Y256

Public record

User:Yaniv256 not getting a clue over Talk Page guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Talk:Mizar system (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Yaniv256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New editor Yaniv256 started a discussion on Talk:Mizar system which he has transformed into an offputting mess for other editors, violating various guidelines in the process. This was explained in detail on his talk page but he dismissed the explanation out of hand. I then explained further and tried fixing the problems, but my changes were reverted (the second time without explanation) and my points dismissed. I know Yaniv256's a new editor need to AGF but the rate and nature of their edits makes them very difficult to deal with.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• The report is correct, and I have restored the talk page to an earlier version as putting labels in front of other people's comments is not how things are done. I also tried to explain at the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my case. The readers are advised that they are taking part in my execution of a Reality Change in the spirit of Asimov's End of Eternity. Yaniv256 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And with that response, a block per WP:NOTHERE seems a formality. Welcome to Wikipedia's reality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And invoking "Not here to build an encyclopedia" just because the guy is a little different is not very much in keeping with having a positive civil attitude or good faith. I've left the guy a comment explaining that Talk page guidelines exist for a reason and until he gets local consensus for them to change at Mizar system, he'll have to make do. After all, if people can firgure out a better Talk page protocol that works for them, I say by all means, give it a shot. But not until they have at least honored the existing protocol. -- Avanu (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please check Yaniv256's edit history (and read Azimov). This isn't just about talk page guidelines. Still, If you think it is better to AGF until the blindingly obvious occurs, ok. But be advised that you are taking part in the usual reality-not-changing when dealing with 'contributors' who decide that mere communication is beneath them when they have discovered the secret of the universe, or some other paradigm-shifting techno-woo. Yaniv256 seems to be promoting something called the Mizar system, which going by its Wikipedia article would need no further promotion - the article does this all on its own. Maybe it is going to result in a 'reality change' - but I'd not hold my breath, given the fact that the sole claim to verifiable notability seems to be that "Papers related to the Mizar system regularly appear in the peer-reviewed journals of the formal mathematics academic community" - and such "peer-reviewed journals" feature Wikipedia articles largely written by no less a contributor than, er, Yaniv256... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'd also recommend a brief perusal of Talk:Mizar system: Revision history: Yaniv256 seems to have been holding a debate with him/herself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do hope his reality changes soon, or I think it will be changed for him. --Avanu (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"It is fun to have fun but you have to know how" Yaniv256 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Then we saw him pick up all the things that were down. He picked up the cake, And the rake, And the gown, And the milk, and the strings, And the books, and the dish, And the fan, and the cup, And the ship, and the fish. And he put them away. Then he said, "That is that." And then he was gone, with the tip of his hat. -- Avanu (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note to reader: the book title "Merely a formality." is up for grabs. Yaniv256 (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please AGF and don't bite the newbies. I'm not a Mizar user but I have some familiarity with its subject area and with some comparable software, which is specialized. I've looked at some of Yaniv256's edits to the article and they appear well-intended and reasonably sane in terms of content, and though I haven't checked enough to make an overall assessment, the accusation of NHBE looks plain inappropriate to me. I'd like to welcome Yaniv256 to Wikipedia and invite him/her to join WP:Wikiproject Mathematics. Yaniv, the place to propose something like adding extensive Mizar links to existing math articles would be at the math wikiproject (specifically WT:WPM). I personally don't think adding tons of those links is a great idea but that's just me. In some cases where a formalization is really notable, like Gonthier's formalization of the four-color theorem, it's worth mentioning directly in the article rather than as an extlink, but I would say most routine formalizations are only of interest to formalization buffs who know where to find them. Also (e.g. in the Mizar article), rather than making 100's of tiny edits, it's better to do bigger chunks of work and write them out as single edits. You'll get used to all of this if you stay around. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but Yaniv256 put a notice at WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Mizar system external links discussion many hours before this report at ANI started. The report concerned an incident over refactoring of an article talk page, but the matter is currently resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The land of Talk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Ironically closing per WP:NOTAFORUM. This isn't an incident or an ANI matter Sædon^talk 08:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Given my recent experience in your strange land, I am troubled by a question. Allow me to pose the question in the terms of a fable.

The Gods of Wikipedia crated it blank. They wanted it free. They wanted the Great White to fill up with the war cries and laughter of children play. So, they made it in their image.

And they opened the gates and invited us in. And we came. And we liked it. And we liked it a lot. And they smiled upon us and appointed the most thoughtful and devoted to the role of admin and made them rule supreme.

And then they were done. And then joy and hope flowed from the Source and filled the Great White with the endless manifestations of what it is to human and good.

