User talk:Yunshui/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67

Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive 6#File:Sentinel High School logo.jpg

Hi Yunshui. Would you mind taking a look at this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Archived now so not much point commenting there... The permission was provided by a media company rather than the school itself; I can't find any obvious evidence that they were contracted to produce the logo but the media company's CEO's wife did apparently attend Sentinel High School, so I guess they might have called in a favour from the old-boys network? I'd probably leave it as Fair Use, tbh. Yunshui 雲水 01:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Should the "OTRS permission" template be removed then? I only came across this after the file was tagged by a bot for review as a possible NFCC#9/NFCC#10c, and neither of those things are generally applicable to OTRS verified files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

                                                 Happy holidays

Happy New Year!
Yunshui,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America1000 22:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Hello Yunshui:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Eurohound

Here are some reliable secondary sources, 101 Ways to Do More with Your Dog: Make Your Dog a Superdog, The Puppy Place #34: Zipper, Amazing Dog Stories, [1] and [2]. Can I get that userfied plus talk page? I will restore it after sources are added. Valoem talk contrib 00:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing; you'll find it at User:Valoem/Eurohound. I'd recommend rolling back to the April 2011 version, prior to all the promotional crap about Egil Ellis added by User:Hafwyn, or just stripping those bits out. Yunshui 雲水 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks I went ahead and restored the article with 9 additional secondary sources can you restore the Talk:Eurohound talk page? Valoem talk contrib 04:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Update I've removed all but one source from Egil Ellis and replaced them with additional secondary sources. Valoem talk contrib 05:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Nice. I've put the talkpage back again. Yunshui 雲水 22:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you folks have started a replacement article. I was going to do that myself as soon as I had some free time. Since this is Yunshui's talk page, I will move all further talk of this to the talk page for Eurohound. I just wanted to say here, since this seems to be the root of all this, that I have direct relationships with all the people in the Eurohound community, including Egil Ellis. What you have to understand is the Egil Ellis is not some enterprising entrepreneur trying to take credit. He actually IS one of the handful of people that are the authority on Eurohounds. He IS a PRIMARY resource. I have asked the community to start crowdsourcing my research. I will start making regular edits to the page with reference information direct from the founders of the (albeit niche cross-) breed. Please feel free to contact me directly on my talk page.Tinjaw (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


[update] While posting this my girlfriend and I have been contacted by one of the Norwegian founders of the breed, Asbjørn Erdal-Aase and will be working with him to get the page correct.Tinjaw (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tinjaw: Please don't. The heavy reliance on primary sources was one of the main reasons the community had to delete the article in the first place. Wikipedia dislikes primary sources, and your own research would be equally detrimental to the article. Wikipedia needs independent, secondary sources - these can report what the primary sources (you and your sledding mates) have said, but provide the necessary level of scrutiny for the claims of such primary sources. Yunshui 雲水 12:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Yunshui:Thank you very much for your input above. That is actually very helpful. I was unaware of this desire of the Wikipedia community. I will make sure every primary source claim is backed up by a credible secondary source. If I understand correctly now, that is what I should do.Tinjaw (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
That's basically it, yes. You can't add a sentence to the article saying Eurohounds are excellent dogs for sledding <ref>I use them and they're really good</ref>, but if you get a call from Sled Dogs Monthly magazine asking you for your opinion and they consequently print a piece with the title "Eurohounds are great sled dogs, we spoke to a guy who uses them and he says they're really good", you could then add a sentence to the article that said Eurohounds are excellent dogs for sledding <ref>''Sled Dogs Monthly'', issue 27</ref>. The first is both original research and a primary source, the second is a secondary source commenting on the primary source, which is much preferred by Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲水 08:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

