User talk:Yunshui/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 30

zh.wikipedia

Hey Yunshui, I now have one edit on the Chinese Wikipedia. However, I know less than nothing about Chinese. zh:Special:用户贡献/Technical_13 ← would you be able to check that out for me and make any appropriate attributions? Per request, it is a direct copy and paste from 高神, which incidentally should probably be deleted or translated (if appropriate). Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Technical. Thanks for your confidence, but whereas your username reflects your primary skillset here, mine... doesn't. I can't speak or read Chinese beyond a few characters, so you and I have roughly the same chance of guessing the correct translation of any given piece of Chinese text. Sorry to disappoint - maybe someone here can be more help? Yunshui 雲‍水 06:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

User possibly interested in Adopt-A-User

Greetings once again Yun.

[1] [2] Since you're with Adopt A User I thought that my recommendation of Adopt A User would be up your alley as would be the other issues that I noticed in his post to my talk as an Admin. I'm not sure where I'm going with this one to be honest. Just that he could be good for Adopt A User and that he potentially has had a bad starting experience and that you hit both criteria. I'd suggest that you give him a better explanation of Adopt A User and address the issues from an Admin perspective.

Thanks Yun. There are a lot of users you haven't pissed ticked off (per an earlier talk topic. Heh.) MM (What's up pup?) - (Chocolate Cakes ◕‿◕) 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've sent him an "official" invitation - poor blighter does seem to have had a rough ride so far. Assuming he comes back (no edits for the last five days isn't a good sign), I'll happily have a chat with him; feel free to point him in my direction if he contacts you. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perms to review unblock request

Hi Yunshui,
Since there's no formal policy against doing this, I'll substitute yours. Anyway, could I ethically decline unblock requests, only for the reason of it not following the unblock request guideline (as a non-sysop)? This would save time for admins and, in turn, save time for the person requesting the unblock. Cheers, Kevin12xd (contribs) 02:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. Speaking of unblock requests, I remember my first one. I've come a long way since then!

(talk page stalker) Not to speak for Yoonshway, but I think the idea non-admin unblock declines has been historically frowned upon; I believe the thought process was that one shouldn't decline something that they have no power to accept. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). I concur with Writ Keeper. Although some may argue NAC for AfD and closures at WP:PERM as an example. That said though, it would be comparing apples with oranges. Blocking is the most contentious aspect of Wikipedia and demands the intervention of those who have the flag to do/undo it and are thick-skinned enough to take the flak that often ensues as part of the contract they entered when they were given the bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I can only really reiterate what's been said above - attempting NACs of unblock requests is just asking for a world of trouble. Many admins (I'm not one of them, but I believe I'm in a minority) frown upon even the ever-popular "note to closing admin" messages; actually going ahead and shutting down an unblock appeal without it even being viewed by an admin is going to ruffle feathers all round. Trust me, you want no part of it. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kenpō Fukyū Kai

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Hi Yunshui, what do you think about this being used as an external link on the Afghan Hound article? My gut instinct tells me to remove it as it seems to be an off shoot to a facebook group?

I'm also hoping I haven't put a toe into some rather mucky water with this IP 70.31.56.111 - I've left a note on their talk page after reverting a load of edits they had made on American Bulldog - I guess it's a matter of 'watch this space!' SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My inclination, re. the link, is a tentative no... whilst it does sort of fall under point 4 of WP:ELMAYBE, it also falls under 1, 10 and 11 of WP:ELNO. I wouldn't go to war over it, but it doesn't strike me as a necessary addition to the article, by any stretch of the imagination. No worries re. the IP, that was pretty much a textbook response. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I've removed all the ELs on the article and stuck some standard hidden text that is often used in dog articles to ask editors to use DMOZ instead, although it doesn't generally make any difference. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence Kaptein - Question/Help on how to proceed