But across the river laid a peculiar land. The gods named it the Talk and left it as such. But we didn't like it. We didn't like it too much. We wanted a forum, as plain as can be. But they didn't listen and they didn't see.

And so my question is this: Are the Gods blind? Do they not see that the only thing that grows in the Talk is a forum? And malnourished and twisted at that. Are they deaf? Do they not hear the suffering cries of the admin. Laboring day-in-and-out, in-the-scorching-Great-White? Are they impotent, too powerless to rise a hand and apply a patch to a bleeding wound? Are they indifferent? Ravishing shamelessly in the free lunch bestowed? Too rich to care? Or are they mad? Possessed by a thought. Whispering in the night. You wait. You will see. No one knows what will be. Yaniv256 (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That must have been Fable 2 because it doesn't at all sound like the plot to Fable 1 or 3. Unfortunately I never played Fable 2 because it never came out for the PC. That really annoyed me because the original Fable was one of my favorite games. I was once more disappointed by Fable 3 as I found it to be a very boring game. It just goes to show that a sequel is never as good as the original (Empire Strikes Back excepted, obviously). *Cough* You were saying something about talk pages being forums? Sædon^talk 07:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to say something about Talk:Mizar system? If yes, what are you trying to say? —Kusma (t·c) 08:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RM backlog escape

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – closed now, but still plenty of stuff in the backlog. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The editors on 2007–2012 global financial crisis have an RM that is stuck in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog limbo for almost a week. The page is kind of a high profile one so some favoritism seems in order. I'm posting this request here following a referal from the teahouse. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a form I can fill to get this thing going? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just trying to get some attention here. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd recommend posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, if you haven't done so already. Patience, Grasshopper.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because, a) It's an RM, not some general discussion and is already in the proper backlog, and b) There is only one poster in Requests for closure, suggesting it is effectively deserted. Do you have any other ideas? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 02:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh, getting more exposure wouldn't hurt. Maybe drop a line at WP:AN/I as well. Not within the scope of the board, yes, but at least it'll have a chance of being seen (even if only to be turned away officially there). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is not important enough for me to get disruptive. The teahouse sent me here and for now I'll stay. While we are on the topic of getting admin attention, did you ever consider the fact that the first hit on a google search of bureaucracy is a Wikipedia page? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 02:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

W/e, not too worried about it. Just another system to learn the ins, outs, shortcuts, and hidden passages of. Ain't that life.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The following is addressed only at the 1,465 members of the admin class: What is wrong with you people? This is a clear consensus routine RM execution on a high profile page. You don't even bother to look? You sure seem to enjoy executing your powers in other cases, why not this one? No chance of block implies no fun? As an economist this is quite clear to me, without incentives there is no reason to expect effort. As a humen being I can't help but be somewhat disappointed and find the loops you guys jump through to protect your lifetime appointments quite tasteless. And please don't answer me. I am not here looking to make conversation. Just get the job done! →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 05:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Be patient, mon - this has been here but a day. Someone will get to it when they get to it, and even though there is a pretty chart, anyone actually closing the discussion would still need to look at the actual comments and read through the thing themselves. This takes time, and that there is a backlog of these requests in general is evidence of that, but they do get done. Meantime why not go poke some other backlog youself? -— Isarra ༆ 06:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• And being abusive to people (who are all volunteers) is really not an effective way of asking them to help you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I went ahead and closed the discussion. Have spent a week trying to avoid doing so (who needs grief and, for Yaniv256, a 'slow to close discussion' usually implies that admins are trying to avoid grief) but somebody's gotta do it. --regentspark (comment) 13:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative. Action was needed. I am just curious about one thing, is there any particular reason why you considered participating in the debate inappropriate? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, action was not "needed". Last time I checked there was a queue of over 200 RM's waiting to be closed. Articles can still be edited whether they have the consensus-based title or not, so an RM is not an urgent action. Nobody's RM is any more important than anyone else's RM. Because there's no time limit on editing or renaming articles, patience is indeed a virtue. Using up your "get out of jail free" card on an RM was a waste dangerouspanda 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that what I used? I was positive I put my "get into jail free" card on the table, but have been known to err in such matters. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a pretty dumb way to draw attention to the very non-urgent RM...you did almost get blocked for that, and rightly so. dangerouspanda 19:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In my calculation if I got blocked that would only be good for me as it would clear my mind from the obsession to try and change that which seems wrong and mutable, but carries no private benefits for the reformer. Is that line of thinking truly alien to you? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 19:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your own block in order to draw attention to a non-urgent RM situation was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which you can note often carries an indefinite block dangerouspanda 19:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, in my calculation even an indef block has possible downside only for Wikipedia. I, personally, have much to gain from such a "sanction". It will be a prize I have not yet earned, but a prize nonetheless. If I ever switch sides and claim that it is good for me to be here, please call the doctor because I havn't been taking my meds. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to be here, the solution is quite simple: go away. There's no requirement that you edit Wikipedia. In the meantime, stop fucking around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lets start from the basics. Please read the following with long long pauses, in the voice of your father, if he loved you, or your mother, if she did. What, in your view, is the proper notion of duty? Does it mean anything at all? Where are your duties? Would it be common for a duty to be pleasant and win one many friends? Does one often stand to gain personally from fulfilling his duties? Who defines your duties? What would happen if you disregard your duty? And finally, since it is likely that people like Hitler and Stalin operated under a strong sense of duty, how do you make sure that you are not making similar errors when carrying out your duty? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 05:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Enough, please. Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for 24-hour block of User:Yaniv256

