Jump to content

User talk:Yunshui/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Arash Dibazar

Why was this deleted? He is the only other student alive under Manu Tupou and is pretty well known in the San Jose Area. Here are new data that support his martial arts career http://www.graciemag.com/2012/06/a-letter-from-a-black-belt-to-sandro-batata/

HE is Sandro Batatas FIRST Black Belt 


 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.186.69 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The one source is not enough to establish notability for this person. Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for deletion are given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arash Dibazar. As Kevin says, that additional source is insufficient to attest to notability, since it's not independent of the subject. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Eponline"?

Hi Yunshui,
I was casually taking a look at Titodutta's editcounter and it seems that he has picked up a right called "eponline". Any ideas as to what that might be? Cheers, Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I hope you don't mind that I made a host profile on the Teahouse; if you dissaprove, let me know. I've responded to two questions so far.

That would be because he's an Education Project Online Ambassador (one of these). It's a minor userright that give access to a couple of additional pages in the Special: namespace and allows extra editing options on certain Education Project pages. Nothing terribly special.
I don't see any issue with your Teahouse responses (that talkpage one is an odd case...), in fact your enthusiastic tone sits rather well there. Just avoid answering anything you're not 100% sure of and you should be fine. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Problem with a Huggle user

Hi Yunshui, we don't know each other but I saw a comment you posted on Kevin12xd's talk page a few days ago. I noticed you were an administrator and wanted to get your advice or help on a matter involving Kevin. Over the past day, I have been doing a lot of work to improve Looking for Miracles, a subject I have an interest in. (I've watched the movie at least a half dozen times. ;)) I noticed that in the four years since the article was created, it's rarely been edited and really needed expanded and improved. The movie was released almost a quarter century ago, so I wasn't sure how many reliable sources I'd be able to find. Anyway, I found a few great sources and did a lot of work on the article; in particular, I worked hard to expand the Synopsis section and made some other corrections and improvements. I was really proud of the result. Well, after all that work, I noticed about an hour ago that Kevin reverted all my edits (with one edit), using Huggle, without any explanation. I was shocked and very frustrated when I saw that because my edits were obviously not vandalism. In fact, they were the antithesis of vandalism. I reverted Kevin's revert, but I did not contact him because I thought perhaps he didn't even look at what he was reverting and simply was unaware he made a mistake. This is why I'm writing you. I don't know how it is determined which editors can use Huggle or what the rules for using it are, but it's very frustrating to see that someone would make such an inappropriate revert using that tool. And if he did that to my legitimate edits, I wondered how many other editors have had the same thing done to them. I'm sure Kevin means well and had no bad intentions, but I was hoping you might be able to counsel him on his use of Huggle (or any other tools he may be using). Sorry to bother you with this, but thanks for any help you can provide. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you've restored your content already. To be honest, I can't see a good reason for Kevin's revert, unless he was objecting to your removal of redlinks (which really isn't a problem - leaving them in the text might perhaps have been preferable, but there's no rule against taking them out). Your additions were sourced and improved the article, and anyone removing them ought to have given a detailed rationale for the change. I shall have a quiet word... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yunshui, thank you so much. By the way, the reason I removed the redlinks is because one editor, three years ago, simply wikilinked every name in the article, apparently without even realizing that most of them either did not have articles or were disambiguatons. I felt that all that red overwhelmed the page, particularly because the article has relatively little content. But thanks for letting me know that I didn't violate any rules in removing them, which is something I certainly never want to do. In any case, I'm very confident that the redlinks were not the reason that Kevin reverted all of my changes. But if he did, then it's a perfect example of throwing out the the baby with the bathwater. Very little bathwater, at that. But of course it's hard to know why it happened since he left no edit comment and did not leave a message on my talk page. The only reasons I can think of are that he either simply made a mistake or he saw a series of substantial edits from an IP editor and therefore assumed they must have been vandalism. Either of those invalid reasons would likely be very frustrating to any editor who has spent a lot of time and effort trying to improve an article, especially one that has rarely been edited in all the years it's existed. Again, thank you for your help in this matter. I really appreciate it. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
We do try to remember that WP:IPs are people too... but it's an unfortunate fact that IP users also contribute the majority of vandalism on Wikipedia, so you do get occasions where, as you say, anti-vandalism patrollers see a series of IP edits and assume that vandalism is taking place. I hope the experience hasn't been too frustrating for you. Thanks for helping to improve the encyclopedia, and happy editing! Yunshui 雲‍水 14:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui

We would like to create a page for the musicgroup called DAFUQ based in Amsterdam. It's a big music project. And we think it is valid enough for a wikipedia page. Or is it possible we can get any help with this? Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafuqmusiq (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A big music project? Really? I ask because, based on the content of the page you submitted and the dearth of sources on the internet, it looks like three girls who've got together and decided it would be cool to form a band. No releases, no chart hits, no coverage in the music press - unless you can provide some evidence that this is any more than a personal pet project (i.e. proof that the group satisfies, as a bare minimum, the basic inclusion criteria set out here), then Wikipedia does not need an article about your group. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you currently taking adoptees?

