User talk:Yunshui/Archive 24

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Why are you defacing File:Ma Yuan - Water Album - Clouds Rising from the Green Sea.jpg? :-( — Lfdder (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure what you mean - I use that image for my userpage because a) it's a nice representation of clouds (雲‍) and water (水) and not much else and b) I rather like it. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Because you've put text on top of it. Kinda ruins the picture. — Lfdder (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the original is readily available here (and also in the French version of the article on Ma Yuan, though not in ours) if you want to view it unadulterated. I'm sorry if my userpage offends your artistic sensibilities, but you're always free to, you know, not look at it... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right. I just think it's kind of discourteous to do this with their work. — Lfdder (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discourtesy to Ma (although I doubt he'll raise any objections) couldn't have been further from my mind. Consider that Chinese art collectors regularly added their own personal seals or inscriptions to works that they owned, and viewed doing so as a mark of appreciation (it indicated that the work was fine enough that they would be willing to put their own name to it). I don't claim to be in the same league as them when it comes to art appreciation, but maybe you could view my userpage more along those lines? Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you for explaining. — Lfdder (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your Last Warning
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yunshui, I have warned you earlier about your prolific editing; such behaviour is tolerated on Wikipedia. Please refrain from referring to this warning literally. Thank you. Kevin12xd (contribs) 13:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't even get it and i'm finding it somewhat funny. MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 21:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RfA Pre-request inquiry
Hi Yunshui,

I have a particularly audacious feeling that I'm ready for adminship, but of course, I'm probably not. I'm sure I've come closer to adminship than before; however, I obviously need to be prepared. As you are both an experienced sysop and a turn-to guy, what do you think I should prep for before asking someone to write me a nomination - or, what do you think I'm still missing? Cheers, Kevin12xd (contribs) 22:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Kevin. Well, first the good news - you're certainly closer than the last time you asked about this. In the past couple of months I've seen you handling disputes more effectively, doing some content creation, reviewing pending changes and (as far as I can see) using STiki and AWB correctly. I'm also pleased that you haven't followed the time-honoured wannabe-admin route of pitching in on every ANI discussion going (which is a sure-fire way to scupper your chances). All this is good - whether it will get you through an RFA is another matter, though.
 * A lot of what I said in my previous response still applies. Above all, you need more evidence of content work. Even with the article you've edited most (Roblox), you've only racked up 37 edits, and most of those were reverts or minor corrections. You've created a couple of new articles, but they have no independent sources (Liquid manure has no sources at all) and contain almost no information - to be unflinchingly brutal for a moment, they looks like something a complete newbie would create for their first effort. I appreciate that both the manure article and the two Samsung ones have only been up for a day or two, but even a stub should still have decent sourcing from its very inception. Creating pages like this is almost as bad as not creating anything at all; it make it look as though you don't know what you're doing where content policies are concerned, and that's going to put people off handing you the tools which deal with those policies.
 * You seem to have shifted away from CSD work (and deleted your CSD log; whilst you're entitled to do so, you'll probably need to explain the thinking behind it at RFA - deleting a supposedly innocuous log page like that makes it look like you have something to hide), and your AFD stats currently show an exact 50/50 accuracy rate on just 8 !votes, which is far lower than it should be. As such, there's not enough evidence that you understand the deletion policies; you'll want a record of 100+ CSD tags and around 50 AFD !votes (in both cases, they obviously have to be correct as well!) to convince people you can be trusted with the deletion button.
 * If I may make a suggestion: I think the lure of high-speed editing with automated tools is becoming a bit of a distraction. I say this from the perspective of someone who's been there; back in the days when Igloo was up and running I loved firing it up and churning out a couple of hundred edits every morning. The problem is that this sort of work doesn't show off the skills you need for adminship; that requires getting your hands dirty. I'd therefore recommend that you take a break from automated editing (or maybe ration yourself to no more than 30 minutes a day) and have a go at doing things manually for a while. Wander round Wikipedia a bit; use the Noticeboard template to investigate some of the more behind-the-scenes areas that admins work in (ever visited the Fringe theories noticeboard, or discussed policy at the Village Pump?) and try to spend a bit more time - a lot more time, in fact - building content. You're interested in manure (who isn't)? Well, there's almost certainly enough information out there to get Manure to at least Good, possible even Featured, status. You want to write about Samsung? The Samsung article is in pretty ropey shape; you could be the one to fix it up. Basically, get involved as a person rather than as a robot; running AWP and STiki effectively doesn't tell the !voters at RFA who you actually are.
 * I know that's probably not what you wanted to hear, and I should add that I'm not saying you shouldn't run for RFA - you're perfectly entitled to do so, and it might even be a useful learning experience. I'm simply saying that I don't think it will close with you carrying a mop; you do good work here, but you haven't yet shown the community that you'd be a safe bet with the toolset. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

かわいい
ｏｋ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Ræper (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
You're very welcome, it was my pleasure. And thank you for the barnstar. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A change I made
Hello,

I have changed User:Yunshui/Adoption/Adoption page to add the noinclude for the "First task" paragraph so that does not get added to the Adoption page when substed. Please revert if you think this wasnt necessary. Also, includeonly would do the exact opposite - It will add the information to a substed version without actually displaying it on the Adoption page

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea; should have thought of it myself. Thanks Soni. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WHAT DID YOU DO?!