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Yaniv256 has been canvasing here and here for what he claims is a move consensus in his pet RM. His efforts largely ignored, he has turned to an escalating pattern of disruptive talk page posting, here, here, here, here, here, here and especially here, here, here, here. Given this user past incidents, here and here, I believe a 24-hour block would allow him to cool down and due process to take its natural course. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 06:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocks applied solely for the purpose of cooling down a disgruntled editor are not permitted, as they tend to exacerbate situations rather than diffusing them. But given the circumstances, I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to entertain your request, notwithstanding the obligatory "WTF". Kurtis (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but is this you, Yaniv256, asking for a block on yourself? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Either he's made a monumental newbie booby or he should be looking to do more content work. Close this - I can't see anything for more admins to waste their time on here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Something's not right with the editor alright ... their behaviour here was bizarre, and definitely not policy-based dangerouspanda 09:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I ask this as a rhetorical question — is that link even necessary? Their behaviour here was bizarre, and definitely not policy-based. Kurtis (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rhetorical or not, providing additional proof (or as we like to call "references" on articles) is never a bad thing dangerouspanda 11:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hence my use of the term "rhetorical"; the reference you've provided gave broader context into this user's behaviour patterns, despite the fact that their posting here was enough to convince anybody that something about this editor is off. Maybe I should have phrased it differently, as I had no intention of debasing your contributions to this section. Kurtis (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Could the account have been compromised? Maybe we should do him the favour and block for more than 24 hours. De728631 (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be compromised - I've asked the editor on their talk page to explain what's going on. GiantSnowman 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, I was posting the very same thing on their talk page at the exact same time, which is why the subsection I added came less than a minute after yours. Kurtis (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No harm done! GiantSnowman 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I requested a block of myself, but I don't see how this is relevant. The fact is that my actions were disruptive. In fact, this very post is disruptive, if only by disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Why don't you guys follow proper procedure and execute whatever sanctions you deem fit? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 15:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv, I must ask you, is this intended as some sort of public spectacle to attract attention? I ask this because — and I'm not pulling any punches here — this whole situation is batshit strange. Kurtis (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe it can all be summed up with this edit. Calmer Waters 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC) link fix Calmer Waters 15:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Calmer Waters - that's the diff for the original post. What are we meant to be seeing that's new / enlightening? GiantSnowman 15:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

fixed. Had the copied the wrong indexing. Thank GS Calmer Waters 15:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - but I'm still no wiser GiantSnowman 15:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