If so, I may have found someone who would be a good match, User:Sneazy. I would take him on myself if I didn't already have five adoptees, but I thought you might be a good match. He posted what he would seek in adoption here, and your name immediately came to mind. I haven't told him about you to give you the chance to decline without offending him if you didn't want to, but I told him I would try to find someone. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Go Phightins. Flattered that I am that you thought of me, I think I'll have to say no - not that I'm unwilling, but I'm OAing two courses which are kicking off this week, and I'm already looking after a couple of adoptees - I'd hate to take Sneazy on and then find that I was too busy to give him the necessary help and attention. Sorry to decline, but I really don't want to offer my help and then find myself spread to thin to provide it properly. I'll update my adopter status accordingly; thanks for reminding me that I'm still listed as accepting adoptees. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 22:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
All right. Thanks for considering. Do you have any other suggestions? Worm is full, I'm full, Brambleberry just took on a new adoptee, Gwickwire's course doesn't sound like a good match, and Rcsprinter has several adoptees. That's putting me at a loss. Go Phightins! 02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I've always had a lot of respect for Swarm, who seems to have slots free at the moment; he might be worth asking. I know Ryan Vesey for a capable adopter, but like me, he's also got some WEP courses on at the moment, so he may feel that he's already at his limit. I've also been impressed with John F. Lewis recently (he was Curtaintoad's adopter), so if he's free, he might also be a good candidate.Yunshui 雲‍水 08:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
John offered. Thanks for your help. Go Phightins! 20:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback notice

Hello, Yunshui. You have new messages at Kevin12xd's talk page.
Message added 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kevin12xd (contribs) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks Yunshui. This guy has left a trail like breadcrumbs all over WP. This won't be the last lot... Appreciate you jumping on it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a mess there, actually - I took your nominations at face value and deleted the pages under G5, but of course Oldhouse2012 didn't actually create these pages - they should have been dealt with under G8... Mea culpa; I should have checked the histories properly. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't be too concerned, there are pages on 7 Feb which haven't been deleted yet... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse

I saw, about youtube that you said "This is because YouTube's content is entirely user-generated, meaning that it is considered unreliable for statements of fact." I was wondering if you could strike that since it is not factually accurate. News organizations post content, for example. Biosthmors (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Bio, and thanks for the question. Could you please explain what you mean by "strike it"? Yunshui was indeed correct in stating that Youtube is not a reliable source for citations. Cheers! Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Biosthmors. Valid point; I've changed the wording from "entirely" to "primarily" which is, as you say, more factually accurate. Kevin, "strike" in this context means strikethrough (using <s></s> tags), which is used to redact information without visibly removing it from a page. Generally, it's preferable to strike statements you've made rather than simply deleting or changing them, since it makes it easier for other editors to follow the thread of the conversation. For example, if you removed your comment above, anyone else reading this would have no idea what I was talking about in this comment - that's why, if you want to change something you've said on a talkpage, you would usually strike it through, not delete it. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Also per WP:CHEAT "strike" is explained there Kevin. By the way, does that get cited at the Teahouse much? I'm curious, because I think it's a very helpful page. Biosthmors (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi

Just wanted to say really great job on the cleanup/rewrite here. This diff really speaks volumes; you took a run-on sentence and made a clear, well-layed out article out of it. Kudos! InShaneee (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; that's very kind! Yunshui 雲‍水 10:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Seconded; that was quite the impressive edit! Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Check out the Teahouse Genie Badge, awarded for solving issues on the Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

  • And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:


Teahouse Host Badge Teahouse Host Badge
Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.

Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 01:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

