Jump to content

User talk:Yunshui/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Just wanted request that you revert the deletion of the text on the student's sandbox whom you suspected copyright violation. Instead, if you could give the student some guidance on what they could do instead to overcome the problem you discovered in the article, that would be very useful. Also, remember that long policy pages are hard to decipher, especially for new editors, so if you could explain to them what they could do in plain language that would be very appreciated. THANK YOU!!! LeshedInstructor (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Already done; I restored the page yesterday as soon as I established that the copyright violation went the other way. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You !!

谢谢 / Xièxiè / Thank You , for the help !! ← Abstruce 02:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, although I confess I'm not actually sure what I've helped you with... Yunshui 雲‍水 07:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It says: "18:51, 30 September 2013 Yunshui (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Abstruce (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace)" Xièxiè !! ← Abstruce 14:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh - well then, I'm glad I could help. Admins like U1 deletions: they're almost never controversial and sometimes you even get nice thank you messages! Yunshui 雲‍水 23:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The barnstar of humour

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I pray you aren't studying to be a dentist - you won't knock out many patients with antiseptic.. in the Adoption School.

I never get tired of your sense of humor Yun. I never do. As for those students being mentioned on your talk page on the 30th how did that go? Is that still an 'open' case? I'd like to chip in if I can. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 15:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MM. No sign of any further edits from any of the students I identified - I like to think that they had a word with their professor off-wiki and he quietly shelved the Wikipedia project until he had time to look into it properly. Hopefully they'll come back better prepared. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the students are still working away - there were a few DYK nominations on 1 October but none seemed to meet the criteria. Hope all is well, Yunshui? I'm glad to see you back! SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Different set of students... Yunshui 雲‍水 19:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, that's what I get for not looking past the end of my nose....... SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Condores al wil ir ananase?

Jimbo Wales se bernard ir d'hore Michael naire arach arma. top lel, Arachka (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea. Communicate in English on the English version of Wikipedia, please. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

MelanieCS126

Hi. You blocked User:MelanieCS126 for abuse of multiple accounts, but that's not what I'm seeing. The way it looks to me is that she created and used User:Themediaslate, was blocked for WP:ISU, and asked to create a more appropriate username, which she asked for openly on that talk page (although misusing the template). She then attempted to create the account, and it was directed to ACT. The account was created by ACT. I see no abuse of multiple accounts here, though she may need guidance with regard to her contribs. Did we (at ACT) miss something? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alan. I based that on a message sent to UTRS, but on reflection it looks as though you're right; it does appear that there's no abuse of multiple accounts going on here. Unconventional way of going about renaming an account, but not improper. Mea culpa. I'll unblock her new account straight away. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Acid Rap". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

  • Hey, sorry to drag you into this. I just added your name to the pile since I know you tried to talk to Ben0kto. It's less that you were as involved as everyone else was, but more just to show that people have tried to talk to him about his editing and the various guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Cheers TG. Personally I don't think this is content issue anymore, and I've left a note to that effect at the DRN. WP:RCU would be a better venue, although I suspect Ben0kto's going to find himself on the end of an indef before very long whether an RCU gets filed or not. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

UTRS unblock request

Hi! There's an unblock request in UTRS for a user you blocked this morning, User:Rehmanakbarali. There wasn't a reason in the block log, but the template you put on his user talk was for sockpuppetry. Can you tell me who the sockmaster account is, or any other details that would help me explain/review/deny/whatever his request? Thanks! —Darkwind (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Check the deleted contribs against those of User:Chimranbhatti. Looks like the same fellow to me. I'm assuming Chimranbhatti is the sock and Rehmanakbarali is the master. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! —Darkwind (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

thanks got the feedback will write out the whole page and submitt as I think it is notable in its link to an Art Festival called Afrikaburn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naum Nurgle (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Yunshui. You have new messages at AMASQ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello! I would like to contest deleting the essential magic conference page.

This is a page to inform and educate people about magic and one of it's major events in history. It will contain valuable sources to attest its content.

