User talk:Yunshui/Archive 6

BoodyBooty
Oh just block indef him already. He's a nationalistic editor who's only here to push his own personal propaganda. Why he chose to take out his beliefs on the Amazing Race season pages is beyond me. Also, the fact he assumes I'm Japanese is hilarious.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good call, actually. After that post on your talkpage I've slapped a 48hr block on him; should have just done so earlier and saved you having to endure that little tirade. Sorry. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've clarified myself above. He is not here to edit constructively and in 2 days he's just going to be angrier.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment on your page Ryulong but since you moved it here - my apologies for reverting your talkpage when he added that, I had just finished commenting and was away from the comp for a few mins when it appeared and just hit undo when I got back. I was off to drop him a warning but Yunshui got there first. I have to say though, he cannot actually be from HK can he? I dont know anyone from there who uses 'Hongkongese' or wording to that effect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ryulong. Yes, possibly. But one can hope that he'll realise that Wikipedia isn't willing to tolerate these sort of edits, and either start doing something constructive or give up and go away. I admit, your scenario seems more likely... I will up his block to an indef per your request, with the proviso that I'm willing to consider a proper unblock request if one is forthcoming. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yunshui, I doubt that someone who tries to change the flags on The Amazing Race pages because of their political beliefs that Hong Kong should revert to British rule or become its own sovereign nation, and believes that means anything because of it, is going to be a nuisance on this project for some time to come. I find it weird he prefers the crown colony flag over an independent one, though. And Only in death, it is weird that he's decided to use "Hongkongese", considering they tend not to use that phrase themselves.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, could you please take a look at this IP user's contributions and block log. I'm thinking about using mass rollback (given that there are so many and the history) but I just wanted to get an admin's opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked. I see you already mass rollbacked them; I approve and would have done so myself if you hadn't gotten there first. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Acroterion got in first. I had checked a few and found some to be okay, but I was just about to do it when I noticed that it had already been done. I was a little too slow :). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that may be someone to watch in a month, because right after their 1 week block expired they started the same thing again. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just having a look at the history, it seems they do some good ones to start with the move onto doing it every article they see. Hopefully they'll lose interest after a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will be keeping an eye on that address once the block expires - hopefully the person behind it will have found something better to do with their time by then. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Musicfreak7676
Hi, I am sorry for the confusion but I did not just attack Musicfreak. Every little thing I say he takes as an attack, the message I just sent to him that he just deleted was this "Oh Musicfreak, would you give it a rest already. I don't understand why you continue to edit Eileen Davidson's last airdate. Do you have any sources that give you info like I do? Do you even read the magazine CBS Soaps in Depth? It says right in there on page 13, that Davidson's last air date as Ashley is Friday August 3. Not to mention, the countless number of previews that have also mentioned that August 3 is the last day Davidson is on Y&R. So please do not discredit me when my information is absolutely correct. Colton hockey11 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)"

I do not understand how that is an attack, I am just giving him information that he does not know. He then goes to delete my comment to make it look like I am leaving him a personal attack, which is not what I am doing. Colton hockey11 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that last was somewhat blunt, but not a personal attack. I warned you for "Listen here, asshole", which is pretty unambiguous. I don't have time at present to research the sources you're warring over, but I'd strongly recommend that both you and Musicfreak step back from the article for a short while, at least until I or another uninvolved editor have had a chance to take a look. If no-one else gets there first, I guarantee it'll be my first priority tomorrow. In the meantime, you may want to consider dispute resolution as a possible route. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your professionalism Yunshui. Hope this issue gets rectified soon. Colton hockey11 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to restrict myself here to edits on List of The Young and the Restless cast members, since that's the page where the two of you have had the most interaction. The main bone of contention here appears to be the "Comings and Goings" section, where Colton hockey11 has been adding Eric Braeden per this source and giving Eileen Davidson's departure date as August 3rd (using this as a source). Colton hockey11 further adds here and here that he has personal knowledge of these facts due to (I'm guessing from context) an early release subscription to Soaps in Depth. Musicfreak7676 has persistently reverted these edits, pointing out that fansites/forums are not considered reliable sources and that Colton hockey11 has removed sources from the article.


 * Cast lists in soaps change all the time, and so it's important to try to reflect the most up-to-date information. Colton hockey11 is to be commended for trying to keep the article current. However, any information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable through reference to reliable sources, and that's where these edits seem to be problematic. Although I have no doubt that Colton hockey11 is telling the truth about the information he has access to, it's impossible for me to verify it, since the magazine mentioned isn't apparently available until next week. Whilst offline sources are totally acceptable (so long as they meet the other requirements at the reliable sources guideline, which I believe SiD does), they should, in theory at least, be somehow available to the general public. I would therefore suggest holding off on adding this information until the magazine is published and can be correctly cited in the article - the world won't end if the article is slightly inaccurate for a few days.