He apparently believes that unless a block is involved, admins are not interested in taking any quick actions (ie. the RM). Sooo he presented a block option to advance our attention on this. Calmer Waters 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha. Well it ain't worked. GiantSnowman 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like Yaniv256 just got a bit snarky out of frustration - it's no big deal, and no action needed. Time to close this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Beyond My Ken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to report the following PA and BITE by User:Beyond My Ken: [1]. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not a personal attack. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DJSasso, are you saying that because you believe that if A says to B that "it is interesting to ask if B has DNA that shows the signs of recombination under a trade of earthly pleasure for monetary gain" then this is not a PA, or are you saying that because you think that until we know that B is not indeed the son of a prostitute and a client, anyone can get away with talking to him this way? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that comment. Please just proceed doing good things and show there is no problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq, would you be surprised to learn that I believe that asking the community to inform BMK that he is expected to apologize, is a good thing, mostly for BMK, but also for Wikipedia? You and I know how easy it is to apologize when learn you hurt someone. BMK needs to learn that too. All I ask is that you do not stand in his way. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, you need to be informed that BMK did not make a personal attack against you. --Rschen7754 01:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you really think that then he was able to administer an insult right over your head. Intelligent people tend to use that trick to get away with talking dirty, and derive quite a bit of fun from it. I do not know BMK, but his user page suggests that he is very intelligent and a guy I would probably like quite a bit, if he bothered to be nice to me. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Three other editors have now agreed that there was no personal attack. This sounds like a case of WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 01:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I yield. Case closed. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 02:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2007–2012 global financial crisis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone needs to come down to Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis and User talk:RegentsPark before references to wp:admin and wp:own are going to fly around. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 19:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the form of the title was had at Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis; User:RegentsPark closed it, more or less properly. However, advocates of a new title don't accept it and continue to agitate, both on Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis and User talk:RegentsPark. They can cite a number of statements in the popular press which refer to the "financial crisis of 2008." User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have kept my post here rather vague, exactly because this crisis, spanning some 11 sections up to now, over at least two talk pages and two admin noticeboards, has a simple solution that does not require any understanding in economic affairs, only Wikipedia policy. I could bring hard evidence to the table, but choose not to do so, for now, due to my respect to the good work that RegentsPark and Fred carry out on a day to day basis. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 19:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, I encourage you to bring hard evidence for any fault you see with my close and my good faith reopening of the move discussion here. I'm not a big fan of insinuations and much prefer to see any faults of mine aired rather than letting them remain hidden, particularly when I don't see them myself. --regentspark (comment) 19:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RegentsPark, any evidence I had regarding you is already documented on your talk page. I have no further evidence to bring to your case. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken. There is that detail that has brought my post here. In my view, due to wp:coi RegentsPark should not have asked us all to repeat our arguments for his benefit. This demand has been excessive and led to a waste of editor energy that would be otherwise directed at improving articles. But further, as we have already complied with that demand, a move seems in order, and it is not clear to me why he would want to delay. Fred had already posted in other sections, and had ample opportunity to bring evidence to that RM review. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, and I do hope I will have nothing to add after this, there is that issue with wp:retain. That policy was specifically written to deal with English variety title disputes. It favors the Status Que on the assumption that the name dispute has no real significance for Wikipedia. As I understand, RM closers in the past have chosen to stretch that policy to all name disputes. I had a pretty long discussion about this issue at talk:Requested moves, suggesting that it is rather in consensus that wp:retain can and should be used when the possible improvement in the name seems minor, but not when it may have non-trivial implications, either for Wikipedia or the outside world.

If we want to only count the amount of disruption this prolonged dispute has caused, I believe that one can easily see that wp:retain does not, and should not hold in such cases. Bottom line: even if RegentsPark is right and there was no consensus on that 10-2 RM, still there is no policy basis to conclude that the Status Que is the outcome favored by Wikipedia policy, and one would have to suggest why, the hell, would we want to favor the Status Que in such a case. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To get to a the central point... RegentsPark closed a RM discussion with a "no consensus" when 10 out of 12 users favored a move and 10 out of 12 supported an alternative title. Obviously these discussions are not based on consensus not votes, but an admin needs a really strong reason to ignore such a one-sided breakdown in supports/oppositions. Several of us don't accept RegentPark's rationale on this and another admin should review this.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add one more thing after reviewing the talk page for this article. RegentsPark based his decision on the article title on his own rationale that we should cover all possible years that might be associated with the crisis. No one else made this argument. This was his own point of view, and he imposed it over the consensus.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Like Bkwillm, I was pretty stunned when, what looked to me like a straight-forward !vote of 10-2 was apparently ignored. But I'd like to say the even though User:Yaniv256 is clearly a very knowledgable editor with his heart in the right place, he is a bit of a newbie and somewhat excitable (but don't worry, he'll get over it). I've discussed this with RegentsPark, and what I think happened is that he just missed it. A fastball right down the middle of the plate, and somehow he called a ball, high and outside. I suppose everybody misses a few, but he kindly agreed to review the close of the RM and ask editors for clarification of their positions. I now sympathize greatly with RP. When asked for clarification, they (or we), though we almost all agree that the current title is way out-of-bound, quibble about trivia. Most of us seem to know the economic terminology, but can't expect every admin too. On the other hand ... (joke about economists). I'd let RP finish this up. We've put him in a difficult position, so maybe he could ask some other admins for help.

If I may digress, one of my favorite funny phrases in Russian is used where we might use "The umpire needs glasses" and very roughly translates to "turn the ref into soap." Hillarious, but almost certainly a bad idea. It really doesn't help anything to turn the ref into soap, and the next ref is likely to be worse.

