Jump to content

User talk:Yunshui

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Book Reporter (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 9 September 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talkback

Hello Yunshui...I am totally new to wikipedia and submitted an article on Marketing automation for my company--the article is from my company website: www.mindmatrix.net. But, it has been deleted citing copyright issues. Since I have the copyrights to this article, I request you to please resurrect the same.

Thanks!

Sincerely,

Vardharaj Kawde

CVUA

Hey Yunshui! Would you mind taking User:Guðsþegn? Thanks, Electric Catfish 23:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'd be glad to, but I'm on holiday at present and have only very limited internet access (this response is pretty much the only thing I'm likely to have time to post today). If Guðsþegn's cool with waiting a couple of weeks to kick off, then all's good; otherwise, he might be better off with someone more readily available. I'll be back properly in September. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll be taking. We'll give you someone in September. Enjoy your Holiday! Electric Catfish 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help from u to deal with the behavior ofan other editor

Dear Yunshui! I need help from you with the behavior of another wikipedia editor. Santurman is steering into an edit conflict without improving the article itself, just claiming his version to be "written in stone". He even deleted the "multi issues with this article, refimprove etc.. tags"! See Santur and it's edit history. Many article statements are clearly disprooven by quick search and multiple ext. sources.

Thank you! 94.139.26.139 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)--[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please go to WP: DRN. Best, Electric Catfish 22:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
An old stalker of this page I see that the stuff removed by Santurman was unsourced. Please find WP:RS for the content you want to add up. I tried to find but I didn't get source to things you added thus few facts may be WP:OR. If the facts are true, there should be some source that you are using to add the content, thus please see WP:Citing sources. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 06:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive Student

I hope you're having a nice vacation, but your enrollee seems to be inactive. I would remove e from the status page and let them know that if they become reactive they will need to re-enroll. At your discretion, but my suggestion. Dan653 (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your feedback on page:Starters with Mocktales. Ditz246 (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once I have added reliable citations (under way: e.g. newspapers), how do I resubmit the article for moderation? Thanks :)

Ditz246 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple to re-submit the article. Once you are done with the fixes you want to do, place {{subst:AFC submission}} at the top of your submission and it will be up for review again. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 06:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ditz246 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bicycle Shaped Object for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bicycle Shaped Object is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Vandal

In April you warned user Thirtyonecookies about vandalism. Since then he has vandalized the entry for Sycamore School. How is it possible to ban this user? Nicmart (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they continue vandalism, you can report them at WP:AIV. TheSpecialUser TSU 04:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest or patience in devoting myself to Wikipedia. If anyone cares they can report it. Nicmart (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Nicmart for the heads-up. It's rather too late to block Thirtyonecookies for that last edit now, but I will keep an eye out and indef him if he does it again. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection request at WP:RFPP

Hi Yunshui, there is a request for unprotection of User talk:Makecat which you semi-protected on 3 August 2012. Hope you are enjoying/enjoyed your holiday (I'm going to leave a message on RFPP that I believe you're on holidays - sorry if I'm wrong. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Proposed deletion of Miss Liberty America

The article Miss Liberty America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ariconte (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Schofield (campaigner)

I thought I had done the needed change, had added the references and was feeling it was reasonable fort a first ever entry. It it seems to be now available on line. So I have no idea what this message is all about and need help in explaining. Are my changes OK or not? Please explain more. I do ntom grasp how these talk pages work either. Bailey Chipping--Bailey Chipping (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC) --Bailey Chipping (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bailey Chipping, and sorry for the late reply; I've been away. The main problem I can see with the article is that almost all of the references are to Schofield's own work. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require that information be available in independent sources - whilst Schofield can be used, with caution, as source for information about himself, it's more important to cover what other people have written about him. So far, the only sources mentions which are not by Schofield himself are simply used to verify background information (such as the laws regarding homosexuality and the work of people who have been influenced by Schofield). At present, there are not enough independent sources to meet the notability requirements, and as such the article is liable to be proposed for deletion. He seems as though he should be notable, so suitable sources presumably exist somewhere... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Miss Liberty America for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miss Liberty America is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Liberty America until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ariconte (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Hope Logan

