User talk:Yopienso

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

_{Welcome to my talk page! Please add your comment at the bottom.}

*La Pensée* by Rodin
Are YoPienso's ideas chiseled in marble?
No, this is just a page for your thoughts and hers.

Hello, Yopienso, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Este es el formato normal de bienvenida que está en inglés y es de mucha ayuda cuando uno recién comienza a conocer Wikipedia.
Muchas gracias por escribir tus comentarios en el discussion page antes de editar el artículo. Aunque en principio en Wikipedia se permite editar con libertad, cuando no se está seguro es mejor discutir primero en el discussion(talk) page del artículo. De nuevo bienvenida (o bienvenido, no se jeje) Rosa 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references can be easy[edit]

Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

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.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --Shearonink (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

Note to self: Here's that page you tend to lose.

Re: Álvaro Uribe[edit]

It was a mistake on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. I've restored everything except for the link that violated the BLPEL. --Colombiaball (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I think Matarife should also be linked because it's supposed to be about Uribe.

Two examples:

Rick Santorum is linked to a hate campaign against him, which in my view is worse than a show that accuses someone of crimes who actually has been accused of crimes similar to the ones depicted.

In Sarah Palin's BLP there are 2 links (one in the infobox and another in the text in the 2088 campaign section) to the SNL parodies of her.

Those links aren't in the "See also" section; maybe a link to "Matarife" in the narrative would be appropriate in the Uribe BLP. What do you think? YoPienso (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1971 San Fernando earthquake[edit]

What does a news article's "location in cyberspace" have anything to do with our access date? And no, access dates are not "standard in citations". There is a place for them, but not always. I didn't come here to argue with you about this. In fact, I don't really even want to talk about it. You are not going to be able to convince me that having an access date for a news story that was published in an actual paper newspaper in 1996 is useful for anything. Good day, Dawnseeker2000 06:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The access date tells the reader when the article was found at that site. Giving access dates is standard and is helpful. Note the last line in the section about citing webpages in the content guidelines:

Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include:

URL of the specific web page where the referenced content can be found

name of the author(s)

title of the article

title or domain name of the website

publisher, if known

date of publication

page number(s) (if applicable)

the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)

YoPienso (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the access date is not required if there is a publication date. Dawnseeker2000 07:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's putting a backwards spin on it. In plain words, WP citations typically include access dates. What's your reasoning for eliminating it? Do you intend to remove all access dates from all citations? YoPienso (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Paleo Neonate – 00:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.
I'm trying to understand why people are writing walls of irrelevant text in the talk section I opened. YoPienso (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Kulp edit[edit]

I am reverting your edit on Nancy Kulp that used Find A Grave as a source. I don't know the basis for your description of Find A Grave as "credible", but WP:USERGENERATED specifies Find A Grave as one of several "unacceptable user-generated sites". Eddie Blick (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm copying your comment here on my talk page to the article talk page and responding there. YoPienso (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre[edit]

Hi Yopienso. I just wanted to encourage you to dig a bit deeper into the Jean-Pierre dispute. Contrary to your suggestion, the dispute is not about Psaki's comments (though they did get caught up in one rollback). Prior versions of the article did indeed make wikivoice statements about conspiracy theories, and that's the locus of the dispute (for now). Hope this helps. Thanks for responding to BLPN requests! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! When I commented, it was about including Psaki's defense. And now the whole thing has been removed. I'm not heavily invested in this and am not going to waste much of my time on it, but I will speak up when I see something I think needs to be addressed.

I appreciate the way you reached out to me.

YoPienso (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "supporting" (my) small edits...I re-added her three languages, (which were rmved for some inexplicable reason!) you created a separate paragraph for the information, as I should have done, sorry. Thanks for the better quality section header, too. Very pleased that a much more senior editor is watching/working on details. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A certain editor at Talk:Thomas Jefferson[edit]

I've seen that you've had extended interactions with a certain editor at Thomas Jefferson's talk page. I'm at my wits end with them right now, and I wondering if you had any advice for dealing with them. If anything, though, I just wanted to commiserate and know that I'm not alone in my current level of annoyance. Have a good one. Anwegmann (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you email me? Click on the link at the left under Tools; it's between "User logs" and "Mute this user." Best, YoPienso (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing it... Anwegmann (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the far left of this page is a column of blue links under the Wikipedia logo.

The first section is "Main page."

The second is "Contribute."

The third is "Tools." In that section, the 5th link is "Email this user." Click on that.

Or maybe it doesn't show up for you because you haven't registered an email address.

If that's the case, click on "Preferences" at the top right of your own user or talk page.

Then scroll over halfway down to "Email options," provide your email address, and click the box "Allow other users to email me."

