User talk:Yunshui

Talkback

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

Help?

Hi Yunshui! I'm turning here for some help with an AfD. I'm kind of frustrated right now because I'm having some trouble with a newer editor. The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch Enemy Entertainment and what's essentially going on is this:

The article has a handful of sources, but nothing that shows a depth of coverage or that any of their products are so overwhelmingly notable that they'd really show that they're particularly notable. They're "just" a comic production company, so they're less likely to gain notice than if they were a publisher. Production companies are the "man behind the curtain" for the most part. In any case, I ended up removing a lot and I repeat a LOT of sources that were primary and a lot of claims that didn't entirely pertain to the actual company. (Things such as this notable person worked for the company, or that that guy went on to work for Dexter, or they were mentioned in this non-mainstream documentary.) I've tried to explain why the sources would be unusable and one source in particular happens to be USA Today. The thing is that USA Today is publishing one of their comics on their website, which makes it primary. I've tried to explain that and they just don't seem to understand. The other issue (which wasn't really that big of an issue to begin with) is that the editor on the AfD is also an intern for the company. I tried explaining why COI and working for the company would leave them inclined to write in a promotional manner or include puffery about the company and its workers, but she took exception to that. I'm just getting frustrated and could use some good third parties to help talk things out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on IDuchess' talkpage in an attempt to boil the issue down to its fundamentals, hopefully that will help her understand the reasoning. I won't !vote at the AFD, since if I did your above message could be seen as canvassing, but I'm happy to converse with IDuchess if she needs more clarification. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! If you could just keep an eye on the situation, that'd be great. It's getting well, a little heated in the AfD. Another editor has come in and started getting a little testy, so it might need to be defused. Red Pen of Doom is helping as well, but I'd like to avoid it turning into a free-for-all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wanchojang

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Need a second opinion

Hey- can you take a look at User:Tokyogirl79/Sunny (writer) and tell me if you think this passes WP:AUTHOR? At first glance there are a lot of reviews, but ultimately they're just through two sources: Publishers Weekly and RT Book Reviews. There is an interview and a piece by one of her local papers, but I'm not sure if this is really enough just yet. I don't want to put this out there without someone else taking a peek at it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As it stands now, the author (or rather her works) has not received critical attention that is significant enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. That is, as it stands now. I think you should try digging more ore from this mine. May help. But at quick glance, most of the further interviews listed on Sunny's web page don't seem reliable enough to be included as sources... Mostly non-notable blogs. Happy source-scouring. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's kind of what I was leaning towards. If I'd had just a few more RS covering her or her books, I'd have moved it, but we need more than a local source, PW, and RT. Unfortunately none of the sources on her blog are really usable. The closest one I saw was that Geraldo had done a piece on her, but then I'm not sure if his stuff is really usable as a RS or how in-depth it was. I had been excited over the other news article, which ended up using her more as a sound bite about erotic/romance books in general. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your assessment, and Bonkers'. On the offchance that you couldn't access/hadn't checked a couple of trade-only sources I did a bit of hunting on my own, but no joy (although I found out from HighBeam that there's a high-school athlete of the same name who might be notable one day...). My money's on "not yet" for this one - no reason to believe she might not get the requisite coverage in the future, but at present there just isn't enough there to warrant her own article. Might be worth adding what you've got to Da Chen, the article on her husband, until such a time as she gets enough coverage for a separate page. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I noticed you opened up a sockpuppet investigation into User:CowbackCowbert but the Sock investigation page redirects to another sockpuppet investigation with even more socks. Perhaps you can merge the two or something? Smartyllama (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Doing it now - the master is Rouoetyjsjabdb. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Case opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rouoetyjsjabdb, if you want to comment. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have nothing to add. That guy's previous socks, all of which are now blocked, didn't create articles on non-existent Kardashians AFAIK, but I might have missed them if they got deleted since I don't follow that stuff and can't view deleted contributions. Smartyllama (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

At least three of the current batch seem to have taken to Kardashian creation as a new hobby - I'm not sure if it was a pre-exisiting tendency or not, but it's a clear link between, for example, ILikeToLarfYesIDo and UConnJerkwagonIAmNot, both of whom created Klementine Kardashian and Karat Kardashian within a couple of days of one another. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Most of the old alleged socks edited Ray Reid and related articles at some point or another. However, I think they eventually hid the edits from public view because there were so many of them and they were so bad. They didn't claim Reid was making a movie about a transvestite soccer coach named Moses, by any chance? Because a bunch of the old socks did that. Smartyllama (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Astbury

Hi Yunshi

You have deleted the Astbury page, and cited copyright .