New user

There's a relatively new user, Delilah050. First edit itself looks not like a beginner. Uses words such as "possible vandalism", "POV", encyclopedic, "wiki standards", wikimedia commons, tagging in early edits itself; isn't it unlikey for a beginner to know these. Also, there are questionable edits, such as citing IMDb [3][4][5], at the same time, calling IMDb unreliable at another occasion. Removes unsourced entries [6][7], but adds unsourced entries in other articles [8][9][10]. Removes POV, but adds his POV in others. Calls reputed Box Office Mojo unreliable, but calls a non-RS ticket-selling site Bookmyshow.com reliable. I have also seen some obvious logged out edits, which I cannot provide here due to privacy concern. Can you check this user please. --117.230.18.175 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Indian film articles tend to attract dodgy edits. That's nothing new. I don't see anything here that would indicate a need for checkuser at this time. The issues raised above are all things that ought to be dealt with via normal talkpage discussion. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally requested a delete of one my pages

I may have accidentally requested a deletion of one of my user pages, User:Owynhart/Style. Can you revive it for me? I just needed to delete the redirect which had my old username. Owynhart 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem: restored. Yunshui 雲水 08:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Owynhart 08:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your deletion of the xbox GwG list sucks. it provided great reference information of which your handful of ppl who even knew of the matter didnt discuss at all. If you deleted this, then you should be leading the charge to get the playstation comparable list deleted. The fact that it exists now and the xbox one doesn't, makes me wonder if your handful of delete voters were playing some lame console wars bs. not to mention, epic's deal compared to microsoft is 2 different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:8B02:0:CF3:81F6:F0B5:885A (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

See below. Yunshui 雲水 07:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Games with Gold

Well, I did ask, and I didn't ask. Thank you for explaining that there is off-wiki canvassing. By saying that I wouldn't engage in apophasis, I was doing preterition, and if you follow the links, you will see that the only difference is whether you are doing a handwave in Greek or doing a handwave in Latin. There is a paradoxical quality to saying I won't engage in apophasis. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I do remember thinking that your turn of phrase, "I won't engage in apophasis," was rather elegant; I shall probably be stealing that. Yunshui 雲水 08:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Xbox Games With Gold, Yunshui-san?

Your name came up as the reason for the deletion. Hope this isn't part of console wars or something xenophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuddlyREDRUM (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games (2nd nomination). Personally I have no opinion on whether the article was worth deleting or not (as someone who has no games console of any sort and hasn't played a videogame since about 2001, I really don't give a shit about which device people think is better), but there was a clear, policy-based consensus for deletion in the discussion. If you want to challenge the close, deletion review is thataway. If you think the equivalent Playstation list should also be deleted (I didn't know there was one), feel free to start an AFD for it. Either way, you can fuck right off with your accusations of xenophobia. Yunshui 雲水 07:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 7. —Cryptic 08:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Yunshui, there's no need to swear or be verbally abusive. You made a controversial decision rather quickly, and affected users have a right to ask why. The "clear, policy-based consensus" is neither clear (per Wikipedia's declared policy page-- e.g. the list was not a "catalog" nor did it clearly belong to any other proscribed category) nor a consensus (given the dissenting views even before the page deletion), and by your own admission you are not an expert on the subject matter (gaming). It's understandable that you didn't recognize how "a list of old game sales" had any intellectual or community value, but it does (clearly demonstrated by the emotional reactions of those finding the page gone). You can admit that you were wrong and reverse it, or wait for the review process to do so (as I'm confident it will). But dropping unprompted F-bombs doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, and doesn't reflect well on the maturity that editors are expected to display. You should apologize to CuddlyREDRUM and probably recuse yourself from the rest of the debate.ChillThyself (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
When I am snidely accused of choosing to take administrative actions because of xenophobia, I make no apologies for telling my accuser to fuck off. As it happens, having made his drive-by denunciation of my character, it appears CuddlyRERUM has taken my advice - which I can't say comes as a huge surprise in relation to a deletion discussion that seems to have attracted more than it's fair share of clueless single-purpose accounts. Looking at your contribution history, I'm assuming you yourself also arrived here from Reddit, filled with righteous indignation that a website you do not contribute to has take a decision you disagree with via a process that you do not understand. Please be assured that I will be giving your opinion on the subject all of the weight it deserves. Yunshui 雲水 22:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Question and maybe a suggestion

