Spirituality#Lead, Talk:Spirituality#Conceptual background, Talk:Spirituality#Recent edits and Talk:Spirituality#Requesting third opinions on lead and definition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

NB: see also this comment [1]. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I see it got blocked for personal attacks. I've watchlisted the article. Yworo (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. i was getting kind of desparate. I asked for your opinion because you're critical of my edits . Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Spoiling for spoilers?

--I am LORD Garth !! (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The subtext of my complaint is that plot summaries containing the tiniest details will always run well over the recommended maximum word limit. But I've already learned what a fool's errand it is to condense every one of these I encounter because it's just a lot of arduous jungle-clearing when there's really no shining temple awaiting me on the other side. And there's also the possibility that I'm essentially "undoing" someone else's labor of love, and that is the last reason on Earth for my continuing presence here. I derive plenty of satisfaction as it is from surgically simplifying and clarifying and more completely articulating ideas and passages within the bodies of the articles without resorting to the use of chainsaws or machetes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RODERICKMOLASAR (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Joel Brinkley

Hi Yworo, I just wanted to make it very clear that I didn't put up the original section regarding Joel Brinkley and my edit history makes it very clear that I've been trying to maintain the neutrality of the article. I am merely serving as an advocate for the Vietnamese American community. As a result, I would really appreciate if you guys don't consider blocking me.Chrisvanlang (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Being an advocate of any sort is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Advocacy and "Righting great wrongs". Please put your talents to use elsewhere on Wikipedia where you will not have a bias or be tempted into advocacy for a specific minority (or any other type of) group. Yworo (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I stand by the opinion that the current discussion is worth mentioning, but I would really prefer to return editing scientific biographies.Chrisvanlang (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like reliable sources can be found. The problem ends up being undue weight, which is especially significant in a biography of a living person. If you were to expand the article significantly with positive content about other articles the subject has written and responses to them, then the material would not overwhelm the short article with content perceived as a negative attack by the subject. So, yes, you could get the content into the article, but only if you can find enough material to double or triple the length of the article before adding the critical content. Yworo (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu (operating system) - Dell

Hi there! I've started a discussion thread on the talk page for "Ubuntu (operating system)", as I believe that this needs further discussion on the matter of whether Dell sells Ubuntu systems. Please read the discussion before responding. Thanks! ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ehh, nevermind... (read the talk page mentioned for details) ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

rickross.com

Should this be on the spam blacklist? I've had a couple of sites full of copyvio added. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably, but we have an article on Rick Ross (consultant). Doesn't it need to be listed there? Can the blacklist exempt one article? Yworo (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe so. Loads of links to it.[2] Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "cult"-busting is some people's favorite hobby. All the links are to purloined articles from newspapers, magazines, etc. Site has literally hundreds of copies of articles, all of which can be referenced perfectly well either without a link or with a link to the original source. So yeah, we should probably blacklist it. Yworo (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Danut Marcu

Please explain your blank deletion action on the article talk page, as the article does not meet the definition of WP:ATP. Mhym (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why did your remove an AfD template? The article is being discussed on it's own talk page, at WP:BLPN and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dănuț Marcu. I didn't blank anything, I initially added a {{db-attack}} and it was apparently blanked by the template or a bot, which I did not expect. Yworo (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Enlightenment (spiritual)

Hi Yworo. You've been following the discussions at Enlightenment (spiritual), haven't you? And also noticed the sockpuppet-investigations on Raul7213 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raul7213/Archive? Well, here's a new message I received from Octavious88. I don't trust it, but I can't figure out what's going on here - though maybe Octavious (or whoever) is Paul Joseph, the author of the famous article on refeeding. What do you think of this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I took it off my watchlist. Too much activity. Yworo (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. Still, what do you make of this messsage? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Turiya is a real concept and certainly should be mentioned in the article. No opinion on whether the editor is a sock. Yworo (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

On another note, I wish whoever is separating out "web references" from other references would stop. Reliable web references should not be treated any differently than offline references. Unreliable web references shouldn't be used at all. Thus, there is no reason to imply that some references are different or lesser than others. Yworo (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Uhm... that's me, as you probably know. One of the reasons for doing so is to have a neat list of short references, and a list of sources which take more space. It also gives a quick overview of "accessible" source, that is, which can be approached right away, instead of buying books. The web-references can also be placed under "Sources", see Bodhidharma. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Promotion

Hi Yworo, Thanks for the welcome. I am actually a college student in a class about CSCW, using Wikipedia as an example. I am interested in contributing to a Good Article promotion. Do you know how I could find an existing article being promoted? Are there any in the Seattle Wikiproject? Thank you. Tgrosinger (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you have my talk page watchlisted. You can find all the current good article nominations here. I don't know if there is any easy way to find out whether any are Seattle related. I wrote Last Exit on Brooklyn and got it promoted, but it's pretty easy to make such a short article "good" when there are limited sources and it can't be expanded much more than it already is... Yworo (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation and question

First I appreciate your recognition of my efforts here at wikipedia on reaching 22,000 edits, Thank you. Second I have studied your points on COATRACK and that all my examples have their own wikipedia article, that clarifies some misunderstanding, however aside from one editors "mere gossip" your most recent post including: "please don't preach to me", "if you don't listen", "I am telling you", "find yourself in trouble", "prevent . . . serious mistakes" is making it difficult for agf and civil. I see you have edited it several times thou those terms remain and dilute any attempt of resolution--and yes I realize (and respect) your position that it is largely resolved. I have thought it best to address this directly. It's not my intent to waste editors time, make speeches or be--honestly feeling this way--attacked over this. I hope my efforts to be as specific and direct with your word choice can be revised and carried forward in any further discussions avoiding ad hominems. Thank you for your continued wikipedia efforts. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I only used that language because I felt that you were being somewhat condescending yourself and simply wanted to reply in kind. If you're willing to put it behind us, so am I. Some of my best allies on Wikipedia are editors with whom I was first at odds with over something. So, no hard feeling on my side. What about on yours? (Need I say this is an apology? Guess I better so there is no further misunderstanding.) Yworo (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Teachable moment

