Hi Yandman. In March I am going to be taking a vacation for 10 days. Would you mind if I told my adoptees that they could ask you for advice while I'm gone? They are all very low maintenance, and you will be the third person they could ask if they needed advice should you accept. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Have a nice holiday... yandman 11:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I leave on March 9th, so I will stop editing the evening of March 8th. I will be back on the 21st. I live seven hours different from Wiki time (Mountain Standard Time, USA), so it may seem like I'm hanging around longer than I should be. However, when I add the template to my page that is when I am officially gone. Thanks Yandman, 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to protest the deletion and offer any necessary improvement of the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_and_Carry

In the field of "Lift and Carry", which is the subject at hand, I am considered a leading expert. Feel free to review my site www.liftgoddess.com and you will see that to be true.

The Wikipedia article on Lift and Carry was so complete, so thorough, and ultimately so incredibly RIGHT ON that I actually linked to it on my Lift and Carry site as a reference link. Recently, it was brought to my attention that this wonderful reference article is no longer available. Whomever wrote this article really did their homework and I cannot say that I could have done a better job myself. I can say that it is a loss not to have this reference article available on Wikipedia any longer.

I have now joined Wikipedia and am still novice on how to be further involved. However, I will start by doing whatever is asked of me to reinstate this extremely accurate reference article on "Lift and Carry".

Sincerely,

Lift Goddess Leggoddess 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the arguments for deletion put forwards here. Basically, the lack of verifiable, independent sources is the problem. yandman 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a youth council for teenagers? Tom70 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would it? There is no need to be an adult to participate in Wikipedia, so there is little need for a specific council for those who aren't. yandman 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm an adoptee of the hybrid. Just thought I'd say Hi! LazyLaces 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. yandman 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted a question in the Mount Antero section: "How do you pronounce Mount Antero?"

You deleted it, but I didn't understand your explanation: article, not subject. Can you explain that better? Thanks!

Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article ("Should I add a new chapter?" etc..), not for discussing matters relating to the subject. To ask questions about topics, use the reference desk. Cheers. yandman 11:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was, could someone please put a description of how to pronounce "Antero" into the article? I would like the article to be changed to include a pronunciation of it. Does putting it that way make the question more appropriate?

Ah, OK. Good idea. In that case, could you ask at the "languages" desk, and then add the info in the article? We'll get an answer much faster that way. yandman 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. So, did anything interesting happen while I was gone? -- The Hybrid 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been rather inactive myself, so I wouldn't know. Were you there for the whole Essjay thing? yandman 12:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this. Yeah, I was here for the Essjay thing. I feel kind of bad for him with how much he did to help this place, but lying about it rather than admitting his mistake was unacceptable. If he comes back in sock form and rises to BCrat agan without repeating this mistake I wouldn't cry. Peace, -- The Hybrid 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I think we crossed wires there! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's annoying when that happens. Maybe we should set up a guideline: we need everyone to either block first and reply on WP:3RR after, or reply first and block after. When one does the latter and the other the former ... yandman 08:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like unblock abuse to me. It's been more than 2 months; looks like a valid request. Patstuart^talk·edits 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest I wasn't sure about that one, but Yamla's protection of the page (for "unblock abuse") had just expired, and he'd already posted an unblock request. Seeing as he's been indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account, I prefer to leave this in the hands of the blocking admin (who has been contacted). This account has a history of abusing the unblock template, so I prefer not to let him waste everyone's time. Please feel free to unprotect and unblock if you think he can be trusted, though. yandman 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey what's up.. I just picked up on the fact that you have become an admin - congratulations!! Maybe it is because we don't seem to edit the same pages these days or maybe because you are not as active as you used to be, I don't know. I was also away for a while.. Anyways, just wanted to drop a line to congratulate your adminship. Cheers! Baristarim 09:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Baris! Work has become pretty hectic since early March, so I've not been as active as I should have, and the administrative backlogs sap the rest of my wiki-time... Unfortunately, I now spend more time deleting and banning than I do editing. When I've got a bit more time I'll try to sit down and get some proper editing done, but until then... Have fun. yandman 09:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the reply at my talk page. - Privacy 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There wouldn't be much point now you've been sockblocked. yandman 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 11 you expressed an interest in this proposal. The WikiProject has gone live. Your participation is welcome. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Off I go then. yandman 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The following article is being peer reviewed. see here Your input will be appreciated RaveenS 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uuuhhh...why don't you have a user page? --Defender 911 01:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Someone must have nicked it. yandman 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As a user who has previously been in contact with this person, I am asking if you would be willing to be the second person to certify the basis for this dispute. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think a user was allowed to remove sock warnings from accounts that have the same IP address as theirs. Although the user asserts these accounts are not socks, we have no independent way of knowing if this is true. Letting this happen might set a bad precedent. Tim Vickers 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion about this incident, I think the best thing would be to ask him to explain. From what I gather, he edits from his local headquarters, and "forgot" to log in a few times. I don't think it would be correct to label the IP of an entire branch of an organisation as a sock of only one member of that organisation. In the same way, we wouldn't label a school IP as being a sock of one of its students. yandman 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Advert3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rlest 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yandman, it's been a while. How's everything going? The Hybrid 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't complain. I must fight my inherent laziness and start editing again, though. How about you? yandman 09:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing well. I'm currently making plans to expand my horizons after a period of inactivity. It seems like everyone is coming out of a wikibreak right now. Cheers, The Hybrid 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied at User_talk:Alexia_Death#strange_message.

