User talk:Yinf

Username change: Yinf → Conner From November 19, 2016 onward, my username will be changed from "Yinf" to "Conner".

This is Yinf's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archived messages:
Archived messages: Archive #1 (9 October 2016 — 30 October 2016)

You know, if you ever feel the desire to create an account, just ping me and I will happily give you rollback and reviewer. You do some mighty fine anti-vandalism work, and you might as well have the tools to go with it (and unfortunately I can't assign them to an IP). =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: Thanks Ks0stm! As you can probably tell from reading my talkpage, I've gotten many requests for me to create an account. I have one (created it a while ago, just haven't used it yet), but it is currently getting usurpated, but I'm not sure if I should wait until that's through to start using my account... I guess it takes a whole month for that process to go through... :-( Anyhow, having those permissions (rollback and reviewer) would be great!

I do have a question though, if you don't mind. Per WP:TW, you can use Twinkle with an account and all you have to do is be autoconfirmed. What's the difference between using Twinkle and using rollback rights to revert vanalism? I know you need to have rollback rights in order to use Huggle, but I don't think you have to use Huggle in order to use your rollback rights for reverting vandalism... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:51C9:CE9A:55FC:7678 (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you let someone usurp your account name, you can't use that name anymore. If you like the name you chose, then you should contest the usurpation! Dustin (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems you meant that you were changing your account name. I had misinterpreted your comment as meaning that someone was trying to usurp the name of the account you created awhile ago. Dustin (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to care about copying your talk page from your old IP talk pages, so I wouldn't think you'd be worrying about "losing anonymity" (and you'd still be as anonymous as you are now, anyway). I wanted to thank you for one of your reverts several days ago with this IP, but I wasn't able to because IPs can't be thanked. Dustin (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin V. S., No worries, I was in the middle of writing a response to you but ended up having an (edit conflict) when Ks0stm responded to me. Yinf (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Best as I can tell, anyone can use Twinkle so long as they're autoconfirmed. It provides three options to "rollback" edits by a user, "rollback (AGF)", "rollback", and "rollback (Vandal)". The AGF and "rollback" allow for custom edit summaries as to why you are reverting the edit, whereas if I remember right, the vandal rollback doesn't, but all three are through the script instead of the user right. The user right, which I linked above, works very similarly, but only generates a generic edit summary and as a result is only to be used for obvious vandalism. Huggle requires the rollback user right to use because, to put it simply, it is much easier to fuck things up using huggle, and so they prefer that only relatively experienced vandal fighters use the tool. As a general rule, it is best to start on Twinkle until you get the hang of things and then, if desired, move on to huggle. As for the usurpation, if you point me to the request I'd be happy to take a look, since I'm a global renamer. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm:, thanks for offering to take a look at the usurpation request. It is currently filed here. The request is: Yinf → Conner. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:51C9:CE9A:55FC:7678 (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! So long as that user doesn't object, the usupation should happen on the date specified there. However, there's nothing preventing you from using the Yinf account in the meantime, as all of your contributions, preferences, user rights, and user and user talk pages would accompany your account over to the new username. If you can log in to that account and make a post here confirming it's you, I would be more than happy to give it the user rights and give you any help you'd need with Twinkle. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: Now signed into my account and reporting for duty! ;-) Yinf (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, my username uses a pipe because I was never able to gain hold of the account named "Dustin" (someone made 90 edits under that name to the English Wikibooks back in 2004, so usurpation wasn't an option). Anyway, I hope that your usurpation works out and that I'll see you editing under the name "Conner" in the near-future. :) Dustin (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote this comment, the above ping still linked to User:Dustin, even though I only posted after it had been corrected. Dustin (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Yinf! Thank you for your contributions. I am Ks0stm and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yinf. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious why you reverted an edit removing a bad source on the AW article earlier on 2-11-16 199.87.86.224 (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
I have now come across several obviously inappropriate new pages that you marked as patrolled without taking action.
New page patrol requires experience, and looking at your history, you seem to have been on Wikipedia for only three weeks. I respectfully suggest that you get some more editing experience, learning Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, before taking on new page patrol. Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Last night under your IP address you made a revert [[1]] on my talk page citing that it was vandalism. However I looked at the edit and it was a legitimate response from someone who I had rolled back an edit of while using Huggle, and to me does not constitute vandalism of my talk page. The message to me might have been in the wrong location on my talk page but I believe that is a result of the editor being new to wikipedia based on their post history. I am leaving you a message as a heads up that I am going to undo the revert and remove the template warning from the users talk page that you left as it was not a case vandalism on my talk page. In the future be careful about ensuring that something truly is vandalism on another persons talk page before reverting it. Thanks! --Imminent77 (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Imminent77: Sorry about that; and thanks for giving me a heads up. Though, you don't need to let me know if you're gonna revert it since it was on your own talkpage. I will try to be more careful in the future. :-) Yinf (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you used standard rollback on this edit and this edit to WJLA-TV. Standard rollback is only supposed to be used for vandalism, which those edits aren't. Can you please explain the reverts with an edit summary or comment to the talk page? agtx 19:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Agtx: I'm pretty sure that the technical term (regarding this revert) is supposed to be "callsign", not "call letters". As for this revert, that was me reverting too hastily, sorry. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Thanks for giving me a heads up. Yinf (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am Edward Rubio, Marco is my father, so I think I would know what my father's middle name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.147.248 (talk • contribs)