You are correct that it is lifted from the Astbury.org page.

I have copyright permission to do that from the author.

Is there something I need to do to remedy any problem?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gburlow (talk • contribs) 10:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I did wonder whether you might be connected with the website... The problem is that the Asbury diary site states quite clearly that content there is subject to permission dependent copyright, and may only be replicated for personal use. In order for Wikipedia to use the text, the site would need to change its terms and conditions to release its content under a CC-BY-SA licence, allowing free reuse and alteration for any purpose (including commercially) with attribution. The author cannot permit use of the text only on Wikipedia; all Wikipedia text must be derived from free sources. You can learn more about this at Donating copyrighted materials. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Answers CSD 2 Test

Hello Yunshui! I have submitted the second test answers. Please have a look whenever you can find time. Thank you Ghorpaapi (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted you doing that, but thought I'd wait until you were finished. I'll check the page over now. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

lol ! Sometimes I have a feeling that, editing or contributing on wikipedia is similar to have your phone/laptop being stalked by your recent girlfriend :D ! Ghorpaapi (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Chicken Cock Whiskey Deletion

Hi,

I wanted to get in touch regarding the deletion of Chicken Cock Whiskey. It was deleted for reason G12, citing an article on MarketWatch.com; however, that article is simply the posting of a press release written by me. The page I drafted contains similar text, also written by me, but reformatted for wikipedia. Please let me know if I can provide additional information to confirm that both texts were written by me.

Thanks, Stefany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanypc (talk • contribs) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefany. The MarketWatch page seems to indicate that you've signed copyright over to PR Newswire, with all rights reserved - that means the text isn't available in the freely licenced format required by Wikipedia. You can take a look at the instructions on donating copyrighted material, but there are other issues with the text besides the licensing - it's pretty promotional (as befits a company press release) and so would need to be heavily rewritten anyway to comply with Wikipedia's neutrality and advertising policies.

I'd suggest writing the article from scratch, instead - it sounds as though the drink has an interesting history, and if you can provide independent sources (i.e. not you, the company, or its affiliates) that support the information, we could definitely have an article on it. My advice would be to start such an article in a user sandbox or at Articles for creation, so that you can get another editor to check it for you first; I'd be happy to do so, if you'd like. You should also (if you work for the company) read the conflict of interest guidelines and the advice for editors with such a conflict of interest. Hope this helps. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Coffee !

Thanks for the test and your input for a new wiki contributor. You are a really nice person. Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for assuming good faith. I can assure you that the problem has been dealt with on my end; I don't like seeing Wikipedia disrupted either. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Image Question

Hello Yunshui. I have a question regarding an image for my group's article page, [Distal spinal muscular atrophy type 1]. We have found an image of the gene involved in the disorder. I was wondering if we could use it on our page? It is from a government website and here is the link to the image: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/dynamicImages/chromomap/IGHMBP2.jpeg Please let [8712NeuroBio] and I know if the image is able to be used under Wikipedia's image guidelines and what steps we need to take to properly site the image on our article page. Thank you! Isetem13 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can use it. As a US government website, NLM content is in the public domain^confirm, so it's perfectly compatible with Wikipedia. To use the image, you will need to download it to your computer and then upload it to Wikimedia Commons; use the Commons Upload Wizard to do this. Follow the step-by-step instructions there, making sure that you select "This file was created by the United States government" when adding the licensing information.

To use it in the article, add this code to the text at the point where you want the picture to appear:

[[name of your file (including "File:" prefix and file extension suffix)|thumb|caption]]

and replace the italicised text appropriately. Let me know if you run into any difficulties. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Gene Yoon

Hi, User:Yunshui, You and User:Deb deleted Gene Yoon at the same time. User:Deb's deletion is wrong. Please restore Gene Yoon which is deleted by User:Deb. Sawol (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What a mess. What I've done, to fix the problem, is to merge the edit histories of both the moved pages. The current version is now the same as the one moved by Deb, but the previous version is now available in the page history, so you can revert or edit the article as you see fit. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Sawol (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Darkness walks' block

I'm sorry to make you do something you didn't like. I'm sure SAW was a good Wikipedian before he got blocked. Honestly, if he had kept uploading photos, and not been so abusive as I remarked on ANI, I wouldn't have minded. I know I come off as a bit of a pompous douche sometimes when I think I know more than other people, but frankly I'm fine working with such people as long as they don't try to OWN the articles. By the end, it kind of reminded me of that one user whose abuses were what prompted my first interaction with you.

