User talk:Yunshui

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Let's optimize this! - UBC BIOL 345[edit]

Hello yunshui,

I'm user optimize this, and it's exciting to have an ambassador and be a part of Wikipedia, which I use frequently. I'm thinking of working on a page for estuary restoration, so let's optimize this!

Cheers!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimize this (talkcontribs) 12:15 pm, 17 February 2014

BIOL 345[edit]

Hi Yunshui

I am new to Wikipedia and I am in BIOL 345 at UBC! I look forward for your guidance and help for our upcoming project!

Talk to you soon Fcheng62 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcheng62 (talkcontribs) 12:15 pm, 17 February 2014

Talk back bio 345[edit]

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

(Unfortunately) Once again your student[edit]

I am sorry but your student is just not understanding things. This PROD was too much. I totally agree with the editor who removed the tag calling it a joke edit. It is becoming a WP:CIR issue. Now, it depends on you whether you'll forgive time too. --TitoDutta 14:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Shrikanthv, its perfectly acceptable to request deletion of pages and that task which actually reduces Wikipedia is still considered as building Wikipedia. But when articles clearly claim notability; in this case two awards and dozens of TV shows, sticking deletion requests on top of such articles are no less than vandalism; especially with fewer dedicated editors working in that area. You somehow increase their work. Please use Google before thinking of deletions; it most of the times is clever enough than us. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not used BLP prod as promised but there was a couple of other biographical pages which was heavily dependent on this page for existence,could be a wrong reason why i tagged this way -ok for last time sake what i can promise is that I will not use PROD for deletion at all until the time comes, -it also seems that deletion tags can really anger editors -i did not expect this !! Shrikanthv (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Shrikanthv: What "other biographical pages were heavily dependent on this page"? Maybe we can help you with those in some way. And why shouldn't deletion tags anger editors? You are asking to delete a page created in 2007 and since then edited by many editors. There has to be some reason why in 7 years no one thought of it's deletion. We don't mean to discourage you. Maybe some article really are worth deleting. But some utterly aren't. If you are thinking of PRODing articles, maybe you can ask some other's opinion before. The problem with PROD is that sometimes no one notices that a article is up for deletion. And many admins don't really invest time in checking the notability and they have many valid reasons for not doing so. But once deleted, the article goes beyond normal editors' sight and may loose a lot of info. I wouldn't be furious on silly AfDs much than silly PRODs just because they tend to go unnoticed at times. India community is not very active as maybe US one is and if you are taxing those selective few editors with such edits don't expect anything else than anger from them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha:, he has been asked directly and directly (not a typo) many times. Yunshui has been giving him training. He does not want to understand. Most of his contribution are quick merge proposal, PROD, AFD, adding bunch of templates in articles, but never going ahead to attempt to fix issues. Last year after long discussions on wrong AFD and PROD tagging, he left, this year he has come back. --TitoDutta 13:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Tito , I know your are angry, Please do not take this personnaly, yes I have done some mistakes in the past, please check my edit history its not just templating afd'S I have been working on scientific and biographical articles too (in creation and improvment) , My only intention for tagging was to keep wiki clean, imagin just typing Gandhi in 50years from now and if we do not see the real intended person but see 1000 Gandhi's !! in wiki .. that was only my concern nothing more than that . I request it to let go of the past for now, and please do not take this personally Tito, I am here to help Shrikanthv (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Yunshui! I am actually feeling sorry to have to come to you about this. It actually is none of your business but your dearest student is really truly utterly not understanding it. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koenraad Elst. What should be done now? User:Titodutta, your thoughts any on dealing with such editors? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Technically Shrikanthv's not my student anymore, but I do feel a little responsible for him. That Education in Bangalore article might have made for a valid AFD - it was created by an SPA with the specific intent of promoting Kristu Jayanti College - but the rationale Shrikanthv offered was irrelevant, and I can see why the Keep !votes immediately started piling up. Dharmadhyaksha, that NAC snow keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koenraad Elst was highly inappropriate - it's not a snow keep when three editors are arguing for deletion, and your closure amounts to a supervote. I'm reopening the discussion - it may not be a suitable candidate for deletion, but once other editors have started debating the topic, you cannot simply stifle the discussion by unilaterally closing it down. Yunshui  08:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Titodutta: @Dharmadhyaksha: I have given Shrikanthv a final warning; if he makes another inappropriate (note: inappropriate ≠ contested) request for deletion, via CSD, PROD, BLPPROD or AFD, he can expect to be blocked. Yunshui  08:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm.... am happy he isn't your student any more. Frankly speaking he can simply use his edits to strictly add bytes than reduce. Anyways.... About the AFD, sorry for my oversight. I missed the "But, if in doubt, then allow discussions to take place." and kept in mind only "Use common sense and don't follow process for the sake of it". The result would anyways be same, just that it would be in a bit later future. Seeing the nominator's name made me take that decision of closing it. Am i being biased? Yes and am not supporting it with twigs. Anyways... am cool now. Sorry Shrikanthv if this is hurting you and i know it will to some extent. But you seriously need to understand what is it thats going wrong and how you very well can do so many different things in here that would be undoubtedly be helpful. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Additions to Biogeography Article[edit]