I am adding the correct information if you look at his tweets from that time he typed r.i.p Jamal 7-7-9 - 12-24-12 he doesn't say Courtney or 12-23. 12-23 is when he sent his last tweet and he waited until midnight to commit suicide which would be 12-24. DatOneDude (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatOneDude: Twitter is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference point in an encyclopedia. (see WP:VERIFY As for the "Courtney" or "Jamal" see WP:COMMONNAME. Jamal isn't his given name (it's his middle name, unless if there's something that I'm missing here...). Regards— Yinf (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yinf: I apologize for the name confusion I have done further research. The page does still have the incorrect middle name though. The date of his death was technically the 24th of December due to it being 12:00 a.m. Though it was the night of the 23rd when he posted his final tweet (at 11:59 p.m.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatOneDude (talk • contribs) 03:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatOneDude: Feel free to change the page to how you originally had it. Yinf (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accept pending changes that add unsupported personal information to BLPs. The Jack O'Connell article has pending changes enabled to protect it from the type of edits that you approved here. There is even lengthy discussions of the topic on the article talk page. Although O'Connell identifies with his Irish heritage, he does not hold Irish citizenship. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Thanks for the message, Ponyo. I had probably accepted that edit because it didn't seem like obvious vandalism (though now that I think about it, I had actually thought about reverting this one...) but yes, that is a clear BLP violation and should not have been accepted. My apologies. Also, thanks for directing me to the talkpage discussion, too. Yinf (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although many of the pending changes appear minor, it's easy to let an error slip through. It's always best to be extra vigilant with the BLPs that have been protected due to BLP violations and persistent addition of unsourced content. Thanks for your help in reviewing.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yinf! You left me a message on my talk page about the unsupported edit I made to Emma Thompson's page. I apologize for that! I realized belatedly that I forgot to include the source when I submitted my edit for review, so I submitted the same edit immediately thereafter, this time with the source included. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience--I'll endeavor to do better in the future! I hope I've gone about responding to your message in the proper way. I'm still learning Wikipedia's formatting rules, and it's all a bit confusing. Thanks so much for your time! --MKantorStitch (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MKantorStitch: No worries, and not an inconvenience at all! And yes, Wikipedia does have 'a lot' of rules, especially regarding formatting with wiki-text, which can be confusingly hard to learn and understand. WP:MOS explains a lot of these rules in depth, so I'd give it a look if you haven't already. Don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything else! :-) Yinf (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello yinf im am contacting you about the John Scott article and how i changed the personal life part i have a couple of questions about editing it because i am new to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoy911 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajoy911: Hi Ajoy911. I just took a look at the edit that I reverted, and it appears as though you have added (or changed, rather...) some information on a living person. In general, you need to provide sources to support your changes to the article, but for biographies of living persons, it is especially important. Anyway, I found John Scott's statistics from ESPN, and the information that you changed appeared to have been false, as he is 6' 8'' and 260 lbs.. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. Regards— Yinf (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yinf,

I completely forgot to include the reasons for the small edit to the October 24 entry but I've actually edited out Pete Burns death on October 24 because he actually died on October 23. His page and news sources said that he died on the 23rd and his death was only announced on the 24th.

