User talk:Ylee

A tag has been placed on Ole Piss, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

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. Kart2401real (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not believe the creation of this redirect because of the 2019 Egg Bowl incident is nonsense that doesn't merit a redirect. If you think otherwise, please provide an explanation. Kart2401real (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The incident, according to The Athletic, had a major effect on both teams in the game: "The Egg Bowl Butterfly Effect: How two firings altered almost 300 coaching careers". Ylee (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:A 1971 Supergirl costume.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Ylee - you are a idiot! Don`t touch my information ! I warning! No more warnings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.18.93 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed the entire planetary rings section from the Saturn article on the grounds that the information is covered in the article Rings of Saturn. While this may be true, it is usually customary to include at least a paragraph or two with some basic information in the main article, if the reader desires more information then he or she may read the more in depth main article. For a good example of this see Mars#Geology and Geology of Mars. IN addition, after comparing the deleted information with the Rings of Saturn article, I noticed that there was quite a bit of information in the deleted text (especially some historical information) that does not appear in Rings of Saturn. I am asking if you would please either restore the text you removed or instead add the deleted information to the main Rings of Saturn article so that the knowledge is contained somewhere within Wikipedia and then expand Saturn#Planetary rings to include at the very least some basic information. Thank you. --Nebular110 02:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, thanks for doing that. I agree with you that the section is longer than it really needs to be. I'll try to fix that, maybe by transfering some of the info to the Rings of Saturn article. I'm not sure how soon I'll find the time to do that, lots going on right now, but I will put it on my to do list. --Nebular110 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm writing because I saw you made some (intelligent, sagacious, wise, brilliant, geniustic, glorious) contributions to the John Podhoretz and Jonah Goldberg articles, so you might have an interest in this: There's a move to remove the "American conservatives" category, and a vote is going on now which may result in its deletion. The vote is tied at this moment. I'm hoping you'll visit there, make up your own ((intelligent, sagacious, wise, brilliant, geniustic, glorious) mind (and I hope you agree with me to keep it, but of course it's up to you [you fine human being, you]).Noroton 23:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The_animated_Supergirl.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:The_animated_Supergirl.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it seems like I'm bugging you about the above image - I'm trying to determine the copyright holder, which needs to be specified on the image page per WP:NFCC#10a. When I click on the source link, I get an "access forbidden" message. Can you please specify the copyright holder on the page? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the only other thing required, so far as I can tell, is evidence that the copyright holder published this image, to satisfy WP:NFCC#4. As the source link can't be accessed, and toymania.com is apparently not the copyright holder, where was the image published? Thanks... Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is accessible at the URL I published. Connectivity is sometimes intermittent, apparently; I too once saw an "access forbidden" message today. However, it is available as of 30 seconds ago.Ylee 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will keep trying, but I'm having no luck. When you looked at it, what did it say regarding publication? Did it specify the comic book in which this image was published? That's really all we need re WP:NFCC#4. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the message I get is Forbidden: You don't have permission to access /news/images/0402_supergirl.jpg on this server.. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no mention of what comic book or TV episode the image is from. I believe it is actually a promo image.

Gah, that's not good. We need some verifiable evidence of prior publication by DC Comics. Do you have another image (with a more verifiable status) that can be used? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original comic-book cover and commercial posters identified. Ylee 17:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for straightening this out - I marked the image as "reviewed" for Supergirl. Respectfully - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot synopsis you removed was neither overly long by Wiki Film Project guidelines nor for the most part was copied from IMDb. Please do not undo the hard work of other editors without just reason. Thank you. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep some of that info on the Checkers speech in there. Yes, much of it is also found in the article, but it is useful to keep the basic description of the speech in there so that readers might understand the outpouring of support without having to go read the other article. 65.190.95.8 (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at Template_talk:NYC_Colleges#King's restored, Cardozo deleted. --Aepoutre (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say: nice edits. That page is on my watch list. It had got into quite a state! Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One somewhat important point about the tag: Cassel is not absolutely guaranteed to earn $14.65 million. Cassel could sign a long-term deal, with the Patriots or another team, for any amount. He is only guaranteed that amount if he plays for the Patriots under the franchise tender. Samer (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a big deal at all, but I just wanted to say, that I left the "citation needed" instead of deleting, because I intended to find a citation myself, in case it was true. And I was hoping that maybe someone might add one in the mean time. No big deal. Belasted (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ylee. Yes, your request can be fulfilled without problem, as it:User:Ylee has no edits.
I'd be grateful if you could follow the directions and leave your request in this page http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cambiare_il_nome_utente/Riassegnazione#For_it-0_speakers_.28SUL.29 so that one of the local bureaucrats will free the current account for you to grab it.
Feel free to contact me, should you have any trouble. Bye, --Paginazero (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me. YLee (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - the 7 days are long over. The username is now free. Please log into it:wp for including it into your global account. Bye. --Paginazero (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, Ylee.i wrote an email to zh:user:Ylee to tell him/her your usurp request. but he want to keep the username and left the note on zh:user talk:Ylee. a pity, you don't get the name.--Pubuhan (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Television series]] [[Category:Hypothetical second category]] 