Hi there Yunshui. I've been editing Hope Logan's wiki page to show that she is not married to Liam Spencer, however Musicfreak7676 has been reverting all my edits to when it showed that Hope and Liam were married. Can you explain to me how Hope is considered married to Liam? They married in Italy I understand that, but once they came over to America the marriage was invalid because the wedding papers were not signed. Hope ripped up the wedding papers and did not sign the papers, therefore Hope and Liam are not married. Regardless of European Law, if they are not recognized as a married couple in the state of California, how can they be considered married on this website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colton hockey11 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colton and thanks for your contributions! Instead of changing the text, why not provide a WP:RS to your claim. I mean to say that if they are not officially married, we can have a way of adding it but there must be a reliable source out there which says that they are not officially married. Sources such as press releases or books or official website would be great. Once you've got a reference, we can use them to verify the content added and keep them. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 15:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem still persists, you can seek WP:DR or WP:RFC regarding the topic. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 15:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TSU has a point - what you need is a source showing the correct surname, not a claim surmised from in-universe events. Taking a position on her surname based soley on whether or not events on the show mean that she is legally married is original research. Personally, I would use whichever surname is currently listed in the show's credits. If you haven't raised the issue yet at WP:SOAP (I haven't checked), it might be an idea. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed

Hi Yunshui. Could you do me a favour and check this article for possible copyvios and/or close paraphrasing. I seem to have stumbled on something but I'm not sure if they are mirroring WP content or not. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung. Is there a specific section you're suspicious of? I've copy-pasted a few bits and bobs into Google and found only Wikimirrors, but I'm not sure which part(s) to focus on. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking and confirming. I also concluded that they were mirrors. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

User Rjains talk page

I see you removed the tag for help. Great...no prob. New editor will or won't ask. Question: I noticed that you put a ""t"" in the link. Is that the way to do an easy no link instead of using <wiki></nowiki> ? Thanks.```Buster Seven Talk 14:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You can put "tl|" before the content in the template. In a help me template, you replace {{help me}} with {{help me-helped}}. Electric Catfish 16:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand on Catfish's reply: to stop a template from displaying the template contents, format it with a t| or tl| prefacing the template title within the curly brackets like this: {{t|help me}}. This tells the software to display a link to the template page, rather than transcluding the template. <nowiki> tags work as well, of course, but have the disadvantage that they don't provide a link to the template content. A useful trick!
The problem with leaving the template as it was is that adding {{help me}} to a page automatically lists it in Category:Wikipedians looking for help - confusing if they aren't actively looking for help. That's why I untranscluded (is that even a word?) it. Thanks for lending them a hand. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

i love them! hgafe (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

i am a boy! hgafe (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


CSD you declined

Hi, I thought A1 wasn't the best criteria, but I couldn't find anything better. What would you suggest?  Adam Mugliston  Talk  12:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'd suggest not deleting it at all - we have individual articles on just about every sura of the Qu'ran, and deleting one of them apparently at random would open a seriously huge can of worms. Whilst Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, we are an encyclopedia, and coverage like this is appropriate. If you're determined to get the page deleted for some reason, I'd suggest AfD, but I wouldn't be too optimistic. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, if that's the case I won't bother. It just seems so short and insignificant.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  13:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Yunshui. You have new messages at Mdann52's talk page.
Message added 19:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Not directly at you, but a query on a recent speedy you made. Mdann52 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston Gilson Irving

Comment I have full access to Highbeam, and having run a number of different searches, can find no mention of the subject in the archives there. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just got my access. Dissapointing the search only goes back 25 years, the Dole Air race got national coverage and newsreels. There is an article nontheless, found it in about two minutes... Highbeam article plenty more on Google News archives and web search. With over twenty references it's a shame this Berkley pilot, veteran, aircraft manufacturer, and businessman was considered not notable and had to be deleted. FlugKerl (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, but sadly too sparse for the requirements of WP:GNG. I agree with you, it's unfortunate that articles on topics like this generally end up deleted. Sadly our notability requirements, in their current form, tend to allow more weight to be given to popular culture phenomena and far less to minor historical figures and incidents. (It's even more difficult when you start looking at historical information from other cultures (Japan, in my case); if sources aren't available online and in English you're pretty much out of luck.) Yunshui 雲‍水 22:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Parole Board

