Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Hi. You may not remember, but three months back you helped me get unblocked. I have some ideas for improving the unblock system and I would appreciate some feedback. Here is the link - [1] Thanks. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 20:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That is an absolutely fucking terrible idea, and you can count on my strongest possible opposition. Yunshui ^雲_水 21:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have responded to your post on the talk page. Please take a minute to read it. I believe I have addressed your concerns and clarified a few misunderstandings. Please feel free to reach out to me if you still have questions. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 22:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Do not censor other users talkpage comments. I'll take a look at your response, but I cannot see any likelihood that I would ever support a proposal for automatic unblocking, any more than I would support a proposal for automatic blocks. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend to censor anything. My computer has a filter that changes the text and it changed the text on the edit page. This has been bothering me a lot on Wikiquote. J.A.R.N.Y.🗣 11:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Apologies as well if I came off as a bit brusque (editing on little sleep is not smart, kids!). I still think it's a very bad idea, even having re-read it whilst fully caffeinated, but there's no rule against having bad ideas on Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

I have just received some very alarming forwarded emails. They concern this case of WP:MEAT.[[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/­User_talk:Kautilya3#Towns_Hill ]] I have been told you have received copies of the puppet master's emails too. Do you intend to take action soon? Dilpa kaur (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Only one of the emails that I have been sent actually looks like it's a specific editing directive, and I've no proof that any of them actually originated from Kautilya3 (the original header records have not been provided, so I've no way of knowing where the initial email came from). I have also been advised by ArbCom that they are aware of this issue, and that they do not believe the claims to be genuine - they have recommended that I ignore TH's claims. As such, unless it can be proved that Kautilya3 actually sent these emails, I see no reason to take action. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of TH claims may not be genuine, for socks seldom have the character to speak the complete truth. But I also think Kautilya3 (who tells began as a sock[2]) is not innocent here either and is so far evading my question about the (if true, then inappropriate and against policy) January 4 email. Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems Kautilya3 has implicitly with some foot dragging accepted the authenticity of the January 4 email's text. [3] Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, I understand that you deleted the page for David Williams-Ellis but I am now unable to find it so I can look at amending it. Please could you let me know how I can find it and also which part violated the copyright and I will then change it? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talk • contribs)

The entire text was copied, verbatim, from the Albany Gallery's entry on David Williams-Ellis. If you do that again, you will be blocked from editing. Wikipedia content must be written in your own words. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This is text that I gave them originally so is my copyright. What can I do to get the page reinstated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talk • contribs)

In that case, you will need to release the text under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 or similar licence. The easiest way to do this is to ask the gallery to add a footer to the page stating that the text there is available under this licence. Other options are explained at donating copyrighted materials. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will try and get them to do that. In the meantime can the page be reinstated without the new additions I made yesterday for Normandy and Aberdeen? Or I will re-write it as I think this will be quicker but please can you reinstate the page first as I can no longer find it. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaJayneRW (talk • contribs)

The page cannot be reinstated until there is a clear and verifiable release of the text under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. Once that is done I'll be happy to restore it - feel free to leave me a message here when the gallery's website has been updated. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

None of it at all can be reinstated? It was ok'd before I added the additional material yesterday, can this not be reinstated? I'm also a bit unsure about the wording they would have to add, is it 'This text is available under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license' - please can you let me know what it is and I will get in touch with them?

The reviewer who moved it into mainspace should really have checked for copyright violations first - from its inception, the whole page was copied from the gallery's website. The whole thing is therefore a copyright violation, and can't be restored. The gallery's webmaster just needs to insert the following HTML in their page footer:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons Licence" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 International License</a>.

which will display the official Creative Commons licence image. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been in touch with the gallery and they have added the Creative Commons logo: https://www.albanygallery.com/index.php?page=6&aid=366 Can his page now be reinstated? Many thanks.

The page has been reinstated. Many thanks. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much.

Going to his talk page to explain my revert, I see he's got a lot of warnings for images too large for non-free use.