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit on "In Plain Sight." You removed basic factual information about the main character without an edit summary. If there's a reason to remove it, please state it in the edit summary. Otherwise, edits with no summary are likely to be reverted. Drmargi (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ylee, why do you keep on changing my paragraph on Caltech? Wikipedia is supposed to be an universal effort and I don't see why you should keep on editing it. I understand you want to keep the Popular Science section short, but the moon landings, especially with Caltech professor and alum involved, is highly relevant and should contain enough description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjean888 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion on the Talk page for the article. Short version: It's not very relevant to a popular culture section. YLee (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Shuttle 2.01 Pressure suit Mercury-Atlas 3 Shuttle 2.03 STS-119 Little Joe 1B Little Joe 6 Viva Villa! Space Shuttle Project STS-61-M Mercury-Jupiter Teacher in Space Project Proton rocket Joint warfare 51826 Kalpanachawla Shuttle 2.02 Yuri Malenchenko K-PAX (film) Sputnik 3

Cleanup Man In Space Soonest Military space shuttle Expedition 2 Merge Hopper (spacecraft) Mariner 2 Space flight simulator Add Sources Encyclopedia Astronautica Orbital Space Plane Soyuz programme Wikify Supreme Court of the Philippines Boeing X-48 Gregory J. Harbaugh Expand Orbital Maneuvering System STS-120 Glenn Research Center

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PROD. Reimplementing a PROD indiscriminately can be considered abuse of process. You should understand how prod works, before making claims about the process. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it after seeing your unexplained blanking/redirect and have read it again. Your action still doesn't make any sense as it does not fit into any of the criteria listed under "Before deletion." It fits best under the "blanking the entire article" vandalism under "Contested deletions," which is why I restored the PROD tag. YLee (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the PROD rationale given, it was duplication of information found elsewhere, which would be WP:CFORK, and thus should be redirected or deleted, since it's a valid search term, redirecting is proper. Redirecting is not blanking, since the redirect target should still contain the information. (If it doesn't then it would be vandalism, but in this case, the target does contain the info). WP:BOLDly redirecting is something that qualifies as fixing the article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if you think an article should be deleted after it was deprodded, please create a WP:AFD nomination for it. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the cite in on Conan O'Brien --Flashflash; 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clever edit here [1] Relief to see someone else with economics knowledge Mac520 (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you. I always favor integrating links whenever possible. YLee (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've responded on my own talk page to streamline the conversation. Thanks. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misjudged your candidate because since that time the individual has abused the privilege and caused angst among others. I strongly recommend that you reconsider and revoke this privilege because the individual does not employ mature judgment in edits.

