This is an archive of past discussions about User:Yopienso. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Concordia College and University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concordia College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wimpole Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Higgins. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:
While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
Then click on "Templates".
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.
Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header ==References== is near the end of the article.
And check that {{Reflist}} is directly underneath that header.
7.Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.
To use this message, place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on User:talk pages when needed.
OK, thanks for your friendliness. That's just an automatic template for what I can type in myself using fewer characters. What gives me tizzies is this stuff. Personally, I think all history articles should be cited in the standard Chicago (or Turabian) style for the discipline. YoPienso (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah...due to your editing history/experience I figured you didn't really need any editing templates at all but I find this one useful especially for placing on new editors talk pages or for where editors are having trouble with citing information - thought you might need it someday here in WP-land. And YES! I find the "Sfn" style to be a real pain to deal with. I know some folks really like it but MAN it is so hard for me to code...I'm converting all the #TJF cites in the Jefferson article to direct linkage cites and it takes me *forever* just to get through one single ref conversion. The good news is after I get them all done I sure as hell will know how to do it. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Yopienso. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
I spend a lot of time removing content sourced to predatory open access journals. One set of editors shouts at me to leave the text, another to remove the text along with the source, a third to find an alternative source. I have settled on the position that an uncontroversial fact can be left, but anything that is contentious, lacks evidence of significance or whatever, should be removed. The default is to remove unsourced material.
I know in this case the material was entirely unsourced, not sourced to a predatory journal. Makes no odds. It's not my responsibility to source random factoids people added at some point. I note you reinstated the text, but sourced to a blog. Please don't. If this is a notable fact it will have a reliable independent source, if it doesn't, it isn't significant. It's a case of WP:IINFO. And it seems ot me from looking around that the individual concerned has been associated with some self-promotion, so we definitely need independent sources here. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! The fact that a community college appoints an interim chancellor isn't contentious. I'll add a better source. Actually, I had two sources there that I put into one ref. The college's own publication are RS for who it appoints. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I intensely dislike self-sourced and blog-sourced naming of non-notable individuals to minor offices like this. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The college is notable even if not every one of its employees is. Of course we will include its leaders in our article! Please let me work on it; I'll let you know when I'm done and then you can edit as you see fit. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears from [1] that you are supporting the second of the newer proposals (actually the fourth proposal) but your !vote appears to me to be for Alternative 2, of the original two proposals. Meters (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The !vote allowed for a choice from 3 proposals. Obviously, I prefer my own. ;)
We were asked to simply vote without discussion in that section. In the discussion section, Dave posted an alternate suggestion we weren't !voting on; I prefer that over the current version, for the reason I gave there. YoPienso (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar
The Barnstar of Diligence
When we first met on Wikipedia, I realized quickly that you were one of the higher minds that was focused on your craft of improving the editorial standard of articles. This is a well-deserved barnstar for your past work over the years. William Harris •(talk) •01:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, thank you! Now I feel guilty about not helping you more. Would like to, but am very busy till May. Will try to look in from time to time. YoPienso (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
For the life of me, I couldn't find the modern link to that article. I had to rely on a private news service (which had a slightly different title from before the TBT website was redone). Thank you for updating the source. -Obsidi (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 April 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Thanks for setting your thoughts down on the Phillips Exeter talk page regarding including "non-sectarian" in the infobox. I agree with you that it's illogical to forbid describing with one word in the infobox that a school is nonsectarian. I would think that would be something a reader would want to know. The alternative – not mentioning whether a school has a religious affiliation – can either mean the school is not religiously affiliated or simply that no one has bothered to enter the information. It's a shame that someone who disagrees with you needs to state their case so scornfully. And thanks for the copyedits to the article. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Re outdenting feel free to outdent any part of our dialogue if you keep the subsequent indentation to preserve the subsequent threading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Your editing at David and elsewhere violates almost every content policy we have. You are trying to turn Wikipedia articles into Christian documents.
Please review WP:YESPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. If you continue to edit like this, I will bring a case at ANI detailing your systemic efforts to do this and will at minimum seek a TBAN with regard to Christian topics. The case will be clear and demonstrated with many, many diffs.
I would rather not take the time, and it is never a good thing to lose editors, but if you will not change your approach to editing Wikipedia, this is what will need to happen. If you don't understand something I have written here, please ask, but I believe this is pretty clear. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Your note astonishes me. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else? Let's move quickly to settle this misunderstanding so we can edit collegially and productively. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
OK please explain the rationale for adding the word "flourishing" in this diff. This is just one small example, but a perfect one. Please think about your answer carefully, because a lot rides on it Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Some scholars think there was a rudimentary united kingdom, but not the flourishing one described in the Bible. See Amihai Mazar, "Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy," p. 52: The United Monarchy can be described as a state in an early stage of evolution, far from the rich and widely expanding state portrayed in the biblical narrative.