Hello Yunshui,

My name is Carly Downs and I am working on contributing to the existing article on Biogeography with two other Bucknell students in my History of Ecology class. We have drafted additions to the end of the Lead Section for the page, and were hoping you could advise us as to whether or not we have added the correct amount of detail for a Lead Section. Our additions are as follows (following last paragraph of the section):

The short-term interactions within a habitat and species of organisms describe the ecological application of biogeography. Historical biogeography describes the long-term, evolutionary periods of time for broader classifications of organisms. Early scientists, beginning with Carl Linnaeus, contributed theories to the contributions of the development of biogeography as a science. Beginning in the mid-18th century, Europeans explored the world and discovered the biodiversity of life. Linnaeus initiated the ways to classify organisms through his exploration of undiscovered territories. Closely after Linnaeus, George Louis Buffon observed shifts in climate and how species spread across the globe as a result. Buffon believed there was a single species creation event, and that different regions of the world were homes for varying species, which is an alternate view than that of Linnaeus. At the end of the 18th century, Alexander Von Humboldt developed the concept of physique generale to demonstrate the unity of science and how species fit together. As one of the first to contribute empirical data to the science of biogeography through his travel as an explorer, he observed differences in climate and vegetation. In the 19th century, several additional scientists contributed new theories to further develop the concept of biogeography. Charles Lyell, being one of the first contributors in the 19th century, developed the theory of uniformitarianism after studying fossils. Charles Darwin was a natural theologist who studied around the world but most importantly in the Galapagos Islands. Alfred Russel Wallace was commonly known as the father of biogeography, as he studied the influence of organism behaviors in varying species. Alfred Wegener introduced the Theory of Continental Drift in 1912, which describes the distribution of organisms and landmass around the globe. Robert MacArther and Edward O. Wilson use the Theory of Island Biogeography to describe how large islands have greater biodiversity than smaller island.

Current applications of biogeography imply the significance of the science in the modern world. Technological advances have allowed satellite imaging and processing of Planet Earth. Current scientists also use coral reefs to delve into the history of biogeography through the fossilized reefs. GIS, or General Information Sensing, can show certain processes on the Earth’s surface like whale locations, sea surface temperatures, and bathymetry.

Thank you very much for your help. Ced015 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! We really appreciate it! Eak016 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Emily Kookogey

Thank you so much! Hopefully we can make some great improvements to this article! Lgn006 (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Lindsey Nourse

Hi guys. First the good stuff; this reads as a nice, concise description of the development of biogeography and its modern applications. However... The purpose of a lead section is to summarise the information contained within the article in order to provide a succinct overview (see the Manual of Style section on lead passages). What you've got here is a collection of information that doesn't appear in the main text of the article (Linnaeus and Buffon, for example, aren't covered at all in the History section, and there isn't a section on the discipline's modern applications), and that's not how Wikipedia lead sections are supposed to work - if it isn't in the article's body, it shouldn't be in the lead. In particular, it definitely shouldn't be there if it isn't sourced - where's the reference that says Linnaeus contributed to the development of biogeography? If you don't have reference, then that statement is original research, which isn't allowed here.
So, how do you solve the problem? First, find some sources to support the text you've added (here's a good starting point). Next, add that information into the actual article, expanding the History section and maybe adding a section about the modern uses of biogeographical research. Then you've not only improved the lead, but the entire article, and your work will have a distinct and positive impact on Wikipedia's coverage of biogeography. Plus, you'll get a good grade (okay, that's not actually my call in any way, but you'll certainly be fulfilling the purpose of your project!). Yunshui  07:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Yunshui! This is very helpful as we continue to develop the article further and use your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ced015 (talkcontribs) 16:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I was just wondering what the process is to add content from our sandbox into an existing page. Do we just copy and paste it into the edit section of the page or is there a preliminary step first?


