I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. To leave me a new message, please click here.
If you are here because of a page that I deleted, please take a moment to read this page first.
If you need to discuss something privately, please send me an email, but if you do so, please leave the text {{YGM}} at the bottom of this page to alert me.
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Maitre d' Invitation
Dear Yunshui,
thank you for volunteering as a host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, you are helping new users get a hold of the ropes here at Wikipedia, and helping old users that just have a question about how something works.
One program you may not have been aware of is the Teahouse Maître d' program. This program allows a few editors at a time to help organize the teahouse and keep it running. If you're interested in participating, sign up on the calendar. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse!
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.
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.
Bring back Steven M. Cohen (Attorney)
Mr. Cohen was on the Dr. Drew show on HLN last night representing his client Lynn DeJac I live in Western New York and regularly see Mr. Cohen in the news for representing his clients in civil rights cases. I researched his law firm and they have one of the largest civil rights departments in the country (under the direction of Steven) and take on a plethora of cases pro bono. I know that this page was deleted in the past but I think it's important for people to realize that there are attorneys out there who will represent them in these sort of cases. Steven seems to ask the tough questions and do a thorough job for his clients.
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.
Hohoho!!!
BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
By the way, get well soon (or if you've already gotten well, enjoy the hols!)
Pratyya(Happy New Year) — is wishing you a HappyNewYear! Welcome the 2024. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2024 goes well for you.
(talk page stalker) Hi Yunshui, I am really sorry about that. I didn't mean to alarm you about your nomination; I though you might appreciate it. About the formatting...well, I had no idea it was incorrect. On an unrelated note, I was curious as to know what your ethnic background is and what country you live in? I don't mean to be the black-cloak shady figure around the corner, but I am genuinely curious about your background, and since you said "time for bed" at...er...around 6:40 PM, this ha led me to wonder about your time zone. Cheers, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!
I want to point out specific questions that you have answered thoughtfully, helpfully, in clear detail, and with a welcoming tone... but there are just too many of them to choose from. You're an excellent guide and communicator and I'm so glad you're a part of the Teahouse. Thanks!
Also, in case you were wondering, we're trying a new experiment centered around 'acknowledgements' in the Teahouse. If you see someone doing something awesome, find the Badge that fits best and share it with them. More details are linked on the Badge itself. Cheers!
A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.
Hey, I see you've got quite the knack for anti-vandal patrol. I'm curious if you ever tried using WP:STiki. It's my favorite a-v tool and it tends to catch more 'subtle' types of vandalism. Maybe check it out, I'd love to hear what you think about it. (note: you can select which 'queue' you review, either the leftover ClueBot feed that is likely vandalism but not high enough confidence to revert automatically, or the STiki queue which has its own metadata algorithm, or a linkspam queue which is all about, well, linkspam). Cheers! Ocaasit | c15:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody loves STiki... sadly, I don't get to play with it. Because I edit primarily from a heavily firewalled PC, downloads aren't an option - so no Huggle either . I used to have a whale of a time with Igloo, but since the summer that's been pretty much defunct due to server issues. I never get to have any fun... Thanks for the thought, though! Yunshui雲水22:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nestlé
Hi. Time ago, you protected Nestlé, indefinitely, which was its first protection. I think this is excessive, considering the page received "normal" vandalism for such visible page. I'd like to know which is the possibility to unprotected it or its protection replaced with pending changes Lv. 1. Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.20:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable idea. Give me a moment to step into this convenient phonebooth and tear open my shirt to reveal the big "A" logo... Yunshui雲水22:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've alrdy got a plethora of additional opinions there (just FYI, a request for comment is the usual way of doing that, and would avoid accusations of canvassing); I don't think adding my voice to the fray would be especially helpful, particularly since I know very little about the topic. I do endorse your suggestion that WP:NFOOTY might benefit from some revision in light of this, though. Yunshui雲水17:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amy. It's actually already there - just filter the status to "Planned" instead of "Current". Once the start date rolls around, it will be relisted as current and will appear on the current course list. You can change the start date to today or earlier to make it appear there now, if you wish. Yunshui雲水17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yunshui,
What are you doing here on a Sunday afternoon (well, it is here!). I'm not sure if this is really something you want to nip into your convenient telephone kiosk and don your SuperAd tee-shirt for, but the above IP constantly removes headings etc. Also consistently changes the same articles. Almost everything is then duly reverted back by other editors. There don't seem to be that many unconstructive edit warnings on the IPs talk page but I must admit the few I've reverted, I thought they were to basic to bother with and I suspect others felt the same. However, when you go through the contributions there seem to be an awful of them? Probably just something and nothing but maybe worth 'SuperAd' keeping an eye on! SagaciousPhil - Chat17:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bit later in the evening here (and right back atcha, incidentally...). In all honestly I've got a migraine brewing and I don't think I'm in much condition to make valid admin judgements right now as a result; I'll take a proper look tomorrow if no-one else gets there first. Painkillers and sleep are the order of the day at chateau Yunshui.... Yunshui雲水18:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't encountered something this complex before...
Hello Yunshui,
Taking your advice, I've been doing some work with unblock requests and users with the helpme template on their page. I've also started reviewing requested edits, and I've encountered the following scenario...See this, my response, and the user's talkpage... Anything I did wrong, or should do? Cheers, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would have been somewhat different, but the end result would have been the same. As with so much on Wikipedia, it boils down to sourcing. Entries in lists are subject to the same notability requirements as articles (per WP:Source list), so if Mr Game's song has received sufficient coverage, it could be added. I can't find any such coverage from a cursory webtrawl, so I'd guess that Happy New Year doesn't meet the inclusion requirements. For the same reason, it probably wasn't a great idea to suggest that he write an article about the song and/or album; it would be deleted before very long.
With a requested edit like this, the addition wouldn't be considered promotional: the editor who added it to the article would not be the same COI editor who proposed it (e.g. if I had found sources showing the song was notable, I would have added it to the list) and simple inclusion in a list is not usually taken to be especially spammy.
However, the result is the same either way: the song shouldn't be included on the list. If Mr Game isn't satisfied with your answer he can always file another edit request (which will probably be denied for the reasons above). No harm done. I'm glad to see you branching out into editor assistance; it can be frustrating at times but is also one of the most rewarding areas of Wikipedia to work in. The one cardinal rule is never to answer a question unless you're sure about the answer - but if you do run across anything you're unsure of, you know where to find me! Yunshui雲水08:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History of the American West
Hi Yunshui--Thanks for volunteering to be an online ambassador for my course--that would be great. We have a training session tomorrow and will hopefully get started on small editing projects very soon.
Lynn Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docjay57 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui, you claim that the content of my edit was "irrelevant" in your decision to deny my unblock request but it was the content which led to the original deletions. If you look closely at the deletion pattern, you'll see that 4 different editors deleted my edit. First, they said my edit was "disruptive, then cited copyright rules. Clearly, these people are working in concert to make sure the AR-15 page remains devoid of any facts about it's history as a weapon used in mass killings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trblmkr1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've just been blocked again for the same behaviour. You really need to read and understand Wikipedia's policy on edit warring - at this point, the content of the edit is entirely irrelevant. If four different editors revert you - indeed, if only one editor reverts you - the appropriate course of action is to discuss the issue with them, not revert back to your preferred version. Your content may be totally accurate, correct and well-sourced: it doesn't matter. As I said before, you are being blocked for your behaviour, not your content additions. If you don't get your head around this, and soon, you'll probably find yourself blocked indefinitely. Yunshui雲水20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui,
I've been on Wikipedia for almost half a year now, and somehow it just seems to be getting more and more engaging. As you probably know, I enjoy reverting vandalism and commenting on unblock requests. Sometime in the future, preferably in 6 or 7 months, I would like to become an administrator. Ad you are my mentor, who has ultimately guided me out of my vandalism (Wow! I used to be a vandal?), I would very much appreciate it if we began a drawn-out policy immersion to prepare for my RfA. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, thanks for the beer! Gulp! Wait a minute...I'm not a drinker! Oops.
Hi Kevin,
I'm very glad to have had a hand in guiding you to becoming a constructive contributor, and I'm doubly happy that you're enjoying working on Wikipedia. Adminship is not an inconceivable future goal, but I'll be honest: six or seven months from your current state is somewhat ambitious - I'd be thinking more in one to two years as a timeframe. I know that seems like ages, but trust me, you'll need that sort of period to tick all the necessary boxes for RFA...
First things first: I know I'm always harping on at you about it, but do finish the adoption schooling - not only will it serve to introduce you to some of the policies you'll need to know, but your answers also highlight the areas we need to work on, and that will help me to iron out the wrinkles in your understanding.
Many people - myself included, as it happens - will tend to oppose RFAs where the candidate has not made some significant content contributions. As a minimum, you should aim to have fulfilled the requirements for the autopatrolled userright (50+ created articles which meet the basic sourcing and notabililty criteria) and have a few DYK nominations under your belt; if you can contribute substantially to taking one or two articles to Good Article or even Featured Article status, that will also be a feather in your cap. Content creation, assuming it's done right, shows a sound knowledge of the policies that govern content, and since content is the goal of the whole project, those are far and away the most important rules we have. If you can demonstrate that your purpose here is to improve the encyclopedia, that will count heavily in your favour. In the same vein, try doing some reviewing work at Articles for creation; this is also a good way to show that you know your way around content requirements.
You'll need to show that you can be diplomatic about solving disputes: DRN is, as you've said, long and complicated, but that's the sort of thing you're going to need to deal with as an admin on a regular basis. If that seems a bit too much to start with, try offering a third opinion on some disagreements. The important thing to remember when you get involved in these things is to keep a cool head - don't get involved in cases where you already have a strong opinion one way or the other. If you aren't sure about something, go and read the relevant policy/guideline before commenting. Most importantly, don't become part of the argument - dispute resolution is about mediation, not about adopting one side of the debate and furiously piling in against the opposition.
Help new users. I'm not sure that you have the right temperment to be a Teahouse host at the moment (not a criticism; some of the best admins on Wikipedia have avoided Teahouse work because they don't fit the profile), but you should certainly consider lending a hand at the helpdesk, and you may also want to start tracking the Feedback Dashboard, which is an easy way to find people who need assistance.