My revert was of his addition of files containing entire verses of the Bhagavad Gita, eg this one.[4] I don't think they'd be appropriate even if they were in English, which they aren't. They come from here. Is a transliteration copyright? I'm guessing not. Do you think the images are appropriate? Doug Weller talk 11:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

He's restored them[5] saying they are appropriate for reading purposes and that they contain an English translation. I don't see the English translation but if there is one it's quite likely a copyright violation. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The text he was adding to Bhagavad Gita was not a translation but a description of content - and it was directly lifted from the (very clearly marked as copyrighted on every page) document here. Block reinstated; this time it's an indefinite one. The images are pretty useless, but I don't think they constitute copyright violations. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• • Hi, I think this is a bit harsh, the oversized images are automatically resized by a bot within 24 hrs and as you say the images are not copyvio. Would you please consider lifting the block on condition that he does not upload any images or third party text for 6 months, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The block is for the text addition to the Bhagavad Gita article, which as I pointed out above, was a blatant copyright violation. Given that last time he got blocked fro such actions he simply waited it out, this time it's an indef - so there has to be some effort to address the issue before he can go back to editing. Indef doesn't mean forever, but it does mean that the problem has to be dealt with. The size of the image isn't an issue, but on an English-language Wikipedia, a large image which provides only a list of transliterated phrases is fairly redundant - translations into English are useful, but that isn't what's been provided. As with any block, I am more than happy for other admins to review and amend or reverse it if they see fit, but I'm not happy having Gpkp editing here without some proof that he understands Wikipedia's stance on copyright. Yunshui ^雲_水 16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems appropriate. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Copyright blocks (especially second ones) tend to be under as they are effectively CIR blocks. The criteria for lifting is just to satisfy us that you understand copyright and won’t do it again, so I think Yunshui’s actions are justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yunshui can you please re-check this as I have looked very carefully at all of his edits on the Bhagavad Gita article and he has not added any text at all only images. The copyrighted text was already in the article, he just rearranged it around the images he added as shown in this diff comparison here which shows the text is identical in both diffs just rearranged, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Shit, I think you're right. Well, that was fabulously inept of me. I'll go and unblock them at once. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Atlantic306, Thank Thanks a ton, for your assistance in lifting the block. Thank you Yunshui for unblocking.
--Gpkp (u • t • c) 05:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I note that you were involved in the decision regarding the use of the Daily Mail as a source in Wikipedia. On the Jeremy Corbyn page, Jeremy Corbyn#Wreath laying in Tunisia a claim by the Daily Mail is not used as a citation itself but is the sole source that other news sources are using as evidence. Is this secondhand use of the Daily Mail acceptable ? (note i have tried to add neutrality to the section).

In terms of sourcing, it is perfectly acceptable to say that ,"X said Y" with a citation to a reliable source Z, so stating, "The Daily Mail claimed that Corbyn was honouring terrorists," with multiple citations to sources that show the Mail actually claimed this is fine. Whether it belongs in the article is debatable on different grounds, but given the amount of mud the press sling at the Labour leader, stating that "a right-wing tabloid says Corbyn hates Jewish people" is almost in the "the sky is blue" class of statements requiring verification... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

I see you have declined my page I created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kevin_Michael_Bradshaw

I do not understand why - there are many other CEOs for FTSE250 companies with Wikipedia pages that have even less references and information and yet you still published theirs - I dont understand why you have declined it - please help me rectify this as I waited so long for it to them get rejected and I dont think the reasons are valid when many others have pages that you accepted.

Thanks, Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princesskate198 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the decline is shown at the top of the page - there is insufficient sourcing in the draft to warrant an article about this person. The sources you have provided are either press releases (which are not independent of the subject) or passing mentions (which are not significant coverage of the subject). Please read the notability requirements, or more simply, the golden rule of Wikipedia and add sources which are reliably published, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject.

The existence of other pages on similar topics has no relevance here; the draft was declined purely on its own merits. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

For going above and beyond the call of duty in being kind to a newborn editor. ThePastoral (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome; I hope your wiki-career here is a long and productive one. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui,

Recently I noticed someone had written a page about my work as a film composer. I was pleased to see this after many years working as a composer in Los Angeles.

