User talk:Skyerise

Welcome!

Hello, Skyerise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Hello, Yworo, I noticed you reverted my contribution to the folk music revival page on the grounds that you believed it was unsourced. You also wrote me a note on my talk page admonishing me to review wikipedia rules and not post unsourced material. As I understand it, it is not approved wikipedia practice to revert material merely for being unsourced within hours of its appearance, unless you believe it to be unequivocal vandalism. In the case of material that you consider unsourced or wrong, the civil procedure is to add a note that a citation is needed and wait for the poster to produce it before reverting. It is also a civility to write an explanation on the discussion page of the article explaining how you are trying to improve the article. For my part, I have attempted to do this by posting the sources you asked for on on the discussion page for interested parties to view before I or they engage in any rewrite (most of the commenters have been quite unhappy with the article). If you have improvements, suggestions, or other feedback to add, I urge you to please do so now, rather than unilaterally reverting.Mballen (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my double columned footnote format (I don't know how to do them). That is an improvement on the article. As is your taking note of what is indeed a weasel word. That Pete Seeger is responsible for folk revival is debatable, certainly.

I observe (with regret) that you have written me a note on my talk page that you have decided to ignore my other comments (above), since they were offered in good faith.Mballen (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yworo,

I believe you are well-intentioned, but try not fall into the error of mechanically deleting uncited information that falls into the category of common knowledge on the grounds that you think it constitutes "original research". I agree with you that the article needs more inline citations. But it is conceptually and factually problematic as well.Mballen (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be a pest

Would you make a simple statement of your interaction with Tothwolf here? Even one sentence that says the characterizations of your existing statements are correctly representing your opinion would be helpful. Miami33139 (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

Dear, Yworo. I strongly agree that the true citizenship is the one, that the person held at the time of becoming famous. This is especially important in the occassions to consider Russian Amercans, only to Russians, or only to Americans. The fact that Asimov was born as a Russian Jew is not significant, because his family moved to the US, when he was three years old. This is also correct. But, if this should be a rule, it should be used in all articles of this kind. Many people are considered Americans, although they got the citizenshiop, after they became famous. A big incoherence is the fact, that a person who has lived in more countries, holds the citizenships of theese countries is considered an American, because of the fact that this person has lived in the US for a while, ignoring the fact that this person lived in another countries, and was not less famous then in the US. This leads just to an 'Americanization' of the English language Wikipedia, because of this extreme POV.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I supposte that this sneaky change would not make significant impact. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not to revert the edit, but to use this rule for the other articles. It is not appropriate to leave the article Isaac Asimov as a good, or bad example. I am just opposite of the 'Americanization' of the articles on this Wikipedia. Could you please explain, why there are no considerations of other nationalities, like Algerian-French, or Turkish-German, and there are just to Americans (ex. German-American, Spanish-American, all nationalities-American). This is very big problem. I proposed some solutions in some occassion, but this should be observed more carefuly. So please pay attention on this. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I did it so. Don't think that my work is to make edit wars, or reverting the reliable sources, or meaningful, and important words. I rarely do this with other users, but sometimes I must point, giving my opinion, that the changes are not needed. The further explanation was just comparation to the usage of the rules on Wikipedia. I will sure make a use of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the opening sentence with the words Soviet-American, which seems to be better then just American. If we compare this with the Nabokov's case, as you previously said, Nabokov should be considered as American, because he was an American citizen at the time he became famous, and at the time he died. This is same, Asimov, also had duakl citizenship, and was Soviet, and American respectively. He also died as Soviet and American. Regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Nabokov

It's ok. As I can see, you did not see the talk page of this aricle, and you just wait, to ask for block after breaking the 3RR rule, but don't worry I perfectly know the rules, and I won't do it. As a noted above, the categories are big problem, which breakes the NOV. If you act as a 'true reverter', which I see you really are, I would be forced to complain at higher level, to an administrator. Your explanation is not enough. Nabokov spent many years living in Germany, and Switzerland. Why don't you consider him as German, or Swiss? Also, English language writer, and American writer are not same. In the United States, he was an English language writer. American writer is POV. Russian is most appropriate, because his ethnicity was Russian. And in this occassion it is decisive. Regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Contractions

Hi, and thank you. Is that a Wikipedia rule, no contractions? I did not realize that, but do like it. Checked out your user page, and I've never read Alaister Reynolds, but his page looks like I would like him. Just picked up the new Cory Doctorow book and am looking forward to a good read there. Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Samael Weor

