User talk:Yunshui/Archive 2
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2||Archive 3|
- 1 What's your problem?
- 2 Tb
- 3 Disambiguation link notification
- 4 Thanks!
- 5 The Signpost: 09 January 2012
- 6 Comment on userbox MfD
- 7 George Sorby Restored
- 8 Kashif Siddiqi
- 9 Nagamono, Kyuba, Nagamonojutsu, Torimono Dougu, Kakushi Buki Jutsu, Jouhou Kaishuu, Chikujou, Angou, Intonjutsu
- 10 StylishandTrendy
- 11 Sources?
- 12 The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- 13 Cheers!
- 14 A cookie for you!
- 15 The Signpost: 23 January 2012
- 16 RE: Thank you
- 17 Re: Adoption
- 18 DRV
- 19 Regarding XAGENTXVECTORX
- 20 Regarding page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realtech_VR
- 21 Talk Back
- 22 Reverted
- 23 Need some assistance
- 24 The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- 25 ANI notice
- 26 User:Tst13
- 27 Arko R. Pereira
- 28 A barnstar for me???
- 29 A kitten for you!
- 30 Removed the questionable part of the post
- 31 BLP and 3RR
- 32 Help and Advice
- 33 Is wikipedia pro or anti sopa
- 34 Thanks
- 35 Content dispute - Need your perspective... again
- 36 We've been outed!
- 37 The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- 38 A challenge
- 39 Re: Christina Rossetti
- 40 Thank you
- 41 DYK for Joseph Clarkson Maddison
- 42 Talkback
- 43 Tony Anthony
- 44 tony anthony
- 45 The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- 46 Clearance for image for Wiki article
- 47 AfD and PROD
- 48 The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- 49 Question about official links
- 50 Hello
- 51 Speedy deletion declined: Mbaakanyi david
- 52 Talkback
- 53 A barnstar for you!
- 54 Email
- 55 The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- 56 Nomination of Tony Anthony (evangelist) for deletion
- 57 Your reversions of my edits
What's your problem?
So you're rewarding trolls for editing material previously approved by consensus without using the talk page first? And you spam my talk page with garbage? Shame on you! Bodhidharma7 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you're right - not necessarily in terms of your edit content, which I'm not qualified to take a position on, but in terms of the dispute you haven't technically broken 3RR yet, and you have initiated discussion on the talkpage, which is more than the other editors involved have. My mistake, and also my apologies; I will go back and revert my own edit. However, this article and others are getting seriously disrupted as a result of these edit wars. I'm going to file a report at the EW board shortly, I'll let you know when it's up for comment. Yunshui 雲水 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Baba Sharif Uddin Hyderabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyderabad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The Signpost: 09 January 2012
- Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold
- News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang
- WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz
- Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3
Comment on userbox MfD
- Duely done; very considerate of you to let me know. Thanks! Yunshui 雲水 11:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I figured as much; my reference to WP:POINT was intended to be a little tongue in cheek. Yunshui 雲水 12:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
George Sorby Restored
Thanks for your vigilance with George Sorby. Just to let you know that the article was restored at the request of User:GSorby. I have moved the article out of mainspace into a user area for GSorby, and courtesy blanked it. Stephen! Coming... 12:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Stephen, very considerate of you to let me know. I saw that you also blocked the offending user, good call! I've commended your work on your admin review page. Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 13:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, will try OTRS. I was going to suggest that the subject e-mail them directly but he doesn't know how to use Wikipedia, hence why he has been e-mailing me about issues with his article rather than edit it himself. GiantSnowman 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- My pleasure - never nice when folk start threatening lawyers and the like, especially if it's in private emails. I hope it's not causing you too much bother. Yunshui 雲水 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, no bother at all, it was actually pretty useful for improving the article (he e-mailed me a few of the sources, which I added if appropriate) until he got cold feet. Though thinking about it, I have had a previous legal threat from the guy's agents (he claims no knowledge of that though) which went to ANI and was sorted so quickly I hadn't even realised what had gone on, as I was away over the weekend! Thanks for the Barnstar also, much appreciated. GiantSnowman 10:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Nagamono, Kyuba, Nagamonojutsu, Torimono Dougu, Kakushi Buki Jutsu, Jouhou Kaishuu, Chikujou, Angou, Intonjutsu
- Since when did Wikipedia become a dumping ground were someone can just drop off a word or two and leave it for someone else to take care of the rest? None of these terms are notable, they should at most be included as terms in a martial arts article but certainly not as articles themselves. This user is making a mockery of Wikipedia.