Abhic93 (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abhic93. Since you're the sole contributor to your sandbox, it won't cause any attribution issues if you copy and paste the content. Sandboxes with multiple contributors are harder to move, but you've made this one nice and easy! Yunshui  08:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

sayed mohamad bagher posaei[edit]

hi.Please see this revived., I wrote twenty-sourceMokhtar-saghafi (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No; as I pointed out before, you provided one (unusable) source. If you do in fact have twenty sources about this person, list them here with links and I'll check them out for you. Yunshui  13:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

hi.Please see These links.

name in persian:سید محمد باقر پوسایی — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokhtar-saghafi (talkcontribs) 09:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, these appear to be repetitions of the same announcement the creation of a Shiite version of Wikipedia. Since literally anyone can create a wiki using Wikimedia software, this is not a notable achievement, and since the content all seems to be derived from the same press release, none of these sources meet Wikipedia's requirement that sources for notable topics be independent of that topic. Yunshui  08:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you can restore the page. Several sources told. Thanks.Mokhtar-saghafi (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, that isn't going to happen until you provide suitable sources. None of the above are suitable; they do not constitute significant coverage (they say virtually nothing whatsoever about the subject), they are not multiple (they all derive from the same source) and they are not independent (that source is a press release). Yunshui  08:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

in persian wikipedia All of these sites are able to Persian Wikipedia are valid.Search these site in persian wikipedia.'ll See some results comingMokhtar-saghafi (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

fa-wiki and en-wiki are different projects, with different rules governing content. Here, we require significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. fa-wiki may well have different content standards, I wouldn't know. Regardless, just because something is accepted on one version of Wikipedia does not exempt it from fulfilling the requirements of a different Wikipedia in order to be listed there. Yunshui  13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

you don't know revitalize article. First time more resources will.At least give me a time.Now you can revive article.ThanksMokhtar-saghafi (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Provide the sources that are accepted by our policies and guidelines, and then Yunshui shall revive/restore the article. It is how the English Wikipedia works. Happy source gathering. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ("I give to you...") 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]


Hello, I was just wondering what the process is to add content from our sandbox into an existing page. Do we just copy and paste it into the edit section of the page or is there a preliminary step first? This is the link for the page: Thanks!

Thanks, Aabundo (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Because several people had contributed to the draft, a history merge was needed - I've done it for you, so the page is now live. Yunshui  08:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui! Aabundo (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion help[edit]

Hi, Yunshui before i go and do some tags , i think i needed much clarity in doing so, here are some of the article and why i think it needs to be deleted let me know if i am right

1) BJP (I think its more of news material, also a original research kind of thing should be a csd ? ) 2) apu ( a mere mention how to treat such one liner articles ? 3) again sme , one more one liner 4) Is this a BLP prod here, I have angered many is using this so am carefull Shrikanthv (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. Bharatiya Janata Party campaign for Indian general election, 2014 looks like a valid content fork to me; it could use a bit of editing to bring it in line with WP:NPOV, but it doesn't merit deletion.
  2. Apurv Gupta - deleted under G4. One-line articles are not suitable for deletion purely by virtue of being short, however...
  3. ... which is why Smriti Mandhana does not warrant deletion; it's sourced and could be expanded.
  4. Prof. Jagjit Singh Ghuman - deleted under G7. BLPPROD would not have been applicable, since the page contained several links to external sites in the text, which could be construed as sources.
In other news - an AFD on Brabantia? Seriously? Please do at least a minimal search of Google before nominating pages for deletion; Brabantia is an internationally-recognised design brand, worth millions of dollars and easily - easily - notable, as you'd have realised had you done even two minutes research before nominating it. Just because an article is poorly sourced does not mean that better sources do not exist; find them and make it better, rather than rushing to remove it. This deletionist streak of yours is becoming very concerning; throughout your editing history at Wikipedia you have repeatedly shown a tendency to try and delete things rather than improve them. Yunshui  08:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Yunshui, yes that was a quick move by me will be carefull from next time , i have withdrawn the afd Shrikanthv (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

David Ehrenfeld[edit]

