User talk:Yb2

For a new user, you seem to know a lot about tags and templates. Have you read WP:SOCK lately? Yworo (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yworo, please assume good faith, for all you know this user has edited as an anon for a long time and only just decided to register. BlazerKnight (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just listen carefully for the sound of quacking. Yworo (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I stumbled upon this talk page via recent changes so I don't know what this user is up to. Who do you think this is a sock of, and why? BlazerKnight (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but this is the user's fifth edit. Yworo (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has another user done similar edits to the article? If not, warn him accordingly, don't immediately assume that he must be a sock. That's exactly what AGF is about. BlazerKnight (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen references on some of the open source pages to a banned serial sockpuppeteer, but don't know if this is their "style" or not. It seems suspicious to me though. Yworo (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it take a lot to open the help pages while editing an article - jeez, you guys (Yworo) should calm down. Sock puppet, indeed. What I'm up to is trying to clean up a mess of an article - just look at the changes! Yb2 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 02:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of Medina

Hello User:Yb2. I noticed you have been arguing on the matter of the Constitution of Medina, and how it was the first ever. I've reopened the can of worms again here, because I feel that the sentence "This was the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule" cannot stand as it is (or rather was since I removed it from the article). I realize it was the result of a compromise about a related matter but I feel the solution was't very lucky. Since you were involved in the original dispute, perhaps you would like to comment. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they wore me down to be honest, and I was going to do a rewrite of the article to try and please both sides, but I realised it couldn't be done and I became busy. I honestly don't think you can win this argument because they're far too partisan to be reasonable - they actually supplied quotes that refute their own argument! When I looked back a couple of weeks later they'd reverted all my changes and removed the disputed tags. My plan is a) to find some better evidence for any previous constitution, probably the Athenian ones, and then b) put it up to the hierarchy to have them decide on it - the title and the content - and tell the interested parties to start acting like this is an encyclopaedia and not a PR firm for Islam.

I'll give your points a look tomorrow and weigh in with any help I can though, but don't get your hopes up on a good outcome. Yb2 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can re-write the whole article as much as you want and accuse us of something we are not, it's good that you can be a negative person behind people's back and I love that attitude from you, hopefully we can see your contribution in the article in a positive light, good talk Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to say what I think to your or anyone's face, thank you, and this and the talk page for the whatever of Medina are public. You weren't involved in this conversation, but since you are now, I stand by my comments - that talk page is a testament to partisanship. As I say, I'm going to find better sources, undoubtedly there will be some, and then knock it up the chain of command to let someone else deal with it. Having to argue around in circles against people who are misusing Wikipedia guidelines is a waste of my time. I didn't think you were doing that, and you did try to supply sources and help, so do try to calm yourself down.Yb2 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calm, just make sure you are calm too. My contribution to the article was clear, and your policy seems to undo what I did , but if you want to corrupt the whole article including my contribution to it and build a gang around yourself by all means do what you please. I was just making sure that you are okay and in a healthy state, before you disrespect other Wikipedia editors behind their back or in front of their face for that matter. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd like you to look at it and perhaps making suggestions. I've made one on the talkpage already. You may not agree with it but let me know. I've argued that the sentence that stood looked like a poster sticker for a cause. Don't care who they have quoted. Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>Don't care who they have quoted
I tink you should care, because it is important to back up with reliable sources, or not if that is how your modus operandi. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A silly sentence that expresses an exceptional claim not backed by exceptional sources is just that Alexis Ivanov. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything for you is silly, the good thing is we are not here to please you, we can't change how your brain operates in these matters. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Ivanov: @Hebel: If you two don't mind, this is my talk page and I've no need for a squabble. Cut it out please. Yb2 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock term

{{really?}} is deprecated per this redirects discussion. I have replaced all uses of it on your user page to {{peacock term}}, which was the target of the template shortcut. Deryck C. 18:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]