(all quotations require immediately following citation, even in the lead)

You're right; my mistake. I've been removing unnecessary CN tags from article ledes based on WP:LEADCITE for years, yet never noticed that direct quotations should still have a citation even in the lede. I've added the citations. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I noticed the removal and self-revert. Appreciated that you got what I meant. My mistake too, I've been using a simple {{cn}} for years when I should have been being more explicit with {{cite quote}}, so I learned something too. Yworo (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Yworo. It does not appear that your edits of Charlize Theron qualify for the BLP exception to 3RR. (".. libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material"). It would be to your advantage to agree to stop warring on this article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically, it is both biased toward American cultural appropriation, and unsourced as to the fact that it is Ms. Theron's preferred national identification, but I get your point. Yworo (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Open paragraph help

Hi, I noticed you commented on the Isla Fisher talk page regarding WP:OPENPARA a while back. I would really appreciate it if you could please take the time to offer a third party opinion to help resolve a similar issue on this talk page so consensus could be reached. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Charlize Theron

Reply from Tom3605: Regarding my prevous editing of the article on Charlize Theron, I changed the original reference to Ms. Theron being " a South African actress" to "a South African-born actress." Since she's now also an American citizen, refering to her as a "South African-born" actress is more accurate and fair than as simply " a South African actress." The fact that she was born in South Africa is well known and is stated elsewhere in the article itself, I thought no other justifications are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom3605 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong, it's denigrating to the fact that she is still a South African citizen and thinks of herself as South African. We don't change people's nationality in the lead sentence simply because they add an additional citizenship well after they become notable. WP:OPENPARA says we use the citizenship held at the time the subject became notable. She is a South African actress who lives and works in the US and recently acquired an additional citizenship, which is mentioned at the end of the lead section. You display great insensitivity to the personal national identification of a living person and need to read WP:BLP and try to understand its intent. Yworo (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

VSP

Nothing on the page is poorly sourced and the list was upheld in the BLP noticeboard. Please do not threaten me with blocks when there is no basis to do so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You've already broken 3RR which is indeed a basis for a block. Learn the hard way that you are wrong, if you want. Yworo (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas". EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

3RR reminder

Just pointing out that you have now made the same edit (removal of material) twice at the article Very Serious People. I'm sure you are aware of the 3RR rule, but I wanted to make sure you have this particular case on your radar - in case others restore it and you are tempted to keep removing it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hell, no. Two is my personal limit (usually). Then I go do something in real life, like take some visiting friends downtown to see our magnificent library. :-) Yworo (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"personal attack"

Don't call me "Buckwheat", that's a personal attack

Don't spout nonsense, Sport, it makes you look ridiculous. --Calton | Talk 20:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And see, that's condescending. But you're just like that, you can't help it and you look a bit funny to boot, so I'll forgive you. But does your mother really have to dress you so funny? Yworo (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Sorry that you had trouble finding the others at Allegro. If you want to talk about Seattle Wikipedia stuff I would meet you personally on Skype or by phone. I live in NYC now so I am not going to meetings anymore but I still support them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added one of the paragraphs you deleted

In "Friedman Unit," part of the impact is that it gets people discussing Mr. Friedman's rhetorical tactics and slipshod thinking. I concur that my third example was trivial and did not derive naturally from Friedman unit, but the second was very much in the same vein. Statements from opinion pieces are allowed to establish the writer's statements. The term does not need to stand on its own as a neologism but it is a good example of the original term stimulating political discussion. Monado (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Do consider, when we are writing about neologisms, we are writing about linguistics and the history of language development... That's encyclopedic. Political discussion is all very fine, but why are we down in the pits where it is occurring, rather than a step removed in actual academic - such as linguistics, political science, or sociological - sources? When it reaches that level, we know that it's notable. Seriously, we hold "in popular culture" items to a higher standard than is being used here. Do you really think this term will pass the 100 year test? or even be remembered in 20 years? Yworo (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It might not pass the 100 year test, but then, neither would much of the waffle about popular culture for which Wikipedia is such a good source. I am not trying to be a History of Language professor but to note some of the history. I like the piece of information but I'm not going to get into an edit war. Monado (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's still sourced to its coining. We don't do that. I'm not going to get into an edit war either, but it needs citation to a source about it, not to the source where it originated. Yworo (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Semi-protecting user talk pages. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edits at BDS