Hi Yunshui,

I have made some corrections to my David Ehrenfeld article and have re-submitted the article for review. I did my best to add some independent sources. If you have time, could you possibly look over the article and give me a few suggestions for further improvement? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Emm031 (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eric. Definitely a step in the right direction, but there are still some sourcing issues. To deal with the three new sources you've added:
  • Takacs - this looks promising. I don't have access to a copy, but Google books tells me that Ehrenfeld gets mentioned over 40 times, which strongly suggests that this constitutes significant coverage in an independent, reliable source.
  • Orr - this isn't much use, I'm afraid; it's a passing mention of Ehrenfeld but doesn't really say anything significant about him. Whilst it's reliable and independent, it's not in-depth.
  • Commoner - I can't view a preview of this book or search inside it, but it seems (both from the date and from the way you've used it in the article) that this doesn't say anything about Ehrenfeld. If you want to say that Ehrenfeld's work is similar to Commoner's, you need another source that says that - just linking to Commoner's work and assuming that the reader will figure out the similarity they same way you have is original research.
In summary - good progress (Takacs was an excellent find) but you still need some more examples of significant coverage in independent sources in order to meet the inclusion guidelines. Yunshui  08:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Contents Key Help[edit]

Hi Yunshui, I'm working on the Kosmos (Humboldt) page for my History of Ecology class at Bucknell, and I was wondering how to make a 'Contents' key on my page like most other Wikipedia pages do (the key that outlines the article and has links to the different sections). I tried looking finding this information elsewhere on Wikipedia's help pages and whatnot but haven't had any luck.

Thank you! Ashleyweir (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ashleyweir. The table of contents generates automatically after you create enough section headings. I see it's already appeared at the page in question. Have a look at WP:TOC for some other things you can do with it. Yunshui  08:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Deletion of Article" Outline Help[edit]

Dear Yunshui,

You have recently deleted an article called sarkar group. The reason stated for deletion was G11. I am not sure why was it considered as Unambiguous advertising or promotion. If creating such article are so considered by you then why are article like Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik(where they have also displayed their products), Brabantia, IndiaMart to name a few doing on Wikipedia? aren't they for promotion? I am sure you are aware that there are hundreds of artiles created on various companies on Wikipedia then why was the above said article removed?

Your reply to above questions will be appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Pather (talkcontribs) 12:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Await your kind reply T Pather (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

None of those articles use phrases like "excellent quality products", "a legendary business oriented family", "innovative, value-added products", "premium quality products", "serve our customers in the best possible way by providing on-time after sales service", "improving the quality of life of people around the world", "state of the art facilities", "a team of dedicated staff", "a reputation in the production, trade and services of superior products". That's just from the first five sentences; I could easily go on. If you don't consider that to be unambiguous promotion, you really need to get out of your job in marketing... Yunshui  08:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Struggle for Existence" Outline Help[edit]


I had a few questions concerning my outline for the article, “Struggle for Existence” that I have been working on for the History of Ecology course at Bucknell University. First of all, I have focused my article on the development made on the struggle for existence by Malthus, Darwin, Wallace, and Huxley. Does it make sense to describe the progress of this idea in chronological order, as I begin to do in my rough draft below, or do you think there is a better way to organize the article? Additionally, do you have any advice as to the best way to describe the scientific aspects of the struggle for existence? I was considering referencing readers to the Natural Selection article for an explanation as to how the struggle for existence works into Darwin’s theory of evolution as a whole. As always, thank you for your assistance. Gtn001 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Struggle for Existence Outline Rough Draft:

The struggle for existence is a natural history metaphor. It refers to the competition between living organisms to survive. Originating in the late 1700s, the phase “struggle for existence” first came to use in Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus’s use of the struggle for existence came through his study of economics and people, not nature. Malthus knew that with limited resources on earth, there would be competition among people to exist and survive. In addition to Malthus, Charles Darwin, famously used the phrase “struggle for existence” in his book On the Origin of Species. The third chapter of this book is entitled “Struggle for Existence”. However, without the thoughts of Malthus, Darwin’s theory would not look as it does in On the Origin of Species. Before reading An Essay on the Principle of Population, Darwin continued to believe in perfect adaptation after his journey on the Beagle, as stated in the “Essay of 1844”. With Malthus’s idea of the struggle for existence, however, Darwin was able to change his view of adaption (2). From Malthus, Darwin claims that the struggle for existence idea allowed him to see that favorable variations would be preserved and unfavorable conditions would not leading to new species (1). In support, Darwin, around 1855, makes note that the struggle for existence helps produce diversification – leading to Darwin’s principle of divergence (2). Similar to Darwin, Alfred Wallace uses the phrase struggle for existence when discussing the issue of slavery in 1853 (4). With influence of Malthus, Wallace comes to similar conclusion of the idea of the struggle for existence and the effects it has on the overall population by 1855 (4). Additionally, T.H. Huxley developed the phrase further in a similar time period. In the wake of Darwin, Huxley did not agree with Darwin on natural selection, however, he did agree that there was a struggle for existence in nature (3).