I hope that clears up any confusions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.169.212 (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've restored version of the article. Regards— Yinf (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Punsari I know what i'm talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.160.234 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for that epic teamwork on reverting the IP vandal on airline articles! -- Dane2007 talk 04:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dane2007: No problem! When Donner60 initially reported the IP to WP:AIV I had found that many other IP's within that 171.7.XX.XXX range were already blocked for similar reasons, so I'm assuming that this is some sort of long-term issue that we were dealing with here... Yinf (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mention. I was just the unknowing catalyst. You were the one who figured this out. Well deserved kudos. And typical of your great work in this area. I second the Barnstar, if that is possible and makes sense. Donner60 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yinf, I see you deleted my edits on Salt-N-Pepa due to copyright/poorly sourced. I was wondering wether you could specify what I did wrong since I put in my sources and marked the thing sthat were quoted? (sorry I'm new) Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponylakritz (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yinf. Thank you for notifying me. I removed the term "high-functioning autism" since it is 1) And outdated term, and 2) Hurtful towards people who would be considered "low-functioning". Since I am an individual on the autism spectrum myself, I am familiar with the views of the Autistic Community regarding these labels, and they are rejected by virtually everyone, out of respect for the individuals one may consider low-functioning. I did not provide an editing summary, since I cannot properly summarise things. Please leave a message on the talk page of this IP-address if you want to further discuss this edit. (P.S.:I am not familiar with the working of Wikipedia talk pages, so I apologise if I did not leave a message using the proper method) 81.164.80.233 (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 81.164.80.233, to start off: Yes— you did leave your message with the proper method! :-) Also, I am going to revert back to your version since you provided an explanation here; but in the future, you should use edit summaries to explain your edits as much as possible. Regards— Yinf (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert users who blank their talk pages, as you did here [2]. Users are allowed to blank almost anything they like from their own talk pages. That warning was not on eof the very limited exceptions that cannot be blanked. Meters (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I essentially reverted your revert. (I was about to click the "advertise" button when I saw you'd reverted the pending change.) After a quick Google search, I found the guy's Instgram and YouTube accounts and confirmed that he did indeed get married. (Both accounts are verified by their respective companies with "the checkmark" next to the name.) I've cited what was previously uncited, though. — Gestrid (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestrid: Thanks! I thought that it may have been true, but I wanted the initial editor to learn how to cite it properly themselves... :-) Yinf (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. One thing about new editors is that, if they see their edits are undone, they tend to get discouraged from continuing to edit. I realize that you're apparently a well-known vandal fighter but, as a suggestion, perhaps next time you could cite the text and then constructively tell the editor what they should've done to cite their addition. Something as simple as <ref>URL</ref>, while not necessarily desired, would've sufficed. — Gestrid (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) — Block evasion by User:Filipz123

Under what basis or argument do you defend that little statement there and remove my edit? That statement was entirely irrelevant to the article, or the conclusion of it, it is an obvious revisionist insertion in order to make the man look like he won the bet when he conclusively did not, that information itself is entirely superfluos and detracts from the point of the article, if you must keep that biased information there then why don't you go and work it into the article and not as a lazy addendum after the conclusion, attempting to contradict that conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed well-sourced information, which is why your edit was reverted. I'm not sure what you mean by, "after the conclusion, attempting to contradict that conclusion". How is the sentence that you removed, "biased" in any way...? Yinf (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, clearly the paragraph ends with the conclusion concerning the metals, and then someone came along and added the 2nd bet info, which is a natural sort of post script or nota bene, however, then someone added this business about "the majority of 10-year periods, etc.", which is obviously designed to refute, or downplay the previous conclusion (He won the bet), whether or not it is reference it is irrelevant, inflation will cause a natural rise in price without reference to supply and demand and the effects of new technology on these (Simon's contention), the number of individual 10-year periods compared to the overall trend or compared to the particulars of this bet is entirely irrelevant, the bet was not for some imaginary period which might for entirely different reasons conclude in a different result it was for THIS period and was including THESE commodities, the particulars of the bet were agreed upon, to insert some statement talking about a theoretical bet which they 'could have made' if they changed the particulars (they didn't) is pointless, all it does is distract, and create just enough plausibility for a contrary argument to continue arguing and fighting the conclusion, that is bias because inherent in that is an intent to deceive in disputing the result of this bet these men had.