Best regards,

Ana Queiroz --AMASQ (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has specific guidelines regarding what can and cannot be included in the encyclopedia. Foremost among these is that all entries must be "notable"; that is to say, they must have received substantial, in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable sources which are independent of the topic under discussion. In the case of the article you created, no sources were provided to evidence this - another fundamental Wikipedia policy states that all information on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources.
If you are able to provide sources which demonstrate the requisite degrees of in-depth coverage, reliability, and independence, then I will be happy to reinstate the page. Unless you can show the existence of such sources, however, this looks to me remarkably like an attempt to promote the conference by increasing its web presence, and that is emphatically not the purpose of Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The page was still being put together at the time it was deleted. The Conference is actually over, 2012 was it's last year and I have no intention to promote it for profit. In order to attest it's historical value here is the link for the article published by the renowned Magic Magazine http://www.scribd.com/doc/172444244/THE-ESSENTIAL-MAGIC-CONFERENCE Please kindly undo this delete. --AMASQ (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the provision of the above source I have reinstated the page; I've also trimmed the promotional language and added the Magic Magazine article as a reference. The page is still unliklely to survive in article mainspace (more references are needed); if you would like me to move it to a sandbox so that you can work on it please let me know. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The article in question, published by a respectful and well established independent magazine (as MAGIC magazine is) was kindly send out to attest to the importance of EMC in the most explicit and detailed way. Having no place for The Essential Magic Conference in Wikipedia is in a parallel sphere regarding Magic History equal to say Woodstock has no place in Wikipedia regarding Music History. The purpose of all of this is to include an important piece of Magic History into Wikipedia and contributing to it's inner core pedagogical purpose of all knowledge being available for everyone and everyone helping to built Wikipedia. There was not enough time to complete the article. It was quickly deleted once it was created. Hopefully it will be possible to complete and improve it, as well as having removed this deletion banner. The EMC was a groundbreaking event in Magic History and the 3 years it took place it was supported and had the participation of all great minds and artists of the magic world. The purpose of creating this Wikipedia page is only to share it's historical importance with everyone.

Please move this page to a sandbox so I can carefully improve it. Thank you. --AMASQ (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Done; it's now at User:AMASQ /Essential Magic Conference. You can work on it there without fear of interruption; let me know when you think it's ready and I'll be happy to review it for you. Alternatively, you can add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft, which will submit it for review at Articles for Creation. I'll aslo post a link to the sandbox on your userpage, so that you can access it easily. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! I have been working on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_de_Matos_(magician) page. Adding information that supports it's content. It is still a work in progress. But, do you belive it possible now to take out that banner that reads among other things "needs additional citations for verification"... Thank you so much.

AMASQ (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy

Hi there. I understand you're taking students for the CVUA project? I may be interested in this, as I'm finding I've done that quite a bit already and I'd like to learn a little on how to do so more effectively.Justin.Parallax (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Justin. I'm afraid I'm not expecting to be around much in the immediate future - I've just started a new job, and it's eating up most of my time. Much as I hate to disappoint, you might be better off asking someone else. Best of luck with the vandal-whacking, though! Yunshui 雲‍水 18:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati:: Forgive Us

Kind Attention Sir; The following lines are addressed to you by Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati: The subject of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati I know him personally and passing on the communication by him for you in a verbatim manner.

Respected Sir: First of all i beg you to forgive us. Great people must ignore trivial things. Our horizon is too small to understand your wisdom Sir. Media has not written that much about my work but they have written a lot about me. But believe me sir, please go through my hard works. I really worked very hard to invent these variants. Yes i took help of my father in 6 players circular chess but 12 players circular chess and 60 players circular chess are my independent creations. They can be played and we are playing well at our home, club, school. 6 Players and 12 players circular chess is also enjoyed a lot. Yes to be very honest 60 players circular chess is very difficult to implement playing. 60 players circular chess is placed in a club. Yes my works and games need some time to reach masses but people around me has enjoyed a lot sir. Even some people are approaching us to launch the games but my father is strictly against commercialization. Respected Sir: I require your blessings. I cant afford more curse in my life. Last but not the least: Please forgive us. Touch Your Feet Sir: Please give me blessings and forgive us. For me what matters the most is that please forgive us and bless me. Whether Sir: You write me a fool or Child prodigy: We will respect your Wisdom. Yes we also got hurt some times due to Wikipedia editors but that is a by gone issue for us. Regards. 122.161.230.64 (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WeedMan69

Weed, man. 99.247.124.168 (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

RfC at Talk:Rahul Gandhi#Caste?