Put the Administrators Incident Noticeboard on your watchlist, and keep abreast of the discussions there. Do not get involved in them - just read and inwardly digest. Watching ANI in action can be a bit like watching a car crash in slow motion, but it can also give you a good idea of how the admin corps work.
For the present, try and avoid doing any non-admin admin work (like closing AFD discussions, clerking AIV or RPP, commenting on blocks etc.) Until you've got a better grasp of the policies involved, you're more likely to harm your chances than improve them. Save this sort of work for six to eight months down the road, when you'll be a well-established editor with good decison-making skills.
That'll do for starters. As a simple first goal, try and complete your adoption school by - let's say - the start of April; once that's out of the way we can start thinking about content creation and other areas. Be prepared for a long haul. The important thing to keep in mind is that the overarching goal of this place is to build an encyclopedia, not gather hats - if you can show (not tell) that your goal is the same, you stand a decent chance of passing RFA one day. Yunshui雲水09:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the dergree is variable and secondly it takes two years of your article being in a scientific journal before it is accepted by clay institute. My article has been accepted to scientific journal vixra itself. Why did you decline the Andrew Magdy Kamal article if the sources are valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.206.179 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the sources aren't valid. Every single one of them stems directly from (and I've been avoiding identifying you, but since the above comment clearly shows you are Andrew Kamal) your own self-promotion attempts. You may think you're a genius; hell, you may actually be a genius, but until a reliable source (that isn't you) verifies your claims, you don't merit an article on Wikipedia. If even half of your claims are true, you should be world-famous - so how come in all the searches I've run (and I've run quite a few now) I've not once found anyone who isn't you validating your claims?
Wikipedia as a community is generally pretty good at spotting hoaxes; we're well practiced at it. Please give up this vain attempt to create an autobiography here, and do something more constructive with your time. Being in an academic journal might give your work some validity, but since Vixra will publish literally anything, without peer-review, they are not considered a scientific journal by the majority of the academic community. If you have indeed solved Reimann and the Clay Institute verifies it, then all the accolades you desire will be heaped on you (plus a million dolars, if I remember correctly). That will certainly make you notable, but since the Institute gets thousands of "solutions" every year, I wouldn't hold your breath. Yunshui雲水17:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help
Hello Yunshui. (Are these kanjis "Cloud of water?") You left a reply to my 'help' notice and asked what is the problem,and here is my reply. All my edits in a BLP article Leonard Oprea have been deleted, and they were all based in material that is already in the references. Every single word I wrote was erased. I am now not talking about the entire article that was deleted just when I finished adding all the requested citations, and replaced with this new version. I am talking about additions in the present version. The BLP article as it stands talks about some five years of a career of 30 years, and mentions less than half the books this author has published. Any additions I made to the new article that were based on references I brought to the talk have been deleted. Even references to online editions of books that were already listed were erased. Even books that were mentioned in secondary references were deleted. I don't want to go into an edit war. I am a professional editor in my private life and I edit numerous scientific article. I know the difference between verifiable and not verifiable references and I read the wiki policies on self-published books. In the case of people who self-publish as a direct continuation of regular third party publishing wiki says that this can be included. At least this is what I understand from “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications”. I said that I intend to go into dispute resolution if the matter is not resolved otherwise. Meanwhile not one of 'deleting' editors are responding. User: Biruitorul who wrote the new version and initially agreed to incorporate changes suggested by me, has stopped contributing as well. In short...I would like to solve this matter amicably but this seems unachievable.Sensei2004 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I don't mind getting a reply here (I read the header after I wrote my comment, sorry).Sensei2004 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sensei2004. Are you referring to this edit? It seems to me that you're basically attempting to do three things:
Establish Oprea's current residence as Auburn
Include a mention of Domenii interzise as his first published work
Add links to Editura.liternet editions of Oprea's books.
Looking over the article as an uninvolved party (an admittedly fairly quick glance), I have to say that I only partially agree with Biruitorul's removal of those elements:
You've provided no source in the article for the statement that Oprea resides in Auburn. Note that I'm not saying this information isn't true, just that it isn't verified by a source. I notice that you did provide this source on the talkpage in an attempt to corroborate the information, but unfortunately all that the linked article shows is that Oprea once ran two writing courses in Auburn. To extrapolate his residency there from that is original research; you're making a claim that isn't in the source. (As an analogy, I've taught martial arts workshops in London and Birmingham, but I don't live in either of those cities - anyone finding my classes listed in the London Evening Standard would be sorely mistaken if they assumed I was a local.) Unfortunately the only acceptable sources I've found for this violate WP:BLPCRIME, since they're all reports of his 2009 arrest. It may not be possible to include this information without violating BLP policy; I think it might be worth bring up at the BLP noticeboard. I'm tempted to suggest that since this information is technically verifiable (anyone with Google and a couple of minutes can find Oprea's home address elsewhere), we should probably include it, but I'm open to being argued out of that position.
I can definitely see a case for including Domenii interzise in his publications, but again, it needs to be sourced - this should suffice (it's an interview with Oprea and thus a primary source, but that's acceptable for uncontentious statements about an article's subject).
There's no point in including the Editura links - not only are they sales links (which are prohibited by the External Links policy), but they are of no relevance when considered alongside more reputable publishers such as Curtea Veche. There's simply no encyclopedic value in adding this information.
As far as your immediate future actions go, I'd advise against re-adding the information - you'll get yourself in hot water for edit warring if you do. Remember, there's no deadline for Wikipedia: I'd advise further discussion with the other editors involved. Leave them talkpage messages, and wait to hear their views as well. If that fails, then maybe dispute resolution is indeed the next appropriate step. Yunshui雲水23:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. Yes, I was referring to this edit. The deletions were made without any comment, except that User:MSJapan said that the Facebook page indicates Boston as residence, and I don't accept this reason. The previous article that stayed on wiki for a long time indicated that he lived earlier in Boston and now in Maine and I did not have problems when I inserted that. This is just a simple fact, not research, this is where he lives. (The article about his arrest was inserted as an act of vandalism against Oprea, he has meanwhile been cleared of all charges, and this was also discussed in the talk, and this is also mentioned in the interview if I remember correctly).
I have heaps of more material that needs to find its way to the article, and I really don't understand all wiki policies against calling a spade a spade when you see it is a spade. In addition, I cannot be in a situation in which every word I add, and base on references is erased with no explanation. I find myself in a weird situation in which I am not be allowed to add material on my own, and this now seems to be an ownership issue.
In any case, thanks for your input, I intend to go to dispute resolution because as you can see I have tried to let User; Biruitorul do the insertions but nothing happened. The article as it stands at the moment is terrible because it dwells only on the past (and even that not accurately) and says nothing about the present, and this is a major flaw for any BLP article.
Btw, the links to LiterNet are not "sales links" as the site is not commercial and the download is free. I agree however to just list them as a third edition of his books without the links (and this edition is also mentioned in a secondary source by Liviu Antonesei).Sensei2004 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Majority?
Hi Yunshui,
I was taking a peek over Kudpung's Advice for RfA candidates page, and I noticed the comment about the age of majority (18 in most countries, including Canada.) Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, my age falls way below 18. Considering this, is there any chance my RfA result could be biased? Cheers, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't be an issue. Whilst technically speaking age should be no barrier to adminship (and we do have a few underage admins who are perfectly competent), it can be a factor in people's voting. The problem isn't really physical age so much as maturity; if a candidate's history shows that they can act in a mature and responsible manner then age is less likely to be an issue. Show that you can edit consistently in a calm, competent, level-headed way; demonstrate that you think deeply about all aspects of an issue before commenting on it; put in the hours slogging away to crate content or provide sources; interact with other editors in a reasonable and mature manner: all of these will help mitigate any potential age-related bias. There's an interesting essay on the subject here, if you want to read up a little more. Yunshui雲水09:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Major (duo)
Hi, I just looked on wikipedia for the new UK act Major that was reveiwed by Pop justice a few days ago. I could not see a page but saw that you had deleted one. As this seems to be an upcoming group and is reviewed by the influential online site Pop Justice I would have though they warranted an entry. With an eye on maybe submitting something in the future, did you remove the page because they are very new, the page was uniformative or you felt that their music is not worthwhile? Thanks Jonno — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnoStokes (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My page, Spagnos, was deleted by you due to violation. However, all I was doing was letting the world know of the country I created. In a newer, non-violating version, should I say that it is only made-up or what? Please do something, Yunshui. I would love to have a page on Wikipedia and share my ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyhorses21 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Tristan noir has interpreted[1] your reply to me[2] differently than how I took it.
I understood it as meaning "Because everyone but Tristan has said you should be unbanned, I hereby unban you, and you may now freely edit articles on which Tristan has been working", and so I went ahead and made this edit to the article Fujiwara no Takamitsu. If you meant to say that as of that point my IBAN had expired, could you clarify that point for Tristan? I have already tried pointing this out to him, but he seems to take this as me trying to "direct traffic" or otherwise unilaterally declare my own ban to have been lifted.
If indeed you meant, as Tristan apparently believes you did, "If/when you are unbanned, you will be allowed freely edit articles on which Tristan has been working", then my edit was out-of-line, and you can revert it and block me for 24 hours as appropriate.
I must admit, lastly, that I considered making this request of you via e-mail, because I know Tristan noir will, as he has before, draw "creative" conclusions from my contacting other users on their talk pages.[3][4] However, it really isn't necessary, and might have actually impugned my good faith by contacting you privately. I hope by lampshading this fact here I will prevent Tristan from drawing another lengthy diatribe out of this (he has done that to me before, believe it or not).