Dear Yunshui,

I hope this is the appropriate place to leave you a message. It seems that my deletion review (Lawrence Kaptein) has now been adjudicated and closed. The decision was split, but "as is the custom," the deletion was sustained. The closing administrator commented that with some revamping of sources and writing style the article could be resubmitted. You, so kindly offered to help in your earlier review commentary - and honestly, I don't have a clue as to how to proceed other than starting with pursuing your generous offer of help. I'm certainly not in a hurry, but would like to produce a stronger article that meets Wikipedia standards and expectations. Thanks. Larrycaptain (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Larry Kaptein

Replied at User talk:Larrycaptain. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving file to Commons

Master Yunshui !
I need your guidance, regarding the process in moving the two files [3] and [4] to commons. I am writing the same article for Corner Tube Boiler in German and would prefer to NOT TO upload two files again on Wikipedia (german), instead moving it to commons. I have already reviewed and tagged the files and as far as I know only the admins have the right to move the files. Although I have gone through WP:TOCOMMONS, and the files have been tagged by bots already; still is there something I am missing from my side? or are those files waiting to be reviewed by an admin and then transferred? any tips? Ghorpaapi (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ghorpaapi. Glad to hear you're expanding the German encyclopedia too, good work! Regrettably, I'm probably not the best person to ask for help with this - it's an area in which I've never trodden, and I'd be as likely to mess it up as anything. I should point out, though, that you can move files to Commons without being an admin, it's only the post-move deletion of the original file at Wikipedia that requires admin buttons (and you can simply flag the page for deletion with {{db-f8}} after doing the move). The easiest way to do this (I'm told) is to download This, that and the other's For the Common Good utility - I can't, since it won't run on my OS, but I've heard good things about it.
Good luck, and if you want to get advice from someone who does know about this sort of thing, I'd suggest talking to Anna Frodesiak; she's very helpful and very knowlegable about Commons-related matters. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Master ! The way is always clear, short and easy the way you explain it . Cheers Ghorpaapi (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
And I'm happy to do so - but please don't call me "Master"; I'm just another editor. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I won't! Btw, while stalking your talk page, I came across this,[[5]] which I really liked being a fan of this movie and it fits perfectly into the situation. Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tokujiro Kanamori

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Dispute review

G'day Yunshui,
Could you please review the dispute found at the bottom of my talkpage? I've been trying to get this user to read the policy on no disclaimers but he has started too steer into irrelevant topics. Cheers, Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

Hi Kevin. You're absolutely right on this one, and you've linked to the correct guidelines (incidentally, the (massive) discussion that lead to the current guideline is here, if you're interested). I really can't see what Martin451 has to do with this dispute at all, beyond the fact that he also reverted Rtrek at the Spock article. I'll drop Rtrek a line on his talkpage, but I'm not sure how much good it's going to do... Yunshui 雲‍水 06:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

122.161.31.235

FYI, I've just blocked them for 36 hours. Also that automated editing looked quite botlike to me. De728631 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You just made my list of favourite people ever. If you're in a helpful mood, perhaps you might like to take a look at Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati and its associated talkpage - if I had hair, I'd be tearing it out in great chunks by now... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thenightchicagodied

Hello, Before you archived this page, and after it was marked as closed, I had added a comment because I think another user (Kathy-chi) could also have been a sock of the same user. What should be done, now that its archived? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC) [Leave a talkback/notification plz]

Sorry Soni, I missed the timestamp on that; my bad. In this case it doesn't really matter - Kathy-chi has been blocked as a sock of TNCD already - but in future, if you want to add a suspected sock to a case that's been archived, the procedure is to simply open a new SPI under the master's name (as though you were reporting them for the first time). Yunshui 雲‍水 06:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why this was closed and archived so quickly myself, where as this is something that is on-going and I'm sure they will be creating new socks in the coming days (if they already haven't). Anyways, matters not much to me, just a curiosity... Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hey Yunshui, I saw your message on Ocaasi's talk page - I have access to JSTOR, and would be happy to email you that document. If you still need it, drop me a Wikipedia email (or find some other way of giving me your email address) and I'll send it your way. :) Happy editing! Keilana|Parlez ici 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you - I've asked Someguy1221 but he may have missed my email; if you'd be willing to do the honours, I'd be very grateful. I'll drop you a line with my email address. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 06:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