All the best, 20:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) back to sign my name, after a quick trip to the soap plant. Smallbones (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with Smallbones, every minute of delay has a cost in terms of editor time and effort. If some of that can be saved, I can not see why we should not attempt to do so. The minute RegentsPark realizes that he was out of line, this would all be over. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, you have out done me in bad taste, and that is no small compliment. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough. The case has been open for nearly four hours with no action on the part of RegentsPark or even a defense of his case. Not to mention Fred, who continues to discuss irrelevant issues on the wrong section while we all await his word in the RM review. If such disruption was caused by new editors they would have been blocked, not only reverted. There must be a limit to how much prejudgment the system applies. The time to act is now. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 23:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Five. Great time for that long needed wikibreak by RegentsPark. Speaking of Five, why don't we all pass the time by forming a circle around the Pillars while RegentsParks uses them for a nap? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Six. Just like the number of Conduct policies on that infobox that hungs at wp:own. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry. I had to take my kids to the park (nice day here) and then drive upstate. Apologies if I have been remiss but I don't really get paid for all this. As far as I'm concerned, I reopened a move discussion to see whether I've misunderstood things and that doesn't really need a defending. Frankly, I consider your remarks here and those of bkwilmn above and on my talk page in bad taste and rather disruptive. Apologies again, but that's what I think. --regentspark (comment) 01:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, this is the second time you've pestered the noticeboards with the attitude: You must do what I want right now. The first time was here, after which you pointedly tried to get yourself blocked. I'm not sure what you're here for these days, but improving the encyclopedia no longer seems to be high on your list of priorities, since your name keeps appearing here and on AN in regard to trivialities. I suggest that someone of your intelligence ought to put it to better use, by returning to editing mathematics articles, or articles in other subjects that interest you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And you still count all of that as my disruption. Wow, I did not know how wrong accounting can be. And coming from a trained economist that is not a small feat. By the way, Seven, like the number of lights in the Menorah (this is a cross reference to that other AN/I debate I have been using to pass the time). →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Eight. Run out of smart-ass remarks. Need to do a better job at being a jerk for next time.→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, your repeated comments here are disruptive. Stop. Somebody with knowledge in the area will get to it - your repeated demands that somebody get to it now only raise the probablility level of your being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And to that open threat of disrupting Wikipedia (again) just to punish me for speaking my mind, I'll answer with a classic quote that is more than appropriate:

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

— Dirty Harry, Dirty Harry,1971

→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nine. Nothing to add. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I do need to sleep at some point and would not want to fail my duty to tell this admin board what a bad job I think they are doing. Being bold I'll adventure a guess: Eleven, smart-ass, Twelve, smart-ass, Thirteen, I had a really good one for Thirteen, but what can you do, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen. There you go. See you on the other side of the jump. Feel free to not do as I say, or do as I say, whichever meets your arbitrary fancy. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256, there's absolutely NOTHING urgent about either a move or a move review - you've been advised of that before. Nothing is currently preventing the article from being found or edited. If you disagreed with the closure, your very first step was to discuss with the closing admin. If you were unhappy with the policy-based responses you received, there's a process of Move Review. Being a bit of a nasty person towards admins because they're not acting as quickly as you mistakenly believe needs to be done is disruptive, and unwelcome on a community-based project. As the old saying goes: you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. dangerouspanda 10:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He outright stated his refusal to use move review. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that no admin feels that it is their duty to address this case in a timely manner. The continuation of this pattern will leave me no choice but to appeal to ArbCom. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 15:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have listed a move review request: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 August 19.--Bkwillwm (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Twenty-four: Hey, you! Hive mind of the eusocial, communist, Wikipedia cult. You plan to wear me down, and probably will, but before that happens I have a song for you. This day will be mine as soon as when you read my song you will have no choice but to hum:

(Note:Copyvio song quote removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 19:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang

• Given the above disruptive behavior, which was requested to be stopped, then warned about, then final warninged, which drew this response; which also extended to posting copyvio song lyrics which were removed and warned about, said warning bringing a blanket declaration of bad faith by all admins and then reposting the same copyvio song lyrics on ANI and making comments such as this that are openly labled "insults", while also bearing in mind his two previous trips to AN/I [2] [3], it's clear that, regardless of the validity or not of the original complaint (which I am not assessing or prejudicing one way or the other with this action) Yaniv256 has decided he's here for the drama and is not here to be constructive. Accordingly I have blocked Yaniv256 for 31 hours. Any other admin can freely extend, reduce, or undo the block if they believe Yaniv256 can contribute constructively or is, alternatively, wholly WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support the block; I warned him as well, and I agree that Yaniv256 at this point is more focused on the drama than being constructive. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• When I saw the RM thing and the request to have himself blocked, I assumed it was a one-off frustration. But it's looking increasingly like he's only here for trolling/admin-baiting. I think a 31 hour block was lenient, though I think it's reasonable to give him that chance to prove us wrong - but I can see an indef not being far away if he carries on like this afterwards. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv256 has asked for his comments on his talk page to be copied here....