		The Original Barnstar
		A barnstar for your excellent expansion of Nikki Finke! Jokestress (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinking is the usual method of encouraging new articles. The issues raised in this Article elevated the significance of the aerodrome in question. It may be that sources are limited, but that does not preclude nominating it. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing WP:REDLINK (which I should have done before my edit) I see that you were right and I am wrong. Thank you for the correction. YLee (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo? TYPO? TYPO? How dare you accuse me of a simple slip of the digit. I'll have you know that was a bloody stupid error caused by complete brain shut-down, lack of sleep or alcohol; or probably all three in a previously unrecorded scientific incestual alliance. On a more level note - ta, amazing how these things can sit there despite edit after edit ... Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and a ta for the removal of 'out of continuity' OR (by accident) - you're right that humour dosn't mean non-canonical. Somewhere in there is an article on Father Christmas in DC Comics waiting to burst forth .... Archiveangel (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YLee. Are you an employee, student, faculty, or otherwise affiliated with Caltech, JPL, or a member of the Caltech or JPL communities? I ask because I notice you are putting a lot of effort into the Caltech article. In fact, you surely remember reverting my recent contributions which you described as "good faith." In reviewing the history of the article, the article talk page, your own personal talk page (this page), and the history of your talk page, it appears that you have maintained certain aspects of the article as you deem fit. Soon, we will discuss Wikipedia's editorial policies. First, the most important question I have you regards your point of view. Personally, I attended Caltech and never graduated. I believe this qualifies me still as a member of the community. With that in mind, and in the certainty that many readers of Wikipedia are members of the Caltech community -- what is your connection, if any, with Caltech? Heathhunnicutt (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My affiliation (or not) with Caltech is irrelevant to my edits. I am happy to discuss the edit in question with you, at the Talk page. YLee (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your affiliation is relevant because you have a pattern of edits which indicate the possibility of a non-neutral point of view. WP:NPOV is a policy of Wikipedia and your bias is a matter of valid concern here. You have made a number of edit reversions which, on the surface, do not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. I am interested in first discussing your evident POV bias and not limiting the discussion to your one edit which triggered my curiosity. I have been looking through your contribution history and the history of the Caltech article, and I see that you have made a number of edits which I intend to call into question. I therefore reject your move to narrow the scope of my inquiry away from your possible point-of-view bias. I'll give you another chance to reveal your Institute affiliation. Keep in mind that Wikipedia admins will have not trouble shedding light on the question. If you are bound by the Caltech Honor Code and choose not to reveal your affiliation, it would seem that you may be in violation of the Honor Code also. Cooperation with the policies of Wikipedia is not unfair participation even if you make mistakes, but any campaign maintained through concealing your affiliation would seem unfair to me. What, if any, is your Institute affiliation? Heathhunnicutt (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, feel free to discuss my or anyone else's edits at the Talk page. YLee (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to send some praise for your clean-up on the Bowl Championship Series article. Good work, and thanks for helping to keep it balanced and neutral. Obamafan70 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! YLee (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like any mention of a boobs zip code, and as the latest ip that was just reverted shows, it could use 6 for a lowercase b. Plus, sourcing it to the episode is inaccurate and WP:OR as Moe says it spells boobs, not saying which of the at least 3 it could be. CTJF83 chat 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I am not thrilled about having "BOOBS" in the article, either, but I'm not sure we can completely ignore it, either, as per the Talk discussion. YLee (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see why I'm saying OR? I think it is just a throw away joke, that can be ignored, actually, along with the other zip code mentioned, as that was just a brief 2 second mention. Unlike the area codes, which are the subject of an entire episode. CTJF83 chat 21:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider citing dialogue or on-screen elements as OR. That said, I'm fine with removing the zip codes completely, as per the consensus to omit mention of contradictory location info. YLee (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we can remove them all together then. I only say OR as cause he said it spells boobs, but not how. CTJF83 chat 21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it can only be two permutations for real cities, unless Springfield has a fictional Zip Code. 58008 and 60065 are the only two which match actual US cities. The later is a suburb of Chicago and is certainly the closest yet to a real Springfield.--Closettrekker (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is no closer than any other clue to a "real" Springfield that we've seen in the show's 21 seasons. (In other words, just as meaningless.) And of course the zip code could be fictional; that goes without saying. YLee (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, which indicates 1958. Do you have a more reliable source? Not being contentious; at this point I'm honestly curious. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

• Brown University Khruschev archives
• Time
• Boston Globe

I believe the reason the news articles on the Wayne-Khruschev meeting say 1958 is because a 2005 Wayne biography gives the wrong year. The book cites the meeting as occuring during the Hollywood dinner for Khruschev hosted by 20th Century Fox head Spyros Skouras that the Time article mentions. The 1959 visit was Khruschev's first (and, I believe, only) visit to the United States, and the first by any Soviet leader, which is why it got so much publicity. YLee (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your feedback is well-appreciated.
ABCxyz (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ylee ...

I made changes to this article and you insist on removing them. I thought Wikipedia was meant to be based on fact and not on the missreporting of the worlds press.

The changes I made are factually correct. IBM has nothing to do with the Refs scoreboard that failed at 47-47 ... this syetem is the refs system.

Specifically this statement is incorrect.

"IBM programmers said it was only programmed to go to 47–47 but would be fixed by the next day"

Similarly IBM programmers did not work until 11:45etc ...