First draft ready

Hey, Yunshui! The first draft of your request is ready for testing; check it out at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/userHistory.js. Let me know what you think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it is a total replacement for ale_jrb's original userhist script (most of the code is actually the same), so be sure to remove that script before trying this one out. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
That is SO AWESOME! Pretty much exactly what we need. I've tried it on a couple of pages now and it works like a dream. A whole bunch of lecturers are going to be very grateful to you - as am I. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I'm glad you like it. Just a minor point, though: you don't have to copy the entire script over to your common.js page; you can just write importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/userHistory.js");, and it'll do the hard work for you. Keeps your js pages a bit neater, and you get updates automatically. No big deal, though. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
But... all the pretty colours...
Hey, I've also realised this is going to be really handy for anti-vandal work and general admin stuff; having all a user's edits to a page in one place will make reviewing histories a hell of a lot quicker, especially on my laggy machine. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I know, the pretty colors are nice, but then you don't get the nifty new feature that I just added, which lets you hide and re-show the diff display at will after loading it the first time, through just clicking the button again. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've changed it now. Still very excited about putting this to use. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally (and this a case in point as to why you should never do anything for anybody, ever), is there a way to adjust it so that the Inspect Edit button is available in the general history, as well as the segregated one? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Aaaand that was the other thing I'd figure you would ask for. It's actually not as easy as it sounds; right now, the script catches the new lines as they're being created and adds the buttons as they go by, but with the standard history screen, we have to find them and get information out of them after the fact. Should still be possible (and not too difficult), so I'll work on it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well don't herniate yourself in the process; since you've already given me a magical flying horse it seems a bit churlish for me to complain that it isn't a unicorn. What we have now is already a hugely useful tool (and the addition of Inspect Edit to the general history wouldn't be of any use to WEP instructors, so it's extraneous to the original design brief). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it turned out to be really easy; Mediawiki turned out to have exactly the information I needed, for a change. Refreshing change of pace. The new script is at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/generalHistory.js; importScript as usual. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Sweet, got me a unicorn!
Now that's a shiny bit of scripting. I believe I may have mentioned this before, but you really do rock at this sort of thing. I promise, no further demands. At least until I think of some other useful thing I'd like... Yunshui 雲‍水 14:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Dude. That is the creepiest unicorn I've ever seen. How many people has that one impaled on his horn and devoured (and apparently used their blood as eyedrops?) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Those medieval beastiaries didn't mess about; a unicorn to them was basically a pointy horse with anger management issues... Yunshui 雲‍水 14:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Unicorns have a bit of a thing for those eyedrops --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
That explains a lot... Yunshui 雲‍水 15:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, this is really cool! I have two suggestions that might make it more useful for instructors trying to grade their students' contributions. First, a way to expand all the diffs at once, instead of having to click on "inspect" for each one. Second, add a link that would appear next to each article listed in the Students table on a course page, which links directly to the isolated contributions by that student to the article. I don't know how tough either of those would be to add, but I think between the two of them, those features would make it a tool that a lot of instructors would want to use.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Sage! Having them all click together was the original idea, but requesting that many diffs at once is an expensive server call; I've been advised that one at a time (and there's a synchronization lock to make sure one request can't start while another is running), so I'd rather not do that idea. I'll take a look at your other suggestion, but in the meantime, this might help: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/contribsHistory.js. It's the same as above, but it now works on a user's contributions. I figured three's a charm. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Awesome! The third one will certainly be useful for instructors too. I think I'll make a screencast showing how to install and use these for reviewing student contribution. Let me know if want to implement suggestion 2 or not, when you get a chance. (If so, I'll wait until then to make the screencast.)--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm gonna give it a shot. Should be done by the end of the day. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, to my surprise, the functionality needed to do this was already built into Ale jrb's script; since I based userHistory.js off of that, it's already ready to go. It's just a question of adding the right buttons to the table. Basically, the buttons need to link to this url: /w/index.php?title=(whatever the page name is)&action=history&isolate=(whatever the user's name is). Both of those values need to be URL encoded, which can be done with a substed magic word. Do you know how I'd add a button like that, or at least where to go to do it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't, but I'll ask Jeroen (the extension developer). If the necessary hooks aren't there now, we could probably add them.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Yunshui et al., UI question: I'm finding the button style I used to be a bit big and clunky. Are y'all finding the same? I'm considering changing it to a bracketed-link type deal, similar to the rollback links provided by the rollback permissions and Twinkle. Thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For regularly editors who are using these scripts as just another addition to their toolkit, yeah, the big buttons are out of place. I think they are just right, though, for instructors who are going in with the very specific purpose of looking at a whole lot of edits using one of these scripts.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense; I'll try to create an opt-in system for shrinking the UI then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, done. The scripts will appear with the normal button by default, but if you add the line inlineDiffSmallUI = true; into your common.js file (or whatever .js file you're importing the scripts into), it'll switch to a Twinkle-like [inspect diff] kind of look (and will also switch to the more jargon-y "diff" rather than "edit"; slightly more precise, but slightly more confusing to a newbie). Thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Sweet. I'll try the 'diff' version.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
New versions! I've actually made two: one extends this to the watchlist and the recentchanges page; the other is a consolidated version of all four scripts except for the original history filter one; I'd recommend removing the generalHistory and contribsHistory and replacing them with User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/commonHistory.js, as it's a bit cleaner and more standardized. The smallui thing still works, and you still need the userHistory.js script if you want the history filter. Let me know what y'all think! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
(ping) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Introduction for Theater History from 1642 (Spring '13)

Yunshui, Hello.