You cannot see that you made a sentence somewhat into nonsense in your effort to promote a maximalist view. If you had said something self-aware, like "I looked at that again, and I can see that a) the "flourishing" really serves no purpose in educating the reader about ANE history, which is what that paragraph is about; I can also see that the sentence 'Ancient Near East historians also doubt whether the flourishing united monarchy as described in the Bible existed.' is kind of nonsense and that in adding that I was incorrectly promoting a maximalist view. I get that. I will back off that in the future" -- if you had written something along those lines, then I would have some hope. That you are framing this as an isolated content dispute and not acknowledging your pattern of doing this across many articles over a long period of time, and framing this as a "threat", are not good signs.
I came here to talk to give you the opportunity to reconsider what you have been doing. Telling you what I am going to do is not a threat. There is no threat. There is reality that you are very likely facing a TBAN if you cannot acknowledge what you have been doing and that it violates NPOV, and start changing this behavior. Please do reconsider your response. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I've asked Alephb if s/he can help us de-escalate this encounter. I hope we can work through it and work together productively. I have no desire to promote a maximalist view, but I have no desire to see it entirely eradicated from the article, either. Probably you should supply some proof of the alleged "pattern" you've discerned. YoPienso (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no escalation. You have a clear pattern of POV editing, and I am asking you to acknowledge that and to change it, and informing you that I will take you to ANI if you cannot or will not do so. There was a chance you were not aware of it, but you have not even said you will think about it. That is unlikely as one cannot do this so consistently and not be aware of it. But the bottom line here is that you are giving no indication that you will even think about changing this, much less committing to changing, so the community will need to review this. OK then. I would rather not have needed to take the time to file the case. So much work to do! Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Do you understand why I added "flourishing?" I wrote my reason as succinctly as I could. Did you see the edit summary? Quick answer: to distinguish between a developing united kingdom and the fully developed one described in the OT. You said that addition was a perfect example of my alleged POV editing. Do you still think so? YoPienso (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw your edit summary when you made it, and did not forget what it said.
You are way more savvy about WP than you are playing at here and you know exactly what you were doing there and in your other edits. I wrote here to give you the chance to acknowledge and commit to changing. You won't do that. This is a shame as some of your editing on religious stuff is decent. I will notify you when I file the ANI. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
What? I have just searched for the name Yopeinso at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and no complaint appears by anyone involving Yopienso - nor do any of your posts suggest WP:DR has been tried, anywhere. You have also claimed a pattern but provided no diffs of a pattern. Your refusal to back up your pattern accusation, here, is inexcusable. (See, WP:ASPERSION) Moreover, nothing you have said here, suggests in the least that you have even attempted WP:AGF. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah NPOVN is a ghost town as you will know. You can review the diffs when I bring them at ANI. That is where I am obligated to back them up. Further this is a behavioral matter, and exactly per DR, discussing things at a user talk page is the first place where behavioral disputes are addressed. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
No. WP:ASPERSION says you are wrong, you have made no WP:AGF actual good faith attempt here or anywhere as evidenced by your refusal, here to provide the diffs you plan to spring on Yopienso at WP:ANI. Moreover, apparently no one else in the community has either, your rush to ANI is both unseemly and unfair. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Alan, for your comments. You misspelled my username, but nothing shows up when it's spelled correctly, either, because there have been no complaints. Odd if I have a pattern of POV editing. YoPienso (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I actually did spell it correctly when I searched. It is wrong that you are being deprived, here, of a good faith discussion with the evidence in diffs - and that no more formal DR has been attempted by anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate that. This reminds me of the time I was accused of having a sock puppet. My alleged sock was on the other side of the globe! (Which was entirely lucky for me--he could have been next door.) YoPienso (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Yopienso. This is in response to your request,
<<Jytdog is making allegations and threats related to this article and discussion on my talk page. Would you care to look at them and coach me through them? YoPienso (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)>>
I would hesitate to think of myself as anyone's "coach" here on Wikipedia — I've only been a real active editor for less than a year. Your edit summary was entitled "A mediation request," and I want to be clear that I wouldn't think of myself as a "mediator" in any disagreement unless both parties asked for it. So far, that's never happened, which makes sense considering my relative newness here, and I don't expect it to happen now. However, since you asked me to take a look, I'll make just a couple quick comments. I would do that for any good-faith editor who asked for input. I want to apologize in advance if I explain something you already know. I just have zero background knowledge about your time at Wikipedia. Any advice I come up with I will probably just direct at you, because Jytdog hasn't asked for any advice.