 * I don't actually know; what did I do? Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but LOL Kevin. MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 09:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi Yunshui,

I am looking for adoption to get thorough knowledge of WP policies, processes, procedures and features. I did put a adoption tag in my user page for the same and a helpful editor pointed me to you as a potential adopter. To give a brief about myself, I have been mostly a recent change patroller. Most of my 2000+ edits are anti vandal edits(sing StiKi + TW), with some small involvement in edits to retail software, Indian politics and some article cleanup (less than 100 lost somewhere in the volume of anti vandal edits). I am not looking at adminship now (may be later), just want to be well versed with what I am doing. I looked at your school and liked it. So here I am if you still have some time left out and have interest in adopting me. Thanks Amit (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Amit. Sure, why not? Set yourself up with an adoption school by completing the "Your first task" section of this page and we'll take it from there. Looking at your edit history, I'm guessing we can skip the anti-vandalism stuff, but hopefully you'll find the rest useful. Look forward to working with you. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  06:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT
Hi Yun.

So i've been ducking and diving IRC and one of the more experienced users reckons I could get a fine foot out of the dirt if I went into being adopted even though I have about 1,200 edits down (The situation is partly covered on my talk page), my question is, are you adopting right now? TOS has stated that while he hasn't officially announced it yet he is adopting so if you're not up for it it's fine and I won't hold it against you. I always respect those I work with (with you it was User:CardinalBadboy and the IP in case you've forgotten) and respect their side of the barrel. MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 21:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, why not? You generally do good work around the place, so I doubt you'll need much guidance; nevertheless, I'd be happy to adopt you for a bit. Visit my adoption school page and complete the section marked "Your first task", and we'll get started. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ User:Matticusmadness/Adoption School Let's get this barrel rolling my friend. MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 10:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

