User talk:Y - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.114.38.167 (talk) at 06:58, 17 February 2008 (→Hi: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:58, 17 February 2008 by 70.114.38.167 (talk) (→Hi: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Leave a message. I will respond on this page.

Contents

See also User talk:Y/Archive

Jerry Falwell revert

When I accessed the Jerry Falwell page there were a few citations that were apparently replaced with the red text: "Cite error: Invalid *ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title". When I refreshed the page the errors remained, so I of course decided to try to fix it. I edited the first citation with the error and checked to see if it fixed the problem and all the errors were gone, so I left it. You reverted my edit...and somehow the errors are still gone. I'm wondering if you know what the problem was. Please respond on my talk page when you get this, even if it's just to direct me to your response here. Thank you. 65.93.161.249 (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No I do not. But your revision was all screwy, and the one before you looked ok. Don't really have the time or the inclination to investigate, sorry. -- Y not? 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Smiley

Sandahl has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year

Hello Y, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

File:010105 fireworks2.jpg

Problem

Are you going to stand for this? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good God! - Tragedy averted... the truth about Langdon v. Probert has been upheld from vicious attack, and will likely stay upheld until they come to recall my adminship. Thank GOD I did not use my administrative tools to effect this particular nasty edit war! (For better effect, pronounce "nasty" with a British accent) -- Y not? 06:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment

I think it would be better if you participated in a discussion, like at CFD, using only this or your Arbeit account, not both. Or at least disclose to the community that your two accounts are one person. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. (I saw yours up there already but hey, don't want you to feel left out since I left this message for everyone else! :) ) ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, saw msg you left for Spike. Thx for all your efforts. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 1	2 January 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


Volume 4, Issue 2	7 January 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we know?

How do we know that your sock is purely for segregating stuff? How do we know that you don't work a little bit at home sometimes, and maybe you goof off at work sometimes too. How do we know? :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

lol! -- Y not? 14:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea for Talmud articles

Hi Y: I am reposting the following request from User Sh76us (talk · contribs) on my user talk page for wider notification:

I was thinking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Misplaced Pages to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussion at: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Idea for Talmud articles. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh... if I wasn't such an am ho'oretz, maybe I would take part. As such, I must decline, but would be happy to read the articles that result for my personal edification. -- Y not? 06:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Yeah, well there's always next time. Alternative, do you want me to let you know next time I'm around New York? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this you? Or is someone ruining your reputation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Arbeit_Sockenpuppe claims to be an alternate account of you. If true, ok. What is the purpose of the sock?

If this is not true, he/she may be ruining your reputation by claiming to be you. Archtransit (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's me. The purposes of the sock are legitimate and mine to know. -- Y not be working? 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the purpose and why it is legitimate. I am concerned that it is not being used in an appropriate fashion. Inappropriate uses are subject to blocking. It is customary that blocks are done to socks without discussion. In this regard, you are being afforded much more consideration that is given to others. Some may consider this extra consideration as unfair and favortism. If you have a legitimate use of a sock, let me know. Archtransit (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am further concerned that Arbeit Sockenpuppe made a response and signed it with your name (Y). If Arbeit Sockenpuppe was honest, he would sign his own name and explain. Archtransit (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.... I confirm that I am me. Once again. -- Y not? 23:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good God. Sarah 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

*rolls eyes and sighs* Orderinchaos 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 3	14 January 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

What do you mean?

What do you mean a merge discussion is beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 20#Power Rangers episodes?. Can you please show me the discussion?. Mythdon (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are you?

Who are you? I don't think I've talked to you before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevingarrity (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator here, and no you did not. -- Y not? 14:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Deletion of page CDNIS and recovery.

Is there any way to recover the page CDNIS so that I can expand on it and make it more or less impartial?

If you agree that it might be a good solution and would like to help, contact me--Kelvin_HO 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to my deletion of Canadian International School of Hong Kong, then the answer is no. There was nothing salvageable in that promotion piece - but feel free to write a new impartial article from independent secondary sources. -- Y not? 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 7	11 February 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Hi

Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Misplaced Pages. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)

Circumcision may decrease a man's risk of getting HIV but it may also INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia. (and some doctors even say other STD's too but I won't get into that and I wouldn't put caps on INCREASE.)

The article on circumcision mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once. Click on the article. You tell me if it's an article on the procedure called circumcision or a pro-circumcision propaganda pamphlet.

Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my one sentence I want to add? Or possibly get new Admins to take over this article, which has fallen way below Misplaced Pages standards.

here's the New York Times piece... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y

I used to love Misplaced Pages until I went to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)