Please reconsider your speedy deletion of New Zealand Parole Board. I agree the first paragraph of the History section is far too close to http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=9878, but the article has been built up over 200 edits and contains much material of value. I suggest the deletion of the copyvio paragraph is sufficient, not deletion of the whole article.-gadfium 23:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to look at the (now deleted) comments made on the article talk page (Talk:New Zealand Parole Board) by its principal author.-gadfium 23:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to note that the alleged material does not belong to or come from the www.crime.co.nz website anyway. It was taken from the official website of the New Zealand Parole Board. There is no breach of copyright as the the Board has a disclaimer which states: "Material featured on this site is subject to copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a misleading context." Offender9000 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, this looks like a bad call on my part. I've restored the deleted article, and removed the copyvio segment (the licence quoted by Offender9000 above is not compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA licensing (the last sentence specifically prohibits derivation), so we cannot use the text). Sorry for the inconvenience. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Night in paintings (Eastern art)

Dear Yunshui, you are invited to join us to edit Night in paintings (Eastern art). We only have 2 people working on this article and we are struggling finding reliable sources. Your input would be much appreciated! -- RexRowan  Talk  09:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tredic

What are your grounds for deleting a perfectly viable wikipedia entry (TREDIC Corporation) and wasting my companies extremely valuable time? Please take the time to thoroughly investigate prior to deleting valid entires next time, this includes visitng the privacy policy settings of TREDIC Corporation's website where it is made perfectly clear that: "The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)". TREDIC Corporation is not undetakng illicit marketing of a person or business, it is an establised international real estate development & investment busienss with 5 international offices. We strongly suggest you undertake further research and rescind your blocking of our entry, with immediate effect and issue a full apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jajamaha (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) I am replying to this user on their talk page. SmartSE (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As SmartSE has helpfully explained (cheers SmartSE!), the grounds are made clear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TREDIC Corporation. Copyright has nothing to do with it, the arguments for deletion were based on the corporation's failure to meet the notability requirements for inclusion at WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


RC Sihag

Yunsui! You have deleted my webpage User: RcSihag/R.C.Sihag. Kindly restore it. I will soon get the information on tripod deleted. I wish to keep this information on wikimwdia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.128.101 (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to delete the page was not made (primarily) on copyright grounds, but on the grounds of unencyclopedic promotion (see WP:G11). Wikipedia is not a CV database, and your resume does not belong here. If what you have done in life is notable, someone will eventually write an article about you - this person should not be you, for the reasons set out here. If your only purpose on Wikipedia is self-promotion, as appears to be the case, then you will find little success here; consider one of the alternatives instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bettadasanapura, Bangalore

It's not Gujarati ;) It's likely to be Kannada instead. See Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English#Bettadasanapura, Bangalore. — foxj 10:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shows what Google translate knows. Never trust a translation robot... Anybody there speak Kannada? Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The darker side of Ahmedabad

Hi Yunshui! I see that you've been busy of lat doing all those admin stuff and you are doing great. Do you remember our collaboration for Ahmedabad GA? You had helped a lot there and I'm in need of few touch ups again. I came across the news that verdict of Naroda Patiya massacre was about to be announced so was intending to start work on my subpage for it. In the meantime, I saw that someone did create it and it was looking like this. Eventually, I stared work and made it this. I added about 25K words of prose (phew...). I'm not one of the better ones when it comes at copy-editing perhaps if you can lend about 5 or 10 minutes for the article and improve where possible. I don't know that if you are still interested in content work or not but I just need your help buddy here. Since you'd worked with the article about my city, I was hoping that you might also be interested in what had happened in my city 10 years ago (I live close to the spot where the massacre had taken place). Cheers mate! TheSpecialUser TSU 13:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, one more request. The lead is in the state as it was when created, so per WP:LEAD can you write it so that it summarizes the article? Three or four paragraphs would do great :) TheSpecialUser TSU 13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a crack at it now; afterwards I'll take a look at the lead. May not get finished today; if I suddenly stop editing, feel free to carry on without me! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping back now to let Vaibhav have a crack at it; I'll take another look tomorrow. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am done with it. Its really a POV nightmare. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick. I'm trying to steer clear of any POV issues and just focus on grammar and readability at the moment, although I've found myself neutralising the more hyperbolic language from time to time. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys :) TheSpecialUser TSU 08:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.orga.in

Hello mr Yunshi, the orga .in is a seo trick , just to get their website up the google search ranking they have put this , any one can create a domain under .in command it can be (india.ind.in or briney.spears.in ) and same as been done above, so the whole thing is kind of real but i see it as a haux as their is no subject or article to write about anything. do i have to go it in long AFD for this ? or again putting this to speedy deletion would be fine ? Shrikanthv (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could tag it with {{db-web}}; that would be an appropriate speedy deletion template. The reason I declined it was because it isn't a hoax, but I'd have no problem deleting it as non-notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Donnie Darko protection