You do a lot of work combatting UPE and just spammy PE from disclosed editors and for some reason I'm drawing a blank but I don't recall if we have ever had an RFC or have a policy/guideline strongly suggesting/requiring even disclosed paid editors to go through the AFC process or not? I do recall seeing someone that deals with this stuff tell a (declared) paid editor that they needed (it was phrased as more of a requirement than a suggestion ;)) to have it reviewed via afc. Anyway, the tl;dr is I find edits like those that I pointed out here from paid editors to be highly problematic and would like to be able to point to a more specific policy/guideline than our normal WP:COI/WP:PAID. On the other hand, if we've never formalized anything surrounding this beyond disclosures, maybe I should start an RFC? Praxidicae (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The AFC requirement is under WP:COIEDIT, which technically isn't part of the WP:PAID policy; WP:COI is a guideline, although it does get referenced as part of the policy under Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Conflict_of_interest_guideline. I guess a paid editor could make the case that they are not technically required to use AFC, but both the policy and community norms say that they should do so, and if they are in any way interested in being part of the community rather than, say, blocked indefinitely, one would expect them to follow that requirement. An RFC to enshrine it in policy probably isn't necessary, but that's only my opinion. Yunshui 雲水 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got 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.Doug Weller talk 20:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Aikido Edits

Hello, without reversing edit itself, I'd like to get into why you argue 'The' shouldn't be used with Japanese terms. As far as I've read on Wikipedia, Wikipedia follows the rules of standard English, and applies it as much as possible to foreign languages. Hence, why, in the English language, Wikipedia lists Japanese names as the given name, then the family name.

When it comes to uke and tori, as far as I can tell, the fact that they're Japanese is less important than the fact that they're nouns being compared, and the article 'the' designates their grammatical function/placement within the sentence (in English). In the same way, it would be necessary to use 'a', 'the', or none, depending on the context of the primarily English sentence. For example, 'A tori can perform ____' is correct, 'Tori can perform ____ ' is not grammatically correct English; within the constraints of the English language, 'tori' is not a proper noun, thus it needs to be referred to with specific articles. The format of the sentence boils down to 'Noun (object) --> verb --> Noun (subject)'; being in Japanese doesn't change that. Again, my understanding was that the rule was, whenever possible, to use phrases in a grammatically correct sentence as far as English is concerned, not the original Japanese.

As far as your listed source, I understand your meaning, but Gaku Homma is first and foremost an Aikidoka/restaurant owner, and not an expert on English grammar; for that matter, he is also not a native speaker of English. Regardless of Gaku Homma's philosophical beliefs about the nature of the Japanese phrases 'uke' and 'tori', it doesn't necessarily mean his English usage of them is grammatically correct. Given that the book is primarily about Aikido itself, and not about English grammar, I don't think this should necessarily be cited as a source as to how to correctly use the words in the context of Japanese words in the English language.

English articles absolutely apply to foreign words!

Generally speaking you are correct; most Japanese loan-words take English grammar. Uke and tori are not really loan-words, though; they are specialist technical terms. In both cases, the article is considered to be inherent in the translation (if you translate it as something like "the one who receives", it doesn't then make sense to write, "the "the one who receives""). They are more analogous to proper nouns when used in sources: "Uke takes tori's wrist" would be analogous to "Yunshui takes Lanner Hunt's wrist", where again, "the Yunshui takes the Lanner Hunt's wrist" makes very little sense. When I refer to sources, I don't just mean Homma; I have yet to see any aikido source that uses "the uke" or "the tori". Yunshui 雲水 11:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, you could also translate 'uke' as 'one who recieves' 'the one who recieves' 'a person receiving the technique', 'the person receiving the techniqe' or and variation thereof. Japanese does not have a close equivalent of 'the' and 'a', and as such every noun in Japanese carries the connotation of 'the' or 'a' (or neither), depending on context. Uke and tori are identical to dojo and shinkansen, and literally any noun in this sense; you would not argue, I think, that we should never use 'the dojo' or 'the shinkansen'.