I am a student editor from Brooklyn College Theater History from 1642 (Spring '13). I am introducing myself as part of the initial wikipedia assignment.

Cheers, Bufoamer (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I too am introducing myself... I'm Eric Parness. Hello!

--Eparness (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


Hello Yunshui- I am here to introduce myself; My name is Emily Blumenauer and I am in Professor Hughes History class. I will most likely be needing a lot of your help managing this wikipedia process! Thank you Emily BlumenauerEmilyBlume (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am Changdae. Nice to meet you. I am also in this class. Changdae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changdaey (talk • contribs) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui! My name is Slava. I'm in Theater History class. Sorry for introducing myself a little bit late. I would like to participate in Wikipedia project. Thanks.Iaroslavny (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, and welcome aboard. I think (if I've got the time difference right) that you're probably in class as I write this, and since I'm off to bed now you won't hear from me again for a bit. However, to assuage your (especially Emily's!) fears; don't worry: editing is not that hard (as some of you have already discovered), you cannot possibly break Wikipedia, and any mistakes you might make can easily be fixed. The vast majority of this sites 18-million or so editors are nice, helpful, friendly people, and we're ready to offer you whatever assistance you might need. Enjoy your class, and happy editing! Yunshui 雲‍水 23:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sergio Michel - Sock Puppet Investigation

Just wanted to let you know that there is an error in the write up for the sock puppet investigation page for user Auggie Paoli.

My username appears under "Suspected Sockpuppets" on the above Sockpuppet Investigation page. My username is lumped in with other accounts that are "hell bent on preserving the page" when in reality I was the one that inserted the speedy deletion tag and edited the entry so it would adhere to wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines and removing irrelevant information.

It's possible that my username was lumped in because I was making edits to the page. So to reiterate, I inserted the speedy deletion tags, so I am not sure why I am listed as a user that is trying to preserve the existence of that wikipedia entry.

Cheers,

Wikibronx (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If I was in error, then I apologise. When a new account appears and uses their very first edits to repeatedly add speedy deletion tags to an already disputed article, it tends to sound a number of alarm bells. Firstly, CSD is a relatively arcane area of Wikipedia, and new editors don't usually know about it - it's not unheard of for an editor's earliest contributions to be speedy deletion tags, but it's exceedingly rare. Secondly, prior to your tagging a number of single-purpose accounts had protested the deletion of earlier versions of the page - for you to show up very shortly after I had informed Lilly4613 that I was not deleting the article looks rather suspicious; given the drama already surrounding the page, it was not inconceivable that Lilly4613/AuggiePaoli/Sergio Michel had created a new account with which to propose their chosen article for deletion, in order to continue the argument and further escalate the article's notoriety. This is not an unheard of occurrence, especially with Wikipedia subjects seeking to boost their online profile.
Once again, if I am mistaken and you are not working in concert with Michel of his fanbase, then I wholeheartedly apologise. The investigation has cleared you of sockpuppetry, so you have no cause for further concern on this front. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible advertising

Going through the new user list and I came across User:THE_SHOW_MAKERS. The content on the user page seems to suggest that this account is only going to be used for promotional purposes. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to second this, ask for a db-blahblahwhateverthecodeis SD of it and a stern warning :) gwickwiretalkedits 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned this on the help desk to try to lighten Yunshui's load a bit. ;) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Update: an admin just deleted the account. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Nowt for me to do here, then; thanks, IP guy. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui, an editor redlinked an actor's name, Michael Wiseman, in Vegas (TV series) yesterday. After researching the actor's background, I felt the red link was totally appropriate. However, another editor removed the red link a few minutes later.[1] I added it back citing WP:REDLINK and, in particular, WP:REDDEAL, which says "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article". This actor currently not only has a significant role on this major TV program, which is not in dispute, I discovered that he has also acted in 65 other TV shows, per this great source I found. Therefore, it is clearly "plausible" that he could sustain an article. In fact, I think it is probable. Also, the red link for this actor currently links to five other articles.[2] So I added back the red link and gave a full edit summary pointing out these facts. The editor who first removed it did not add it back after reading my edit summary, which made me happy. However, another editor, Rusted_AutoParts ignored the edit summary and policy, and removed the red link two times; his only reason is that the red link is "unsightly",[3] which I explained is certainly not a valid reason and, most importantly, is contrary to the policy. I have not added the red link back because I do not want to get in an edit war over this. If my thinking is wrong on this matter, please let me know. But if not, can you please help to get that red link restored? Thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope Yunshui hasn't retired! :P --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Not retired, just not often around at weekends... Whilst I agree with your position regarding the above issue, I think the simplest solution would be to just knock together an article and bluelink the guy. Sourcing's a pain, due to the multiple other Michael Wisemans out there, but I reckon I can throw up a stub later on today, based on what I've found so far. Give me a few hours and I'll get it sorted. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Here you go: Michael Wiseman. Link it up, and feel free to expand it as you see fit. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow. You are an amazing administrator. I honestly can't believe you took the time to do that in order to resolve this matter. I'm very impressed and appreciative. Thank you so much, Yunshui. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Update: I've expanded the Wiseman article. :) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

