[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:Yksin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikiroid (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 17 October 2007 (→‎Apology: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please leave a new message.
Any conversations started here I will answer here, so if my response is important to you, you may want to put this page on your watchlist, or just check back. If I wrote to you on your talk page, feel free to reply there, as I will have put it on my watchlist. Thanks. -- Yksin (talk · contribs · count)
The Signpost
22 July 2024

The Legal status of Hawaii Page

Aloha Yksin -- I could really use your help as a member of the CSB project to take a look at this page and give your mana'o (thoughts). I am currently in a bit of a struggle over a question of "undue weight" (it is true that Hawaiians are now a minority in Hawai'i, and those both knowledgeable in history and willing and able to speak out about it are a relatively small group, but I don't think the indigenous viewpoint being squashed is ok either). I am not asking for anyone to participate in the struggle itself, but there needs to be a broader perspective, so if you can take a look at it and give your thoughts (it's okay not to know anything about the subject; it might be better that way), it would be really appreciated! I appreciate honesty, even if you do not agree with me. Aloha, --Laualoha 04:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

indigenous peoples of the americas -- Demography section MOVE?

Dear Yksin: you seem up on the demography section Indigenous_Peoples_of_the_Americas#Demography_of_contemporary_populations. Any thoughts on my proposed move of the section to a new page? Talk:Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Demography_section--send_to_its_own_page.3F Dylanfly 15:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yksin. Although the trouble with the Washita article has been partly dealt with, and the article is now much better-referenced and more neutral, there are still lots of problems with several other articles dealing with Custer's campaign. This time it's under- or poor referencing and blatant anti-Custer POV (e.g., edits like these). On the talk page of Wikipedia's article on Custer, I wrote that I intend "to delete the entire section [on Little Big Horn] in a week or two, and replace it with a much briefer summary of the battle, that's sourced". But the article on the Battle of Little Big Horn is almost as bad, and I'm not really sure what to do here. What are your thoughts? --Miskwito 20:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. This guy really had it in for Custer, didn't he? Only other edits from this IP were several months ago on one article, & seemed to consist largely of vandalism. S/he seems to have confused Washita w/ Sand Creek too. The other anon editor & this guy seem to mainly have been making good faith edits, but both suffer from lack of sourcing.
I agree that the Custer article has way more than it needs on Battle of the Little Bighorn, most of which should be in that article. Overall, I think the problem with both articles are pretty much as with the Washita article has had: editors who have more in-depth knowledge of the article's subject haven't sourced well, & probably thus have also allowed a lot of original research to creep in; & other editors with less in-depth knowledge probably have depended only on those sources that they can easily get to, like stuff that's online. What they need, to me, are at least one or two editors who are willing to study the subjects a bit -- reading books/articles, etc., preferably more than one per topic. That's pretty much what I'm doing w/ the Washita article (though I'm also getting sidetracked by looking at other stuff about the Cheyenne, though that has served to double & triple & quadruple-verify that Council of Forty-Four chiefs like Black Kettle were absolutely not warchiefs), & I need to get the actual writing done. But of course a good article takes time... & of course I have a different editing style than a lot of people -- I like knowing a subject in-depth.
How far are you willing to go on these? For just basic fixing of the articles, I would start by getting at least one good book on each topic, read them through, & compare them against what's written in the articles. Utley's bio of Custer Cavalier in Bucksin seems to be considered one of the better Custer bios (Utley overall is highly regarded as a historian); I don't know what the best single book on the Little Bighorn would be, there are so many to pick from. Then go through the articles section by section, starting with the sections that seem most problematic. I think it's also important to get other article editors to agree to basic Wikipedia standards, perhaps also declaring intent that new edits that are unsourced will be reverted. Editors who add new material that looks reasonably accurate but is unsourced might be approached to ask them to readd it with sourcing. For example, the second anon editor to me looked like s/he had some reasonable stuff, but it was (1) unsourced & (2) in the wrong article (should have been in the Little Bighorn rather than Custer article). Maybe writing to him/her talk page about it would be a good thing.
I'll be glad to help out where I can; I just can't afford to go as in-depth with it as I'm doing with Washita, because I'm already too close to biting off more than I can chew. But I do have Utley's Custer bio, which is some help, & I can also correct a couple of problems with the Washita stuff in the Custer article.
Does this help any? Ask for any help you need. --Yksin 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've got both articles on my watchlist, & saw what you've been doing there by way of keeping POV crud out of those articles. Good job! --Yksin 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the advice! I'll see if I can pick up Utley's bio tomorrow. --Miskwito 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good news and bad news. The bad news is, the local bookstore didn't have Utley's bio of Custer, though I haven't checked the local library yet. The good news, though, is that I did buy or borrow three books related to Custer/Crazy Horse/Little Bighorn. The first is Killing Custer: The Battle of Little Bighorn and the Fate of the Plains Indians (1994) by James Welch. Welch was a Blackfoot novelist from Montana, and the book is part history and part a story of Welch's own journey of learning about the Indian Wars of the Plains; it's obviously written from an Indian perspective. Another (which I've only borrowed) is The Day the World Ended at Little Bighorn (2007) by Joseph M. Marshall III. Marshall is Lakhota, and his book is also written from an Indian perspective of the events. The third book is Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors (1975) by Stephen E. Ambrose. I guess Ambrose was a very well-respected historian, and I haven't looked at his book much, but my understanding is that it's probably a more neutral history, and indeed, it's kind of a dual-biography: a biography of Custer and a biography of Crazy Horse in one. So hopefully, with these books (and Utley's bio, if I manage to get ahold of it) I'll be able to greatly improve the Custer and Little Bighorn articles. Take care, --Miskwito 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monaseetah

