User talk:Supermann/Archives/2017/July

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Liu Yulin at the 41st Student Academy Awards.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Liu Yulin at the 41st Student Academy Awards.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Timmyshin (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The rationale has been written up. Could you please take a second look? Thanks Supermann (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, using a non-free image to illustrate a living person is generally forbidden per WP:NFC. Timmyshin (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You do what you have to do to delete the picture. I have no intention of becoming a paparazzi to stalk and take a photo of her to upload as free image. WP pillar states no firm rules. Supermann (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the rule is quite clear. When I first joined en.wiki I also had some photos deleted for the same reason, please don't take it personally. Timmyshin (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Picture is worth a thousand words, but uploading them has got me into trouble, incl. a block on socketpuppetry. Wish somebody had warned me beforehand!!!Supermann (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry what happened? Timmyshin (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the first section on this talk page and you could find more on the talk page of the blocking admin.Supermann (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your contributions to Liu Zhenyun and related articles!

Timmyshin (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 
 * You are welcome. . Btw, what is this book by Liu Zhenyun called The Cook, the Crook, and the Real Estate Tycoon: A Novel of Contemporary China? See https://www.amazon.com/Cook-Crook-Real-Estate-Tycoon/dp/1628725206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499041592&sr=8-1&keywords=liu+zhenyun. Is this his new novel? I can add it in the grid, but just not sure. thanks. Supermann (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Chinese title is 我叫刘跃进 (lit. My Name Is Liu Yuejin). The novel probably deserves an article, since it was adapted into the film Lost and Found (2008 film) (and a TV series). Timmyshin (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it now. Forgot to check the book description on Amazon.com. The answer is right there. I have updated the grid. I'll leave the page creation to more capable hands. In the meantime, do you think the grid should use the Chinese name of the novels or the English one? Just like this one, Someone to Talk to is now the official English title of his novel One Sentence Is Ten Thousand Sentences. thx.Supermann (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, definitely the "official English title" if the novel is fully translated per WP:COMMONNAME, this being the en.wiki after all. But for One Sentence Is Ten Thousand Sentences I would wait until the translation is published ( says in 2018) along with multiple WP:RS book reviews, before moving the article, per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Timmyshin (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. I wasn't in a hurry. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Your addition to Film censorship in China has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a journalism degree and of course know the importance of paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism charges. But it's who back on June 12 stressed I could avoid original research in giving reasoning of the censored scenes by simply "repeating what a reliable, published source has stated themselves" that now has landed me in trouble. If you are observant, you would see I have given all inline citations to the extent possible. But of course I am not a master at this Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please rewrite to the extent you are available. This includes the history section. That page needs more diverse contributors anyways. I'll just maintain the timeline of the censorship process and hopefully keep updating the list. ROC actually adopted the age-based rating system back in 1983 as I did some original research by reaching out to the experts. Thank you so much.Supermann (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I do not have time to re-write the material, as there are 83 copyvio reports from yesterday and today remaining to be checked, which represents five to ten hours of work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

IMDB
If we hate it so much? Please read WP:CITEIMDB: "Citing the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) on Wikipedia raises questions with regard to adherence to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as much of its database content is user contributed with minimal and unstated editorial oversight by IMDb staff." It has nothing to do if we hate it or not. It's unreliable and contains a lot original content. Also, I half-apologize for the revert. The second source was giving me a Not Found page but now it suddenly works. Callmemirela  &#127809; talk 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been educated a lot on IMDb lately. I disagree but I respect the consensus. thanks for your understanding. Supermann (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna
Please do not continue to add trivia to this article without discussing it on the talk page. This is a featured article. It does not and cannot include every single book or video game in which there is a fictionalized version of Anastasia Nikolaevna. It's not a list of pop culture references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A solution
Re your comment here, I see three possible solutions: 1) Assume all unexplained, unsourced date changes are correct. Verify nothing. Recurring vandalism, such as that outlined at WP:KIDSTVDATES is just the price we pay for deciding to pretend there is no vandalism on Wikipedia. 2) When verifying another editor's unexplained, unsourced additions, dig through the entire article, reading the entirety of the hundreds of sources cited. The hours spent are just part of the price we pay for not communicating. 3) When adding or changing material, use an edit summary. The seconds spent are just part of the price we pay, working on a collaborative project.

I've picked my solution. Feel free to pick yours. Problem solved. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have enough admin tools at my disposal to detect persistent vandalism. But I think Assume_good_faith is important. So I did spend the minutes to verify and collaborate. I still hope the place is a more tolerant environment where Ignore_all_rules could be implemented more often than not. Just my two cents. Thank you for taking the time. Supermann (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no "admin tools". Vandalism (and a good number of honest mistakes} are best ferreted out by collaboration. You cannot "collaborate" alone. It involves communication. Editors who don't cite sources and explain edits are not collaborating, they're making it harder to spot the bad edits by making it hard to verify the good edits.


 * Building a verifiable encyclopedia requires that those working to build it verify content. The rules are the general case: what should be done the vast majority of the time. If you are ignoring the rules more often than not, Wikipedia might just as well be Reddit. New slogan: "Wikipedia: the random site where anyone can say anything about anything." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)