hi

Does an edit like this require a revision delete? --LemonTwinkle 10:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I reckon that counts as "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has no encyclopedic or project value". I've deleted the revisions, and blocked the user for good measure - possibly a little heavy-handed, but no-one making that sort of edit is likely to be here for any constructive purpose. Thanks for waving the flag. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
For future reference, is there an official page where I can request revision deletes? --LemonTwinkle 10:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A decision was taken fairly early on not to have a central page for such requests (it would serve to publicise the offending edits). Most admins will consider it if asked, and there's a specific list of Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests you can choose from. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The best South Park episode

You recently speedily deleted The best South Park episode under criterion R3, but that criterion is explicitly for "Recently created redirects...". The best South Park episode redirect was created in March 2011, which is not recent by any reasonable interpretation (it is usually taken to mean younger than a couple of weeks).

Given that the redirect was tagged for G11, for which it was eligible (although I personally wouldn't have deleted it under that criterion doing so is well within judgement) your choice of such an obviously incorrect rationale is baffling. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops - yes, good point. I guess I assumed that such a blatantly inappropriate redirect must have been a recent creation, so didn't check the history as I usually would. If you want me to reinstate it and re-delete under G11 instead (I felt that was a bit of a stretch, myself), I'm happy to do so; just say the word. Otherwise, I'm happy to IAR and leave it be if you are. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary - I'm content to just leave it be, but thanks for the offer. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for your consideration, and for pointing out the error. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yoga pronunciation issue

Hi! I've replied to your post [here]. Kindly address! Thanks a ton! --therash09 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

re: Speedy deletion of Jonas Samuelle

Hi Yunshui! I notice that you have deleted Jonas Samuelle for violating A7. I agree that the article in its previous form needed to be more thorough but I believe that Jonas Samuelle meets the notability requirements. His books have been reviewed on at least a few reliable web sites. Vasily Kafanov, a famous artist who has worked with The Smashing Pumpkins, did the illustration on his first book. I would like an opportunity to improve the article. Would you be willing to provisionally restore it for me? Jikbag (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but your idea of what constitutes a reliable website is in considerable conflict with Wikipedia's (none of the links you've provided meet the reliable source guideline). Even if they were reliable sources, they would be insufficient to attest to Samuelle's suitability for inclusion - notability is not inherited, so coverage of his book does not equate to coverage of him (nor does a loose association with a moderately famous artist), and a first-person interview is self-evidently not an independent source. However, I'm willing to assume that you may have other sources that would suffice to meet the inclusion guidelines, so I'll restore the page to your userspace; you can find it at User:Jikbag/Jonas Samuelle. Please don't return it to mainspace until you have a bare minimum of two reliable (i.e. not blogs), independent (i.e. not interviews) sources that discuss Sammuelle (separately from his book) in some depth. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the help! Jikbag (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay about Vandalism

I really appreciated your advice in the essay. I already knew a lot of the ideas and am using them daily. What I really am confused about though, is how to report vandalism to Cluebot NG as I often see False positive? Report it Thanks Cluebot in the reason for your edit entry. I have tried but the Report it part ends up being highlighted in red and I don't think I've actually reported an example. I hope you can reply soon I now have you on my watchlist. Thanks again. Jodosma (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jodosma. I'm glad the information was helpful. You don't actually report vandalism to ClueBot; it's an automated script that detects vandalism and reverts it - you can think of ClueBot as a very single-minded fellow editor whose only interest is antivandalism (or, if you're more technically minded, see here). You can report false positives - instances where ClueBot has made a mistake and reverted a genuine edit - to the page User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives, but there's no need to report vandalism to the bot. It finds plenty of that by itself (I seem to recall seeing a statistic somewhere that claimed ClueBot dealt with about 70% of all the vandalism on Wikipedia!). Yunshui 雲‍水 08:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Request