Hi. I've reverted (most of) your edits to Bush Derangement Syndrome, for reasons I've explained at Talk:Bush Derangement Syndrome#March 2013. I welcome any response you might have. Best wishes, CWC 12:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you join the discussion at WP:BLPN first? Edits were based on that discussion. Yworo (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. As you found out within four minutes of posting that. Can I suggest you would do well to adopt a policy of not editing harshly until you have done some reading? For instance, I would love to see some evidence that you read (the last few sections of) the article's talk page before turning it into a misleading stub. Radical edits without consensus create bad reputations. CWC 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm hardly the only editor who know the relevant policies better than you do. I'm a regular on BLPN. I've observed, read, and apparently know a lot more about what's acceptable and what's not than you do. For the record. Yworo (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW (very little), I was fixing tricky BLP problems before you registered your account. In fact, IIRC (not guaranteed), I was fixing BLP problems before Wikipedia had a BLP policy.
Since quoting is easier than original thought, here's something for you to think about: "I beseech you, in the bowels of [Wikipedia], think it possible that you may be mistaken." Cheers, CWC 11:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, whatever. Somehow, what other knowledgeable editors are saying and doing about the article doesn't seem to correspond with the little you think is needed to satisfy BLP. I guess I and they are all plain wrong and you are somehow right. Fortunately, common sense about whether reporting political name-calling and mudslinging from primary sources is seemly is prevailing this time. Enforcement of BLP issues has greatly improved since the good ol' days of the Wild Wild Wikipedia, and you may now be a dinosaur. I'm sure you'll catch on though, eventually (I hope). Yworo (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A word to the wise re WP:POINT

Greetings Yworo! I don't anticipate becoming too much involved in the debating over at Template:Modern Dharmic writers. But in looking at your recent edits, a question/concern came to mind: are you keeping in mind WP:POINT? Perhaps you have a good argument that you are. But some of what you are doing suggests otherwise (i.e., your change-logs are offering rationales that you were arguing against very recently). Regards -- Presearch (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The only real point here is that User:Trphierth has stuffed {{Modern Dharmic writers}} with his favorite writers, and then spammed the template into hundreds of articles, as can be seen in his contributions, here. He has spammed the template onto articles which are not included in it and into articles on people who are not even writers. He repeatedly refuses to provide sources for either the broad categorization or for the inclusion of specific writers. He is using Wikipedia to proselytize, and has been doing so for some time. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You will also see that I clearly changed my mind right here and have been completely consistent in my approach from that point on. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Syncretic

Yes, be bold! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Image placement

Thanks for your referral to two pages regarding images. Nevertheless, I did not find anything that would forbid the normal publication practice of facing images into a page rather than out of it, if at all possible. Can you quote the rule or regulation, or even dictum, if you can find one. I really would like to know. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. Don't think I ever said that was forbidden. There might be other problems with an image placement that might indicate that it should be ignored in a particular case, especially if the subject is facing near center. For example, having a left-placed image that indents the next level 2 heading is always a bad idea. Having the first image in an article at the top left can be awkward on mobile devices. Having images on both sides of text. Numerous other possibilities. I suspect you misunderstood me. Yworo (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I did. It wouldn't be the first time I have misunderstood an editor here. By the way, I admire your cup-of-coffee trick. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I borrowed the code from somebody else who did the same trick with a different image. Feel free to borrow it yourself. Yworo (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Self-Realization Fellowship

Hello Yworo, there is a editor - Tormod Kinnes - ‎46.9.197.230 - who seems to be with Swami Satyaswarananda or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailendra_bejoy_dasgupta (he just created this page) He is using sources that are questionable - websites that don't seem scholarly. He seems to be on an attack mode to put down SRF and promote Satyaswarananda rather than improving the page. He is spamming Satyaswarananda, on this page and on the Kriya Yoga page. Using opinionated words like "cosy sex", created sections called Regrets and Critiques from sources that no one would use on Wikipedia etc... I reverted him once asking him to bring ideas to the talk page. Then I deleted most of what he wrote and left one sentence to refer to the Articles of Incorp because he thought it was important. The page needs your expert editing. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Are you there Yworo? I have moved some of the edits to the talk explaining why. I also gave this editor links to guidelines on his two talk pages one for name and one for is number - This situation needs your expert editing. I would still take out more and am waiting for more information about one of his references which actually looks like an essay from some organization CRI?? the editor also added a critique section rather than just putting it under response. Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like its been deleted. I'm having a lot of demands on my time IRL right now. Yworo (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok I understand - could you then just check one post under Reception - Peter Falk - I don't think it is a good citation or reference for Wikipedia. what do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Realization_Fellowship Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, three things wrong. First, it's self-published; second, we don't link to Amazon; third, no external links are allowed from article text. Yworo (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you once again! Next time you have a moment to spare - please see his spamming & other posts in Kriya Yoga - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriya_Yoga - he is posting his opinion etc...in all his contributions.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Also, I have been wanting to give you a barnstar ever see you guided me through a very difficult conflict a while back and for your continued mentoring help - so I found the link and put it on your page but it doesn't show up when I save the page! What to do? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, usually you put the barnstar on a user's talk page and then let them move it. If it doesn't show up, you probably made a copy/paste error, lost a closing curly brace or something. Try again on my talk page. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok trying the barnstar again -

		The Special Barnstar
		For reaching out to new users and helping them get started on Wikipedia and for eloquently bringing the truth in a difficult situation.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That really doesn't look like any kind of official barnstar code. Are you getting it at WP:BARNSTAR? Yworo (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok I used your link and found the one for you! Thanks again and again...Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont worry...