Dear Yunshui, I respectfully invite You to kindly comment at Talk:Rahul_Gandhi#Caste?. The other Editor involved in discussion is frequently changing views (instead of giving the last word). You may want to have a look at [1] before posting comments. 谢谢 / Xièxiè / Thank You !! Sincerely, ← Abstruce 12:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This post is in regards to the Recently deleted article "The Religion Of Common Sense."

My Article was moved for deletion under "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". 

However My article was about a New Religious Doctrine which would be considered a Creative Works and Is considered Acceptable and is Protected under the exact same article "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)" by, and I quote...

"This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works" This quote is taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#A7 .

The deleted article IS considered to be A creative work Since It is a Doctrine for a new Religion and is Protected under the article that was used to delete my article, "The Religion Of Common Sense."

Please Reinstate my article. Thank you, Patrick Harold Cross II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickharoldcrossII (talk • contribs) 11:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your doctrine appeared to exist only as a Facebook page; since that constitutes web content, I deleted it under the appropriate CSD guideline. Wikipedia is not a venue through which you can promote your new religious theory. When the Religion of Common Sense has received substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, then Wikipedia can have an article about it. Until then, however, it stays out. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)



I understand.


Jim Thomas (sculptor)

Hi Yunshui. I've temporarily declined your CSD. I know it's a bit thin on refs, but I do believe it makes sufficient claims to importance - which disqualify A7. There's also a note on the tp by a very established editor who revived the article. I realise also that you could also have deleted the article yourself. I'm inclined to keep it and give the author time to find more substantial refs. What do you think we should do with it? Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine; I actually wanted a second opinion on this one (hence posting a tag rather than deleting outright). I had a very cursory look for references (the popularity of the name makes this a bit more of a chore than it should be) and tagged the page when I couldn't find anything much, however it's quite possible that they're out there. I'm happy to give Alansohn time to make improvements. Thanks for taking a look. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. I've let him know what we're doing. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for reaching out. As I had indicated, the reason I had created the article was because the content had been inserted into an existing article for another person named Jim Thomas. The article needs work, but does make a credible claim of notability, one that I agree excludes an A7. Even though I have no emotional attachment to the article, my name is attached to it and I will try to add sources to address the issues. Alansohn (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Got a couple of possible sources now: [2], [3] and [4] (last two are paysites). make of those what you will. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the research finds. Alansohn (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

CVUA

Hi Yunshui, I saw that you have several CSD test questions/pages on your adoption programme. Mind if I use some of your pages for my CVUA Tasks page? Thanks. JianhuiMobile talk 14:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Help yourself; it originated from the CVUA anyway. Can't recall who did the original, Theopolisme, perhaps? Yunshui 雲‍水 00:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WWW (Jaejoong album)