Hello Yunshui, if you can remember some months back you declined my auto patrolled request because I didn't have references to many articles which I created. Now, I have improved and added references to most of the articles which I have created til now. However, there are also few articles which I don't have references since it's very hard to find for those because they are films which are released in the past (before 1990) and for those there are no sources to be found. Many of the articles I have created til now have yet not been marked as reviewed/auto patrolled. Since I create(d) many articles and also that many articles which are yet to be reviewed so I believe that auto reviewer is the best option for me to solve the article problems. I hope you will consider my request. If you believe that I will misuse the right, then you can anytime revoke that. Thanks Torreslfchero (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Torreslfchero. I do appreciate your addition of further sources to some of your older articles. However, I'm sorry to say that I'm not willing to grant the autopatrolled right based on your current creations. Having reviewed some of your more recent work, it seems that you are basically creating short articles from a template, with very little content beyond cast lists and a few basic facts; there really isn't enough to establish your understanding of content policies based on those I've looked at. In addition, those sources I've seen are weak, to say the least: IMDb and GoMolo, both of which you frequently use, are definitely not reliable sources, and I'm less than certain about the merits of sites like BollywoodHungama and Planet Bollywood, though those at least look as though they might be acceptable. Furthemore, if you can't find sources for a film then you shouldn't be writing an article on it at all, since it clearly wouldn't meet the inclusion guidelines.
If you want to post a new request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled then I will not dissuade you, and I'll leave it for another admin to deal with so you can at least get a second opinion. This is no reflection on your other editorial capabilities (I note that you're an excellent anti-vandalism patroller, and your CSD log is exemplary), but I can't see sufficient evidence to suppport granting autopatrolled at this time. Don't sweat it - autopatrolled doesn't really have any benefits for those who have it, it's really a tool for the page patrollers. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I will take that in mind. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Draw your attention to Ani

You were previously invovled with this editor I believe I have uncovered another sock of this user which we didn't catch before and upon return from block he started recreating articles previously deleted via afd. [[4]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Already spotted it (his talkpage is on my watchlist, so I saw the SPI notification you posted there). I'll swing by and take a look in a few minutes if no-one else gets there first. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Recreated and tagged again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of BriefCam

Hi Yunshui, You have deleted the page BriefCam. I would respectfully request that you restore this page for the following reasons: 1. Many, many other comparable companies in this industry have Wikipedia entries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Commercial_computer_vision_systems 2. The BriefCam company employs a technology that is exclusive to it. Other companies do not have such technologies, yet they are listed. 3. The entry was non-promotional and non-marketing in nature, and followed the examples of other companies. Any help or guidelines that you can offer so that the page will meet Wikipedia standards will be gratefully accepted. Sincerely, Rachelneim (Rachelneim (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)).

The main problem with the page was that it contained no suggestion that the company is notable. You will need to add references to significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources in order for the page to be accepted. I've recreated it and moved it to your userspace so that you can continue to work on it; the new page location is User:Rachelneim/BriefCam. I'll add a userdraft template to the top of the page which contains a link to submit the page to Articles for Creation; once you've added appropriate sources, you can use this to request a review and get the article moved to mainspace. As an addendum, the existence and content of other articles has no bearing on the BriefCam page (it's a common enough argument that we even have a specific guideline advising editors not to use it when contesting deletion; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Yunshui 雲‍水 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yunshui. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 13:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Question on policy

Hey Yunshui, I posted a question over on User:JohnCD's talk page here: User talk:JohnCD#Question on Policy. I see you're currently involved having deleted some of the material in question and given the user a warning. If you would, could you chime in with an answer? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied on John's talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgotten Password

Hi Yunshui,
Sorry to bug you, but I may have forgotten the password for my account, Kevin12xd. I can provide you with the hash key on my Userpage if you need it. Any ideas as to what I could do? Cheers, 174.114.129.113 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh Kevin... Not a problem, just go to Special:PasswordReset, enter your username or email address, and you'll be emailed a new password. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Yunshui; success! Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia

Hey Yunshui, I left a comment of the talk page for Autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia saying that work was in progress to upgrade the stub. You left a comment to (add course assignment template). Do you want me to add a link to the Neurobio class page so people can see what we're doing? Egreaga (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Egreaga. There's no real need to add a link to the course itself - the template is there to alert editors to the fact that the article may see some major editing by students, so that they aren't surprised when a hitherto-hardly touched article suddenly sees a massive influx of edits by new editors (which can often be a sign that something's very wrong). It doesn't really matter which course is involved.
Incidentally, if you want me to check your proposed changes for Wikipedia-compliance (I don't know much about neurobiology, but I'm pretty au fait with what can and can't go into an article), I'm very happy to look over them in a sandbox before you add them to the page. Just write up your proposed alterations/additions at User:Egreaga/sandbox and ask me to take a look. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:PrimalHawaii

Hi Yunshui. I am writing to you after reading these comments[5] posted by User:PrimalHawaii on the talk page of Henry E. Emerson, a retired U.S. Army three-star general. Although I certainly understand his passion and anger - and I'll explain why in a moment - I feel that his continued inappropriate editing and behavior needs to be addressed by someone with your high level of experience and professionalism. Please allow me to give you a brief summary of this situation and what brought him to Wikipedia a few days ago, so that it will put things into context for you.

