User talk:Yunshui

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street (film)

Shouldn't this have been closed as soft delete/WP:REFUND applies? Literally the bot itself suggested it at the end with a note, not to mention that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoora Nritham, that had the same situation and was next to this in the March 11 AfD log got closed differently. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. My bad; I'll go and deal with it now. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	:D howdy, tongues! 13:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Hiraizumi Kiyoshi

On 29 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hiraizumi Kiyoshi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that history professor Hiraizumi Kiyoshi believed Emperor Jimmu to have been a real historical figure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hiraizumi Kiyoshi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hiraizumi Kiyoshi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

• From the editors: The bad and the good

• News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report

• Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters

• In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story

• Discussion report: Rethinking draft space

• Arbitration report: Unfinished business

• In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"

• Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19

• Recent research: Disease outbreak uncertainties, AfD forecasting, auto-updating Wikipedia

• From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world

• Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia

• News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Aikido

Not happy with the changes to the aikido article. Seems very style specific and opinionated especially with regards to competition. The takamasu principle is very specific to later evolution of Ueshiba and has nothing to do with other styles. Definately not neutral as was claimed in the edit summary. Don't want to repeat my revert especially since a reference was added but still.PRehse (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment)@PRehse: The other editor is a really new editor who might be unfamiliar with Wikipedia in general, but they also state they’re an Aikido teacher and PhD, which also means they’re also probably unfamiliar with WP:EXPERT and WP:CON. So, perhaps the best way to approach this is to avoid WP:BITE and try to explain this by informing them about WP:WPMA and inviting them to participate in that; explain your concerns about the changes they’ve made in terms of the policies and guidelines you theyink are applicable. Trying to explain WP:UNDUE can sometimes be hard, but perhaps there’s a way to do so that makes them feel involved instead of rebuffed. If some of their changes are OK, then focusing on the good things while pointing out the bad things might help them feel involved. If it’s all no good and needs to go, then you should feel OK to revert back per WP:STATUSQUO as necessary (at least once) regardless of whether sources are provided and then suggesting WP:BRD to the other person.

Of course, you don’t need to revert to start a discussion per BRD; you can just start a discussion and invite the other editor as well as any others who might be interested in it to join in. As long as, you frame things civilly and discuss content, doing so should not be a problem. Whatever you decide to do, the other editor response will largely determine any further efforts you or anyone else makes. If they follow WP:DR, things will eventually be sorted out with them actively engaged in the process; if not, things will also eventually be sorted out, but they might not be around to see so. That, however, is their choice. I know pretty much nothing about Aikido, but the edit summary they left kinda indicates an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia that might possibly be a concern depending upon how they proceed from hereon. I’m sure you probably know most of the above already, but perhaps hearing it from another sort of backs up what you might already be thinking. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change “they” to “think”. — 12:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)]

Thanks for the reply and yes I did need to hear it from somewhere else. The WP:EXPERT and WP:CON is what got my hackels up. I so wanted to go the route of me too with spades and fear that if I engaged I would go to the dark side.PRehse (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Some of those additions are worth retaining - the expansion of basic principles is valid, I think - but I've removed some of the more speculative exposition, and the spurious "no competition" claim. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Perfect.PRehse (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hi mate,

A while ago gave an attempt to create an article for Akshara Singh but it seems that someone in the past had already created the article and got deleted due no significance. There is draft as well with the same name. Not sure and confused how to create one. Please guide me.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 14:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that a draft already exists, your best option is to work on the page at Draft:Akshara Singh until it's ready for mainspace. At that point, you'll need to get an admin to move it, since the mainspace title is protected from recreation - if you submit the draft via articles for creation then someone will sort that bit out for you. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing

I have an off-wiki evidence for a paid editor, how can I send it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.154.68.234 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Boro people

@Yunshui: it had to happen, I guess—a partial block in nearly sixteen years of editing! I am sorry it happened, but I think I deserved it. Thank you for resolving the issue. Chaipau (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)