A certain user doesn't like me either...especially when I too am trying to help them. MisterShiney ✉ 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything

Your revert reasoning edit summary was incorrect: the rename was discussed. See the top of Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything - it was an old discussion, revived. Lots of discussion, and even consensus, up to a point where it was templatized, where consensus stopped. --Lexein (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There does not appear to have been any consensus to move at the time the page was actually moved. A couple post-move approvals, which don't really constitute a pre-move consensus. I see one Oppose, no other formal positions. Unforgettableid seems to think he has a right to do things without waiting for a consensus to form. That's not correct. The process is, first post to requested moves so that the greater community is notified of the discussion (which wasn't done), then get a clear consensus for the move, then execute the move. Anything less than a clear consensus is "No consensus" and that means no move. Start over and do it right. Yworo (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BRD certainly allows such moves, and post consensus does count. Also, the generally accepted preference for plain names of articles and essays supports the move as done, as I noted in my comment in Talk. There's more than one way to do things right. You may have a valid point about Unforgettableid's behavior elsewhere, but I think it was in bounds at the article under discussion. Also, they apologized for the near edit warring. --Lexein (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stay off Unforgettableid's talk page as well

I have warned him, but you continuing to post there after asking him not to post here is not reasonable. Please stop that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

• Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?

• WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa

• News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops

• Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jose Antonio Vargas, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Chapel & UW!

Hi! I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, so I'm hoping I get this right...I'm a (non-Cray) colleague of Brad Chamberlain, of the Chapel project, and he wanted me to deliver a message to you. I'm leaving off his email address to avoid spambots, but if you'd like it, it shouldn't be difficult to find (or you can email me from my user page).

Hi Yworo --

[I don't have a Wikipedia account which I think is required for me to contact you directly, and am not sure I want one, so am sending this through a colleague who does in hopes that it reaches you].

I noticed the significant improvements and changes you've made to the Chapel Wikipedia entry and wanted to thank you for your improvements to the page. I believe my former manager started this entry several years ago, but then I haven't made any effort to keep it up-to-date since, in part due not insufficient time, and in part due to believing that the entry would be most appropriately maintained by those outside of the Chapel team.

One important correction that I wanted to ask you to make, if you have time and interest, is to remove me as the designer of Chapel. While I've played a pivotal role in the project since its outset and contributed significantly to its design, I wasn't the original architect of the language -- David Callahan deserves that title, if any one person does. But most accurately, over its lifetime, its design has been influenced by many developers and users. Since you made your updates in December, I put a pre-print of a book chapter about Chapel up on the web that captures some of its history if a chapter pre-print by me is a preferable source to an email from me (http://chapel.cray.com/papers/BriefOverviewChapel.pdf).

More generally, I wanted to put myself at your service if there are questions I can answer for you directly or by pointing you to other sources. We're releasing version 1.7.0 of the language today and updating our web presence accordingly, which is what reminded me of my longstanding intention to get in touch with you.

Thanks,

-Brad Chamberlain

I'll go ahead and update the page with a few edits, but you're welcome to check in on it too if you'd like. Go Huskies! :)

AtOMiCNebula (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI

While you aren't the subject of the ANI, I did raise your name here and out of courtesy, wanted to notify you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Cœur de pirate discography

Hello. The Cœur de pirate discography is currently at FLC. Please leave comments to help this reach Featured List status. Thanks! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eastern religions

Hi Yworo. I'm trying to give some people a further reason to quite this you-know-which template. I've already changed it on dosens of pages (as you've seen), which were not even included in the template. It's on so many pages, it made it clear to me that it's also useless in that respect. So I'm trying to give further opportunity to simply use a category, instead og this template. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be damned (no, that's not an invitation!): Category:Writers by religion. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The creation of Category:Eastern religions writers is really inappropriate, as it's simply in the same position as the recently deleted "Dharmic writers" category. Renaming that category was rejected in favor of deletion. I will be proposing the new category for deletion as inappropriate recreation of a category deleted after discussion simply with a different name. The time to propose renaming was during the deletion discussion. This category has the very same function as the deleted category. Yworo (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The pre-exising category Category:Writers by religion is a much better choice. Yworo (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. There's also Category:Religious writers. Suits even better, I think. You haven't been following the discussion on the you-know-which template lately, have you? Check out Being Different and Rajiv Malhotra. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

They are distinct categories. Buddhist writers may include novelists who just happen to be Buddhist, rather than being composed solely of religious writers. That being the case, Category:Writers by religion may be correct while Category:Religious writers may be an incorrect parent category for the content of its subcategories. That is "Buddhist writers" is not necessarily the same as "Writers on Buddhism". Messing with categories requires deep observation and thought, and you seem to be going about it way too cavalierly. Yworo (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The category "Writers by religion" does not contain indivual pages; have you got any idea what's the reason for that? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Because our categorization process says that articles go in the narrowest possible category. Few people profess multiple religions, and even if they did they would simply go in multiple subcategories rather than in the parent. All the "X by Y" categories should be supercategories of categories and should have no individual pages in them, only other categories. Yworo (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Shall we continue this discussion solely at your page? So is there any way religius categories can provide a "jump" to another category, so from "Hinduism" to "Buddhism" etc? Or is this already thi "Writers by religion", which means users can "jump" at the bottom of the category-page? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That't not what categories are for. The trees join where they logically join, we don't make intermediate categories just to make navigation easier. Religions are all joined where they should be, at Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements. Why would we need to navigate between every little subcategory of religion - writers are pretty far down the tree. Are we going to add categories to make navigating between every little facet of different religions easier? How many categories would that be? Yworo (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one typically navigates categories by climbing up the tree to see related categories. That's one of the functions of the "X by Y" categories. Yworo (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think that the use of "Buddhism" etc suffices to find one's way at Wikipedia. And there are so amny writers and teachers etc, it's useless to try to join it all together. Anyway, enough for this morning; breakfast & family are waiting. Thanks for your replies and thoughts. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Elohim City, Oklahoma