Do you speak Japanese? If so, let me try to give an example: ’僕は新幹線を乗ります。’The sentence literally translates, if you ask anyone who speaks English and Japanese as, 'I ride the Shinkansen'. However, the closest English translation would be analogous to ' I (article indicating previous word is subject), bullet train (article that indicates previous word is object that subject is using or engaging in relation to the subsequent verb), ride.' In the original Japanese, 'the' is indeed inherent in the word Shinkansen, as it is in all nouns. However, as this doesn't carry over to English. By your logic of the inherent 'the' in words, this sentence should be translated as 'I ride Shinkansen'. This is not correct; because the context doesn't carry over, we have to add 'the' when bringing the sentence to English.

To get a little more specific to your words, for example, we can use dojo. Dojo is not a loanword, and it is often used because there is not a better word in English to denote what a dojo is specifically. If you were to talk about going to a dojo in Japanese, you would say, '道場へ行きます。’, for example. However, in English, due to the inherent ambiguity of Japanese, this could be translated as 'I go to the dojo' or 'I go to a dojo'; in the original Japanese, yes, both 'a' and 'the' are inherent to the word 'dojo', and the context in which the sentence is being spoken is enough for the listener to understand the exact meaning. However, in English, you cannot say 'I go to dojo'; it's not grammatically correct. By your logic, we should also remove 'a' and 'the' anytime it appears before 'dojo' in the the wikipedia article for dojo. Dojo is not more or less a loanword than uke or tori is. It's simply a word used in the original Japanese because the original Japanese is better than the closest English equivalent.

When and when not to use 'the' is one of the hardest things to teach a Japanese speaker learning English (I am an English teacher in Japan), so it makes sense that multiple sources would have gotten it wrong, or would have gotten it wrong if they were taught by someone whose primary language is Japanese.

While 'the' is inherent in the meaning in the original Japanese, it doesn't carry over to English, and omitting the 'the' renders the English of the sentence grammatically incorrect, regardless of the original Japanese meaning.

As for your example, you are right that 'Yunshui takes Lanner hunt's wrist' would be correct, but it would also be correct to say 'Yunshui, the tori, takes the wrist of Lanner Hunt, the uke'. Uke and tori are not proper nouns; actually, Japanese doesn't have the concept of proper nouns, and Japanese doesn't have anything that can be equated to the use of capital or lower case letters.

Unfortunately, even if they are 'specialist technical terms', you would then need to find a verifiable source about the exact rules of 'specialist technical terms' in English grammar; as it is, it boils down to, in the entirety of the context of the article, before they are 'specialist technical terms', they are nouns, and subject to the rules and regulations governing how and when articles are used with nouns in a given sentence.

I would also caution you that, regardless of what a lot of the material about Aikido says (a lot of which was written in the seventies, which explains a lot of the linguistic errors), uke and tori are not actually specialist technical terms; in Japanese, they are generic words that refer to a multitude of things. Aikido has uke, but so does judo, wrestling, or a even a same sex relationship (and yes, it's the exact same word for all three examples). Uke is literally just a conjugation of 'ukeru' which means 'to receive'. Anyone who is on the receiving end of anything physically is an uke. It's not unique to aikido, or even martial arts for that matter. Heck, the Japanese wikipedia page about Aikido doesn't even have a section that's specific to torii and uke. Without going so far as making an argument to remove the tori and uke section (which again, wouldn't be unjustified as the concept isn't specific to aikido), I just want to draw attention to the fact that the words aren't unique, uncommon, or specific.

I'm going on the assumption that your browser has google translate (as I think virtually all browsers do now). Here is the Japanese wikipedia article on uke. if not, you can always put it through google translate piece by piece： https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/うけ

Note that Aikido isn't mentioned on that page, but jujutsu, kendo, and boxing all are.