Hi! Before deleting, you could actually check his article: Jaejoong. He is pretty notable. The album is notable, too. I recreated the article with references. Kind regards, Teemeah 편지 (letter) 18:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, whoops - I searched for the guy listed as the composer (Jung Jae-yeob) and figured when he didn't turn up that it was just another two-bit outfit trying to make a name for themselves on Wikipedia. The new page looks a great deal better, so if finding the page deleted inspired you to do that, I'm still kind of glad I did it... Thanks for spotting my mistake and recreating the page. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to create it anyway, I was just a bit shocked that it was deemed not notable. :)) Probably the content was erronous, I have no idea who Jung Jae-yeob is and he is certainly not in the credits list of this album. So probably it was wong info, anyway. Cheers Teemeah 편지 (letter) 19:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a track listing, pretty much; no links or information of any kind to suggest notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I tried creating the pages "Bryce Williams (American)" and "Appreciate What I'm Doing" however they were deleted due to a lack of "significance or importance". How can I appropriately indicate its significance or importance so it won't be speedy deleted next time. Please let me know as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Williams (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content guidelines require that any topic written about be notable. In wiki-parlance, "notable" means "written about significantly in a number of independent, reliably-published sources." In order to demonstrate the notability of a topic, therefore, you would need to include references to such sources. The important things to bear in mind when selecting sources are:
  • They must contain significant coverage. That means, at a minimum, a paragraph or two of prose devoted to the subject. An entry in a list is not significant coverage, neither is a passing mention in an article about something else.
  • They must be independent. Sources which are affiliated with the subject, such as their own website, press releases they have issued, or commentary by close associates, are not acceptable for the purposes of demonstrating notability.
  • They must be reliable. They must have some form of editorial oversight, and have been published through a recognised medium or publishing company. Blogs, personal websites, fanzines and so on are not considered reliable sources.
  • There must be multiple sources cited which fit the above criteria; one is not enough. The more sources, the less likely the article is to be deleted.
You should also read the guidelines for users with a conflict of interest and the guidelines on autobiographies; if you are Bryce Williams, you should not be writing about yourself anyway. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Another K-Alliance sock

We have another sock. Recreated K-Economy Research Alliance - UTM Research Alliance verbatim. -- Alexf(talk) 14:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Nuked and salted that page, and at least one alternate title. They'll get bored eventually. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going out for a few and noticed this going on. I meant to send a note to Kudpung and saw your name in another case and mistakenly sent it to you. Need more coffee. Thanks again. -- Alexf(talk) 15:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem, any time. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate What im doing speedy deletion

So if i take away the YouTube references for next time, it won't be taken down again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Williams (talk • contribs) 16:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you replace them with appropriate sources that demonstrate notability (see two threads up) then it won't be speedily deleted, no. I would caution you again about trying to write about yourself here, though: I've seen a great many people attempt it, and I've never seen it end well. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User: article

I just tried making the User:(self titled) page and it immediately tried to speedily delete it. I thought you said i cant make a article on myself but i didnt know you cant customize the User page the way you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Williams (talk • contribs) 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted - you yourself blanked the page with this edit. Because you've copy-pasted the page, the deletion notice (represented in the page code by {{db-band}}) is still present. Whilst your userpage is indeed a place to write about yourself it too is subject to certain restrictions - the text you copied there would probably be removed as a fake article. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Maron#Requested move

Hi Yunshui: Would you be able to review my consensus analysis and summary at Talk:Maron#Requested move that I prepared for easy reference and move the article if you agree?Worldedixor (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I've closed it as no consensus, since there was no clear agreement on a potential new name. To be honest, it wasn't a very well-formulated move request; pronunciation and spelling are largely divorced in English, so how a name is pronounced - in any language - has no bearing whatsoever on what spelling should be used in an article's title. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

chhathpuja.co

note - i just want to create a page to this title can you assign me, this topic ?

12:03, 1 November 2013 Yunshui (talk | contribs) deleted page Chhathpuja.co (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranimishra26 (talk • contribs)

You are not allowed to operate more than one account on Wikipedia. I have blocked the above account as a sock of User:Mishra.sujata26. Please use only your original account.
As far as recreating the page Chhathpuja.co goes, you will need to produce and cite multiple, reliable, independent source that discuss the website before an article will be accepted on Wikipedia. If you can suggest some of the sources you intend to use, I'd be happy to reconsider the deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

109.66.5.26 is the original creator and the same as artist research< check something before you undo it

109.66.5.26 is the original creator and the same as artist research who is requesting to delete this page as Wikipedia is making suggestions of 'conflict of interest' which is offending< check something before you undo it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Lens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistresearch (talk • contribs)