 * Fansites and forum postings are not considered reliable, and should not be used for the purposes of verification. Soapzone's message board falls into this category, and Musicfreak7676 was right to challenge it. SoapCentral looks more promising as a source; it appears (after an admittedly cursory check) to have some level of editorial oversight, and may be usable for non-contentious material. Soaps in Depth, when available, looks to be be fine.


 * Colton hockey11; I'd advise a couple of things. Firstly, you need to start using edit summaries. They enable other editors to understand the reasoning behind your edits, and make it less likely that your work will be casually reverted. (Not coincidentally, they also would have made my job a lot easier in reviewing this situation!) You also need to accept that unsourced or poorly-sourced material can and probably will be challenged, and act less defensively when it is. I appreciate that you're trying to make the encyclopedia better, but you need to make more constructive arguments for the retention of your material, rather than simply claiming to be in the right. It might also be wise, if such issues arise in the future, to start a discussion on the article's talkpage, rather than the other user's; that way more editors can get involved and the conversation is slightly more transparent.


 * Musicfreak7676, you need to assume a little more good faith before reverting and reporting to AIV. The lack of edit summaries and aggressive messages on your talk page might admittedly make that difficult, but try to see past such things to the other editor's actual motivation. Stay cool, and try to respond to the actual edits, rather than the person behind them.


 * As far as the page in question is concerned, I can't see any immediate reason not to accept the addition of Eric Braeden, but it might be sensible to leave Eileen Davidson's departure date as TBA until a reliable and verifiable source can be produced. I hope this huge wall o' text is in some way helpful, and I'm open to discussing the matter further with you both if you'd like. Regards, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking into this Yunshui. And yes I have an early subscription to SiD, so I get my information from there, and I also have sources that contact me whenever an immediate change is in the near future. I will do my very best to use edit summaries from now on, and look for actual articles, rather then using my source/SiD, when it is not available to the public. Colton hockey11 (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yunshui, I never made any of my comments towards said user personal in anyway. I always keep things directed to the topics at hand when I leave the WP:WARN messages on people's talk pages. I would have had zero issue with Colton's exits if (s)he had just sourced it from the magazine and/or website in the correct format. Erasing a TBA with sources for a date with no sources isn't acceptable. I don't see how I didn't keep it directed on the topic.  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 16:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yunshui, after you said it was perfectly fine having Eric Braeden in the Comings and Goings section with an Exit Date as TBA, based on SoapCentral. Musicfreak once again went around your authority and undid my post stating that it wasn't a reliable source. Every little thing I do, this guy makes sure he is there right away to undo it. Which I don't understand considering you said that Eric Braeden leaving Y&R was allowed in the Comings and Goings section. Thank you.Colton hockey11 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because WP:SOAPS have said it isn't a third-party, valid source. It's a "Scoop" anyway, it isn't a news breaking that anyone else has reported. And I did not see this posting until after I had done the edit. SC has been deemed by the community as not fitting WP:RELIABLE. So I'm going off of their consensus of the group. Also it says VICTOR leaves town, not ERIC BRADEN. Victor leaving town could be him going to another country on Newman business. Hence why scoops aren't reliable nor creditable as such. Soaps In Depth confirmed EB is in contract until the end of the year and is not due to go into negotiations until the end of the year.  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 19:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello chaps, sorry to have missed most of this conversation. Regarding SoapCentral as a source, I did only have a short look at it, and if WikiProject Soap Operas deems it unreliable then their opinion definitely trumps my own. That said, the only discussion of it I could find there was this one from four years ago, which seemed to tentatively conclude that it was reliable. Musicfreak7676 is a highly experienced editor in this area and so I don't doubt for a moment that I've simply missed the appropriate discussion of SoapCentral; if you could link it for me that would be handy, just to clarify it for Colton hockey11.
 * Incidentally, I'd also just like to briefly dispel the idea that Musicfreak7676 edited "around my authority": I have no more authority here than anyone else, and I can't dictate whether something is "allowed" in a particular section or not. I'm just trying to offer a neutral third party opinion to help the two of you resolve the issue. You can both take or leave my suggestions as you see fit. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly Yunshui. I wouldn't have reverted it if WP:SOAPS had deemed acceptable. I, myself, am a fan of Soap Central, however, per the guidelines and consensus reached at the WikiProject, Soap Central is not deem able on cast lists. Several editors prior to me who've held much more history within the WikiProject have also reminded me that said website is not admissible on cast lists.  Musicfreak7676  my talk page!

