,font color="red">yandman So you dont believe that Chanhassen High School is a real school? How would anybody know that if you aren't from this community. I attend these meetings and planning for it, and you are accusing me of posting these false facts. Really, you have no proof, when i do, to saying it isnt real, so dont threaten me, it makes me want to do it more and more, you can ban me, i have over 100 accounts to this site and ill just keep making more.

Have you really got nothing better to do? And I see you haven't learnt how IP blocks work. yandman 16:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, what does "to lose one's rag" mean? Where is it used? ... aa:talk 02:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an acceptable definition, with a few examples. I think it's specific to British English. Why? yandman 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I spoke to an admin who knows a lot more re copyright law than I, and he's said to be safe the levels of direct text could be lowered. So, have asked Wikipediatrix to get onto it for us; now, $65,000 question is, which ex-user is this a sock of? We should all place bets lol :) Thanks!  Glen  10:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he's a sock of Terryeo in that he's probably been given his job. This time they gave it to someone a bit more computer-literate, and he seems to have done his prep-work. yandman 11:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated!  Glen  11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: and wasnt it just a delightful edit! :)

My template is based off of this template created by User:Glen S. If you read it, they say about the same thing. --SonicChao ^talk 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. yandman 08:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole {{wr}} - {{wr4}} userpage blanking warnings have gone now, as they were being misused. Rule of thumb is, if you warn a registered good faith contributor, and they remove it - assume it as read and forget it, The IPs do it as vandalism, and it makes our job harder so we warned them. My version (which is a blend of the Wr's is at User:Glen S/Templates/Wr - you are welcome to use, but remember, IPs only ;)  Glen  08:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I used it on a user who called me said he was not afraid of 'dictators', then he removed the notice and said 'fucking dictator' (in his edit summaries), I could have used it before on other users, but was never aware that consensus had changed. I will remember to use it on IPs only. Thanks for telling me! :) --SonicChao ^talk 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've met some of the educated, intelligent and charming people we have here... yandman 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i noticed :)) No worries.. Baristarim 14:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your comment on the 3R rule. They are, of course, going to ignore you. Juast have to report them for blocking when they do... Sigh. Cheers though for your kindly words! raining girl 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Of course they'll ignore it, and of course they'll be blocked, and of course they'll come back as soon as the block is over, and of course they'll be reblocked indef, and of course by then there will be another silly teenager to worry about... e.t.c ad nauseam. That being said, have fun! yandman 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is your message, "I've reverted your removal of all the instances of a template. If the template is "highly disputable", dispute it on the template's talk page. It's a bad idea to make mass edits like this without it being the result of consensus. Thanks. yandman 09:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC) "

• Yes you are correct, it is a bad idea to put a dummy template to everywhere on wiki. Which concensus you speaking about, where is your concensus to put these dummy templates.?.

Your argument is baseless and has no any good faith. Regards. Must^TC 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to stay civil, please. The template has been created by several users, and has been implemented by different users on different pages. If you want it removed the best thing to do would be to start an RfC. yandman 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yandman,I know what is civil, what isn't.I am just asking where do you see any concensus to put this "dummy" template. Please look for consensus to put this baseless template.Regards.Must^TC 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing every instance of a template equates to removing the template, so please take this to TFD, as you would take an article you consider "dummy" to AFD. yandman 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Following Ned's comments, I'd like to make it clear to any potential employers of Tony that they should take into account his propensity for legal threats when considering offering him a job. Thankyou. yandman 10:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

L O'freaking L --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That made my day :D -- Ned Scott 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help... yandman 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yandman. I understand your frustration in dealing with this situation, but I reverted this [1]. Thought it was a bit much. Hope it's okay. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And quite right you were, I might have been sued... No, seriously, it was quite far over the line. Apologies. yandman 11:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that you don't agree with something doesn't entitle you to rv edits on sight - if you disagree with someone discuss on the talk page first. Secondly, if you don't like the grammar of something then you can fix it; however, that isn't an excuse to rv edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chazz88 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I think it does. That's the whole wiki concept. I much prefer the original, so I revert, explaining why I prefer the original What's the problem? yandman 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Come and look at my talk page please. Cheers, -- THLR 21:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think there was any discussion. Just tell him to go to WP:TFD. Khoikhoi 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Have done. Thanks. yandman 07:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from violation of the spirit and text of WP:BOLD such as your recent reversion of Scientology. WP:BOLD states:

Be bold in contributions, but not in destructions. Editing is a collaborative effort, so editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly. This only leads to edit wars. Use the talk page instead. A simple guideline for simple reverting is that it works best for, and is really intended as, a tool against CLEAR vandalism. So save it for that! In cases other than vandalism, somebody is trying to be constructive. Even if they are doing it badly, and even if they are completely and foolishly wrong, there are usually more polite and constructive ways to deal with them than simply returning the article back to the pristine way (you think) it should remain. So, here's the time to think of better solutions.

If you're tempted to revert for anything but clear vandalism, take a deep breath; it may be better to discuss it on the talk page or build on the previous edit with a new edit of your own. It may be even better to simply do nothing for twenty-four hours while you cool down. Reverting isn't always collaborative editing, but often a cheap shortcut. (And, it doesn't help that you're limited in space for your revert "edit summary" comment. Over-succinctness may lead to rude-sounding stuff.) Be careful if a revert touches off a revert war. If a revert war begins, then collaboration is not working, and editing the article boldly by reverting is not collaboration. Instead it attempts to force one editor's will on the other editors, which will never work. Such edits will not survive. The "correctness" or "truthfulness" of the edit is irrelevant at this point (See: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).

I understand that BOLD is guidance not policy but "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."--Justanother 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are the one removing material, not Antaeus and I. We're putting it back in. So I think this guideline applies to you. yandman 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, an edit that properly removes material is a valid edit and just fine as far a BOLD goes. That material is sourced almost totally from an OR/biased personal website and the little bit that was not is trivial and does not support the premise. And personally, if you think I have any credibility at all, please believe me when I say that I would not have removed it had it been true. It is bullshit, to be blunt. I have no problem with valid criticism of Scientology. --Justanother 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"The board of mental health, state of Oklahoma"? "Narconon's Communication & Perception Book 4a"? The first is reliable, and the second is reliable regarding itself. yandman 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't support the telekinesis premise. That is the point. The first does not mention the drill or telekinesis or ashtrays but speaks against Narconon, fine but nothing to do with this issue. The other supports that heavy ashtrays are used in the drill - trivial. The whole thing is OR crap with phony cites. --Justanother 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What parts of it are in the book? If ashtrays are mentioned, I suppose the shouting's there too? I doubt they say "stand up" or "sit down", though. I think the "reorient the thetan" and the "tone scale" bits should go, as they're not supported. yandman 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify; the idea that TR-8 (the ashtray drill) is about telekinesis is OR crap. The concept that telekinesis might be an OT power is fine and I left that bit in. But Scientology does NOT teach any weird ability; all we do is direct people to look at things in their past, their minds, their present environment. If that helps them, if that makes them more able, then that is the point. --Justanother 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that there might be a valid issue with that bit? If so and if you are still in disagreement with my position I respectfully suggest that we move this to the article talk page. Actually, even if you do not see that I might have a valid point, further discussion would still best be on the talk page. --Justanother 16:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal accepted. I'm not an expert on this, so I'll leave it to them to debate this. I just though that screaming at ashtrays meant they were trying to get them to do something. Sorry if I seemed harsh, but I'm sure you know the precedents... By the way, have you seen what's happened to Wikipediatrix? Very strange. yandman 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The "screaming" at ashtrays is done to show that intention in communication is not a function of volume. The whole drill is part of training in tone of voice and attitude necessary to get a person to do what you tell them to do in the midst of a confusing or stressful session (imagine giving orders in battle). It is to "dewimpify" (my term) the Scientologist-in-training. You start with an inanimate object (ashtray) (TR-8) but that is just to get the tone of voice and state of mind down before practicing with a real human being (TR-9). An auditor is expected to use a tone of voice and intention that cuts through all the crap and gets the job done. The "yelling" comes in in one small part of TR-8 where you yell as loudly as you can while "commanding the ashtray". But not to make it rise (laff) but to show you that volume is not the point, intention (state of mind) is the point. Speak softly and be effective. Re wikipediatrix, I am at a loss. I have a few ideas but none worth repeating. --Justanother 16:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a lot more plausible. Maybe she married Tom Cruise? (no