- I do tend to agree, believe me. However, article brevity isn't in itself a reason for deletion (except where it's so brief as to fall under WP:A1), and many developed articles did indeed start out as one-or-two-sentence stubs before being developed by other users. Lack of sources is a problem, however. I'm slowly going through these articles checking to see if sources are available - so far I haven't found anything to support keeping them, but you never know. The speedy tags would have been nuked by most admins, though; speedys only work if their very specific criteria are fulfilled, and none of the articles would have passed the bar. The PROD process should take care of them, and it provides a bit of time for the articles to be improved, if that's possible. Yunshui 雲水 15:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your probably right, I just hate to see people take advantage of Wikipedia like this, they start something and then someone else has to try to make it worthwhile. It takes a lot of time to fix messes like this.
Hi. You PRODded this, and it was deleted,. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hiya! I'm probably being a pest, but I was wondering if you'd had a chance to check into the sources that were being discussed on the Stonewylde AfD. I'd posted there, but then I didn't know if you checked the page regularly, so I thought I'd mention it here as well. I was just curious if they were reliable or not, since that would affect my votes on the AfDs for her books. If she's notable enough for an article then I have no problem redirecting her book titles to an entry for her.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
- Dammit, I knew there was something wiki-ish that I planned on doing today! Thank you for the reminder; this is going straight on my To Do list so's I don't forget again. Apologies for my rubbishness. Yunshui 雲水 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18
- Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?
- News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer
- Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near
|To go with the tea you got some weeks back :)....and for finding the speedback dashboard ;) Lectonar (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)|
The Signpost: 23 January 2012
- News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership
- WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto
- Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications
- Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues
RE: Thank you
==Speedy deletion nomination of Anti Molestation Device For Women==
A tag has been placed on Anti Molestation Device For Women, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. InnovationsIndia (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC) This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --InnovationsIndia (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Respected Wikipedia Community,
May we have the extreme privilege to explain why the above article should not be deleted,
1) It does not advocate any individual or organization. It talks about all the parties involved in making of the device. This includes NIF, Government of India and Manu Chopra. It does not credit a single individual but explains the entire process of development.
2)It does not contain any original research. The research conducted is free to anyone to edit as it has been declared open source by NIF. Wikipedia is an open community and we want the help of all the readers to improve this device.
3) The article is not written by creators of the device. We are mere sympathizers who felt to write on a few innovations happening in our country and letting the world know about it.
4) It contains adequate references to prove that the information contained is genuine not exaggerated/ underestimated.
5) Original Research - All the data quoted above is not research as per say. It is a mere accumulation of the public data availiable. The subtext on Nerve Conduction is not an original work of Mr. Chopra or the NIF. The idea of such a watch , though an original idea, is very much publically available as it's open source.
We would further encourage all the readers to edit this article as per their knowledge. They may use the internet or the links we have referred to while writing. The article was nominated for deletion after which it was fundamentally rewritten to match Wikipedian standards.
We assure the community that the article is notable to be here , neutral , does not contain original research and deserves a single article out of billions
- As it stands, the article is in terrible shape - laden with advertising-style copy and original research. However, the sources do just about scrape past WP:GNG, so I'm going to remove the speedy tag and rewrite the article based on those, to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. This will probably entail the removal and re-writing of most of your work, just to forewarn you. Yunshui 雲水 07:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I would gladly take your offer!
- Great! It looks as though our editing patterns are not going to overlap very much (once again, I'm just about to go offline, probably for the whole weekend!) so you may find our communication a little stilted. However, as long as you can put up with a bit of a time lag in my responses, I'd be very happy to help mentor you.
- I'll try not to be too hands on - I'm not going to monitor your every edit unless you want me to, but I will watch your talkpage, answer any questions you have (post them here) and advocate for you if you get into any disputes. If you'd like tuition in the use of Wikipedia I'd be happy to provide that as well; have a think about the areas you'd like to get involved with (article creation, anti-vandalism, copyediting, finding sources, specialist subjects and so on) and I'll tell you what I know.
- The easiest way to learn about Wikipedia is to dive right in - over the weekend, why not have a go at creating an article about something (my userspace page here will hopefully help you to start). Have a look at the cheatsheet for the basics of Wiki markup, which is useful to learn a bit about, and read up on the Five Pillars of Wikipedia - that will give you a good grounding in what the project is all about.