Ok, this guy is getting absolutely ridiculous. Y&R airs an episode ahead in Canada, where does it say under any circumstances on Wikipedia that I cannot update a page a day ahead? Just curious, because Nikki Newman and Jack Abbott married on the episode of Y&R today in Canada, however it does not air until tomorrow afternoon in the U.S.A., and just to clarify, I would like to be shown where it says this cannot be updated until aired in the U.S.A. Once again, as soon as I updated Nikki's page to reflect the marriage to Jack, who do you think was right up my rear to undo it less than one minute after the fact. Colton hockey11 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Colton, Y&R is a US soap, not a Canadian. So updating the information violates WP:CRYSTALBALL based on US airdates. If it were a Canadian soap, it'd be OK to update. I only undid it because I checked "My Watchlist" and it showed me changes had been done. It had nothing to do with you. If somebody else made the edit, I would've undone it for the same reason. You're making this a personal vendetta when I've never made it personal until you personally attacked me on my wall. I've kept everything Wiki-related. This is how it's been getting done for years, and now you think you can just come in and do as you please, and that is not how Wikipedia works.  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 23:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is a US soap, but I do not see anything that says it cannot be updated based on the fact that the episode had aired. I should see no reason now as to not editing Davidson's Comings and Goings section for her exit on August 3 (for US viewers) considering today in Canada was her last episode, as a heartfelt goodbye was given as she left for New York. Colton hockey11 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Colton you aren't sourcing anything. You just add a date and think that's okay. You need to correctly source it, whether it's a magazine or a book or a website. And updating Nikki's marriage before the US episode airs violates WP:CRYSTALBALL which you should take a look at. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, which in short means it doesn't tell the future. Nikki and Jack's marriage has not aired in the US yet, where the series is set and is centered. You can't update until hatafter the marriage airs on the east coast of US.  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 23:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Musicfreak7676, would you be able to link to a discussion or policy that shows that information on US soap plots can only be sourced to their US showing? I'm not aware of such a consensus, and it seems contrary to the usual requirements of WP:V. If the show has aired in Canada prior to its US release, then the plotline has been made publicly available, and therefore the Canadian release seems as though it should be perfectly adequate as a source for plot points. It's not a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue, since the show has already aired. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That is precisely what I thought. Thank you for clearing it up Yunshui. Colton hockey11 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've been told by other editors who have years more experience than I have, the edits cannot be made since the soap is not a Canadian soap. It goes based on the country it origins. That's what has been told to me by several editors, who got their claims from WP:SOAPS and have been doing such for years.  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 17:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please show me any article on Wikipedia that states something cannot be edited when aired in Canada? This is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue, because the show has aired. I can understand if it was a week in advance, but it is not, as Yunshui has clarified. Colton hockey11 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Uttarakhand
This article is currently a good article nominee.Please review this.I'm pretty sure it gonna be failed once again.Because there is lots of issues like dead links, unappropriated references,POV etc.Though i've notified nominating user that not to nominate that without solving issues.Please check once.Thank You - 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣  20:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

UAA
You need to check for deleted edits. A few of the ones you suggested had no edits, had some but they were deleted. Secretlondon (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Good morning !
Remember sir, i beg if you can tell me role of this which is mentioned at left bottom of this page, which i uploaded few weeks back to use in way i had already told to you. Good day Alcides86 (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
Hey Yunshui! Would you mind taking User:Guðsþegn? Thanks, Electric Catfish 23:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC).
 * I'd be glad to, but I'm on holiday at present and have only very limited internet access (this response is pretty much the only thing I'm likely to have time to post today). If Guðsþegn's cool with waiting a couple of weeks to kick off, then all's good; otherwise, he might be better off with someone more readily available. I'll be back properly in September. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll be taking. We'll give you someone in September. Enjoy your Holiday! Electric Catfish 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Help from u to deal with the behavior ofan other editor
Dear Yunshui! I need help from you with the behavior of another wikipedia editor. Santurman is steering into an edit conflict without improving the article itself, just claiming his version to be "written in stone". He even deleted the "multi issues with this article, refimprove etc.. tags"! See Santur and it's edit history. Many article statements are clearly disprooven by quick search and multiple ext. sources.