(By the way, I'm fine with people knowing what my past account was, just not with other people bragging about figuring it out and claiming that I am some block-evading sockpuppet who was rejected by the Wikipedia community for being disruptive.)

Cheers!

126.0.96.220 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not the cleanest reboot ever (I worked out who you were ages ago, even without LittleBenW's "help"), but you ticked all the cleanstart boxes and I don't think any right-thinking editor would regard it as sockpuppetry. Sad about SAW, though; personally I never had the problems with him that other users seem to have done, and I was sad when he originally got blocked; I found him to be a pretty constructive editor. But rule is rules... The silly thing is, I'd have supported an unblock of his original account if he'd only appealed the block properly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think he still could be. He has ownership issues, and he needs to take things less personally (see Talk:Kiahan (kyahan)), but unlike one or two other people I could mention he doesn't seem to be a complete psychopath. WM already directed him to the guide to appealing blocks. His recent activities (the stuff I brought up in my now-void ANI post) might have set him back a bit, though. Anyway, I hope my being a bit rushed to tie up the loose ends from before I left hasn't made you or any other sane people think less of me. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Paroxysmal dyskinesia citing help

Hey there. I'm part of Education Program:Marquette University/Neurobiology (Spring 2013) with MMBiology as my instructor. I was just hoping you could help me with my citing. I have all the sources in the references section. But I want to be able to have a link to the actual article of the citation, and I don't know how to do that. If you could help me out that would be great. Thank you. Our page that we are working on is paroxysmal dyskinesia so you can check out the references there before responding. Thanks again. Daner33 (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daner33. There are a few different ways to do this, depending on the reference, so bear with me. I'll use your third reference (Zhou et al) as an example:

• If the article is available on PubMed, you can cite the whole thing using it's PubMed ID: just add the code {{cite pmid|PMID number}} in place of the citation. In this case, you'd write: <ref name="Zhou">{{cite pmid|3063430}}</ref>. Once you've added this, a bot will fill out the full citation for you within 24hrs, pulling all of the relevant information directly from PubMed. (The same thing can be done with JSTOR numbers ({{cite jstor}}) and digital object identifiers ({{cite doi}}).)
• You can use a different {{cite}} template to fill in the information manually. In this case, it would be {{cite journal}}. You'd need to fill in all of the relevant parameters by hand, so using your current citation as a basis, the code would be: <ref name="Zhou">{{cite journal|last1=Zhou|first1=J|last2=Zhou|first2=L|last3=Fang|first3=Z|last4=Wang|first4=Q|last5=Chen|first5=Z|last6=Yang|first6=L|last7=''et al''|title=Analyzing clinical and electrophysiological characteristics of Paroxysmal Dyskinesia|journale=JRMS|year=2011|volume=16|issue=1||url=http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3063430/|pages=110–114}}</ref>.
• Hand-populating a complex template seems too much like hard work? Do it the easy way. When you edit a page, just above the edit window you'll see a series of drop-down menus (Advanced, Special characters, Help, Cite) - choose Cite, then select "cite journal" from the Templates menu that appears. A new window will open; fill in the parameters and the software will create and populate a citation template for you.
• Although it's not as ideal an option as the preceding two, you can also just link the URL in the citation directly, like this: <ref name="Zhou">Zhou J, Zhou L, Fang Z, Wang Q, Chen Z, Yang L, et al. [http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3063430/ Analyzing clinical and electrophysiological characteristics of Paroxysmal Dyskinesia]. JRMS. 2011;16(1):110–114.</ref>. Citation templates are generally preferred, however.

I hope that helps a bit; do feel free to ask me to explain anything that isn't clear enough. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! You were of great help!! Daner33 (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

pyrat

Hi! I was creating again the site Pyrat (without copyright problmes and I had kind of problem so I couldn't do it.. because the site stayed without content, now it was deleted by yout petition... I want to submit the content again but I can't.. how can I do it? should I talk you?

thanks!