"The Bushranger is hiding that the true cause of the block was my last edit, which falls, as many of my edits and rants, squarely within Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines. This is not an appeal of my block as I, personally, am quite fine with it. It is you, the reader, who should contemplate if you are fine with it, and if this might not be a good time to act before that answer that is currently in your reach blows away.→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC

"Just to make sure that I am well understood. Unless someone reverts this block, I will have to recognize that what I have done was indeed disruptive, and will never, ever edit again. That will be my choice. You have a choice too. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)"

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As should be clear, the edit he mentions had precisely zero to do with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It seemed clear enough to me, yes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yani obviously fell into disruptive behavior, but I doubt he is trolling. He was participating in a rather boring discussion on how to date the financial crisis. This discussion was cordial and Yani made fruitful contributions. After the discussion closed, he had a civil and reasoned discussion with RegentsPark (User_talk:RegentsPark#RM_close_review). I doubt a troll would through all this just hoping an admin would stick to a controversial decision so that he could rant about it. I think Yani simply grew impatient with the Wikipedia process for resolving this dispute.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but did you check the links to the previous AN/I discussions he's been involved in? This isn't the first time he's done this sort of thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page

Welcome!

Hello, Yaniv256, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ruud 23:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Mizar system

Hi. I made a few minor formatting changes, but otherwise the article looks great. Thank you! —Ruud 23:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv, this could interest you. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The land of Talk

Hi Yaniv: I read your poetic expression of what Talk pages might aspire to in your piece The land of Talk. I hoped it would demonstrate a new form for discussion, one where some actual imagination might take place. The language seemed likely to provoke real reflection, because its meaning revealed itself quite differently from the usual infertile legalistic court-trial kind of language found on AN/I and described by WP documentation outlined in my essay WP:Editing environment. However, it seems that your effort got archived without understanding. I was sorry to see that. Brews ohare (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians have a wide variety of cultural backgrounds, so it generally not a good idea to expect them to be able to grasp your comments if you're trying to be anything but as concrete as possible. To be honest, I'm not really certain what he was trying to say there, but I doubt it belonged on the administrator's noticeboard. There's enough posted there already to also deal with "abstract thought-provoking poetry". Perhaps try the village pump for that, although in my experience such poems are rarely appreciated by anyone but their author.

Yaniv, you might want to familiarize yourself with the community's talk page etiquette, in particular: talk pages are not formal argumentation systems and it generally frowned upon if an editor acts as both a participant and a as moderator in the same discussion. You seem to be a very decent article writer, but your behaviour on talk pages—for whatever reasons you have to behave in such a way—is only annoying your colleagues. —Ruud 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right, of course, I'll try. With that in mind allow me another worn out koan as a reply. How do we know what a thing is? Yaniv256 (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages have a function when the participants actually want to sort out what an article should say and how it should be presented. But those goals are too boring for many, so Talk pages are diverted to more entertaining purposes. One might hope poetry could make Talk-page utility an engaging subject, but it seems not? Brews ohare (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mizar system external links

I strongly agree with the suggestion that you ask about Mizar system external links at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, which is the right place to ask about making structural changes to many math articles, and include your pro/con tabulation. You might ask whether a template for the external links, or perhaps a modification to some infobox, would be most appropriate, and see if someone can help you create such a template or modification. Then, if people there agree that the links would be helpful, you can ask on WP:BOTREQ for help automating those additions. Good luck and welcome! I really liked your Pearsons-vs-regression R^2 answer on the Math Desk. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, but given that no support for the idea has shown up I am afraid that for me, "that is that". Yaniv256 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Global Financial Crisis close

Yaniv256, as much as I would like to help, it really isn't appropriate for me to close another RM on this article since I closed the original one. See RM closing instructions conflicts of interest --Mike Cline (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it would be more appropriate to call you because you were familiar with the case. Could you refer me to another admin? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Y256. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