Forgot one! That was actually the worst example: he accuses me of "possible stealth-canvassing" for sending an e-mail to Drmies and "canvassing" for sending him a thank-you for readin the e-mail. The reason I sent that piece by e-mail was that, in the course of dealing with Tristan, who has obvious COI issues, I became 99.9% certain of his real-world identity (and 100% certain of User:Kujakupoet's). I wanted to explain my concern to an admin who was helping me clean up an article the two had messed up, but posting that information on-Wiki would have been WP:OUTING. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asking me for clarification, as you've done here, isn't in any way a violation of WP:CANVASS, so you can rest easy on that score. As far as the ban goes, I've reiterated my statement at WP:AN: you are no longer constrained by an interaction ban with Tristan noir. If anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the consensus in that thread then they're free to disagree there or take it up with me here, but since all of the commentators so far support lifting the IBAN (at least your side of it) I'd say the community's opinion is fairly clear. Yunshui雲水08:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
By the way, it is a total replacement for ale_jrb's original userhist script (most of the code is actually the same), so be sure to remove that script before trying this one out. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔22:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is SO AWESOME! Pretty much exactly what we need. I've tried it on a couple of pages now and it works like a dream. A whole bunch of lecturers are going to be very grateful to you - as am I. Yunshui雲水23:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm glad you like it. Just a minor point, though: you don't have to copy the entire script over to your common.js page; you can just write importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/userHistory.js");, and it'll do the hard work for you. Keeps your js pages a bit neater, and you get updates automatically. No big deal, though. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔23:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But... all the pretty colours...
Hey, I've also realised this is going to be really handy for anti-vandal work and general admin stuff; having all a user's edits to a page in one place will make reviewing histories a hell of a lot quicker, especially on my laggy machine. Yunshui雲水23:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, the pretty colors are nice, but then you don't get the nifty new feature that I just added, which lets you hide and re-show the diff display at will after loading it the first time, through just clicking the button again. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔00:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally (and this a case in point as to why you should never do anything for anybody, ever), is there a way to adjust it so that the Inspect Edit button is available in the general history, as well as the segregated one? Yunshui雲水08:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand that was the other thing I'd figure you would ask for. It's actually not as easy as it sounds; right now, the script catches the new lines as they're being created and adds the buttons as they go by, but with the standard history screen, we have to find them and get information out of them after the fact. Should still be possible (and not too difficult), so I'll work on it. Writ Keeper⚇♔14:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well don't herniate yourself in the process; since you've already given me a magical flying horse it seems a bit churlish for me to complain that it isn't a unicorn. What we have now is already a hugely useful tool (and the addition of Inspect Edit to the general history wouldn't be of any use to WEP instructors, so it's extraneous to the original design brief). Yunshui雲水14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a shiny bit of scripting. I believe I may have mentioned this before, but you really do rock at this sort of thing. I promise, no further demands. At least until I think of some other useful thing I'd like... Yunshui雲水14:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. That is the creepiest unicorn I've ever seen. How many people has that one impaled on his horn and devoured (and apparently used their blood as eyedrops?) Writ Keeper⚇♔14:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those medieval beastiaries didn't mess about; a unicorn to them was basically a pointy horse with anger management issues... Yunshui雲水14:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper, this is really cool! I have two suggestions that might make it more useful for instructors trying to grade their students' contributions. First, a way to expand all the diffs at once, instead of having to click on "inspect" for each one. Second, add a link that would appear next to each article listed in the Students table on a course page, which links directly to the isolated contributions by that student to the article. I don't know how tough either of those would be to add, but I think between the two of them, those features would make it a tool that a lot of instructors would want to use.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sage! Having them all click together was the original idea, but requesting that many diffs at once is an expensive server call; I've been advised that one at a time (and there's a synchronization lock to make sure one request can't start while another is running), so I'd rather not do that idea. I'll take a look at your other suggestion, but in the meantime, this might help: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/contribsHistory.js. It's the same as above, but it now works on a user's contributions. I figured three's a charm. Writ Keeper⚇♔22:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! The third one will certainly be useful for instructors too. I think I'll make a screencast showing how to install and use these for reviewing student contribution. Let me know if want to implement suggestion 2 or not, when you get a chance. (If so, I'll wait until then to make the screencast.)--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to my surprise, the functionality needed to do this was already built into Ale jrb's script; since I based userHistory.js off of that, it's already ready to go. It's just a question of adding the right buttons to the table. Basically, the buttons need to link to this url: /w/index.php?title=(whatever the page name is)&action=history&isolate=(whatever the user's name is). Both of those values need to be URL encoded, which can be done with a substed magic word. Do you know how I'd add a button like that, or at least where to go to do it? Writ Keeper⚇♔16:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Yunshui et al., UI question: I'm finding the button style I used to be a bit big and clunky. Are y'all finding the same? I'm considering changing it to a bracketed-link type deal, similar to the rollback links provided by the rollback permissions and Twinkle. Thoughts? Writ Keeper⚇♔19:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For regularly editors who are using these scripts as just another addition to their toolkit, yeah, the big buttons are out of place. I think they are just right, though, for instructors who are going in with the very specific purpose of looking at a whole lot of edits using one of these scripts.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. The scripts will appear with the normal button by default, but if you add the line inlineDiffSmallUI = true; into your common.js file (or whatever .js file you're importing the scripts into), it'll switch to a Twinkle-like [inspect diff] kind of look (and will also switch to the more jargon-y "diff" rather than "edit"; slightly more precise, but slightly more confusing to a newbie). Thoughts? Writ Keeper⚇♔21:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New versions! I've actually made two: one extends this to the watchlist and the recentchanges page; the other is a consolidated version of all four scripts except for the original history filter one; I'd recommend removing the generalHistory and contribsHistory and replacing them with User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/commonHistory.js, as it's a bit cleaner and more standardized. The smallui thing still works, and you still need the userHistory.js script if you want the history filter. Let me know what y'all think! Writ Keeper⚇♔04:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui
I am web developer of www.vuedemonde.com.au
you delete my article( Shannon Bennett Page ) I want to say that the content of http://www.vuedemonde.com.au/shannon_bennett_biography
was written by me.
By the way I am working for Shannon Bennett
And if it is possible please restore the article I write another biography for him
Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahcin (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the text on your website is not unambiguously released under a CC-BY-SA licence (or similar free licence) it cannot be legally used on Wikipedia. All Wikipedia content, including that submitted from other sites, must be free to reuse, alter, sell or redistribute, with attribution. Even if the content were free to use, its tone is promotional and unencyclopedic, and is not at all appropriate for Wikipedia. In addition, you have a clear conflict of interest regarding Mr Bennett, and thus, per our conflict of interest guidelines you are strongly discouraged from writing about him here. A more appropriate avenue would be to list his name at Request articles, so that an unbiased, neutral editor can create an appropriate page. Yunshui雲水23:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Manumurali2012
Hi, could you please look on the contributions of this user. I have looked and reverted spam links which he continue to post in Indian actors/actresses and also on other articles. Since his last block (which you performed), he hasn't changed his style of editing here. Could you also take actions if needed. Thanks. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui,
I was casually taking a look at Titodutta's editcounter and it seems that he has picked up a right called "eponline". Any ideas as to what that might be? Cheers, Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I hope you don't mind that I made a host profile on the Teahouse; if you dissaprove, let me know. I've responded to two questions so far.
That would be because he's an Education Project Online Ambassador (one of these). It's a minor userright that give access to a couple of additional pages in the Special: namespace and allows extra editing options on certain Education Project pages. Nothing terribly special.
I don't see any issue with your Teahouse responses (that talkpage one is an odd case...), in fact your enthusiastic tone sits rather well there. Just avoid answering anything you're not 100% sure of and you should be fine. Yunshui雲水07:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction for Theater History from 1642 (Spring '13)
Yunshui,
Hello.
I am a student editor from Brooklyn College Theater History from 1642 (Spring '13).
I am introducing myself as part of the initial wikipedia assignment.
Hello Yunshui-
I am here to introduce myself; My name is Emily Blumenauer and I am in Professor Hughes History class. I will most likely be needing a lot of your help managing this wikipedia process!
Thank you
Emily BlumenauerEmilyBlume (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui!
My name is Slava. I'm in Theater History class. Sorry for introducing myself a little bit late. I would like to participate in Wikipedia project. Thanks.Iaroslavny (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, and welcome aboard. I think (if I've got the time difference right) that you're probably in class as I write this, and since I'm off to bed now you won't hear from me again for a bit. However, to assuage your (especially Emily's!) fears; don't worry: editing is not that hard (as some of you have already discovered), you cannot possibly break Wikipedia, and any mistakes you might make can easily be fixed. The vast majority of this sites 18-million or so editors are nice, helpful, friendly people, and we're ready to offer you whatever assistance you might need. Enjoy your class, and happy editing! Yunshui雲水23:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you currently taking adoptees?
