User talk:Yman88

Welcome!

Hello, Yman88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! bodnotbod (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags by country

Good luck with that article. My guess is, until it's fixed up, there'll always be disagreements there. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't want to get too involved in the discussion as the editor there seems quite stubborn and looks like he/she will refuse anything that doesn't conform to their point of view. Hopefully other editors will also see the sense in changing things.Yman88 (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This stubborn guy is leaving the article to you. I generally enjoy a good debate and actually thought we were having one until you accused me of having a "Nationalist POV". What I was actually having was a point of view while attempting to prove my points. If we can't have a debate on wiki without accusations I don't see the point of having one at all. I've taken the article off my watchlist, I hate to see my opinions diminished by accusations. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for making any accusations that have offended you.Yman88 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's what I like to see. It's always great to see fellow Wiki members patching things up. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered a compromise on that article & List of countries, but to no avail. If those who oppose my proposals, don't understand my point or worst simply won't meet me half-way? Then it'll just be continous disputing. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By checking up on the Edit-history of talk:England, talk:Wales, talk:Northern Ireland & particularly talk:Scotland. You'll see I've had simliar difficulties in getting my points across. It's no big deal, really. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe splitting List of flags by country into 2 articles called List of flags by independant country & List of flags by dependant country is the answer. My guess is, those who've opposed my previous compromises will reject that aswell. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense. We could have a hat note saying 'this is a list of sovereign country's flags. for other countries that are a part of a larger sovereign state see ...' or whatever.

They might reject but per the way Wikipedia wants NPOV I don't see any obvious reason why it shouldn't happen.Yman88 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is 'good luck'. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Flags of Europe

Hiya Yman. I'm afraid this one is over my head; you'll have to contact an Administrator for this one. Try Administrator Jza84. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GoodDay.Yman88 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock

I don't like your suggestion that I reverted text without entering into discussion. My recent edit was a result of discussion - please read the Talk page before assuming that a good-faith edit is part of an edit war. The consensus on the discussion page is that the shamrock is the symbol of all of Ireland, not merely the Republic. I'd be obliged if you considered reverting your revert. Mooretwin (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the consensus for your change on the talk page sorry. If you're reverted on a change you make you must go to talk to sort out the problems. If there's a clear case of consensus and its just the other editor being troublesome then fine, but I don't think that's the case.Yman88 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is consensus, if not 100% agreement that the shamrock is a symbol for the whole island, and not merely of the Republic? Did you actually read the discussion? Mooretwin (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is about agreeing changes not agreeing about hypothetical ideas and points.Yman88 (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was about the very real (not hypothetical) "idea and point" that the shamrock represents all of Ireland. That was established. Therefore it is reasonable to change the text accordingly. It is not reasonable for someone who didn't have the courtesy to take part in the discussion, simply to revert to a version which has been established as inaccurate. Mooretwin (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you're talking about. There's hardly a discussion there about the registered trademark issue. And certainly there isn't even the slightest notion of changing the text mentioned. Please don't discuss this with me; discuss it with Snappy or others who disliked the change. I reverted as I noticed edit warring and a lack of consensus for the proposed change.Yman88 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The registered trademark wasn't disputed, and my edit retained the reference to it! Clearly my suspicion was correct that you did not read the discussion. Your intervention has been unhelpful, and very frustrating. I have been trying to improve the article in good faith. Mooretwin (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of nations

Not many 4 day old accounts are brave enough to revert like that demanding consensus, even WP:SSP accounts. There is plenty of consensus for List of nations (and certainly for the removal of the nonsensical redirect to List of sovereign states). To bring up 'no consensus' there must first be an opposing point of view, and up until your familiar self, all involved have been 100% for it (with one other new SSP actually coming over). Consensus does not have to be polled and documented when there is no dissent around, and it isn't an issue. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the support. If you show me diffs of support I will self revert.Yman88 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing at the moment is called edit warring - it's up to you to discuss first, not me. RE the diffs - why should I do your work for you, you cheeky thing! Read through the recent debate at List of countries (easily done), and look also at List of anthems by country in July, as I said in talk. You simply cannot demand to see a poll etc, when there has not been a need for one. Wikipedia actually frowns on polling unless it is really necessary - for this is hasn't even come close to being necessary. The one person who recently questioned it (along with other 'country' issues) came around to it. Redirecting to List of sovereign states suggests that all nations are independent - they are not.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through it and I don't see any support! You claim it is there, yet I don't see it. All I see you is instigating this action. I'm not talking polls, I'm talking about more than one editor saying your idea was a good one.Yman88 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not reading it properly. Two editors at LOC (I'm not going to repeat this again) have explicitly condoned it (that is more than enough without opposition) plus the implicit silent consent (ie that LACK of opposition) PLUS the editor/s in July at anthems. On top of that are others saying nations are not all sovereign (only about half of them are).