1. Petersen, William. Malthus. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979. 2. Ospovat, Dov. The Development of Darwin's Theory: Natural History, Natural Theology, and Natural Selection, 1838-1859. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. 3. Paradis, James G. T.H. Huxley: man's place in nature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1978. 4. McKinney, H. Lewis. Wallace and Natural Selection. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.

Yunshui and ragesoss, did you see this post? I think Gtn001 accidentally inserted this post in this Talk page, rather than placing it at the bottom of the page as a new section. In any case, I'm hoping you can provide a few comments. Gtn001 and I have chatted about how this is a tricky article, as there are lots of possibilities of overlap. Any feedback you can suggest is appreciated, as always! --Enstandrew (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a good start to me. I'd suggest organising the article by creating section headings for each of the major players - Malthus, Darwin, Wallace and Huxley - and describing their contributions to the concept under those; that way you can differentiate between their various approaches easily. Look at how the "Struggle for Existence" informed their overall theories, and how the concept as expressed though their theories influenced their legacy. You've got some good sources to work from there; have a look at this essay for instructions on how to format them correctly in your article. Yunshui  08:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Kosmos Outline Help[edit]

Hi Yunshui!

For my History of Ecology class at Bucknell, I am contributing to the Kosmos (Humboldt) page. We are currently working on our outlines, and I was wondering if you had any suggestions on how I should approach the page? As is, there is not much information there, and I am not quite sure how to approach a page about a book Alexander von Humboldt wrote without focusing on Humboldt himself too much. I'm just worried about making the page too similar to Humboldt's actual Wikipedia page by including too much information on Humboldt and not enough about Kosmos specifically.

Let me know if you have any suggestions!

Thanks so much, Ashleyweir (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ashleyweir. Assuming that you're working on the lead section, I'd recommend that you do some work expanding the coverage of Kosmos' content - the Content section within the article itself is fairly sparse, so you could improve that as well. Look at what critical sources say about the book, and use them to give a better overview of its scope and philosophy. You're correct in that you want to avoid duplicating that article about Humboldt himself, so try and find sources that relate solely to the book, rather than the man. Yunshui  08:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you know[edit]

Hi yunshui, is there a possibality to take a " list of " article to DYK ? , I recently created this , I think it has value to it Shrikanthv (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, lists can certainly be submitted to DYK. They do, however, need 1500+ characters of prose (beyond the listed items themselves) and they require sources for DYK hooks just the same as any other article. With a bit of work, you could probably get a DYK out of that one. Yunshui  10:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Yunshui. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Google Map Image[edit]

Hi Yunshui,

For my project on the Stanley Park Ecology Society (SPES), my partner and I wanted to use a map showing the locations of relevant landmarks at Stanley Park on our page. It was obtained from the SPES website (which they obtained from Google Maps) and we edited the map to pinpoint certain locations but we are unsure if we would be able to use this image if we were to upload it to Wikipedia Commons. If it is acceptable, what would be the best way of going about placing it on our page? Please advise at your earliest convenience as our project is due tomorrow. Sorry for the late notice, thanks again JThandi10 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi JThandi10. 'Fraid not - Google Maps are copyrighted, and the SPES will be paying a licence subscription in order to display the map on their website. Reusing the map would contravene the terms of their licence. Edited maps are also a no-no, I'm afraid, as they constitute a derivative work of the original. You can ask for a new map to be created at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, but it's unlikely that they would get something finished by tomorrow (although I guess if you made the request it would - or at least should - be worth some sort of credit; whilst your class has a deadline, Wikipedia doesn't). Sorry to rain on your parade. Yunshui  06:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Prince.bro6[edit]