I understand your reasoning for declining protection. My intention was to maintain the integrity of the article while we attempted to reason with Inedible, which has consistently failed so far. Would you mind keeping an eye on things, in case he returns? He has already been warned for his 3RR violation, so he can't claim ignorance. Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on his talkpage asking him politely to give it a rest until the RfC concludes. For the record, I too think the section he's adding has no place in the article (fascinating though it is; I'll have to re-watch the film tonight with that information in mind), but don't intend to weigh in on the RfC for fear of making my talkpage message appear somewhat hypocritical. I'm more interested in preventing the edit warring than in whether or not the section gets included.
Thanks for accepting the RPP decision, and please let me know if the disruption continues. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I think the RFC was unnecessary, as there was already a discussion ongoing at Wikiproject Film, but I hope that it can result in something positive. The best result, in my opinion, would be a rewrite of the plot, which is nearly incoherent. My concern, though, is that the summary be written objectively, and not in an in-universe style. We will see what develops. Thanks again. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sreelakshmi Suresh 4th AFD!!

hello again Mr Yunshui this is the article which has its 4th AFD with just the process stretched can you have a look into this and close please Shrikanthv (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. After wading through all the arguments (on the AfD, the three previous AfDs, and the talkpage), I finally closed it as Keep. Again. I'm half-inclined to issue a warning to the nominator for disruptive editing... Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect the decision completely, I still didn't get few things. 'Notability rules' are the sole justification for a Wikipedia entry? So anyone who get their details published in few newspapers will get an entry in Wikipedia? This question is not to mock the system or to make fun of anyone, but I find it very strange. And second, " I'm half-inclined to issue a warning to the nominator for disruptive editing" - you meant my nomination? If so, would you please explain it? I mean what disruptive editing that I have done? --LVerina (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under the current form of Wikipedia's policies, basically yes, the notability rules are the sole (or at least primary) justification for an entry. If a subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then unless it violates WP:NOT (the other main inclusion policy), it can have an entry. That the coverage is prompted by spurious awards or insignificant achievements is irrelevent; what counts is the existence of coverage, not its content. I actually agree that there are some flaws in the current policy (it gives far too much weight to modern popular culture, for example), but an AFD discussion is not the place to change that.
As far as the disruptive editing comment goes, that was somewhat glib on my part (I was rather frustrated after wading through all your walls of text...) If an article has been taken to AFD three times in the past, and no major changes have been made to either the article or the policies, then renominating it is almost certainly going to be a waste of everybody's time, especially since you didn't advance any policy-based reason for deletion. However, you did make the nomination in good faith, and you'd waited a decent length of time to tag it again, so warning you for disruption would be overly harsh (which is why I didn't). I apologise if you felt at all threatened by the above comment. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for explaining it. I am not sure whether this is the right place to discuss it, if not, please let me know where to and I will continue there.
Regarding the first point, I am not very familiar with the Wikipedia deletion process and I never knew that AFD discussions should be related to and based on 'Notability Rules' of Wikipedia and nothing else. I guess it is the same with many others participated in the discussions. This point was not clear on the last three AFD discussions too, as the 'Keep' decision was not explained well in those three. You very clearly mentioned it in this case and thanks for that. I fear the conclusion you reached after the AFD discussion was not completely correct, based on the same reason above. The debate didn't reflect the 'notable vs not notable', rather it was based on other factors. Personally I feel this is one of the biggest flaw of the system, but then that is strictly my personal view. We all know how easy to get published in the local newspaper and how these small reports help us to get us more publicity in not just printed media but other media too, especially when the media people are not experts on fields as in this case. And just based on the 'Notability Rules', all those can get a Wikipedia entry is something beyond my thinking of the system. But then, that is just me.
Regarding the second point above, no, it is alright and it didn't sound like threatening. I was new to the terms and I was curious. Thanks for explaining that too.
