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 Hissamelriys (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 12 April 2020 (→‎ygm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DYK for Hiraizumi Kiyoshi

On 29 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hiraizumi Kiyoshi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that history professor Hiraizumi Kiyoshi believed Emperor Jimmu to have been a real historical figure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hiraizumi Kiyoshi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hiraizumi Kiyoshi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido

Not happy with the changes to the aikido article. Seems very style specific and opinionated especially with regards to competition. The takamasu principle is very specific to later evolution of Ueshiba and has nothing to do with other styles. Definately not neutral as was claimed in the edit summary. Don't want to repeat my revert especially since a reference was added but still.PRehse (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment)@PRehse: The other editor is a really new editor who might be unfamiliar with Wikipedia in general, but they also state they’re an Aikido teacher and PhD, which also means they’re also probably unfamiliar with WP:EXPERT and WP:CON. So, perhaps the best way to approach this is to avoid WP:BITE and try to explain this by informing them about WP:WPMA and inviting them to participate in that; explain your concerns about the changes they’ve made in terms of the policies and guidelines you theyink are applicable. Trying to explain WP:UNDUE can sometimes be hard, but perhaps there’s a way to do so that makes them feel involved instead of rebuffed. If some of their changes are OK, then focusing on the good things while pointing out the bad things might help them feel involved. If it’s all no good and needs to go, then you should feel OK to revert back per WP:STATUSQUO as necessary (at least once) regardless of whether sources are provided and then suggesting WP:BRD to the other person.
Of course, you don’t need to revert to start a discussion per BRD; you can just start a discussion and invite the other editor as well as any others who might be interested in it to join in. As long as, you frame things civilly and discuss content, doing so should not be a problem. Whatever you decide to do, the other editor response will largely determine any further efforts you or anyone else makes. If they follow WP:DR, things will eventually be sorted out with them actively engaged in the process; if not, things will also eventually be sorted out, but they might not be around to see so. That, however, is their choice. I know pretty much nothing about Aikido, but the edit summary they left kinda indicates an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia that might possibly be a concern depending upon how they proceed from hereon. I’m sure you probably know most of the above already, but perhaps hearing it from another sort of backs up what you might already be thinking. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change “they” to “think”. — 12:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)][reply]
Thanks for the reply and yes I did need to hear it from somewhere else. The WP:EXPERT and WP:CON is what got my hackels up. I so wanted to go the route of me too with spades and fear that if I engaged I would go to the dark side.PRehse (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those additions are worth retaining - the expansion of basic principles is valid, I think - but I've removed some of the more speculative exposition, and the spurious "no competition" claim. Yunshui 雲水 07:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect.PRehse (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Creation

Hi mate,

A while ago gave an attempt to create an article for Akshara Singh but it seems that someone in the past had already created the article and got deleted due no significance. There is draft as well with the same name. Not sure and confused how to create one. Please guide me.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a draft already exists, your best option is to work on the page at Draft:Akshara Singh until it's ready for mainspace. At that point, you'll need to get an admin to move it, since the mainspace title is protected from recreation - if you submit the draft via articles for creation then someone will sort that bit out for you. Yunshui 雲水 14:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have an off-wiki evidence for a paid editor, how can I send it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.154.68.234 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)(talk page watcher) Hi IP 196.154.68.234. "Paid editing" is not prohibited per se, but undisclosed paid editing is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's wmf:Terms of Use as explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contributions disclosure. If you have real world knowledge of such a thing, you need to be very careful about posting any of what you know on Wikipedia since doing so may be considered a violation of WP:OUTING; you should also be very careful in directly contacting and accusing another editor of such a thing, even outside of Wikipedia, since that might be considered a violation of WP:OWH. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Response to the Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing for some more specific information on this type of thing.
If you have legitimate concerns about another editor that involves things you may personally know, the best way to try and seek help is going to be via email. If you register for an account (or if you've already got an registered account) and you activate your email feature, you will be able to send an email to an administrator and discuss things with them off of Wikipedia. If you don't wish to register for an account or don't wish to go on record with the account that you normally use, then your best bet might be to try WP:PAID#Reporting undisclosed paid editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to be emailed with evidence if you have genuine concerns about undisclosed paid editing, but I would second Marchjuly's comments above: please do not post any identifying evidence on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲水 10:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boro people

@Yunshui: it had to happen, I guess—a partial block in nearly sixteen years of editing! I am sorry it happened, but I think I deserved it. Thank you for resolving the issue. Chaipau (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've lifted the block, I no longer see any reason for it. To be honest, had I had the time to do a full investigation prior to issuing the partial block yesterday I probably wouldn't have blocked your account at all, so my apologies for the blot on your ledger. Yunshui 雲水 09:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am humbled. Thank you Chaipau (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response

Yunshui, thank you for your timely response. Sorry to bother you further, but you mention "Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes for dealing with issues like this and "you would be best advised to make use of them". I have read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and mostly it does not seem to apply to this situation (and technically is not a mechanism, although I have followed the guidelines, discussion , with other editor, taking a break from editing, etc). I have also done what I think to be due diligence in searching for and reading other materials I am adding content that can easily be checked, then being accused of WP:Original research. My content can be easily verified, in most cases (some of the sources are less readily available), then having reference-cited content removed. Despite having edited for about a dozen years, I have not previously run into any problems such as this. Is there or are there other dispute resolution mechanisms which you would be kind enough to recommend? Gratefully, Dcattell (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute, other than Hzh's removal of referenced material -- Hzh doesn't actually do content with me, just name-dropping of WP policy. Also, when you closed the request for administrative help, it left behind a template to some sort of message board, so I am pursuing help there. So, thanks for that, cheers Dcattell (talk)
And by the way, in case you stopped watching my talk page User:Hzh left you a message there (it's not to me).
You think the content should be written the way you wrote it, Hzh does not - that's a content dispute, pure and simple. A simple third opinion or dispute resolution request could have cleaned it up easily, but I see that you have instead decided to take the nuclear option and go directly to WP:ANI. Well, good luck with that... Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you've been helpful. I hope there is not a next time, but if there is I'll try third opinion or dispute resolution. The people at the ANI all seem nice, although one or two of them seem like they may be a bit eccentric, or even grumpy. Dcattell (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

Some interesting stuff in your inbox. GSS 💬 06:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am not sure if this is the right place to post here but GSS's accusations are not just baseless, he has a long tenancy of lashing out at other editors. Please just look at his talkpage and there are numerous messages from other editors that were either ignored or received a rude response from GSS. I have to say he also lacks ethics[1].

From his edit history, I found that based on vague assumptions he accuse anyone of paid editing and reverts their edits. "A thief believes everybody steals." is justifiable in this case. See: Article to be created on Tom Ford Beauty... and Paypal transfered. Hissamelriys (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui&oldid=950543406"