I don't want to get into an edit war, but I would request that you find an authoritative source that is specifically about translating Japanese into English, or specifically about the use of Japanese words in an English. I will give you sometime to find a source on this. If you can't, I'm going to go back into the article and add proper articles to all the terms, and per the rules of Wikipedia and proper grammar, the onus is on you to find a source that specifically proves that 'uke' and 'tori' have different rules in English than literally any other Japanese noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanner Hunt (talk • contribs) 07:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also prefer to avoid an edit war. I suggest, rather, that we pose this issue on the article's talkpage. Your points are valid, but as a long time practitioner of aikido it's immensely jarring to see "the uke" or "the tori" in text, as that simply isn't how the word is used in the English-speaking aikido community (hence the huge preponderance of specialist sources that do not use "the"). I will open a discussion there now; let's move this conversation over to the wider community rather than ending up at loggerheads with one another. Yunshui 雲水 08:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of the derivation of the words. I would argue that uke and tori are technical terms within aikido (or judo etc.), in the same way that "irrational" is a technical term in mathematics (meaning something quite different from its common definition) or indeed, in the way that "notable" is used on Wikipedia. These words not used in their "normal" sense, but instead have a precise technical meaning to those within the field. Ki is another excellent example, if you want one from Japanese. Yunshui 雲水 08:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Lanner Hunt: Perhaps before "you go back into the article and add proper articles to all the terms", you might want to seek feedback from Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan and Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts. The change(s) you seem be proposing at Talk:Aikido#Cleaning House might be things that are needed, but then again they may not. WikiProject Japan in particular has MOS:JAPAN that all articles related to Japanese-topics are generally expected to follow and the style, word usage and formatting of Wikipedia articles often differs from what you'll find out in the really world. The more input you get from others on this, the greater your chances for establishing a consensus either way that will last, and the less likely the chance that any further similar changes are going to be reverted. On Wikipedia, the onus generally falls upon the editor wanting to make a change, not the other way around, and absent any major policy/guideline or a consensus that clearly supports the changes your proposing, trying to continue to make them to the article is not likely going to be seen as an exception to edit warring no matter how right you believe you are.
For what it's worth, I don't think you proposal is without merit, particularly if you're using the terms "tori" and "uke" to describe specific individuals involved in an Aikido match; so, there may be examples where it is appropriate to use "the" as in "the tori" or "the uke"; whether it should be used in all cases however might be a different matter. There are cases, however, where Japanese nouns are not preceded by "the" even when they represent individual participants in some kind of competition. For example, the words wikt:先手, wikt:後手, wikt:上手 (read as うわて) and wikt:下手 (read as したて) are often used in English publications about board games like shogi and igo, but they are almost never preceded by the word "the" when used in a manner that is similar way to the way "Black" and "White" are used as translations. Chess books may say something like "the player with the white pieces moves first" or "White takes Black's pawn", but pretty much never say things like "The White takes the Black's pawn"; similarly, an English book on shogi may say that "Sente is the player that moves first" or "Sente has the advantage", but not really "The sente/Sente is the player who moves first" or "The Sente has the advantage". What I'm trying to get it as often the convention followed on Wikipedia is the one commonly followed by reliable sources in the way they sources cover the subject matter and the relevant Wikipedia guidelines on style try to reflect this. So, you'll have a better chance of establishing a consensus in favor of what you proposing if you can demonstrate that it reflects what the majority of reliable sources about Aikido are doing, and not just something that you comes across as your personal preference or that you think needs to be done. It's going to be consensus which ultimately determines what to do here.
Finally, I believe wikt:は technically indicates the topic of a sentence, not the subject per se; so, even though は is often used interchangeably with wikt:が in lots of cases, it's sort of different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lannerhunt: Please don’t make revisions to any of your previous posts like you did above here. If you feel the need to correct or revise a post you made that has already been responded to by another editor, please either do so as a separate post or in accordance with WP:REDACT. What you did in the very worst case scenario might be seen as an attempt to try and change the context in which they replied were given. This is perhaps a quirk unique to Wikipedia, but it’s something you need to get used to if you’re going to be posting on Wikipedia talk pages. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, noted; I won't change posts like that again! Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanner Hunt (talk • contribs) 08:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Cathexis deletion