In January and early February, two editors started adding content to the article about Emerson's alleged death and and date of birth. This was the edit that started it. Then, this edit and several others followed. As I will explain, this was a huge case of mistaken identity that were based on terrible, unreliable sources.

On February 11, PrimalHawaii came to Wikpedia and identified himself as a personal family friend of Emerson named Rev. Joed Miller, such as he did in this post at the help desk. He removed the death content and started posting long, angry messages directly into the article, claiming that Emerson is alive and that the sources were for a different Emerson. He was absolutely right. The sources were horrendous and contained absolutely no evidence that they were about the same Emerson. Although the way Primal/Joed was handling the matter was highly inappropriate, several editors inexplicably kept adding back the unreliably-sourced death and birth content, and started issuing warnings to the editor. While I agree the warnings were warranted, the editors were completely ignoring that the fact that the sources about Emerson's alleged death were bogus. The editors focused solely on Primal's bad behavior, but ignored the glaring content problem.

Finally, after seeing Primal's help desk post, I and a few other editors came to the article to see what was going on. We immediately started to resolve the matter and get the erroneous death and date of birth content removed from the article. A few of us apologized to Primal for the errors that were made by the other editors, but also explained to him the proper way of expressing his concerns. I posted these comments on the article's talk page to express my feelings on the matter. Since then, a small group of editors have been working to improve the article. However, instead of being thankful to the editors who have helped him, Primal is continuing his inappropriate rage, even at them, as in his most recent comments[6], which I pointed out at the start of this message.

I have no idea what to say to Primal to get him to stop his inappropriate editing, and that's why I'm turning to you for help. My hunch is that a very experienced, respected editor and administrator like yourself should reply to his most recent outburst and set him straight on how editing this encylopedia works. And why lashing out, especially at those who have done nothing but help him, is inappropriate. I hope you can help. He apparently believes that every editor is bad and, most importantly, totally misunderstands the rules of appropriate behavior and adding content to the encylopedia. I couldn't think of a better person to deal with this situation than you. Sorry to bother you with this Yunshui, but thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Judging from his most recent comment Primal appears to have calmed down somewhat - now that he's finally getting some more considered help, his frustration seems to be lessening. I've left him a message offering my assistance as well, and apologising for the difficulties he's had; I suspect the inappropriate editing will cease of its own accord as he realises that there are other editors willing to lend a hand. Thanks for bringing it up; it's always regrettable when new editors who have genuinely positive contributions to make are stamped on and scared off. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You're a good guy. I really appreciate your calm, reasoned professionalism. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello Yunshui, if you have time, I was wondering if you could adopt me via Adopt-a-user. (I'm a newbie to wikipedia) Leafboy222 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been a bit wary of taking on new adoptees due to the number I already have, but since a couple of my present flock look to have gone AWOL, I reckon what the hell: consider yourself adopted. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

reply to your kind message

Aloha- Thank you for your kind reply and offer of assistence. Yes it was quite a strange few days with being threatened, called names and having my private email address hit by well over a 100 emails first requesting that I give out the Generals personal email and home address by someone claiming to be a reporter but whom i wasable to track down as a person who was making accusations against the Generals character on another blog site but who apparently is also a Wikiperdian. I was not very kind to the person when they approached me with the vague reprter thing and refused to grant them their request then Boom i was just immediately attacked in Wikipedia. And it was for items that if you could get my very 1st postings you would see that I did reference them as well as sign them but they were all cut up and deleted in piece then rebuilt and put together into what appeared were one message but in reality were chunks of multiple postings put to gether and sent in as one. It was bizarre and I did not take kindly to tht sort of childlike behaviour so I openly told the people involved by replying to the messages they sent me which once again were obvious setups to get me to reply on the mainpage by simply replyingto them. I had NO clue what they were up to until much later when they started saying I was posting on the mainpage but that was "only " after Canoe 1967 stepped up and told them to stop. I do have alot of information worth sharing from my life but will be very wary of using Wikipedia to do so. It may appear that I have learned how to use Wikipedia but truthfully memorizing legal precednts are much easier than trying to figure out the ways of wiki. You see when a new person steps in to make a change they are not knowledgable in the many rules an regulations and all the people who are in some contest to become "historian ofthe Year". To me by offering rewards you are truly creating a "comflict of interests", far moreso than by trying to ban friends and family of people being bio'd in Wiki. I have found out that when ever there is a carrot at the end of the rope that people will become very territorial to the point of actually thinking that by winning such an award will somehow justify their lives. Myself I just wanted to post the truth, the General will be dead soon enough. I know the kind of pain being listed as dead can be as my Godmother here in Hawaii was listed as dead on the front page of the newspaper once and it caused her many problems for the last few years of her life. These people in here were playing a game in trying to twist and turn things to make it appear that I came here and atacked them when in fact I was simply making a correction and they were the aggressors and I truly thought they were bots due to the fact that in my mind only a computer would refuse to accept a fact not a real person ! Again thank you and I can Not promise that I will make no more mistakes I just hope that they are met with a bot of empathy for being an old fart who doesn't know these things. My friends and I (including everyone involved) have watched this grow and watched as these people simply lied, changed things and refused to even LOOK at the Generals personal Military Biography which in itself alone made every single corrrection that the page needed within the first paragraph yet these people "flat out refused to look at it.." instead placing all their efforts into trying to manipulate facts to make me look as badly as they do. Have a wonderful day. 