The original creator of the article was IP editor 68.251.102.200. Since there is no way to verify whether this IP address - or any other IP address, come to that - belongs to the same user as the account User:Artistresearch, the article cannot be deleted under G7. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello Yunshui: thanks for the barnstar for List of porridges, which is appreciated! Since you liked this article, feel free to check out the new List of mustard brands article I created today, and feel free to make improvements to it. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That is truly magnificent. I applaud you. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and again, feel free to improve it if you're so inclined. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Noodleki

Will you review the unblock request and follow-up commentary at Noodleki? The material does appear to have been pre-existing in the article, although the diff engine makes that hard to see. He re-worded the lead part of it to mesh with the material he did add. Kuru (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My bad; I clearly misread the diff. I;ve unblocked him and apologised, and removed the text from the article in question. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban

There is a level of frustration building with User:Kontoreg over excessive, pointy edits reflecting a minority view. It was suggested that a topic ban might be in order. Much too much effort is being put into maintaining the middle road. How does one go about getting consensus and implementing a topic ban.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN or (if there's an ongoing and fairly urgent issue to resolve) WP:ANI would be the best place to start. You might consider a WP:RFCU, but I should think AN would be your first port of call for such a discussion. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I have to think what the best option is. I really don't like the idea of banning anyone.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't see an obvious case for a topic ban, but I've only had a cursory glance over his recent edits. There doesn't seem to have been much discussion with the user, at least not that I can see, and I can't see anything particularly egregious in his edits over the last few days. Still, I'm coming at this with an outsider's perspective... I'd recommend, if you do decide to request some sort of sanctions, that you muster a decent selection of diffs and links to help others look into the issue. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It's more accumulation rather than single events but point taken.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

New food list articles

New stuff I recently created:

Please feel free to improve them, and thanks for your support. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey there

FYI I was bold and I made this edit. I hope you're doing well. Also please check out the WP:ENB if you get a chance. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Biosthmors. Well... there's BOLD, and then there's going against community consensus established during 12 days of discussion... I'm going to assume that you simply weren't aware of the MFD, in which case, stick the historical tag back and we'll say no more about it - if you want to challenge my close, though, you need to take this to WP:DRV, rather than unilaterally reversing the decision. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
But I just used the page so obviously it's not historical. I don't understand why it would be falsely labeled. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
And consensus can change at any time. At what point should I be bureaucratic and at what point should I be bold? Is there a time limit between the two? I don't understand how to know what to do, but I do know that WP:BOLD and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY exist. What can you cite? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I just call the consensus - personally I think using {{closed down}} or just outright deletion would have been more appropriate, but the conclusion I came to after careful reading of the discussion was that the community preferred to mark the page as historical, and make it inactive that way. I guess I could have slapped a high-level page protection on it as well (to prevent users like yourself who weren't aware of the decision from editing there), but there wasn't any mandate for that at the MFD. Consensus can indeed change - but at this point in time, there's no indication that it has; like I said get such a consensus at DRV and I'll happily pull the tag myself.
Effectively, the Bounty Board is now an inactive page preserved for historical reference; editing a page after it's been labelled historical doesn't invalidate that (it just means certain editors can't read big notices at the top of a page... ). Yunshui 雲‍水 16:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in my opinion you might be looking too narrowly at this one discussion. Or are you supposed to ignore other community discussions to reach a consensus here? See this argument. To what extent should you give other more official conversations weight? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion is bang on the money - I am looking very narrowly at that one discussion, because that's the discussion I was closing. The only other pages I'd be likely to consult would be WP:CLOSE and possibly WP:CONS, for reference. To the best of my knowledge, there's no overriding community consensus that applies here, so the local consensus at the MFD discussion takes priority. As I said above, you are welcome to disagree with that consensus, and to challenge it, but the correct venue for doing so is WP:DRV, not the article itself.
As it happens, I did actually take a look at the Reward Board MFD as well, but the consensus there isn't anything like as clear cut; rather than close it as "No consensus" I left it to run for a while longer. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. But why not use logic to get a wider and more representative sample? It reduces sampling bias. Shouldn't there be a WP:Common sense provision? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I wrote that not knowing if it would be a red link or not. It turns out we can use common sense. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
And I am appealing to your common sense, because I strongly believe that Wikipedia is WP:not a bureaucracy. Please don't prove me wrong. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's the deal as I see it. We have a process in place for discussing deletion of non-article pages. The Bounty Board was submitted to that process, and a consensus was reached which indicated that the page should be abandoned and marked as historical. During the time that the discussion was underway, a prominent notice was placed at the top of the Bounty Board indicating that it was the subject of an MFD, so that interested parties could visit the discussion and add their views. The sample of the community thus involved in the discussion therefore encompassed both users with an interest in the Bounty Board, and users with an interest in MFD - the two groups whose opinions were most relevant to this issue.
I fail to see how WP:NOTBUREAU applies here; in what way am I applying the letter of WP:CONSENSUS over the principle? Whilst I have the option to ignore the rules if doing so improves the encyclopedia, at present the decision to mark the page as historical has been challenged by one single editor - you - and that only on my talkpage and in the article, despite both DESiegel and I advising you that WP:DRV is the appropriate venue for challenging MFD closes. I don't see that disregarding the consensus in the MFD discussion in favour of your (to my eyes, inexplicable) determination to remove the tag does anything to improve Wikipedia, hence I can't see any justification for IAR (the guiding pillar behind NOTBUREAUOCRACY) in this instance.
Once again: if you disagree with the closure of the MFD, please take it to deletion review. So far I honestly can't see any reason for your insistence that the decision be reversed, beyond the fact that you wanted to add a single wikilink to the closed page. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
You don't see a reason? :-O It encourages transparency for paid editing. Is that not preferable to having Wiki-PR or some other underground shenanigans going on? If you look at what DES and Robert say, you'll see that there community concern—beyond just me—about the appropriateness of the discussion process here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The Bounty Board had little if anything to do with paid editing - it allowed users to make a donation to the WMF in exchange for other editors working on articles. That's very different to offering payment or other remuneration to the editor doing the work, which is what the Reward Board does. Paid advocacy editing (to use Jimbo's rather torturous phrase) is a different prospect altogether. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