Hi Yunshui. I am really sorry you feel personally attacked and I am also really sorry that you do not want to explain your reasons for deletion to me, if I was the hopeless case that you say I am, then surely helping me would be the correct way forward? So that I could grow as a wikipedia contributor? I am used to academic writing and not this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAlicePM21 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also Yunshui, I actually initially thought I was writing to a bot (not a person) which is why I thought I could not be attacking anyone. I simply expected an actual reply to my contestation before the article was speedily taken down. And you say it is a puff piece? In what sense dear sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAlicePM21 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Now I'm a racist and a bot!? Ok, let's put the personal attack issue behind us and focus on the real problem; the content of the article (as well as several of your other edits). Maintaining a neutral voice is fundamental when writing on Wikipedia, since readers rely on the site for unbiased, non-partisan information. When you introduce editorial content into Wikipedia articles, like this or this, you damage Wikipedia's reputation for neutral, factual content. The same is true when you post an article about a company that is "pioneering", "specialises in video management solutions", "enhances security across a number of sectors globally", "has significant blue-chip customers across the globe" and "focuses on fostering integration capability with other software". Those examples were just from the few sentences of the lead section, by the way. That's not an article, that's an advert. On the company's own website, such content is fine; desirable, even. Here, it is not permitted.
You should also be aware that if you have any financial or personal connection with Cathexis, you are obliged to declare it under Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules - and you probably shouldn't be writing about them on Wikipedia at all. Yunshui 雲水 12:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 edits

Hello Yunshui, thank you for your email. My edits to page was not to promote the company at all. However since I worked for it I know the difference between the group and the swedish sales unit. My edit were only to higlight the correct name of the group (international) versus the name of the swedish sale unit. The intent here were to ensure that Wikipedia share accurate information. If you check my edits, I am sure you will notice I did not add any additional promotional information. Feel free to correct and get back to the previous version. Thank you

Stok Kangri Stok Kangri (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You still need to disclose your affiliation with the company as a paid contributor (instructions on how to do so correctly are available at that link). This is a requirement of the Terms of Use under which you created your account, and is not optional. Whether you believe your additions to be promotional or not, as an employee you are not in a position to make that judgement objectively. Consequently, you should not make direct changes to the article; instead, please make use of the requested edit process which is designed precisely for editors in your situation. Yunshui 雲水 15:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Creations of Sunilbutolia

Thank you for blocking Sunilbutolia indefinitely. Although he is blocked, he has created multiple pages for his clients. Can we CSD them under G5 or G11? Coderzombie (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you have taken care of most of them any way. Thanks. Coderzombie (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I've tagged the ones where there's a reasonable suspicion of paid editing. Sadly there is no CSD criterion for paid page creations - G5 only applies if the editor was evading a block when they created the page (which, since I've only just blocked him, doesn't apply) and G11 only applies if the language is excessively promotional (which isn't really the case for any of the pages he's made). Yunshui 雲水 09:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh out loud

here --kingboyk (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget to tip your waiter; I'm here all week! Yunshui 雲水 10:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I see Mr Abouttonut is continuing his protestations; trolling is no longer the subtle art form it once was... Yunshui 雲水 10:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Did they email you too? --kingboyk (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Nope, but the profanities added by their new incarnation, Imabouttogathernuts, suggest that they are none too happy about us stomping all over their fun. Yunshui 雲水 09:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Parascadd

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Yunshui 雲水 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

was not vandalism

What I did was clearly not vandalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--99.113.185.67 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal ip sock?

