User talk:Yunshui/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Bounty board

I have asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Bounty board. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —rybec 07:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

• Traffic report: Google Doodlebugs bust the block

• Featured content: 1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent

• Special report: FDC staff raise the benchmarks for activities, impact, planning, and governance

• News and notes: Trademark at issue again with the Italian Wikipedia and wikipedia.it

• WikiProject report: The world of soap operas

• Discussion report: Commas, Draft namespace proposal, education updates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

ApnaCourse

Hey could you delete this article and throw a block at the creator? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

An Ed and Roger tag team appear to have already done the necessary. I'm too late to the party to do anything! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(Yun's mini-fridge) It's never too late to bring food or drink to a party Yun :3 MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Open AfD after your speedy delete

Hi, just to let you know when you deleted Ishiefu, the deletion discussion at AfD was not closed. Thanks, C679 18:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you please close the AfD? I would've but I voted "delete" in the nomination. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to both of you; I don't know how I missed that. It looks to have been closed whilst I was offline, thankfully. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Khalid A. AdDamigh

Hi Yunshui, Just to let you know that Prof. Dr. Khalid A. AdDamigh which says you deleted it as an expired PROD is currently showing up in Category:Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(At the barbecue) looks like it's already been sorted I see 2 in there and neither are that. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 15:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been a PROD, though; I deleted that one as a CSD. Obviously something went a bit wrong there; I've rejigged it to show the correct reason. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of our page

Hi,

It seems you decided to speedily delete our company wikipedia page for 247 Asian Media and we don't understand why. We are within the "Big 3" for KPOP News (other 2 are Allkpop and Soompi, which BOTH have wikipedia pages you guys have not deleted) and many of our readers and business contacts within the Asian community have been wondering why we don't have a page. You will have some random Youtube sensation have a Wikipedia page but an actual media company with MANY source citations on Wikipedia (do you need me to send them to you?) is deleted in less than 12 hours of completion.

All our links were outside links and were not links from our site. Everything was reviewed and looked over and made sure it was correct. I don't understand why you would delete that. Every link was verifiable, it explained our presence on Wikipedia, it gave all the Asian community, artists, and companies our name on Wikipedia to actually link when they are sourcing us for their pages (right now, they source us and provide the links but it looks pretty stupid to have all those linked to us and we not even be on Wikipedia).

Please, explain this to me.....I still have the draft in my sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsianGuruGirl (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) G11, hmmmm. At a guess I'd say that it was deleted because it contained many or all of the regular signs of an article that's there to promote a business and not act as an encyclopedia entry. Of course since I'm not an Administrator I don't know what was on the page so I can't be sure. It'd be best off letting Yunshui answer it but I'd assume it read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia page. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 00:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bit of confusion here, methinks. I deleted the other page you created, 24-7kpop, under A7 (not G11), because that page contained no sources and made no claim to significance. It could feasibly be recreated as a redirect to 247 Asian Media (which was previously deleted by another administrator under G11). The current version of that article looks fine to me, and I see no reason why it should be deleted. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Elo touch solutions deletion

I don't understand why you deleted. Elo is a valid business and this page discribed the business. Ken Knorth@elotouch.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth north (talk • contribs) 05:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the page because it appeared to exist purely for advertising purposes, and because its only claim to notability (that the company invented touch screen technology) was patently false. It also seems clear that you are ether the same person as User:Farniz12 or are acting in concert with them, and so I have blocked your account for sockpuppetry. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Mathews deletion

Hello Yunshui,

The last version of the Adrian Mathews entry has no copyright violations. If you find any please say where. The older version had such violations, not the one deleted on November 19th. Please consider this before deleting this entry again.

Kind regards, Lancet (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talkpage, most of the article is lifted word-for-word from here. Your repeated protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, that is a copyright violation. I am deleting the page again, if you recreate it with the copied text once more, you will be blocked from editing for copyright violations. Write it in your own words, or not at all. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Yunshui/Why_I_deleted_your_page

Hi,

Your "why I deleted your page" page is really good. Would you be ok if I copied (and modified it slightly) to do the same thing on my talk page? I would be happy to attribute it to you at the top. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA - you can do whatever you want with it. No need to attribute me on the page, just pop a note in your first edit summary to provide attribution. Glad you like it! Yunshui 雲‍水 20:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Gnod

I'm trying to create a page about a band, but I see you deleted a page for the band last year. Would you take a look at this and give me an idea if I'm spinning my wheels or if I've found sufficient WP:RS to justify a stub? There's more in the refs than just what I've put in the prose so far, but if you think this is different enough from the prior page, I'll keep at it.

Thanks.
David in DC (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The presence of any sources at all is enough to distinguish it from the version I deleted... I'd say you've got enough there for a stub-class article; certainly I wouldn't entertain the thought of deleting it under any of the speedy deletion criteria. Feel free to shunt it into mainspace whenever you're ready. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure it would add much value to the encyclopedia yet, but I didn't know what had been deleted and didn't want to waste my time or anyone else's. David in DC (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me ?