If so, I may have found someone who would be a good match, User:Sneazy. I would take him on myself if I didn't already have five adoptees, but I thought you might be a good match. He posted what he would seek in adoption here, and your name immediately came to mind. I haven't told him about you to give you the chance to decline without offending him if you didn't want to, but I told him I would try to find someone. Respectfully, GoPhightins!20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Go Phightins. Flattered that I am that you thought of me, I think I'll have to say no - not that I'm unwilling, but I'm OAing two courses which are kicking off this week, and I'm already looking after a couple of adoptees - I'd hate to take Sneazy on and then find that I was too busy to give him the necessary help and attention. Sorry to decline, but I really don't want to offer my help and then find myself spread to thin to provide it properly. I'll update my adopter status accordingly; thanks for reminding me that I'm still listed as accepting adoptees. Cheers, Yunshui雲水22:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thanks for considering. Do you have any other suggestions? Worm is full, I'm full, Brambleberry just took on a new adoptee, Gwickwire's course doesn't sound like a good match, and Rcsprinter has several adoptees. That's putting me at a loss. GoPhightins!02:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've always had a lot of respect for Swarm, who seems to have slots free at the moment; he might be worth asking. I know Ryan Vesey for a capable adopter, but like me, he's also got some WEP courses on at the moment, so he may feel that he's already at his limit. I've also been impressed with John F. Lewis recently (he was Curtaintoad's adopter), so if he's free, he might also be a good candidate.Yunshui雲水08:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui, we don't know each other but I saw a comment you posted on Kevin12xd's talk page a few days ago. I noticed you were an administrator and wanted to get your advice or help on a matter involving Kevin. Over the past day, I have been doing a lot of work to improve Looking for Miracles, a subject I have an interest in. (I've watched the movie at least a half dozen times. ;)) I noticed that in the four years since the article was created, it's rarely been edited and really needed expanded and improved. The movie was released almost a quarter century ago, so I wasn't sure how many reliable sources I'd be able to find. Anyway, I found a few great sources and did a lot of work on the article; in particular, I worked hard to expand the Synopsis section and made some other corrections and improvements. I was really proud of the result. Well, after all that work, I noticed about an hour ago that Kevin reverted all my edits (with one edit), using Huggle, without any explanation. I was shocked and very frustrated when I saw that because my edits were obviously not vandalism. In fact, they were the antithesis of vandalism. I reverted Kevin's revert, but I did not contact him because I thought perhaps he didn't even look at what he was reverting and simply was unaware he made a mistake. This is why I'm writing you. I don't know how it is determined which editors can use Huggle or what the rules for using it are, but it's very frustrating to see that someone would make such an inappropriate revert using that tool. And if he did that to my legitimate edits, I wondered how many other editors have had the same thing done to them. I'm sure Kevin means well and had no bad intentions, but I was hoping you might be able to counsel him on his use of Huggle (or any other tools he may be using). Sorry to bother you with this, but thanks for any help you can provide. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that you've restored your content already. To be honest, I can't see a good reason for Kevin's revert, unless he was objecting to your removal of redlinks (which really isn't a problem - leaving them in the text might perhaps have been preferable, but there's no rule against taking them out). Your additions were sourced and improved the article, and anyone removing them ought to have given a detailed rationale for the change. I shall have a quiet word... Yunshui雲水08:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui, thank you so much. By the way, the reason I removed the redlinks is because one editor, three years ago, simply wikilinked every name in the article, apparently without even realizing that most of them either did not have articles or were disambiguatons. I felt that all that red overwhelmed the page, particularly because the article has relatively little content. But thanks for letting me know that I didn't violate any rules in removing them, which is something I certainly never want to do. In any case, I'm very confident that the redlinks were not the reason that Kevin reverted all of my changes. But if he did, then it's a perfect example of throwing out the the baby with the bathwater. Very little bathwater, at that. But of course it's hard to know why it happened since he left no edit comment and did not leave a message on my talk page. The only reasons I can think of are that he either simply made a mistake or he saw a series of substantial edits from an IP editor and therefore assumed they must have been vandalism. Either of those invalid reasons would likely be very frustrating to any editor who has spent a lot of time and effort trying to improve an article, especially one that has rarely been edited in all the years it's existed. Again, thank you for your help in this matter. I really appreciate it. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do try to remember that WP:IPs are people too... but it's an unfortunate fact that IP users also contribute the majority of vandalism on Wikipedia, so you do get occasions where, as you say, anti-vandalism patrollers see a series of IP edits and assume that vandalism is taking place. I hope the experience hasn't been too frustrating for you. Thanks for helping to improve the encyclopedia, and happy editing! Yunshui雲水14:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yunshui
We would like to create a page for the musicgroup called DAFUQ based in Amsterdam.
It's a big music project. And we think it is valid enough for a wikipedia page.
Or is it possible we can get any help with this?
Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafuqmusiq (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A big music project? Really? I ask because, based on the content of the page you submitted and the dearth of sources on the internet, it looks like three girls who've got together and decided it would be cool to form a band. No releases, no chart hits, no coverage in the music press - unless you can provide some evidence that this is any more than a personal pet project (i.e. proof that the group satisfies, as a bare minimum, the basic inclusion criteria set out here), then Wikipedia does not need an article about your group. Yunshui雲水14:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse
I saw, about youtube that you said "This is because YouTube's content is entirely user-generated, meaning that it is considered unreliable for statements of fact." I was wondering if you could strike that since it is not factually accurate. News organizations post content, for example. Biosthmors (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Biosthmors. Valid point; I've changed the wording from "entirely" to "primarily" which is, as you say, more factually accurate. Kevin, "strike" in this context means strikethrough (using <s></s> tags), which is used to redact information without visibly removing it from a page. Generally, it's preferable to strike statements you've made rather than simply deleting or changing them, since it makes it easier for other editors to follow the thread of the conversation. For example, if you removed your comment above, anyone else reading this would have no idea what I was talking about in this comment - that's why, if you want to change something you've said on a talkpage, you would usually strike it through, not delete it. Yunshui雲水08:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say really great job on the cleanup/rewrite here. This diff really speaks volumes; you took a run-on sentence and made a clear, well-layed out article out of it. Kudos! InShaneee (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a mess there, actually - I took your nominations at face value and deleted the pages under G5, but of course Oldhouse2012 didn't actually create these pages - they should have been dealt with under G8... Mea culpa; I should have checked the histories properly. Yunshui雲水12:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My username appears under "Suspected Sockpuppets" on the above Sockpuppet Investigation page. My username is lumped in with other accounts that are "hell bent on preserving the page" when in reality I was the one that inserted the speedy deletion tag and edited the entry so it would adhere to wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines and removing irrelevant information.
It's possible that my username was lumped in because I was making edits to the page. So to reiterate, I inserted the speedy deletion tags, so I am not sure why I am listed as a user that is trying to preserve the existence of that wikipedia entry.
If I was in error, then I apologise. When a new account appears and uses their very first edits to repeatedly add speedy deletion tags to an already disputed article, it tends to sound a number of alarm bells. Firstly, CSD is a relatively arcane area of Wikipedia, and new editors don't usually know about it - it's not unheard of for an editor's earliest contributions to be speedy deletion tags, but it's exceedingly rare. Secondly, prior to your tagging a number of single-purpose accounts had protested the deletion of earlier versions of the page - for you to show up very shortly after I had informed Lilly4613 that I was not deleting the article looks rather suspicious; given the drama already surrounding the page, it was not inconceivable that Lilly4613/AuggiePaoli/Sergio Michel had created a new account with which to propose their chosen article for deletion, in order to continue the argument and further escalate the article's notoriety. This is not an unheard of occurrence, especially with Wikipedia subjects seeking to boost their online profile.
Once again, if I am mistaken and you are not working in concert with Michel of his fanbase, then I wholeheartedly apologise. The investigation has cleared you of sockpuppetry, so you have no cause for further concern on this front. Yunshui雲水08:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.
Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here
Yunshui, an editor redlinked an actor's name, Michael Wiseman, in Vegas (TV series) yesterday. After researching the actor's background, I felt the red link was totally appropriate. However, another editor removed the red link a few minutes later.[5] I added it back citing WP:REDLINK and, in particular, WP:REDDEAL, which says "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article". This actor currently not only has a significant role on this major TV program, which is not in dispute, I discovered that he has also acted in 65 other TV shows, per this great source I found. Therefore, it is clearly "plausible" that he could sustain an article. In fact, I think it is probable. Also, the red link for this actor currently links to five other articles.[6] So I added back the red link and gave a full edit summary pointing out these facts. The editor who first removed it did not add it back after reading my edit summary, which made me happy. However, another editor, Rusted_AutoParts ignored the edit summary and policy, and removed the red link two times; his only reason is that the red link is "unsightly",[7] which I explained is certainly not a valid reason and, most importantly, is contrary to the policy. I have not added the red link back because I do not want to get in an edit war over this. If my thinking is wrong on this matter, please let me know. But if not, can you please help to get that red link restored? Thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not retired, just not often around at weekends... Whilst I agree with your position regarding the above issue, I think the simplest solution would be to just knock together an article and bluelink the guy. Sourcing's a pain, due to the multiple other Michael Wisemans out there, but I reckon I can throw up a stub later on today, based on what I've found so far. Give me a few hours and I'll get it sorted. Yunshui雲水08:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You are an amazing administrator. I honestly can't believe you took the time to do that in order to resolve this matter. I'm very impressed and appreciative. Thank you so much, Yunshui. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I reckon that counts as "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has no encyclopedic or project value". I've deleted the revisions, and blocked the user for good measure - possibly a little heavy-handed, but no-one making that sort of edit is likely to be here for any constructive purpose. Thanks for waving the flag. Yunshui雲水10:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You recently speedily deleted The best South Park episode under criterion R3, but that criterion is explicitly for "Recently created redirects...". The best South Park episode redirect was created in March 2011, which is not recent by any reasonable interpretation (it is usually taken to mean younger than a couple of weeks).
Given that the redirect was tagged for G11, for which it was eligible (although I personally wouldn't have deleted it under that criterion doing so is well within judgement) your choice of such an obviously incorrect rationale is baffling. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops - yes, good point. I guess I assumed that such a blatantly inappropriate redirect must have been a recent creation, so didn't check the history as I usually would. If you want me to reinstate it and re-delete under G11 instead (I felt that was a bit of a stretch, myself), I'm happy to do so; just say the word. Otherwise, I'm happy to IAR and leave it be if you are. Yunshui雲水10:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui! I notice that you have deleted Jonas Samuelle for violating A7. I agree that the article in its previous form needed to be more thorough but I believe that Jonas Samuelle meets the notability requirements. His books have been reviewed on at least a few reliablewebsites. Vasily Kafanov, a famous artist who has worked with The Smashing Pumpkins, did the illustration on his first book. I would like an opportunity to improve the article. Would you be willing to provisionally restore it for me?
