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:

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)[reply]

Waldorf and related

Thanks for all the cleanup you've been doing on these sites! Nice to have an expert equipped with a fine-toothed comb. hgilbert (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an/i

The requestor consented to closing the thread--he did not consent to collapse it. Please uncollapse. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Yworo (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You basically did ok there. It's tricky when you decide to help in one of these thoroughgoing messes :) DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service award per WP:SERVICE

This editor is a
**Yeoman Editor**
and is entitled to display this **Service Badge**.

Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Yworo, and welcome to the little club of silly taxes. Thank you for your contribution. I hope you like the place and decide to write more articles on silly taxes.

Luckily, there's not yet a tax on trying to build bridges. :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your calm, logical, and utterly sensible statements at WP:AN/I Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm and Socratic? Are we talking about the same editor? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. Applying a pin to a bubble of hyperbole is not Socratic. For it to be Socratic, I'd have to get you to apply it yourself. :-) Yworo (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge

Hey come back to the article so we can improve it.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

I see that you are now edit warring at GNU. Please stop, you're now on the edge of WP:3rr. If revert another edit to that article over the next 24 to 36 hours, you will most likely be blocked from editing. If you have a content disagreement with other editors, please use the article talk page, edit warring will not bring the outcome you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, was already going to the talk page. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I managed to learn about edit warring and 3RR without being blocked for it, and I intend to do my best to keep my record block-free. Yworo (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What are you talking about?
The matter has been resolved by the other editor becoming reasonable and removing his own outrageous statements.
Please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought it was still the 29th. Yworo (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it probably IS still the 29th somewhere on the planet ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

Regarding this edit and your associated edit comment: quotations should not be italicized as it only makes them harder to read, especially in references where the font is smaller
Is that your opinion, or is it WP policy? If the former, I disagree. If the latter, which policy? (i.e. please provide a link.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Manual of Style. I'll see if I can find it. Yworo (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. Yworo (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yworo (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

text-based external links?

Could you explain what you mean in your comment here regarding "text-based external links?" I'm not sure what you are referring to. Before I removed it, the list didn't contain external links, but references. Granted, these references were just the previous external links, formatted as references. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the previous version, linked at the beginning of the discussion, where the links were actually from the text in the table, rather than formatted as references. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clear that up in your comment? The external links were reformatted on June 2. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint at WP:AN3

See Ravensfire's update to the 3RR report. Are you willing to make the same assurance, that you will wait for the talk discussion to conclude before making more reverts on the contested issue at Federal Reserve System? If so the report might be closed on that basis. I take note that you seem to have three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Boyle

Hello, Yworo. I apologize for the unconstructive edit that I made to the Robert Boyle article earlier tonight. I was just so sick of the ongoing conflict and wanted it to end. I'm glad that you cited a source that describes him as English, as that appears to be the most accurate description. Cheers. John of Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit-police at Federal Reserve System

hey Yworo! first, thanks for your comments on my talk page, I really appreciate it. I agree with your edits on the Federal Reserve System and with your comments in the history. But notice that all of your and my edits are gone now—in fact, we had a net regression, as user "Dark Charles" pompously rolled in to declare ad hoc Creature from Jekyll Island "the nonsense book." Doesn't it seem as though some kind of unfair editing-protection is being given to this article? Can we flag this article and its edits as in need of external review by an admin? ganjadi (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology software

Hi, I'd be very grateful - and I'm sure others would be too - if you could briefly outline your concerns in a new section on the talk page (I'm not saying they're baseless, I just want to get the ball rolling and if I do it the merits of he discussion will probably come second to tedious meta discussion about me). Verbal chat 11:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous warnings

Please do me a favour and try not to issue frivolous and untrue "warnings" as you did here. If as you state you wish to be an admin some day then mistakes like you have done can come back to haunt you, the slightest of checks on who I notified about the new thread would see that it wasn't canvassing and i'm sure you are now emabarressed and contrite about you blatant mistake and you will strike your "official warning" and hopefully it wont happen again. Mo ainm~Talk 11:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

In the thread "Conflict of Interest by Ender2070 (talk • contribs • logs)" I notice your name all over User talk:Ender2070 and thought you might have an opinion. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Mo Saheed

Hello Yworo, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mo Saheed, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: That the individual is a chairman and CEO as well as a founder of several fractional ownership properties, in addition to mention in reliable, third-party sources, is sufficient to assert notability. If you feel the subject is not notable, please take it to AFD. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve Banks

Hi, you didn't reply to my answer to your comment over at the talk page of Federal Reserve System. I wonder if you saw it? I was also wondering if you would now agree with me that the Federal Reserve Banks are most accurately characterized as independent quasi-government entities. Thanks, LK (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't see it. Been busy with other things. The lead looks really quite improved. Thanks for the update. Yworo (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification?

Regarding the {{cn}} on Wyatt Earp, I'm assuming (guessing) that it's needed to demonstrated his Odd Fellows membership?
If so, what's the status of File:WyattEarpIOOFMembershipCard.jpg, and if it's sufficient, how does one cite it?
If not, what sort of citation is needed? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the image is not adequate citation (images can be Photoshopped). It needs citation like the other entries. And presumably wherever the image was obtained from has some text about it? Yworo (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov

You are, of course, correct. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for a price

"we can't use web searches or articles that must be purchased as sources" -- Half of that surprises me. Since when haven't we been able to use articles that must be purchased as sources? -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can use the article if we can cite it (presumably it's also in print?), but we can't link to it. Our linking policy say we can't link to material that must be purchased, or even free content that is behind a login. Yworo (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. This tells us: Outside of citations, external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers (bold in the original). -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, damn place changes all the time. Don't think that was there when I read it, but I could be wrong. Maybe it was added, or maybe it'd been temporarily removed, who knows! Anyway, carry on.... Yworo (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been temporarily removed, and of course you may have hurriedly overlooked it (I wouldn't blame you for that), but there's nothing new about it. Of course, use by others of sources that cost money is a major irritation at best. (And the whole of this article on the photographer/mogul looks screwy.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I may have overlooked it. I'm not paying for some article to verify that it sources our content. Especially if there are freely accessible sources that would verify the same content. I suspect our new editor is the same as the old editor, but unless I see both accounts being used, I'm going to ignore that. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems we have yet another shiny new user on the article. Yworo (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mild article on a photographer/mogul. Try this (and then see its wild 'n' crazy talk page). -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is my camera? I already am a CEO and own a gallery, now I just need to take a few pics and create an article about myself! :-) Yworo (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilsport! (It's eminently deleteworthy, but I'll let somebody else do the honors.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted with UNDO and warned that links to the US Constitution and US Census are unsourced

I am interested that you oppose the addition of a definition of what States' Rights are. You don't like the US Constitution sources and US Census links I added. Why do you oppose mentioning Article Four,4,1, requirement the each state have a "Republican Form of Government" in the article? Why do you oppose mentioning US Constitution and Amendments about elections of US Senators, US Representatives and US Presidents?

With Definition I added: [1]

With your preferred (and I think inadequate) definition: [2]

[States' Rights] Page History: [3]

Please specify, by editing the text I added, which portions do not meet the Wikipedia policies as you alone see them. Editing "good faith edit" that you disagree with is constructive help is preferable to deleting out right with UNDO. Because of how vague the definition is in your preferred version of the article, it would strongly benefit from you improving the material I added. Npendleton (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]