Thank you! 94.139.26.139 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)--
 * Please go to WP: DRN. Best, Electric Catfish 22:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC).
 * An old stalker of this page I see that the stuff removed by Santurman was unsourced. Please find WP:RS for the content you want to add up. I tried to find but I didn't get source to things you added thus few facts may be WP:OR. If the facts are true, there should be some source that you are using to add the content, thus please see WP:Citing sources. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser TSU 06:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter
Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Inactive Student
I hope you're having a nice vacation, but your enrollee seems to be inactive. I would remove e from the status page and let them know that if they become reactive they will need to re-enroll. At your discretion, but my suggestion. Dan653 (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Once I have added reliable citations (under way: e.g. newspapers), how do I resubmit the article for moderation? Thanks :)

Ditz246 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is simple to re-submit the article. Once you are done with the fixes you want to do, place   at the top of your submission and it will be up for review again. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser  TSU 06:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Ditz246 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bicycle Shaped Object for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bicycle Shaped Object is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection request at WP:RFPP
Hi Yunshui, there is a request for unprotection of User talk:Makecat which you semi-protected on 3 August 2012. Hope you are enjoying/enjoyed your holiday (I'm going to leave a message on RFPP that I believe you're on holidays - sorry if I'm wrong. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss Liberty America


The article Miss Liberty America has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ariconte (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Miss Liberty America for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miss Liberty America is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Miss Liberty America until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ariconte (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A Vandal
In April you warned user Thirtyonecookies about vandalism. Since then he has vandalized the entry for Sycamore School. How is it possible to ban this user? Nicmart (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If they continue vandalism, you can report them at WP:AIV.  TheSpecialUser TSU 04:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no interest or patience in devoting myself to Wikipedia. If anyone cares they can report it. Nicmart (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Nicmart for the heads-up. It's rather too late to block Thirtyonecookies for that last edit now, but I will keep an eye out and indef him if he does it again. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Schofield (campaigner)
I thought I had done the needed change, had added the references and was feeling it was reasonable fort a first ever entry. It it seems to be now available on line. So I have no idea what this message is all about and need help in explaining. Are my changes OK or not? Please explain more. I do ntom grasp how these talk pages work either. Bailey Chipping--Bailey Chipping (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC) --Bailey Chipping (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Bailey Chipping, and sorry for the late reply; I've been away. The main problem I can see with the article is that almost all of the references are to Schofield's own work. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require that information be available in independent sources - whilst Schofield can be used, with caution, as source for information about himself, it's more important to cover what other people have written about him. So far, the only sources mentions which are not by Schofield himself are simply used to verify background information (such as the laws regarding homosexuality and the work of people who have been influenced by Schofield). At present, there are not enough independent sources to meet the notability requirements, and as such the article is liable to be proposed for deletion. He seems as though he should be notable, so suitable sources presumably exist somewhere... Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope Logan
Hi there Yunshui. I've been editing Hope Logan's wiki page to show that she is not married to Liam Spencer, however Musicfreak7676 has been reverting all my edits to when it showed that Hope and Liam were married. Can you explain to me how Hope is considered married to Liam? They married in Italy I understand that, but once they came over to America the marriage was invalid because the wedding papers were not signed. Hope ripped up the wedding papers and did not sign the papers, therefore Hope and Liam are not married. Regardless of European Law, if they are not recognized as a married couple in the state of California, how can they be considered married on this website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colton hockey11 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Colton and thanks for your contributions! Instead of changing the text, why not provide a WP:RS to your claim. I mean to say that if they are not officially married, we can have a way of adding it but there must be a reliable source out there which says that they are not officially married. Sources such as press releases or books or official website would be great. Once you've got a reference, we can use them to verify the content added and keep them. Thanks!  TheSpecialUser TSU 15:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the problem still persists, you can seek WP:DR or WP:RFC regarding the topic. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser TSU 15:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * TSU has a point - what you need is a source showing the correct surname, not a claim surmised from in-universe events. Taking a position on her surname based soley on whether or not events on the show mean that she is legally married is original research. Personally, I would use whichever surname is currently listed in the show's credits. If you haven't raised the issue yet at WP:SOAP (I haven't checked), it might be an idea. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinion needed
Hi Yunshui. Could you do me a favour and check this article for possible copyvios and/or close paraphrasing. I seem to have stumbled on something but I'm not sure if they are mirroring WP  content  or not. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung. Is there a specific section you're suspicious of? I've copy-pasted a few bits and bobs into Google and found only Wikimirrors, but I'm not sure which part(s) to focus on. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking and confirming. I also concluded that they were mirrors. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User Rjains talk page
I see you removed the tag for help. Great...no prob. New editor will or won't ask. Question: I noticed that you put a ""t"" in the link. Is that the way to do an easy no link instead of using ? Thanks.```Buster Seven   Talk  14:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can put "tl|" before the content in the template. In a help me template, you replace help me with help me-helped. Electric Catfish 16:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to expand on Catfish's reply: to stop a template from displaying the template contents, format it with a  or   prefacing the template title within the curly brackets like this:  . This tells the software to display a link to the template page, rather than transcluding the template.   tags work as well, of course, but have the disadvantage that they don't provide a link to the template content. A useful trick!
 * The problem with leaving the template as it was is that adding help me to a page automatically lists it in Category:Wikipedians looking for help - confusing if they aren't actively looking for help. That's why I untranscluded (is that even a word?) it. Thanks for lending them a hand. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 20:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

