User talk:Yong

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth". This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

Welcome! Please leave your message below the table of content. The space above will serve as my temporary user space later on.

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Will Clark, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Will Clark was changed by Yong (u) (t) making a minor change censoring content (Wikipedia is not censored) on 2010-04-08T01:23:16+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on today's featured article

No worries, your edit was good. :) There were a couple others in there that had sneaked in and the quickest way to make things right was to revert to earlier. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

WP:CONSENSUS is not achieved through discussion but through an "implicit and invisible process on articles across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." If you agree with their removal, then let the consensus policy play out as described, that way I know who I legitimately need to convince. I have had conversations with many of these editors who have disputed and reverted my edits, and for the most part they have conceded on this issue. Consensus does not mean policy; if that were true, please point me to the policy which says succession boxes should be used for #1 charting songs and albums. There isn't one, thus there is as much consensus to have them as there is to not have them. Since many articles have seen the removal of these succession boxes for well over a month, it is implied per WP:CONSENSUS that consensus has been reached. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing succession box

I don't really understand why you remove the succession box. I reviewed discussions about the removal of it but clearly a consensus has not reached yet. This editor had been warned of removing the boxes before a clear consensus is reached. Also the link you directed (WT:Charts) is not valid and the page does not exist. --Yong (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant WT:CHARTS, just needed to shout. Either way why you want those boxes:

1. They are too big, and collapsing them does not wor with printed works.
2. They are obsoletes.
3. The songs before/after are always unsourced, and say that are the facts is WP:OR.
4. A see also including the number-one per chart is better idea.

As you can see there's no reason for add them or remove them, if an editor want to remove them he can, there's no rule for use them. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

More care needed?

You made this edit [1], which undid a vandal's self-revert. Presumably you did that because of the "section blanking" tag, but in this case the section should've been blanked (apart from anything else, it doesn't cite a reliable source for the information). Please can you take a little more care in future? Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My apology if I didn't notice the section is unnecessary, but I think if it's not cited it should not be deleted outright, but rather put a citation needed mark and wait if anyone can provide citations. It is true that Wikipedia requires citations, but we should also allow time for people to verify and provide citations. --Yong (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)