Heh, no problem. Take care, --Miskwito 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (re: Lesbian race)

Thanks for the prop-up with User:User765. I don't really know what, or how, to say what I intend to convey (not rhyming on purpose). Anyway, thanks. ZueJay (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I like rhyme! I hope that our two notes, together, also give her (or him, but prob. her) a sense of welcome. --Yksin 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moscone-Milk assassinations

After Jeffpw's latest outburst I'm wondering if I should bother even trying to do anything to help Wikipedia or if at this point the only thing people want to see me do is get stomach cancer and die. If you don't think you'll be ostracized for too close an association with me, though, I wonder if you would look at some observations I made at Talk:Moscone-Milk assassinations. I would have actually been bold and tried to fix the problems myself, but, well, you know how anything us anons do must be vile and ill-intentioned by definition. -- 192.250.34.161 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely off topic, but I'm just curious why you choose not to create an account. I went through about a half dozen of your edits and you seem articulate and well-reasoned. Of course, it's none of my business. I appreciate anonymity myself, but I like to have a consistent 'voice' on WP. Into The Fray T/C 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, 192. Yes, I will pay attention to that. I don't frankly care overmuch about whether the fact that I agree with you on the issue what the Twinkie defense was (i.e., a catchy media-coined phrase which caught on, but which did not accurately characterize the defense White's lawyers actually constructed for him -- though testimony about junk food was made, it was subsidiary to the overall defense) -- whether or not you edit as an anon IP is neither here nor there when it comes to facts found in reliable published sources. If someone decides to ostracize me for agreeing with an anon IP, I guess that's their privilege. [Shrug.] The content issues are different from the user conduct issues (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, & all that), & I've made that clear throughout too, I think. So. Anyway, I'm in the process of organizing my work & actually doing the work with several articles I've made commitments to in the last couple of months, & since my longest-standing commitment is to Battle of Washita River that's what I'm working on at the moment. Once I'm further along with that, I'll come back to this. --Yksin 02:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESADE

Seems it's being taken care of now. :) Though I have to wonder what did that dude mean by, "This guy sure has his finger on the pulse!" This leaves me scratching my head... -WarthogDemon 05:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have requested it myself long ago. Didn't really occur to me that it would become this ridiculous. What is the point of all this anyway? Self-promotional vanity? -WarthogDemon 18:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golly jee, convoluted is right. Yes, Wikiscanning sounds good. -WarthogDemon 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelmity

Yeah, I understand. I got kind of overwhelmed myself, and then got myself immersed in a couple other things that are totally overwhelming me at the moment. Feel free to shoot me a line if you need help/support/advice/whatever. I couldn't even hardly comprehend what the last talk page section was supposed to be saying. And quite interesting that apparently GM is a part of the CW club. Whatever, hope you're not too stressed out! Murderbike 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Holy!

WikiBeer
WikiBeer
WikiBeer
WikiBeer

Oh, my! I passed! Thanks so much for your awesome support..! You're incredible..! And thanks for the beers...let me buy you one as well..! Maybe five or six... Dreadstar † 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBeer
WikiBeer
WikiBeer
WikiBeer

Of course you passed! The only question now, with all this beer, is if you're also gonna pass out! --Yksin 20:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBeer
WikiBeer
WikiBeer
WikiBeer

Hic! <stagger>...oh my! Dreadstar † 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... uh... y'still got tha' bucket... I gave ya? [hic]]... might need it... f'r arfing... y'know... [hic] --Yksin 21:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBeer
WikiBeer

... brupp... I still got the' bucket...[hic]]... toss yer cookies in here...dear..I'll mop up later...;).. [hic] Dreadstar † 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies? Uh... sure.. [burp]... let me eat some first... [buuuurrrrrrrrpp]... ah... there y'go... [hic] --Yksin 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You are too funny, my dear! Dreadstar † 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

Thanks for your support and the congrats, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by borrowing someone else's thank you card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Dreadstar † 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank you for all your input at Dreadstar's RfA. It was much appreciated! As the nominator, I didn't feel it was my place to comment a whole lot, and it was great to have an outside voice as the voice of reason. Thank you! --Fang Aili talk 15:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemarine RFC

Do I just sign the appropriate section with the tildes? Aatombomb 19:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I get it now. It's certified, BTW. Aatombomb 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Typing monkey 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yskin, thank you again for your guidance with the process. This is the first time I've gone into this kind of review procedure and I do appreciate your help very much.Typing monkey 21:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I put together a couple of mondo RfCs at the beginning of August, so I got some experience there. --Yksin 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

''(Repeating your comment for convenience) The evidence you just provided was of Bluemarine purportedly trying to warn about something you purportedly did wrong -- but the evidence you actually need for that section is of you or other editors cautioning him about his bad behavior, but which he ignored. --Yksin 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)''[reply]