First things first — do you understand the basic ideas behind YESPOV, WP:ADVOCACY, ANI, TBAN, diffs, and NPOV? We are a jargony community here. Second, just so I can get a feel for where you're heads at in terms of the scholarly literature, could you give me some vague idea how extensive your involvement with religion-related Wikipedia pages is and maybe name some of the scholars you cite more often (if you do that kind of thing)? In the meantime, I'm going to dig around in the history at Talk:David a bit to get a better sense of where things stand, and I'll dig through your contribution history a bit. It feels odd just saying that last bit, but we all hang out here in the Panopticon, for better or worse. Alephb (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Your comment about "many, many diffs" made me think there must be a backstory, and it's why I'm taking a gander at some editing history. Obviously, you haven't asked me to show up here, Yopienso has, so I'm basically here to answer her questions. I wouldn't presume to think of myself as a "mediator" or anything like that. Alephb (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
To me, that comment ("many, many diffs") sounds Trumpian.
Thank you very much, Alephb, for your thoughtful comments. And I'm a she.
Okay, if you're not going to answer the question, "Do you understand the basic ideas behind YESPOV, WP:ADVOCACY, ANI, TBAN, diffs, and NPOV?", but instead go back to your discussion with Jytdog and ask for diffs, I will duck out and leave you two to it. Good luck to you both. Alephb (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
YoPienso, this discussion is about religion and the bible - why in the world would you bring up Austin Powers? I will bring the diffs at ANI. In the meantime if you are really committed to NPOV you should do your own review of your edits on these topics and you will see that you consistently push this POV on those topics. It is clear as day. Perhaps you will surprise yourself. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb: My apologies for losing focus for a moment.
Yes, I understand and agree with all those ideas. The first time Jytdog mentioned "TBAN" I had to think a bit before assuming it means "topic ban," which I understand.
I haven't edited much on articles about religion, per se, as you can see at "TOP edits per namespace" on my edit count page. Going through them, the only ones I found were The Move (Sam Fife), Teen Mania Ministries, Ashura, and Eckankar. Mary Dyer and Sam Fife are biographies I was interested in for their religious views, but my interest in Cain and Abel was about art (William Blake) and linking to a Sumerian creation myth.
I have done considerable editing--and learning, both about the topics and about Wikipedia policies and practices--at science articles that intersect with certain evangelical beliefs. These include intelligent design and global warming and numerous articles related to each. (Why evangelicals balk(ed) at accepting the fact that the globe is warming beats me. Nothing I know after over 50 years of practicing the Christian religion informs me on that stance.)
You will see I'm also interested in history and an eclectic humanities mix.
Yes, it's a fishbowl, and that's good. All my edits and any patterns are right there for all so see. I stick by my assertions on my user page: "This user tries her best to abide by the Five Pillars of Wikipedia" and "This user believes Wikipedia should be neutral and unbiased." Regards, YoPienso (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I believe this discussion is about your allegations that I edit with a strong Christian bias, not about religion and the Bible. I mentioned the most recent articles I've edited; among them is Austin Powers. It would be helpful if you would demonstrate rather than repeatedly allege that I edit in a biased manner. Regards, YoPienso (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
All right, Yopienso. I've done sort of a preliminary digging around. It looks like you've been an active editor much longer than me (I had something like 30 edits my first eight years and then most of my edits are in less than a year). It looks like you spend about seven times as much time on talk pages than I do. And it also looks like you've spent a lot more time on ANI than I do. I had the impression that you were less experienced with this kind of thing initially because of your use of the word "coach" in the initial request. The one place I might have something to add is an observation about how things go in the Bible corner of Wikipedia, where I spend a great deal of my editing time.
When it comes to David, you waded in to a fairly heated conflict (that had a lot of previous background) and made a lot of edits in a short time. I've looked back over them, and there is a clear pattern of moving things in a more pro-religious direction. I'm not saying you were trying to unfairly move the article or anything. I suppose you could make the argument that the article was heavily tilted in an anti-religious direction and you were moving it toward center. But there was a lot of adding pro-David material, removing negative material, making the claims about the prophets and the Messiah stronger, and so on. I'm not even trying to argue about whether those edits were "right." It's just that, in an imaginary world where you actually were someone trying to insert your religious beliefs into an article, the edit history that hypothetical person would produce would look a lot like your history at David. The edit where you made it sound like the Hebrew prophets are united in saying that the Messiah will come from David was confusing -- the only sources cited where a bunch of passages which do not even use the word Messiah, and cited no other sources to say that the passages are about the Messiah.
