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 RevengeOfTheRobots (talk | contribs) at 15:28, 7 June 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Would you have time to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive1? Threatened to be archived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

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.— Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious five years!

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 5#Non-free road signs used in list article

Hi Yunshui. The FFD about these images has been relisted yet again. If the OTRS ticket issue has been resolved, then could you comment on the outcome in the current FFD. If not, then perhaps some mention about the ticket issue could be added so that others are aware that an attempt is being made to sort this out. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been minimal response on the email list. Two OTRS agents (Mdann52 and Jeff G.) believe the permission is sufficient for a pd-gov tag, one agent (me) thinks it isn't. No-one else has offered any opinion, and the ticket is still floating around on OTRS, so make of that what you will... Yunshui 雲水 08:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yunshui for the update and continuing to try and get this resolved. Whatever the consensus on the ticket turns out to be is fine, but the FFD discussion probably cannot be properly resolved without the ticket issue being resolved one way or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: This discussion concerns User talk:Yunshui/Archive 56#OTRS verification request and multiply relisted Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 5#Non-free road signs used in list article.
We have still had no useful response. I stand by my Keep of 07:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC) in these edits. File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is a diagram which is derivative of a sign design for which British Columbia disclaims copyright, @Fhsig13 put work into it and can claim cc-by-sa-4.0 for that work but should indicate the underlying PD work. Let's look at the potential PD templates. The subject works should qualify for {{PD-Canada}} or {{PD-Canada-Crown}} due to age, but without sources for the designs, we don't know who created them, when they were created, whether or not the creations were subject to copyright by the Crown, and consequently why they are PD. None of that information is revealed in the ticket. Sorry for the delay.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an OTRS volunteer so I cannot see or evaluate the specifics of the ticket. The FFD discussion was based upon the files being licensed as non-free; therfore, if they are converted to PD there is no longer any NFCC issues and the FFD discussion can be closed. However, the files cannot remain licensed as non-free content because doing so would not satisfy WP:NFCC#1. So, the files have to either be relicensed or deleted.
I am aware of the previous Wikipedia/Commons discussions on this image since I was part of them. What I am not fully aware of are the details of the discussions going on between OTRS volunteers taking place off-Wikipedia except what Yunshui has posted above. The validity of the ticket is something which cannot be assessed in the FFD since not everyone is privy to same information as you OTRS volunteers are. Please note that another OTRS volunteer JJMC89 has posted in the FFD that the ticket is not OK, so that's at least two OTRS volunteers (Yunshui is the other one) who clearly disagree with your assessment plus possibly one more in Jcb who thinks the ticket is questionable; so, if you guys are unable to reach an agreement among yourselves, then maybe the files should remain non-free until you can. I'm not sure if all admins can see the same things you OTRS volunteers can see, so it would make it much easier for one of the admins who typically closes FFD discussions to know for sure that the OTRS consensus is that the ticket is OK. Does this make sense? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Yes, it makes sense.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they are PD due to age, that is one thing. There is no evidence that BC (or SK) disclaims copyright in the OTRS ticket. The email relates to SK, not BC. Even if it were for SK, the representative saying we don't need permission is not the same as disclaiming copyright. The ticket doesn't provide any statement of permission that Wikimedia can use, so the ticket is useless. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui: Which email list?   — Jeff G. ツ 12:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: It was sent to the otrs-en list on May 25th, the subject line is "Permission discussion". Yunshui 雲水 13:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui: I found it, thanks. You were not mischaracterising.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know; didn't want to think I was putting words in your mouth! Yunshui 雲水 15:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Concord

Hi Yunshui. Was wondering if you'd mind watching Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Concord for a bit? There's an IP editor who keeps trying to inappropriately add a non-free logo to the infobox. I've tried explaining about WP:NFCCP in edit sums and in more detail on the IP's user talk page, but that just led to a new IP showing up to try and add the logo. This last edit sum kind of indicates that the IP misunderstands how non-free content can be used and perhaps WP:COPY as well. Anyway, I've made a WP:RPP request, but perhaps a word or two from an administrator might also help slow the IP/IPs down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as though Fish and karate, today's official king of RFPP, has already slapped a padlock on it, so that ought to prevent further shenanigans. Yunshui 雲水 11:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps things will slow down a bit now that tha page is protected. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket question

I seem have been keeping you busy yesterday and today, so I figure I'd ask you about Talk:Fiona Graham#Wanaka Gym court case.

Apparently an OTRS ticket was received requesting that the content be removed. A "OTRS talk" was added to the article's talk page in March 2017, but the content wasn't removed from the article by the OTRS volunteer who processed the ticket. The content was removed the other day by what appears to be an SPA editor for a WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of reason, but I re-added it because it seem relevant and reliably sourced. I didn't consider the possibility of a copyvio, so the content was removed once again for that reason, which is fine.

My question now has to do with the OTRS ticket/complaint and what that means with respect to BLP. Can the content be re-added without the copyvios and excessive detail, etc. or is it basically a no go BLP-wise because someone (assuming wither the subject of the article or someone representing her) complained about the content to OTRS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People complain about the content of the articles about them all the time, but ultimately, we're here to report what others have said about them, not what they want to say about themselves. This applies to OTRS tickets just as much as if they complained on-wiki, so there's no prohibition on re-adding the section if it meets all the usual requirements. That said, it seems like a fairly minor event and doesn't have much to do with the reason she is notable - there's no compelling reason to have it in the article. A sentence or two is all that would probably be needed, if that. Yunshui 雲水 08:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. The more I look at the matter, the more I tend to agree that it might not be worth mentioning. The case did, however, reach the NZ Supreme Court so that might be worth mentioning in brief. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rouas

Trying to find out why you took the liberaty to delete a page I created when there was still on on-going debate that was equally sided????? I'm putting it back up!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui&oldid=844846260"