PDOG1111

Hi. You have posted on pdogspam's page saying that I am related to him. I am NOT related to him in any way and do not want to cause confusion to pdog's account. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdog1111 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could then explain a) why all of your edits prior to today have been to the exact same article (which, incidentally, is only watched by 9 users, making it fairly obscure by Wikipedia standards) as Pdogspam's and b) the remarkable similarities between your usernames? Yunshui 雲‍水 06:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nara Lokesh

I took up your invite to start from scratch. But only 3 days after his entry into politics keeping it very short. You may want to add to your watchlist in case the PR machine returns - though I will too. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW - Do you know anything about infoboxes? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
A little; I'll stick one in the article for you. Don't ask me about the forthcoming Wikidata infoboxes, though, I've no idea how they're going to work. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious

harmonious acting
Thank you for quality articles for projects Japan, China and Korea, and catching facts about them, such as Gao Ming, for warning vandals and acting against them, for helping newbies and not-so-newbies harmoniously, for adopting and retaining users, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow - thank you so much! I shall treasure it greatly. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

User:TheQuestionerPro

Hello, just wanted to ask you how you confirmed that this user is a sock of User:Technoquat. It says in the talk page template that a check was performed, but I spoke with a CU who seems to think this user might be a different sock. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disregard this; I didn't see the talk page template was added by a different user. After speaking with the user and a checkuser, I've changed the block template on the userpage to indicate the user is actually a User:WOLfan112 sock. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Ach, my sock-o-meter obviously needs to go back to the shop for recalibration... Given his recent talkpage trolling Technoquat seemed the obvious candidate; who knew childish disruption was such a popular pastime? Yunshui 雲‍水 18:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

G8 speedy on that talk page...

Sorry, I thought that was the right 'procedure'....I could have just redirected the talk myself. *shrugs* Now I know.... :) Revent (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Deletion wouldn't have been the end of the world, but redirects are cheap - plus, you don't need to be wearing admin pants to sort them out. Thanks for flagging it. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I 'cited' this comment by you in a conversation on WP:VPM with regards to the 'appropriateness' of making these redirects versus deletion...I've looked at the 'history' of such things more in the last week or so...
Hopefully you feel what I'm saying there is....I guess 'accurate' would be the term, with respect to the 'mass creation' of 'incomplete redirects' like this one was.
Your input might be a good thing, especially if you think I'm wrong. :P Revent (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Move-protected article