- I'm looking forward to collaborating with you! Best wishes, Yunshui 雲水 15:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
- Thanks for the notification. For the record, I endorse the close, and have !voted at DRV accordingly. Yunshui 雲水 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The user, "XAGENTXVECTORX", appears to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely-blocked user, who was active in early-to-mid 2009.
The user operated under the following identities:
- 126.96.36.199 - known IP address
- "PaPiRiCoSuAvE" - active from May 2008 to June 2009
- "XMORPHEUSX" - active from January to May 2009 (notice the all-caps and insertion of "X" at the start and end)
- "XBLACKXVIPERX" - active in July and August 2009. (again, notice the all-caps and insertion of "X" at the start and end)
At the start, in mid-2008, PaPiRiCoSuAvE made numerous, unnecessary edits on Resident Evil (video game), such as replacing instances of the word "PC" with "Personal Computer". Under this account the user received quite a lot of comment from users (myself, included), but simply reverted them.
The other notable account, "XMORPHEUSX", made excessive alterations to Resident Evil (video game). The edits, as shown here, were based around expanding the release dates of the game to show as many countries' release dates as he count find. While most articles would list notable regions like North America; Japan; Australia and the EU, this user included Venuzuela; the Turks and Caicos Islands; Jamaica and many island nations. Most of these would display the same release date (being in the same region), making their usefulness more to the point of being overly-informative (I'd compare it to a minute-by-minute "summary" of a 190 minute film). The basis of his edits was likely from a document on his computer pasted there some months earlier. This is evident by the amount of content reverted to older, cluttered forms that had been cleaned up before his editing.
Reading the edit summaries of the new account, "XAGENTXVECTORX", which can be translated from "(IvebeenlookingatdifferentversionsofthisarticleandmysourcesaregoodsoallIdoismakeminoreditsandupdatereleasedateswhichbythewayarecorrectasfarasmyinformationprovidessojustbecauseitsaccuratedontaccusepeople&envythemjustbcausetheytookthetimetoresearchit1st)" into "I've been looking at different versions of this article and my sources are good, so all I'll do is make minor edits and update release dates which, by the way, are correct as far as my information provides. So, just because it's accurate, don't accuse people and envy them just because they took the time to research it first", I find it surprisingly familiar. At one point, XMORPHEUSX also presented himself in a friendly manner in an attempt to cover up his vandalism "necessary indeed.....the more specific the better.....this is to help some readers its not ur prefererance,its mine.....do urs ur way n i'll do mine my way :)" won't get as much notice as a wall of gibberish.
- Enough evidence? You've done an excellent job listening out for quacking here; if you haven't already filed a report at WP:SPI you should do so. The similarities in edits, usernames and edit summaries should be more than enough.
- I reverted my revert because I'd used rollback, which is for definite vandalism, and messy though the edit looked, it didn't seem to me to be clear-cut. Your diligence in investigating more thoroughly is to be commended; good stuff! Yunshui 雲水 21:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realtech_VR
Hello; Regarding the edit of the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realtech_VR
I've added the amended references (based from high traffic web sites and physical book). If you need more references, and suggestions, just ask me, I will give you all the information you may need. If possible, tried to leave the page the more concise possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Execom rt (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Execom rt. Whilst your efforts are appreciated, I'm afraid none of these suffice to pass either WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Realtech's own website is not an independent source, so, whilst it can be used sparingly to verify information (which is how you've used it), it doesn't contribute to proving notability. The IGN article is a good source for No Gravity, but says virtually nothing about Realtech - again, it's great for verifibility, but the coverage is a passing mention and so doesn't demonstrate notability. Slashdot is not usually regarded as a reliable source due to its user-generated content; this again means it can't be used to pass the notability guidelines. The book I'm not sure about - I can't access the sample content on my computer, but although it looks like a reliable source (Addison Wesley are pretty mainstream) I suspect, based on what you're referencing, that it only contains another passing mention claiming that Realtech publish the Open GL Extensions Viewer, rather than covering the company in detail. If I'm wrong (you have the book, after all!), please feel free to disregard. As it stands, though, there still isn't anything here that would convince me to keep the article. Yunshui 雲水 22:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! You responded to my feedback saying that if my paragraph I removed under Roger McDowell was put up again, I should contact you! Is there any way I can permentaly take that off, as what was written is hear-say. It's the paragraph about the ATT BallPark Incident. Thanks! Truth2Be (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Truth2Be
- Hi Truth2Be. Well... this is awkward... Thing is, when I first took a look at your edits, the sections you were removing didn't have sources - per our policy on biographies, anything contentious (which these statements certainly are) must be sourced. However, other editors have since put in citations in which support the statements made. The text looks to me to be neutral in tone, and the sources (the San Francisco Chronicle and NBC Sports) definitely meet our criteria for reliable sources. As a result, I think that paragraph is going to have to stay.
- Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If an incident has been reported in reliable sources, it does, I'm afraid, belong here. I will, however, have a word with the editor who called your edits vandalism; they were not, and should not have been labelled as such.
- One final point: don't keep reverting the information. You can open a discussion on the article's talk page, but repeatedly removing the text will get you into trouble for edit warring. Yunshui 雲水 14:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Need some assistance
Hey there, I saw you listed on the Editor Assistance page. Well, I need some assistance in regards to a content dispute here . To me it's a clear case of WP:V and WP:OR, the other editor doesn't share that view and is being uncivil, so I figured I'd run it by you. Eik Corell (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Eik Corell. I take it from a cursory look at the page and associated talk that this is the patches issue? I must confess I can't immediately see what the problem is; the article seems to have been stable for the last couple of weeks, and the talkpage discussions seem to show pretty clear consensus. Which other editor are you referring to, and what's the exact nature of the content dispute? Yunshui 雲水 23:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I goofed that up, that was the wrong link. Here's the right one. Eik Corell (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19
- The article does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Unless you can demonstrate, with reliable sources, that it does, it will be deleted. Yunshui 雲水 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Arko R. Pereira
not only is the entry an advertisment to her pay nude site, it leaves out details that are credible, and would be damaging to her rep. if we gave every cosplayer their own page, wikipedia would turn to garbage quickly. not to mention her photo is a heavy shopped picture. delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tst13 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but your comment doesn't seem to make any sense. To which article are you referring? Yunshui 雲水 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for me???
A kitten for you!
Just wanted to try a new thing on wikipedia.. Hope u dont mind. Its relly cute! ;)
- Much tastier than a cookie! Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Removed the questionable part of the post
I have taken out the "history of anti-theist postings" part. I don't want to make this personal and if you find that offensive than it is not necessary. The discussion should be on the relevance of the term, not the individuals commenting. I have neither the time nor interest to go tit for tat through your contributions, and it is irrelevant to the discussion.
I will stop short of an actual apology as it is clear that you ARE in fact a proud Atheist who has come down harshly on this topic on occasion. To be an Atheist is to be sure there is no divinity whatsoever, and makes you somewhat biased for a discussion of a theological term. An Agnostic or an Apatheist might be able to put aside their disdain, but most of the hardcore Atheists I know would better recuse themselves from any serious argument about Theism. JahSun (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- See, what you're doing there (again!) is making assumptions about me based purely upon my belief system. If you could show evidence of systemic bias in my editing then that would be acceptable, but since, like most other responsible Wikipedians (including those involved in the deletion of your article), I strive to edit without bias, I strongly doubt you would find any - if you could be bothered to look. I'm insulted that you would make such an accusation, and although I see you have retracted the statement in question, the tone of your message above indicates that you don't even appear to see anything wrong in making it. As for "not wanting to make this personal", who was it who insulted my impartiality, Vejvančický's grasp of language and Ism schmism's intellect in the same edit? Kinda personal, dontcha think? Were I you, I would strike that entire statement as a demonstration of good faith and a willingness to contribute constructively to the discussion. Yunshui 雲水 13:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I may well strike the statement, as I don't have time to squabble with you. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIAS Wikipedia acknowledges the problem of bias. You can say you are unbiased, but Atheism is, in fact a bias. You may or may not be able to overlook it, but again... I don't have time to go through this with you as it is relatively unimportant. As for Vejvančický's poor grasp of English, he says it himself on his User Page, and I said nothing about Ism schmism's intellect.
This is a sidetrack, and I actually do apologize for initiating it despite the fact that I think (as in legal precedings) admitted and known bias of a witness or expert is actually not ad homminem but rather an important piece of information when weighing the statements of various individuals who may or may not have agendas. To be truly ad homminem, an argument to person must rest solely on the attack and have no substance if the attack were removed.
You seem like a reasonable enough chap, and without the benefit of body language or tone, I realize that I have come off considerably more aggressive than I intended.