CSD you declined
Hi, I thought A1 wasn't the best criteria, but I couldn't find anything better. What would you suggest? Adam Mugliston Talk  12:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'd suggest not deleting it at all - we have individual articles on just about every sura of the Qu'ran, and deleting one of them apparently at random would open a seriously huge can of worms. Whilst Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, we are an encyclopedia, and coverage like this is appropriate. If you're determined to get the page deleted for some reason, I'd suggest AfD, but I wouldn't be too optimistic. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then, if that's the case I won't bother. It just seems so short and insignificant. Adam Mugliston  Talk  13:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Not directly at you, but a query on a recent speedy you made. Mdann52 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Livingston Gilson Irving

 * Comment I have full access to Highbeam, and having run a number of different searches, can find no mention of the subject in the archives there. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Just got my access. Dissapointing the search only goes back 25 years, the Dole Air race got national coverage and newsreels. [[File:DoleAirR1927.gif]] There is an article nontheless, found it in about two minutes... Highbeam article plenty more on Google News archives and web search. With over twenty references it's a shame this Berkley pilot, veteran, aircraft manufacturer, and businessman was considered not notable and had to be deleted. FlugKerl (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good find, but sadly too sparse for the requirements of WP:GNG. I agree with you, it's unfortunate that articles on topics like this generally end up deleted. Sadly our notability requirements, in their current form, tend to allow more weight to be given to popular culture phenomena and far less to minor historical figures and incidents. (It's even more difficult when you start looking at historical information from other cultures (Japan, in my case); if sources aren't available online and in English you're pretty much out of luck.) Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Parole Board
Please reconsider your speedy deletion of New Zealand Parole Board. I agree the first paragraph of the History section is far too close to http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=9878, but the article has been built up over 200 edits and contains much material of value. I suggest the deletion of the copyvio paragraph is sufficient, not deletion of the whole article.- gadfium 23:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You might like to look at the (now deleted) comments made on the article talk page (Talk:New Zealand Parole Board) by its principal author.- gadfium 23:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You might also like to note that the alleged material does not belong to or come from the www.crime.co.nz website anyway. It was taken from the official website of the New Zealand Parole Board. There is no breach of copyright as the the Board has a disclaimer which states: "Material featured on this site is subject to copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a misleading context." Offender9000 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa, this looks like a bad call on my part. I've restored the deleted article, and removed the copyvio segment (the licence quoted by Offender9000 above is not compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA licensing (the last sentence specifically prohibits derivation), so we cannot use the text). Sorry for the inconvenience. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Night in paintings (Eastern art)
Dear Yunshui, you are invited to join us to edit Night in paintings (Eastern art). We only have 2 people working on this article and we are struggling finding reliable sources. Your input would be much appreciated! -- RexRowan  Talk  09:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Tredic
What are your grounds for deleting a perfectly viable wikipedia entry (TREDIC Corporation) and wasting my companies extremely valuable time? Please take the time to thoroughly investigate prior to deleting valid entires next time, this includes visitng the privacy policy settings of TREDIC Corporation's website where it is made perfectly clear that: "The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)". TREDIC Corporation is not undetakng illicit marketing of a person or business, it is an establised international real estate development & investment busienss with 5 international offices. We strongly suggest you undertake further research and rescind your blocking of our entry, with immediate effect and issue a full apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jajamaha (talk • contribs)


 * I am replying to this user on their talk page. SmartSE (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As SmartSE has helpfully explained (cheers SmartSE!), the grounds are made clear at Articles for deletion/TREDIC Corporation. Copyright has nothing to do with it, the arguments for deletion were based on the corporation's failure to meet the notability requirements for inclusion at WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