I would appreciate you re-applying my changes as we are all interested in ensuring this historical event is recorded accurately. What gives you the right to decide what is fact or not? I would appreciate your assistance.

I work on www.wimbledon.org

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.15.111 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth". I know that sounds strange, but it's for Wikipedia's own protection. This means that only things that can be reliably sourced to a newspaper, a book, or something similar, can appear in articles; otherwise anyone could add anything by claiming that (despite all the reliable sources that say otherwise) Hurricane Katrina hit Miami, not New Orleans, in 2005, and that he knows this because he was in Miami. What you need to do is to find a reliable source that supports your claim, and then we can proceed from there. Until then, sorry, we need to stick with The New York Times. YLee (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a record - Andy's information are accurate and NYT are not. Not the first time journalist missreported. At least there will be truth on talk page :) Gabrysb (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also - a question, if I can, and if you know an answer. How can one "realiably source" that a newspaper was wrong? I suppose that in situation like this it would be better to remove content that is inaccurate, I think Wikipedia was not designed to mirror newspaper archives... What's also important - Andy did not add new information (for which he could not give realiable source). Gabrysb (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can suggest is for you and Andy to bring this issue up on the Talk page for the article. Explain that Andy works on wimbledon.org (and/or whatever your own connection to the match is), and that the New York Times article isn't correct. While the requirement for a reliable source that supports what you and Andy say can't be avoided, perhaps others can help you find such a source. (Also, since Andy works at wimbledon.org, perhaps he can have that Website publish an article explaining the correct details of the various scoreboards and their failures?) YLee (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic example of why Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source of information. It can not be trusted. The red tape in getting the facts recorded will prevent the truth being told. Just because a news paper prints something, that does not make it fact. In most cases the reporters have collected the details of their story with little solid evidence to back them up. Given I was in the room with the people running the wimbledon.org scoreboard, I could not be a more informed source. I am not disputing most of what's been written, I am just trying to correct a few facts to support this record. For information, almost all reporting of this subject was incorrect, leaning towards creating colourful stories ... so where do people find out the facts? I feel its pointless me pursuing this ... this is just one more case of Wikipedia not working. Please be proud that your moderation has ensured this information is not accurate. A disappointed Andy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auk20 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI - I was the one who wrote "hotfix"... but I suppose I cannot be a source. Gabrysb (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrysb ... thanks for your support in this matter. Auk20 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Hi, Ylee. We have some disagreement about Capricorn One. I spelled out my case here and would value your response. SnappingTurtle (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot description you reverted was not entirely bad. Yes, the guy couldn't spell and had serious phraseology issues, but several of the points you omitted leaves the plot details a little thin. The popping zit is particularly bland in its revised state. Referring to name characters "Professor Jennings" is preferable to "a professor." Mentioning that he is played by Donald Sutherland is appropriate, just as the mention of Belushi earlier would be. Referring to Otto as "the Delta" just lays there. In short, there is some value to these edits. This could be improved upon, not just reverted and disappeared. Trackinfo (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland's role was basically a cameo and the plot summary does not mention Professor Jennings elsewhere, so "a professor" is preferable. "The Delta" is an alternative to repeating Otter's name again in the sentence, since "him" or "he" doesn't work due to the ambiguity. I have no objections to inserting actors' names (I don't think it's a MOS issue but could be wrong) but it should be consistent; either all major actors' names should appear or none.