- WP:BIAS is actually an essay about the systemic bias inherent in Wikipedia as a whole, rather than that of individual editors... but I digress; there are more important things to do than squabble over whether the fact that I don't believe in a deity makes me more or less biased in editing articles on theistic topics than someone who does. Hatchet buried, let's not dig it up again. Yunshui 雲水 13:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
BLP and 3RR
- My bad, sorry. Yunshui 雲水 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Help and Advice
Thank you for your reply. Hum. I have ChillBlast, Alexa and hopefully GamersGate will also verify my information. Is that enough? Can you take a look now and give your feedback? Your help is much appreciated. P.S. I am not the site owner or anything. I'm just an admin. I don't earn money and I am not considered an employee. I just thought we have grown enough to deserve a wikipedia page. Hell it's on the 20k top world-wide at Alexa. It's gotta count to something, no? Pip (talk) 11:56, 02 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's also something I don't understand, Imagine I added something about the forums. The description and the structure. I then added the reference from the own forum. That doesn't count? It's like I say "the site has a grey layout" and then add the source link which is the homepage and it shows the grey layout..that doesn't count?! Pip (talk) 11:59, 02 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Pip. I'm afraid these aren't enough, per my post at your talk page. Chillblast and GamersGate are both partnered with Game-Debate, and thus not independent. Alexa is just a rankings engine - a high ranking on Alexa is evidence of popularity, but since it says nothing about Game-Debate beyond its ranking it doesn't provide in-depth coverage. Remember, to pass either WP:WEB or WP:GNG (the two guidelines which are relevent), you need sources which are reliable, independent and in-depth.
- The site can be used as a link for verifying information. We have two seperate policies which govern the use of sources (okay, actually we have loads, but these are the BIG TWO): WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. People often get them confused. WP:Notability is the one you need to concern yourself with - after Game-Debate has been shown to be notable, you can then worry about verifying the information. Notability, being the criterion for entry into Wikipedia, is the fisrt thing to deal with. Yunshui 雲水 12:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Hum..but they are independent entities. They just have affiliated with Game-Debate. You sure that doesn't count? Aren't they considered a third party? Pip (talk) 12:53, 02 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm pretty sure. The fact that they are partnered with Game-Debate creates an inherent conflict of interest, which makes them unreliable (even if only theoretically). Two essays: Wikipedia:Independent sources and Wikipedia:Third-party sources cover the reasoning behind this in more detail.
- If you feel there's a case to be made for these sources meeting the criteria of WP:GNG you could start a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, which enables other editors to discuss the matter more thoroughly. Yunshui 雲水 13:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Hum..but they are independent entities. They just have affiliated with Game-Debate. You sure that doesn't count? Aren't they considered a third party? Pip (talk) 12:53, 02 February 2012 (UTC)
Is wikipedia pro or anti sopa
Is wikipedia pro or anti sopa, because I'm confused. I actually thought wikipedia would be interested in knowing a TD in Ireland trying to bring in sopa like censorship and who himself breached copyright would be interesting, obviously not, hypocrite??
- It would appear that the majority of Wikipedians are anti-SOPA; you'd have to conduct a survey to check, though. I've posted a note on your talkpage regarding your edits; please read the policies I've linked to. Yunshui 雲水 00:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I think using the ole brain would see my edits were valid, anyways I don't care, I know this moran wont stop me "pirating" but instead will fuck up the irish economy unfortunately even Wiki cant understand this, and archive.org is a perfectly valid referance
- We don't use "the ole brain", we use reliable sources. For the purposes of supporting your statement, archive.org isn't one. Yunshui 雲水 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Content dispute - Need your perspective... again
I'm engaged in a content dispute with an editor on the World of Tanks article. You can see the jumbled discussion on my user-page. The issue is this: It's a game with tanks, and the developers have added a golden tank. The other editor finds that this complete destroys the core of the game and wants to include it in the article. They have two sources, both Chinese. The way I see it, this is just trivial info and it has no real impact on the overall gameplay experience for the end user. Eik Corell (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
We've been outed!
- Well, we do both have an "h" in our username - bit of a giveaway, really. We should have been more cunning. Or you should. Or I should. Hell, I'm really confused now. Yunshui 雲水 22:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
Accusing me of being a sockpuppet is not very nice, I challenge you to a game of go in order to decide who is right. Name a time and place and I'll be there. MichelleBlondeau (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you were offended; it struck me as somewhat suspicious that your first couple of edits were both in comparatively obscure areas of Wikipedia and in support of the same user, so I raised an SPI. If it transpires that I was wrong, then you have nothing to worry about, and you'll have my unreserved apologies too..