NCDave is back from his block at Steven Milloy and has managed a 3RR violation as his opening move.JQ 10:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

dear yandman i would be grateful for your advice as to how to proceed, and how I may avoid "edit-warring".

I have made the point in the discussion page -clearly- that the version of words used is not what is in the paper, and that a conclusion is being drawn in wikipedia which isn't in the original paper. That conclusion is arguable, and is arguably defamatory.

I have also been somewhat restrained in the number of my edits, though I did go up to 3 edits in a day on one occasion in the last month. How can I proceed ? Peroxisome 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think there is a serious problem, and several people agree with you, you can take the case to arbitration. However, if you are the only editor defending a particular version, there's not much you can do. What seems to be the problem? Reading the unabridged paragraph MastCell quotes, it is clear that the AJPH is saying that JS.com is one of "those opposed to regulation". The fact that this is said in two seperate sentences does not mean it isn't explicit. "Attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of "junk" has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation ... One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been so labeled". The verb in the first sentence (attacking with the label of junk) is referenced in the second (so labeled). That's more than implicit. yandman 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "implicit" and innuendo is all that it is. If the authors wanted to state explicitly that JS is "opposed to regulation", they could have done so and provided a reference proving the motivation of JS. They could also have provided a reference to show that JS attacks science because they are opposed to regulation and explicitly said so; but they didn't. Instead, the english literally reads that JS has a number of issues which are labelled as Junkscience. It strikes me that "so labelled" in the second sentence clearly refers to the phrase "label of junk" in the first sentence, and not the verb "attacking"; i am not even sure it is plausible grammar. What is clear is that this is not explicit; there were a raft of ways to make the case explicitly, and these have not been used. If it was explicit, the authors could have provided references for what could potentially be a defamatory statement. Instead they relied upon innuendo, and it is the innuendo which is now on wikipedia, misrepresented as a statement of fact. Peroxisome 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"However, if you are the only editor defending a particular version, there's not much you can do."

Fair point, and a good reason for me not to continue. I note that this argument is no defence for wikipedia if it evers has to contest an action for defamation, nor is it a good method to determine truth. Not your problem, I know: I appreciate you are a volunteer. Peroxisome 00:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Every outside editor who's commented has agreed that your claims are groundless. You have been pointed to the BLP noticeboard innumerable times. Yet you choose to keep making legal threats instead. MastCell ^Talk 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed, on the community sanction noticeboard, that NCdave (talk · contribs) be banned from the Steven Milloy article and talk page for long-term disruptive and tendentious editing. As you have had some marginal involvement with this editor, I am notifying you of the thread. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LennonAndOno.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Bbfc logo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yandman! I think warning all uploader is the best (sometime source should be given from last one, because he upload different version). If you read {{Di-no source}} it says : Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others.. Thanks!--OsamaK 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Do you have some examples for bot's problems? If there is one let me fix it. Thanks!--OsamaK 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

mmm, if i understand your point well. At English Wikipedia any unsourced images should delete after 7 days from tagging. I can't understand this problem :). Thanks Yandman.--OsamaK 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC

Indeed, but you're tagging images for deletion just because the source information hasn't been formatted correctly. That's not the same thing. For example, consider the logo you warned me about (above). The source information was present (the copyright holder of the image can be considered the source, and here the copyright holder was explicited in the description). However, this image would have been deleted. yandman 08:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sky Eats Airplane. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/c 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yandman. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Advert2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Advert3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Advert4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Advert5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)