I unbolded Robert G. Millar because it is not the subject of the article or an alternate name in the article Elohim City, Oklahoma. I also cited the MOS at: MOS:BOLDTITLE in my edit. I do not see anywhere in that article that supports your comment of "it's one of the articles redirects". If you are going to undo my good faith edit I expect a proper cite or a note on my talk page otherwise you are just starting an unsupported edit war. A little surprised to see this from an experienced editor. --Hutcher (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's normal to bold alternate titles which are the targets of redirect. It's not mentioned at WP:BOLDTITLE, it's mentioned at WP:R#PLA, and it based on the principle of least astonishment. I'm a little surprised to see this from an experienced editor. Also, editors who are improving Wikipedia according to known principles such as this have no obligation to "cite" policy on the talk pages of editors ignorant of said policy. You're being significantly condescending in your comment, and unless you can rectify that attitude, please don't post on my talk page again. Yworo (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Portal Indian religions

Hi Yworo. I've created a Portal:Indian religions to satisfy our fellow-Wikipedians (don't be upset, please!), but I noticed the existence of this category: Category:Dharmic religion portals. I bet and hope that you are able to find the right place where this name can be changed to Category:Indian religions portals. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:CFD. Could you list it? I'm a bit busy. Yworo (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone reverted edits back to 2010

Hello Yworo - the Kriyananda page needs you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriyananda - someone added back in the word Swami, reverted the Legal Cases section into how it was in 2010 which was called Controversies. Took out two third party reference in the process. We need your expert editing here. This editor also added the legal case back in along with POV references. thank you once again Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edits and asked editor to bring suggested changes to the talk page. He also removed this from the top of the page - I put it back - Kriyananda is now deceased should this be changed to just primary sources?Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yworo, there is a discussion here [3] about putting in the title Swami back in. I mentioned you as a my mentor and the one who removed it. Also, a discussion is unfolding and needs your input.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The page needs your input - a new section has been created and they are asking editor to Oppose or Support - it needs your input - scroll to requested move...Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

New talk page discussion on disambiguation page for Yogananda or removing the honorific. We need your input. Talk:Paramahansa Yogananda Unsure if it needs to be done and how to do it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am cleaning up references and external links on Paramahansa Yogananda - and am unclear about how to proceed re: wiki guidelines. The reference is a webpage itself, how do I properly show the source without having an external link? On one I left the actual detailed URL Thanks! Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Kriyananda page

Hi YWORO, I have a few questions on my own talk page related to remarks you wrote. I don't know whether you will see them if I leave them there, so I'm putting in this additional note. Thanks, Joesonyx (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Article on David John Pearson". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and I've closed the listing there because the issues raised by that listing have not been discussed at the article talk page, as is required by the guidelines of that noticeboard. I've not looked at that article and have no idea what's right or wrong, weak or strong, but I do see that the other editor has made a good faith effort to start discussion of the issues at the article talk page. I would encourage you to respond to him there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Georges Yatridès

It looks like you've been providing guidance about what is needed to clean-up the Georges Yatridès article, I thought I would let you know that I put a proposed deletion tag on the article. If there's a better way to go (CSD and PROD seemed extreme, but there might be a middle-ground), please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories

My apologies. My mistake. Thanks for the information. Jason Palpatine (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should delete the "Novels by Arthur C Clarke" category and merge the stuff into the "Books by Arthur C. Clarke" category. I see no real reason for the seperation. A novel IS a book in its own right. Jason Palpatine (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. It's a standard established by Wikiproject Books and used everywhere. It provides separate category structures for novels, non-fiction, poetry, etc. You need to think of it differently: anything in the "Novels" subcategory is also in "Books", simply at a sublevel. It's a tree structure and the structure counts, they are not simply different categories. Many of the category structures were established via consensus across whole projects long ago. They are more or less correct according to our rules for categorization. If you change it for Arthur C. Clarke, then you have to change it for every other author on Wikipedia to be consistent. That's exactly how you know that it's not a "good idea". Yworo (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Thanks. Jason Palpatine (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I understand your confusion. The categories were not nested properly. I've fixed that. Yworo (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Nelson-Moody

Hi,

Thanks very much for your cleanup edits for First Nations style on the article Aaron Nelson-Moody. Could I impose upon you to also look over Susan Point and Jody Broomfield? Is there a manual of style I should be following for this? Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did look at both but didn't see any sourced identification of their First Nations tribe, so probably better to leave nationality as Canadian for now. Yworo (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The about page on Susan Point's own website identifies her as "a descendant of the Musqueam people". Jody Brromfield's site states his heritage as "Sḵwx̱wú7mesh - Squamish, Coast Salish". These are primary sources, but should be usable for non-controversial facts. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture rules?

Regarding your edit to Priyanka Chopra, I do not see anything about left-sided pictures needing to be in a particular place here: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Where did you see that? BollyJeff | talk 23:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would you want to push the heading over to the side as opposed to letting it stay on the left with ALL the others? BollyJeff | talk 19:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There are several different image placement pages. One of them states (or at least used to state, things change), that left-placed images should indent all but level 2 headings, for flow, so that the text starts directly under the heading. I can't find this at the time, but MOS:IMAGE says left-placed images should not be placed before the first paragraph of the section, also a means of avoiding the problem addressed. Yworo (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? After all that, you move it back to the right where it was initially? Haha. BollyJeff | talk 20:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, I moved a different image to the right, I believe. Could be wrong though. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of James Ellison (polygamist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Ellison (polygamist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ellison (polygamist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 15:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Zorin os

