User talk:Yae4: Difference between revisions

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away, B-bot. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, about the AE... there's a consensus there for a full topic ban, and even though I'm not 100% on board with it, I'm closing it anyway because it needs to be closed. It's not the end of the world. It is what you make of it. I've seen people come back as better editors after appealing indef topic bans. I do hope to see you appeal it as it's clear you have some knowledge about the subject. Anyway, I have a couple pieces of unsolicited advice for you in navigating the topic ban and bouncing back after:

• First, remove everything related to climate change from your watchlist. You don't want to get tripped up by accidentally reverting something you saw on your watchlist, and continuing to follow the discussions from a distance will make you more likely to mess up and get blocked. And don't continue any conflicts with users you clashed with in the topic area.
• Find something less controversial to edit about for a while. You shouldn't jump sideways into some pseudoscience, alt-med, or politics battleground. Maybe make a goal, getting some obscure article up to
  WP:GA
  or something. This will help in your appeal.
• Spend some time reading up on Wikipedia's core policies and mission, and try to make that your primary motivation for editing. It's easy to get caught up in
  righting great wrongs
  but the editors who have the biggest impact are the ones who have writing a quality encyclopedia as their primary goal. It's a mindset of "I'm making Wikipedia better by making sure it reflects my (correct) POV" vs. "I'm making Wikipedia better by making sure it reflects the highest quality reliable sources, and maybe sometimes my personal POV may come in handy helping me see in other editors' blind spots and helping me craft phrases in a neutral way."
• Oh, and like I suggested to Hob Galding, remember Graham's Hierarchy and keep all your interactions in the top 2-3 tiers.

Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk. ~Awilley (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here comes the generic template with instructions for appealing:

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are

topic banned

from climate change, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for creating CrDroid.

Please consider breaking up the "history and reception" section into multiple paragraphs.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Elliot321}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

@

Elliot321:, Thanks for the review and suggestion. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, Thanks for the reminder. I was just about to go to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to ask for more opinions on the 2v3-p name thing. I was a little too careless about the 3 changes because Anupraitsno1 is, to me, clearly closely connected with GrapheneOS and its developer, Micay/Strcat, and has not participated in the Talk about the name. Should I provide links showing the connections, and if so, where/how? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't post links showing the connections in public, as that would probably violate the

conflict-of-interest policy, and the personal information policy takes precedence. You can see the options available to you at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Mr. Stradivarius: I've looked at the list of personal information, and I don't think any of the following would be forbidden. Am I wrong? Let's say hypothetically...A person using an alias is developer of X-ROM, which is a derivative of GrapheneOS. A person using that alias has advocated X-ROM in at least one forum. A person using that alias gives advice on GrapheneOS in communications channels. A person works on development of applications jointly or as forks/spinoffs of the applications in or from GrapheneOS. Therefore, the person is closely connected with GrapheneOS, and its developer, and has COI, which should prevent them from editing the articles on Graphene or Copperhead. Do you agree it would be OK to ask the editor to confirm or deny these connections? And to give them links showing the basis for these statements, if they deny these connections? -- Yae4 (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:CryptoHarlem. Thanks! JSFarman (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Special:Diff/1094471031
2. Special:Diff/1094472051
3. Special:Diff/1094472424

I attempted to fix your rollback to be a partial revert. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at GrapheneOS shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:GrapheneOS#"partly" open-source. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]