Yes, that's not the best example. Due to the sheer volume of discussion and bewildering tangents, I've become a little overwhelmed trying to reduce evidence to its proper form. I've taken offense to the way he's treated other editors but as I understand it, it is not my place to include those instances - it must be done by the editor involved in the dispute. Many of the particularly hateful comments were made on user talk pages rather than the article itself, and those instances are listed. I think WP:AUTO is obvious and for violations of WP:OWN I think you could list about ninety percent of Bluemarine's edits on the talk pages. Many times he simply ignores civil suggestions and starts a new topic or starts campaigning for the inclusion of a new vanity project. The talk pages have devolved into an endless cloud of sound and fury in which absolutely nothing gets accomplished, and it has been like this for several months. I know I am not doing the process justice. I did not realize that there was such a brief time limit for doing this and I now know I should have documented all of this before making the request. I think the time limit for providing "diffs" has expired. I think all of the editors who have contributed have spelled out the situation fairly plainly, but I should have given them a better structure to work with. I should have asked for an advisor before diving into this in the first place. I don't know how it will go, but you're the bees knees for nudging me along in the right direction on protocol. Typing monkey 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have inestimable respect for Yksin based on what I've seen through her edits and my previous interactions with her, I keep my eye on her page. That's how I came across your RfC. I just want to be clear that, the structure and evidence in the RfC notwithstanding, I think it does take great courage and a good deal of work to list one and that this one needed to be listed. I also wish to congratulate you on your fine usage of "bees knees". It makes me want to say "cool beans". :) Into The Fray T/C 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, thanks, Into The Fray. That's a nice comment to come home to. Typing monkey: I've never heard of there being a deadline for when diffs for evidence can be provided for an RfC, at least not in its early stages, where this one is. It is best to to put the whole thing together as much as possible in a sandbox or wherever (which is what I did with the two I initiated) before actually posting it to the RfC pages. But I see no reason at this early stage in the RfC that additional evidence could not be brought. If nothing else, you can write your own "Inside view" on Bluemarine that includes any additional diffs that you didn't already provide. You actually can bring as evidence diffs about ways Bluemarine has treated other people beside just you -- i.e., if he's launched personal attacks/incivility on other people beside you, you can bring diffs of that as evidence, just as in the normal day to day course of events on Wikipedia any editor can warn any other of incivility/personal attacks regardless of who that person attacked. I will tell you that when I prepared the RfCs on the two people I did 'em on -- both on the same day, both in reference to the same article (Battle of Washita River), I erred (if I erred) on the side of supercomprehensivity -- each issue I brought up had to be clearly covered by policies, but so long as it was, damn betcha I brought it up. Also, RfCs aren't like RfAs, for which you only have a week: they are part of the dispute resolution process, & they theoretically can last as long as it takes for the disputes to be resolved, or for the editors involved to decide to take it up the line to ArbCom or wherever.
My plate's pretty full right now, but if you have questions, I will try to assist. You did the right thing in bringing this RfC; have patience for yourself in keeping it going to get the resolution of the disputes. --Yksin 05:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. it may be a couple of days, but I will be writing an "outside view" for this RfC, & if necessary will do my own bit of research to add diffs of his attacks on people, including use of anon IPs to do so. I don't know yet that he was using anon IPs on purpose or was just "forgetting to log in," but there's at least one instance in which he made a personal attack on Aatombomb from an anon IP, but also wrote enough commentary in the same comment to make it clear it was him. --Yksin 05:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your encouraging comments. You are both the cat's meow! I've added to the evidence section, including a little about the currently suspected sockpuppet. I appreciate your time and look forward to your comments, Yskin. Typing monkey 03:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed you a couple of weeks ago and you haven't responded. If you have too much on your plate, that's fine. If not, could you help me sort out some things? Here are my current perplexions: On September 18, I sent out a notice about the Sanchez/Bluemarine RfC to all of the editors (including Sanchez/Bluemarine) who were involved in editing the page or in the discussion within the last few months. How long should I wait before continuing the process farther along the dispute resolution chain? I was thinking of going forward with a request for arbitration after about another week or so, but I have two main concerns: 1. Bluemarine hasn’t responded. He’s received notice of this RfC (twice) on his talk page. I’m not sure if I should encourage him to respond or just leave it alone. 2. There is one admin who has been significantly involved in the discussion who has not responded at all to the Request for Comment - WJB. I’m not sure if he’s prohibited from comment because he’s an admin...it seems odd that he has not joined in the RfC given his level of involvement in the article in question. 3. I would prefer to go straight to arbitration rather than mediation given Sanchez’s attitude towards attempts to reason directly with him in the past. Is this considered skipping a step, or would it be problematic for any other reason? I look forward to your comments. Again, if you're too busy, simply say the word. Typing Monkey - (type to me) 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for cleaning up my misplaced commentary. I'll remember the format in the future (one hopes). Into The Fray T/C 21:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dividends

