Jump to content

User talk:Yunshui

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mokhtar-saghafi (talk | contribs) at 13:38, 7 April 2014 (→‎Sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Deletion of Article" Outline Help

Dear Yunshui,

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

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

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

"Struggle for Existence" Outline Help

Yunshui,

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

The Struggle for Existence Outline Rough Draft:

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

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

Yunshui and ragesoss, did you see this post? I think Gtn001 accidentally inserted this post in this Talk page, rather than placing it at the bottom of the page as a new section. In any case, I'm hoping you can provide a few comments. Gtn001 and I have chatted about how this is a tricky article, as there are lots of possibilities of overlap. Any feedback you can suggest is appreciated, as always! --Enstandrew (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmos Outline Help

Hi Yunshui!

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

Let me know if you have any suggestions!

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

Let's optimize this! - UBC BIOL 345

Hello yunshui,

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

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

BIOL 345

Hi Yunshui

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

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


Talk back bio 345

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

sayed mohamad bagher posaei

hi.please see my article revived.This is a famous person. Then put a link about it. Currently check revived.

ThanksMokhtar-saghafi (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Sayed Mohamad is notable by Wikipedia standards, then we can have an article about him. The page you submitted, however, contained only one source, which was a link to a book that he supposedly wrote - per the guidelines for inclusion of writers, simply having a book in print is not sufficient to get an article in Wikipedia. If you can provide multiple, reliable, independent sources containing in-depth coverage of the subject, then the page can be restored. Until then, however, there is nothing to indicate that Wikipedia needs an article about this person. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YES., I put in the first time a couple of other sources., You can revitalize this article yet. ThanksMokhtar-saghafi (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be blunt, but no, you didn't. At no point in its history has the page contained more than one source - this one. It is nowhere near sufficient to support an article. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can restore this article I'm 20 sourcesMokhtar-saghafi (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give them about fifty cents., Please return the articleMokhtar-saghafi (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buttons

Hi 雲‍水,
Thanks for the message! Yeah, I know. I probably could have deleted it myself, but I guess I'm just a little bit worried someone might think, "admin deleting stuff in their own userspace: conspiracy! cabal! etc!" Plus, I value second opinions in any admin action.
(To be honest, when I got the message that my RfA had passed, I was kinda hoping that I would get a UI addition that included actual buttons. But that's just me.)
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a more admin-friendly UI, I very much recommend installing User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/easyBlock.js; I use it on a daily basis. It gives you a handy Block option in the standard Move etc. dropdown menu, which makes dealing with problem users much easier. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question

Yunshui, I had posted about Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles on the Help Desk but no one replied that is why I am troubling you.The Wikiproject mentioned above is of great value to our Wiki .I want to know how can the stats on the project be updated and is there any Project Co-ordinator for the Project.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skr15081997. To be honest, I don't have anything to do with that project - your best bet might be to talk to Dr. Blofeld, who would know more about it than me. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

History of Ecology Course Question

Hello Yunshui, my name is Devon and I'm working on Olaus Murie's article as a part of my History of Ecology course. I am currently working on an outline showing how I intend to expand the article, which will serve as the lead section for the article. I was hoping you could provide me with a better sense of how specific or general I should be when writing about his expeditions and major findings within the lead section, as I know I will discuss them in greater detail later in article. Thanks for your help! Dcbru (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dcbru. There's actually some "official" guidance on how to compose a lead section in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In essence, the lead should be able to stand in as a substitute for the article in its entirety - if, hypothetically, the rest of the page disappeared, a reader should be able to understand who Murie was and what he did from the lead alone. Generally speaking, the lead summarises the rest of the article - as a rule of thumb, you should aim to condense the information in each subsequent section down to a couple of sentences, and knit these together into a coherent paragraph or two. As regards expeditions and major findings, it would be enough to write something along the lines of, "Murie undertook numerous expeditions into the North American wilderness, including a notable excursion to [insert notable expedition here], where he discovered [insert notable discovery]." You don't need to mention every expedition/discovery in the lead, just the most important one or two. There should be no information in the lead which doesn't also appear in the article body, and as a result, you don't usually need to cite sources in the lead paragraphs.
Hope that's helpful. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marquette University/Neurobiology

Yunshui,

Hello there. We have been in communication about merging the current stubs Ligand Binding Assay and Ligand Binding Assays with our 'almost' live page (which will be titled, Ligand Binding Assay). Being said, we are ready to do the following two things and would appreciate any and all help that you can provide:

  • Merging the histories of the 2 stubs into our page. We included a request for merge but we are to have an administrator fulfill this task.
  • How do we make our page 'live'?