- The issue would be more appropriately resolved by checkuser than by go, but if you want a game I'm on Brainking under the same username. I'm not convinced that beating me over the goban will sway the SPI decision, though. Yunshui 雲水 10:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking more on the lines of people coordinating offwiki on some board. In any case, I have the one that edited after warning(s) and warned the others. While it's pretty obvious that their purpose here is not constructive, I personally do not feel comfortable with blocking without any warning if possible, in the unlikely case that a warning might make the user reflect and change his ways. Obviously, any other admin is free to disagree and block the log. Should nobody do so, and should they vandalize further, I will gladly block them. I have not protected the page and instead will just block the SPA if they keep going. Snowolf How can I help? 12:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are most welcome. Let me know if you need any help in the future. Yunshui 雲水 20:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Joseph Clarkson Maddison
|On 12 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Clarkson Maddison, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Joseph Clarkson Maddison's designs took both first and second place in a contest to design Christchurch Town Hall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Clarkson Maddison.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
I joined yesterday because I saw inaccuracies in the biography of Tony Anthony Evangelist. i edited the page with my comments and they have been removed. i do not understand why. How can I edit and make sure that they are not removed ?
As a matter of history you may note that TA's biography was completely been removed from Wikipedia in the past because there is no evidence substantiating the majority of his early life biography. This is still the case. indeed there is an increasing ammount of evidence that would indicate the this part of the biography is ficticious.
Forgive me if I get any of the technicalities of using this site wrong !!! I grew up with pen and paper, even chalk and blackboards !!
- Hi Roundhse, and welcome to Wikipedia. The Tony Anthony article is a personal bugbear of mine - as you're probably aware, he is widely regarded as a fraud in the martial arts community (and having read his book, it's easy to see why). Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources that actually state this - the main focus (on the internet, at least) of criticism is the thorough research carried out by members of Bullshido.net, but since this has only been published as a forum discussion we can't use it on Wikipedia to verify the information. (Forum postings are not regarded as reliable sources.)
- There are, however, a number of article backing his claims in what would be regarded as reliable sources (The War Cry, for example). That these publications evidently take their information directly from Anthony's own account or from his press offices is, unfortunately, not sufficiently provable to discount them.
- Wikipedia's policy is to report on verifiability, not truth - in other words, if sources say it, Wikipedia reports it, even if the information is not factually true. If it was widely believed that the Moon was made of cheese, and scholarly papers existed supporting it, then Wikipedia would probably have a page on lunar lactose levels. We also have strict sourcing policies for biographies of living people, partly because of the dangers of libel. Anything remotely contentious which hasn't been reported in a reliable source should not be in the article.
- What we need, therefore, is a reliable source (a newspaper article, news broadcast or properly-published book, ideally) which debunks Tony Anthony's claims. Once that exists, the article can be appropriately balanced. At present, however, we can't claim that Anthony's life up to 1989 is unknown, becuase no-one has come forth and published an opinion to the contrary.
- I hope this helps explain a little bit, if you need a bit more clarification, please feel free to ask. Yunshui 雲水 08:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments they were helpful. By the way, my motiva tion is only in estsablishing the truth.
I do have a press cutting clearly stating that In was a Kawasaki Motorcycle not a cyclist. in the same article TA is refered to as a CYPRIOT. In the original court case the crown prosecution made a number of references to his Cypriot background. I have copies of these references but they are in the form of emailed press agency reports so there is no proof that they are from a press agency (I could have concocted them). This provides a reason for his time in Cyprus and his incarceration, there contrary to his book where he is in Cyprus serving as a bodyguard. I can send you the cutting but I don't know how to !!!
- That's a tricky one. I'm not sure how acceptable these would be. Might I suggest that you start a discussion either on the Reliable sources discussion board or the article talkpage so that other editors can weigh in with their opinions? Where is the press cutting originally from?
- The court records would certainly hold up as reliable sources; do you know if the records themselves are available in the public domain? Even if they're behind a paywall, they would still count for the purposes of verification. However, you would need to be wary of original research; we can only report what the sources say, not extrapolate information from them. (For example, the court documents may refer to Anthony as a Cypriot national, but that does not necessarily support the claim that he was not a bodyguard whilst living there.)