The zit issue is slightly different. Wikipedia's house style requires a clinical approach to writing for it that is as stripped bare as possible while still accurate and complete. The humor within the subject matter here makes it all the more important that the tone be retained and any deviance be either marked as such (such as the notable quotes, integrated into the text but clearly marked as such) or otherwise separated out (footnotes, for example). Can Bluto firing mashed potatoes into Marmalard be succinctly described while adhering to the tone? Perhaps. Is the incident important enough to do so in the plot summary? Or, in other words, is it as important as the resulting food fight? I don't think so. YLee (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are formally correct that "strange goings-on" is not really good tone for a WP article re 2001. However, it is a direct quote from the dialogue of the film. An alternative clean-up would have been to put it in quotes indicating as such. However, I am satisfied with the way it stands.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just rechecked the film; the phrase does not occur in the scene. YLee (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confused the film dialogue "mystery of what has been going on" with "strange goings-on". Close but a couple notches off the bulls-eye. Thanks for checking.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordway article might be very useful for adding positive material on the "Scientific Accuracy" section of the "Space Odyssey" article over which there is now a tag expressing concern that it gives undue weight to the inaccuracies.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit mystified, to be honest! I think a "see also" at the bottom of the articles in question would have been fine (in fact put one in if you like!) but in making internal links you do need to keep the purpose of these things in mind. If the connection gets oblique and obscure it rather defeats the object of making things clearer and easier to understand! If it's too general it is little immediate help for someone who wants specific clarification. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit, since "business school" is spelled out in the preceding phrase, I believe it is appropriate to abbreviate the verbiage in this case. Spelling it out is redundant and makes the dab very lengthy. Also b-school is a common abbreviation. Will you reconsider? —Eustress ^talk 17:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's slang, just like "j-school" would be in an article about a university's journalism school, or calling Harvard "H-bomb". You are right that repeating "school" three times in the hatnote is not ideal, but resorting to slang is not the way to avoid the awkwardness. YLee (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your compromise. It's even more clear and accurate now. Thanks! —Eustress ^talk 21:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this comment, you could try asking an admin (ie. Theleftorium) to add a copy of the page to your user space, then you can get whatever you need from there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much getting content from the article that I'm interested in but the article itself. Like politics, religion, and the media, education seems to me to justify a separate article beyond just Springfield and Springfield Elementary School. YLee (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was my thought when I created the page. But, it ended up just being a big list of schools and character alma mater, and it didn't seem like there was a lot of meaningful content that could be added. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a misclick? The content has been cut and pasted to the merge target's talk page. –xeno^talk 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that; no idea how it happened. YLee (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering mouse =] No problem. –xeno^talk 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! (RE: Lloyd Carr and 2006) I decided to go back and move that to the 2006 BCS page, but it was already gone. Figured that people who were reading the Lloyd Carr page probably are well aware of the issue. Yes, Florida and Florida State aren't in the same conference - I didn't realize my contradiction at the time. They are in the same _region_ though, that's what I was trying to say. We're all good, thanks! Ypsidan (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your graciousness. There's never anything innocuous about the Mob. "Mafia ties" reads like a proprietary connection. In that business @ that time, rubbing shoulders w/ Mafia guys was inevitable. I know whereof I speak. Tapered (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I can get you to watch the article in case someone changes it again? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to look at my discussion regarding the template reversion. Template talk:Colleges and universities in Los Angeles County Thank you so very much.--S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my plot changes to said movie article, due to "colloquialisms". I thought I kept it pretty neutral, but whatever. Mind you, I was actually trying to add what was missing in the plot section AND added a "Controversy" section. Your reversion took out a huge chunk of actual content on the article, so I encourage you to change my wording if you think is not up to snuff, which might be the case, but don't take the content out because it belongs there. Thank you. 200.115.236.94 (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Strategic Barnstar
		This is to certify that Wikipedia User:Ylee has been awarded the Strategic Barnstar. For hard work and due diligence creating or editing strategic deterrent related articles or FBM submarine related pages. Your outstanding performance provides significant and long lasting benefits to Wikipedia, Congratulations! Signed: Legohead1my_talk 21:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

You might as well give up editing Star Trek movie articles as Wiki administrator "David Fuchs" constantly reverts edits that he considers not to his liking, if you check the article history he does it all of the time!

217.22.0.171 (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it!! 98.71.247.79 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just reported User:Kopimama for a 3RR violation. You should consider self-reverting your last edit to the article so it doesn't look like you're edit-warring as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have the impression that you think I'm a drive-by editor of this article - I'm not. Let's work out any differences on the talk page please. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I think you are right about focusing about not citing the release of the documents and audio and focusing on integrating it better in to the article. Thanks for all the great edits and improvements to the article. It is fascinating reading through some of the internal investigative reports about everything that happened and how the Secret Service responded. Warfieldian (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the documents to Wikipedia's attention. YLee (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for reverting my edit on Friday (Rebecca Black song). You're totally right, I should've checked the source before I jumped in. Cheers, DubiousIrony ^yell 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded to Ylee for his/her dedication to "Friday" article, fixing it up, adding references... everything... Novice7 (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm not seeing where my edit of the hidden notes in Elizabeth Taylor mangled the text - could you point me to it? Obviously, I didn't intend that - but do want to fix the notes that are there and add short one where they're missing so we can avoid the back and forth regarding the upper case U. Thanks Tvoz/talk 15:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at your edit; it completely removed some text, making a part of the summary nonsensical. Ylee (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what happened is that a hyphen dropped off of the arrow at the end of the hidden note, which screwed up the text. Fixed it now - thanks. Tvoz/talk 19:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ylee -

