User talk:Yunshui

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Editor you blocked for copyright violations[edit]

Going to his talk page to explain my revert, I see he's got a lot of warnings for images too large for non-free use.

My revert was of his addition of files containing entire verses of the Bhagavad Gita, eg this one.[1] I don't think they'd be appropriate even if they were in English, which they aren't. They come from here. Is a transliteration copyright? I'm guessing not. Do you think the images are appropriate? Doug Weller talk 11:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

He's restored them[2] saying they are appropriate for reading purposes and that they contain an English translation. I don't see the English translation but if there is one it's quite likely a copyright violation. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The text he was adding to Bhagavad Gita was not a translation but a description of content - and it was directly lifted from the (very clearly marked as copyrighted on every page) document here. Block reinstated; this time it's an indefinite one. The images are pretty useless, but I don't think they constitute copyright violations. Yunshui  14:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi, I think this is a bit harsh, the oversized images are automatically resized by a bot within 24 hrs and as you say the images are not copyvio. Would you please consider lifting the block on condition that he does not upload any images or third party text for 6 months, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The block is for the text addition to the Bhagavad Gita article, which as I pointed out above, was a blatant copyright violation. Given that last time he got blocked fro such actions he simply waited it out, this time it's an indef - so there has to be some effort to address the issue before he can go back to editing. Indef doesn't mean forever, but it does mean that the problem has to be dealt with. The size of the image isn't an issue, but on an English-language Wikipedia, a large image which provides only a list of transliterated phrases is fairly redundant - translations into English are useful, but that isn't what's been provided. As with any block, I am more than happy for other admins to review and amend or reverse it if they see fit, but I'm not happy having Gpkp editing here without some proof that he understands Wikipedia's stance on copyright. Yunshui  16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems appropriate. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Copyright blocks (especially second ones) tend to be under as they are effectively CIR blocks. The criteria for lifting is just to satisfy us that you understand copyright and won’t do it again, so I think Yunshui’s actions are justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Yunshui can you please re-check this as I have looked very carefully at all of his edits on the Bhagavad Gita article and he has not added any text at all only images. The copyrighted text was already in the article, he just rearranged it around the images he added as shown in this diff comparison here which shows the text is identical in both diffs just rearranged, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Shit, I think you're right. Well, that was fabulously inept of me. I'll go and unblock them at once. Yunshui  19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Atlantic306, Thank Thanks a ton, for your assistance in lifting the block. Thank you Yunshui for unblocking.
--Gpkp (utc) 05:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello Yunshui. thank you for your understanding and agreeing to unblock this page. please let us know when we can expect this page to be active again. we are volunteers working on this page and will continue to make changes that are needed. there is no advertising or selling on this page. Thank you for your help. 2601:600:9C80:4FF2:342D:6B68:B0F0:5CFF (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what page you are referring to. Yunshui  07:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3/Towns Hill[edit]

I have just received some very alarming forwarded emails. They concern this case of WP:MEAT.[[­User_talk:Kautilya3#Towns_Hill ]] I have been told you have received copies of the puppet master's emails too. Do you intend to take action soon? Dilpa kaur (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Only one of the emails that I have been sent actually looks like it's a specific editing directive, and I've no proof that any of them actually originated from Kautilya3 (the original header records have not been provided, so I've no way of knowing where the initial email came from). I have also been advised by ArbCom that they are aware of this issue, and that they do not believe the claims to be genuine - they have recommended that I ignore TH's claims. As such, unless it can be proved that Kautilya3 actually sent these emails, I see no reason to take action. Yunshui  07:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Some of TH claims may not be genuine, for socks seldom have the character to speak the complete truth. But I also think Kautilya3 (who tells began as a sock[3]) is not innocent here either and is so far evading my question about the (if true, then inappropriate and against policy) January 4 email. Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems Kautilya3 has implicitly with some foot dragging accepted the authenticity of the January 4 email's text. [4] Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

David Williams-Ellis[edit]

Hi Yunshui, I understand that you deleted the page for David Williams-Ellis but I am now unable to find it so I can look at amending it. Please could you let me know how I can find it and also which part violated the copyright and I will then change it? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talkcontribs)