Hello Yworo, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zorin os, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deleted at AfD over 4 years ago. Previous deletions were all WP:G4. A second AfD would seem reasonable enough. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your input re the Wikipedia Astrology Project

Hi Yworo I have joined the Wikipedia Astrology project today and am contacting you as a listed member of that project. There has been a proposal to consider the project dead and merge it with 12 other alternative subjects into a new wiki project which would oversee all aspects of fringe. I think it would be a shame to lose the astrology project on the basis that it has no active participants without contacting the members directly and exploring ideas for new ways to work together on astrology-related pages. It would be very useful if you would visit the discussion and let us know if your interest in the project is still active, or what it might take to rekindle it. Regards Tento2 (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Kriya and Kriya Yoga pages

Hi there Yworo we have a problem on the Kriya and Kriya Yoga pages with a new editor who is deleting material and adding his own view point. He even changed a direct quote. I have reverted him and tried to work with him - asking him to bring desired changes to the talk page. I just reverted him a second time again asking him to bring his ideas to the talk page. Please come see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriya_Yoga and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriy%C4%81 Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you once again Yworo - they look so much better. On the Kriya page, however I did notice that in the first paragraph it still says that KYoga was not mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. I can correct it or it might be better if you did. Thanks Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • it seems the editor is at a library moving from computer to computer. Perhaps we need a team of reverters? Let me know. Now he is reverting both Kriya and Kriya Yoga pageRed Rose 13 (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Dynamic IP. Hard to block... Yworo (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• More editors are adding external links - not sure which is appropriate and which is not. They have been reverted 3 times now Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please post a new section when you contact me after some time. I almost nearly miss these updates in a previous section, because I don't see a new post at the bottom of my page, which is where I am looking. Yworo (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yatrides biography

Hidden information and possible consequential damages. Situation to be remedied before the situation deteriorates.

Whether or not you check my messages are now about 37 months during which my biography irrefutable have been manipulated by moderators Wikipedia. My biography appears in 06 important dictionaries, which erases the integrity of Wikipedia infancy. This leads me to decide that the behavior moderators intervened in this situation will be published in the press. Including the message of the day. Here, again, "yatrides.com" and "yatrides.org" consist only of material information, press articles etc.. scanned in "Authentic Yatrides". Movies, different country reports, TV News mid-day and evening, are neither YouTubes or FaceBook or Tweeters or any other possible advertising. However they can not afford any deviation: this type of disorder is typically technical Wikipedia.

In very first action Wikimedia France and USA are aware of my discontent and refusal to let me defamed. Moreover these maneuvers are damage to many of my collectors, they are over 300 very modest, the same should be considered the preeminent collections including stand Basil Butler British Petroleum and John Foster Dulles and many others of equal value who have acquired my works. And harm to myself.

In my 82 years that I am forced to endure such slander can not remain hidden. Considering that last word, obscure information is a very serious offense which carry heavy penalties that their prejudices may be multidimensional in different situations close consequential or not. What moderators seem to ignore. Whether to seek damages, considering my work with oil reaching record highs, it is possible that the scenery of the Yatrides / Wikipedia relationship changes.

I'm not litigious (see ArtPrice> Authentic Yatrides), but the manipulations on the events determined by my professional life, which represent my biography, must stop on Wikipedia USA including Wikipedia France where an US moderator has deleted my biography which become wrong / false.

Sincerely,

Georges Yatrides October 03, 2013 --Yatrides (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What goes in your biography is not up to you. What sources are deemed acceptable is not up to you. And you seem to have just make another legal threat. See ya! Yworo (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bristol Perseus

Explained it once this month already. User_talk:Andy_Dingley#MOS.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And you're wrong. It's well established that Sisterproject links are external links and the "External links" is the prefered placement for them. The MoS says: don't use the boxes in the external links section if there isn't enough room, and then to consider using the inline link in the external links section. Edit warrior. Yworo (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So it's "well established that the guideline should be ignored"? You, and this sort of stupid and incorrect (and to be honest, plain bloody ugly) edit are just what is wrong with you and the cabal that monopolise the aircraft project. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is what the MoS says, have you read it lately?

"If ... there are not any external links except sister project ones, then consider using "inline" templates, such as {{Commons-inline}} in the "External links" section, so that links to sister projects appear as list items, like this:"

• Media related to wikimedia foundation at Wikimedia Commons

It is entirely permissable and I am ignoring no guidelines, you are. Yworo (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Consider", not mandate. Also this is in the context of links in the plural, whereas this is singular. The point is obviously to avoid the problem of box-stacking when there is an excess of such links, most commonly a problem for text-based articles where Wikisource etc. get involved too.

There is no way to interpret that guideline on the size of box to use as over-riding the earlier proscription on creating an EL section solely to hold a Commons link. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It specifically say "do not create a section only for boxes". It encourages creating a section for inline links!!! Yworo (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates." It does not say, don't make a section for solely for sister project links. You are misreading it. The prohibition on a "solely for" section only applies to BOXES. Yworo (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Allen H. Greenfield

Re this edit summary: not true. And whether they exist online or not is irrelevant: the relevancy is not determined by availability; your argument would apply to an External links section, which is kind of what this is, in disguise (so that WP:EL does not apply?). We're not a repository for links: not every article by a writer is worth noting, just as not every individual poem or bit part is worth noting. It's a matter of editorial argument and editors may disagree; but I note that these articles are not really found in notable journals or magazines, and they're not even referred to in the article itself. Plus, you have an article with three unreferenced paragraphs and the rest is all links (plus a quote farm), and a reference section that doesn't seem to reference a thing. The three "notes" are laughably unreliable. Typical semi-self-sourced vanity article for an unimportant person. If you want to improve the article, add some reliable sources and reviews. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Imagine what Hans Holzer would look like if all his articles and books were listed. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I see articles with such listings all the time. What makes you think these are all of this subject's works? I wouldn't assume that. Yworo (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Jody Broomfield