This is done all the time on wikipedia, and it enables the majority of unthinking people a way of escape when they find some facts which they do not like so that they can go on contending an argument that is entirely disproven, or should I entertain some politics and say this is done whenever truth conflicts with the narrative or the story that the media/activist wikipedia editors intend to portray, whether that involves suppressing facts which dispute or muddy the narrative, ignoring alternative explanations and interpretations of events, or as in this case, attempting to nullify the whole thing by inserting some irrelevant vagaries of details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accept edits that add biographical information if it is not cited, such as [3]. Even though you probably don't know that this specific instance (birthdate in the Suriya article) has a long history of dispute, the whole WP:BLP field always requires WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do not accept uncited content, such as [4]. Content needs cites, that's a WP policy and not hard to remember--please don't help others avoid compliance. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your message about my addition to Dec 4th page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_4) and mentioned my addition of the Death on this date of Cyrus the Great has a citation that is not reliable. I would urge you to review this again because Wikipedia's own Cyrus the Great page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great) says this is the date of his death and cites the very same source that I cited for the Dec 4th wiki article. Furthermore no other deaths mentioned in this section even cite a single source and mine actually did so this is an unfair and incorrect handling of this issue. The source is reliable and there are Babylonian inscriptions which mention this date of death for Cyrus the Great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kouroshafrashteh (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kouroshafrashteh: Your edit was reverted because it is speculated (at least according to the source that you provided) that he died anywhere from 576 to 530 B.C., and only entries with a specific date and/or death date are notable on these pages (along with other guidelines)... Yinf (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How on earth could you accept this? Looking at your talkpage I seriously doubt that you should have the pending changes right. Qed237 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me one good reason as to why I should not ask for you to have this user right removed? Qed237 (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any answer would be highly appreciated or I will take this a step further and go to WP:AN. Qed237 (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qed237, in my eyes, the edit did not seem like obvious vandalism, so I accepted it – and from what I can tell from the table "List of Premier League players with 100 or more goals", it didn't seem like this statistic was too far-fetched. (Some of the players had higher scores, some of them had lower scores). I am not an expert in the article's subject, so as a non-involved outside editor, it seemed to be a legitimate edit in my mind. I was merely going through the queue at Special:PendingChanges at the time, and was reviewing those edits there. Yes, it probably required a source, and for that reason I should have reverted it. My apologies. Yinf (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When an IP suddenly changes a statistics table (against the source used in the table) one should be careful. Reading your talkpage this is not the first time you have accepted bad edits. You need to be a lot more careful. Qed237 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A player does not suddendly score 37 goals (the amount that was added), especially when they are retired. Qed237 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only standard rollback can used for obvious vandalism, but you must explain your reverts in the edit summary (I suggest you use twinkle to explain them.) Further misuse of rollback could end you up at ANI and your rights being revoked. Please review WP:Rollback#When to use rollback. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81: You are not thge first to complain about user rights (although most realted to pending changes right). See above sections #New page patrol, #Reverts on WJLA-TV, #Pending changes, #BLP problem and #Premier League goals. All in last 10 days, so perhaps it is time for WP:AN? Qed237 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need a discussion at ANI to see if there's conseneus to revoke Yinf rollback and reviewer rights for all of the issues. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I notice that you just reverted my edits on Karisma Kapoor, you cannot undo my edits without discussing it on her talk page. The edits were not copy, and it was an attempt to improve the article in a better way, and the article was much better then it was before. And I've also updated it. So I request you to revert it back to the previous version. You should appreciate me,rather then reverting them. Ask me on my talk page, if you have any questions. Ayeih Na talk 10:34; 20 November 2016 (PTC) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]