heads up: I've done the 'cleanup' section. Task 1 ready for marking! XD MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Guidance requested
Hi Yunshui. I was hoping you could review an issue involving Black Forest fire. The lead says, "It is the most destructive fire in the state's history". Because it is such a major claim, and only had one cite in the lead to verify it, I added several more to verify the content. However, Wilhelm meis removed all of my cites and left this edit summary, in which he claimed that they were not "the best quality sources" and that the body of the article already had "local news sources". With this edit, I re-added all but one of the sources and explained to the editor that the sources - the Chicago Sun-Times, New York Times, NBC News, and The Washington Times - are not only "quality" sources, but that they are necessary to verify the content. I also created a footnote to remove the clutter of having so many sources displayed together. Amazingly, the editor came back and yet again reverted my edits. He then started this thread on my talk page, to which I replied to address my edits and his objections. Please read it. Based on my response, I restored the cites and footnote. Because of Wilhelm's editing pattern in the article over the past few days, I'm a bit concerned that perhaps he may be trying to control the article and the editors participating in it. For example, see this edit summary he posted, in which he raged at an editor (over a statistic that obviously would increase anyway, which of course it already has). In any case, can you please provide your thoughts on the cites and footnote I added. If you feel they are improper or unnecessary, I will gladly accept whatever opinion and guidance you provide. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding that last diff, that was after about the fifth time in a couple days that different editors had come by just to change that number, which was cited from an article reporting the first 360 houses burned, without citing a new source (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5). When someone does that, they leave the article citing a source that does not support the claim being made in our article.  When several people in a row do it in the exact same place, it gets old.  I wouldn't say correcting the same error a few times implies WP:OWNERSHIP, but think what you will. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 00:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, inserting something new into an article and repeatedly making the same edit after it was reverted without taking the issue to the article talk page is called WP:Edit warring, and starting a thread with a third party with the obvious intention of recruiting them to your side of a dispute, without even notifying the involved editor, is also generally considered bad form. See WP:Canvassing.  In regards to the original issue of stacking a string of references after a single claim, I suspect you still have not read WP:CITECLUTTER.  Regarding the quality of the sources you added, I did not say they were not WP:Reliable sources, only that they are not of the same quality on this topic as the news sources in Colorado, who are on the scene and in direct communication with the Sheriff's office and the Fire Department, not getting their information second-hand.  I respect the New York Times as a reliable source generally, but I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest.  I was willing to work with you on this, as evidenced by the thread I opened on your talk page to engage you directly, but going about trying to recruit others against me does not show me a good faith intention on your part. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 01:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yunshui, please see these replies by Wilhelm on my talk page to the 10 points I made; this was after I clearly asked him to please continue any further discussion on the article's talk page, not my talk page. ("If you want to discuss this matter further, please do so on the article's talk page, not on my talk page.") You'll note that his final comment there, "Your move", seems to be an indication that Wilhelm looks at this issue as some type of hostile, personal battle, when in fact it's simply about a content issue. And Wilhelm, contrary to your claim that I was "trying to recruit others" (plural) against you, that's simply false, and my last sentence to Yunshui above verifies it. I said, "...can you please provide your thoughts on the cites and footnote I added. If you feel they are improper or unnecessary, I will gladly accept whatever opinion and guidance you provide". So no one is trying to influence anyone, nor are there "others" (plural) involved. In any case, I'll defer to Yunshui's judgment on this matter, as I originally indicated. If he says I'm wrong, then I'll most certainly accept that. By the way Wilhelm, your explanation for posting that raging edit summary in no way justifies that type of behavior. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Btw, this unusual belief Wilhelm keeps repeating - that "local" reliable sources are of better "quality" or are more valid than national or international reliable sources - really needs to be addressed. He even said above, "I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest", referring of course to the national/international news sources I used. If we were to accept this theory, then Wilhelm is essentially saying that only "local" sources should be used to verify content in articles about events. Or at least that local sources carry more weight or credibility than mainstream national or international sources. I have to say, this is the first time I've ever heard an editor questioning the "quality" of sources like the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, NBC News, Associated Press, etc., and stating outright that they're simply not as good as local news sources. I almost couldn't believe it the first time I heard him say it because it's so far out of the norm and so contrary to WP:RELIABLE. Apparently, Wilhelm doesn't understand that a news source doesn't need to be on-site at an event to be a high quality, accurate source of information. Further, how would Wilhelm even know if some of these national/international news organizations have reporters at the scene of the event? And of course many of them have associations with local news sources to cover major events for them. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's rather perplexing that Wilhelm is so passionately objecting to this one simple sentence, solely because of that little [a] footnote in the middle: "It is the most destructive fire in the state's history, surpassing the 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire that also began near Colorado Springs." (I'm not sure how to show the footnote cites as Notes here, so I'm showing them as References.)


 * One must wonder why Wilhelm objects so much to a mere five cites when there are many articles that use far more than five cites to verify significant claims. I can of course understand someone objecting to too few cites. But too many? Five? For such a major claim? It just doesn't seem to make any sense. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, if you care to comment in this help desk discussion regarding Black Forest fire, it would certainly be welcomed. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have been busy... This isn't really something I feel particularly qualified to adjudicate; it's outside my area of expertise and covers a fairly subjective disagreement on which (to the best of my knowledge) no "official", consensus-based position has ever been established. However, since you've asked here, I'll offer my opinion, for what it's worth.

As I understand it, you've basically got two position here. 76... is arguing that claims such as "best/largest/most destructive/hairiest in history" require substantial evidence from multiple reliable sources in order to be verifiable. Wilhelm is arguing that multiple citations for such a claim are excessive and distracting for the reader, and that local news sources constitute sufficiently reliable sources for local events. If either of you feel that I've drastically misrepresented your position here, please call me out on it; everything that follows is based on this reading of your statements.

Here's my take: I'm not convinced that this claim requires such a multiplicity of sources. According to the verifiability policy, the only claims which are specifically singled out as requiring multiple (emphasis in original) reliable sources are exceptional statements, such as those listed at WP:REDFLAG. The claim the the fire is the "most destructive in the state's history" is not a controversial one; any reliable source which supports this statement with figures, such as the DeLuca one above, can demonstrate this as a fact (more people were evacuated, it destroyed more homes etc.). As such, it doesn't qualify as exceptional, so it doesn't need multiple sources for support. Precisely because the information can be verified in multiple reliable sources, it doesn't need to be.

That said, I would be in favour of including a source for this claim from one of the national newspapers. The reasoning behind this is that such papers have an established and widely-known reputation for editoral oversight and factual accuracy. Local news sources, whilst more immediately connected to the events, do not have the same cachet - they are not necessarily recognised for their reliability. Much of their information may indeed be first-hand - but equally, it may not have received the same editorial fact-checking as The New York Times' second-hand information. That's not to disparage local news sources (which have an important place in the article), merely to say that if a reader here in the UK were to see a story from the Midtownsville Observer, they would ascribe less authority to its claims than to those of the NYT. For a facts-and-figures statement like this, you want the most authoritative source possible, and that's going to be a national, rather than a local, paper.