Hi. I notice your revert on the Jody Broomfield article. I'm guessing you have much more knowledge of this area than I do. I've posted a note at Talk:Jody Broomfield#First Nations heritage to discuss. Your comments there would be very much appreciated. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no citation in the article confirming his First Nations status, native name, First Nations place of birth, ancestry or anything other that than he works in a Coast Salish style. Details and citations are needed in order to call him First Nations rather than Canadian. I believe he is a Canadian artist who uses First Nations techiniques and styles, but I could be wrong. Cite. Cite Cite. Yworo (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney talk page

I've noticed your interactions with User:MilesMoney on his talk page. My admittedly unsolicited but well-meaning suggestion is that you back away from posting there. It is unlikely that you will persuade him of anything and the interaction is just fueling hostility. I would suggest you only post there if you need to place a notice that is necessary to a specific process (e.g., a WP:3RR warning, or a notification of a discussion per WP:ANI or WP:CANVASS). Just my two cents. --RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, then you warn him that it's not acceptable to change other editor's comments, even their headings, even on his talk page. I'd have no problem with him removing the section, which is his right and what he said he was going to do. Yworo (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

His heading is, of course, also a personal attack. Obviously, I first posted after he reverted my edit, but before I saw that he had reverted his. I don't refresh my Watchlist every few seconds, after all. Yworo (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not defending any edit or statement of his. I'm just saying that it seems like you aren't getting anything except frustration out of posting to his talk page, so better to just stop posting there unless you really need to. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm perfectly satisfied with what I'm getting. Yworo (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Paramahansa Yogananda page

While rereading the page today a few things occurred to me:

(1) Legacy means anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor. Yogananda's legacy is his teachings, written works, lessons, books, meditation techniques etc... and he himself created Self-Realization Fellowship/Yogoda Satsanga Society of India and clearly stated their purpose.

(2) Direct disciple section lists prominent direct disciples - (a) why do we have four direct disciples listed in the legacy section when they really should be in the direct disciple section? (b) Also, if we give a few sentences to four direct disciples, why not to them all especially ones who were involved in his work? (c) is this page about Yogananda or his direct disciples?

What are you thoughts?Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Vedanta Society

Hi Yworo, I noticed that you removed the list of Vedanta Societies, referencing "Not a directory" and "external links". I agree that the list seems to violate the second point, of not having external links in an article. However, I don't see that any of the seven points given in "not a directory" quite pertain to the list in question. Rather, the list appears to me to be quite helpful in indicating the scope of the Vedanta Society's reach, and belongs in Wikipedia. So maybe the list can be restored, removing the external links? Devadaru (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we do not make lists of branches of a membership society. That's for _them_ to do, on their main website. Then we can link to it. What are the sources for this? And don't say the individual websites themselves, we need third-party sources. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh . . . well, okay, I guess you are right. I added a link to a list on the Belur Math site of their centers, and to the two societies with wikipedia pages of their own. Best wishes — Devadaru (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Best to point to a fresher source than us. Addresses, phone numbers, contact person change. Who's going to keep the article up to date? Yworo (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed

your nice, rather complex, clean-up at Felicitas Goodman and thought I’d mention my appreciation. Your edits show up on my watchlist quite a lot, always doing good things. I’ve figured you as being a northern NM person, so here is a northern NM quiz. What do these two pictures have in common? File:Felicitas Goodman and student, ca. 1988.jpg and File:Lisa Law & unidentified woman.jpg
Meanwhile this just showed up on my watchlist. It is probably worth a check.

(diff | hist) . . Chimayo, New Mexico‎; 21:22 . . (+45)‎ . . ‎Esteban1952 (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Drug problems)

Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd _like_ to be in northern NM... can't seem to stay there... was in Taos May 2010 - July 2012. Now in Portland, OR, probably until my daughter graduates from high school... Not sure what the pics have in common, actually... Yworo (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Weather here right now is about like I imagine Portland to be like (cool & rainy) The above question was sort of a trick one, tossed out very spur of the moment, the "unidentified woman" in both pictures, NOT the person that the articles are about, is the same person, a quarter of a century apart. Carptrash (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspected as much, but wasn't sure. It would be easier if she were identified. :-) Yworo (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Identified? And I'd be sleeping on the couch. Carptrash (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha! Yworo (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco de Asis Mission Church

Thanks for correcting that; I think the others are OK. Adobe construction is an unusual category; one subcat for California and the main cat covers the rest of the world (including New Mexico) without the usual “by country” category. Hugo999 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lokoturkey2

I have blocked this User for a month - he's only made disruptive edits! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Kundalini

Hi Yworo Kundalini energy talk needs your input. Someone created a disambiguation page without bringing to a discussion first. Half thinks Kundalini should be one page and the other half want Kundalini Yoga to have its own page. I wrote - Kundalini is clearly the primary topic with everything else listed under it. Kundalini energy or kundalini yoga or kundalini awakening or kundalini meditation etc... would not exist without Kundalini. It makes complete logical sense that Kundalini is the primary topic. I also think the page should just be called Kundalini with kundalini energy being a subtopic.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

interesting when I tried to create a link to Kundalini Energy - the name of the page - the words showed as red - I will leave one so you can seeRed Rose 13 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You have to use the same capitalization as the article title: our rules are only first word and proper nouns should be capitalized (same for headings). So it's Kundalini energy, with the energy uncapitalized. Yworo (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Right - thanks...I fixed it - what do you think of the discussion?Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Yworo for expertly fixing the page! Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-Realization Order

