User talk:Yankees76

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years and 14 days.

This user is a member of the
Counter-Vandalism Unit.

This user does not like
GENRE WARRIORS.

This editor is a
**Veteran Editor**
and is entitled to display this
**Iron Editor Star**.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you the Editors barnstar for your recent work on Wikipedia.Quarte t 14:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, beat me to it. Ah, but! This was given on the 30th of 2008, and mine is for work done Jan 1-3 [1]. VICTORY IS MINE!!!!!

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For the fantastic expansion of progression of the bench press world record, you get a Running Man barnstar. Now put it on your user page and get rid of that red link! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a purely curious level, are you aware of citation templates? How 'bout the ref name tag? I used the former twice and the latter thrice in this edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat aware of them. To be honest, I got lazy when putting those references in. I wanted to get the work done quickly while I was motivated to do so. Thanks for cleaning those up!--Yankees76 (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I had my user page locked to avoid some vandals awhile back - if you want to unlock it, I'll add these and my other barnstar to that page. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not an admin, can't help there. You could probably ask an admin to paste both in then re-lock it (or put them on a sub-page linked from your talk page). {{helpme}} or {{Editprotected}} would work (or WP:ANI, which arguably is the actual purpose of the page rather than just creating drama). I'm a big fan of citation templates, it means you always get a standard looking/formatted reference irrespective of contents. They're easy to use, and there's some tools to generate them from pubmed numbers, ISBNs and even websites (diberri is my fav). Ref name is also ridiculously easy to use, and saves you typing a lengthy template twice. Once you memorize both, which really isn't difficult since they're pretty self-explanatory), you save yourself a fair bit of work (and anyone using a print copy of the page has a much better job of it). And there's also a way to link to a specific page from google books if you adjust the url properly. I'm a referencing nerd. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the admin who locked it for me. I'll try to do a better job of referencing next time. I was on a roll with regards to gathering sources for World Records, but I only had a small window of time to get the edits done before real life got in the way, so I dashed them off. Thanks again for the barnstars!

That works too. If you tap some of the tools for citation templates, that can make it much easier to use 'em if you're on limited time but no matter what, even an author-year citation is better than nothing. One of my problems is the constant need to finish what I'm doing for a whole page (witness the history of satanic ritual abuse today - and this is despite my protestations of being busy). If I were a smarter man, I'd settle for half-assed and spare myself real-life grief. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL-barnstar

*...there's more to establishing notability than just running a few keywords through Google. Doesn't anyone visit a library anymore?*diff
You really made me smile with your comment. In my case, the answer would be no, however. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Edit to Natural bodybuilding

Hi Yankees76. Wow - My bad! I appreciate you letting me know. That was quite the error. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did...

...you have your userpage deleted? GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009. It was deleted before for about a year then and 10 minutes after I undeleted it, it was vandalised by my long-time Wikipedia stalker User:Messenger2010. So I had it re-deleted and locked. It makes me look like a noob, but it's better than having to remove vandalism from it everyday. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not get it permantely protected? GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess there is that possibility - it is protected right now though. Or I can just have it re-directed to my talk page...--Yankees76 (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just strange to see ya in 'red'. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yeah I know. Maybe someday soon I'll think of some permanent content for my user page and then bug an admin to unlock it so I can edit it and then re-lock it again afterwards. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees always has been popular with the vandals! BTW Yankees, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my own page. Copying and pasting my own "Final Warning" was pretty funny. --Quarte t 20:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TY for the Barnstar

CKG Billings was an easy article to improve - lotsa good pics - thank you for the barnstar - my first - Saa weet. Mark^Dask 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - easy or not, it still took the time to do! Nice job. --Yankees76 ^Talk 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For looking more closely than others and helping avoid the lazy route than I'd suggested at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WebHamster. Glad to know there are critical minds out there to correct me when I'm wrong. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Most of the time the lazy route works, and it did quack loud enough to be a duck, just a different duck. --Yankees76 ^Talk 20:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

I admit that I have a difficult time being patient with SPA spammers, especially after they start making ridiculous accusations. Nice work with your patient and informative responses to this user. I'd give you a barnstar, but seeing that you just got one I don't want your head to get too big. :) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem bud - you get alot of flak for dealing with these guys day in and day out - I was just trying to help out. Cheers. --Yankees76 ^Talk 02:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northside

Please understand I am only correcting the facts. Northside as Dermo, Tim, Cliff and Wol have not played together since 1992. I am not trying to make problems for you or anybody else, it's just that the band means a great deal to me. I'm sorry if it seems like I am changing information just to disrupt the page but my only concern is putting the facts right. I was the singer in the band and know exactly what happened. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inthearea (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nothing. Your information regarding Northside is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inthearea (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might have noticed that this is an encyclopedia, and that all material added to it needs to be referenced using reliable sources. It's not "my" information - I'm merely preventing the deletion of information that is referenced. If you believe that that information is incorrect, discuss it on the articles talk page before simply removing it without a valid reason. If you can cite a source that says the band in 2006 was merely Dermo and some session musicians, change the article to say that, don't simply delete the info because clearly a band billed as Northside played in Leeds in December 2006.--Yankees76 ^Talk 14:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Northside split up in 1992. The information on the page about Northside playing in 2006 isn't true, it was the singer and some session men. The original classic line up of Dermo, Cliff, Tim and Wol have not played together since 1992.