Hello. Just letting you know that this user is creating multiple articles on the same subject which has already been deleted with the name Green Lite. You placed warning on user's talk page. I have nominated his recently created same article with different names Green Lite (cheap Light system) for speedy deletion. I am not an admin, I am also going to place final warning on his talk page. A.Minkowiski (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've given him a two-week time-out, that was starting to become rather disruptive. Yunshui  17:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think he were trying to advertise his or his organization work and might have WP:confilict of interest. But thank you. It was my pleasure to inform you. I am new here and fighting against vandals very quickly, whenever I find any vandals or something wrong, I quickly report on admins talk page. A.Minkowiski (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@A.Minkowiski: In that case you might find this essay useful. You should also be aware (if you aren't already) that the best place to report vandalism when administrative action is required is at Administrator Intervention against Vandalism (WP:AIV). Yunshui  07:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yunshui:Can I request for rollback rights ? A.Minkowiski (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You can certainly apply - personally I'd be rather on the fence about giving you those rights at present, though. The reason is that, looking over your edit history, you've quite regularly reverted what could be construed as perfectly valid removals of content - for example, look at the mess this caused. This edit restored material that should indeed be removed per WP:Source list, here you've readded material that violates WP:NOTLYRICS, and here you restore an unnecessary and somewhat dubious external link. These are just a few examples: to be perfectly honest, I don't think you're likely to be granted rollback just yet. You might want to consider going through the Counter-vandalism academy first, instead. Yunshui  13:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I should add that this isn't intended as a personal slight - I wasn't ready for rollback by my 400th edit either - just a suggestion that you wait, do a bit more anti-vandalism work , and get a wider familiarity with Wikipedia's policies first. I'd fully expect you to be granted rollback in a month or two if you keep at it. Yunshui  13:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, and its really reward for me that the admins like you are fine with my work and tireless efforts. A.Minkowiski (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Level with me here Yun. Is good knowledge of CSD required for Rollback? I'm sure you can see why I'm edgy about it if it is. I grant he's new and looking to advance (and we both know my own CSD Knowledge isn't up to scratch) but you don't go to Level 8 with level 2 knowledge am I right?

Oh yeah while I'm here a second question for you Yun. You're Japanese right? Spawning country for Komatsu Limited? I had a trip to one of their buildings recently and they mentioned there's a number the Japanese consider unlucky? Don't suppose you'd be willing to remind me what it was would you?

Big thanks. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ("I give to you...") 19:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I reckon it's 4, on the basis that's why Daigo Fukuryū Maru was boat number 5, even though it was only the fourth such boat. Could have misremembered though...
Rollback doesn't enable anyone to do anything with or to CSD, so that doesn't really come into it much I'd guess. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Got it, thanks Dem. maybe the 'CSD' section of Yunshui's Adoption School would help him? It tripped me up quite a bit even after a number of months , it's definitely help someone needing to learn them. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ("I give to you...") 19:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
For a time being, I am fine with Twinkle and manual editing as Yunshui suggested me...:) A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 21:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────CSD knowledge isn't really important for the purposes of being granted rollback rights (although if you're doing any sort of anti-vandal patrolling it certainly helps to know the basics of speedy deletion). CSD knowledge comes into consideration when requesting reviewer rights, though.
I'm about as Japanese as Yorkshire pudding, and I don't speak very much of the language, but I believe I'm right in saying that the number four is considered unlucky because it's a homonym for "death". Both 四 ("four") and 死 ("death") can be pronounced "shi" (and for that reason two-digit numbers use the alternate reading "yon" for 4 - so 24 is "niju-yon", rather than "niju-shi"). The same holds true in Chinese, IIRC.

Request for review[edit]

Hi Yunshui,

You provided some excellent guidance as for how I can be of help getting the Novozymes article in compliance with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. As per your suggestions, I have written a new Introduction as part of my User page, which I would like to hear whether you have time to review and potentially add to the article?

With many thanks, and kind regards,

Fred at Novozymes Fred at Novozymes (talkcontribs) 12:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

His user page discloses his COI and mentions that his username falls under the 'name at place' rule exemption. Unless you have any other concerns he should be fine.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Yunshui. You have new messages at Fred at Novozymes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ("My new invention!") 20:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fred. Wikipedia articles don't normally have introductions, as such - they start off with a lead section, which is basically an abbreviated summary of the article's content, not an introduction to the topic. Don't worry, most people make the same assumption. What I'd suggest you do with your draft is split off the individual paragraphs into the appropriate sections in the existing article (the second paragraph, for example, would go under the Business areas and technologies heading). I'd also suggest that you propose these changes on the article's talkpage; the information about Novozymes various accolades, whilst suitably sourced, would seem like promotional editing coming from a COI account. By putting your proposal on the talkpage (add the template {{edit request}} at the top of your message there), it can be reviewed and added to the article by an impartial editor, which will preserve you from any accusations of non-neutrality.
(@Matticusmadness: Fred's talking about this subpage, rather than his actual userpage, but thanks for the review nevertheless.) Yunshui  07:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

Indian National Congress campaign for Indian general election, 2014[edit]