Thank you so much for your help! MU Senior2014 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the fun stuff happens while I'm asleep... Anthony Appleyard has helpfully done this all for you already, history-merging your draft into the existing article Ligand binding assay and redirecting the Ligand binding assays page to the same place (in his evaluation, there was nothing there worth merging; I tend to agree). You might want to drop him a note to say thank-you; his talkpage is here. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

hallo Yunshui,here is a wierd article, it claims numerous things like will break head if anybody tries to talk about dividing India !!... they are been in news for wrong reasons and the article uses this news to claim stuff how to deal with it ? or we just have to leave with it because it has some qoutes from newspapers ? Shrikanthv (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing's pretty sound - remember, not liking something is never a reason for deleting it. You could perhaps tag it for cleanup - the grammar's a bit odd in places - but there's nothing actionable here from a deletion perspective. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your re right, merey saying "wrong in news " is just a point of view I guess it has earned the right to live in wiki Shrikanthv (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiresome

Hi Yunshui, whats the real difference making an article GA or a FA really the article about Sri aurobindo has been really tiresome! and meticulous Shrikanthv (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The real difference? About three years and several mm Hg of blood pressure... I've never taken an article to FA status (I started with Morihei Ueshiba, but I've rather let it fall by the wayside). The FA process is, in my experience, far more demanding than GA, and usually needs a team of editors to get involved in making improvements. Basically, GA status says, "yeah, this pretty much meets all our standards", whilst FA status says, "this is one of the best articles out of fourteen-million-whatever-number-we're-up-to-now". It's quite a big jump. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 水 , finally a GA ,was a hard days labour Shrikanthv (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think will be going for the unthinkable Shrikanthv (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Unfortunately) Once again your student

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

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


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

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

Tito , I know your are angry, Please do not take this personnaly, yes I have done some mistakes in the past, please check my edit history its not just templating afd'S I have been working on scientific and biographical articles too (in creation and improvment) , My only intention for tagging was to keep wiki clean, imagin just typing Gandhi in 50years from now and if we do not see the real intended person but see 1000 Gandhi's !! in wiki .. that was only my concern nothing more than that . I request it to let go of the past for now, and please do not take this personally Tito, I am here to help Shrikanthv (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Ecology Outline

Hi Yunshui!

For Professor Stuhl's History of Ecology class, I have been conducting research on Tropical Ecology and intend to add much of my findings to the article's page, as it is currently quite bare. I have just finished writing an outline for my article, and I just had a quick question. I have essentially divided my outline into four sections: a working definition of tropical ecology, a brief history of the field and the works of the naturalists who contributed to its inception, an overview of the ecosystems and immense biodiversity that exist in the tropics, and a summary that describes ongoing conservation and management efforts in the tropics. Does this seem proper to you? I will be sure to make further divisions in the article as I continue with my writing, but, considering Professor Stuhl has limited us to four paragraphs on this assignment, does this seem like the right way to approach and loosely outline the writing that I will do for this article? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you!

Aleary1 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Aidan Leary[reply]

Aleary1: That sounds like a very reasonable approach. I just took a look at the outline along these lines you posted to Talk:Tropical ecology, and I think you're on the right track. Nice work.--ragesoss (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adirondack Park & Mountains Outline

I have working on an outline to contribute to the Adirondack Park and Adirondack Mountains pages and have reached a dilemma that I hope you can help resolve. Initially my goal was to add historical context in an ecological sense to both of these pages but am having issues with topics that run between the pages and how to differentiate what information should go on each page respectively. I was also considering adding to just one page, Adirondack Park because it seems to need the most attention in terms of historical background as well as a number of other corrections. Any advice you have regarding this issue would be greatly appreciated as well as whether you think I should turn my attention to one article over the other. Thank you in advance.