Jikbag (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to break it to you, but your idea of what constitutes a reliable website is in considerable conflict with Wikipedia's (none of the links you've provided meet the reliable source guideline). Even if they were reliable sources, they would be insufficient to attest to Samuelle's suitability for inclusion - notability is not inherited, so coverage of his book does not equate to coverage of him (nor does a loose association with a moderately famous artist), and a first-person interview is self-evidently not an independent source. However, I'm willing to assume that you may have other sources that would suffice to meet the inclusion guidelines, so I'll restore the page to your userspace; you can find it at User:Jikbag/Jonas Samuelle. Please don't return it to mainspace until you have a bare minimum of two reliable (i.e. not blogs), independent (i.e. not interviews) sources that discuss Sammuelle (separately from his book) in some depth. Yunshui雲水08:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui,
Sorry to bug you, but I may have forgotten the password for my account, Kevin12xd. I can provide you with the hash key on my Userpage if you need it. Any ideas as to what I could do? Cheers, 174.114.129.113 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciated your advice in the essay. I already knew a lot of the ideas and am using them daily. What I really am confused about though, is how to report vandalism to Cluebot NG as I often see False positive? Report itThanksCluebot in the reason for your edit entry. I have tried but the Report it part ends up being highlighted in red and I don't think I've actually reported an example. I hope you can reply soon I now have you on my watchlist. Thanks again. Jodosma (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jodosma. I'm glad the information was helpful. You don't actually report vandalism to ClueBot; it's an automated script that detects vandalism and reverts it - you can think of ClueBot as a very single-minded fellow editor whose only interest is antivandalism (or, if you're more technically minded, see here). You can report false positives - instances where ClueBot has made a mistake and reverted a genuine edit - to the page User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives, but there's no need to report vandalism to the bot. It finds plenty of that by itself (I seem to recall seeing a statistic somewhere that claimed ClueBot dealt with about 70% of all the vandalism on Wikipedia!). Yunshui雲水08:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yunshui, if you can remember some months back you declined my auto patrolled request because I didn't have references to many articles which I created. Now, I have improved and added references to most of the articles which I have created til now. However, there are also few articles which I don't have references since it's very hard to find for those because they are films which are released in the past (before 1990) and for those there are no sources to be found. Many of the articles I have created til now have yet not been marked as reviewed/auto patrolled. Since I create(d) many articles and also that many articles which are yet to be reviewed so I believe that auto reviewer is the best option for me to solve the article problems.
I hope you will consider my request. If you believe that I will misuse the right, then you can anytime revoke that. Thanks Torreslfchero (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Torreslfchero. I do appreciate your addition of further sources to some of your older articles. However, I'm sorry to say that I'm not willing to grant the autopatrolled right based on your current creations. Having reviewed some of your more recent work, it seems that you are basically creating short articles from a template, with very little content beyond cast lists and a few basic facts; there really isn't enough to establish your understanding of content policies based on those I've looked at. In addition, those sources I've seen are weak, to say the least: IMDb and GoMolo, both of which you frequently use, are definitely not reliable sources, and I'm less than certain about the merits of sites like BollywoodHungama and Planet Bollywood, though those at least look as though they might be acceptable. Furthemore, if you can't find sources for a film then you shouldn't be writing an article on it at all, since it clearly wouldn't meet the inclusion guidelines.
If you want to post a new request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled then I will not dissuade you, and I'll leave it for another admin to deal with so you can at least get a second opinion. This is no reflection on your other editorial capabilities (I note that you're an excellent anti-vandalism patroller, and your CSD log is exemplary), but I can't see sufficient evidence to suppport granting autopatrolled at this time. Don't sweat it - autopatrolled doesn't really have any benefits for those who have it, it's really a tool for the page patrollers. Yunshui雲水10:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were previously invovled with this editor I believe I have uncovered another sock of this user which we didn't catch before and upon return from block he started recreating articles previously deleted via afd. [[8]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already spotted it (his talkpage is on my watchlist, so I saw the SPI notification you posted there). I'll swing by and take a look in a few minutes if no-one else gets there first. Yunshui雲水10:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui,
You have deleted the page BriefCam.
I would respectfully request that you restore this page for the following reasons:
1. Many, many other comparable companies in this industry have Wikipedia entries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Commercial_computer_vision_systems
2. The BriefCam company employs a technology that is exclusive to it. Other companies do not have such technologies, yet they are listed.
3. The entry was non-promotional and non-marketing in nature, and followed the examples of other companies.
Any help or guidelines that you can offer so that the page will meet Wikipedia standards will be gratefully accepted.
Sincerely,
Rachelneim (Rachelneim (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
The main problem with the page was that it contained no suggestion that the company is notable. You will need to add references to significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources in order for the page to be accepted. I've recreated it and moved it to your userspace so that you can continue to work on it; the new page location is User:Rachelneim/BriefCam. I'll add a userdraft template to the top of the page which contains a link to submit the page to Articles for Creation; once you've added appropriate sources, you can use this to request a review and get the article moved to mainspace. As an addendum, the existence and content of other articles has no bearing on the BriefCam page (it's a common enough argument that we even have a specific guideline advising editors not to use it when contesting deletion; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Yunshui雲水12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui. I am writing to you after reading these comments[9] posted by User:PrimalHawaii on the talk page of Henry E. Emerson, a retired U.S. Army three-star general. Although I certainly understand his passion and anger - and I'll explain why in a moment - I feel that his continued inappropriate editing and behavior needs to be addressed by someone with your high level of experience and professionalism. Please allow me to give you a brief summary of this situation and what brought him to Wikipedia a few days ago, so that it will put things into context for you.
In January and early February, two editors started adding content to the article about Emerson's alleged death and and date of birth. This was the edit that started it. Then, this edit and several others followed. As I will explain, this was a huge case of mistaken identity that were based on terrible, unreliable sources.
On February 11, PrimalHawaii came to Wikpedia and identified himself as a personal family friend of Emerson named Rev. Joed Miller, such as he did in this post at the help desk. He removed the death content and started posting long, angry messages directly into the article, claiming that Emerson is alive and that the sources were for a different Emerson. He was absolutely right. The sources were horrendous and contained absolutely no evidence that they were about the same Emerson. Although the way Primal/Joed was handling the matter was highly inappropriate, several editors inexplicably kept adding back the unreliably-sourced death and birth content, and started issuing warnings to the editor. While I agree the warnings were warranted, the editors were completely ignoring that the fact that the sources about Emerson's alleged death were bogus. The editors focused solely on Primal's bad behavior, but ignored the glaring content problem.
Finally, after seeing Primal's help desk post, I and a few other editors came to the article to see what was going on. We immediately started to resolve the matter and get the erroneous death and date of birth content removed from the article. A few of us apologized to Primal for the errors that were made by the other editors, but also explained to him the proper way of expressing his concerns. I posted these comments on the article's talk page to express my feelings on the matter. Since then, a small group of editors have been working to improve the article. However, instead of being thankful to the editors who have helped him, Primal is continuing his inappropriate rage, even at them, as in his most recent comments[10], which I pointed out at the start of this message.
I have no idea what to say to Primal to get him to stop his inappropriate editing, and that's why I'm turning to you for help. My hunch is that a very experienced, respected editor and administrator like yourself should reply to his most recent outburst and set him straight on how editing this encylopedia works. And why lashing out, especially at those who have done nothing but help him, is inappropriate. I hope you can help. He apparently believes that every editor is bad and, most importantly, totally misunderstands the rules of appropriate behavior and adding content to the encylopedia. I couldn't think of a better person to deal with this situation than you. Sorry to bother you with this Yunshui, but thank you. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from his most recent comment Primal appears to have calmed down somewhat - now that he's finally getting some more considered help, his frustration seems to be lessening. I've left him a message offering my assistance as well, and apologising for the difficulties he's had; I suspect the inappropriate editing will cease of its own accord as he realises that there are other editors willing to lend a hand. Thanks for bringing it up; it's always regrettable when new editors who have genuinely positive contributions to make are stamped on and scared off. Yunshui雲水08:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Yunshui, I left a comment of the talk page for Autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia saying that work was in progress to upgrade the stub. You left a comment to (add course assignment template). Do you want me to add a link to the Neurobio class page so people can see what we're doing? Egreaga (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Egreaga. There's no real need to add a link to the course itself - the template is there to alert editors to the fact that the article may see some major editing by students, so that they aren't surprised when a hitherto-hardly touched article suddenly sees a massive influx of edits by new editors (which can often be a sign that something's very wrong). It doesn't really matter which course is involved.
Incidentally, if you want me to check your proposed changes for Wikipedia-compliance (I don't know much about neurobiology, but I'm pretty au fait with what can and can't go into an article), I'm very happy to look over them in a sandbox before you add them to the page. Just write up your proposed alterations/additions at User:Egreaga/sandbox and ask me to take a look. Cheers, Yunshui雲水07:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a bit wary of taking on new adoptees due to the number I already have, but since a couple of my present flock look to have gone AWOL, I reckon what the hell: consider yourself adopted. Yunshui雲水07:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
reply to your kind message
Aloha-
Thank you for your kind reply and offer of assistence. Yes it was quite a strange few days with being threatened, called names and having my private email address hit by well over a 100 emails first requesting that I give out the Generals personal email and home address by someone claiming to be a reporter but whom i wasable to track down as a person who was making accusations against the Generals character on another blog site but who apparently is also a Wikiperdian.
I was not very kind to the person when they approached me with the vague reprter thing and refused to grant them their request then Boom i was just immediately attacked in Wikipedia. And it was for items that if you could get my very 1st postings you would see that I did reference them as well as sign them but they were all cut up and deleted in piece then rebuilt and put together into what appeared were one message but in reality were chunks of multiple postings put to gether and sent in as one.
It was bizarre and I did not take kindly to tht sort of childlike behaviour so I openly told the people involved by replying to the messages they sent me which once again were obvious setups to get me to reply on the mainpage by simply replyingto them. I had NO clue what they were up to until much later when they started saying I was posting on the mainpage but that was "only " after Canoe 1967 stepped up and told them to stop. I do have alot of information worth sharing from my life but will be very wary of using Wikipedia to do so. It may appear that I have learned how to use Wikipedia but truthfully memorizing legal precednts are much easier than trying to figure out the ways of wiki. You see when a new person steps in to make a change they are not knowledgable in the many rules an regulations and all the people who are in some contest to become "historian ofthe Year". To me by offering rewards you are truly creating a "comflict of interests", far moreso than by trying to ban friends and family of people being bio'd in Wiki. I have found out that when ever there is a carrot at the end of the rope that people will become very territorial to the point of actually thinking that by winning such an award will somehow justify their lives.
Myself I just wanted to post the truth, the General will be dead soon enough. I know the kind of pain being listed as dead can be as my Godmother here in Hawaii was listed as dead on the front page of the newspaper once and it caused her many problems for the last few years of her life.
These people in here were playing a game in trying to twist and turn things to make it appear that I came here and atacked them when in fact I was simply making a correction and they were the aggressors and I truly thought they were bots due to the fact that in my mind only a computer would refuse to accept a fact not a real person !