--Matoges (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)matoges

I deleted the page because you had blanked it by removing all the content; that's taken as an indication that you would like it to be deleted (see: Speedy deletion criterion G7). However, even if you had not done so it would still have removed, since it was a clear copyright violation of this webpage (see: Speedy deletion criterion G12 and the Copyright violations policy). In addition, the article made no claim to significance or notability, meaning that it could also have been deleted as non-notable (see: Basic notability requirements). In short, there are a number of reasons that we can't host such content on Wikipedia.

If you would still like to submit an article on Pyrat, you will need to address these issues by doing the following:

• Write about the software in your own words.
• Support everything you write with references to independent sources (i.e. not affiliated with Pyrat or Scionics).

You may wish to start by creating a userspace draft, rather than adding your article directly to mainspace - if you work on a draft version, you are less likely to see your work deleted out of hand, and you can ask other users to review it before it goes "live". However, the copyright rules still apply to such drafts - if you copy material to Wikipedia again, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention

• News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag

• Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea

• Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

• Technology report: A flurry of deployments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Juldarigi

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wolverine

I'm more than a little concerned about this editor. I've spent far too much time explaining and illustrating why his edits infringe the copyright/advertising policies, but he just doesn't accept that he is doing anything wrong. As you know, I resorted reluctantly to a block, but it's quite clear that he views that as a personal attack by me, all the worse because I apparently don't understand the policies myself. He's not showing GF even when blocked, and I'm concerned about what will happen when the block expires if the pattern continues. I'm reluctant to keep ratcheting up the blocks, so I'd welcome any thoughts on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I was a little surprised that you time-limited it at all, once I'd looked at his recent history; were I faced with another editor with that kind of editing pattern, I'd be giving serious consideration an indefinite block (with the obvious proviso that a decent unblock request and promise of reformation would undo it). My concern, as yours, is the general refusal to admit error, the lack of AGF and the battleground responses, together with the apparent impression that he's actually being reasonable and correcting the issues involved. (I'm also slightly worried by the claim that he's been editing Wikipedia for ten years, since that suggests previous accounts.)

We shall see. He's got a couple of weeks to calm down and think about things, assuming that he does so then perhaps we can expect a more productive editor when he gets back (until this latest episode, he seems to have been pretty good for the project). I'd suggest that you (and probably I as well) hold off on contacting him unless he does something extremely egrarious; at this stage, I think seeing either of our sigs on his talkpage is going to inflame the situation. If this stubborn and disruptive streak continues, one or other of us (or another passing admin) can dole out an indef; but I'm hoping that, if left to his own devices, he might just quietly move on to other edits. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. I time limited because he seems capable of competence if he puts his mind to it, but primarily because all the deletions and removals had come from me, and I didn't want to make it look too personal. I wasn't going to contact him, if he puts his head in the noose, that's his choice, but I'm grateful for your views Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Carr Collins, Sr.

Thank you for declining the speedy deletion nomination on Carr Collins,Sr.. I hadn't finished work on the article and agree with the notes as to issues, but I agree with your assessment that his status as a philanthropist and con man establishes notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Help........

Morning! I need your advice (again) please. I'm worried I could get blocked for edit warring on Poodle and I'm not sure if I've followed the correct procedure and what to do now. The article had been protected in mid-March after a series of edits then an editor seemed to come along and after a confusing series of edits returned it to an older version. I tried asking for advice on the Dogs Project talk page but didn't get any response (it's not especially active). So after three weeks, I reverted the article back to what seemed to be the stable version and left a note on the talk page. Lo and behold within a couple of days an IP came along and put all the pet pics back in and removed referenced material making it the same as it was before. I have reverted again and left a note on their talk page but I think it's shortly going to be changed again.....what should I do? SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What you've done so far is basically correct - you aren't presently in violation of the edit-warring policy, so don't worry about that. However, further undiscussed reverts would get you into trouble... It's always awkward when another editor starts reverting your changes and refuses to discuss them, but you're doing the right thing in trying to open a dialogue. If you have no joy - if they refuse to engage - you've got a number of options, ranging from engaging dispute resolution to reporting the other editor for edit warring. My suggestion, if the reverts continue and you can't get a conversation going, would be to open a request for comment on the talkpage; this will draw more attention from other editors and will hopefully enable a clear consensus to be established. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll wait to see what happens next..... SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to have to take this to RfC; the same IP changed it back again with no contact/explanation/edit summary - this time also removing a couple of pics that had been added to the gallery by another editor, who has now undone the IPs change. On another matter, where does Writ Keeper's script for the orange box go? Is it the same place as the DYK checker code etc? The little red number is almost impossible for oldies like me to see on an iPhone (although the copious emails do give a small clue!). SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go with an RFC (they're pretty easy to set up, even if you've never done one before). Writ's script goes in your vector.js page - User:Sagaciousphil/vector.js - I recommend just adding importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js");, rather than copying the entire text. It works brilliantly - it's actually an improvement on the OBOD, since it tells you who left the message as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Norman Safeground