Now, regarding the long text I posted. Yes, some others also mentioned that. And I know it is a pain to go through the entire content that I posted. I wanted to explain my points with maximum details and proof. I didn't want to talk based on guesswork. As I mentioned above, I never knew we should talk only the 'notability rules' and that is the reason I posted other factors related to the article too. I am still not sure the place to discuss those points. Only on the article discussion page and not on an AFD page? Coming back to the lengthy posts, yes, I did a fairly good research on the matter. That was done for few months actually. I know people may consider this as something negative but I do not think so. I think the efforts people put to create or maintain an article get equal importance to the efforts put to investigate, research and finding facts which are against the article too. I believe that then only we will have quality articles in Wikipedia. If we keep on adding new articles entirely based on 'Notability Rules' and nothing else, and completely ignore the research and facts against them, I do not think that will be a good practice. But again, that is just my opinion and I know it may be an inappropriate place to discuss it here.
Another point I would like to mention in this discussion. Yes, based on the 'Notability Rules', it can be be kept and nothing wrong in that. But based on my research, findings and facts, this is purely an un-ethical way of self promotion and boosting and projecting a normal girl who does not have any exceptional skill to be get an entry in Wikipedia or any similar platform. I have nothing personal against the girl or the people who are actually behind her, but I have proof (which I already explained in the discussion) for every statement I make. I still believe we need to discuss it further and yes, beyond the 'Notability Rules' limit, and I promise this is for making Wikipedia a better place and not for any personal attack or wasting people's time.
Finally, kindly let me know how to proceed from here, how to nominate for a deletion review or what is the next step to follow up in this to continue the discussion. --LVerina (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your research was considerable, and I commend you for it. However, what you say is correct; it is quite possible for a subject to get coverage in comparatively minor news outlets and thus warrant an article. Let me reiterate again: for Wikipedia purposes it matters not one whit whether the coverage is justified or not; the existence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources is sufficient to warrant an article. As I said above, it's arguably a flaw in the rules, but that's the way it currently stands.
As far as "next steps" are concerned, it would probably be sensible to do nothing. The article exists (among over four million others), it's sourced, it has been deemed worthy of inclusion. Further attempts to delete it could and probably would be seen as disruptive, and there are a vast number of articles out there that could use your talent for research. However, if you're determined...
The first and most preferable course, if you have concerns about the article, would be to try and fix them within the article. If you can demonstrate using sources that her awards are minor or that her parents did her web designs for her (or that people have made those arguments elsewhere), then nothing is stopping you from editing the article to include that information. Be mindful of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP if you take this route.
If you believe that I closed the AfD incorrectly (not that the outcome was incorrect, but that I made an error in assessing the arguments put forth) then you can open a case at Deletion review; follow the instructions on that page. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No, I am not going further on this. And no more deletion review too. You explained it very well, much appreciated. And the link you sent (do nothing) make sense. As long as we rely on the 'Notability Rules' to a great extend, there is no use in further discussion on this. I will sure spend the energy and efforts on other parts of Wikipedia instead.
Regarding the edits, yes, as the deletion discussion is closed, I will try to make few edits in the article, not in an attacking way.
Thanks again. --LVerina (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to commend the two of you for resolving the AfD in such a way that shows the best merits of editors co-existing. This easily could have turned into a heightened situation, and has done so in the past even. Everyone presented their arguments and Yunshui, took the time and care to see it through to the end. I can certainly say I've seen some admins close some heavily contested AfD's not out of argument merits but simply out of !Votes regardless. Yunshui best described my overall argument over the course of the 4 AfD nominations -- in that this one particular article does not necessarily add a lot of value individually, but rather the policies that allow this article to be included are the same policies that make Wikipedia one of the most powerful resources. It is in that reason I argue to protect articles like this and not so much the indiscriminate subject matter. Mkdwtalk 22:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was nice discussing with Yunshui as he very well explained the system and the rules behind AFD. That also in a nice manner. I never knew (and many others too I guess) 'Notability Rules' are the sole thing which leads to decision making in an AFD. Yes, I knew that the votes alone will not count as the number of votes can go in any direction. But my thinking was, facts, proofs and other supporting materials get importance as well. I was wrong. As I mentioned in the discussion, anyone with a few local newspaper articles about them get a Wikipedia entry and the article will remain there forever. As we all agree, this seems to be a flaw in the system, at the same time I understand that Wikipedia has limitations as well. I wish there would be some 'trusted members' locally to verify the claims, facts and supporting documents. But then, that will be a major policy change.
Anyway, this is my first long interaction with many of the Wikipedia members and I am looking forward to start contributing and actively participating in Wikipedia. --LVerina (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Naroda_Patiya_massacre