Dwk014 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dwk014: That does sounds like a tricky line to walk. My first thought for division of information would be along the lines of this: the natural history of the area would seem to fit better in Adirondack Mountains, which is fundamentally about a geological and geographical entity, while history connecting the ecosystem with human involvement would fit more in Adirondack Park, which is fundamentaly about a politically-defined park region. But there is also bound to be some overlapping information between the two, which is okay. (At some point, it might make sense to break off a separate article covering the ecology, which could then be linked to from the appropriate places in both articles.) As a start, I think your idea of just focusing on the Park article is good. Since you've familiarized yourself with both, you'll probably get a better idea of just what makes sense for covering in one article versus the other as you go.--ragesoss (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bucknell History of Ecology Outline

Hi Yunshui, I am a member of the History of Ecology class at Bucknell University and am working on the review for Warder Clyde Allee's Wikipedia Page. I was wondering if you could take a look at the outline I have written for the lead section of this article. Any feedback, suggestions or corrections you have to offer are much appreciated!

Thanks, -Lizziewalters (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warder Clyde Allee was born on June 5,1885 in Bloomingdale, Indiana and was an accomplished Zoologist and Ecologist. Allee is noted to be one of the great pioneers of American Ecology (Schmidt). He was best known and recognized for his research on social heavier, aggregations and distributions of animals in aquatic as well as terrestrial environments (Britannica). Allee was a former instructor at the University of Chicago where he wrote over 200 research papers and published more than a dozen books. His most notable book being, Principles of Animal Ecology (Britannica), which was published in December of 1949. Allee dedicated his life to Biological work and remained active in the field until his death on March 18, 1955 at the age of 70 in Gainsville, Florida.

Allee attended Earlham College and upon his graduation in 1908, Clyde Allee pursued advanced studies at the University of Chicago where he received his PhD and graduated summa cum laude in 1912 (Schmidt) During his last two years of graduate work at the University of Chicago, Clyde Allee began his teaching career as the Assistant of the Department of Zoology. This began the journey of Allee’s teaching career resulting in thirty years tenure at the University of Chicago from 1921-1950 (Schmidt). Warder Clyde Allee brought his teaching skills to many other institutions including the University of Illinois, Williams College, University of Oklahoma, and Lake Forest College. Warder Clyde Allee was strongly influenced by Frank R. Lillie, head of the Department of Zoology at the University of Chicago and one of the founders of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA (Schmidt). Warder Clyde Allee gained interest in the interactions and patterns of the distribution of marine mammals during his time as an instructor at the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole in Massachusetts from 1914-1921.

In 1923, Warder Clyde Allee began to write a series of papers entitled, Animal Aggregations. Eight years later, he published his findings in a book under the same name. The results of Clyde Allee’s research demonstrated the existence of an unconscious drive within species for fellow individuals of the same species. This research helped to prove that under crowding was detrimental to some animals. Allee’s research also helped to describe protocooperation, where two species interact with one another in a beneficial way that is not essential to the survival of either organism.

Clyde Allee remained active in the field of Biology throughout his life taking over as managing editor of the journal, Physiological Zoology in 1957. He also chaired the Committee of Ecology of Animal Populations of National Research Council, named fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1950 and was a trustee for the Marine Biological Laboratory from 1932 until his death in 1955.

Lizziewalters: In broad strokes, this looks like the right kind of outline for a biography. Be sure to take a look at some other scientist biography articles to see how the very beginning of article is expected to look. (The entire lead section should be a concise summary of the article, while the begging of the lead section is an even more concise summary, highlighting the most important things you'd want a reader to know if they were going to stop after one paragraph, and the first sentence can be thought of almost like a dictionary definition of the topic of the article.) There must be a mistake in either the date of death (1955) or the date he took over as editor of Physiological Zoology (1957).--ragesoss (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bucknell Outline Questions

Hi Yunshui, I am working on the G. Evelyn Hutchinson article. It is not a well developed article, with only one sentence as the introduction. As I am researching I have found a plethora of information about his life and his advances in many fields of ecology. My question is how much I should add to the page. I have been considering either adding to all the sections smaller bits of information, or adding more information to just one or two sections. Any advice on how you think I should handle this is greatly appreciated. MackenzieGlaze (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MackenzieGlaze: My recommendation would be to spread your work out so that the article ends up as a pretty well-rounded overview of Hutchinson, instead of seeming like a half-finished article that only goes into detail about one aspect of his life. You also don't need to accept the current organization in terms of sections; it's often useful to break up biographies into sections about major periods in the subject's life, and sometimes with additional sections about their influence/legacy. Since I'm guessing that some of your sources go into detail about both his life and legacy, that might make sense for this article.--ragesoss (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Ecology outline