Please return the content file for Norman Safeground. I will work on it some more. This is a global SW company and one of the market leaders in AV Software in the Nordics, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Germany.

I will elaborate more in the article. How you can deem this irrelevant, yet have articles on all of their competitors is beyond me.

Roland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozic74 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Restored to userspace at User:Nozic74/Norman Safeground. Please have a read of WP:CORP to get an idea of the minimum inclusion requirements for companies. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Orr (trade unionist)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Satō Tadanobu

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese incursion into India

After looking at the redirect target I realize the incident is not widely covered and part of a major ongoing dispute. One incident in hundreds. I removed the section because it was given undue weight and nothing special appeared to have occurred in this one incident. I think the redirect title is somewhat controversial. 'Chinese incursion into India'. For starters it's not grammatically correct. I think it should be seriously considered for deletion and if someone does want to make Chinese incursions into India as a general redirect, they can do so, but to make a unlikely typo of non-existent redirect or one that points to a very unspecific incursion seems odd to me. Would be curious as to your thoughts; not trying to dispute your decision, I came to the same one but upon further study think this is more suitable. Mkdw^talk 08:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I was rather on the fence myself with that one, so have no issues deleting the page rather than leaving it as a redirect, especially if the target section isn't there anymore. I'll go and consign it to the dustbin now. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Have a kittehboo!

Airman Murdah (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally Tae Kwon Do Magazine Article Deleted

Hello, Yunshui. You deleted a very raw article I had in rough draft format, not prepared for submission. I feel the article was deleted prematurely. Similar articles exist for similar publications, such as Tae Kwon Do Times and Black Belt. Is this something I should expect to occur when I have an article in rough draft form without any citations yet whatsoever? I believe that creating the rough draft on Wikipedia itself allows me to edit the article from anywhere I have access to a computer, i.e. work, not just my laptop at home. If I must create the article in another manner, I'm happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.e.swope (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mike. The best place to work on drafts like this is via the Articles for creation process, as you've done with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bok Man Kim. The page on Totally TKD was deleted for two reasons:

• Firstly, it made no claim to significance - there was nothing in the article to suggest that TTKD was a noteworthy magazine. From the text, all that the reader can deduce is that it's a online PDF magazine (not print published, which means that it could very easily be a fanzine knocked up on someone's home PC). A claim to existence is not the same thing as a claim to importance - why is TTKD any more notable than, say, some 2nd kyu judoka's personal blog?
• Secondly, (and in conjunction with the above) the article appeared to exist purely for the purpose of promoting the magazine - the text wouldn't have been out of place on its own website.

In addition, the article lacked any citations to independent sources - without such citations, the page stands no chance of survival, even if it doesn't meet one of the speedy deletion criteria. You will need to provide references to third-party, reliably published sources which talk about TTKD in some level of detail. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Script finished

I don't know how these Echo pings are supposed to work, so I'll try just posting here. I'm not sure if you were being facetious in your request to me or not, but I've finished the script; it's at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js. It's cookie-based, so you need cookies enabled in your browser for it to work. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Memo to self: post sarcastic rants at Writ Keeper's talkpage at your own peril... That's unexpected, but simultaneously awesome; thanks! Yunshui 雲‍水 18:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Akitsugu Amata

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Need some input...