RC Sihag
Yunsui! You have deleted my webpage User: RcSihag/R.C.Sihag. Kindly restore it. I will soon get the information on tripod deleted. I wish to keep this information on wikimwdia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.128.101 (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The decision to delete the page was not made (primarily) on copyright grounds, but on the grounds of unencyclopedic promotion (see WP:G11). Wikipedia is not a CV database, and your resume does not belong here. If what you have done in life is notable, someone will eventually write an article about you - this person should not be you, for the reasons set out here. If your only purpose on Wikipedia is self-promotion, as appears to be the case, then you will find little success here; consider one of the alternatives instead. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Bettadasanapura, Bangalore
It's not Gujarati ;) It's likely to be Kannada instead. See Pages needing translation into English. — foxj 10:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Shows what Google translate knows. Never trust a translation robot... Anybody there speak Kannada? Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The darker side of Ahmedabad
Hi Yunshui! I see that you've been busy of lat doing all those admin stuff and you are doing great. Do you remember our collaboration for Ahmedabad GA? You had helped a lot there and I'm in need of few touch ups again. I came across the news that verdict of Naroda Patiya massacre was about to be announced so was intending to start work on my subpage for it. In the meantime, I saw that someone did create it and it was looking like this. Eventually, I stared work and made it this. I added about 25K words of prose (phew...). I'm not one of the better ones when it comes at copy-editing perhaps if you can lend about 5 or 10 minutes for the article and improve where possible. I don't know that if you are still interested in content work or not but I just need your help buddy here. Since you'd worked with the article about my city, I was hoping that you might also be interested in what had happened in my city 10 years ago (I live close to the spot where the massacre had taken place). Cheers mate!  TheSpecialUser TSU 13:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, one more request. The lead is in the state as it was when created, so per WP:LEAD can you write it so that it summarizes the article? Three or four paragraphs would do great :)  TheSpecialUser TSU 13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having a crack at it now; afterwards I'll take a look at the lead. May not get finished today; if I suddenly stop editing, feel free to carry on without me! Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Stepping back now to let Vaibhav have a crack at it; I'll take another look tomorrow. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am done with it. Its really a POV nightmare. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That was quick. I'm trying to steer clear of any POV issues and just focus on grammar and readability at the moment, although I've found myself neutralising the more hyperbolic language from time to time. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys :)  TheSpecialUser TSU 08:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