Again thank you and I can Not promise that I will make no more mistakes I just hope that they are met with a bot of empathy for being an old fart who doesn't know these things.
My friends and I (including everyone involved) have watched this grow and watched as these people simply lied, changed things and refused to even LOOK at the Generals personal Military Biography which in itself alone made every single corrrection that the page needed within the first paragraph yet these people "flat out refused to look at it.." instead placing all their efforts into trying to manipulate facts to make me look as badly as they do.
Have a wonderful day.
From what I've seen even when you don't completely agree with my particular view of what should happen you are thoughtful about your admin actions and your responses are very measured. I think these are the marks of a good admin. Keep up your good work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hell. When an editor I respect leaves a message like that I know I must be doing something right (plus it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside, although that might just be the remnants of last night's champagne...). Yunshui雲水09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But I was under the impression that blatant 3RR violations resulted in blocks or warnings, even if one is right and has sources. And in this case the sources are wrong and the user is only editing there to harass me. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Lukeno94 has stepped in whilst I was offline and removed the offending content - I disagree with the decision (see my comments at the AFD discussion), but although we don't see eye-to-eye on the content I sympathise completely with the harrassment; even if the IP editors is making (what I believe to be) correct additions, doing so aggressively to provoke an edit war with an editor he's previously been in dispute with is deeply inappropriate. You find yourself in a difficult position here, harassment from a user with access to such a wide range of disposable IPs is difficult to deal with. I'm giving some though to the best option for proceeding, but no clear solution immediately presents itself. Yunshui雲水13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, I've concluded that I simply don't know enough to be able to come up with a constructive solution. I've asked Dennis Brown to take a look, since he's someone I trust to know the ins-and-outs of such situations well enough to give good advice. Yunshui雲水14:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And I should say that while we still do not agree on the content, I express my warm gratitude for your time and effort in this matter. Personally I don't care all that much about the article in question: if my AfD doesn't go the way I voted, Wikipedia won't be any worse off as long as the non-deleted article points out the facts as found in Japanese dictionaries, as well as the opinions of western writers. What really bothered me was that the user in question followed me there and reverted me, and his/her activities over the past few weeks have been limited to this, and while he/she can check all of my user contributions, the constantly shifting IP numbers have prevented me from adequately defending myself. Thank you again, and good editing! elvenscout742 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, completely unrelated, but I hope I have not given the impression that I am anything but a squealing fanboy for Lafcadio Hearn. My being an Irishman in Japan, who loves old Japanese tales, should be enough, but check the revision histories of the articles Lafcadio Hearn, Kaidan and Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things if you need further evidence of my "good faith" in this matter. :P elvenscout742 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC) )[reply]
I'll take a look, but can't promise a considered response for a few days. (In the interim, you might want to reconsider your current sig display - I know it's a Buddhist symbol, but swastikas are likely to cause some consternation among other editors). Yunshui雲水14:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I know too. (By the way its also a legitimate Chinese word and a Hindu symbol too) Alright then. Heck, why is everyone so fussed up over swastikas? They embody peace, not Holocaust or anything-Nazi. And I very much believe Hitler's variant was slanted. But anyways, okay. ☯ BonkersThe Clown卐 Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents, being German...it is all a matter of context; the use of the swastika by the Nazis was perverted, and so was their use of Richard Wagners music, and that is what we are stuck with; I know it is a symbol of peace, but still seeing it gives me a jolt everytime. So thank you for taking it out of your signature. Lectonar (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
b(^_^)d
Totally agree with you on all the above, Bonkers - trouble is that swastikas, despite a gradual rehabilitation in the last couple of decades, still scream "Nazi!" to a lot of people, whether slanted or not. My concern is that having one in your signature might lead other editors to make (entirely false) assumptions about you, which could be detrimental to you having a comfortable editing experience here. Now if we could only reclaim the toothbrush moustache... Yunshui雲水14:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui, I created the page at User:Leafboy222/Adoption page. WHat I would like to do on wikipedia is I would like to fight vandalism on this site. Leafboy222 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank you for your quick response to my request for IPBE. You Don't have to respond back to this comment I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your help. TucsonDavidU.S.A.14:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot PinkAmpers for bringing it back! I don't understand what happened. I've never known that page! There must have been an accident, an inadvertent mistake. Thanks again! therash09
Thankyou so much for continuing with the discussion, even though it may be appearing irrelevant to you. I am very grateful to you for your support! I've posted a very long content this time and am hoping that you'll go through it. I'll try not making long posts hereafter, and have therefore explained the most part in this post itself! --therash09 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I have stumbled across what appears to be another advertising account in my quest to bring new users to the Teahouse. User:Cittadini created Cittadini Linens. The similarity between the user name and the name of the company would suggest, to me anyway, that this account is only going to be used for advertising. Incidentally, is there anywhere were I can report these sorts of accounts? Best regards. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an odd coincidence; I was just a moment ago emailing her on that very topic. I'm going to be taking a cursory glance over the students' proposed sources this week, but would hugely appreciate the assistance of an editor more experienced with medical sources looking over them too - was that the sound of you volunteering, Biosthmors? If so, you'd be doing us a great favour... Yunshui雲水22:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! One easy (but not fullproof) way to check is with PMID numbers. PMID 20124539, when you click to see publication types says review. Recent reviews are a great WP:MEDRS. I can help further. Email me? Biosthmors (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles T. Kresge
You deleted a page on Charles T. Kresge, the discoverer of MCM-41 mesoporous silicas for obvious copyright infringement. The page pointed to contains a biography of Kresge that bears only some resemblence to the page I created and was likely sourced from the same chronological data that I used: his CV. I suggest that this was done in error, that I did not in any way copy the page in question. Furthermore, the copyright that appears on the page clearly cannot extend to information Kresge submitted about himself. I will happily get a letter from him granting permission, if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemsciguy (talk • contribs) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the original source is clearly Kresge's PIRE-ECCI bio. I've removed the most blatant copyright violation once again, although I've left the rest of the draft intact; you cannot copy a chunk of text, change a few words here and there, and claim it as your own work. That's close paraphrasing, and is regarded as a copyright violation. Suggesting that you did not copy the page is, to put it bluntly, disingenuous; the sentence order, phrasing and wording were near-identical. You can use the biography as a source for information (subject to certain restrictions), but not as a source for text. Yunshui雲水08:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point: the material is from Kresge's own bio that he provided me. It is not correctly copyrighted by the sites that you are referencing. Likely the same information he provided to all. I have corrected errors on the bio, but the key accomplishments in chronological order are not as you suggest a disingneous rehashing of the content of other sites. They are a use of the primary work with the authors permission. Even in that case, I have removed and re-edited the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemsciguy (talk • contribs) 14:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless off-wiki text content has been publicly released under a CC-BY-SA, GFDL or similar free licence, it cannot be used on Wikipedia, paraphrased or otherwise. Kresge may well have given you permission to use the bio, but in order for its text to be acceptable here, it would need to either be clearly labelled with an appropriate free licence in its original location, or released under such a licence in an email to Wikipedia's permissions team. Your word that he says it's okay is, I'm sorry to say, simply not sufficient (and this presumes Kresge wrote the text himself, if he didn't, he most likely does not own the copyright and hence couldn't release it under a suitable licence even if he wanted to). Yunshui雲水14:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the original text written my him that he supplied, just as I supply my bio when I give a talk. I assure you he owns the copyright. I believe that I have sufficiently changed and CORRECTED the bio (which erroneously reported the number of issued patents and publications). I will make one more attempt to appease you but see that restating a chronology of awards and service where over 75% of the words are the names of organization, awards or journals is going to look similar no matter how many times it is rewritten. I will also request he send the email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemsciguy (talk • contribs) 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see instructions on the page you referenced for a release declaration of copyright for printed material. What heading should I choose and how do I reference it to this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemsciguy (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response, I missed your reply here. If you don't intend to use the text (the lists of awards etc. are, as you say, pretty much impossible to replicate in any other way and so fall outside the boundaries of copyright) then there isn't a problem to address - rewriting his biography, as you have done, is a perfectly adequate solution, and is arguably more desirable anyway. The full instructions for releasing copyrighted materials for Wikipedia's use are here, but I think your edits have fixed the issue already. Yunshui雲水11:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there's no problem with using the bio as a source (as long as there are other independent sources supporting the article as well), and it doesn't need to be released for that purpose. Copyright only becomes an issue if the text in the article closely matches that of the biography. Yunshui雲水11:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I take it from your reply that I have now fixed the page to your satisfaction. It still has the pending notice on it. Is there still another reviewer that needs to OK it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemsciguy (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NATASHA DUARTE
If the reason given for deletion was G11:
Your article read like an attempt to promote or advertise the subject. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. If the text of your submission would not have seemed out of place on the subject's CV, website or press releases, it was probably inappropriately promotional. You may also have included inappropriate external links to the subject's website(s). It's possible that you are the subject of the article, or that you work for or otherwise have a close connection to it. Before resubmitting the article, you should read the following: Words to watch, Don't write an autobiography, Advertising, Conflict of interest guidelines and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
You deleted my page NATASHA DUARTE reason above. How does Delta Goodrem, Selena Gomez, Justin Biener create their pages - is that not a biography too. My daughter is a POP sansation in Australia and I just wanted to create a page like Delta Goodrem etc. Please help me.
Cabe6403 has already given you a slew of good advice in response to your message on his page; there isn't much I can add. In brief, Wikipedia is not here to help you further your daughter's career. Delta Goodrem, Selena Gomez, Justin Beiber etc. did not create their pages - pages were created about them as a result of them being internationally famous celebrities, who have been the subject of considerable coverage in multiple press sources, books and magazines. Such pages are encyclopedia entries, not a means of promotion.
If Natasha meets the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, she might be worth having an article on - you, however, are evidently far to close to the subject to create such an article objectively, and so you should leave it to other editors to write it. You can make a request for an article at this page. Yunshui雲水09:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats... You helped keep Teahouse an awesome, welcoming, safe, and helpful place!
