User talk:Yottie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Belated[change source]

Hey Yottie. I completely missed your last comment on this thread, but I just noticed it today and it reminded me of some similar schemes on other wikis. On Wikinews, an article has to be reviewed and approved by a "reviewer" before it's published. The assessment scheme on enwiki is mainly for their WikiProjects, but it's also a nifty tool for encouraging quality. I think both schemes have elements that could be beneficial here if adjusted properly. I don't know if the idea would come to much in the practical sense, but it's interesting to think about. I'm often left thinking that simple may eventually have to adopt some stricter policies on language or at least put greater emphasis on it if it's going to continue achieving its goal. There's just too much unsupervised growth for such a small team to support, not enough focus on quality. Just thinking out loud, really.

There are a lot of freshwater fish on this page. Osiris (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha at the fresh water fish! More seriously, I agree this project will need to focus on the language aspect more in the future in order to accomplish what it initially set out to do. Maybe a function at the bottom of the page which acts as a poll (such as the review function on other wikis), but have the following: On a scale of 1-10, how simple to read did you find the article? 1-2-3-4... (select one to rate) or maybe How easy to understand was this article: Very simple - simple - quite difficult - difficult - very difficult? (select one to rate). And then have a message saying To tell us more about what you think, click here (link redirects to new section on Talk page). Just an idea, but it may help us determine which articles need attention. Yottie =talk= 14:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a good idea. A more accessible feedback system for readers would definitely be a plus. I've always wondered, though, whether many editors (on enwiki) really look much at those feedback logs... but it might be different if we're looking for one particular problem. If it produced a list that prioritises the articles with the lowest scores (i.e., most consistently rated complex by readers), then it could be a whole new way of finding articles with heavy traffic that are difficult to understand. Osiris (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, an automatically generated list would be a very good idea. I think we need something to help us detect what readers would like, and this could be an easy option. Someone will no doubt shoot it down, but then they should come up with an alternative solution. I'll be away for a few days, but when I'm back, I'll suggest the idea to ST (unless you wish to do it before Saturday - I'll be back on Sunday). Yottie =talk= 08:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Culture of bullying[change source]

I have responded to your comments here. If you do not understand, I am ready and willing to try to explain on-wiki in different words. --Ansei (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you![change source]

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Excellent work in trying to clear out the articles with unsourced statements category! Welcome back, too! I hope you're planning to stay around for awhile! Only (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad to be able to help. I should be around for the next couple of weeks, before going to Australia. That means I probably won't be editing as much between 20th December and 10th January. Hopefully, I'll resume normal service after that. :) Yottie =talk= 13:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: For Funs Sake[change source]

I'm doing my bit :P Kennedy (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that that was 693 worth of an edit is obnoxious! :) Only (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Haha, very good! More like the old times, where it was ok to have fun as well as edit. Now, we live in some sort of 1984 remake. But worse. ;) Yottie =talk= 17:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

RfD nomination of User:Project/France[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of User:Project/France, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/User:Project/France and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your admin rights have been removed[change source]

Hey Yottie! I regret to inform you that I have removed your admin rights on this wiki in accordance to our policy on inactive admins. You have made in 2014 sadly less than 100 logged actions/edits to this project.

However, I wish you a happy new and successful year 2015! Hope to see you back on this wiki in the future! -Barras talk 00:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Barras. Sadly, I have had (a still have) little to no time for editing. Hopefully I can make some smaller contributions throughout the year, but there is no real need for the admin tools. All best, Yottie =talk= 12:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back![change source]

Welcome back, Yottie! Where have you been? (if you don't mind me asking) Glad you're back :-) George Edward CTalkContributions 13:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been between countries - Italy, England and France - and I have not really had time to edit. I will try to do a little more this year. I'm planning on expanding all French communes. Thanks for the message. Yottie =talk= 13:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Bell tower[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Bell tower, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Bell tower and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Hydriz (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, again![change source]

Nice to see you around here again! It's really amazing how people never forget about this place even after a longer time of not being here. Really nice to see some edits from you again! :-) -Barras talk 15:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Barras! It's good to see you are still here! I've noticed many people who used to be here have now left. I'm glad I'm able to help, even if it's only a little bit. Hopefully I can stick around! :) Yottie =talk= 15:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, most of the old people are still somehow around. Some few, as always over the years, disappeared and some others show up here and then. However, not much has changed. I hope to see you on IRC as well! It's really always nice to see the people again who were already around many years ago when I started. :-) -Barras talk 15:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, hey, some of us are young....ish ;) Only (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Only! It seems you're right, Barras, not everyone has disappeared :) --Yottie =talk= 15:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

hasn't changed to has not[change source]

The word hasn't was recently changed to has not on several articles. Why is that? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I followed the guidelines which can be found at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages#What not to do and probably also in the Manual of Style. --Yottie =talk= 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The MOS section is here. The MOS is very useful, so feel free to look for other contractions which aren't in quotations. Happy editing! :) (Also, I checked out your userpage – nice taste in music!) --Yottie =talk= 20:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back[change source]

Plate of chocolate chip cookies These are special "Welcome-back cookies" baked fresh just for you!
<stage whisper>...will someone please get rid of the bag the cookies came in before Yottie sees it?</stage whisper>
Etamni | ✉   19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Eaten them. Thank you! --Yottie =talk= 19:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Big weekend changes[change source]