So there you are; in my humble opinion, you're both wrong - or you're both right. My suggestion for moving forward with this would be to include a single national news source for the "most destructive" claim, which will avoid citation clutter but also provide a highly-regarded source for the statement. Whether you choose to do this is up to you guys; if you don't, I highly recommend you head for the WP:DRN, since tempers are clearly starting to flare a bit. Try and remember that both of you are doing what you think is right for Wikipedia; you may disagree on what that actually is, but ultimately, you're both shooting for the same goal. Best of luck. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds very reasonable. You mean something like this? (Denver Post, local NBC affiliate and Washington Times) Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 12:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At a glance, KOAA looks like something I'd classify as a local news source (albeit a long established one). I'd be inclined to pick something like the NYT or NBC sources listed above, which are internationally recognised. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That was why I picked those: one local news station, one in-state (but more widely known) source and one out-of-state nationally known source. I would be just as happy with the NYT article as the WT one though. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 13:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I clearly had the wrong glasses on; I missed the fact that you'd left the Denver Post and Washington Times references in. Yeah, that seems fine to me then, though I'd wait for 76...'s input before assuming that's the end of the discussion. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yunshui, thank you so much for your very fair and thoughtful consideration of this matter. It's greatly appreciated. I accept your determination that the claim does not qualify as "exceptional" and, therefore, that fewer sources are needed to verify it. However, I still consider it at least a "significant" claim, even though I now agree that it doesn't reach the heights of being "exceptional". Any time you say in an article that something is the biggest/worst in history, it's significant. Therefore, the local news station (KOAA) should not be included to verify that statement. In the U.S., local TV news has the least credibility of all available mainstream news sources because of oversight and fact-checking concerns, particularly with regard to stories that are receiving national and international media coverage. As you clearly indicated, local news sources do not have the same credibility as a mainstream national newspaper or network. I thought you summed it up beautifully when you said, "For a facts-and-figures statement like this, you want the most authoritative source possible, and that's going to be a national, rather than a local" source. I totally agree, and that's what I've been saying all along.  I am, however, a bit confused as to precisely how many sources you are recommending be used. In my reading of your comments, it sounds to me like you are suggesting just one source, and that it should be a national one. You said, "My suggestion for moving forward with this would be to include a single national news source for the "most destructive" claim". Yet, Wilhelm responded to that advice by showing you an example - his revert of me, no less - that uses three sources: one local (KOAA), one state (Denver Post), and one national (The Washington Times). He has been pushing very hard all along to get that KOAA source in there. So, Yunshui, if you are recommending using just one source, I'd suggest the New York Times story, which clearly verifies the claim ("As fire crews fought Friday to contain the most destructive wildfire in Colorado’s history") and has high credibility worldwide. But if you are recommending up to three, then I'd be fine with the New York Times story; NBC News, which says, "the Black Forest fire is now the most destructive on record in the state"; and the Denver Post, which says, "what is now Colorado's most destructive wildfire ever". So, a top-level national newspaper, a top-level national TV news outlet, and Colorado's biggest newspaper, all which verify that very specific "most destructive ever" claim.  After we decide how many sources to use, and which ones, I'll be happy to revert my prior edit and change it to the agreed-upon solution. Again, thank you very much for your excellent handling of this matter so that we can reach a positive resolution. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