.orga.in
Hello mr Yunshi, the orga .in is a seo trick, just to get their website up the google search ranking they have put this , any one can create a domain under .in command it can be (india.ind.in or briney.spears.in ) and same as been done above, so the whole thing is kind of real but i see it as a haux as their is no subject or article to write about anything. do i have to go it in long AFD for this ? or again putting this to speedy deletion would be fine ? Shrikanthv (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You could tag it with db-web; that would be an appropriate speedy deletion template. The reason I declined it was because it isn't a hoax, but I'd have no problem deleting it as non-notable. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Donnie Darko protection
I understand your reasoning for declining protection. My intention was to maintain the integrity of the article while we attempted to reason with Inedible, which has consistently failed so far. Would you mind keeping an eye on things, in case he returns? He has already been warned for his 3RR violation, so he can't claim ignorance. Thanks! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've left a message on his talkpage asking him politely to give it a rest until the RfC concludes. For the record, I too think the section he's adding has no place in the article (fascinating though it is; I'll have to re-watch the film tonight with that information in mind), but don't intend to weigh in on the RfC for fear of making my talkpage message appear somewhat hypocritical. I'm more interested in preventing the edit warring than in whether or not the section gets included.
 * Thanks for accepting the RPP decision, and please let me know if the disruption continues. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I think the RFC was unnecessary, as there was already a discussion ongoing at Wikiproject Film, but I hope that it can result in something positive.  The best result, in my opinion, would be a rewrite of the plot, which is nearly incoherent.  My concern, though, is that the summary be written objectively, and not in an in-universe style.  We will see what develops.  Thanks again. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Naroda_Patiya_massacre
The issues brought here are addressed perhaps can you leave few comments there if it is warranted and fix the POV in the lines of the article. Thanks.  TheSpecialUser TSU 23:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey TSU. I'm sorry I haven't done more with the article. Truth be told, I'm not sure I'm the right person for the job - the amount of background reading I'd have to do just to get to the same basic level of knowledge that you and Vaibhav have on the subject is more than a little daunting, and due to my current sporadic internet access I can't easily commit to the lengthy, major edits that are needed (I'm spending most of my time at the moment dealing with admin backlogs). That said, if you want a neutral perspective, I'd say (I'm afraid) that there still seems to be a bit of work needed to balance the article - at present, there appears to be a definite slant towards the anti-government position, with sections like the "State sponsorship" (even the header there is POV, implying that the government financially backed the rioters) having substantial allegations balanced only by a couple of lines pointing out that Modi claimed innocence and was exonerated. Having looked at some of the earlier versions, though, you have made vast improvements; good work! Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to sign at PERM
Hey, I noticed you forgot to sign your name when you declined the request for Confirmed permission. I went ahead and signed it for you. If you feel that there is an administrative need to retain the signature, or that my unsign template was unnecessary, please don't hesitate to revert and tell me! :P Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 06:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Retina Display & Talk:Retina Displays
Hi Yunshui, could you please restore Talk:Retina Displays and move it to Talk:Retina Display. User:Jimthing moved the page to Retina Displays, then you deleted G8 (at which time the main page, and not the talk page, had been moved back to Retina Display. I'm pretty sure this is what happened but I may have it wrong (without being able to see where the deleted content is it's difficult. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, I missed that (the talkpage had been blanked, so I assumed it was empty). Fixed now, thanks for the heads up. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I saw it on my watchlist then had a look at them and did a 'what the heck'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sreelakshmi Suresh 4th AFD!!
hello again Mr Yunshui this is the article which has its 4th AFD with just the process stretched can you have a look into this and close please Shrikanthv (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What a mess. After wading through all the arguments (on the AfD, the three previous AfDs, and the talkpage), I finally closed it as Keep. Again. I'm half-inclined to issue a warning to the nominator for disruptive editing... Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 06:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I respect the decision completely, I still didn't get few things. 'Notability rules' are the sole justification for a Wikipedia entry? So anyone who get their details published in few newspapers will get an entry in Wikipedia? This question is not to mock the system or to make fun of anyone, but I find it very strange. And second, " I'm half-inclined to issue a warning to the nominator for disruptive editing" - you meant my nomination? If so, would you please explain it? I mean what disruptive editing that I have done? --LVerina (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the current form of Wikipedia's policies, basically yes, the notability rules are the sole (or at least primary) justification for an entry. If a subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then unless it violates WP:NOT (the other main inclusion policy), it can have an entry. That the coverage is prompted by spurious awards or insignificant achievements is irrelevent; what counts is the existence of coverage, not its content. I actually agree that there are some flaws in the current policy (it gives far too much weight to modern popular culture, for example), but an AFD discussion is not the place to change that.
 * As far as the disruptive editing comment goes, that was somewhat glib on my part (I was rather frustrated after wading through all your walls of text...) If an article has been taken to AFD three times in the past, and no major changes have been made to either the article or the policies, then renominating it is almost certainly going to be a waste of everybody's time, especially since you didn't advance any policy-based reason for deletion. However, you did make the nomination in good faith, and you'd waited a decent length of time to tag it again, so warning you for disruption would be overly harsh (which is why I didn't). I apologise if you felt at all threatened by the above comment. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you for explaining it. I am not sure whether this is the right place to discuss it, if not, please let me know where to and I will continue there.


 * Regarding the first point, I am not very familiar with the Wikipedia deletion process and I never knew that AFD discussions should be related to and based on 'Notability Rules' of Wikipedia and nothing else. I guess it is the same with many others participated in the discussions. This point was not clear on the last three AFD discussions too, as the 'Keep' decision was not explained well in those three. You very clearly mentioned it in this case and thanks for that. I fear the conclusion you reached after the AFD discussion was not completely correct, based on the same reason above. The debate didn't reflect the 'notable vs not notable', rather it was based on other factors. Personally I feel this is one of the biggest flaw of the system, but then that is strictly my personal view. We all know how easy to get published in the local newspaper and how these small reports help us to get us more publicity in not just printed media but other media too, especially when the media people are not experts on fields as in this case. And just based on the 'Notability Rules', all those can get a Wikipedia entry is something beyond my thinking of the system. But then, that is just me.


 * Regarding the second point above, no, it is alright and it didn't sound like threatening. I was new to the terms and I was curious. Thanks for explaining that too.