Would it be too much trouble to provide the page number from your source for the "panties" citation from Tedrow? If you have a collection of books on Chappy incident, perhaps you'll keep an eye on the edits and provide sources and citiations to confirm or revise mine.Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the cite again. It uses the rp template to specify the page, 36 in this case. Ylee (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits to the Conscription in the United States article. SocratesJedi | Talk 07:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say the same thing, very useful additions and great citations! Foxyshadis^(talk) 20:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good find. Well done. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your refs on Postum, they are currently broken. Also, I don't think it's good form to remove stuff when you add stuff. I don't mind the additions, but I think I will merge your changes with what was there before. (It's perfectly possible for the company to claim it's like coffee in one ad, and that's it's not like coffee in a different one - or at a different time. So because of that I think you should leave both versions.) Ariel. (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the broken cites; I fixed them. I don't know what you mean by "remove stuff"; what did I remove? Ylee (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You removed nothing. I misread the diffs - you moved stuff, you didn't re-move stuff. Ariel. (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your posting on Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series. Those disruptive edits are getting annoying; let me know if I can help. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were previously involved in the discussions. Please weigh in and join. 94.230.85.129 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Rationing, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page PTA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Physician to the President, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited JLA/Avengers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spectre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Jeremy Lin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Camino Real (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Space Shuttle thermal protection system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress test (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss about the incorrect cite that you inserted at Talk:Data (Star Trek). HumphreyW (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Felicity (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Square (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frasier Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:George Ho/Frasier Crane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

From User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions#WP:articles for deletion/Fictional women of All My Children, volume 2; read more there:

While I agree that primary sources can be used to establish a character's fictional background, they cannot bestow notability, they cannot be used for interpretation (and "X is an important character" is inherently interpretation), and content should not be based on primary sources alone. Huon (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for kicks.... Since you brought up his personality and wealth, I think I must somehow find ways to attract general audience with these traits. I don't know how notable his traits are, but calling them important without non-primary source is original analysis and thought, which I must omit. For instance, The Boys in the Bar is considered a derivative of "The Boys in the Band", but it is not included because it's an original research and because there are no reliable sources to confirm such analysis. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it; there must be non-primary sources that analyzes Frasier's wealth and eruditeness. If there is not one, why must they be explained in detail? I mean, how notable are his traits? Clearly, to me, he started out as love triangle of Sam and Diane, but he then became a friend and victim of these common pranksters, a husband of some one-tone woman with a kid, a radio psychiatrist, and... I don't know. Nevertheless, I trust treat an article of the fictional character as if it were a biography of the (living) person, like Kelsey Grammer. I don't go into full detail about one aspect or another; inserting our own analysis without good publication is original research. Tell me why eruditeness or wealth must be explained analytically. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some; for example there's a New York Times article, which the Frasier and/or the Frasier Crane article cites, discussing the show as an example of how the US has a class system. There's no need to discuss these attributes in detail; just some examples, using cites from individual episodes. Ylee (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not mention much about his own failures to meet standards of royalty, and even his personality is already mentioned in my draft... but in very short prose, unless you disagree. Is there anything else fron that source worth including in my draft? --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I paste my draft into main userspace right now? Why demanding personality information if general readers may or may not care about his wealth or personality a lot? Even if his personality is developed, I don't know how it is relevant or needed for general readers. I just developed the article in a chronological way because it shows how writers figure out what to do with him AFTER the "Sam and Diane" story. They just added personality and wealth stuff, even if irrelevant to the true origin of Sam and Diane, because... that's what they wanted him to be explored as more than just a mere love interest. Even his stories are not that great, with an exception of "Ham Radio" episode. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it; the more eyes the better. Ylee (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - hope you can help - I am totally confused! :) thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Blimey. Thanks. Well spotted! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Single Integrated Operational Plan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Doolittle, Francis Matthews and Bernard Brodie

General Dynamics F-111C (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chief of the Defence Staff

General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to U-2

Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to V-1

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes)."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is aimed at block quotes in the body of the text itself, as opposed to pull quotes. Cquote is discour