          Best regards,
                      Rev. Joed  99.197.80.106 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

Good call.  An optimist on the run! 09:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. I feel rather guilty for not doing it several days ago, to be honest. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
From what I've seen even when you don't completely agree with my particular view of what should happen you are thoughtful about your admin actions and your responses are very measured. I think these are the marks of a good admin. Keep up your good work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Hell. When an editor I respect leaves a message like that I know I must be doing something right (plus it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside, although that might just be the remnants of last night's champagne...). Yunshui 雲‍水 09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!
— Lgfcd (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:

I understand. But I was under the impression that blatant 3RR violations resulted in blocks or warnings, even if one is right and has sources. And in this case the sources are wrong and the user is only editing there to harass me. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that Lukeno94 has stepped in whilst I was offline and removed the offending content - I disagree with the decision (see my comments at the AFD discussion), but although we don't see eye-to-eye on the content I sympathise completely with the harrassment; even if the IP editors is making (what I believe to be) correct additions, doing so aggressively to provoke an edit war with an editor he's previously been in dispute with is deeply inappropriate. You find yourself in a difficult position here, harassment from a user with access to such a wide range of disposable IPs is difficult to deal with. I'm giving some though to the best option for proceeding, but no clear solution immediately presents itself. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
After some thought, I've concluded that I simply don't know enough to be able to come up with a constructive solution. I've asked Dennis Brown to take a look, since he's someone I trust to know the ins-and-outs of such situations well enough to give good advice. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. And I should say that while we still do not agree on the content, I express my warm gratitude for your time and effort in this matter. Personally I don't care all that much about the article in question: if my AfD doesn't go the way I voted, Wikipedia won't be any worse off as long as the non-deleted article points out the facts as found in Japanese dictionaries, as well as the opinions of western writers. What really bothered me was that the user in question followed me there and reverted me, and his/her activities over the past few weeks have been limited to this, and while he/she can check all of my user contributions, the constantly shifting IP numbers have prevented me from adequately defending myself. Thank you again, and good editing! elvenscout742 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
(By the way, completely unrelated, but I hope I have not given the impression that I am anything but a squealing fanboy for Lafcadio Hearn. My being an Irishman in Japan, who loves old Japanese tales, should be enough, but check the revision histories of the articles Lafcadio Hearn, Kaidan and Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things if you need further evidence of my "good faith" in this matter. :P elvenscout742 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC) )

Peer Review

Hi Yunshui. Mind giving some input at this peer review? Thank you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown 卐 Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but can't promise a considered response for a few days. (In the interim, you might want to reconsider your current sig display - I know it's a Buddhist symbol, but swastikas are likely to cause some consternation among other editors). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
And I know too. (By the way its also a legitimate Chinese word and a Hindu symbol too) Alright then. Heck, why is everyone so fussed up over swastikas? They embody peace, not Holocaust or anything-Nazi. And I very much believe Hitler's variant was slanted. But anyways, okay. ☯ Bonkers The Clown 卐 Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
And thanks for taking a look. Now, how's this for a change. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Just my two cents, being German...it is all a matter of context; the use of the swastika by the Nazis was perverted, and so was their use of Richard Wagners music, and that is what we are stuck with; I know it is a symbol of peace, but still seeing it gives me a jolt everytime. So thank you for taking it out of your signature. Lectonar (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
b(^_^)d
Totally agree with you on all the above, Bonkers - trouble is that swastikas, despite a gradual rehabilitation in the last couple of decades, still scream "Nazi!" to a lot of people, whether slanted or not. My concern is that having one in your signature might lead other editors to make (entirely false) assumptions about you, which could be detrimental to you having a comfortable editing experience here. Now if we could only reclaim the toothbrush moustache... Yunshui 雲‍水 14:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, another thing Hitler has perverted. (Chaplin looks far better with it.) fascism is so against my faith. Thanks much for the advice. Something partially related (or not): I had no idea Albert Einstein was an actor? best, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui/Archive_16&oldid=1143403979"