Hi Yottie, a belated welcome back. After a few comments, I have extended the parameters of the Big Reference Weekend to include other referencing problems. Some of these will be easier for less experienced editors to get sorted. Also given it an extra 24 hours to make it an even bigger weekend. I have included some ideas for referencing on the project page Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend#Big Reference Weekend 2016. Hope this is OK, as the goal is to get as many people to make as many improvements as possible. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thank you for the welcome back :) I saw your changes, thank you. I will add a few things soon. I think it is a good idea to extend the parameters and the timeframe. The objective is to improve as many pages as possible, indeed, so your changes are definitely a good thing. I look forward to it! --Yottie =talk= 11:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Spoken articles[change source]

Hey - I was just wondering. Can anyone create a spoken article, or do you have to have certain prerequisites in tone and inflection and all that? This is something I would be really interested in helping out with, but the WP:SA page has precious little information. Thank you! --Lithorien TalkChanges 11:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi – yes, of course, anyone can create Spoken Articles. There are no pre-requisites, although I assume that having English as your mother-tongue helps. There are currently some problems when it comes to uploading the files, but hopefully this will be sorted soon. I hope to see you record some soon :) --Yottie =talk= 11:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![change source]

Hello, Yottie. Check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by getting rid of the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Lithorien TalkChanges 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Replied :) --Yottie =talk= 20:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yottie: You've got another one. You'll like it, I think. --Lithorien TalkChanges 23:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lithorien: I have replied! --Yottie =talk= 11:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

PSF[change source]

I don't know if you're around to see it, but PokestarFan was just blocked. I don't know what to say to that. It's been less than a day, we asked him to disable Twinkle, he said he did (even made a fancy status sub-page for it), and less than a day later was blocked for violating his topic ban... using Twinkle. I don't know if I made the rules too hard to understand, or if he just doesn't care, but I don't know what to do. Do you think we should keep trying? --Lithorien TalkChanges 23:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This kind of stuff is exactly why I brought the situation up at Simple Talk. We tell him not to do X, Y, and Z and then he goes and does X, Y, Z. You two clearly put a lot of effort into making the "game" for him, and he just disregards what you're telling him to do. A whole lot of en:WP:ROPE being extended here. Only (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In fairness, he was blocked for nominating a page for QD, and yet the QD nomination was accepted 11 minutes after he nominated it, and for the same reason (attack page) as the nomination. He was given a topic ban essentially because he was demonstrating a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, but I think he has shown that he definitely recognizes certain types of issues and knows exactly what to do with those. While I have concerns about his editing, including some of his QD nominations, I think that our collective best interests will be served if the "game" continues (particularly as it seems likely to be applicable to other editors with similar issues), and ending it now may scuttle it forever. (Note that I am not objecting to the 72 hour block: a topic ban was in effect and it appears that the QD nomination violated it, so sanctions of some type were warranted.) Etamni | ✉   10:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I have two issues here (in addition to the general idea that he violated his topic ban): 1. That he said he disabled Twinkle in his game status. 2. That one minute after tagging the article as an attack page he posted on his talk page "what is an attack page?" He's doing things he doesn't understand. This suggests severe WP:CIR issues. Only (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I am starting to think that maybe he needs a break. He knew that he was not allowed to use Twinkle, yet he still did so. I am all in favour of trying to help him, but he has to cooperate fully. I understand that it's not easy as a younger editor, I started out fairly young too. But he has to understand that there are rules, and that those rules are there for a reason. After his 72 hour block, we will try one more time to help. If he breaks the rules again, I suggest a 4-6 month ban. I think he has the potential, and generally good intentions, but he needs to grow up a bit first. --Yottie =talk= 17:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your barnstar[change source]

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your involvement in the Big Reference Weekend 2016, it was great to see the Big Weekend projects brought back to life. Peterdownunder (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Peterdownunder: Thank you Peter, also for the edit count and for organising of the BW. I'm glad it was a success, and look forward to more in the future! --Yottie =talk= 11:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Final warnings[change source]

It is not our practice to put up final warnings as the first warning. Please try and graduate warnings. Doubtful cases should start at level 1 (good faith), and clear vandalism should start at level two. I'm sure you know this, but today you are not doing it! Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

@Macdonald-ross: In actual fact the template I used was an only warning, not a final warning, and I believe the use of it was justified (probably about 20-25 vandalism edits, 3 vandalism-only articles, etc...). The main objective in using that template, which I agree should not be used often, was to stop the ip from causing further damage seeing as no admins were around to deal with the situation. I'm sure you noticed, but in the other cases of vandalism which happened at the same time, I followed standard practice of level 1/2 (because they were not repeatedly vandalising). I was simply following the guidelines (Level 4im – Assumes bad faith; a strong, first and only warning to the editor to stop what he or she is doing). I hope that clears things up. :) --Yottie =talk= 14:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but that does not alter the fact that the user received only one warning. (User IP User talk: I am not going to block him on that basis, but I see you listed him on ViP, so someone else will look at it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm simply using the policy in place (once again, I quote, first and only warning for a user that assumes bad faith (further demonstrated by him/her removing the QD tags after the warning, and creating a further vandalism-only article)). Maybe the policy/guideline is flawed, but if the template should ever be used, then I think I used it at the right time. If you disagree, maybe it should be a discussion not about my use of the template, but rather the existence of the template itself and hence taken to Simple Talk? To be honest, I don't see many other instances the template would be useful, other than in similar cases to these. In any case, the user has stopped vandalising/editing, so I would agree with your decision not to block. :) --Yottie =talk= 14:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback by PokestarFan[change source]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yottie. You have new messages at User:PokestarFan/sandbox/List of Ancient Greek Philosphers.
Message added 01:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 01:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)