I tried to look at the page tonight to see if this person added my early years and current composing works.

The page says you deleted it. I am not familiar with the way Wiki works - but would respectfully ask if you could add the page back.

Thank you,

Randy Miller www.randymiller.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.222.131.104 (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The article in question had been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, in violation of the block. Such pages are deleted on sight. This has no bearing on your suitability as the subject of a Wikipedia article, and anyone is free to recreate the page if they see fit. However, the content added by the blocked user should not be restored. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Yunshui. thank you for your understanding and agreeing to unblock this page. please let us know when we can expect this page to be active again. we are volunteers working on this page and will continue to make changes that are needed. there is no advertising or selling on this page. Thank you for your help. 2601:600:9C80:4FF2:342D:6B68:B0F0:5CFF (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what page you are referring to. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. A new editor keeps removing an orphaned non-free use tag from File:Music group.jpg even the the file is still orphaned. I tried explaining that the file can be undeleted after the draft they are working on has been approved, but the tag is still being removed. Would you mind taking a look and perhaps also try to explain things to the editor? FWIW, the sandbox draft they are working on is highly unlikely to be approved in its current form anytime soon; so, the file will probably be deleted long before it actually can be used. This means the file will keep on being tagged by a reviewer or a bot no matter how many times the tag is removed. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's easy - a photograph of a band where the members are alive (save in a few rare cases) can never be Fair Use, since free images of the band can - at least in theory - be obtained. As such, the image needs to be deleted; I have done so, and will pop over to the user's talkpage and explain momentarily. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please reopen Shawn Moody. I can offer sources demonstrating that Moody has passed WP:GNG. Thanks.--TM 10:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Such sources should have been presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Moody (2nd nomination). Now that the deletion discussion has been closed, you have two immediate options:

• You can challenge the close at deletion review, to see if the community agrees that the consensus was against creating a redirect.
• You can recreate the article with new sources. I would suggest that you do this either in the Draft namespace (at Draft:Shawn Moody) or in your own sandbox, as a recreation without significant changes would be subject to deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4.

Given that the election is only a few months away, it might be more sensible to wait until the results have been announced; if Moody wins then he is likely to meet the notability requirements and the article can be reinstated. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was brief and few editors participated, including none of the other editors who regularly write on Maine politics. The sensible thing to do is to reopen the discussion and allow a more thorough consensus to emerge.--TM 22:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion ran for the required week, by which time there was clear consensus to redirect. Again, if you feel the discussion was closed inappropriately, the correct process to follow is WP:DELREV. You don't have to convince me of anything; I'm simply the mook who presses the button. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying you made the wrong decision based on what was presented. I am asking you to simply re-open the conversation to allow for a more robust consensus to emerge. I think the involvement of Wikiproject Maine editors is necessary. I also think that the nominator is not following WP:BEFORE because there are multiple, independent sources that demonstrate notability here.--TM 10:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Given your comments at the previous AFD, it looks a lot like you're asking me to circumvent Wikipedia's process until you get the result that you want. I'm not willing to do that. There is no requirement that a AFD be !voted on by members of a local-interest project before it is closed, only that a consensus can be assessed after seven days. If you want to challenge the close, you are welcome to do so in the correct venue; again, that venue is not here, it's thataway. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

All I've asked is for you to relist a discussion that received few comments and none from those who edit the topic most closely. If you insist on being hostile, this will be the end of our dialogue.--TM 23:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile; I'm just refusing to unilaterally do what you want. Wikipedia has a process for this exact scenario, which I have already pointed out to you above. You can avail yourself of this process or not; it's up to you. I have no problem with you challenging my closure of the discussion - if you do take it to deletion review I doubt I will even comment on it - but I'm not reversing it purely at your request. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