ANI

Are you requesting a block of yourself? GiantSnowman 10:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your post here certainly has generated quite a bit of confusion amongst several bystanders, myself included. Would you care to provide a more cohesive explanation as to why exactly you're requesting a 24-hr block on this account? Kurtis (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Are you OK? Hope all is well and you can return to normal editing in due time. Don't be too hard on yourself, we all have bad days. If you feel you need a break from Wikipedia, log off for a while, find something else to do to relax, maybe go for a nice walk. For what it's worth, nothing you said was really all that block-worthy (except maybe the AN/I post itself, ironically enough). But don't sweat it, all right? =) Kurtis (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Y256. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Y256. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Y256. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by hajatvrc @ 04:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Rubens Vase

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I closed your nomination, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The "Rubens Vase", as "Not promoted". We welcome your contributions to featured picture candidates and I encourage you to nominate more images. Before you do so, you may want to review the featured picture criteria. If you're unsure if a picture meets the criteria, feel free to add the image to picture peer review where experienced users will comment on it. Thanks. I hope to see you at FPC again. Dusty777 16:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

About PC for sockpuppet

Hey, Yaniv, sorry if this is a bit too bold, but I've moved the question you posted on the Teahouse questions page to the Teahouse talk page, as it's more of a comment for the Teahouse hosts than a question per se. Wikipedia talk:Teahouse is a place where we do a lot of meta-discussion (Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge is another), so it fits there pretty well, actually. Most of us have that page watchlisted, I believe, so I don't think it'll lose much visibility. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you for correcting it! →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice that I removed your new move request

Too pointy, wouldn't help anything. Correct me and revert if I'm wrong! Smallbones (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, and just a bit too quick to repond, but I will leave you to revert yourself, as it might be considerd disruptive of me to start a new RM so soon after my last one failed to result in action. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I assure you I will be quick to withdraw anything that seems to have lost hope of mustering a consensus. So you will always be able to block this name by simply insisting that it is a bad idea. But please take the time to consider it. We must be able to find something that Fred will accept, if we are to ever to see any action on this. He is the curator of this article, and does a very good job at it too, so for the benefit of the article there can be no consensus that leaves him on the out. And we were wrong not to see these facts before. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/20120623 Sqwiki the Squirrel at Wiknic.JPG

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/20120623 Sqwiki the Squirrel at Wiknic.JPG. I have replied.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Talk:2007–2012_global_financial_crisis#RM_on_hold Smallbones (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Please stop your disruptive comments at WP:ANI. You are not being "threat[ened]...for speaking [your] mind", you are being informed that your comments are uncivil (and also advised to read WP:FREESPEECH). Your concerns will be addressed if an when an admin who is familiar with the topic and/or who is available can get to them. Until then please remember that there is no deadline on Wikipedia and that the conduct of everyone involved in an AN/I discussion is scrutinized. Please allow things to happen naturally, with paitence and good faith, as continued disruption will result in blocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not intend to stop until this matter is closed. Please feel free to request my block, as that is the only way to silence me. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 05:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note also that I've removed your unattributed copy of copyrighted lyrics from the Teahouse talk page. Please read our non-free content policy. Even if you had specified the source of the lyrics, we wouldn't allow them in such a discussion space. Franamax (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Bob didn't expect you to do otherwise and that is pretty much what he was trying to say in that song. I'd like to make a bold prediction. No one has the balls to block me over posting one message per hour. At some point they might turn to the revdel. But if using the revdel to silence critique of admins is not tool misuse I really don't see what will be. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 06:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So you freely admit you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that I am being quite helpful. I just don't seem to have as much respect for dis-functional authority as all of you guys. But, nonetheless, I acknowledge your right to disagree. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 14:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not being helpful. At all. It's nothing to do with silencing critique, and the martyrdom complex is really unhelpful. Spamming AN/I with hourly updates rudely demanding that people respond to you immediately is disruptive, you've been asked to stop, and if you persist, you'll be blocked. It's really as simple as that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing, failure or refusal to "get the point", and the reinsertion of copyrighted song lyrics after the warning above. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger is hiding that the true cause of the block was my last edit, which falls, as many of my edits and rants, squarely within Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines. This is not an appeal of my block as I, personally, am quite fine with it. It is you, the reader, who should contemplate if you are fine with it, and if this might not be a good time to act before that answer that is currently in your reach blows away.→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure that I am well understood, that edit had precisely zero to do with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure that I am well understood. Unless someone reverts this block, I will have to recognize that what I have done was indeed disruptive, and will never, ever edit again. That will be my choice. You have a choice too. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 21:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If you gentelman would be so kind, I'd like to have my two statements above be posted on AN/I as my official response. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 22:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Being denounced by your allies must serve as a wake-up call to any man. I acknowledge the error of trying to get admins to provide some attention to the financial crisis RM case using troll-like behavior and would like to pronounce a commitment not to go down that road again. I further, recuse myself from any further dealing with the financial crisis RM case. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 05:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please post the above to AN/I on my behalf. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 05:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally decline to make this copy for you. You are blocked from editing. There is no ongoing sanction discussion against you at AN/I which requires your comments to be copied over in your defense. You have indicated above that you don't intend to appeal the block. Ergo, you should not be editing until the block has expired. If you rethink and wish to appeal the block, you can do it here on your talk page as outlined in the notice box above. Franamax (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand. Unfortunately, my personal belief system prevents me from making such an appeal, and my personal interest requires that I ask the block to be extended, not cut short. At any rate, thank you, Franamax, for posting here your reason and not just ignoring my request.→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 05:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand what Franamax is saying, but in making a commitment to not repeat the problematic behaviour, Yaniv256 is suggesting a solution that I think should satisfy us - even if not following the "correct" procedure. I think a good practical outcome should always beat following the "letter of the law", so I'm going to IAR on this one and copy the above comment to where the block is being discussed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Aargh, and having said that, I see that ANI section has now been closed. I'd be very reluctant to reopen it, so instead of copying over the above comments, I'll notify the blocking admin of it and will ask if they would be happy to now unblock you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• With the agreement of the blocking admin, I have released your block early. But please be aware that a return to the same kind of behaviour that got you blocked is very likely to lead to a longer block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I will probably keep from editing for some time now, but still, it is nice to know that I can. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 10:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