Yunshui, 2013 Cleveland missing trio was move-protected 21 days ago. It said don't move until there's consensus. Well, a move request proposal was started the next day, so it's been up for 20 days now and there seems to be clear consensus. Today, someone at AN/request for closure said they would've closed it if it wasn't move-protected. Can something be done about this? Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hmm, what we need here is 1) the closure of the request, and then we can 2) lift the move protection, and then 3) the article can be moved. I denied a request for unprotection on exactly these grounds. Lectonar (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking at this now; there's a lot to consider. Lec, if you're online now (and not busy protecting/unprotecting stuff) would you mind taking a quick gander and offering a second opinion? My impression is that there's consensus for the move (although I personally disagree with that consensus); I'm just about prepared to close, move and take the flak but I wouldn't mind another set of admin eyes on it first. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at it yesterday, and took great care not to close it (taking the easy way out by denying the unprotection), because I also disagree with the consensus (and there must be a cause why this has sat unclosed for such a long time). It is a difficult choice to make...ideally I would say let's get some more eyes on this, because I am really not happy with the result as presents itself here. But if you want to close it going by the consensus, I will back you up. Lectonar (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Damn, it's a tough one. I'm going to go ahead with the close and move, and get my hard-hat strapped on for the inevitable barrage... Whilst relisting would be my choice, I can't imagine that there will be many other arguments put forth by either side, so I feel that closing it, rather than letting the debate (which is already pretty heated in places) drag on, is probably the best option. It's times like this I wish admins were some sort of superuser class who could overrule the will of proletariat, instead of just the poor sods Wikipedia employs to clean up and absorb abuse... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I will write something up in addition to your closure, to make this kind of a joint enterprise. So they can grill us both. Lectonar (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That's very considerate of you, thank you. I've actually just made the close, but feel free to write inside the box! Yunshui 雲‍水 08:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, done. Thanks. Lectonar (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Much obliged. Let the flaming-torch-and-pitchfork waving commence. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Funny enough, I do not really think so...you have too much clout by now to be attacked or criticized very openly, and I have been called "...a very respected admin..." just lately :). Lectonar (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm more than happy to take it on the chin, regardless of my perceived "clout" (which really, I shouldn't have anyway; I am, after all, just an editor with extra buttons). I think most folk who've interacted with me know by now that I don't mind being told I've done something disasterously wrong. Who's been flattering you with intimations of respectability? Wasn't me, was it? Yunshui 雲‍水 09:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a barnstar for humility?....searching....but that would be counterproductive in a way, so no barnstar today, sorry. On a more serious note, neither do I mind (being told I have done something wrong), and it was Kudpung, afair. Lectonar (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I have to say... the fact that you two acknowledged consensus even though you personally disagreed with it, particular in the case of a contentious issue like this, says a great deal about your character and credibility. Kudos. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Kudos to sysops such as Yunshui who close discussions per consensus, even if their personal view is a non-consensus one. That's the best in sysop behavior. And what we hope for from our sysops.
As to those sysops who note that consensus says "x", and note that they have reviewed the discussion and reached that determination as to what consensus in fact states, but choose not to close it -- only because their personal view is a non-consensus one -- I have somewhat different thoughts. Especially vis-a-vis discussions open over 20 days, with over 20 !votes and with ample discussion.
As our information page on closing discussions makes clear, and as Yunshui acted here in accordance with that direction, a close is not determined by the closer's own views. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments. The sysop is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which in his personal view is the better policy. He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the sysop's view, he is expected to decide according to the consensus. He is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Epeefleche. I think you're preaching to the choir. Haha. That's why I kept my kudos very brief. :p --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
As Yunshui expected flak, I thought it appropriate to state why he should receive just the opposite, as he is not the only one who reads his page. Sometimes the choir does indeed sit, saying "I know that", as the sermon proceeds, albeit not directed primarily at them.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I fully understood why you did it, and I certainly appreciate your good intent. However, anyone who may give unwarranted flak will already know everything you said and therefore might allege that your speech was condescending, even though you obviously meant well. In any case, thanks for your participation in the the discussion. It was a hearty debate, but I'm glad resolution was reached in a relatively civil process. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
We assume good faith. But we don't assume all-knowingness. I would expect that those who give unwarranted flak -- which was anticipated -- would, given that they only act in good faith, do so out of lack of knowledge of what I said. I can think of no other possible reason for a good faith editor to give him flak. And Yunshi indicated more than once that flak was anticipated. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Whether flak was anticipated or not, the fact of the matter is that there has been no flak. So you've given a passionate lecture about a problem that hasn't occurred, to an audience that doesn't even exist. It only serves to potentially instigate a problem that may otherwise never have happened. And if someone does complain, Yunshui is extremely capable of explaining it himself. He doesn't need anyone to fight his battles, especially on his own talk page. Relax, the discussion was closed. Let Yunshui (and Lectonar) take it from here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment from you both, but there's no need to get into an argument about how spectacular I am . There hasn't been any fallout from the close yet - hopefully there won't be any at all - but 76... is right, I'm perfectly happy to give a more extensive account of my decision to anyone who asks. Nevertheless, thank you both for the vote (!vote?) of confidence; I'm just doing my job, but it's nice to know people think I'm doing it right. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. It was prophylactic. And I, at least, can't know if editors came to this page as you expected they would, read what I wrote as to my views -- something I believe these pages are used for in the normal course -- and chose after reading it to not give flak. I didn't understand that -- as 76 suggests -- my contribution was inappropriate, and that only sysops were to speak to this point on this page. And of course, it is possible that not all sysops, even those in this discussion, feel the way that I do. In any event, Yun -- good job; I think those sysops reviewed the matter, read the consensus, saw a clear one, and still chose not to close the discussion did not act as our policies suggest they should -- so I appreciate you doing so.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I see Epeefleche is still having a hard time giving this up. Haha. It's a simple lessson: Don't create a potential problem that doesn't exist. ;) And let admins handle their own fall-out if it happens. Anyway, I just wanted to show this story title from yesterday's edition of The Plain Dealer, Cleveland's major daily newspaper and the mainstream media source covering this event more closely than anyone. I think that title says it all. Common name. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Matticusmadness has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