Deleting the François Glorieux page

Never heard of classical music??

I provided the necessary references , you even checked them out??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryVB (talk • contribs) 11:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

References weren't the problem - the tone of the article was entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. I considered simply removing the hyperbolic advertising and reducing the article to a stub, but since that would have involved removing every single meaningful sentence and would simply have left a list of works, I decided removing it entirely was the wiser option. I've no objection to you recreating the article, but if you do so, please use neutral wording. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

• From the editor: The Signpost needs your help

• Book review: Peter Burke's Social History of Knowledge—ambitious, fascinating, and exhaustive

• Featured content: Rockin' the featured pictures

• WikiProject report: Score! American football on Wikipedia

• News and notes: Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting

• Traffic report: Ill Winds

• Arbitration report: WMF opens the door for non-admin arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Barnea & Co.

Hello Yunshui,

I created a page about Barnea & Co. on November 26th and the page was speedy deleted. I read your note about explaining the significance of the office and its contribution to community. I would like to add a paragraph with important project that Barnea & Co. participated in, such as: power station establishment in the north of Israel, light rail in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and more. Because my page was already deleted, I'm asking for your kind assistance and advice. can i write it as a dfaft and show it to you first before publishing again?

Awaiting your kind reply Tnanks Juan Parve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanparve (talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Juan. You're certainly very welcome to create a draft in your sandbox or elsewhere in your userspace, and I'd be more than happy to review it for you. What concerns me is the fact that Barnea & Co. may not meet Wikipedia's inclusion requirements for companies and organisations, and so you may be wasting your time. I'd suggest that before you recreate the page, you track down at least three suitable sources to support it. These will need to be:

• independent of the law firm - so no press releases, pages from their website or statements by their partners or affiliates
• reliably published - no blogs, self-published books etc.
• about the company - with significant coverage of Barnea & Co., not listings or passing mentions in an article about something else.

If you let me know the URLs of these sources (or just give me details, if they're offline), I'll check them out for you to make sure they meet the requirements. That way, when you recreate the page, you can be sure that it won't simply be tagged for deletion again. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sportsfan5000

Weird; I didn't get any notice of the discussion thread until you modified the link just now. In the diff that I linked in the block message, Sportsfan attacked a really broad class of people specifically on a gay-rights issue, despite recently being warned of the provisions of the arbitration case. It's bad enough to make attacks on broad classes of people, but the attack was also quite clearly directed toward the person who originated the thread. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked; see my comments at his talk. I had to turn your {{unblock reviewed}} into some nowiki gibberish, because otherwise it would either remove your comments entirely or leave Category:Unblock on hold on the talk page; if you know how to make things look nicer without forcing the category to appear, please do. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

AN

I cannot reply there since it has been protected due to a sock attack. By all means close that section on AN. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You should still be okay to edit; it's only semi-protected. I've closed the thread as requested. By the way, looking at my comment there I realise I sounded a bit terse (the italics don't help...), sorry about that. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Block didn't work

They're back. User:Rrhsstaff1313. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That one's now blocked as well. Since they seem to have access to a range of IPs, I've also semiprotected the article for a month - my earlier hopes that blocking would be sufficient were clearly misplaced. Thanks for letting me know. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Help desk

Thanks for your help at the Help desk. Ansett (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Any time; glad to be of use. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on my menu...

Just wanted to stop by and say thank you!SpeedyEditing ^hit_me_up 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure pointing out problems counts as "help" - but if it does, you're welcome. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

yon princess, (b)locked in a deep editing-slumber

Hello Yunshui, I'm trying to train a beginning editor, User_talk:PrincessKannapolis. They are currently/recently in film school at USC, and are starting an entertainment-related company with one of their friends, and came to wikipedia to add dedicated articles direct to mainspace (skipping AfC) about all the people they personally know in the entertainment business... based on a misunderstanding of WP:NOTEWORTHY compared to the higher bar of WP:N.

explanation and diffs covering PrincessK's wiki-history up to this point, and her answer to the question you asked her to explain

As you might imagine, that did not go very well for her. :-)   Following a brief baptism in the fiery templates of doom, there was a short block. This was evaded by use of her college friend's account (socking), or perhaps by asking her friend to perform some edits on her behalf (meatpuppetry), I'm not sure which, and of course it hardly matters which. I do not get the sense this was intentional violation of WP:PUPPET, but rather simply ignorance of the more subtle policies around here. Later, when the short block expired, she returned to her own account, but her trial-by-fire continued, and there was an allcaps tirade of questionable grammatical correctness, leading to an indef block.   I arrived on the scene shortly before this happened, not in time to prevent the trouble, but in time to befriend her, and do my best to train her via talkpage during her indef. You were the last admin to review her unblock request, and declined[1] on the basis that she had not yet sufficiently proven her commitment to henceforth follow the anti-puppet policy. Here, she explains her new-&-improved understanding of the anti-socking rules. User_talk:PrincessKannapolis#lesson_three.2C_WP:PUPPET   The details of PrincessK's COI transgression (where PrincessK is the beginning editor being discussed above) are reasonably complex. She was not being paid cash for the work, by any of the people involved.[2] However, she started editing for one of her friends (Kelley), who had a small part in an indie-film in 2011, and missed the part about not doing editing "for your friends" even if the only compensation is friendship; furthermore, it seems clear that PrincessK's *hope* was to one day convert this freemium editing into a professional relationship with that same friend (Kelley owns some sort of small movie-production-corporation), and at one point she "simplified" her friendship with Kelley by calling her a "client".