In general, the Bible-related parts of Wikipedia are pretty sensitive about that kind of thing, especially if you're actively repeatedly reverting people. I don't have a very strong grip on the rest of your editing, but it does look like you spend a lot of time on talk pages of controversial subjects. That's not automatically wrong, but if I were betting money, I'd say that hanging out a lot on controversial talk pages is not a great sign for someone taken to ANI. Your religious beliefs are prominently displayed on your userpage, which is your right. That's also not something I'm criticizing you for, but it could be taken as painting a picture of someone who is out to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting their religion. I'm saying this not in judgment but just in terms of probability -- I haven't seen the other diffs Jytdog is talking about, so I can't predict anything for certain, but you might be better off if you could find a way to avoid an ANI. As for whether Jytdog is making "threats," Jytdog clearly doesn't sound happy, but I don't think there's anything on Wikipedia that prevents someone from saying they'll do an ANI. I was threatened (not personally, but everyone on the page in general) with an ANI recently (by another editor not involved here) if I made a certain edit. I made the edit anyway, got hauled off to ANI, came out okay. It happens, and I don't think there's much to do to stop it. On the other hand, I reported one of the users involved in the recent conflict at David to ANI today, and s/he was indefinitely banned within three hours.
But on the bright side, it looks like you have a lot more experience at ANI than I do, so you may have a better idea of how it will turn out than I do. Best of luck to you. I know you were talking about "de-escalating," but it looks like you stand by your editing history, he thinks an ANI is warranted, and unless somebody changes their mind that's probably where we're heading, I'd guess. Alephb (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thank you very much for your time and thoughts. One never outgrows the need for a coach; you'll notice world-class athletes all still have coaches.
I can see where adding to the string of OT Messianic prophecies wasn't the best edit, in the context of the article and the heat about it. (It's OK, though, but is better at Messiah.) Jytdog's "Early Christians interpreted the life of Jesus in light of the references to the Messiah and to David; Jesus is described as being descended from David" is much better. IMHO, of course!
These sure sound like threats to me:
"If you continue to edit like this, I will bring a case at ANI detailing your systemic efforts to do this and will at minimum seek a TBAN with regard to Christian topics."
You switch voices from someone who understands WP well (as in your comment here at the Intelligent Design article (where your discussion and editing have been more reasonable), to a complete novice here in this discussion. You know quite well what you are doing, which is why I am not playing song and dance with you. What you do at some articles in WP is very clear. You know better. It needs to stop. I wrote here to deal with this simply, saving us both time. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I dropped by under the impression that I was dealing with much more of a novice editor. Since you've both seen the inside of ANI a number of times, and since you each have at least a couple thousand talk page edits, and I'm very much the newbie of the three of us, I'll take this opportunity to butt out and leave you two to it at least until the diffs show up. Alephb (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Farewell, then, and thank you for your patience and input. It's very useful to me to hear how an intelligent, reasonable third party sees my editing. I'm puzzled at how both you and Jytdog thought I was a novice or pretending to be one when every time one of you pointed out a policy to me I said I knew it. Oh, well. Regards, YoPienso (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. The diff's. That they have not been forthcoming, here, on this page is not good nor reasonable dispute resolution in any way, shape or form. Witness above, you criticized a specific edit, she agrees and conforms to the later consensus edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, you and I tend to disagree on a lot of things. per usual I will not be replying to you further. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Do we? I do not know what you mean by 'a lot of things' but discussing disagreements is required on Wikipedia, as is your providing of the diffs, here, when you make such a broad charge. I have now looked at multiple notice boards on NPOV, NOR, RS, and Fringe theory, where there are no complaints against Yopienso. Why would you not provide the diffs here to discuss them? You have not even described an incident, you have alleged a pattern over unknown multiple articles of a specific character - back that up please, here, where any misconceptions may be resolved in a good faith manner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: "novice," Yopienso, it was the request to be "coached" through Jytdog's "threats" that made it sound like you weren't familiar with the conflict-resolution systems here. I wouldn't have expected someone around for nine years call Jytdog's words "threats" or to ask to be "coached." Clearly I drew the wrong conclusion from that, and from the fact that I didn't remember seeing your name pop up before on my watchlist (where about a dozen users make up a lot of the traffic). It just sounded like someone unfamiliar with how it all works, but you probably know your way around talk page arguments a good deal more than I do. I'm not saying you were "pretending", because in the absence of the diffs I am more or less in the dark about the real situation. Earlier, before you made the "mediation" comment, I had thought you were probably around Wikipedia quite a while, because you waded into an editing storm that was happening fast enough I was uncomfortable directly involving myself more than once a day or so, and were editing like someone who had been doing it a while. I just read too much into the call for coaching. Alephb (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Adam and Eve
You said "There is no point in discussing a change that was already made almost a year ago." If it is incorrect there is a point in discussing it. Then you directed me to a text dealing with the interpretation of the text. So is your decision relying on a Wikipedia rule about the length of time since the change was made, or are you arguing that your source is correct about the wording? I don't find either argument satisfactory. You can't change the wording of the Bible because you think it makes more sense your way. Nameshmame (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Yopienso. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Done
YoPienso (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