The issues brought here are addressed perhaps can you leave few comments there if it is warranted and fix the POV in the lines of the article. Thanks. TheSpecialUser TSU 23:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TSU. I'm sorry I haven't done more with the article. Truth be told, I'm not sure I'm the right person for the job - the amount of background reading I'd have to do just to get to the same basic level of knowledge that you and Vaibhav have on the subject is more than a little daunting, and due to my current sporadic internet access I can't easily commit to the lengthy, major edits that are needed (I'm spending most of my time at the moment dealing with admin backlogs). That said, if you want a neutral perspective, I'd say (I'm afraid) that there still seems to be a bit of work needed to balance the article - at present, there appears to be a definite slant towards the anti-government position, with sections like the "State sponsorship" (even the header there is POV, implying that the government financially backed the rioters) having substantial allegations balanced only by a couple of lines pointing out that Modi claimed innocence and was exonerated. Having looked at some of the earlier versions, though, you have made vast improvements; good work! Yunshui 雲‍水 07:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign at PERM

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hey, I noticed you forgot to sign your name when you declined the request for Confirmed permission. I went ahead and signed it for you. If you feel that there is an administrative need to retain the signature, or that my unsign template was unnecessary, please don't hesitate to revert and tell me! :P Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Retina Display & Talk:Retina Displays

Hi Yunshui, could you please restore Talk:Retina Displays and move it to Talk:Retina Display. User:Jimthing moved the page to Retina Displays, then you deleted G8 (at which time the main page, and not the talk page, had been moved back to Retina Display. I'm pretty sure this is what happened but I may have it wrong (without being able to see where the deleted content is it's difficult. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, I missed that (the talkpage had been blanked, so I assumed it was empty). Fixed now, thanks for the heads up. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I saw it on my watchlist then had a look at them and did a 'what the heck'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super Match

Thanks for protecting article, My editing is by K-League official records. I attahced references. But user Fetx2002 is editing by his taste. Because He supports Suwon Samsung. Please patroll Fetx2002 editing. In koea wikipedia, He edinted articles by his taste and He counterfeited refereces. Footwiks (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to come across this comment in talking to Yunshui about another subject matter, but I can speculate that Yunshui did not lock the article to side with one argument. I think you've taken the lock to mean something it does not. He simply locked the article to stop the edit war. You and Fetx will need to reach a consensus on the changes you want to implement so when the article unlocks those changes can be made. Yunshui's lock of the article does not delegitimize Fetx's argument nor be an argument to not include his information. Mkdwtalk 23:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mkdw; you're spot on. Footwiks, I take no position as to the legitimacy of one version of the article or the other - I know less than nothing about Korean football - but the edit war between the two of you was disrupting the article. You need to visit the article talkpage and state your case there (Fetx2002 has already started discussing the matter on that page). When consensus is reached, a decision can be made to edit the article accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CSD declined - Christian Santos

Please note that WP:NFOOTY explicitly excludes players who have signed but not played for a club: Note: A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Please take this into consideration when evaluating this article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - he hasn't played any games for his new club, and so the arguments made at the deletion discussion still apply. My mistake; allow me to make up for it by going back to the article and G4ing it again... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howard J Bluss

Hi. You recently G12ed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Howard J. Buss. The article's creator doesn't appear to have been informed about the CSD, and is a bit upset. I'll assume you merely responded to a tag and decided it was valid, but could you have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#My article was deleted, I believe unfairly and see if you can add anything to the discussion? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

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.

Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Recently you have been involved in a dispute of mine. Here is what you said: Per WP:ELNO#11, we do not include external links to blogs or similar personal websites unless they are written by a recognised authority in the relevant field; in addition, such authorities are presumed to be notable by Wikipedia standards. High school teachers such as the author of New Books In Brief, unless notable for other reasons, do not qualify. Please do not re-add this link; if you do, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC

The website in question is neither a blog nor a personal website (though it does use a platform that hosts many such websites--which appears to confuse people enormously). It would be nice for a website to be banned for inappropriate content rather than the profession of the author. Apparently you searched the website for something to incriminate it, but did not bother reading the article to see if it contained appropriate content or not. Why don't we open the issue up to the public, so it doesn't come down to your personal opinion?

Sincerely, Book Reporter

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui&oldid=511460589"