- With a potentially problematic edit like this, I would definitely suggest positing your proposed changes on the article talkpage before putting them into the article; that way you can ensure the consensus is on your side and avoid another revert. Yunshui 雲水 13:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced
Clearance for image for Wiki article
Yunshui, May I ask you advice about placing an image in my Wikipedia article? I have written permission from the present owner of the image to use it. To whom should I turn to get clearance from Wiki? I would much appreciate your help. Many thanks Scríobhaí (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Scríobhaí. The basic requirement for images on Wikipedia is that they be released under a free license (such as GFDL or a Creative Commons license ) or be available in the public domain. This essentially means that the photographer waives their copyright beyond attribution (i.e. anyone can use, modify or redistribute the image - not just on Wikipedia, but anywhere - and even make money from it, and all they need to do is credit the original creator). It is not possible to release material only for use on Wikipedia. Assuming that the copyright holder is happy to release their content in this way (either by posting a CC-BY-SA notice at the image's original source, by e-mailing email@example.com or by uploading it to Wikimedia Commons) you're good to go.
- First up, you need to make the image available. The easiest way to do this is to add it to Commons; this link will take you to their Upload Wizard, which is really straightforward to use. Alternatively, you can upload to Wikipedia by filling out this form.
- Once the file is uploaded, you can use it to your article by adding the following text:
- Replace "nameofyourfile" with the name you saved your file under (and change the .png to .jpg or whatever file extension is appropriate), replace "descriptionofimage" with a brief description of the image (this will only be visible if someone mouse-hovers over the image), and replace "caption" with - you got it - a caption. Helpfully, using the Commons uploader will automatically create the above text string for you, so you can just copy and paste.
- Hope that helps; more thorough instructions can be found at the style guidelines for pictures and the picture tutorial. Let me know how you get on. Yunshui 雲水 22:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
AfD and PROD
Hi Yunshui. Awhile back you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments Yunshui. If you want, I can keep you updated on any further tests or revisions proposed to current notifications. Best regards, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. If you're ever looking for a new Go opponent, I play on OGS at about 12 kyu.
- My interest in the project is, I confess, pretty casual (not to downplay its importance, I'm just not convinced I have a lot to contribute to it), but if it doesn't cost you too much extra effort then I'd certainly be interested to hear how it's going. Thanks for the Go invite - I'm not on OGS anymore; my days of flitting from OGS to KGS to Dragon and back are now behind me. It turned out that there just aren't enough hours in the day, so now I only play on Brainking (whose incredibly poorly-contrived and over-generous ranking system labels me a 6kyu; I'm actually more like a 15...). Would love to see you there if you can fit another bookmark in your browser. Cheers, and belated thanks for your original notification above. Yunshui 雲水 22:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open
Hello Yunshui, If you have any spare time, I would love if you would weigh in on a discussion on my page about official links and the "External links" section, since you were one of the people who removed official Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and YouTube links. I am citing WP:ELOFFICIAL, WP:BLP, and WP:TWITTER to be able to keep those links.
- Thank you for the information! And for your time and patience as you not only read my post, but responded, in kind, with much detail. I didn't know about the archives; perhaps I could have saved us some time. I will check it out in the future. I somehow completely missed this: "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites." I didn't know about whitelisting or the workings of an XLinkBot override, so thank you. Kasamoto (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Kasamoto
hello yunshui. i am kalyan. recently i created an article "atomic force acoustic microscopy". it seems that because of some issues you have deleted the contents.citing that it can form a subsection of atomic force microscopy. but the fact is that it is an entirely different technique in scanning probe microscopy,which has its own special importance. i would be if you allow me to update fully. any clarifications you need ,you are always welcome in my talk page.Kalyan Phani Makkuva (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Kalyan. Sorry for the late response - you had posted this message at the very top of my discussion page, and since new messages usually go at the bottom, I hadn't spotted it. My edits to Atomic force acoustic microscopy were purely cosmetic - bringing the spelling and language in line with Wikipedia norms, fixing a few punctuation errors and removing some duplicated information. If I inadvertently introduced any factual errors I apologise; please feel free to fix them.
- The article does need more sources, which should be included as inline citations - I don't know enough about the field of microscopy to track them down myself, I'm afraid. To create an inline citation, place the wikicode tags <ref> and </ref> on either side; thus typing this:
All information should be cited.<ref>Yunshui; ''Information about Wikipedia'', Madeup Publications, 2007</ref>
- will give you this:
- All information should be cited.
- All information should be cited.