You may not understand Wikpedia's rules yet - I strongly suggest you go and read them, especially consensus. At the moment there is STILL consensus, as there is only ONE of you.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you're wrong and that there is little agreement for this list. I do acknowledge, however my knowledge of the rules isn't perfect yet, so I this case I'll give you benefit of the doubt. That is only because I don't feel particularly strongly about this; I just thought that what you did creating yet another list was wrong.Yman88 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

You have just made 3 reverts on List of nations despite not having consensus. I suggest you revert yourself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football in REpublic of Ireland

Could you please restore this template? I can't understand why you have moved it, apparently at the behest of a banned sockpuppet. Mooretwin (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ignore this. You have arbitrarily moved a template, without discussion, to an inaccurate name, in support of a banned sockpuppet. I'm assuming you have done so inadvertently, based on a misunderstanding of the history, so I would appreciate it if you self-reverted. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the template title has to do with sock puppets; sorry. All I'm seeing is that it was at a stable title since its creation, then you moved it and edit warring broke out. I have no interest in who's right and who's wrong or whatever, I acted in good faith that the old title was stable and there is currently discussion on how that problem is going to be sorted out on the IDTF. As I can see it, it is going to be sorted out soon so my recommendation is to wait and see what happens there before moving because its an 'inaccurate name'. It is being discussed and to prevent further edit warring please just wait until consensus has been decided on this issue.Yman88 (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football in Republic of Ireland is the correct version (that is the name of the football jurisdiction). I changed it, as is my right, and Wikipeire, an infamous banned puppetmaster, changed it back, and I reverted, supported by Ddstretch, as is correct when a banned editor is involved. Now you have reverted to the sockpuppet's version. I accept that you acted in good faith, as you were unaware of Wikipeire, and the correct name of the football jurisdiction, but please self-revert to the correct version. Thank you. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to if that were the case, but I think you've confused yourself a little as the current title was the original title back in January 2007. Look at the logs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Template:Football_in_Ireland Your move was the first, no one moved it before you. I don't understand this term 'football jurisdiction', templates like this are done per countries and I saw the move as controversial especially considering the talks that are going on at IDTF. The current title seems to avoid edit warring for the moment; the discussions will be over soon and then it should be obvious what to do with it. For the moment the title (and its only a title of a template for gods sake!) should remain to prevent disruptive edit warring. The aim of the game is to keep things stable and calm around here until the title issue is sorted out; which should be very soon. Just hold tight and don't worry about it.Yman88 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football jurisdiction = the name of the country as recognised by FIFA. There is a long-standing agreement between FIFA, the IFA (NI), and the FAI (ROI), that neither of the Irish associations can use the name "Ireland" - it is "Northern Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland". This is non-controversial and would be outside the remit of the IDTF in any case. Mooretwin (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with that ruling. I believe you are acting in good faith but I still think it could be a controversial move - especially considering all the edit warring. The best thing to do is to make it consensus, so edit warring can't take place. Put in a move request, maybe a notice on the ROI football team talk page and if there's nobody against it after a day or two, you can go ahead make the move.Yman88 (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Mooretwin (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help regarding editting templates

Hello,

I'm afraid I'm equally as confused with this one, having played around with it. I think this is an issue you would have to raise at Template talk:Europe topic. I'm confident the architects of the template there would be able to help out. Sorry I can't elaborate any further beyond that. Good luck, --Jza84 | Talk 12:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipiere again?

Keep it up Wikipiere, ya got nothing to loose now. What with countless unapologetic socks, you'll be blocked for possibly 5-yrs (and counting). GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever GoodDay. With pretty much all my accounts I have played nicely and have done a lot of beneficial work. If you can't see that then its really not my problem.Yman88 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total bullshit. You have tried to get others in trouble (to squirm out yourself - despite all your enldless socks), and have rarely made proper Wikipedia edits. You have been a single subject account (apart from you Editors fixation). As Pureditor you were a complete wanker. Your revert of the consensus-backed redirect of the non-linked-to List of nations away from List of sovereign states proves you to be the liar you are (you have pretended before you are now happy with Wales etc being a 'nation' at least - you clearly are not).

I'm not having a 'good outlaw editor' myth built up here - you are a full-on disruptor. Using this account, you made me work to prove I had consensus (and pushed me to 3RR) on List of nations, when you could easily have looked then acknowledged it. No - you revert me to the wire and make me carry on proving it to you. Considering what I have said to you before about you needlessly (and cynically) wasting my time, I am perfectly entitled to call you an empty little twat. Play nicely? You waste people's time, and you try and get them blocked. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You always find some way to turn this into something about Wales. You like twisting my edits to remove the onus on what you did. Undoing a status quo redirect so that you could create another list so that your precious Wales will get a mention somewhere does not reflect badly on my part. Wales is obviously a nation but the need for another bloody list wasn't there. Consensus backed? My arse. After I had gone you were reverted again. It's still currently a redirect. You're entitled to call me whatever you want. You're just some random British man at the opposite end of a computer screen. I don't give a damn. This is Wikipedia, there's a lot of bullshit on it and it's there to be edited. As a 38 year old I shouldn't have to need to tell you to grow up and see the bigger picture, stop feckin cryin about me. You don't want your time wasted? Go spend your time not editing Wikipedia then! Duh. Why am I even replying to you actually? You're a nobody who hasn't accomplished anything. I'm off.Yman88 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipiere/Yman88/UncFisty etc etc. You've put yourself in the position you're in & continue to dig youself into a deeper hole. Everytime you create a sock or edit as an IP, you make it tougher for yourself. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the heck of it. What are some of the 'names' you'll be using for your future socks? GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipéiresockaccountnumber27 Happy?Yman88 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, I'm not happy. Just thought, if ya gave the Administrators an accurate list of the socks you were gonna create; it would save time. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]