because this is actually quite funny. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 10:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, apparently our little discussion here inexplicably earned all of us a cookie from this editor. Confused. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Confusing or not, it's still a cookie. Nom. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I do love cookies. Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nara Lokesh

I just need to locate his Telugu name for the infobox (WP India local consensus against MOSBIO style leads) and we're done. But I will keep it watchlist. Incidentally, oh thee of cloudy rains, if you know anything about use of Chinese in Vietnam, your eye on this might be soothing. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese (whether rendered in Chinese, Latin or semaphore) is way off my radar. Having looked purely at the articles in question I think that a merge to Chữ nôm seems like the most pertinent option, but I don't feel qualified to offer a genuinely informed opinion - and, in perfect honesty, I have other things I'd rather do today than bone up on Vietnamese writing systems. Sorry. Fortunately it looks as though consensus is becoming established there anyway. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Xue Susu

The DYK project (nominate) 08:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hu Zhengyan

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gao Ming (writer)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK

How many DYK credits in a day? That's awesome, how do you do that? Just needed advice for improvement in editing. Faizan 05:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

My basic strategy is as follows:
  1. Find a redlink (I've found WDL project's To-Do list really helpful for this recently.
  2. Stick the subject into Google books. If you get more than three hits, you're good to go.
  3. Write the article.
  4. Check it meets the DYK criteria.
  5. Put it through DYK.
  6. Profit?
That's all there is to it, really. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
3 DYKs in a day? That's bloody awesome! :) Strike Σagle 05:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I hadn't actually realised that I'd got that many on the go at once; obviously last week was a busy one. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Nice one!
Thanks to Writ Keeper, this user still has an Orange Bar of Death




Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I make the demands, Writ does the work, I get the Wikilove. It's an ideal working partnership. Cheers! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which, your latest request is up at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/todoLink.js. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
↑ This is a case in point. Only he gets the Wikilove this time. Thanks, Writ. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Yup, no problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Yunshui, can you please look at this move request and make a decision? It was opened 11 days ago, dozens of editors have participated, and there have been no new comments in four days. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I see I've become the go-to guy for closing bastard-hard move requests now... It's done; I've left the option of a free move to Murder of Lee Rigby at some point in the future to save going through another RM if the trial results in a conviction. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't, unfortunately, have time to fix all the double redirects created as a result - if a bored TPS would like to do the honours (DPB bot will get them eventually anyway, but it's good to be tidy), the list is here. Barnstar in it for you if you do. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Double redirects hardly matter, they only affect people who already know the name. I'd be more concerned with the fact you've just effectively dissappeared this article from Google on a search for both 'Lee Rigby' and 'Woolwich attack', which affects the very people for whom a good title choice is for. Even if it recovers for 'Lee Rigby', it's clearly going to still be worse than before (top non-news result for both). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
"Effectively disappeared"? Uh, not quite. I just did a Google search for "Woolwich attack" and the WP article was the #1 result. And a search for "Lee Rigby" made it the #8 result. So not only is your claim overly dramatic, it's completely false. More importantly, it's irrelevant. We don't consider how a Google search (or any other Internet search) will affect decisions we make about an article title. We follow WP policy. This was explained multiple times on the talk page. I have no idea where you got this flawed theory that you keep repeating. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Gruesome, I replied to you at the article's talk page. As I pointed out there, we don't title articles to create convenient Google searches. If anyone is interested in reading a particular WP article, then they of course can or will come to Wikipedia and search for it. This article can easily be found under multiple search terms, including "Woolwich attack" and "Lee Rigby". In any case, the bottom line is that there was consensus for the new title, which aligns with, and in no way violates, the relevant polices (WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:BLP). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
CONSENSUS is like a computer - garbage in, garbage out. Wikipedia got garbage here. It violates TITLE precisely because it ignores COMMONAME (a part of TITLE), for no reason that is detailed in there that makes something a good choice of a title over and above the common name. BLP has got absolutely nothing to do with anything (except of course to note that by encouraging people to associate this event with the name Lee Rigby, you're making it more likely that people searching for it will find news stories about how he should burn in hell or tabloid crap about his personal life rather than stories about the actual event, and you're also ignoring the stated wishes of his family that he should not become some sort of rallying call, which is precisely what an emotive title like 'Death of Lee Rigby' will do in some people). Ignoring Google when choosing a title is like ignoring a source when writing an article. They are fundementally linked, and should only be ignored for very good reasons. No such reasons were presented there. Internal searches don't matter one bit, not when they are all basically going to get there using redirects, as very few people would have ever guessed the title correctly first time in either form. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Gruesome, please calm down. Your rage here and at the article's talk page today are not productive. You've only had your account for a few months, yet have been blocked several times already. You are totally misunderstanding how we title articles and the role that search engines (don't) play in that process. Inexplicably, you have failed to acknowledge the most important facts: there was lengthy MR discussion, dozens of editors participated, consensus was reached, no policies (including WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME) were violated, and a very experienced admin reviewed and closed it. You really should move on. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gruesome. I can't say I'm delighted with the outcome myself, but I closed the discussion and performed the move according to consensus as I read it. If you think I've erred in establishing that consensus, you're very welcome - encouraged, actually - to take it up at Move review. 76... is correct in that we don't factor SEO considerations into our choice of titles, but that's fairly immaterial here - if you want to challenge the decision, you'll need to do so on the grounds that consensus was other than I believed it to be, not that you disagree with the move for any particular reason, valid or not. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing it

I'm not seeing any outing in those diffs (as mentioned in the email). I see no reason for the revdel in this case. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joe. I've sent you an email with a short explanation; I'd be happy to give you a more thorough background for the case if you need it. Unfortunately I can't access my Wikipedia email from here, so I won't see any reply you send off-wiki until later today, but I'll respond as soon as I can. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim Rose Circus

dear yunshui thank you for input..everything i added is very relevant..i shouldnt be penalized for showing up late to the wiki party...first it was 1992 not the date another person who i guess was trying to help cited 2/ my show got more press than the headliners on that tour with the exception of pearl jam...lollapalooza wanted me to get all the press so they could establish a second stage for the future... its well documented that eddie vedder and i became best friends on that tour in several books..i could go on and on but really..the person who i should have civil discourse with is lugnuts and i would like to approach him in the appropriate manner and am not sure how..do i just go to his page and start a new headline using edit? or is there a chat mechanism that im missing?..PLEASE look at any lollapalooza history for 92 and you will see that I'm mentioned more than almost everyone..and thats articles all the way up to current times..l.a times did a cover feature on me..same with usa today..rolling stone called me the must see event and under whats hot proclaimed a jim rose circus tee shirt from lollapalooza..if i was just deleted because i wedged in a place i dont belong well i get that...but that isnt the case here..i added my name in a sentence that had others in it who had much less press than i got for the event..yunshui if you respond on this page ...where do i go to keep checking for the response..this deletion has broken my heart.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markfinkbine (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles Sin

Hi.. Yunshui (雲‍水), the claims made in Charles Sin can be easily verified to be bogus, thats why I had nominated it for CSD.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 01:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vigyani. Yes, on closer inspection (and with a bit of Google-mining) it's clearly a hoax. You'd tagged it as A7: No indication of notability, rather than G3: Blatant hoax, so that's what I acted on. I've deleted the page (and, coincidentally, blocked its creator for sockpuppetry). Thanks for highlighting it. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the correct tag. I was confused between A7 and G3. So ultimately I decided A7, thinking that at least the person in question may be existing really.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