delete expired PROD

Hi, could you please help delete this? Mellanie True Hills Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Deletion of Australian Actor/Director/Producer and British Director 16:05, 7 November 2013 Yunshui (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Leon (Lee) Ousby - Actor (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) That wasn't put so nicely - you could of been kinder - explained a few grounds rules so one could learn.Leon (Lee) Ousby - Actor (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Leon (Lee) Ousby - Actor (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete my user

Hi Yunshui Why did you delete my user page. This wasn't an article. It was the same as yours. You user page talks about you etc... Other editors have stated that it is ok to have a user page like this. If was an article of course I would link it to notable people. But, that's private.Leon (Lee) Ousby - Actor (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC) hi again... So do I write in 1st person rather than second or third Leon (Lee) Ousby - Actor (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI: WP:REFUND#User:Leon (Lee) Ousby - Actor. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I think John's offered a pretty cogent explanation at the WP:REFUND discussion. Basically, Wikipedia isn't a free webhost - if you want to write your biography, by all means do so; just do so somewhere else. Your userpage is not the appropriate venue. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Afrin.Danny

This guy says he can't access the original account (which is blocked for 1 week). Would you switch the block times so that this account has the 1 week block? John Reaves 01:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks as though JohnCD's already dealt with it; thank you John! Yunshui 雲‍水 08:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Kapon Tongplub

i'm expending the article Kapon Tongplub, but you had deleted before I saved it. Please bring it back, I will expend--Mr.BuriramCN (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Galea

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Galea. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. on their talk page.