My "unilateral request" is to find an accurate consensus on a contested topic. But hey, you're the admin so do what you think is right.--TM 11:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't understand the reason of deletion of the page. The copyright infringment and the imdb link on Kosmos series. Can you explain? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchesinigiulia (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This user apparently also recreated Chris Heaven after it had been deleted - is it possible that there is also copyright infringing material there? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A previous deletion discussion has already assessed that the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia; this qualifies it for deletion under CSD G4. The text had been copied from the IMDb page, which is not freely licenced for reuse, making it a copyright violation; this qualifies it for deletion under CSD G12. @PeterTheFourth: I did check for copyvios on Chris Heaven but didn't find any. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, hope you are doing great & remember me ? !, would request to close this issue here , has really stretched out very long now Shrikanthv (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I've looked it over - and I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole. The whole India-Pakistan area is rife with false or trumped-up allegations, cherry-picked or manufactured "evidence", sock abuse and off-wiki co-ordination on both sides, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to look into it. Maybe there are a few good actors in there, but the signal-to-noise ratio is just horrific, and I'm not interested in trying to filter through it any more. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I accept your understanding & decision, was also one of the reason kept myself away from the topic for long time, hope things change around to positive colloboration & mutual understanding Shrikanthv (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, need your guidance on one of the problem I faced before, if you check articles related to Alternative medicine, (could be my hypothesis) I believe their is a group of editors who would go around on all the articles terming the medicinal approach to be "pseudo Science" in the lead , you can check yourself Homeopathy ,Ayurveda, Naturopathy, Traditional Chinese medicine. I do find even though this claim is referenced by a source , it seems to me be like a cherry picked reference ( references often backed by englisch medicine backed research firms) . And i have tryed RFC but seems since it is a group which is engaging at a same time , I stand no chance and also even trying to mention who calls these medicines pseudo science is also not allowed, is there a way to get around this ? or do you think it is all up in my head :) Shrikanthv (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There's been a long-standing consensus on Wikipedia that all of the subjects you listed fall under the heading of pseudoscience (that is to say, systems which make scientific claims but do not provide scientific proof). It's been challenged over and over, for years and years, and the consensus has always remained. I'd find another wall to bang my head against, if I were you... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The blocking admin has not been active for a couple of months, so your thoughts would be welcome on the latest unblock request at User talk:Noname83746. The new attempt at an example of sourced content is not perfect (it has the publisher of one source wrong, presumably a c&p error, and Soundcloud isn't great but at least it's only sourcing the existence of songs), but (bearing in mind decltype's comments) I'm thinking it's good enough for an unblock on the condition that they use WP:AFC for new articles. Thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I share the concerns about SoundCloud. The rest of the sources seem to be heavily reliant on a single, local news source (and virtually all the articles are by the same reporter), which isn't ideal for a WP:BLPCRIME, especially when - as far as I can tell - no conviction has been obtained as yet. Reference 15 is a search page, not a source. If it wasn't for the BLP issue I would agree with your assessment, as it is, I'm kind of on the fence. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm kind of on the fence too, which is why I'm thinking of making an unblock conditional on using AFC for article creations. I think they're trying hard and it's worth a go. What do you say? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to be a hardass about it - I have my reservations, but if you're happy to offer unblocking under those conditions, I won't argue. Here, allow me to pass you this buck... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

...and now in mainspace. No idea if it differs substantially from the draft you had deleted. The creator has been asked about COI. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The mainspace article is substantially different from the deleted draft (not to mention about a tenth of the size, once all the "amazing child genius!" crap had been stripped out). The article was created once before, years ago, by a user who appeared to be the subject's father, but I've no way of knowing if MM is the same person. I've done a bit on the new article myself; pretty sure it meets the GNG, although when I have more time some better sourcing would be a good idea... From the verifiable info, though, he definitely seems like a bright kid! Yunshui ^雲_水 15:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