Hi Yunshui, I have been working with User:Waggers/sandpit/mention on an outline for the Arctic Ecology page for Prof. Stuhl's History of Ecology class, and we plan to have it finalized soon. So far, this is what we have:

In the 1940’s, the shifting image of the Arctic as an unfamiliar and ecologically unique place with inconclusive evidence of population cycles that scientists wished to study, to an environment that was fragile as a result of its lack of diversity. Scientists performed fieldwork to collect data that linked new observations to prior widely accepted knowledge. Through the processes of soil sampling, surveying and photographing landscapes and distributing fish tags, scientists demonstrated the significance of historical case studies in the study of environmental science. The ability to compare past and present data allowed scientists to understand the causes and effects of ecological changes. Post World War II, study and management of the Artic was taken over by consulting firms that sought to benefit the government. The 1970’s brought a decrease in the desire to protect the Arctic as it was seen to lack a significant amount of biodiversity.

As the Northern ecosystems, including the arctic, boreal forest and northern bogs contain 25% of the world’s carbon pools, a positive feedback loop occurring in the Arctic is largely involved in climate change. As the permafrost melts due to warming global temperatures, the carbon stored within the permafrost is released and further induces climatic changes. Also, higher temperatures increase soil decomposition and if soil decomposition becomes higher than net primary production, global atmospheric carbon dioxide will in turn increase. Atmospheric sinks in the water table are also being reduced as the permafrost melts and decreases the height of the water table in the Arctic.

Throughout history, indigenous people have thrived in the Arctic despite its harsh conditions, and their lifestyles are based on a combination of economic and cultural values. Subsistence hunting is a prevalent aspect of the society of the indigenous Arctic people and it is done not only out of necessity but also for cultural reasons. Industrial uses of the region’s resources, such as fishing and mining, are also pursued extensively by the region’s inhabitants. The region’s people depend substantially on the environment and resources of the Arctic, so climate change is especially concerning regarding their sustainability.

The Arctic region features a vast range of organisms, each of which have their own specific roles in the environment. Vegetation in the Arctic includes various sedges and cottongrass among other species. Common animals found here include the moose, reindeer, various marmots, wolves, and others. Organisms are divided among various subregions within the Arctic based on differing biotic and abiotic factors. All organisms in the region have adapted to withstand the region’s overall harsh conditions.

This is the basis of our outline, but we plan to edit it further soon. Do you have any comments or suggestions about it so far?

Your help is greatly appreciated! Thank you, Jjt022 (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Jjt022 Joe Tull[reply]

Jjt022 and Eeb017: The organization of this outline is a little unclear, from my perspective. It starts out jumping straight into the history of scientific studies of / thinking about arctic ecology, then covers the changes that are currently thought to be happening (related primarily to climate change), then the history and current status of human use of the arctic, and then plants and animals of the region. A lot of this is already covered by other articles, particularly Arctic and some of the related articles linked to in particular sections, such as Climate of the Arctic and Climate change in the Arctic. The best approach to make sure your work isn't duplicating what's already there might be to focus in on arctic ecology as a scientific discpline — especially by developing the types of things you've started to outline in your first paragraph.--ragesoss (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, had to share this

Someone created the article List of fires not started by Billy Joel. I actually hated to delete it because I don't think I've seen an article title make me LOL that hard in a while, but it's gone. I just figured you'd get a good chuckle out of it as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good use of the delete button - but yes, that was pretty amusing, thanks for the smile. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse response

In two places when you responded to this question you said "ect." I thought that might be a UK variation or something. But in another place you said "etc." This is important because you were telling the person asking the question the exact text to use.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a UK variant - just a typo. Obviously a typo that I make more often than I'd like... Thanks for pointing it out; feel free to replace it with etc. if you see me do it again. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now it's been archived. I need to find it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it, so it just doesn't matter. If someone else finds it, it's their problem.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle question

Hello Yunshui, I wonder if you could help: I've recently been taking a turn at recent changes patrol using Twinkle. Several times I've made a report to AIV but find it difficult to fill in the new & old revision numbers on the report form. Do you know of a quick way to enter these numbers? Or how critical is it to fill them in? With thanks in advance: Noyster (talk), 21:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't the end of the world if you don't fill in the revisions (as a fairly active admin at AIV, I tend to check the contribution history generally, rather than just the specific instance cited). If you want to do so, the easiest way that I know of is probably what you're already doing: open the page history for the vandalised page, select and open the appropriate diffs, and then copy the number from the end of the URL. However, unless you want to draw an administrator's attention to one specific issue (rather than just general vandalism), filling in those boxes isn't really necessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Additions to Biogeography Article

Hello Yunshui,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoption

Hi Yunshui,

Would be able to adopt me? I was sent over by WormTT.