I'm kind of torn over an article right now. Long story short, in 2012 Victoria Foyt self-published a book that was seen as racist and got a ton of coverage over the internet backlash. This was initially covered in its entirety in her article, but has since been spun off into its own article. I'm really unsure whether or not this really needs its own article since it really only received coverage for the controversy- which is summed up already in Foyt's article. The book didn't really gain any reviews in reliable sources and the award it won isn't really notable at all per Wikipedia's guidelines. I remember people sort of debating this somewhere and it was seen as a fairly dubious award, enough to where it wouldn't even contribute a little notability. So... do you think this should be redirected back to the author's page? That's what I'm leaning towards, although I wouldn't entirely mind it having its own article so the plot section could be fleshed out. My other big concern would be editing in either extreme. The original version of the article looked to be a little pro-Foyt and was filled with fan gush and OR, but then I'm also afraid of vandalism since Foyt's article was pretty beseiged by every idiot with a keyboard that thought they were funny for calling her racist. I know that neither is really a reason to delete/redirect an article in the first place, but it's something that might sway people one way or the other. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember Save The Pearls... The spin-off article is a bit of a coatrack, but whilst the book's really only notable for the racism thing, my take would be that it got enough coverage in the process to warrant a separate page. I'd rather see a neutral page on the book than an extensive "Controversy and criticism" section in a BLP (and it's certainly preferable to a standalone "Save the Pearls conroversy" article), so my (mild) preference would be to retain it as a separate article. I'm not taking an especially solid stance, though; I certainly wouldn't kick up a fuss if you decided to go with a merge and redirect. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Eh, I think I'll leave it for now. I'm kind of leery, but I'll think on it for a while. There is some merit to having it, but also merit to redirecting it. I guess I'll see what happens with the page? It'd probably be a good idea to keep it on watch for a while, if you're interested. I'm slightly curious to see if the people who created it did so on behalf of Foyt's company. I noticed that one of the editors also created a page for Foyt's publishing company and have only made edits adding the book to various pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

• News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp

• In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax

• Featured content: Wiki loves video games

• WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles

• Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases

• Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more

• Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Rajesh Kotecha

Hello, I understand the reasons why you deleted the page Dr. Rajesh Kotecha, but I would like to know how is that possible according to your principle of non advertisement, that many pages exist on ayurveda centers and for ayurvedic doctors, which are also promotional in your sense. We only put a neutral biography on him, is that advertisement? we dont think so. I have seen many doctors putting on Wiki similar pages, you can check please. Justice and fair methods should be applied to everybody.

Thanks for your response! regards Lakshmianoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmianoop (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The existence of other, similar pages is not an argument for retaining a page with the same problems - each page is judged on its individual merits. The current version in your sandbox is something of an improvement, although it still needs a bit of editing to bring it up to standard. I recommend submitting it via Articles for creation to allow for review and advice before it goes "live"; you can also then be certian of it ending up in the right namespace (rather than moving it around between the Talk, Project, Help and other namespaces). To submit via AFC, simply add the tag {{subst:submit}} to the top of your sandbox article. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

Howdy Yunshui! Thanks for the offer for new user adoption. Since putting that up, I think I have learned quite a bit about editing. I took the userbox off of my page. Thank you again! PrairieKid (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't exactly come across as a wide-eyed newbie, bewildered and bemused by the arcane intricacies of Wikipedia... Thanks for de-categorising yourself; happy editing! Yunshui 雲‍水 07:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shōkansai Iizuka

Hello! Your submission of Shōkansai Iizuka at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I took care of one problem myself: if it's DYK length and has eight references, it's not a stub. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've popped up an alt hook; thanks for catching that. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Completing peer reviews

I'm supposed to do peer reviews for two of my classmates and I can't figure out how to technically do it... can you point me in the right direction? Eparness (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You'll have a bit of a job, since you've been far-and-away the most productive student so far, and I don't think else has requested an offical peer review on their articles. My suggestion would be to do what the students on my other course did; leave a review on the article's talkpage with an assessment of what's been done well, what could be improved, what you'd like to see expanded and so on (an example of their approach can be seen here). You can also pitch in and add to the articles as well, if you see fit. I'd recommend giving your thoughts on The Poor of New York and Alla Kigel, since these have seen the most student activity; although if you can give your classmates some ideas on how Costume design and Broadway theater could be expanded you'd be doing them a favour. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Eparness (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tocha (game)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeking for Guidance

Hi Yunshui,

I had submitted an article on 'Cullen Investments', which got declined on 17 April 2013. Here's the link for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cullen_Investments

Previously the article was declined on 31 March 2013 due to insufficient references considering which the reference list was updated considerably.

This time the reason for rejection is 'promotional stuff'. I'll be grateful if you can help me with the editing and successful submission of the same article. Additionally it will be good if you can point out a few lines in the article which sounds like promotional stuff.

Thanks

Ingoddess2805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoddess2805 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)