User talk:Yachty4000

Interest

Athelete biographies particarly sailing together with general sailing linked to competitive sailing. I have a background in Naval Architecture and hope my contributions help preserve sailing legacy

Swan articles

Hi there

Thanks for the recent updates of Swan articles. Keep up the good work.

Sami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami P. Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have about 20 new pages in draft form for each model I am just waiting for a decision on some changes to the infobox structure and I will upload together with some more pictures. Role on there Swans 50th Anniversary. Yachty4000 (talk 21:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work. I am hoping to get some more photos of the interiors and deck gear during the 50th anniversay reggattas. However I think the stories are more interesting for the readers than the technical specs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami P. Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key is to seperate the general stories from the technical stuff. The technical specification is interesting but to a smaller group of people and the infobox help with this. I like the stories to but so often I see them written with such a bias to a particarlar region the pages lose interest to the global reader. I have a load more photos but generally of the exterior with the boats at dock. My aim was simply to get one picture on each page as generally when you start something on wikipedia they then begin to be contributed by others. I will do the reamin models over the next couple of days. Enjoy the regatta I hoped to go but have other commitment and am still trying to save for my own classic swan! Yachty4000 (talk 13:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's very true that the text added to the articles tend to be somewhat biased which is why I have tried to keep the content that I have gathered so far (especially for 36 and 65) as neutral and encylopedic as possible. For 65 and especially for Sayula II there is about to be a lot more information available as The Weekend Sailor movie becomes public. I am currently involved with marketing of the film but I haven't found the time to open a Wikipedia article for it yet. ClubSwan50 is also a boat which deserves a well made article of it's own and if I have chance I'm trying to shoot some photos of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami P. Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 07:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is radio sailing?

Hi. You created the International Radio Sailing Association article; would you be able to add a definition of "radio sailing" to that article? JanCeuleers (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1989 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championships has been accepted

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out 1991 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championships has been accepted == Draft:1985 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championships 1995 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championships (July 11) ==

Sonar (keelboat)

I appreciate that you want to include these championships on this page, but this information has been now removed twice as being unsourced and it is still unsourced. The policy on this is pretty clear:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it ... All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed ... All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ...Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

You can't keep putting unsourced information back into articles. I am happy to give you a couple of days to find sources for all these championships, but if no sources exist then it must be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your not looking at the big picture which is a complete table of the World Champions that can be viewed and refined by others. Many of these tables have been refined by a lot of users and often by the competitors themselves as the most accurate and upto date source. You are simply removing the template from one place it is used not requesting the deletion of the content.

Please put your efforts into improving referencing not just going round deleting valid contributions. For example removing the Paralympics as unsourced facts is just silly and could be corrected quickly. Wikipedia is often the only reliable source of this information as event website disappear within a couple of years. I will improved the referencing mainly by linking extensively to World Sailing results archive which isn't the best source but quick to look up to keep you happy and then restore the page. Smartshift moved all these tables out of the main article and into templates which doesn't help as for example the Paralympics is properly referenced on it page. - Yacht4000 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response here, but I can't add refs to these as I have no idea where the refs are. If Wikipedia is the only source of this information then we run into original research problems here. If it was on websites in the past, then have you tried recovering that from archive.org or archive.vn? Ultimately, though if it can't be sourced soon to WP:RS it will have to be removed as unverifiable. Wikipedia policy leaves us no wiggle room to keep unsourced and unsourcable claims.

As far as putting these into templates goes, that is a bad move as AfD has confirmed that is not what templates are for. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I don't understand why you removed the Paralympics section tag with the edit summary "I have added even more references", when you added no refs at all to that section. I have restored the tag for now, although normally if an editor removes a "citation needed" tag without providing any refs the text would be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the paralympics have primary pages which as far as I am concerned is properly reference for this reason I feel summary tables do not require referencing.

Sailing_at_the_2000_Summer_Paralympics

Sailing_at_the_2004_Summer_Paralympics etc.....