With AruneekBiswas blocked (thank you!!!), we've now got 182.77.56.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continuing in the same vein as the other socks. If you've got a chance, would you mind reviewing their behavior? Not sure if a short-term semi-protection on the talk page is an option, but might be something to just get through a couple of days and perhaps Chahal will change focus and stop the disruption. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind - I forgot to check that you were still recently active. It's been handled (talk page semi-protected due to persistent disruption from socks / IP editors). Thank you! Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [11]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I am confused

I am not complaining... I'm wondering if your message was truly warrantd. I know some editors like yourself are very busy and sometimes don't have time to check all the facts. I want to ask if this is one of those times. If I owe someone an apology, I will make it!

You wrote:

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yunshui 雲水 15:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is regarding my interactions with Andy Dingley on This Page Andy Dingley said: 

As an AfC reviewer I'm not going to review this (I'd reject it ), as there is past hostility from Riventree and I don't need any more grief. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. He reviewed it (reject) while simultaneously claiming not to review
  2. He called attention to his earlier transgressions.
  3. He already has two "blocked from interactions with user" on his ANI record (for just this kind of harrassment), so I'd think Andy would be getting the warning.

Lastly, while there is certainly purposeful mocking in my response: 

LOL

I don't think it qualifies as (your words) "blatant harrassment" does it? Or perhaps you are referring to my earlier edits? Or did you possibly mean to put this on Andy instead of me?

Or maybe I do misunderstand. I once griped about Andy Dingley's rollbacks on my User Page, and he reverted them claiming my Wikipedia Home Page was an "attack page" (His actual words, I can find them in the edit logs if you need me to) so maybe harrassment means something different in this environment. If it does, tell me how to fix it and I will. Wikipedia is important to me and I definitely do not want to lose my privileges.

Riventree (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

To show good faith, I have read the WP:HA page, which includes the text: 

... the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated

which I don't think applies, as well as the Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility section, which includes:

(a) insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety
(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")

None of which seem to apply.

I truly believe that the closest I have come in my various entanglements with Andy would be 'Taunting' If comments like: 

LOL

are considered taunting.


Again, I'm serious: If there's something I need to do to prove my good faith and desire to keep being a Wikipedian, tell me what it is and I shall do it. All I ask is that you do not say something general-and-unhelpful like "be nicer to people" when I don't think I've been un-nice, and think it's rather more likely that the other fellow has.

Thank you kindly for your attention.

Riventree (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
See WP:LINKLOVE. Linking to a thread which contains harassment and outing, on a site whose sole purpose (these days, at least) is the harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors is itself a form of harassment. If someone has to revdel your contributions, you probably weren't doing something good. Please don't add link like that again. Yunshui 雲水 08:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your specific answer. I am assuming that if I had just left the first two links (to the ANI bans) it would still have been "rude" but maybe not risen to "harrassment". Thank you again.
Riventree (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

ygm

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.— GSS 💬 17:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dropped a few more so, please check when you get time. GSS 💬 06:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