I have a revised verson with more souces. Lesser known singer/songwriters have wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dterrybeano (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 November 2013‎ (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) One: you completely failed to make that deletion review correctly, two: you've been majorly sockpuppeting and continuously blocked for it, Three: You seem to fail WP:NOTHERE as you're only here to promote sonething you think is great (or are being paid to promote). However I will tell you that you could make it in your user space and it would not be deleted. Unless you get blocked (which I won't be surprised if you do) you should be able to make it at User:Dterrybeano/John Galea. Most admins would call it a 'Userfication'. This way you can make the article but it won't be in article space where it can be deleted. You might be able to get the text from the deleted copy of the article moved to there but that would be up to Yunshui to provide (if he doesn't block you and wishes to supply it.)
Happy editing, because given how many people you've already annoyed you probably haven't got long left doing it. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 23:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't gloat, Matticus, it isn't very elegant. Spartaz has already dealt with Mr Galea's latest sock, so there's nothing more to see here. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That was gloating? o.o Whoops. Sorry, guess I unintentionally made it seem that. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 15:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

GFI MAX Backup deletion page

Hello, I saw that my page was deleted by you. I read all the articles that are related to article creation on the wikipedia. Also I checked articles on similar topics and they are almost the same that I have made. I mean not the content but the idea. In my example it is about online backup service. I completely confused now. It is does not have any advertisement content. It is small but I am going to extend it in future. I would really appreciate your quick explanation. Thank you.

Veronika.iaso (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well you have a better track record than the last 'I can make a page correctly' person so I'll tell you this, Yunshui might be able to move the text of the deleted article to a place where you'll be able to create the article without anyone deleting it. But this is down to if he feels like what was in the deleted article is worth salvaging, plus you may have to wait a day or two as Yunshui is not the most active person right now. Why not do editing in other articles while you wait? Editors who only come here to write one article don't usually get very far before they're kicked out.
Have fun. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 21:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Veronika. I see you've already recreated the page as a userdraft. That's fine, and you can work on it there uninterrupted. However, there are two issues that will need to be addressed before it can be moved into article space.
The first is content-related - whilst I see no glaring problems with the lead paragraph and the History section (although the latter needs references), having a list of products and features is generally inappropriate for an article, unless the products/features are notable in their own right. It reads like advertising.
The second problem is the lack of sources. In order for a topic to meet Wikipedia's basic inclusion criteria it needs to have recieved extensive coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. You have five sources in the article at present; one is from the company itself (which means it isn't independent), two are copies of the same press release (also not independent, since it originates from the company) and two are copies of a blog review (which isn't considered a reliable source). None of these sources counts towards making GMI MAX Backup notable by Wikipedia's standards. To address this issue, you need to locate some sources which are independent, which meet the reliable sources guideline, and which talk about GFI MAX Backup in some detail. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi Yunshui,

Great! Thank you very much much for your quick and clear respond. I will work on my article to improve it.

Veronika.iaso (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want some help or run into any other Wikipedia problems while making the article just let me or Yunshui know and we'll try and help out. On a side note, you don't need to put the 2 == s For every reply, just when starting the conversation, okay? Cool.
Y'all take care now. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 13:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dogpiss Deletion

I believe the entry on Dogpiss has been wrongly deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dogpiss

The argument for deletion is that the band wasn't notable enough. This is incorrect as they were actually reasonably popular in punk rock circles in the 90s, and in fact were featured on the compilation album 'Short Music for Short People' alongside bigger bands like NOFX, Blink 182 and Bad Religion.

BuckCenturyDriver's [[5]]'s statement that 'Not notable, wikipedia doesn't care about oft garage bands' therefore doesn't apply as a band appearing on a Fat Wreck Chords release can hardly be qualified as 'garage'.