- Yunshui; Information about Wikipedia, Madeup Publications, 2007
Speedy deletion declined: Mbaakanyi david
Hello Yunshui. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mbaakanyi david, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A claim of being the 8th richest person in a country is sufficient to null an A7 - it may not be a true claim, that's a different issue.. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Editor's Barnstar|
|I hav seen u work since i joined this community. U r realy amazing editor n i'd luv 2 c u as a admin 1 day. So.. This barnstar for ur all-round contributions! :D Yasht101 06:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)|
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL
Nomination of Tony Anthony (evangelist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tony Anthony (evangelist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Anthony (evangelist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Fayenatic - already found it on my watchlist and !voted whilst you were posting this! (Congrats on your recent adminship, BTW) Yunshui 雲水 13:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Your reversions of my edits
I see that I managed to do something that is forbidden at Wikipedia. All I was trying to do was remove all my OWN comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Siderius after being advised by a wiki-admin that I was badgering other Wikipedians. I hope my posting this comment on your talk page is not another type of violation.
I did not mean to badger anyone, just to express and make others aware of my frustration (I am probably not the only one with those issues). What should I do, if I cannot withdraw my comments? I thought of striking them all out but this takes a lot more time. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ottawahitech. Technically, deleting your own comments isn't strictly forbidden, but it's very, very strongly discouraged. In a threaded conversation like the discussion in question, removing or changing comments in the thread (your own included) makes it very difficult for other editors to get a handle on the conversation. It's like listening to someone on the telephone; you can't fully understand the situation because you can only hear one side of it. For this reason, the talkpage guidelines (under WP:REDACT) request that editors use markup or placeholders to show that they want their comments disregarded. Just go through the page and find your comments (you've had to do this to delete them anyway) and enclose them with
- Why is it that you want to remove your comments anyway? You didn't specify in your edit summaries. Yunshui 雲水 13:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding so promptly. I did not realize when I first made my comments that they come across as badgering other participants. I wanted to rectify this by simply removing my comments. Yes, I thought of putting
<s> </s>tags around my comments, but that is very time consummning and error-prone for someone like me. I chose instead to simply revert all my own comments, but half-way thru I was advised by the system that most of my comments cannot be reverted and must be undone manually, so with quite a bit of effort (and one boo-boo that I tried to rectify but then saw your reversion) I completed the removal of my comments manually. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Well in that case, I'd suggest just adding a comment to that effect at the bottom of the page; something like, "I realise some of my comments above might be viewed as badgering other editors; this was not my intent," but in your own words, obviously. There's no real need to strike all your comments (and personally I've seen far worse; you might have gotten a bit heated but you've steered clear of personal attacks - Wikipedians, especially those who participate at AfD, tend to be pretty thick skinned!). Yunshui 雲水 14:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding so promptly. I did not realize when I first made my comments that they come across as badgering other participants. I wanted to rectify this by simply removing my comments. Yes, I thought of putting
- (talk page stalker) Hey Ottawahitech!
- Looking over your wikihistory, it seems as though you're very willing to get involved with lots of areas of the project. That's great! We are encouraged to be bold and it's always nice to see such enthusiasm from a new contributor. However, it also looks like you're having some trouble dealing with the (admittedly vast) range of policies and guidelines which govern all these different areas. I'd hate to see someone who clearly has a lot to contribute getting dispirited by a barrage of criticism, so I thought I'd draw your attention to the Adopt-a-user Project. Here you can get a more experienced editor to mentor you and help you out with the labyrinthine legalities of Wikipedia. They can also help you should you get embroiled in content disputes or arguments over policy. Being adopted gives you a leg up with the technicalities of Wikipedia, and might help you channel your enthusiasm to become a really excellent Wikipedian.
- Yunshui or Yasht101 or any other adoptor, whichever you like can help you in becoming better.
- This is just a suggestion, not a demand, so take it or leave it!
- Thanks! Yasht101 09:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yasht, Ottawahitech's been with the project since 2007 (even longer than I have) and has over 5000 edits to his name. Adopt-a-user isn't likely to be of much interest.
- Also, whilst I'm flattered that you would replicate my message to you, I'd be grateful if you didn't try to pass my words off as your own - the text above was addressed specifically to you on your talkpage, and was not intended to be delivered to other users. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Dont get angry. I m sorry. I wouldnt do it again. It was Unambitious Copy Right Infragement!! Yasht101 09:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for including the WikiProject Canada in Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Foot hockey and teaching other wikipedians how to do this for other wikiprojects/deletion discussions. Looks like your efforts are already bearing fruit and new contributions are coming in to Foot hockey. By the way, I believe I have made more than 5,000 contributions to Wikipedia, unfortunately it appears that those who contribute to articles that are later deleted from Wikipedia have those edits subtracted from theier total count, something that many Wikipedians seem to care a lot about. Not a good way to encourage wikipedians to be bold imo. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)