offense intended) yandman 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the "problem" with Scientology; it is just too plausible (if you accept the basic premise that you are a spiritual being inhabiting a body - or you come to accept it). You have to do some work to unplausify it (laff). --Justanother 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the long-term problem with Scientology is you've got no "hell". No religion that doesn't promise eternal pain to those who don't believe them will ever supercede the big 3, IMHO.... :-) yandman 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we have hell all right. Problem is, we are already in it. At least to the extent that we have to use weak, fragile, short-lived, disease-ridden bodies stuck to planet Earth to enjoy this wonderful universe. I mean, wouldn't you like to surf on the sun? Wouldn't you want to know your friends forever and never experience them dying in an auto accident (knock on wood). That is the freedom that Scientology promises. Does it deliver? I don't know. Does it get you closer? I think so. Is it worth a shot? Individual decision but if the ride is a blast, why not? --Justanother 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sort of the "fast food" of religion. No pesky waiting to die before all the good stuff starts... yandman 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this is Amerika. Instant gratification! --Justanother 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert by edits. Keep in mind that I do not state that genocide didn't happen, all I try to do is to make Turkish Thesis presented to public which is in accordance to WP:NPOV. Thanks Caglarkoca 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish position is already presented in the article under "position of Turkey". Putting it anywhere else is in violation of WP:Undue Weight. yandman 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an expression, I wasn't talking about anything in particular. I guess "the prize" is being a good person and solid contributor. Thats it. Cheers my friend, --Tractorkingsfan 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going with Sock. Did I win? -- THLR 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the good review. Cheers, -- THLR 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. probably a school/friend's/parents' computer IP. yandman 11:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I won! Thanks for the barnstar Yandman. -- THLR 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the help. it made sense when i done it i have studied all this just i gave a lone of my notes on vector product to a mate thank any way —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.190.170.3 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, I must have forgot that I had already voted on that AfD. Thanks for catching my mistake! FirefoxMan 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. yandman 13:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I must remember to check more carefully. Thanks again. FirefoxMan 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I will do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcy talk 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:YellowCard (band).jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShadowHalo 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll contact the guy who uploaded it (I just reverted vandalism). Be sure to check the history. yandman 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that, but I didn't want to let the image get deleted for being replaceable without at least someone else being able to check up on it. Thanks for bringing that up though. =) —ShadowHalo 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

ha, sorry pal, I'm not trying to upset the apple cart, but that sort of comment doesn't belong in an article up for GA nomination.--Crestville 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. In fact, that comment doesn't belong anywhere... :-) yandman 13:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kumar Ponnambalam: You had once expressed concern about this article. Check it out now and make any suggestionsRaveenS 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop writing messages to Lonelyboy on my page. That's probably how a lot of crap was started here before because of you making mistakes like that. Anyway, do not address other people on my talk page. I rarely use wikipedia, but when I do and I have problems with people like you, I use my IP address. Lonelyboy should have done the same thing so jerks like you couldn't get him banned by way of his account name. I'm calling you a jerk for your personal attacks on my page and your recent bouts with Lonelyboy and teaming up with this Hybrid person who is also using you, a close friend, to become an administrator probably because he can't get people he doesn't know to have him become one. I will ignore any crap you write on my userpage. 64.149.204.158 23:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even know that I was going for admin a little while ago did you? That basically shoots his comment to hell doesn't it? Yamla has blocked this IP for 3 months as an abusive sockpuppet. BTW, I withdrew the RfA before this comment was written. Cheers, -- THL 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I didn't even notice you were running the gauntlet. It's always sad to see someone get refused, but I agree with the critics that you're still a bit wet behind the ears (even though I'm sure you'd be sensible enough to stick to things you know about). Oh well, c'est la vie. yandman 11:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)