While we're waiting for a final determination on this matter, I just wanted to add one comment regarding Wilhelm's repeated theory that local news sources are of higher quality than national news sources when covering local stories. In his first revert of my sources, he said, "these are not the best quality sources". And in this discussion, he said, "Regarding the quality of the sources you added, I did not say they were not WP:Reliable sources, only that they are not of the same quality on this topic as the news sources in Colorado, who are on the scene and in direct communication with the Sheriff's office and the Fire Department, not getting their information second-hand." As Yunshui pointed out, this belief is incorrect. First, many national news outlets have been "on the scene" of this fire, as they typically are with any story receiving significant national or international coverage. In fact, all of the major broadcast news outlets in the U.S. (ABC, CBS, NBC), and others, have had their reporters in Colorado covering this event. And cable networks, such as CNN and FOX, have direct affiliations with local stations in every major TV market so that they can have reporters on the scene to cover big stories. So when you say, "I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest", how would you possibly be able to remember seeing anyone there if you're not even in the U.S., let alone the Black Forest? I am in the U.S. and have watched the coverage on the various TV networks, all which have had their reporters directly at the scene. And contrary to your implication otherwise, all of the national news organizations do have "direct communication with the Sheriff's office and the Fire Department", just like the local outlets. Having said that, a media outlet does not need to be "on scene" to have great communication with the officials handling the event. In fact, law enforcement and fire agencies are perhaps more inclined to provide information to national outlets than some local ones because of their prominence and vastly larger audiences. While there are some local news outlets that provide great coverage on major stories, the national mainstream ones have a much better reputation for oversight and reliability, and thus are generally seen by people around the world as more credible and authoritative. As well, many local outlets simply do not have the resources that national news organizations do to cover stories, even if they're happening right around the corner. I will say, though, that major metropolitan daily newspapers (in any city) do have a reputation for providing superior coverage in local events like this. So the Denver Post is indeed viewed as a highly credible source. Local TV stations, in general, do not even come close to having the same level of credibility and are clearly inferior in most cases. The bottom line is that your claim that national sources are inferior to local sources when covering local events is simply untrue. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, let me clear up a couple minor points. I'm not sure where exactly this IP editor thinks I am, but I am currently in northern Colorado Springs, just a few miles from the evacuation zones.  Also, I would say "pushing very hard all along to get that KOAA source in there" is a gross overstatement of my actions in regard to the KOAA citation.  It was already in the article (twice) when this IP editor came along and started adding these other sources to the article (diff of IP's first edit to the article - in this revision the Collier article from KOAA is ref #14).  The IP editor made changes that got reverted.  I haven't been pushing to include the KOAA source; it had already been included; he has been pushing to get these other sources included, so let's just be straight on who's pushing what.  If I were trying to add new content/sources to the article and getting reverted, I would have gone to the article talk page.  As it is, it would be a bit awkward for me to post to the talk page that someone else wants to add something just so I can oppose it.  That would seem a bit contrarious, I would think.  Be that as it may, I don't have a problem with including the NYT or WT article alongside the Denver Post, though I don't see what fresh information or perspective this particular article from the Chicago Sun-Times adds.  I also don't see any compelling reason to exclude the KOAA article, but I also don't have any particular problem with including the national NBC article.  At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the national NBC News web site gets its information from their local affiliate, so they're "six of one, half dozen of the other" as far as reliability goes.  If we want to include DP, NYT and one other (KOAA/NBC or national NBC), that's fine by me.  I'll defer to Yunshui's judgment on which is more appropriate here, as it looks like we have at least reached agreement on including DP and NYT. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 22:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, all of a sudden, Wilhelm happens to be at or near the scene of this event. Hmm. Well, if that is the case, then apparently he failed to see all of the reporters from the national news organizations who have covered the fire. Remember, he said, "I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest". ;) His claims about local sources vs. national ones clearly speak for themselves. So, yes, I am "pushing" for strong, mainstream national sources and not less credible local ones (like KOAA) as you've repeatedly done. "Pushing" is not perjorative if one is pushing for something proper. Perhaps Wilhelm should re-read Yunshui's comments about Wilhelm's flawed theory about local vs. national sourcing. And when Wilhelm said the "IP editor made changes that got reverted", the little part he left out is that he is the editor who reverted those sources (twice); no other editor did that, which is very telling in itself. And while NBC, like any major network, has local TV news affiliates around the country with whom they work, they, along with ABC and CBS, had their own reporters in Colorado covering the story. And if Wilhelm is so pro-local news over national news, then why would he downplay national news outlets who, as he now admits, gets some of their information from local affiliates? I'm not sure if Wilhelm works for KOAA or has some other connection to them, but they clearly aren't seen around the world as being more credible or authoritative as a major national news organization or a major metropolitan daily like the Denver Post. No local TV station has that type of credibility when it pertains to a big story being covered nationally or globally. I've already stated the three sources that would be acceptable to me - NY Times, NBC News, and Denver Post - assuming Yunshui is in fact saying that more than one source is needed. If two, then drop the NBC News one. But if he's saying that only one is needed, then it should be the New York Times story, which will be seen as credible and authoritative worldwide to verify the "most destructive" claim. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And now I'm suddenly a WP:COI account? You really need a new hobby. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I say you are a COI account? Not quite. I don't know if you have a COI, which is why I said, "I'm not sure". But, yes, you are suddenly claiming to be at/near the scene of the Black Forest fire and have advocated fervently to keep the KOAA source, so one would naturally wonder if you perhaps have a connection to them. Interestingly, though, you didn't deny it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not suddenly in Colorado Springs, I've been here for over a year. I have not advocated anything fervently regarding the KOAA source (though I did point out that it was already in the article before you sought to remove it).  Note, I said above that I leave it to Yunshui's judgment whether it stays or goes.  That's not an act of a COI account.  I didn't expressly deny a COI because the idea is truly laughable.  Even a passing glance at my edit history demonstrates that this is not a COI account, so I have a hard time taking the suggestion seriously enough to even respond to it, but  for the record, no, I do not have any connection whatsoever to KOAA, NBC or any of their affiliates (nor any of their competitors).  In fact, I am about through wasting my time on this.  It has been entertaining, though, so thank you. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 00:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it is your claim of being " just a few miles from the evacuation zones" that is remarkably sudden. It is quite curious that you never mentioned it until after I questioned your humorous statement, "I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest". And then when I pondered a possbile association to the weak news source for which you've repeatedly advocated, you didn't deny any connection. So are you saying that you have been "on-scene in Black Forest" with the media covering the fire? This is getting more intriguing by the moment. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's not go hunting for ulterior motives where there aren't any to be found... People are interested in stuff that happens in their local area, and it's not uncommon for editors to work on articles about places they live or events they witnessed. It's no big deal. Certainly I don't see anything to suggest that Wilhelm is secretly a corporate schill for KOAA, trying to surreptitiously slip them into Wikipedia by the back door. If he's in Colorado Springs, then KOAA is his local news station, and it's an obvious choice of source for someone local - they would see more coverage from KOAA than from any other media outlet. An experienced editor shouldn't need me to point this out, but for those watching at home: Please Assume Good Faith. Back to the sources. In my personal opinion, as I said above, one national source would be acceptable. I'd suggest picking one that says the current fire was both the most destructive and that it was bigger than Waldo Canyon, putting it at the end of the sentence rather than in the middle (so that it can verify both claims), and then moving on to other things. If you pressed me to choose which source that should be, I'd probably opt for the Denver Post article. That's pretty much the entirety of my take on the matter. You can choose to take it or leave it; I'm just another editor, not some guru doling out pithy wisdom from my exalted seat on the mountain... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First you said one national source would be acceptable, then you said you would choose the Denver Post as the one. But that is a local source, not national. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Shows what I know about US newspapers, doesn't it? I sort of assumed it would be a major daily since it was listed above alongside the New York Times and the Washington Post. According to the Denver Post article it's the twelfth most widely read daily in the States, which I suppose puts it up there with the big nationals, but I'm not precious about it - the NBC source would do just as well, if you prefer it. I'd steer clear of the Washington Post one (looks like an op-ed) and the Chicago Sun-Times (minimal coverage of the story), but beyond that, I don't really have any particular favourite. The only reason I'm not suggesting the NYT straight off is that it doesn't cover the Waldo Canyon fire, and therefore doesn't fulfill the same "two birds, one stone" function for the disputed sentence. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a major (metropolitan) daily, but it's still a local newspaper. It's the biggest newspaper in Colorado and has a very good reputation. But it's not a national paper; it just happens to be covering a global story in this case. And for the record, I was just giving Wilhelm a hard time about KOAA because he unnecessarily made a huge deal over nothing. I mean, think about it... he's totally fine with three sources, yet passionately objects to five. So over two extra cites, he reverted me - without discussing it - and then used the fallacious argument the sources were cluttering the page, even after I footnoted it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But you can see the inherent irony in making a huge deal over somebody else making a huge deal over nothing, right? Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  07:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Had he not reverted in the first place, we wouldn't be here. When someone removes solid sources that verify a big claim and does so without even talking to the editor first, he typically will initiate a battle. And you'll note that not one other editor has reverted or even questioned any of those cites since I put them there. Only Wilhelm. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cites placed. Wilhelm used the Denver Post and New York Times, but I replaced NYT with NBC News because NYT did not verify both parts of the sentence. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wagner
is Wagner SMF 2.0.4 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem immidately apparent, but I'll stick it into SPI anyway. You, on the other hand, are much more obvious. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This guy loves coming out with new socks every month huh? CU's must love people like Wagner and PickManBothLol (See the first archive, PMBL has one of the biggest archives i've ever seen though.)