The Weor material in Sex Magic is extremely well sourced--13 references with all 13 from Weor's own books as primary sources. That section was the main reason that the article had been cited with templates for pov and other infractions (see the discussion page), so I went in and parred it down so that the essence and view was left but the pov details were lessened, and removed the templates. Please read the section, and then read what I had left of the section, and see what you think, if you have a few minutes. I'll go back and do the same myself, to refresh myself about the restored data. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just reread it, and the discussion page, and that section has an interesting history of contention. It contains much pov when pov using primary sources by citing the author's own writing, and much information as well. Will leave it as is for now, until you've had a chance to read it as is without having to look at an edited form (one indication of pov is that Weur's name is written out throughout and not just parred down to his last name). I scanned the Weur article, don't know much about him, but apparantly his followers believe his word that he will soon ressurect himself. No comment. Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you gave me a good education on my talk page, and I'll study the data. I edited Weor on the Sex magic page to bring out the fact that the surmises were his opinions, and some other clarity edits. Please take a look at the edits when you have a few minutes. By editing that section, I have now become a Weorite, and eagerly await his return to life (The Weor-zombie cometh). My girlfriend is not going to like my new found enthusiasm for Weor and his ideas, but compromises must be made. . . .The other guy, Arthur Krumm-Heller, no data on him, but his page puts him before Weor and someone who visited Crowley once (?) Maybe he can just be added to the reading list. Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for going through the article. I must have done fairly well with Weor, and you caught some pov I missed. On the Crowley stuff, it must have been written long ago, before we were born. I'll look at it and ask Rodney and Dan to take a look, two of the editors who know their stuff when it comes to Crowley topics. On a quick scan I think the Prof. Hugh Urban quotes and material was pointing out how important Crowley was to the topic as almost an intro to the sections that came next. The pov could be shifted to Urban's quotes and others. I'll look at it all, but not tonight. Thanks for checking the edits and bringing fresh eyes to them.

Yours in Weor (I expect him to return to the living over the weekend) Aleister Wilson (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Figurative language

Concerning this edit: Whatever may be wrong with using the word "we" in that way, to construe literally as a reference to the writer is absurd. It's a figure of speech, and a standard one, a cliche. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

James Dean's speculated sexual orientation

Hello, Yworo. I reverted your revert of my restoration of the way this information was previously formatted. The fact that these are claims and speculation is why I feel that it should not be presented as fact; this has been discussed extensively on the talk page of that article, where others feel the same way I do about this. My reasons are there, below some of the other discussions about information on his sexual orientation (at Talk:James Dean#Category:Bisexual actors?), as well as at User talk:Treybien#Talking on Wikipedia, and James Dean article. As I stated to Treybien, "I do not feel that [the Speculated sexual orientation information] belongs [in his Personal life section], since it is speculation and claims Dean himself cannot comment on (considering that he is deceased). Furthermore, it is more relevant to his iconic status..." Another poster has also stated that it fits better there. I even formatted it in a way that it makes more sense to be present as a subsection under the Legacy heading.

If you feel that strongly about this information being presented as fact, then I will bring in other editors on this matter as well. But it should be discussed on the talk page, since it has been agreed that this information is best not presented as fact (no matter that he is deceased and this is not a WP:BLP problem). Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

:As I stated in my edit summary, how do you know these are facts? People claiming stuff after a man is dead does not make it fact. If you are not going to discuss this matter, instead of simply reverting (as if that will solve anything, considering that I do not agree with you about this), then I do not see how your reverts are at all justified. I will go ahead and bring in more editors on this matter to form a new consensus, since it seems that you are not willing to make your case on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you had completely reverted me when I went and reverted you again. I see that you only moved a very likely fact higher, to his Personal life section. I reverted myself on that. Sorry about reverting you on that. And I thank you for listening to me about the actual claims and speculations. I left the Speculated sexual orientation part as part of his Iconic status and impact on popular culture section, though; it is clearly related to it. I also originally had The "curse" of "Little Bastard" section as a subsection of it as well, and returned it that way. But if you detach them, I will not revert you on that matter. After all, I can see how some people may feel it looks cleaner. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Co-stars

