User talk:Yendor1152

Welcome!

Hello, Yendor1152, 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:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Richard 01:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, stop messing with the Waterville, Maine article like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waterville%2C_Maine&diff=139100340&oldid=139069782

I am in Waterville. I know that there is a CVS almost UNDER the street on JFK. Nobody knows that without being there. Even satellite photos don't show that it is almost under JFK due to loss of depth perception with satellite pictures. I know the big white Ames sign is still on the building and that it is not boarded up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spevw (talk • contribs)

I don't mind you slamming Waterville as long as it is true and is documented. I think some of what you write is true but other stuff is just opinion. Spevw 00:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Waterville, Maine. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. --Richard 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Waterville, Maine, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Richard 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Richard 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my Talk Page in response to the above warnings[edit]

You wrote:

Until you're an actual administrator and have REAL power, I see no reason to follow your dictates.

Yendor, since you are a new Wikipedian and have not been properly welcomed until today, it is understandable that you do not understand how Wikipedia's policies are enforced. Any Wikipedian, whether they are admins or not, has the right to place warnings on other people's Talk Pages in the way that I have.

In a limited sense, you are right. At this time, I myself cannot block you for violating Wikipedia's policies but an admin can and will. The warnings posted above are the first step in the Wikipedia process for enforcing the policies.

In general, we do not block users who were not aware that they were violating policies. The warning templates are intended to be used to provide users a warning that they are violating policies and thus an opportunity to avoid future violations. Once a user has been warned, they may be blocked for future violations.

You have now been warned. Future violations may be reported to the admin noticeboard for an appropriate response. One possible response is that an admin may decide that the best way to prevent further violations is to block you from further editing. You may appeal the admin's decision to block you if you feel that you have not violated Wikipedia's policies. I invite you to read the policies that are mentioned above and determine for yourself whether or not you have violated them.

--Richard 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your message on my Talk Page there. Please sign your messages with ~~~~. The WikiMedia software will insert your username and a timestamp. Thanks.

--Richard 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterville suggestion[edit]

If you want to write about how bad Waterville is, you can do it the right way. Think NYC drug dealers are coming in? Surely, the crime rate must be increasing? If so, cite that. If it is possible to cite the number of NYC people arrested, that is documentation.

Think that more people are on welfare? Is there proof? A new satellite welfare office open? Did the mayor say something in the newspaper that you can quote?

Do you have a picture of thriving downtown? How about a picture of the deserted Ames, the one near the Dollar General store. A picture is worth a thousand words. Want to write how Wal Mart sucked the life out of downtown? How about a picture of the crowded Wal Mart parking lot and the deserted downtown?

There is a better way to write. You don't have to sugar coat it. Just write the facts. Pretend that you are a guy from Minot, ND or some other place coming to write an unbiased review. Then do it! Spevw 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "Dollar General Store," it's a "Family Dollar." And I don't believe for one minute that Wal*Mart sucked the life out of downtown Waterville. I was a business owner long before Wal* Mart even thought of coming here, and the downtown was on life support then. It hasn't been "thriving" since the 1960's. For one, it lost a number of anchor stores--Levine's, Butlers, Sterns, Dunhams, Alvina and Delias, Laverdieres--stores that had been in business for literally decades. Many of these (in fact, all but one) went out before Wal* Mart came to Waterville. Yet, all I've heard from the downtown "Business Association" is that Wal* Mart has hurt business on Main Street. That's just a crock.

I see no reason why I have to cite the Concourse sculpture or the abandoned Ames building, etc. Those are "landmarks" as much as the footbridge, and I don't see that cited.

The trouble is, people are coming to this entry and changing things, removing what they "don't like," and all the while, they wouldn't know Waterville, Maine if they stumbled over it. That, to me, is the height of hypocricy.

Yendor

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor1152 (talk • contribs)

Yendor, in theory, everything in Wikipedia should be sourced to a verifiable, reliable source. In practice, the vast majority of assertions are not sourced. Only those assertions which are challenged must be sourced. I'm willing to believe that Waterville is a welfare town. Unfortunately, the way that you have expressed this is unencyclopedic. I really don't need to explain this to you. I'm sure you are aware that the style of writing that you used was very informal and highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

The points that you make about Waterville's economic decline are encyclopedic if you can source them to a reliable source (newspaper story, magazine article or an official document from the local, state or federal government). Just find a way to make these points in an encyclopedic way.

As for the "landmarks", it really depends on the definition of "landmark". Your definition is not in keeping with the standard concept of a landmark and that is why I removed those entries.

--Richard 03:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of the information that you mentioned above. I am not in favor of sugar coating the article. In fact, it's a shame that downtown looks so awful. I didn't know that so many stores closed besides the Ames. Spevw 00:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not be trying to "sugar coat" the truth. That was never my intent. However, the truth will be more readily accepted if it is presented in a neutral and objective manner. If it sounds like stuff you'd hear in a bar, then it doesn't belong here. If it can be backed up by reliable sources, we can insert it here.

--Richard 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I tried to be polite but...[edit]

With regards to your POV/unencyclopedic comments you've repeatedly added without explanation:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Chiller (TV channel), you will be blocked from editing. --Squiggleslash 13:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one vandalizing my entries. Please stop. If you continue, you will be blocked from further editing.

I was trying to be polite when I previously removed your vandalism, giving you the benefit of the doubt in terms of how I worded my summary. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be banned. --Squiggleslash 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Waterville, Maine, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Rod Labbe"[edit]

A page you created, Rod Labbe, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reeves[edit]

We need published references to support information we put in articles. We're is that interview you made. Is it a reliable source?

Please help[edit]

Dear Yendor1152, could you please check the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robby_Robinson_(bodybuilder) and help to achieve fairness in materials put on article about Robby Robinson? I would like to hear your opinion if you also support that within a couple of days an article about a famous bodybuilding legend turned out into an article about a ... I do not even have words. All the previous contributions were deleted, not only those from me, and new ones are presented so misleading that people who know Mr Robinson and his life and achievements will never believe this is an article about him. Thak you. RRWM (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I just saw this! I will go to the page and do as you ask!

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steve Reeves may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Reeves wrote the book ''Powerwalking'' (1982) and two self-published books.{{citation needed|date=December 2013}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Avicennasis. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Labbe without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ^Avic _ennasis @ 20:09, 29 Tevet 5777 / 20:09, 27 January 2017 (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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]