References

I must say, Bushranger‎, that I am curious to know if that reference you made in reverting my Five Pillars edit was cynical, and if so by how much. I have never heard of this show, but reading the Wikipedia page I feel that I have been missing out on quite a bit of joy. That guy sounds way cooler than I ever hope to be. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 22:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not cynical at all - I try to sprinkle a little bit of levity in edit summaries and such, and that popped into my mind. Firefly is one of the greatest shows ever (and so, of course, it got cancelled...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Being appreciated does tend to take the wind out of my sail, which is rather helpful in a storm. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 22:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Noconsensus title

Template:Noconsensus title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Policy and guideline pages

You need to slow down, with your edits to policy and guideline pages. Your change to WP:AT is out of order for several reasons.

1. I am assuming good faith, that you do not know that the page is under an Arbcom restriction (see the top of Wikipedia talk:Article titles).
2. I am assuming good faith, and you do not realise that changes to policy or guidelines should be discussed on their talk pages, not on some other forum (we were discussing things on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves not on Wikipedia talk:Article titles.
3. Contrary to you opinion the policy page does not have to be aware of the guidelines the guidelines have to be aware of policy, sometimes it is useful for a guideline to enhance and explain policy and so a link is appropriate but "A link is needed so that the readers of this policy may be able to know that this page and that one both cover similar issues" is incorrect as is the rest of the comment which should be placed on the talk page of the policy (see point 2).
4. It is considered bad form to make changes to policy and guidelines while discussions are continuing. You need to slow down and listen to others and not make changes without a consensus

From the edit history of you user account, and the fact you have not declared that you have edited under other user names, I assume that you are new to Wikpedia. I suggest that until you are more familiar with how Wikipedia processes work, that you debate your points of view on the talk page, but wait until there is a clear consensus before making changes, as it a a fine line between being seen as enthusiastic and disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I've already been advised that by SmokyJoe on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, and accepted his advice. Yet another good faith mistake on my part. Honestly, given that this is the way things work, I don't quite understand why you guys allow editing on these pages. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 17:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this comment "... And please try to avoid oneliners and over linking policy to experienced editors, as both are commonly seen as rude ..." [4], because according to your users edit history you have only been editing since 03:32 on 21 July 2012, or just over a month, and most editors would not consider an editor of one months experience to be an experienced editor. Have you edited under another user account or a long time using IP addresses? -- PBS (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, but the learning curve has got me past wp:notdemocracy, as BJ should be well aware of. I have been editing quite intensely in the month I was here, and find myself rather experienced at this point, at least enough for people to stop treating me in a disrespectful manner. Or in the words of Bob Dylan, "How many roads must a man walk down; Before you call him a man?". See my public record posted above for more information. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 17:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Also see paragraph before last in [5]. →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 18:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your name

Hi, although you changed your username from "Yaniv256" to "Y256", your signature still says "Yaniv256"? Did you forget to change your signature in "Preferences"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! →Y256 ^wind _roads 11:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Y256. You have new messages at Talk:Financial crisis of 2007–2008.
Message added 19:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

One share, one vote listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect One share, one vote. Since you had some involvement with the One share, one vote redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!