I saw your recent edit to the Peter Lorre article. I'm not changing it, since your wording in the edit is also correct. But your edit summary is in error, so FYI: in films, a co-star is a supporting player who has a major role and (usually) is given main-title billing. Peter Lorre certainly fits that description in the film under discussion. (In episodic television, a co-star is something else--something lesser--entirely.) Just thought you'd like to know, for the sake of precision. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

iPad image

Please explain why a non-free image is not permissable. Thanks!-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As you have already been told, it is not permissible because the image is replaceable with a free one.--Terrillja _talk 04:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Then where is the free image?-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 04:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the current image is a copyvio and it has correctly been tagged for speedy deletion. A free image will have to wait. There is no requirement that the article have an image. Yworo (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There doen't have to be one. As I have already said, lack of a free image does not allow you to violate Wikipedia policies.--Terrillja _talk 04:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

John von Neumann

Hi, Yworo. How do you see Budapest, just as place of birth in Neumann's biography. He immigrated to the US in 1930, and got the citizenship in 1937. He spent more than a half of his life in Hungary, he was educated in Hungary (got a Ph.D.), he was recognized as a child prodigy. It seems silly, if you think that he was just born in Hungary. What is the problem here Yworo? You confessed that the nationallity is combination of citizenship, duration spent in the country, notability, etc. I'll undo your edit. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Direct quotations

Ok, where did you read that? TastyCakes (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it doesn't seem to me that that link says anything about what to do when multiple direct quotes are taken from the same source and follow each other without a section involving another source breaking them up. TastyCakes (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No it says they all need to be cited, not cited individually. It looks pretty silly having 8 consecutive sentences giving the same reference, and I very rarely see it. But if you want to take this up on a help desk or something for clarification, I'd be happy to join that conversation. TastyCakes (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll rewrite it myself then. Yworo (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean you'll rewrite the citation guidelines? Well good luck with that... I've asked for clarification at the help desk so we'll see what the "experts" say. TastyCakes (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'll rewrite the paragraphs without quotations, which aren't really needed. Yworo (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, I figured that out shortly after I posted here :)

I think we're approaching consensus on the section, thanks for your time. TastyCakes (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you know we are vandals?

[1]. And apparently I hate Haiti, and work for Hello magazine. Woogee (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Shelby

Please do not fall into the mistake of editing disruptively to make a point. Yworo (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF. I'm not making a point. Reid and Gibbs said something that wasn't true, and it was repeated unthinkingly by some press accounts. Now that we know that it isn't true from other reliable sources, it ceases to be an issue of V. And I explained the recentism tag on the talk page. Please self-revert instead of edit-warring. THF (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring over the recentism tag. You are entitled to your idiosyncratic opinion over whether mainspace articles can be tagged, but until there is consensus on {{recentism}} for your version of the instructions, or until you succeed in deleting the template, do not remove appropriate uses of the tag. Please self-revert. Or, better yet, fix the article problems. THF (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the matter in the appropriate place where I've started such a discussion, Template talk:Recentism. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and please feel free to fix the article problems yourself, which is clearly specified on the template instructions as preferable to tagging an article. Thanks, again. Yworo (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearing up a few things...

Hello Yworo - I noticed that you marked the "Mehgan Heaney-Grier" article that I contributed to on Wikipedia as having a "close connection" with its subject, and as such may not be capable of a neutral point of view per Wikipedia's content policies. I want to inform you that although I know Ms. Heaney-Grier, I am not in fact, her - I am male and live half way around the world from America and Heaney-Grier. As for a neutral point of view, I have interviewed many freedivers - including Heaney-Grier - over the years for a book that I am authoring, and am fond of them all. In the course of my research however, I found that while several of the notable freedivers are filed on Wikipedia, there was not a Wikipedia article on Ms. Heaney-Grier. Thus, with her permission, I created the article with many references and external pages. Heaney-Grier has granted permission to use her images for the entry and submitted them with that intention, as well as a typed note written by Heaney-Grier that I then submitted to the proper entity at Wikipedia Commons.

Next, to address the other comment tag posted at the top of the article that deals with the question of notability. As described in the Wikipedia guidelines "notability" is in reference to whether an article topic is "notable, or worthy of notice", has had "significant coverage" in "independent" and "reliable" sources that address the subject in detail. Mehgan Heaney-Grier established the first-ever freedive record in constant weight freediving for both men and women in the United States of America, thereby essentially putting the sport on the map for the US. Additionally, she captained the first-ever freedive team to compete in the World Cup in Sardinia, Italy in 1998. Furthermore, in addition to her career as a professional athlete and an inductee to the Women Divers Hall of Fame in 2000, Heaney-Grier has had her own television series two times over on major networks that have aired world wide, has a huge following and has been featured in many books on the topic of freediving and otherwise etc...