Yunshui, I have recently created this page about an election campaign. I wanted to know whether articles about election campaigns are eligible for becoming a good article or not. If yes, what content should I add to it to make it a good article? I know neutrality is important in such articles and the article needs more images too. I want your suggestions.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Skr15081997. The good news is, articles about anything are eligible for GA, so you needn't worry on that front. All that GA requires is that the article meets the good article criteria - if it does, it's in. The bad news is that this article probably doesn't meet those criteria yet. At a (very cursory) glance, I'd say these are the key issues you'll need to address:
  • Size While there's no official length requirement for GA, the necessary level of coverage to reach GA status usually requires a page of at least a couple of thousand words to deal with all aspects of a topic. You'll need to do some content expansion for this to be accepted. Details of the campaign strategy, information about key players, setbacks, successes, criticism of/responses to the manifesto etc. would need including.
  • Stability Because the campaign is ongoing, the information in the article is likely to be change over time. One of the GA requirements is that the article be stable (i.e. that its content doesn't change too rapidly). As a result, you shouldn't expect this to be passed for GA until after the elections have finished next month (although it probably won't be reviewed until then anyway...)
  • MOS compliance You'll need to do a bit of work to bring the page in line with the MOS, particularly the lead section.
  • Balance You'll need to make sure that the article remains neutral - too much focus on the party's campaign promises and quotes from their representatives will see a GA review failed for undue bias.
That's just a snapshot; you'll need a full review to locate and address all the possible issues. I'd suggest: deal with the recommendations above, then put the article up for review - your reviewer will probably make a number of suggestions for improvement, which you can then put into practice. All the best, Yunshui  07:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Yunshui, I will of course, follow the above points. It is actually a good news to hear that there's no topic specific criteria for a GA. Again, thanks--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I swear there's never a dull moment with you around (A Barnstar for You.)[edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Consider this a 'Barnstar of Good humour' mixed with a 'Brilliant Idea barnstar'. You've cracked me right up in laughter with User:Yunshui/How not to get unblocked. For the record you also totally had me thinking you're actually Japanese and live in japan! I guess it's all those Japanese style articles you edit and your Japanese signature huh? Hah. You're good man. You're really good. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ("My new invention!") 01:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Or rather, どうもありがとうございました. Yunshui  07:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

HA! XD You are such a good WikiTime man. "oh and by the way" in case it's not still on your watchlist my Adoption School is alive and kicking again. I've done the AfD section. Have fun marking it. o3o MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ("My new invention!") 16:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Matticusmadness: I've marked and closed all the stuff you've done (uncollapse sections to see my remarks) - get the Reliable Sources section put to bed and you'll get one of these... Yunshui  07:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Yunshui it seems that i am in edit angring now , i had added a logo of a party here and it was reverted as a copyvio , how can this be? can you guide me right direction yunshui ? Shrikanthv (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that the brush (it look like a brush to me) image you uploaded is a copy of the Aam Aadmi party's emblem, it would constitute a derivative work - which makes it subject to the original's copyright. You can't simply copy someone else's work and claim it as your own simply because you held the pen, so to speak. It looks to me as though Sitush's removal was the right thing to do. Yunshui  07:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yunshui actually the picture is of a broom. Shrikanthv had said that the image was his own work which was the reason Sitush reverted it as a copyvio.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly my point. I forgot to tag it for deletion earlier, thanks for reminding me about this thread. Yunshui  11:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Credit due to Shrik for not trying to get it deleted though. Looks like he's doing well avoiding deletion avenue. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ("My new invention!") 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted copy edited page "criticism of ...[edit]

Regarding the recent deletion case of page created by me in the AFC queue , note that the article was not fully copy pasted rather parts of it were paraphrased and there is significant new material in it. Please report with a copy report. As was done in the previous case with the same article which I had improved and paraphrased it to avoid copyright claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talkcontribs)

@Summichum: I've sampled a number of text strings from your draft, and I've yet to find a sentence within it that hasn't been copied or very closely paraphrased from elsewhere. Sources include this, this, this and this... If anything, this sort of copyright violation is even more insidious than simply replicating an entire article, since it's far harder to detect. Since any original content is inexorably tied up amongst the copyright violations, and since I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through sentence by sentence identifying and removing the ones that break the law, I will not restore this page. Do not copy text from outside Wikipedia into Wikipedia, in a draft or anywhere else, again. Yunshui  07:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui thanks for the review, I would like to have the original text as it got deleted and I can do this on my sandbox. regarding paraphrasing then I say that a lot of wiki articles are having simple paraphrases. Also can you suggest some further reading on how to summarize the views in these sources for better coverage of all the opinions? Originally i had intended it to submit it to copy editors guild but it was deleted , hence please send me the original text as I will try to summarize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talkcontribs) 07:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the original text to your sandbox or anywhere else would constitute a copyright violation on my part, so no, that isn't going to happen. If you want to write the article - and I'd suggest you read WP:BLP exceedingly carefully before you consider doing so - you will need to do so entirely in your own words. I'm not convinced that an entire article of criticism doesn't violate WP:UNDUE in any case; you'll need a range of reliable sources showing that the criticism itself is notable (not simply that the movement has been criticised or what that criticism is) in order to justify its existence. Yunshui  07:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • thanks for the advice , I would like to know about the statement ' the criticism itself is notable' , there are many reliable sources for the concerned person on this issue , there are about 12-20 reliable articles on this subject. Is this suffice?
Put it this way: if you have a collection of sources which say something like, "There has been extensive criticism of the movement by those opposed to it, who claim x, y, and z" then you've got sources that show the criticism is notable and can support an article. If, on the other hand, the sources say, "The movement is wrong because x, y, and z", then you just have the criticism itself, with no indication that it meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. Does that help to clarify the difference? Yunshui  09:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatcha think?[edit]

