Jump to content

User talk:Yamla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question

Hey, I'd like to thank you on the block you recently did. This user sent me encyclopedic messages and insults when I told him his article is not wikipedia worthy.

Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 16:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J1477

Hi, could I request that talk page access be revoked following the recent wall of text [1] from this user following their recent block appeal being declined. The wall of text includes accusations that I am racist and that I have harrassed the user, both of which are untrue. It seems to me to be highly inappropriate for a blocked user to use their talkpage to make such allegations. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Yamla (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Yamla for your swift action here, I appreciate it.
Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot sock

As seen here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerome_Koelpin; this guy is not pulling just our legs, it's the entire body!), they returned here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Prince_Deckow_Sr.).

Just delivered me a message (while logged off, i have ZERO problems admitting it because whether i edit with account or without one my behaviour is always THE SAME) here after adding THREE sources to the Luismi (footballer, born 1992) article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:85.245.74.117). What a lowlife!!!

Attentively, continue the good work RevampedEditor (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PP

Hey Yamla, following the talk page posts, it’s come to my attention there have been posts about me on a Menendez subreddit the past few days (example), who seem to think my removal of SYNTH/uncited stuff is insidious.

The same user also made a request for users of this subreddit to begin editing the article: "I've got all the edits and citations ready to go—just need a hand getting them in there".

A user with the same username (Kimiashn) posted another lengthly argument on the talk page citing primary source hours long CourtTV videos, turning it into a forum to vent.

Perhaps a 30/500 PP would help to cool this down for a month or so. No worries if it’s best to wait.

Zenomonoz (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zenomonoz,
I wanted to jump in and address a few things regarding your recent edits and the tone of the conversation.
First off, I’ve added timestamps to the CourtTV videos you mentioned to help clarify key points, but I’d recommend that anyone involved in editing this article actually watches the whole first trial and reads the transcripts of the second. It’s super easy to misinterpret things when you’re just pulling snippets from a testimony rather than listening to both direct and cross-examinations.
I’m relatively new to Wikipedia but I’m not new to the facts surrounding this case. Some of your recent edits which I have discussed on the talk page, seem to lack proper citations and misrepresent trial events. It’s concerning given the complexity of the legal proceedings and the defamatory impact this article may have on living people.
One more thing that raises concern for me is that the article leaves out key defense evidence and the few times it does include it, it skips over important details. Take the naked photographs of the boys—it mentions those but ignores that the envelope had Kitty Menendez’s handwriting on it, suggesting she was the one who kept them. This was mentioned briefly before you edited the article.
I'm not sure why you're suggesting that my comments on the subreddit or the talk page are somehow problematic. I just want to make sure the information in the article is based on court testimony and not just the media narrative of the 90s.
It's better if we focus on factual accuracy rather than trying to silence others. Kimiashn (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This message is about the potential for edit warring and meat puppetry you’re encouraging off wiki.
The end of the sentence about photographs was removed because it was not in the WP:RS cited.
The trial was extremely long (half a year?). Plenty of parts in the prosecution case will not be discussed either because it’s trivial and not discussed in secondary sources. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to go hunting through videos and finding bits they think are important.
Zenomonoz (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get that editing an article on such a lengthy case can be challenging. There’s barely any overlap between those who are well-versed in the trials and Wikipedia admins. That's why collaboration is important. Providing sourced information from those who know the case well isn’t meat puppetry; it’s a necessary part of improving the article’s accuracy.
I’ve got to say, I’m really concerned about the edits you’ve made. It’s not just that you’ve removed important information, but you’ve also added some pretty blatant inaccuracies that contradict what was actually proven in the trials. Remember, we’re dealing with living people here, and defamatory false information can have serious consequences.
Your point about the need for reliable sourcing is valid, but I believe that some of the details of the trial deserve careful consideration. The photographs you mentioned, for instance, are part of a broader context that should not be overlooked. Proof of Kitty Menendez’s complicity is not trivial whatsoever. If you’re looking for timestamps, it’s mentioned during closing arguments at 18:50 and during Lyle Menendez’s testimony at 1:02:50. Here’s a recent article discussing Kitty’s handwriting on the envelope: [2]https://www.ranker.com/list/facts-left-out-netflix-monsters-menendez-brothers/melissa-sartore Kimiashn (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&oldid=1253101172"