Hi Yunshui. There've been a couple of previous long discussions about OTRS ticket #2011011410009399 and whether it's sufficient to cover files such as this. These discussions seems to indicate that there is a disagreement among OTRS volunteers regarding the ticket's validity. Can you tell whether this has been sorted out and all of the issues regarding the ticket have been resolved? If they haven't, then I'm not sure why it's being applied yet once again to a new Commons upload. I'm also wondering whether c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png needs to be reviewed since the primary reason that particular file was kept was because one OTRS volunteers validation of the aforementioned ticket. Once again, if OTRS volunteers can agree among themselves that the ticket is OK, then that's fine with me; however, if there are some who feel that the ticket is questionable or not sufficient, then it probably shouldn't used to justify the licensing on files. I'm assuming that Wikimedia OTRS covers both Commons and Wikipedia, but maybe each project has its own OTRS just like each project has its own admins. Pretty much all of us non-OTRS types are more that happy to defer to OTRS volunteers with respect to stuff such as this; however, it's not clear how disagreements among OTRS volunteers are to be resolved especially since the details of what is typically being discussed is only privy to OTRS volunteers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Emailing the list didn't generate much response last time, so I've created a case at the OTRS wiki to see if that will make some headway. As ever, I'll let you know once some sort of consensus is arrived at... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. Based upon this edit, the discussion at User talk:Shaira Ofianga#September 2018, the description for File:AnneImage.jpg and this, I think that Shaira Ofianga might be doing a little WP:EVADE to change the infobox image. If it's not her, then it's probably someone else from the same company. What needed to be done was explained and Shaira Ofianga said she understood, so I'm not sure why she/someone is decided to upload another likely copyvio instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Even without doing a CU, the geolocation on that IP together with its editing history indicates very strongly that it's being operated by Viva Artists Agency (which Shaira Ofianga has already said she works for). Based on that, I reckon a verdict of block evasion is entirely appropriate. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. I thought this was progressing towards a better outcome and the editor was willing to comply with relevant policies, so it's unfortunate they decided to continue on as before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm very much disappointed that Montez Ford's Wikipedia page have been deleted. He and Angelo Dawkins (also known as the Street Profits) are very popular in NXT. Furthermore, they are going to be featured on WWE 2K19 video game, so Ford clearly is notable wrestler as he going to be featured in this game. There are "less" popular wrestlers who have Wikipedia page, and they don't even on a T.V. program. I would like for you to reconsider you decision, I like to contribute on Wikipedia wrestling related pages, but as for now I feel very frustrated.

There's no decision for me to reconsider; admins closing AFD discussions don't "decide" to delete the article, they just assess the consensus of the discussion. I've reviewed the ADF at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montez Ford and still think that the consensus there is in favour of deletion. If you disagree, you will need to open a case at deletion review.

You can of course create a new article about Montez Ford, but if you do so you will need to address the issues that were raised in the AFD, specifically the apparent lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Musk has specifically asked that his page be changed from magnate to magnet. Dont be a dick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:63CD:8D00:5822:8ECD:EF6A:13D0 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Elon Musk's public relations company. When a bunch of reliable sources call him a "business magnet", Wikipedia will start using the term. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Allthingsgo#Your signature and categories? I’m not sure what to make of this editor’s last response; it’s not as strange as the barstar he/she left on my user talk, but it might mean that the editor’s having technical issues signing posts.

Also, I’m not sure why this editor has created a doppelgänger account using the same username, but I’m not familiar with those types of accounts. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