I'm trying to write an article about a clinic in my area, but I'm a little torn since that does sort of give me a natural COI. (User:Tokyogirl79/Fan Free Clinic) I do see assertions of notability as the clinic is one of the earliest examples of a free clinic, but I'm having trouble finding sources. I can find some stuff, but a lot of it is like this where I can't really see the whole thing. It is cited in a few places as an example of its type, though. I found one scholarly book that lists it extensively. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks okay to me; Grassroots Medicine and Lesbian & Gay Richmond would be enough on their own, I reckon. I don't see that you have a COI here, unless you volunteer at the clinic or they saved your life once - writing about stuff that happens to be local to you is fairly common on Wikipedia, and most people (yourself included!) have no trouble doing so neutrally.
Google Books snippet views get on my nerves too; they always show just enough to whet your appetite, but the real meat is always outside the frame... Yunshui  07:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I don't work with them, but at my job we'll refer people to them as one of the free clinics in the area. (But we don't exclude the others in favor of them, though.) They've also come onto our college campus to talk about various stuff. I haven't gone there, but I've gone to class with people who have and they've always spoken highly of them. I'll add it to the mainspace and if it goes through AfD again or gets deleted, I'll take it back into my userspace. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Some falafel for you![edit]

Falafel award.png for helping out on how to write critical articles Summichum (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm jolly partial to falafel. Yunshui  09:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Yunshui. I'm just seeing the issue with ZORDANLIGHTER‎‎ and your block. I think the block is fine (I would have done it myself but maybe not as an indef), however I don't think it's clear that your action is enforcement of an WP:AE sanction. This is important. Any sysop who would revert your block (without realizing that it's an AEBLOCK) would be in a very serious situation. You need to:

  1. Make it clear that this was an AE block not a regular block, and
  2. Log the action at WP:ARBIP specifically Log of blocks and bans section

It's important for everyone that this kind of action is crystal clear, especially if it's appealed.
I've left a note at ZORDANLIGHTER‎‎'s page in case you don't see this for a while but please refactor your block notice so that it's clear that this is an AEBLOCK and log the block on the WP:ARBIP page--Cailil talk 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the block template and logged the block at ARBIP. Many thanks for pointing that out - I don't have much to do with arb-blocks so I appreciate the help. Yunshui  14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Since the dimwit user has the intelligence to use the software you'd think he'd have the intelligence to stop leaving me messages after I point out I don't have the privileges to restore a page, so either one he isn't reading replies (which as we know from when he replied to you with his sources cannot be the case) or two he has competence issues. Any chance we can block this one on WP:CIR's grounds? MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ("My new invention!") 00:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

WP mentorship[edit]

Hi Yunshui, there is a proposal ongoing about a development of Wikipedia mentoring, to make it slicker and a better, more standerdised process. We would love to have you on board, and would appreciate your help, anything you can do, from reading the proposal and leaving comments to volunteering to be a part of the scheme is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Matty.007 16:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


In January you blocked a group of socks as a result of this SPI. They were engaged in POV editing promoting the subject of the Jonathan King article, and diminishing his criminal conviction - with a probable COI. In the last two days 2 IPs have edited the article with very similar traits, making similar points with a similar POV. I think they are linked to the sock farm, one as a sock and one as a meat puppet. I think the best solution would be a period of semi-protection for the article. But I'm not sure how to proceed and which forum to go to. Should it be SPI or WP:RFP for instance. Could you advise? Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) May I make a suggestion? If you think that other editors would be able to see the similarities via WP:DUCK then an SPI would be a good idea. Also yes if IPs and/or users that have appeared saaaay in the last day or two (accounts not confirmed or autoconfirmed) are the only major problem then yes a request for page protection should be okay to be put in. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ("My new invention!") 21:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)