Hey Yunshui. Just wanted to make sure you saw this response to one of your answers:
Thanks a lot Yunshui 雲水, that was a fast answer! I'm glad to read words from real people, I always thought Wiki was about writing and reading alone. :)
The impact you're having in the Teahouse is just awesome. Can't thank you enough.
Why did you delete my page on Thomas Steinbacher, man... I can't type and do all the research in like 3 minutes. The guy is a businessman (the CEO of a multi-million dollar company), entrepreneur and the owner of a pro cycling team (Team Graner-Stradalli). I was just about to add some stuff about his charity work and wham! the page was gone. Do I need to write the whole thing offline and then upload only when it is complete. Come on... I thought Wikipedia was all about gradual improvements, but I can't even get the page started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garysims (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of two ways - I would suggest using the "Finished? Submit the page" link in the template I've added at the top; this will list the page at Articles for creation, where a reviewer will check it over before moving it into mainspace. Alternatively, you can move it yourself via the move tool, but this runs the risk of seeing it deleted again if you haven't made sufficient improvements.
If you like, you can ask me to check it over and move it for you, to save you waiting on the (usually backlogged) Articles for creation process; just leave me a note on this page. Yunshui雲水13:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui! We are having some birthday celebrations as Teahouse turns 1 year-old next week. As one of the most active and passionate hosts we have, I was wondering if you might reflect a bit on your experience at the Teahouse and how you view its role in the community. I'd love to have your responses to any of these questions, possibly for a Wikimedia Foundation blog post which will run on the big day.
How did you find the Teahouse? What were your first impressions?
What do you like best about the atmosphere at the Teahouse?
What experience, interaction, guest, or host stands out for you as a highlight?
How has the Teahouse enabled you to empower other editors?
What do you hope for the Teahouse as she continues to grow up?
Obviously you aren't under investigation yourself. Just I mentioned your name in my comment and I figured I should let you know. If you want to post a comment I'm sure it would be welcome! elvenscout742 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not sure I have anything much to add; the evidence is pretty solid. I suspect checkuser will throw back a confirmed connection. Yunshui雲水09:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WOuld you please comment?
So we have COI and paid editing issues, [[12]]. I requested page protection due to Katie Fisher being a PR worker for Bill Browder and whitewashing the article or adding straight POV edits [[13]]. If you note the use of the word we and a simple google check [[14]] shows this. I unfortunately think that blocking this editor will not solve the problem as another meat/sock will just pop up but comments and opinions would be very helpful. I'm not sure exactly why they think I have any connection to the subject other then the fact I'd like a neutral article [[15]]. I guess they neglected to look at my userpage, or even my contribs lol. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like you've pretty much nailed it as regards the POV editing and meatpuppetry. I do, however, share some of Katiefisher's concerns with regards to the Criminal charges section - as a non-Russian speaker I can't really assess the sources, but the claims made need to be very soundly sourced to comply with WP:BLP: I would normally expect to see sentence-by-sentence citations for a section like this, rather than end-of-paragraph ones. There ought to be English-language equivalents given the profile of the case, and they would tend to be preferred per WP:SOURCEACCESS. There's also some slightly dubious wording in the first couple of paragraphs of that section: "sophisticated tax evasion schemes", "tremendous tax breaks", "may have bribed" and so on.
More importantly, as far as I can tell, Browder has never actually been convicted of a crime; per WP:BLPCRIME, therefore, this section accounts for a far higher proportion of the article than it should. At most, there should be a few lines noting the charges in as neutral a manner as possible and possibly covering Magnitsky's imprisonment and death. If Browder is convicted, then the section can be expanded, but Wikipedia's standard practice is to downplay criminal charges against living people until a conviction is secured. Yunshui雲水09:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally you're right, The only reason why it is there now is the face that it is covered in two centuries. This is also why I brought this to ANI to make sure it is presented nuetrally, I left that particular page for a while because my temperament sometimes get the better of me but I would note that other editors have now engaged in attempting to pare it down to size[[16]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request to unblock accounts
I, Sunny Singh (DAV), read your E-mail, but I am still confused why someone is not unblocking the accounts of users from this computer. I have already mentioned everything clearly, then, what is the problem ? I (on the behalf me and other users from this computer) want you to unblock our accounts as soon as possible. Thank you from me and others users. 106.212.108.159 (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked you a couple of times for clarification, but since you didn't respond, I closed the email ticket. Since your account is still blocked for sockpuppetry, your message above constitutes block evasion, and I have blocked the IP accordingly. You may email me or use the UTRS system again to request an unblock, or do so on your talkpage, but you will need to address the following issues:
Hello, I recently sent in a request to have a page belonging to an artist I represent named Alex Goot reinstated, you were the most recent editor to flag and remove the article so I wanted to forward my request along to you in hopes of maybe expediting the process. I appreciate your time, and look forward to resolving this issue. Please see below for original message
"Hello, I represent an artist named Alex Goot, owner and primary contributor to the very popular Youtube.com/Gootmusic channel. In addition to accumulating almost 1 million subscribers on YouTube, holding several top 100 spots on Worldwide channel ranking lists, Alex has helped to launch the careers of several other artists and groups whose wikipedia pages have been deemed relevant. Alex has also won an MTV award for his videos (see http://www.mtv.com/photos/o-music-awards/1662701/6080293/photo.jhtml#6080293 ) and was recently nominated for a Streamy award for best Original song (http://www.streamys.org/nominees-winners/3rd-annual-nominees/ ). Alex is constantly on the road, and sells out venues across the world. We'd like to request that Alexs Wikipedia page be restored, being included in Wikipedia is a point of pride for artists like alex, and we feel that we owe it to ourselves and to Alexs fans to get his page reinstated. Thank you very much, if you have any additional questions or require any information on my end feel free to contact me at thank you" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeferri (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to telling you to suck him, DegenFarang's IP address left this psycho message on my talk page. Please also block his IP, and if you have the admin ability, hide that message. 2005 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Writ. 2005, that looks a hell of a lot like a real-world threat to me; if you're at all concerned, you can contact emergency@wikimedia.org - the Foundation will offer its full support should you choose to report the incident to your local police. Yunshui雲水08:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different IP to the one Degen used when telling me to self fornicate here, btw. Given the above, I don't fancy his chances of ever being able to edit the encyclopaedia again. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the emergency info. Fortunately the person knows less than he thinks he knows. FYI, just to make it more odd, a simple google search reveals the person uses the same alias on websites (and gets barred on them), and his real name is easy to find. So making public threats like this makes any police work a snap. 2005 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui. This guy that we both blocked yesterday is requesting an unblock. Could you pass by their talk page and explain why you indeffed them? (It seems like it was a good call btw, I was feeling lenient for some reason) SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just became curious about it from reading the conversations on User_talk:Ajayupai95 and I am curious as to how CheckUser functions. On wiki, we seem to be applying it almost like it is the Supreme Court, implying it is very accurate. But how accurate is it really? And are there any other ways to figure out who is a sock, and who is not?
Secondly, this user is the third user I have found in recent times (after User:Greatuser and Wolfie13 [Am forgetting the exact name]) who was blocked for being a sock; and were just trying to be constructive while using their current account. Which is curious because our immediate response is to indef-block them, and all they want is to try to be constructive. Does it signal some draconianism in our rules to you?
Checkuser is... pretty damn accurate; generally they are able to narrow down contributions to an individual device (rather than an IP), so you can be pretty certain that if a checkuser says two accounts are confirmed as related, that means they were created from the same computer. It's not perfect, and can be fooled; for this reason we consider behavioural evidence quite carefully at SPI. More often than not, it's the behaviour that rings alarm bells: checkuser is just the formal confirmation. It's entirely possible and permissible to block obvious sockpuppets without submitting them to the checkuser process.
As to whether our rules are too draconian, that's a longer debate. I'd say that if someone has had their account blocked or heavily warned for, say, disruption or vandalism, then creating another account is a pretty bad-faith move. We have an unblock process if someone wants to start editing constructively; circumventing the process through sockpuppetry is purely disruptive - it peverts the intended course of appeal and evades scrutiny.