Hi Yworo, it was suggested to move this page and merge with the Self-Realization Fellowship page back in 2012. I would like to do that. I have no problem moving all the info over but don't know how to delete the SRF Order page. I need your help once again. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't delete it. You make it a redirect. And please, when you make a new post on my talk page, it should be a new section at the very bottom of the page. Again I had to go to my talk page history to see who had posted and where, because it wasn't the last section like it should be. Yworo (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK you got it. Sorry I wasn't sure if the signpost is supposed to be at the bottom or not. So then should I move everything from that page to the Self-Realizaiton Fellowship page and then you will make it a redirect?Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Or you could read the page I linked and make the redirect yourself. It's really easy. Yworo (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will give it a try - later today - thanks again. YworoRed Rose 13 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You were right it was simple - I deleted the content and added the redirect!! Thanks - I feel more empowered now :). Saw your improvements. One thing though the SRF order should be the last section because the reception really belongs with SRF the organization. The order is a monastic order within the organization. Mind if I move it back?Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not really necessary since readers can see how things are nested. It's not a subsection under SRF Order, so it's quite clear that it applies to the subject of the article and not a previous sub-sub-section. Yworo (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, SRF's main outer purpose is to disseminate Yogananda's teachings. The SRF order is when someone chooses to give their life to serving God. Because of that to me it is clearer to have it in its own section at the bottom..separate from the organizational information. Perhaps that is why someone create its own page completely separate from SRF and its work. The only reason I thought it should be on the same page was that (1) both pages were so short and (2) someone might not know to search for the order. Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

They "work in the ashrams and temples of the Self-Realization Fellowship" which is what that section is about, the temples, ashrams and other facilities. Yworo (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Best if you post your question on the talk page of the article. We aren't the only two editors... Do it by consensus. Yworo (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok I posted on the SRF talk pageRed Rose 13 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mahavatar Babaji‎

Interesting edits on this page lately - think it needs your expertise. Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Scotch whisky deletion

Hello, you deleted my mention of "dram" in the Scotch whisky article for not citing a source. I readded it, uncited, for 2 reasons: first, it's common vernacular- similar to trying to find an academic article saying that most people consume Pepsi from a can. Second, and perhaps more conclusive, if you click dram the disambiguation page says, "a unit of mass and volume; as such, an informal name for a small amount of liquor, especially Scotch whisky" and if you open the article, a cited sentence says, "Dram is also used informally to mean a small amount of spirituous liquor, especially Scotch whisky." The article is here It's actually the Oxford English Dictionary. This is why I am not citing it in the Scotch article, since I don't need to cite a cross reference to another wikipedia article. Take care. Thanks for your contributions on here.Coemgenv (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Do be aware that you can't cite to other Wikipedia articles. They are not reliable and on top of that can change at any time. Yworo (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

MM

I second. But would not do so (as far as possible) on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dictate?

Hi, I didn't understand why you made the comment, "Please don't attempt to dictate what 'won't work'." Seems like I was just making a normal talk page point by making a statement and giving a reason why I thought the statement was true. Here's the sentence for reference, "It looks like just adding "names" wouldn't work because we couldn't say "According to MOS:IDENTITY..." since that guideline doesn't mention "names", but rather "gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman')". --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I explained clearly where the discussion is occurring. Please don't also bring it to my talk page. You're seeming kinda whiney. Yworo (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

• Traffic report: Google Doodlebugs bust the block

• Featured content: 1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent

• Special report: FDC staff raise the benchmarks for activities, impact, planning, and governance

• News and notes: Trademark at issue again with the Italian Wikipedia and wikipedia.it

• WikiProject report: The world of soap operas

• Discussion report: Commas, Draft namespace proposal, education updates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack

These kinds of remarks are not helpful content building. It's too late 3 days later after the fact to sanction you for the comments, so I'll settle for a warning: please keep clear of personal attacks in the future.--v/r - TP 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Anti-trans bias?

Making claims of “bias” against anyone who happens to disagree with you, as seems to be the case at least in my recent experience with you, is horribly nonconstructive. Please stop. If you have any valid claims of my bias, I would be very interested in hearing them since I’m personally unaware of having done anything “anti-trans”. If you believe this to be a lie, Wikipedia has channels for dealing with troublesome editors—if you think I need to be reported, report me, but don’t make vague, unsubstantiated claims where they don’t belong. Thank you. —Frungi (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, making (and stating!) assumptions about another editor’s level of understanding of a topic is equally nonconstructive, as well as just plain rude. This is especially true when things are subjective even down to a deeply personal level, and when there are various conflicting theories and ideas and opinions about the topic. I may or may not have a different understanding of things than you do, but “different” does not mean “inferior”. —Frungi (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yworo, if I may ask out of curiosity: How was User:Obiwankenobi’s post offensive? I read it when it was posted and I’ve just re-read it to make sure I didn’t miss something, and it seemed, to me, completely respectful of trans beliefs and values. —Frungi (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So that’s a no? All right, then. Take care. If at some point you do choose to respond (to this question or my earlier posts), please post on my Talk page or ping me. —Frungi (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita

There are many people editing this page and some of it seems questionable and promotional. Also, the disambiguation pages need your expertise as well. [4] Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)