 * Don't quit your day job of entertaining us Wagner. XD MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 21:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello
I regret Sir. I shall be more careful. Sorry  Fai  zan  14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 at my talk. Fai  zan  14:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yunshui, just as I came to your talk, I remembered an edit notice. Do you know a talk page having the notice of "Did I revert your edit?" Please check this page first. Actually I use STiki and Huggle frequently, and my talk page may need such notice, to guide the fellow editors. Just like you have the one for deletion of articles. Fai  zan  14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a preexisting one, but you can always make your own. Just create a new page called (for example) User:Faizan/Why I reverted your edit and list the most common reasons why you revert. Then create an editnotice for your talkpage - open your talkpage in Edit mode, select the small link labelled "Page notice" (near the top right) and then add the banner message that you'd like people to see when they leave you a message, linking to your new page. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok Yunshui. Thanks. A user has also commented on the RfC here. He was involved in the conflict, and has commented in the RfC too. Can involved users comment on RfC too? Fai  zan  08:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course they can - that's largely the point: to formalise the arguments that have been taking place, and get input from other editors. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi, I noticed you were adopting users. If you'd be willing, would you adopt me? I'd like to learn how to keep my edits constructive and helpful. Makkapakka3ROBLOX (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Makkapakka3ROBLOX (or GreenCKE, as I imagine you'll be called in the very near future). I don't see why not. Wikipedia hasn't changed much since 2009, but it wouldn't hurt you to have a bit of a crash course in how things should be done. Visit this page and follow the instructions under "Your first task"; that will set up your adoption school. Let me know once you've done so and we'll take it from there. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright! I've done that. I don't really understand what I just did, though. GreenCKE (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm here. Basically, when you enclose something in double curly brackets, Wikipedia's software will attempt to do the following:
 * Treat the bracketed text as a page title
 * Copy the contents (the code) of that page
 * Display that code instead of the bracketed text
 * This is called transclusion. It usually applies to templates - for example, when you want to request an unblock, rather than typing out all of the code needed to create the text box, list your userpage in the appropriate categories, format the text and so-on, you simply use  - this takes the information at Template:Unblock and copies it across for you.
 * What you did was something slightly different, called substitution; this works in the same way, except that instead of just displaying the code, the software actually deletes the bracketed text and replaces it entirely. Basically, it's the same as copy-and-pasting the content of a page. A common example of this is a vandalism warning template: typing  will show you the text from Template:Uw-vandal1, but that text will also appear if you view the page in Edit mode as well.
 * Have a look at User:Yunshui/Templates for beginners for a more extensive overview. And well done on completing your first task! Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The substitution was all I didn't understand. I copied a little template and suddenly the page was 35 kilobytes. I think I have the full hang of templates now. GreenCKE (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It's a minor distinction, but an important one - for example, had you simply transcluded the page all you would have seen in the edit window would have been this:
 * which would have made answering the questions rather difficult... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done with the cleanup task now. GreenCKE (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The markup module has also been done with.  Green CKE  00:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The markup module has also been done with.  Green CKE  00:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Gregorian Bivolaru
hi. can you please speed up a process of protection? the guru was convicted and they try to make him looking persecuted. with no proof, they come with info from his site. Bivolaru had the right to defend himself but instead he ran to Sweden granting political refugee. he didn't show up at his trials for years. not the decision is definitive. Valosu (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks as though I'm late to the party - it's already been dealt with. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  21:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Something to make you laugh
Well, it made me laugh anyway. Read this comment that 71.251.170.71 posted on my talk page. My reply will explain my confusion. Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: I think a very nice admin (Fuhghettaboutit) solved the mystery. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin close on Dianne de Las Casas?
I'm not entirely comfortable with this one being a non-admin closure as far as AfD goes. I did withdraw, but there were a lot of concerns over the sources and there wasn't an overwhelming support to keep the article as a whole. I think that this would have been better if it'd gone over another week or been closed by an admin rather than a non-admin user closing it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have left  a comment  on  this at  User talk:King jakob c 2. I  don't  think  it needs to  go  any  further. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the actual outcome, and would have closed it the same way myself, I do concur that this was not appropriate for an NAC. That said, I'm sure the messages you both left for King jakob will suffice to resolve the problem, and I don't think it's necessary to go through the process of undoing the close only to redo it immediately afterwards. In the grand scheme of things, it's not going to cause anyone any headaches, so at this point, I don't see that any further action needs to be taken. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  06:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page H.Narayan Murthy and Image. Restore Please
Hi, The photograph (File:Dr Hosur Narayan Murthy.jpg) and content on website (www.srikanta-sastri.org) are my own. Putting all of them on an encyclopedia like wikipedia gives it a wider audience and deserving one too. This was a legendary psychoanalyst, thinker and philosopher who did his PhD at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium and knew people like Arthur Koestler. He was a professor Excelsior. There were NO copied lines from any website. The article will be well written on Wikipedia. Believe me Yunshui, Wikipedia deserves this addition. The copyright to the content on the said website is entirely mine. The Website can be looked up on "whois". It is registered to me. Please, Please In this regard I request you to restore the deleted page and image. The World deserves to know about him. I fully respect the morality and values to which WIKIPEDIA stands up ....Please give the article another chance my friend. I promise it's not a frivolous shoddy copied work. Thanks Dr Bhagirath bugs2beatles 10:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Bugs2beatles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugs2beatles (talk • contribs)
 * Your site clearly states "©  All Rights Reserved 2010-13" at the bottom of every page. Since Wikipedia's content is freely available under a CC-BY-SA licence, that means that any text added from another source must already be available under the same licence. The text you added is not, and therefore cannot be hosted here.
 * You can donate this material to Wikipedia by posting your website under CC-BY-SA terms, or by following the instructions at donating copyrighted materials. However, until the content on your site is legally available for anyone to reuse, share, alter or sell, anywhere in the world, it cannot be used on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have corrected this discrepancy. As there is precious little on my website from which anyone can make any real money, I am more than pleased to share the wealth of knowledge there under the creative commons license with the world and wikipedia. The website banner (bottom of every page) now reads and sets free every word and image for free and creative use. Please confirm the same. Can you please please please please resurrect my page and reverse the image deletion so that I can get on with my work. Please ....... -Dr Bhagirath bugs2beatles 10:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Bugs2beatles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugs2beatles (talk • contribs)