marketing/UPI

Yo. Right now only you, and Smartse are coming top off my head when I think about someone finding about it off-wiki. Tony Ballioni is very good at detecting it on-wiki, but I dont about his off-wiki activities/experience. Anyways, to the point: I was once having conversation with my friend, and one of his friend over tea at a tea house. Both of them are software developers. In the casual conversation, somewhow wikipedia came up, and I mentioned I "rarely" edit it. The third person got curious, and inquisitive. He was a website, and mobile app devloper, also providing the services of online publicity/marketing. He said he tried it with wikipedia only once for one of his clients, but the article for app was deleted, salted, and SPI, you know - the usual routine. In the end he gave up, and never tried to promote on wikipedia. But he also told me there are a lots of companies in India, who offer services/campaigns of online and offline marketing/promotion including conventional stuff like flex banners (billboards?), video ads on TV, on screens in metro cities, same ads go online through adsesnse, online n offline press releases - in short the whole shabal. The same guy told me all of these companies (conventional, and newly found) are also including "promotion of your product/person [subject in our lingo] through stand-alone article, or some related article". Just wanted to ask if you are aware about this situation in indian market. Also what are your thoughts about it in general. These two short discussions are relevant: special:diff/939492534, and the other discussion is linked in the diff. Kindly let me know what you think of it. Also, kindly do not spill the beans But if you want to discuss something that might spill them, then we can email, or talk on-wiki vaguely. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is more or less black hat SEO. I think among a lot of CUs and anti-spam editors it's pretty common knowledge. :) Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
yup. Then we have stuff like this, inspired by Status Labs. What I am trying to say is (in both the discussions that I linked), that given the updates from spammers, we should update our policies too. But only for the stuff that needs to be promoted, like companies, orgs, TV shows, films, products, BLPs. Notability criteria for stuff without any profit value should almost non existent. Like towns for example; it should also include any astronomical body, historical events, any scientifically named species are already covered. I am trying to say that now is the time we should tighten the SNGs. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Nothing would please me more than to see a blanket ban on paid editing and some much more stringent requirements for notability with regards to companies and living people. It's not going to happen, though. Unfortunately, without support from the WMF (and the community - there are some very vocal advocates for paid editing out there, which is why we've never been able to enshrine any meaningful opposition to it in policy) our hands are pretty much tied - the paid editors are legion, and we are few; they have considerable funding, we are volunteers with inadequate tools. While freelancers from the Indian subcontinent do tend to constitute the bulk of the problem, they are comparatively easy to spot and deal with - it's the Status Labs of this world that are the real concern. It will be interesting to see what the Foundation do in response to WP:TOUSL - my expectation is that they will simply ignore it, but I am occasionally pleasantly surprised by being wrong. One lives in hope... Yunshui 雲水 00:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Thats true about Indian subcontinent being an easy spot on. I never could understand about why paid editing is allowed by WMF. But what about tightening the SNGs for BLPs? I think we can do that. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick question about Thiess-digital

Hey there! I'm not connected to Thiess or this "Thiess-digital" account by any means other than interest, but I was just a bit confused about how you came to a conclusion in 2019 that the operator of that account was "Thiess's Senior Communications Specialist." I couldn't find anything online indicating that a J. Johnstone works at Thiess, or ever has. I also would like to mention that sharing the job of someone, if it's true or not, might not be an appropriate thing? I don't think that if I was editing Wikipedia under a pseudonym and someone "outed" my role at a company without consent, I'd be hugely impressed, especially if it's with a company that's under pressure because of the climate emergency and the company's role in fossil fuels. By no means is this me second guessing you or challenging your actions, I was just a bit alerted by it when there is no substantial or evidence included. ItsPugle (talk)

I had no memory of this incident at all, but it took me less than five seconds confirm the connection using a simple Google search. Not sure what kind of search terms you're using, but the words "Johnstone" and "Thiess" in conjunction give me the connection as the very first hit, after that, it's just basic legwork. JJohnstone2019 is not a pseudonym, so outing isn't an issue here; they are openly using their real name to edit. Yunshui 雲水 18:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! I'm fairly new to the operational side of Wikipedia, so I was just a little bit dumbfounded with what had happened, but that clears it all up. Have a great day :) ItsPugle (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Making edits - member of an organisation

Hello there,

Thank you for your comments on the recent edits I made. To clarify, I work for the Goldsmiths' Company and have been checking the page for accuracy hence the edits. How do I now, get those edits approved? Or are you saying I can't do this at all?

Thank you,

Curtis (Cmcglincheygold (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcglincheygold (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As a representative of the organisation, you should not be making any direct changes to the article at all; instead, you should restrict yourself to using the Requested Edit process, which is designed for users in your position. You also need to comply with Wikipedia's mandatory disclosure requirements for paid editors; if you do not do so, you will be blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲水 17:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hiraizumi Kiyoshi

Hello! Your submission of Hiraizumi Kiyoshi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui/Archive_64&oldid=999165409"