Thanks ForrestLyle (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ForrestLyle. I'm flattered (thanks for the vote of confidence, Worm!), but I'm afraid I rather have my hands full with students on the Education Program at the moment (see most of the threads above). Until the three classes I'm working with are finished, I don't think I'd be able to do a proper job of adopting you - indeed, my two existing adoptees are languishing as it is. Sorry to disappoint. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't doubt you'd be busy Yunshui, but I thought that since you were a little closer to the adoption process than I currently am, you might know who's active and who might be interested in taking ForrestLyle on :) WormTT(talk) 07:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, gotcha. I think Soni is probably the most active person in WP:ADOPT these days, though he's pretty engaged in the re-imagining mentorship project at present. Poor ForrestLyle's getting passed from pillar to post - sorry! Yunshui 雲‍水 07:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox AfD

I noticed that the AfD talk page for Belle Knox had been used as a general forum-ish talk page, so I blanked the page and protected it. I've had someone complain about it on my talk page saying that nothing on the page was inappropriate, that it doesn't promote open discussion, etc. I've left a note there explaining that the AfD talk page is supposed to remain blank and that it's not supposed to be a forum. To be very honest, the discussion there was mostly just the type of things you'd see on any average forum and it was mostly kvetching over us not using her real name and/or saying that the article's deletion was wrong/right. It was also starting to ramp itself up to become rather heated. I just wanted to get someone to come in and just sort of look over the whole thing, as someone also complained about me protecting it since I was involved in the AfD discussion. I was, but I know that the end result would likely have been the same: that the page would be blanked and protected, which I pointed out. I figure that getting someone to look over what I've done would probably be a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not what I would have done, but that isn't to say it was necessarily A Bad Thing. You're absolutely right in that it isn't the appropriate venue to carry on kvetching about the deletion (that's Deletion Review, where the deletion has already been endorsed), and some means of shutting down the incipient gripefest was necessary. Personally I've have preferred an archive hat to blanking and protection, but since the page history's still there nothing's actually been lost. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I re-add the discussion and put the hatnote at the top? I definitely didn't want to delete the history, but I was a little afraid that leaving the content up might spark questions of "why is their comment allowed to be on there when mine isn't". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you (I'm such a git, sorry). The advantage of having a closed discussion visible is that anyone stumbling over the page with be immediately able to see that there's something there (it's not at all obvious from the blank page). It also preserves you from accusations of inappropriate redaction; and who wants that on their conscience? Yunshui 雲‍水 07:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I just go ahead and remove the protection? For as long as I've been active, I've always seen AfD talk pages have the informal rule that they should remain blank to avoid discussion forks and confusion. I've even seen a few of them get blanked and deleted for that. I'd suggested that we make this a formal rule, but people are saying that talk page access to AfDs should be allowed. Should I just go ahead and unprotect it? I'm just frustrated because I don't see where AfD talk page usage has predominantly been used in a positive fashion and I'm also fairly concerned that aside from the redundancy for other venues, it could also serve to undermine the AfD decision. Not to mention that I honestly don't know where many people monitor the average AfD. It's fairly rare when anyone would come back to respond to something. I'm kind of tempted to just unprotect it and hand it over to one of the other people on the board and tell them to deal with it. I've rarely, rarely seen anyone use the talk pages on AfDs for anything positive. Normally it's just spam, vandalism, forum-esque conversations, and attempts to circumvent deletions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the first sentence of my previous response... I tend to agree with you regarding AFD talkpages, although once or twice they've served as a venue to discuss sock/meat puppetry on the main discussion page. Generally, though, there's no good reason to write anything on the discussion page of an AFD. It might be an idea to create some sort of template or editnotice that could be automatically appended to AFD talkpages, something along the lines of: "This is not the page on which to discuss the deletion of the article. Please use *insert link to AFD discussion page*". Not quite sure how you'd make that generate automatically upon creation of an AFD page, but I'm sure one of the technical geniuses in our ranks can come up with a way. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

recently blocked editor

Hi Yunshui, an editor you blocked recently is continuing with talk page abuse and may need further intervention from you. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention - in the form of a talkpage block - duly supplied. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Yunshui. You have new messages at TJ Spyke's talk page.
Message added 10:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Bushranger One ping only 10:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict during deletion

