User talk:YMVD

Hi YMVD! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Longhair\^talk 21:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent edit of Credit score in the United States § Ranges, you removed a citation after I had flagged it with {{Verification failed}}. In this situation, there was a claim, a source, and an observation that the source was no good. If you're going to remove the bad source, then you need to either remove the claim (e.g. if you believe the claim cannot be supported) or find a good source. You might instead leave the claim in and add a {{citation needed}} tag, though this is not really making any progress.

On another note, the paragraph listing numerous credit scoring models, without any structure, strikes me as going well past the "excessive detail" mark. I am not sure who is responsible for having created or inserted it, but it is just miserable, IMO. Fabrickator (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I put my preceding comment on your talk page as a way to avoid cluttering Talk:Credit score in the United States with something that seemed to be just about your personal misunderstanding of the proper way of dealing with the {{Verification failed}} tag. Absent good reason, this discussion ought to continue here on your talk page. Towards that end, I am moving the comments you posted on my talk page to immediately follow. Fabrickator (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ranges" is great. Excessive detail ?. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Very good information on "Ranges". "Ranges" is a credit score data source in some finance data websites, and in at least a credit union site. "Ranges" data detail is not miserable. I appreciate your job.YMVD (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've chosen not to respond to the issue about your handling of the {{Verification failed}} tag, I will set aside the issue of the appropriateness of the issues with the excessive "ranges" details. You could resolve the present issue by just reverting your own edit. (BTW, exactly what is the "job" of mine you are referring to?) Fabrickator (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to have to remind you but the lead section is just a summary, so it is not the place to introduce "new" claims; further, all claims must be reliably cited in the article body. If you have more such changes, it might be helpful to propose them on the article's talk page so we agree on the way ahead. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted the "citation needed" tag which you added to the lead of Race and intelligence because there is an existing consensus that the lead of that article does in fact accurately summarize the article body, and per MOS:LEAD additional citations are not required in such a case. I see that you've just now re-added the same tag, albeit in a different part of the lead. The question of whether to include citations in the lead of this article has been discussed several times already, and no one has been able to convince the community that they are necessary (see e.g. here and here). If you'd like to make your case for why we should overturn the existing consensus regarding citations in the lead, feel free to start a new thread on the article's talk page. But continuing to add unnecessary tags after you've been made aware of all this could be considered a form of disruptive editing. See in particular the section that discusses "disruptive cite-tagging". Thanks in advance for your understanding, Generalrelative (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit where you added an image of Raúl Castro to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: C was purely disruptive, as I'm sure you know. As the first paragraph of the lead states, Famous people who are simply suspected or rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed. And I'm not aware of any reliable sources alleging that he was anything other than straight, given his long and apparently passionate marriage to fellow revolutionary leader Vilma Espín. If you have access to any such sources, please bring them up at Talk:Raúl Castro for consideration. Otherwise, it is obviously inappropriate to add him to this list.

I would really prefer to avoid bringing your behavior to one of the drama boards, but if you continue to edit disruptively in this way I may find myself forced to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of prima ballerinas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carolyn Carlson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

FYI: this edit was not a correction. It's simply misleading. Please see the prevailing consensus on the matter. And this is WP:PROFRINGE. Please take greater care when editing within this topic area. Generalrelative (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative is not an admin, so they cannot block you. I am. Do you want me to block you? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on with you. After posting a flagrantly racist comment on my user talk page, and then asking to be indefinitely blocked only a few days ago, you're now edit warring over the opening sentence of a highly watched article.[1][2] Is this an experiment to see what you can get away with? Generalrelative (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A large proportion of your edits also seem to be changing numbers and dates without providing a source or explaining how existing sources have been misquoted. This is also against policy. See e.g. WP:PROVEIT. Generalrelative (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]