At the moment I'm hazarding a guess at this being English-not-first-language issues, but I'm looking into it. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I see you've gotten a couple of barnstars from this editor, so maybe things are in the process of sorting themselves out. It appears from some of their posts that their account on Chinese Wikipedia might have been blocked; so, they are trying to get that sorted out via English Wikipedia by posting on user talk pages and (perhaps) hoping that these users will be notified via cross-wiki notifications. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting a very nothere sort of vibe based on their replies... regardless, they are now blocked here until they decide to co-operate. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Their response to be being blocked does seem to indicate WP:NOTHERE. Moreover, the "little clickable content as possible principle" they're advocating for on their user page seems to indicate the lack of signature link was done by design. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Im very sorry for taking this conversation to your talk page,But i recently read your anti-vandalism for beginners and i seem to be a beginner... But i'm willing to do better in anti-vandalism. Please tell me what it takes to be a admin and how to bust vandals in wiki articles easily. B.N. Dehigaspage (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, everyone has to start somewhere (although your userpage suggests that this isn't your first rodeo...). I'm not sure what I can add regarding anti-vandalism beyond what's in User:Yunshui/Anti-vandalism for beginners, so if you've read that, there's little more to say. The one thing I would add is that, whilst fighting vandalism is no bad thing, the main goal of everyone here is to build an encyclopedia - it's worthwhile doing some article work rather than spending all your time looking for other people breaking the rules. That sounds kind of hypocritical coming from me (most of what I seem to do these days is block people), but I've also done my fair share of article creation, including Good and even Featured content. That's where the real work of Wikipedia lies, and if you're ever interested in trying out for adminship in the future, you'll need a solid track record in building articles. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There is this game that i play. is it okay if i write an article about it? But it is displayed in the Article MDicke. B.N. Dehigaspage (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If it's worth having an article on, go for it. Not sure what you mean by the Article MDicke... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes but it is not that fammous. It has only got 0ver 10 million downloads B.N. Dehigaspage (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Carmen Maria Montiel's page was vandalized. It is obvious who did it base on the many reference he made of himself and adding his last name to her name in Wikipedia. This attend is actually self promotion of himself.

She is a Pageant Title Holder and now a Political Figure in the United Estates. The fact that this happened keeps confirming that he considers her his victim.

At this point I think her Wikipedia needs to be lock and a Webmaster needs to be assign to it. She can be it or any editor of Wikipedia.

She and her Children do not deserve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DilmaEmperatriz (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui, Dilma left me this message, which is addressed apparently from Carmen Maria Montiel and has more details.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:DilmaEmperatriz. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. I noticed while reviewing new pages that you blocked User:Rk566RUFine on the basis of a checkuser result. Could you provide me with the name(s) of the other accounts they abused? I have a nagging suspicion they have returned (per this new user's contributions [6]), but would like more information before I file an SPI.--SamHolt6 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: The other accounts that were a match to theirs were RollsTown, Cor le ven and RichardStevexyztoday, IIRC. I'll have a wee gander at Ayushi.ag's edits and see whether it's worth running them again. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it appears that Ayushi.ag was editing before I ran a CU on Rk566RUFine - so one would expect that I'd have picked them up in that sweep if there was a technical connection. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah well, no dice then. Thanks anyway.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui

Carmen Maria Montiel's page was vandalized and will probably continue to be vandalized. As I mentioned before, it is obvious who did it or for whom was it done, since the name of the person is all over and even changed her name to his and/or added his last name to hers.

The links, provided by this editor, are for pages that do not exist and/or are from anonymous blogs created by this same person, which confirms it is part of the attack she has been the victim for many years, which include Cyber attack.

Pages like Dinesh D'Souza, Donald Trump and others are lock, in a way that in order to edit certain guidelines are to be follow.

You nominated my article for deletion, when that is base on fact. Pease nominate for deletion all the vandalize editing done on September 12. Carmen and her Children need peace!

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DilmaEmperatriz (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether the page is deleted or not will depend upon the outcome of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen María Montiel. It is important that you realise that the article is not "yours"; you have no control over what is included in it, and cannot use it for promotion or to tell the world about yourself. In the event that the community decides the article should be retained, you will be expected to refrain from editing it, and to restrict yourself to making requests on the associated talkpage. If negative information about you is available in reliable, independent sources, it is likely to be included in the article. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@DilmaEmperatriz: I find myself somewhat perplexed that in this edit you indicate pretty unambiguously that you are Carmen Maria Montiel, yet when you commented at the AFD discussion (and elsewhere) you talk about Ms Montiel in the third person. Please clarify your relationship with the subject of the article. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui... I thought that you nominated the last article edited in Carmen Maria Montiel page by me, to removed the vandalism that was put on her page. So, when I say "you nominated my article" I have now realized that the intention is to deleting her whole page. Now I wonder why, you nominated the "page" to be deleted when all former Miss Venezuelas have Wikipedia pages. And Carmen has a life in which her Public persona has been part of who she is during her whole life to the present. And now she is a Politician and run for US Congress. Unless you happen to be Carmen's ex?