YoPienso (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

Hi, it's been a long time since we crossed paths. Thanks for the thanks, but FYI, part of my reasoning I retracted, as I probably read too much into the RS I was using for my opinion. Details at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Nice seing you. I remember your signature, but not what articles we worked on or if we agreed. Same for Ronz, aka Hipal. Thanks for dropping by, and take care. YoPienso (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we mainly crossed in Wikipedia space. But at my age I even need RSs to remember where I put the keys NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comments[edit]

Hi, could I kindly ask you to strike, not remove comments when you change them: [1] Andre🚐 19:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding that one edit, I respectfully decline. What I deleted has no relevance to the comment I intended to make and would only introduce confusion into the discussion. I'd looked at two Fox articles and conflated them in my mind. The news article is relevant to the discussion, but the ten-day-old opinion article isn't. My original post was in error, and had been there only four minutes and not received a comment. I do strike comments if they've been there more than a few minutes and/or generated replies.

I'll take this opportunity to suggest you be less active in the Fox News RFC. You seem to be pushing your point of view very hard. YoPienso (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already essentially tapered down my involvement to little-to-none, since my points have been made in depth. I maintain that it is proper to strike messages even if they haven't been there for long, but I can't force you to do it. Best regards. Andre🚐 19:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Font color[edit]

I removed the disruptive font color and font size. Your comment is not more special than others. Andre🚐 18:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think you own that page, so I'm sure not going to fight you. YoPienso (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the page, you directly responded to my comment. It's neither standard nor appropriate to give your own comment special fonts and sizes. Andre🚐 18:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Bronson (disambiguation) has been accepted[edit]

David Bronson (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD[edit]

Please read wp:brd and WP:ONUS, it is the person who wished to change an article who needs to get wp:consensus for their change. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden talk page[edit]

I notice that on the Joe Biden talk page, in the recent thread concerning public opinion polls, you made various disparaging personal comments about other editors. This is not a constructive way to engage on the article talk page and is very unlikely to advance your arguments. Please try to "comment on content and not contributors". It was particularly unhelpful in this case in view of the fact, that you later acknowledged, that the others were correct in their doubts about the suitability of that content for that page. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to my talk page. Who did I disparage? YoPienso (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should've went the RFC route. You'll not get a local consensus at Biden's BLP, for your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But my long weekend's over and I don't have time to fiddle with one. I haven't been very active recently. Guess I'm qualifying for "drive-by editor." [Sigh.] Nice working with you. YoPienso (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Yopienso. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 18:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I never would have seen the email if you hadn't alerted me here. Funny that I can't find it in my email inbox except by typing your name into the search bar. Weird. Now you have mail! YoPienso (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! YoPienso (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Your expansion of Ax Handle Saturday was excellent, and it really stinks that we must dwell on such tragic topics in the world. It's a good way to cope. I'm sorry that I must offer feedback on citations, because they all need to be redone. The citation formatting you added is like 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. They're all not just unformatted like bare urls, but some are anti-formatted, and some are forcibly manually formatted as if this is printed paper and not digital. Some are clues on how someone could create citations for you, but as a description of a website without even a url. You need to use URLs and citation templates like Template:cite news, as you clearly see everywhere such as that very article. Just cite them, instead of writing essays describing the process by which some other anonymous stranger had used random features on another website to find them somehow, or your editorial about the content. You wrecked one {{cite news}} citation, degrading it from proper digital metadata into that faux paper format, for which I am simply speechless.[2] You even abbreviated the word "unnecessary" in your edit summary, which is the pinnacle of unnecessariness, like a cherry on top. Notes are not citations; and you embedded a note within an inherently unnecessary note about the obvious to address and instruct the reader, which is unencyclopedic. Dates are to be formatted for the relevant country, and in complete words MOS:DATES. I strongly urge you to revise all citations you've ever added like this everywhere in the encyclopedia, because you're simply requiring other volunteers to completely redo them for you ASAP at a huge waste of their time, if ever. A great tool is WP:REFILL to install in your account for automating citations, but this is just such a universally basic process that I made examples and memorized the process. I do both. You can make a sandbox document in your userspace so you don't need to make dozens of small edits in main space. Thank you so much. — Smuckola (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC) YoPienso (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may have time to respond later. Or maybe this is my response. YoPienso (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that was hilariously stupid of me to put a comment on a User page, wow, for probably the first time in my life. Nice one. Sorry. Anyway, no need to respond except by fixing citations, which nobody else has any time to do for you either. Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J6[edit]

I realize you are trying not to get dragged back into the talk page there, and since my question is more policy oriented, I thought it might be a courtesy to you if I ask it here instead. You mentioned the specific word count. When is that used to designate article titles? I'm familiar with WP:CRITERIA and MOS:AT, but can't see anything about it. More specifically, are there articles where word count was prioritized in that manner in order to determine the title? Is it "per RS", then tallied for each and every source for a grand total, or only specific RS that gets that treatment? I can't say I've ever seen it done using that method. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. YoPienso (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]