User page

Awesome user page! I may need you to have a look over mine and design me a new one. Mkdwtalk 07:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The code is actually largely ripped off from Earwig's userpage; I just changed a few parameters and stripped it down for a more minimalist look. If you want to steal and adapt it, help yourself! Yunshui 雲‍水 07:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just checking

A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 10:32, 28 February 2013 Yunshui (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Dunja Mijatovic (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

I'm guessing there was a peacock piece there prior?? The new sub-stub I sourced and deprodded. Please let me know if there was a bigger concern in the Feb 2013, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
'Twas a copyvio when I deleted it; it's since been taken out and shot twice under A7. What you've written looks fine text-wise, though there's some crazy-ass HTML coding screwing with the formatting... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Wait, I see; they're trying to insert an image. I'll fix it. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I left message on his Talkpage asking for a date of birth please. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Image turns out to be under copyright and not free at all; I've requested its deletion at Commons. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

thank you

Hi Yunshui,,

Thanks for the barnstar! Glad I was able to help. Let me know if you have any future requests. Best, GabrielF (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Jbignell

Hi, we're both looking at the contributions of this user. I just noticed something weird: Ron Stewart (politician) is a copy of James O. Page, even listing Page's books... Could you perhaps have a look at this? --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


I've nuked it as a copyvio. Curious - time for a closer look, methinks... Yunshui 雲‍水 14:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
All rather odd - I have to go offline now (and probably won't be back until Monday), but you might want to get another admin on board, or even pop this up at WP:AN. At best it's self promotion, at worst there's something more insidious going on. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I used the page to help build the article. These people: James O'Page and Ron Steward are both featured in the book, they both worked on the show and in LA county with the Fire Service and on NBC's TV show Emergency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbignell (talk • contribs)

  • Seems legit. I added a reference. Jbignell, it's "Stewart", with a t. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It does now. More of case of a newbie making some errors while getting used to WP... --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
My apologies to Jbignell then; I should have waited until I had the time to do a more thorough investigation. My bad, sorry - will try not to do it again. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, too. And don't beat yourself up too much, the mistake was entirely mine. --Randykitty (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
No, no, it was mine! Just kidding, it was y'all's. Anyway, Jbignell did copy the article from something else the first time around, didn't they? You all are welcome to do more apologizing this afternoon, but only in swimming trunks. I'm making pina coladas. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out on this page.AlmightyMac (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hey Yunshui,
Just popping by to tell you that your new userpage looks sEnSaTiOnAl. You did some good work on it. :) Kevin12xd (contribs) 23:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

An award for you!

The Jimbo Wales Happiness Award
Doesn't his smile melt your heart? Glossenglocke (talk) 20:45, 01 October 1953 (UTC)

SPI: worthwhile?

Yo, Yoonshway, is there any point in populating those SPIs? I'm not gonna even bother in the future if there isn't. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It does serve a purpose (in that it provides a single-sheet record of all known socks), but for a LTA-er like Technoquat, there's nothing wrong with block, tag, move along - there's no need to compile a record of evidence, since he's persona non grata here already, and tagging the userpage will add the account to the long, long list of aliases on its own. If it's obvious (and TQ always is), then I wouldn't bother filing a full SPI unless you want a sleeper check done (which is often worthwhile). Yunshui 雲‍水 18:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reishin Kawai

Hello, Yunshui. You have new messages at Talk:Reishin Kawai#Studied under whom ?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