Please also note a few of the many articles regarding other notable freedivers included on Wikipedia, most of which have 0-2 references included in their article (excluding Streeter and Pelizzari, which each have 4), Deborah Andollo, Sara Campbell, Mandy-Rae Cruickshank, Yasemin Dalkılıç, Tanya Streeter, Francisco Ferreras (free-diver), Umberto Pelizzari, Audrey Mestre and Karol Meyer

I would sincerely appreciate any reasonable comments that might help me (or others) to better this article. Much thanks for your time and consideration. Best, NotaryDownUnder (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

Hello Yworo,

Thank you for your constructive advise - per your suggestions I have reduced the number of photos on the article, and have added several third party sources from magazines and online articles. Additionally, I have submitted a request for a username change. This being my first round on Wikipedia there has been a bit of a learning curve for me. I can appreciate your concerns and thank you for bringing them to my attention. Best NotaryDownUnder (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User:IBen/TB mono (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yoga vs Tantra

Greetings,

You seem to be knowing about Yoga & Tantra. Could you please clarify as to why does Osho's differentiation between Yoga & Tantra seems dubious to you. Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 06:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are right, have you lost interest in cleaning up that article? Mitsube (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, been on vacation and not looking at WP until today. Back Monday (3/22) and will follow up then. Yworo (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

PDF vs abstract

At Talk:Julian_Jaynes#Links_to_External_Articles you wrote "...if there is a abstract page, we link to that rather than directly to a PDF." If you don't have specific page on the tip of your tongue, i'd be grateful for anything you can offer in the way of clues that could help me find where you read this. Right in this section of your talk page would be the perfect place to reply, as i'll watch for activity here. Thanks,
--Jerzy•t 04:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura

Hello Yworo, RE "You state that Refuting something never claimed is simply a gratuitous pot-shot". I am not entirety sure what you want from me here. If you want to go back through the articles history you will see that there has been a persistent effort to call him a Navy SEAL, (I can only speculate that it is from his fans) and include the Navy SEAL tag, linking him to lists of notable SEALS etc. If I were to post "reliable documentation that Ventura claimed to have been a SEAL" like "I'm a warrior at heart, I'm an ex-Navy Seal, said Mr. Ventura, who is clearly enjoying his campaign. "[2] or "I couldn't care less what a person's sexual orientation is, and I'm an ex-Navy SEAL."[3] or from his autobiography "We're a proud organization. If anyone tries to pretend they're a SEAL, God help them." (I Ain't Got Time to Bleed) etc.... If I were to include any of those or the other instances where he has claimed to be a SEAL would that be fair? Or would there be an issue with that? I seriously don't want to create controversy, that's why I have sourced everything carefully and removed anything that doesn't pass WP:BLP. V7-sport (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Sure, yes. As long as you include claims to be a SEAL with reliable third-party documentation, you can then include reliably-sourced contradictory information. The only thing I have a problem with is refuting something that's not been clearly stated. Yworo (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Image sizing, Gustav Mahler

I have replied to your message re the above on my talkpage. I don't think you have actually read the guideline in question - it might help if you did so before giving your opinion, let alone shouting it in your edit summaries. I note that you altered the Mahler lead image size from "thumb" to "upright" - what do you imagine justifies that, by any reading of the guidelines? It seems you have a lot to learn, both about Wikipedia procedures and about personal interactions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Garbo

In consideration of that would it not be necessary for Garbo to specifically self-identify as a Lutheran for inclusion in that category? Where she baptised into Lutherianism does not necessarily mean she continued to self-identify as such. Furthermore, what of those article such as historic figures who know to have belonged to a particular group but did not specify it? For example we know that Mary, Queen of Scots was a Roman Catholic but did not ever publicly say it herself. Is it then wrong to include her in the Catholics category? I am satisfied that the sources I provided were academic and reliable enough to merit inclusion in the Rosicrucian category and that I have met the wikipedia requirements for such. If I must reference this in the body of the article itself I will but do not feel it should really be necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.243.186 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's OK don't worry about a personal "attacks" message. Just remember that its people like you - fascists who like to bully - who cost Wikipedia thoughtful, informed and talented writers. Its people like you who that stop it from evolving into something better. And that of course is precisely what you want.