 * Now, regarding the long text I posted. Yes, some others also mentioned that. And I know it is a pain to go through the entire content that I posted. I wanted to explain my points with maximum details and proof. I didn't want to talk based on guesswork. As I mentioned above, I never knew we should talk only the 'notability rules' and that is the reason I posted other factors related to the article too. I am still not sure the place to discuss those points. Only on the article discussion page and not on an AFD page? Coming back to the lengthy posts, yes, I did a fairly good research on the matter. That was done for few months actually. I know people may consider this as something negative but I do not think so. I think the efforts people put to create or maintain an article get equal importance to the efforts put to investigate, research and finding facts which are against the article too. I believe that then only we will have quality articles in Wikipedia. If we keep on adding new articles entirely based on 'Notability Rules' and nothing else, and completely ignore the research and facts against them, I do not think that will be a good practice. But again, that is just my opinion and I know it may be an inappropriate place to discuss it here.


 * Another point I would like to mention in this discussion. Yes, based on the 'Notability Rules', it can be be kept and nothing wrong in that. But based on my research, findings and facts, this is purely an un-ethical way of self promotion and boosting and projecting a normal girl who does not have any exceptional skill to be get an entry in Wikipedia or any similar platform. I have nothing personal against the girl or the people who are actually behind her, but I have proof (which I already explained in the discussion) for every statement I make. I still believe we need to discuss it further and yes, beyond the 'Notability Rules' limit, and I promise this is for making Wikipedia a better place and not for any personal attack or wasting people's time.


 * Finally, kindly let me know how to proceed from here, how to nominate for a deletion review or what is the next step to follow up in this to continue the discussion. --LVerina (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your research was considerable, and I commend you for it. However, what you say is correct; it is quite possible for a subject to get coverage in comparatively minor news outlets and thus warrant an article. Let me reiterate again: for Wikipedia purposes it matters not one whit whether the coverage is justified or not; the existence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources is sufficient to warrant an article. As I said above, it's arguably a flaw in the rules, but that's the way it currently stands.
 * As far as "next steps" are concerned, it would probably be sensible to do nothing. The article exists (among over four million others), it's sourced, it has been deemed worthy of inclusion. Further attempts to delete it could and probably would be seen as disruptive, and there are a vast number of articles out there that could use your talent for research. However, if you're determined...
 * The first and most preferable course, if you have concerns about the article, would be to try and fix them within the article. If you can demonstrate using sources that her awards are minor or that her parents did her web designs for her (or that people have made those arguments elsewhere), then nothing is stopping you from editing the article to include that information. Be mindful of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP if you take this route.
 * If you believe that I closed the AfD incorrectly (not that the outcome was incorrect, but that I made an error in assessing the arguments put forth) then you can open a case at Deletion review; follow the instructions on that page. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No, I am not going further on this. And no more deletion review too. You explained it very well, much appreciated. And the link you sent (do nothing) make sense. As long as we rely on the 'Notability Rules' to a great extend, there is no use in further discussion on this. I will sure spend the energy and efforts on other parts of Wikipedia instead.


 * Regarding the edits, yes, as the deletion discussion is closed, I will try to make few edits in the article, not in an attacking way.


 * Thanks again. --LVerina (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to commend the two of you for resolving the AfD in such a way that shows the best merits of editors co-existing. This easily could have turned into a heightened situation, and has done so in the past even. Everyone presented their arguments and Yunshui, took the time and care to see it through to the end. I can certainly say I've seen some admins close some heavily contested AfD's not out of argument merits but simply out of !Votes regardless. Yunshui best described my overall argument over the course of the 4 AfD nominations -- in that this one particular article does not necessarily add a lot of value individually, but rather the policies that allow this article to be included are the same policies that make Wikipedia one of the most powerful resources. It is in that reason I argue to protect articles like this and not so much the indiscriminate subject matter. Mkdw talk 22:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was nice discussing with Yunshui as he very well explained the system and the rules behind AFD. That also in a nice manner. I never knew (and many others too I guess) 'Notability Rules' are the sole thing which leads to decision making in an AFD. Yes, I knew that the votes alone will not count as the number of votes can go in any direction. But my thinking was, facts, proofs and other supporting materials get importance as well. I was wrong. As I mentioned in the discussion, anyone with a few local newspaper articles about them get a Wikipedia entry and the article will remain there forever. As we all agree, this seems to be a flaw in the system, at the same time I understand that Wikipedia has limitations as well. I wish there would be some 'trusted members' locally to verify the claims, facts and supporting documents. But then, that will be a major policy change.


 * Anyway, this is my first long interaction with many of the Wikipedia members and I am looking forward to start contributing and actively participating in Wikipedia. --LVerina (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)