I added referencing to the results that do not appear elsewhere on wikipedia Yacht4000 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the template on the Sonar page then shows up as unsourced. Can they be moved into the template or listed at the head of the Sonar section so we at least comply with WP:V? - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the non-free content policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By repeatedly adding non-free images to Template:Yachtclub, you repeatedly introduced violations of the non-free content policy (8 and 10c) into multiple articles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yachty4000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I genuinely do not understand the policies and the ability of one user to block my account without consultation or reason. If someone can explain to me why using a logo within a "logo" template for what is effectively is a member clubs so no real commercial issues which is done for literally over 100 other identical organization contained within the template. Take a look at List of yacht clubs to see the template use. I am no copyright expert if the organisation has expressed an objection delete the logo. Don't block a user with over 10 years and 10k contribution on this particular topic.

Decline reason:

As you admittedly don't understand WP:FAIRUSE, we have to leave you blocked. It's quite disturbing that you think we should wait until an organisation files an objection. Yamla (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yachty4000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I decline the reason simply because it hasn't been explained or answered why? I haven't seen any compliants or reasons that the use of the image in this way is against policies apart from the small print on the upload page and thats says you can use it as a "deriative" which this is. It is only used in context with a page link by default and I have only seen the "yachtclub" template on sailors who are members or events they have held and never in a negative way. Why would this ever likely to cause any form of copyright issues when used on an open source website like wikipedia. While I have read the policies linked by the administrator I am not really sure what has been broken and no explanation over why similar images used in context is ok in over 100 cases. Wikipedia could limit the logo useage to one page and it could flag up small print when editing it appears to only flag to administrators with no interest in the subject. I simply went down the list yacht club and looked which one had logo uploaded but missing innocently. Personally I think the kind of logo used in infobox should be on wikimedia and not accepted on these terms. I did not create the template or initially populate. The only thing I didn't do is not check the user who made what looked liked a negative contribution.

As an active member of wiki saiing project and also a contributor to wikidata. The lack of gratitude in users contribution is disappointing by the moderators. I simply do sailing related edits 8n an increasingly collaborative way. Yachty4000 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since by your own admission you are not sure what "has been broken", you will have to remain blocked to protect Wikipedia from the risk of your further violations. It's unfortunate that we will have to go without your contributions until you show an understanding of the issues here. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I personally consider the block a bit harsh, but this unblock request was (as I predicted) declined. If you want to be unblocked, you need to accept that your edit were wrong, not repeatedly try to justify them to people who have more experience with image rules than you do.

I haven't seen any compliants -> Did you not see JJMC89 remove the images the first time before you reinstated your edits? You must have known that the images had somehow been removed, it would have been logical to figure out how/why that had happened before re-adding them

Why would this ever likely to cause any form of copyright issues when used on an open source website like wikipedia? - You're right that it probably wouldn't, but Wikipedia's rules for non-free content are deliberately "more narrowly defined [...] than [...] the fair use provisions in United States copyright law", so whether something would cause real-world copyright issues is mostly irrelevant.

I am not really sure what has been broken -> The specific rule you broke is that you added images that Wikipedia considers to be non-free and thus only allowed to be used on specific articles to templates that caused them to be used on unrelated articles, and re-added them after they were removed.

why similar images used in context is ok in over 100 cases -> because those images are considered simple enough to not be copyrightable, and thus are not non-free and the rules I explained above don't apply at all.

Wikipedia could limit the logo useage to one page and it could flag up small print when editing it appears to only flag to administrators with no interest in the subject Yes, if Wikipedia had infinite administrative manpower it would make sense to add all non-free images to the MediaWiki:Bad image list and require each use to be listed as an exception there. But we don't, so the current system of ad-hoc enforcement through bot actions in common cases, human review in special cases, and some violators being blocked will have to do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Pppery * your contribution is what I expected from the moderators who should be trying to actively engage and educated users thankyou.