Yes, I did nominate the page for deletion - the reasons are given at the start of the deletion discussion. I don't believe that you/she meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Other editors may disagree, hence the need for a discussion. To be perfectly honest, one aspect that prompted me to suggest deletion was the blatant promotion that you added to the article - Wikipedia is not your mouthpiece with which to trumpet how amazing you/Ms Montiel is, and such content needs to be removed (as has now been done). Yunshui ^雲_水 22:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

-Yunshui. First of all I want to apologies for not knowing how to edit well as per Wikipedia requirements. I intend to be a better editor. As some had offer to help me. The page is now to Wikipedia standard. As I said before the page was vandalized and I tried to fixed it. Carmen Maria Montiel is a former Miss Venezuela and all former Miss Venezuela's do have Wikipedia pages. If her page is to be deleted then all others should be to. Now she is a Political figure. I am a fan of Pageants. Thanks again for your input

i made a new article and it is in draft, please check it and see if it is suitable for release.I'llsend you the link ASAP B. N .D | TALK 07:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No need, I found it. Will review momentarily. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

can you please tell me how much time it will take to review it? B. N .D | TALK 07:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC) And i also downloaded the vandal fighter java script. Can you please tell me an article which gets vandalized so that i can stay on a lookout? B. N .D | TALK 07:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a hard "no" on Extra Lives' readiness for moving to mainspace, I'm afraid. The issues you need to fix are:

• Sourcing. The sources you've got there are pretty much useless. You can't use:
  • the developer's own Twitter account
  • any wiki, especially the developer'
  • app stores
  • the developer's own website
  • articles that do not mention the article subject

to support notability. There isn't a single source in the draft as it stands that is usable; you need to bin all of those and start again.

• The "Gameplay" section is hugely bloated. Wikipedia isn't a manual; you need only a couple of paragraphs on how the game is played, at most. Focus on the primary mechanics, rather than the details.
• There's a bit of promotional wording (some parts of the "Gameplay" section read like they might have come from the developer's own advertising campaign), but overall you've done a pretty good job with balancing the tone of the article.

Sourcing is the biggie - without better sources, no reviewer is going to pass your draft into mainspace. Read WP:42 - those are the sorts of sources that you need.

The Recent changes list (there's a permanent link in your sidebar ←) is a good place to look for potential vandalism, although most anti-vandalism tools should provide you with a feed of recent changes anyway. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks for checking it out. I knew that it wont be accepted too because i could not find much info since it was not that famous and the gameplay section was totally corrupted. I had nothing to a write about its reception or amount the development. Thats why i needed a quick answer. So that i can help to improve another article B. N .D | TALK 11:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. That article on Mat Dickie could itself use a bit of sprucing up... if you're dead set on creating a new article from scratch, Wrestling Revolution looks like the only one of his games that might (and I stress might) be independently notable - there are at least a reasonable number of reviews out there for it. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear yunshui, im sorry for disturbing you in your talk every day, but i requested a semi protection for the article maithripala sirisena. There is a big chance that this page might be vandalised by other users since the public is trying to make him leave his position as the president. There is no official vandalism records yet. but possibilities are that it would increase. B. N .D | TALK 12:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Page protection can be requested via WP:RFPP, but we don't protect pages preemptively - if it isn't actually being vandalised, it doesn't need protection. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

👍 thanks but it has a high probability B. N .D | TALK 14:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it does start getting a high influx of vandals then do feel free to fire off a post at WP:RFPP. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I did it a long time ago, Im still not sure if they will accept 😎😆 B. N .D 😆😎 | 📩💬TALK 💬📩 15:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear yunshui when i tried to give Kigagan (talk)some advice,he sent this

Stay Away I am unable to help you and you are unable to help me.So it's better we do our respective works and do not interfere in other's

Is it a normal way that wikipedians response, because he's making a bot and im not sure if he knows what it even is. 😎😆 B. N .D 😆😎 | 📩💬TALK 💬📩 16:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

He isn't going to be making any bots... Yunshui ^雲_水 17:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)