 * It's done: H. Narayan Murthy. I'll take down the A7 tag as well, I think there's enough of a claim to notability to avoid deletion under that criterion. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a ton Yunshui. -Dr Bhagirath bugs2beatles 10:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Bugs2beatles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugs2beatles (talk • contribs)

Hi, Sure. Yes, As a matter of fact, much of his works remain in old books and journals. I have been searching online, in vain. But I promise that I have not concocted a single detail. Now that you say, even offline books can be quoted, I shall do so. Thanks for your guidance. -Dr Bhagirath --bugs2beatles 13:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugs2beatles (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, offline sources are fine; see WP:OFFLINE. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on 2 haze articles
Hi Yunshui, you are invited to participate in this discussion. Please note that participation is optional and the discussion closes at 12:15am sharp tonight (GMT+8). Cheers. -- Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 14:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Al-Khalid tank
Well, I don't recognize the gender of this "Yunshui". That's why I refer to you as a male. Please inform me if I am wrong. I wanted to get the article of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him, to Featured article status. But as a prerequisite to it, and for preparations for the main operation, I started tuning the article of Al-Khalid with an aim of making it a good article. I have tried my best there, can you have a glimpse at the article? Any recommendations? Flaws? Suggestions? Mistakes? Regards. Fai zan  12:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am indeed of the gentlemanly persuasion, so no worries there. As far as the Al-Khalid tank article goes, I think it will take me more time than I currently have to review it - it's pretty extensive! At a cursory glance it looks pretty good, but I'll need to take the time to read it in detail, check the sources, make sure the images are okay and so on. If you don't mind waiting for a bit, I'll try to get around to it tomorrow morning, when I've got a decent block of wikitime to play with. That said, I reckon there would be no harm in sticking it up for GA review as it is - at worst, you'll get some suggestions for improvement and it might well be good enough to pass already. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. I will try more there. No worries for the delay, whenever you give a glance, I will be on here. Hoping for the best.  Fai  zan  12:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, using the Good Article criteria as a guide, here are my thoughts: Hope that's useful. It's not far off GA, just needs a bit of tweaking. Let me know if you want to take me up on my offer of a copyedit. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Writing: Generally a pretty high standard of prose, although there are a few grammatical errors and inconsistent stylistic choices; it could use a copy-edit by a native English speaker. I'd be happy to do this, if you'd like. The technical stuff is pretty tedious to wade through for a lay reader, but I appreciate that it's all but impossible to write engaging prose about such things. The lead needs a little bit of work; at present it contains some information that isn't covered elsewhere (like the information about Peru) and given the extent of the technical specs later in the article, these should be more thoroughly summarised in the lead.
 * Sourcing: The "Development" section is in serious need of sources for its first four paragraphs (some of the sources currently used in the lead might suffice). There are also a few unsourced paragraphs in the "Design" section. Most of the sources are good, but several (e.g., , ) do not meet the standards of WP:RS and should be removed or replaced.
 * Coverage: The technical sections are very thorough (and for a non-military chap like myself, quite a slog to read through!). I'd be interested to see some history of the tank's use in combat (if it has been used at all), but beyond this, I can't think of anything that's missing.
 * Neutrality: Mostly pretty good, although there are very occasional hyperbolic flourishes that need to be trimmed (words like "great" and "legendary" appear every time Khalid bin al-Walid gets a mention, for example).
 * Stability: I can't see any major edit wars brewing, looks okay on this front.
 * Images: File:Al-Khalid MBT.jpg is currently at WP:PUF, discussing possible licence fraud by the original source. File:Bangladesh Army MBT-2000 tanks.jpg doesn't appear to exist at the page it is supposedly sourced from, and there's no evidence that it's actually available under CC-BY-SA. These two are going to scupper a GA unless they are fixed.
 * Very nice guide Yunshui. I am thankful to you, and I will start work on it very soon. I was a bit busy due to Friday, and Anti-Vandalism tasks, I will catch up. Thanking you. Fai  zan  11:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, I will not dislike if you aid me by editing it. Your offer of copy-editing accepted. Fai  zan  07:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)