The reason it's hard to find information on them is because they tried very hard to stay under the radar (their website at the time was a Geocities page!), and they only released one album before splitting up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzfuzz (talk • contribs) 15:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, don't remember that one. Bands that stay under the radar tend not to appear on Wikipedia much, since they don't get the coverage needed to pass the basic inclusion requirements. Looking at the discussion, the consensus does seem to be for deletion (there's only one user arguing in favour of keeping the page, and her point was pretty easily refuted).
I'd be happy to userfy the article to your userspace so that you can work on adding sources and demonstrating notability, or if you'd rather you can ask for the discussion to be re-reviewed at Deletion review. Let me know what you'd prefer. Yunshui 雲‍水

Kontoreg

Could you please log Kontoreg's topic ban on WP:RESTRICT? Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 22:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I overlooked that step. Done now; thanks for the reminder. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bounty board

Hi Yunshui, I did some tidying of the Wikipedia:Bounty board after the closure to archive old material ( including moving all offers to the Wikipedia:Bounty board/Expired and claimed bounties) and give some explanation of the status of the page. However Rybec (talk · contribs) is [[ moved all them all to the unhappy with this for some reason. Can you as closing admin give some input on whether what I have left on the page is accurate - if not, you're best placed as closer to reflect what it should say. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Casliber made the very last comment in the AfD discussion, proposing that the contents of the page be archived. Only a few others had wanted to remove the page's contents. After you (Yunshui) closed the discussion and marked the page as historical, Casliber went ahead and archived the offers from the page, changed the remaining text, and added his own summary of the discussion. I think that his changes aren't necessary, aren't customary, don't reflect the consensus, and aren't the best way to show why the page is marked as historical. Casliber and I discussed it here. It was Casliber, not I, who archived the page. The way you (Yunshui) closed the discussion looks fine to me, although adding a link to the AfD discussion with the comment= parameter of the "historical" tag would be helpful. —rybec 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Rybec - the page has an archive page, what is not customary about archiving inactive content? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not customary to edit pages that are marked as historical. The whole page is "inactive content" and clearly marked as such. Archiving is usually done to unclutter a page and "make room" for new discussion; here it just makes it harder to see what the page was about, and why it became oontroversial. You and a few others proposed removing material from the page, but there was no consensus to do that. —rybec 23:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
By whose edict do we not edit pages marked historical? Agree we don't enact whatever the page was proposing but that is a different matter. I am not seeing any edict supporting your position at Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#historical. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't said there was an edict, but on the page you linked do you not see "the old page is marked and retained for historical interest"? —rybec 04:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I interpret "retained" as in "not deleted", not "frozen". You're actiing like it is an edict as keeping it frozen makes no sense.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
As I pointed out before, other historical pages have been preserved. Your interpretation is an unusual one. —rybec 05:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys. Sorry I didn't have a chance to respond sooner. I don't have any particularly strong feelings on this, but since you ask, here's my take on it. Whilst Rybec is quite correct in that historical pages are generally left unedited, and that the purpose of archiving content is usually to allow space for new discussion, in this specific instance I tend to agree slightly with Casliber. In this particular case, the remaining offers on the page didn't add a great deal to a passing reader's understanding of the page, and could arguably confuse the issue - the presence of open offers could be taken to mean that the board was still open for business, despite the {{historical}} tag. I'd therefore see this as a good example of an instance where we should ignore the rules and archive the remaining content (I probably should have done so myself when I closed the MFD, and thus saved everyone a lot of hand-wringing - for not doing so, I apologise to you both).

That is, however, only one editor's third opinion; if you want to put this up for a full discussion, I'd suggest an RFC on the Bounty Board's talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. In the AfD discussion, several people, including Casliber, had proposed keeping the bounty board as historical but removing the offers or blanking the original contents of the page. You've suggested opening an RFC—do you think there would have been much more discussion about blanking or archiving, had you left the AfD open longer? You say you agree with Casliber's changes, but would you also say there was a consensus for them? —rybec 23:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Rybec is there any point to this? Why do you want to leave outstanding requests open on a board that has been determined to be historical and hence not actionable? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
In the history of the page, only eight requests were ever completed. It seems very unlikely that someone would mistakenly fulfill a request now that the historical tag has been added--and if someone should, what's the harm in that? Restoring the page and adding a link to the deletion debate would show why it has been deprecated, more accurately than your summary does. —rybec 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't because the requests look like they're still open. Rybec, I suggest you either drop the subject or post a Request for Comment on the page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui/Archive_27&oldid=1168310012"