It's a moot point, really. If I go to a swimming pool which has clear "No running" signs all around, and if I run around the pool and continue running even after being repeatedly asked to stop, I would expect the lifeguards to chuck me out. Wikipedia's the same: there are rules governing the use of the website, and people who repeatedly flout those rules are removed. Whether the rules are "just" or not is immaterial; if you want to edit here, you obey the site's terms and conditions, just like everywhere else in life. Yunshui雲水08:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's heated. Can't see the issue, myself (if you find an uncited link with a citation on the linked page (and you think lists should be fully cited) just copy the citation across. Jeez). I've got other stuff to deal with today, but I might swing by and offer an opinion if I think of anything constructive to say. Thanks for the suggestion. Yunshui雲水08:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jigai, Oda, and Dennis
Hi,
Your contributions at the Tea house and at many other places are pretty awesome. I saw your Jigai comment on somebody's talk page, somebody came to my talk page to do some "grave-dancing", I've just seen your comment on Dennis's talk page, and independently I commented on something else at the bottom of Talk:Yūji Oda. I find it difficult to connect the dots. LittleBen (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little more investigation suggests that one user was annoyed at his articles being moved by another editor without any discussion, when the editor that made the moves had not contributed to the articles in any way, examples: Talk:Ryoko Nakano, Talk:Kindai Eiga Kyokai, Taboo (the current name) moved to Gohatto (no longer available). It's unfortunate to see silly arguments spiral out of control and result in people being blocked. Lack of civility is bad, but so is polite interference with another user's work. One of the users admitted that he had already had problems in the poetry area that had resulted in an interaction ban, and so he had moved into the film area. LittleBen (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LBW: Grow the hell up, please. Those articles didn't "belong" to JoshuSasori. Please see WP:OWN. I have contributed far more to Wikipedia than JoshuSasori and all his sockpuppets combined, and probably more than you as well. Please stop assuming bad faith on my part. There has been no "grave-dancing". You have continued to make personal attacks against me, and insinuate that by bringing JoshuSasori's abusive behaviour to the attention of the Wikipedia community I have done something wrong. PLEASE STOP THIS RIGHT NOW OR I WILL HAVE TO TAKE ACTION. I am sick to death of JoshuSasori and his sockpuppets hounding me for the last two months. My first interaction with him was on Talk:Ryo Kase where he started making personal attacks against me for questioning his arguments on an RM. He then started trying to alter MOSJ and made more personal attacks against me and other users there. Please see User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal for a more detailed account of the early history of our dispute, and STOP THIS MADNESS NOW. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, please everyone note that Gohatto was moved by an administrator after a month of sitting in RM, in which everyone but JoshuSasori supported the move. JoshuSasori also had never "worked on" the page. He remove a couple of macrons about three days before I RMed the page, and then opposed the move on bogus grounds, making constant personal attacks against me while doing it. PLEASE STOP THIS RIGHT THE HELL NOW, or I will be forced to take this to ANI. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elvenscout, I have no idea what this issue is about (and don't really care to be honest), but why are you shouting at the top of your lungs (all caps and bolding) and making threats? Relax, my friend. You are violating WP:SHOUT. If you believe someone is disruptively editing, then report it at the appropriate noticeboard. I don't know you, but I see that you just got off a block a few weeks ago and I don't want to see you getting banned again. You should go enjoy a bowl of ice cream or watch a good movie. That'll cheer you up. ;) In any case, Yunshui is an extremely calm person and all this rage on his talk page wouldn't be good for him. Haha. So if you feel the need to continuing screaming, you should do it on your own talk page, not someone else's. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for WP:SHOUTING. I am just getting very tired of the above user making veiled personal attacks against me. He is trying to re-write the history of what happened between me and JoshuSasori, a user who has been harassing me for over two months (through sockpuppets, since his main account got blocked in January for making real-world threats). LittleBenW agrees with JoshuSasori on the use of diacritics in Japanese articles, and disagrees with me. This is why he has spent the last week or so going around numerous places claiming that in fact JS is a martyred saint and I am the one who harassed him to the point where he had to call me names and threaten me (and call about a half-dozen admins names too). Ironically, all of this is in violation of a topic-ban LBW is under -- he is currently blocked for having made several dozen edits relating to diacritics during this time. When I offered him peace, he made another veiled personal attack, implying that it was my fault JoshuSasori got blocked twice (check his talk pages and subpages for the phrase "it takes two to tango"). Honestly I am not really interested in discussing these personal attacks anymore, since the current topic ban should keep him from harassing me anymore. (He has made somewhat WP:POINTy-looking comments on unrelated discussions about hyphens, etc., but given that he is obviously opposing me solely because of my stance on diacritics the ban should keep him at bay.) elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I need to clarify this for the record: while LBW is currently under a block for a consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour, I was briefly blocked for purely technical reasons. I unknowingly violated an "interaction ban" by accidentally editing the same page as a disruptive editor. When I appealed the ban Yunshui and numerous others unanimously voted to lift my ban, and place that disruptive editor under a broad topic ban and interaction ban as a result of gaming the system by getting me blocked. I really don't want to ever mention that editor again, but having a block on my record will apparently force me to describe the events surrounding my entirely technical block that was not placed on me for being disruptive. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elvenscout, I have no doubt that your only intentions are to help improve the project, and I commend and thank you for that. However, it is very important to realize that there will always be editors who you believe to be very disruptive or just generally annoying. Therefore, you should never allow your interactions with them cause you to post raging comments on talk pages or other discussion forums, especially the talk pages of other editors. Just stay relaxed, cite policies and guidelines, and then, if it becomes necessary, calmly report or discuss the matter at the appropriate place. If an editor has truly done something wrong, the diffs will prove it. So there's never any need to shout. It will certainly not make your case any stronger; in fact, it can cause other editors to focus on your behavior instead of the issue at hand. I believe the reason Yunshui has earned such a great reputation is because he's always so calm, friendly, and professional in his dealings with other editors. Even the difficult ones! ;) It isn't easy sometimes, but it's the best way to go... for your health, your happiness, your editing, and your wikireputation. So I hope you will please relax and make editing on Wikipedia an enjoyable experience for yourself. I wish you all the best. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is pretty sound advice, I don't have much to add. I realise that you're pretty frustrated, Elvenscout, but as I've said before, just about everyone in WikiProject Japan knows about the JoshuSasori issue. I think it's safe to say that the majority of us (even those, like me, that don't always agree with you) are sympathetic, and so you don't need to mount an elaborate defence every time the events are raised. Stay calm, rise above, etc. etc. Going into every discussion with your kabuto strapped on is not going to encourage polite and collegial debate: you'll just end up getting into fights.
LBW, don't poke the bear. If you disagree with Elvenscout over the use of diacritics (or anything else), that's what you discuss with them, not their interactions with other editors. Comment on the content, not the contributor; you should know this by now. Yunshui雲水08:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui, Anon, thank you for you sound advice. I will try to implement it from now on. (And for the record, LBW is not allowed discuss diacritics with me or anyone else. I realized a bit late that every single interaction I had had with him was blatant TBAN violation.) 聖 (会話/投稿記録) 08:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC) (formerly known as Elvenscout742)[reply]
Whoops, missed that. Well, that pretty much resolves the problem, then. (By the way, whilst I think your new sig is cool (well, I would, obviously!) you might want to read WP:NLS.) Yunshui雲水08:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WEP
Hi Yunshui, thanks for the reference to WEP but I checked with my institution (Sciences Po) and since this is experimental they rather not have me do this project under their name, at least this year. Hopefully I'll set a precedent and in a year or two a proper Sciences Po Educational Project can be set up. Thanks, RobertK Prods (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are definite risks to editing outside the WEP - even if you choose not to be part of it, I'd strongly recommend you get your students to take the student training course before they start editing. I've seen poorly-thought out education projects turn into disasters in the past, with students having their work deleted and even having their accounts blocked because the professor in charge wasn't sufficiently aware of what Wikipedia is and how it works. I'm not for a moment suggesting that your course is poorly-planned or that it won't be a success, but since your course structure hasn't been posted or vetted by a WEP ambassador, it's impossible to say how well it will work.
Hi Yunshui, I respect your decision not to give me rollbacker rights on the grounds im not experienced enough with antivandalism, but if you don't mind if I am deemed not experienced enough how does someone like this (User:Jackson Peebles) qualify? With less than 100 edits to the mainspace I dont see how he managed to gain antivandalism experience superior to my own. Again, I respect your decision and im not trying to sound all upset or anything, just wondering, Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★10:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't grant Jackson Peebles' request (I believe it was Wifione, so you may want to ask them for clarification). Jackson does have over 400 edits in total, many of which are to his CVUA course - whilst CVUA isn't a shortcut to rollback, completion of the course is often factored in to an admin's decision. Please be aware that rollback really isn't that special (you pretty much get it for "free" with Twinkle anyway), and lack of it has no bearing on the quality of your contributions (which, to the GA field in particular, are generally excellent). If you really want to use the tool (for Huggle or STiki, say), it's not that hard to obtain: just concentrate on using Twinkle to revert vandalism for a couple of days and you'll rack up enough edits to demonstrate competence easily. Yunshui雲水10:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yunshui,
I'm not too sure if I've done the right thing or made matters worse and/or more complicated! I've been trying to help this new editor and noticed they had an AfC declined. When s/he left a message on my talk page last night, I felt they were becoming confused with talk pages and trying to rectify problems with the submission (I was certainly confused when I looked at the page here!) so I took the initiative of jumping in and creating a new sandbox with a cleaner copy of their proposed article in it.
If you get the chance, would you mind making sure what I've done is okay? Is there a better way I could have done it? as always, I'm pestering one of the busiest people around but that's what happens when you are so patient!SagaciousPhil - Chat10:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little bit of attribution squiffiness as a result, but that can be handled (at present, if someone was to move the sandbox page into article space it would be you, not Final4one, who would be credited with its creation, creating a copyright violation). The fix is fairly simple, fortunately: all you need to do is copy-and-paste (not move) the sandbox content back into the AFC, overwriting the content that's already there (you should leave the declined submission templates and the comments at the top, though. The resulting page history will show you making your changes, but will retain attribution to Final4one for their edits.
I'd suggest you ask Final4one if they're happy with this, and assuming they are, go ahead and make the change. There are still a number of problems with the sandbox version (Wikipedia articles used as sources, some duplicated refs, the sourcing generally isn't fabulous), but that's all fixable at the AFC draft. Generally it's not a great idea to have both a sandbox and an AFC on the go simultaneously, since it can cause confusion in the attribution of the final article (not to mention bewildering the writer and any editors trying to review the page!), so in future I'd suggest editing the AFC directly after consulting with its creator.
Thanks Yunshui - as soon as I pressed the save button I had the sinking feeling I had got it wrong. I have now asked for the new page I wrongly created to be speedy deleted (using the {{db-user}} template) and amended the talk page messages. I hope I haven't now made it even worse! (Wow, as I'm typing this it has already been deleted!) Sorry for being a pain.....
I did try the reflinks tool a couple of weeks ago but ended up just manually updating the bare URLs instead! I also have ProveIt loaded but again, my mind doesn't seem to work in tandem with it! Just plain laziness on my part - it feels quicker for me to type up the refs than trying to come to grips with shiny new tools! SagaciousPhil - Chat12:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved, then! I know that sinking feeling only too well - usually I get it just after deleting a page. There's nothing more embarrassing than two consecutive log entries showing one has confidently deleted and then sheepishly restored a page in the same thirty-second window...
It took me ages to get used to using ProveIt, Refsegregator, Reflinks etc. and I still do most of my referencing "by hand", so to speak. The one automate ref tool I do use pretty regularly is the Google Books converter; that's an incredibly useful bit of kit (so much so that I made a userbox for it to make it more accessible from my userpage). Yunshui雲水12:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created a page for payingtoomuch.com but it was promptly deleted. I understand that I need to put in reference material (Which I have). Did try to do this but I struggled to get the links formatted correctly and was looking for someone to help me with this.
. I used to have a whale of a time with Igloo, but since the summer that's been pretty much defunct due to server issues. I never get to have any fun... Thanks for the thought, though! Yunshui 雲水 22:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at WT:ADOPT.Template:Z21 Thanks! Go Phightins! 21:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Main Page
--Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