Hi... I was AfDing an article you speedied... could you please close the AfD? I've messed up a NAC in the past. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks for letting me know. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why my page is deleted?please help me

why my page is deleted?may i know the reason ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedfuzailfz (talk • contribs) 05:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your book. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.42.212.2

I suggest User:87.42.212.2 should be blocked along with the 83.*** that you blocked just now. The two seem to be working as a team: Noyster (talk), 12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly the same kid. Either way, blocked and revdel'd just like the last one. Thanks. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lippmann

(Note: Below is a copy of a message I have already sent to another Wikipedia user Fauzan after he/she had marked the page Martin Lippmann for speedy deletion.)

That page should not be speedily deleted because... it is my own name and I deserve the right to create it and edit it. If I could now change the name of the page to Bernard Martin Lippmann, I would rather do that, because that is in fact my full name. So please could you be kind and tell me how to do that? Regards, B M LippmannAnameisbutaname. 13:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you meet Wikipedia's notability guidlines, I am afraid that we neither want nor need an article about you. Even if you do meet those guidelines, such an article would need to consist of substantially more than a single sentence describing your profession and location. Furthermore, you yourself would not be considered an appropriate person to author the article. Please take a look at What Wikipedia is not before continuing to edit. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hello, I'm just posting here because I would like you to adpot me, been a lurker for a long time, just wanna help now Jakesyl (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jakesyl. At present I'm rather busy with several Education Program courses, and don't really feel I'd be able to take on any adoptees (I really must get around to fixing the header on my entry at Adopt-A-User). Ask me again in a few months and I'll be happy to oblige, but right now I'm afraid I don't think I'd be able to do very much to help you, sorry. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Messy

Hi yunshui, here is one of IP's I do not know what to do with this ? its been in a drive to put a non notable private institute amoung government owned famous educational institute, and has continued add picutres and informations in many of city , state ,education, culture pages .. so how to treat this?, Have warned him but it may be true that i may be demotivating a new contributor too so where is the balance ?

The concerned account here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 07:04, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the material that violated copyright, and blocked the account as a promotional SPA. I'd suggest starting an AFD on Education in Bangalore, since it seems to have been started as a coatrack on which to hang further information about the KJC. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
Yunshui, it my pleasure to hereby award you with The Premium Reviewer Barnstar for your thoughtful review of James Caudy. Through your diligence and guidance, this article now meets the criteria for Good Article status! Thank you again for taking the time to review this article! -- Caponer (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I really need to get myself doing more GA reviews; the problem is that my dipping-in-and-out editing pattern tends to prescribe the sort of lengthy examination that GA reviews require. I'm glad that one of my few long Wikipedia sessions enabled me to review your article, it was very interesting. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A "DogAward" to you!!!

Happy_Attack_Dog`s Future protectors educator award
Nice job on your essay for beginners on how to counter vandalism. Its safe to know that Many of the people here <-- who read this essay will become Protectors of the Wiki!!!! keep up the great work!!!! Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 23:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much, I'm glad you found it useful. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sayed mohamad bagher posaei

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

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

Sandbox

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

Thanks,

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

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

Sources

hi.Please see These links.

http://sheredari.ir/index.php?subaction=userinfo&user=mposaiy76

http://www.shia-online.ir/article.asp?id=29546

http://www.uiran.com/NewsCrawler/News/Content/-999999999998008142/www.ossiran.com

http://vista.ir/lid/9377935

http://www.ahle-beyt.ir/forum/showthread.php?t=3093

http://www.zaerin.ir/reader.htm.php?read=news&id=4918

http://www.montazeram.ir/page/44

http://rifna.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69784:%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%B9%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D8%B4%D8%AF-&catid=103:1389-02-31-17-45-15&Itemid=248

http://www.valiasr-aj.com/fa/listlink.php

http://www.ghaemiyeh.com/dijital-library?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=82&sobi2Id=2720

http://www.ammarname.ir/node/40196

http://bayanbox.ir/id/4016561972245054040?download

name in persian:سید محمد باقر پوسایی — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokhtar-saghafi (talk • contribs) 09:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui&oldid=603150490"