I still think the classification of this image is the isssue it isn't really an image it is a "logo" there are I see difference in policy for this. There is no difference between this image and the other 100 plus yacht club logo but if they are the policy then I will happily accept them. I doubt any editor checked the small print of each individual image when populating this kind of template that just links back to the primary page and source. It only that small print defined by the uploader not a common policy that highlights any issue. I guess I could upload the logo/burgee under common rules from the clubs own website and then it would be ok. I personally think this administrator has gone completely over the top for the previous reason. If you look at there edit log there blantant breeches of copyright with no action against the uploader this is a minor edit. The same can be said for personal attacks on celebrities or politically motivated posts.

To be honest the lack of engagement is enough to put me of wanting to be involved in wikipedia. I think I may host the content on my own "sailing archive" related website using a wiki style template. Yachty4000 23:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yachty4000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Having reviewed WP:FAIRUSE I understand the reasoning for the blocking and will in the future try and notice the small print associated with graphic I had thought up to know were from the same family in this case sports club burgees and therefore similar usage policies this was an incorrect assumption. I am keen to carry on an improve my sailing world championship project. Yachty4000 21:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a very soft decline, please make a new request if you're still interested in contributing, but you need to do more than tell us you understand, you need to demonstrate your understanding. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Yachty4000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am keen to keep contibuting to wikipedia as I was mid seperating out, referencing and improving pages related to World Championship in Sailing such as 5.5 Metre World Championship and Farr 30 World Championship. The reason for my blocking was related to template:yachtclub which I was updating for use on these pages as I unintentional use of a picture/logo in a prohibited way. I never understood the reasoning till I was blocked with no engagement by the moderators. I now understand that a logo can be classified as a picture and then prohibited in it using those restriction. When I did the edits I didn't even look at the image just the category of yacht club burgees and made sure they were cross referenced within the yacht club template. This I now realise led to my infridgement.

If I am honest this had led me to want to limit my contribution to wikipedia to my World Championship project and only using images I have uploaded. I have no idea what I am expected to write here beyond that. Yachty4000 17:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

— JJMC89 (T·C) 05:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than a logo can be classified as a picture. On Wikipedia, all files which are not freely licensed need to comply with WP:FAIRUSE – this includes things like logos, video recordings, audio recordings, PDFs, etc. either need to be released under a free license ) are considered. If you want to upload images, you either need to make sure they comply with WP:FAIRUSE (in particular, they need to meet all ten non-free content criteria) or you need to have the copyright holder release them under a free license (such as CC BY-SA 4.0). You can release files yourself if you are the copyright holder, usually because you made the file yourself.

Would you be able to rephrase this information in your own words, to be sure you understand it? If you do that successfully, I think we can unblock your account. (We need to be this strict because copyright is taken very seriously on Wikipedia, and even good-faith errors can put the entire project in legal jeopardy.) Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the fairuse policies the issue I was implying is that these are logos. The difference aren't the logo but the source and classification by the uploader. All these logo could meet the fairuse policy if uploaded differently. I know the mistake I made which was to do two comparitavive lists one of the template and one of the flags and link them. This ment I never looked at the image upload usage classification. Almost all the edits to the template were ok apart from about three yacht clubs. Yachty4000 12:32, 22 Sept 2024 (UTC)

You were blocked without engagement and discussion because copyright issues potentially put Wikipedia in serious legal jeopardy, and we must act to protect the project. The engagement and discussion is occurring now, and hopefully you can be unblocked soon. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite website on the web archive.org is under this issue, that also a good example of an organisation that should have seperated it archiving activities. I am extentive user and contributor it wasn't liablias claims, political motivated or multi million pounds brands. A little education would have been more appropriate than an edit battle that I didn't understand and blocking all by one user that is the point I was trying to make. Yachty4000 12:32, 22 Sept 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to unblock here. I think Yachty4000 has learned their lesson and won't repeat the behavior that led to the block. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: any objection to an unblock here? Elli (talk | contribs) 03:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]