So you have a reliable source that says this? Good, add it to the page. If not, I'm not sure why you're here. By the way, it's not uncommon for bands to "reform" with one or two original members years after the original lineup has broken up, or for one band member to carry on using the bands name. Either way, material related to that band, full lineup or not, is still added to the article on the band. You might have heard of a band called Guns n' Roses who've done this? Well, Axl Rose hasn't gone on the Wikipedia page and removed all the material from 1994 onwards because it isn't about the original lineup. Work with me here ok? --Yankees76 ^Talk 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarnia

Hi, Yankees76,

I've worked hard on the Sarnia article the last two days and feel it's at least B-Class now, with only small mods needed to be a GA Article like London, Ontaro. London is five times the size of Sarnia so it will have correspondingly more stuff in its article than we will. Any more suggestions you have are always welcome...Thanks much for the help so far!TheKurgan (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Sorry I've been away from Wikipedia for a couple days. I just read it quickly. I guess my only critque is that you don't have to refer to other sections of the article (things like "The companies referenced above in the Development section") as sections headers and the location of text is often changed or moved by editors who haven't read the rest of the article, and your sentence could confuse readers. I fixed this one, but I'm not sure if it's elsewhere in the article. I'll look through again when I have some more time and tweak anything else. Nice work :) --Yankees76 ^Talk 17:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Yankees76. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarnia/archive2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Our discussion

OK, just so I don't upset you needlessly, you edited your talk page with " (→‎Vandalism: go away)." I take that to mean you telling me to go away. If this is so, I won't bother you anymore. If I misread it, tell me. Otherwise, you won't hear from me again.TheKurgan (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah we're good. I actually "watched" your talk page (and I rarely do that) and saw your reply to my post there, so the double post here threw me off.

I guess to respond, yeah the guy changed the article to make (presumably) himself mayor. Again, please read and use WP:AGF. Maybe he really thinks that the mayor is "Mike Sawczuk " or he made an error, or a test and didn't know how to undo it. Alot of people make edits and instead of hitting preview, they click "Save Page" and can't fix it. Just revert the edit. If you want, send him a friendly "warning" on this talk page and move on. If he comes back and does it again, warn him again. If he becomes disruptive, tell an admin and he/she will decide if they need to be blocked. My point is, we don't call out people as vandals or keep running tallies. It just encourages more vandalism. Most test edits just get reverted and that's the end of it. Hope that helps. --Yankees76 ^Talk 21:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit, actually. Thanks, Yankees76! You're right, of course. Glad we're all right...:) BTW, how does the article look now, IYHO?TheKurgan (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy pop's The Idiot on Control (2007 film)

You are close to vandalism and this is why I use this term. That part was added more than two years ago, on 2 May 2010, see here by IllaZilla. More than 40 registred users found this relevant to the plot : no one has ever erased it. In the last 24 hours, all of a sudden, two registred users (IllaZilla & you) disagree. So, you will need a large consensus to outnumber all these 40 wiki users including me. You wrote it is not sourced. If you don't know the film, it is explained in The Guardian why that part matters.see here.

By the way, I'm gonna watch that article because I find suspicious that IllaZilla who added this part two years ago, suddendly changes his/her point of view because I had an issue about that subject yesterday. She/he has also rather undermined his/her position. As the two brand new opponents are very pettifogging, I'm afraid Im' gonna have to be it too. Carliertwo (talk) 14 August 2012.

First, if you're going to throw around the term "vandalism", you should probably take a minute and ensure that what you're calling vandalism, is actually just that before you accuse other editors of it.

Secondly, even if 100,000 editors edited the article since that point of useless detail was added to the plot summary - editing an article without removing something is not an endorsement of the material that this there, nor does it imply there's a consensus on any of it - so your twisted view of having a consensus couldn't be further from the truth. Tat section of the article (and Wikipedia in general) is not a playground for you to edit war in. Note that per WP:FILMPLOT, "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail". The song that Curtis listened to before he hung himself is minutiae and is not a necessary detail in an encyclopedic summary of the film. The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included.