Hello Yunshui, PLease reconsider the deletion of Matthew Ogunbor's page. It has a significance that will help young entrepreneurs to always strive at their dream. Please if you can not reverse this, then allow me to make a new page with his name. Thank you soo much for understanding and cooperating. I can assure you that you will not be disappointed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herdman123 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, if I were you - there's nothing in the deleted page to suggest Mr Ogunbor meets Wikipedia's basic inclusion criteria, and a cursory search of the web shows that there probably aren't enough sources anywhere else either. Some people just don't meet Wikipedia's very specific requirements - that's no reflection on their talent, importance or worthiness; it just indicates that Wikipedia doesn't want an article about them yet. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi Yunshui :) Do you know how to create/fix footnotes? Ugh, I've been trying in this help desk thread to get someone to make a fix in an article, but so far no one knows much about footnotes, or just isn't willing to fix the problem. I figured since you know almost everything about editing (:p) that maybe you'd be willing to fix the problem. But if you're too busy, I won't be offended if you can't do it. But I'm not getting much help at help. Haha. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you saw this at the help desk, so I'll say it again: You're the best! Thank you so much. One question. Should the set of sources at the end of the first paragaph be footnoted as [c]; the part that ends with "greatest clay court player in history.[18][19][20][21][22]"? Or is having five cites displayed together like that acceptable? If not, can you footnote that set of sources, also? I'm not sure how many sources displayed together is too many before a footnote should be used. Anyway, I just wanted to express my appreciation to you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, dealt with; should have done it earlier, sorry. AFAIK there's no hard and fast rule; in my personal opinion more than four citations in a row looks a bit ugly, but lots or articles use six or more. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! However, see this edit by Gadget850 just before yours, where he corrected the coding you had done earlier in the day. He said different templates should be used. He also posted in the help desk thread about it. Of course, I have no idea which is the preferred method, or why, so I'll leave that to you two. It looked to me like both methods worked fine. You both are much appreciated for your help on this. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Gadget's fix is definitely superior. I corrected the (comparatively complex) sorta-hack code that was already there; he had the much better idea of just using the right template in the first place... Yunshui 雲‍水 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr. Y! :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Close an AfD for me?

I'm withdrawing an AfD because I'm concerned that pursuing it would be detrimental to articles about other authors on Wikipedia. I know that you're so far uninvolved, so I'm asking if you can finish withdrawing it. My concern is that there's just enough sourcing in peer-reviewed journals to merit a keep, although the rest of the sourcing is highly dubious. There's also a big, big concern about the main contributor to the article being the subject herself, as her contributions are only about the author and her daughter. I've found enough evidence based on the username ("DLCstory") to suggest that it's her, given that the author uses the exact same username in various different sites. I got a little preachy in the AfD, but I really want to make sure that the author (if it is her) knows how badly COI editing can come across. The original format of the article was pretty bad, to be honest. The linkspam was horrendous. In any case, the AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne de Las Casas. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi TG. I'm not sure withdrawal is entirely legit, in this instance - since AllyD has also cast a !vote (and not just a "per nom", either), a speedy close wouldn't be appropriate. My recommendation would be to let it run its course (dewatchlist it, if you like - I know how tempted you get to comment at AFDs!). I'll keep an eye on it; if it looks like snowclosing one way or the other I'll step in and do the necessary. Nice work finding sources and smacking the article into some semblance of shape, by the way. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and don't sweat it as far as other, similar articles are concerned: WP:WAX works both ways, and no individual AFD can set a precedent for similar pages without some policy changes taking place as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you leave a comment to show why it's not being withdrawn? If I leave it, it might turn into another speech. XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Yunshui, I didn't realise you were an SPI Clerk. Can I ask, is it normal for some SPIs to be stuck at Category:SPI requests for pre-CheckUser review for up to 2 weeks? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me, especially in complicated or controversial cases. Is it the Kauffner one you're referring to? I'll take a look at it tomorrow (I'm rather short of time right now) if it's still there. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Well actually there's two stuck there. Perhaps there needs to be some guidance that says "make your case in 50 words" - because this isn't actually that complicated it's just that there's a large amount of evidence all pointing one way. Or perhaps guidance that if a sock has 7 or 8 different "coincidences" with a named account the the SPI only list the 2 main ones? In one of these two cases stuck Cuchullain has provided a "summary for the clerks." In the other, seeing as I was looking to see which are stuck and why, there also appears to be a summary. Anyway thanks, I imagine it's still be there. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks as though DoRD stepped in while I was asleep to do his CU magic on the Kauffner investigation. What was the other case you were looking at? Yunshui 雲‍水 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it was DQ that worked that case. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops. Well, he's magical too. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui/Archive_23&oldid=1168309996"