Way cool! Party on, dudette! Instead of beer in a bucket, I think this deserves:

Shaken and stirred!! Dreadstar † 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adoption

Hello, Yksin, I was wondering if you'd "adopt" me. I have been editing articles for some time, but I still need guidance, as you have seen. I see you've already adopted someone but you still have the "willing to adopt" userbox up. If you have too much on your plate I understand.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! The adoptee I had disappeared some time back, so no problem. I am at the moment rescheduling my life somewhat, but I still have lunches, most evenings, & weekends to answer questions, etc. November I will be mostly on wikibreak (I'll be doing NaNoWriMo), but I will still be checking in. --Yksin 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Man alive, a 50K word novel in one month? You keep doing that! My questions mostly have to do with the progression of the RfC which can simmer awhile. Have fun with the novel, it sounds like a laid-back sort of thing. Typing Monkey - (type to me) 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Writing is what I'm supposed to be on this planet to do -- I've got some stuff already in project, but I reckon NaNoWriMo will help clear the clogged pipes & get the momentum going again. I'll still be around Wikipedia for some time to come, but will be greatly moderating the amount of time I'm here, so as not to distract from writing.
Yes, I need to check in with that RfC. I'll do so tomorrow & open for any questions then. I still have a few questions about them myself! --Yksin 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that just intimidated the bejeezus out of me. I'm over it now. My main question is: What do I do next? I am concerned that, other than sniping at a few editors on the RfC itself, Bluemarine hasn't provided a response. Also, an editor who has been very involved with the project, has not contributed an opinion (but he did put the request in proper format). Would it be intrusive to ask for your e-mail address? I have some questions about this and also other articles that I don't think are appropriate for public discussion.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to publish my email address in Wikipedia. However, if you look to the left from this talk page, below the search box, one of the links you'll see says "E-mail this user." Click on that & send a message to me that way -- I think you have to have your own preferences set with your own email address activated, to actually be able to do this. Then, once I get your email message, I'll write you back, & we'll both have each other's email addresses & can keep private discussion private. I'll be on the lookout for your email. --Yksin 01:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Thanks, Yksin, for letting me know about Twinkle. I'll check it out. TimidGuy 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkie defense

Hi, Yskin. Well, it's been nearly a month and no one has objected to your plan at Twinkie defense (except for Jeffpw, whose objection seems to be more an objection to my continued existence.) I would like to go through with this plan, but there are parts of it I can't do myself (setting up the sandbox with the current version of the article) and parts of it that it would be, ahem, unpopular for me to do myself (reverting back to the earlier version.) After that, my work should be fairly uncontroversial, as it will be primarily bringing the article more in line with what Benjiboi and Jeffpw think it should be, by expanding discussion of Milk's homosexuality. I realize you're busy with other articles, but if you go through with the first steps, I can proceed as discussed on the talk page. -- 192.250.34.161 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it. Proceeding now. I am, BTW, getting set to have a fairly complete Wikivacation in November — doing NaNoWriMo — & will probably not be able to do extensive work on Twinkie defense before then, as right now my obligation to Battle of Washita River & closely related articles comes first. However, I will be checking in, including in November; & may be able to do more work once November's over. I'll have to ILL the Dan White trial book again. (BTW, it's Yksin, not Yskin.) --Yksin 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I think that was my fingers slipping, but I'm not sure. -- 192.250.34.161 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Wikipedia shouldn't let people edit their pages. Now everyone at my school is changing things and the teachers are refusing to let us go there. Please, if there's anything you can do about it, please do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.95.210 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Apology

Hello Yksin, it's Ikiroid. I am truly sorry that I went AWOL during the mediation of Twinkie Defense. It looks like I'm not going to be on wikipedia much (at all) for an unknown amount of time (a few months at least) so I wanted to drop you a note now. You can drop me a note talkpagewise or email me, but I wish you all the best. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yksin&oldid=165289538"