You've been asked repeatedly to discuss your edits on the talk page, so further reverts/edit warring will considered disruptive and further action will be taken. --Yankees76 ^Talk 17:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carliertwo

Hi,

A couple weeks ago I went through each article for Siouxsie and the Banshees' studio albums and put the ratings boxes back in. Why they were taken out in the 1st place baffles me since almost every other album article on Wiki has them. Still Carliertwo undid my revisions shortly after I put them back in. I just left a message on his talk page asking why he did that before I went about reverting his edits but then noticed you had left him a message about edit warring. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on this matter. Should I go ahead and revert his edits or wait until I hear back from him to avoid a dispute? Shaneymike (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert and invite discussion on the talk page of that article. It will also allow other editors to comment. --Yankees76 ^Talk 19:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. :)Shaneymike (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and put all the ratings boxes back into each article and left a message asking Carliertwo to provide an explanation here should he remove them again, though something tells me it won't do any good. From what I've seen with this guy it's in one ear and out the other. He removed that section you added to his talk page about edit warring. Shaneymike (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF - the system will work. Just start the conversation on the talk page, others will join in and a consensus will be reached on the issue. If he continues to edit war, he'll be reported to WP:AN3 and may also be blocked. Also, he's allowed to remove warnings from his own talk page. It basically tells me he's read them. They're still there in the history should an administrator need to see past behavior when deciding if further warnings are needed, or if he needs to be temporarily blocked to cool him down. --Yankees76 ^Talk 12:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liston

but it's a presumed/estimated official date, which means he could have died on the 29th or the 31st... -- Y not? 14:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the date that's listed on his death certificate, which is a permanent legal record of the fact of death of Sonny Liston. Adding any other date is original research. --Yankees76 ^Talk 18:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Help

Hi,Yankees76 I heard you are real good with reliable sources so can you help me? A user on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Happy_Ending Keeps insisting that Happy ending is Post-Grunge even though Allmusic no longer lists it as such. He keeps using an outdated source of Allmusic which I don't think is reliable as the present source.--Greaymarshess (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there's nothing wrong with used archived websites as sources. I'm sure that if the single is obviously post-grunge, there should be other sources that list it as such aside from allmusic. You should work with the other editors to locate such a source. WP:DEADREF suggests finding a different source that says essentially the same thing as the reference in question. However, you should note though that allmusic does still list Avril as post-grunge.[2]. The citation that the other editor is using for the archived version of allmusic should use the archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters in the citation template as well. Not sure if that helps, but really there's not much to be done here. --Yankees76 ^Talk 03:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right it's always good to have a second opinion on rather a genre really applys to a certain release.I will bring this up with him,If he is able to find another Reliable source that lists this as Post-Grunge then I'll be perfectly fine with him adding it back.--Greaymarshess (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

André A. Jackson

I'm convinced that this article is an elaborate hoax, I'm gathering evidence for an AFD. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it a few years back, and I think it would be a waste of your time. As odd as he sounds, he actually exists. If it's a hoax, it's a VERY elaborate one. Goofy name, claims of an 8 million dollar car, friends with Carl Lewis - it's pretty much all true. The article is poorly sourced and badly written, but you won't get it deleted. He's notable enough to pass WP:BIO Yankees76 ^Talk

Its just not true! Article written by a single user that relies on references that are self editable. Then journos google "Andre Jackson" after the Carl Lewis docu, read wiki and print in reliable sources that he is a diamond merch. Its a horrible self referencing disaster. His invention of the African Diamond Council to trump the ADPA is equally maddening. The car has no original source save wiki. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that. Even in a 10 minute search, there's too many Google hits, press releases, speaker lists and even self published blogs from various industry people with information that's not even on the Wikipedia article for Jackson to be a hoax built around Wikipedia. I did the AFD thing in the 2008 and another happened in 2006. Result was keep. You can do what you like, but I'm not really going to spend any more time or effort on proving or disproving your theory. Yankees76 ^Talk

I'm sorry, I think I concur now. I just wish there were more mainstream sources. Thanks. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Yankees76. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FM Attack moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, FM Attack, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 00:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As fun as it would be to spend another couple hours here adding sources to justify a page for one of the leaders of an entire music genre, that's not going to happen. The notability guidelines are outdated now like they were 16 years ago when I started editing here. He has 111k monthly listeners on Spotify, millions of views on YouTube through New Retro Wave and his own channels - yet no page here because he's not notable? Right. I've seen some pretty obscure artists posted here over the years - like say Criteria_(band) which has been flagged since 2011. This article was clearly a stub and could have stayed live to let others edit and expand it with more sources. I'll never finish it though. Cheers. Yankees76 ^Talk 21:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:FM Attack

Hello, Yankees76. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:FM Attack, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:FM Attack

Hello, Yankees76. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "FM Attack".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]