The entire text was copied, verbatim, from the Albany Gallery's entry on David Williams-Ellis. If you do that again, you will be blocked from editing. Wikipedia content must be written in your own words. Yunshui  08:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This is text that I gave them originally so is my copyright. What can I do to get the page reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talkcontribs)

In that case, you will need to release the text under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 or similar licence. The easiest way to do this is to ask the gallery to add a footer to the page stating that the text there is available under this licence. Other options are explained at donating copyrighted materials. Yunshui  09:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will try and get them to do that. In the meantime can the page be reinstated without the new additions I made yesterday for Normandy and Aberdeen? Or I will re-write it as I think this will be quicker but please can you reinstate the page first as I can no longer find it. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talkcontribs)

The page cannot be reinstated until there is a clear and verifiable release of the text under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. Once that is done I'll be happy to restore it - feel free to leave me a message here when the gallery's website has been updated. Yunshui  10:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

None of it at all can be reinstated? It was ok'd before I added the additional material yesterday, can this not be reinstated? I'm also a bit unsure about the wording they would have to add, is it 'This text is available under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license' - please can you let me know what it is and I will get in touch with them?

The reviewer who moved it into mainspace should really have checked for copyright violations first - from its inception, the whole page was copied from the gallery's website. The whole thing is therefore a copyright violation, and can't be restored. The gallery's webmaster just needs to insert the following HTML in their page footer:

<a rel="license" href=""><img alt="Creative Commons Licence" style="border-width:0" src="" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 International License</a>.

which will display the official Creative Commons licence image. Yunshui  10:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been in touch with the gallery and they have added the Creative Commons logo: Can his page now be reinstated? Many thanks.

The page has been reinstated. Many thanks. Yunshui  15:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much.

Editorial Advice sort regards secondary citations using the Daily Mail as sole evidence[edit]

I note that you were involved in the decision regarding the use of the Daily Mail as a source in Wikipedia. On the Jeremy Corbyn page, Jeremy Corbyn#Wreath laying in Tunisia a claim by the Daily Mail is not used as a citation itself but is the sole source that other news sources are using as evidence. Is this secondhand use of the Daily Mail acceptable ? (note i have tried to add neutrality to the section).

In terms of sourcing, it is perfectly acceptable to say that ,"X said Y" with a citation to a reliable source Z, so stating, "The Daily Mail claimed that Corbyn was honouring terrorists," with multiple citations to sources that show the Mail actually claimed this is fine. Whether it belongs in the article is debatable on different grounds, but given the amount of mud the press sling at the Labour leader, stating that "a right-wing tabloid says Corbyn hates Jewish people" is almost in the "the sky is blue" class of statements requiring verification... Yunshui  08:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Randy Miller[edit]

Dear Yunshui,

Recently I noticed someone had written a page about my work as a film composer. I was pleased to see this after many years working as a composer in Los Angeles.

I tried to look at the page tonight to see if this person added my early years and current composing works.

The page says you deleted it. I am not familiar with the way Wiki works - but would respectfully ask if you could add the page back.

Thank you,

Randy Miller — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The article in question had been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, in violation of the block. Such pages are deleted on sight. This has no bearing on your suitability as the subject of a Wikipedia article, and anyone is free to recreate the page if they see fit. However, the content added by the blocked user should not be restored. Yunshui  07:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You rejected my page when there are many others similar that have been accepted[edit]

Hi there,

I see you have declined my page I created

I do not understand why - there are many other CEOs for FTSE250 companies with Wikipedia pages that have even less references and information and yet you still published theirs - I dont understand why you have declined it - please help me rectify this as I waited so long for it to them get rejected and I dont think the reasons are valid when many others have pages that you accepted.

Thanks, Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princesskate198 (talkcontribs) 09:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the decline is shown at the top of the page - there is insufficient sourcing in the draft to warrant an article about this person. The sources you have provided are either press releases (which are not independent of the subject) or passing mentions (which are not significant coverage of the subject). Please read the notability requirements, or more simply, the golden rule of Wikipedia and add sources which are reliably published, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject.
The existence of other pages on similar topics has no relevance here; the draft was declined purely on its own merits. Yunshui  09:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Brownie Of Understanding & Compassion[edit]

Brownie transparent.png For going above and beyond the call of duty in being kind to a newborn editor. ThePastoral (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome; I hope your wiki-career here is a long and productive one. Yunshui  19:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)