Anyhoo, I believe that PrincessK has this all straight in her head now, as best as I can tell. I'm cautiously optimistic that if unblocked, she will not be violating policies again immediately, and moreover, that if she does goof, she will calmly discuss with WP:NICE in mind, rather than let her temper get the best of her and turn things into WP:BATTLEGROUND-territory. PrincessK definitely has the intelligence and the persistence to do very well here, if she can control her temper, and channel her wikithuisiasm into Doing The Right Thing. Although I cannot guarantee that this optimal outcome will come to pass, I suggest that WP:ROPE and/or WP:GLUE applies here, and ask that she be unblocked. We will find out if my optimism is justified or not, based on whether she does well, or poorly.

  p.s. You are of course free to ask me questions, but PrincessK can probably better answer your questions about her, now that she has finished her welcome-to-wikipedia-lessons.  :-)   She can only reply on her own talkpage, of course, although she can read this one. I will leave a note for her there, so she can see this one. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree (very good of you, by the way, to lavish so much time on educating a new user, especially one who's blocked). I'll discuss it with Secret and unblock with his approval, but personally I think it would be reasonable to let her come back (on the condition that she doesn't write about her "friends" any more). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks. She understands to only use the talkpages, if she has any kind of emotional or financial or semi-emotional or semi-financial compensation, methinks. p.s. I'm interested in WP:RETENTION, and would like a lot more folks (I'll leave quantity fuzzy to avoid embarrassing myself ;-)   to help out around here. PrincessK may or may not be one of those, but if she will use her powers for good, I want her to stay. We just fell below 30k active editors... a steady downward trend for the past five years.[3] Part of my friendlyism crusade is motivated by terror that wikipedia will implode in a vicious downward spiral.  :-)   It is also rewarding stuff, though time-consuming. Anyways, if it all works out for the best, I expect her to remember this month in her wiki-history, and in the future pay it forward. That said, WP:REQUIRED applies, she only should do that if she really wants to! Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Since a block is intended to be preventative rather than punitive it seems to me that it is likely that she will be of good behaviour now, and it might be time to lift it. I would wish her consideration of the invective she yelled onto my talk page, but that need not concern whether she should be unblocked. It is, however, potentially relevant to her behaviour after any unblock. Time, as usual, will tell. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Secret has now done his handsome prince routine. Hopefully all your hard work will now pay off. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ruchira Panda

Hi,

You declined CSD and PROD stating that its clearly notable. Does she satisfy WP:Band? if she does then which point. Please let me know else I'll take it to AfD. Hitro talk 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

By all means please do take it to AFD - I'm not arguing that deletion shouldn't be on the cards, merely that there's just about enough coverage (both in the article and online) to make CSD (and a minimal PROD) inappropriate. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello..Happy thanksgiving :) Thank you for your response. I have moved this article to AfD. Your views are appreciated there. Hitro talk 19:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit to "Churches of Chirst"

Please see my comment on the talk page of this article Talk:Churches of Chirst. Thank you. Jpacobb (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the IP

I was after it all morning. ThatRusskiiGuy (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

He'd clearly annoyed a lot of people; I've had four thanks notifications for that block message! Any time. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Street Roots userpage

Hi Yunshui. Thank you for reviewing my CSD nomination for the blank User:Street Roots userpage. I see you declined it. Just letting you know: I have opened an MfD. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Street Roots. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, thanks for letting me know. Seems a bit of a wasted effort for a user that hasn't edited in six years, doesn't it? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Overzealous user

It seems I need your help sooner than expected. It would appear that User:Arjayay is intent on making a point, having decided to go through all my edits, starting from the last, finding every possible reason to fault them, no matter how trivial.

Perhaps you are in a position to do likewise with this user's recent edits, or better still, feed me the necessary info to behave as equally anal in response, sending the same message? Wicks Steve (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In many ways, this person is proving I had a point in complaining about snide behaviour.Wicks Steve (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have a grievance, one of the best things to do, is probably to talk to the editor concerned, rather than complain to someone else. I was alerted to this thread by the notification system.
I am a WP:WikiGnome, I go around correcting little mistakes, without making a song and dance about it. When I find a mistake, I often look at the edit history, to see whose edit I am correcting, as an editor who has made a mistake in one article, very often repeats it in another.
I am not "making a point" by correcting mistakes, just improving the encyclopaedia. I have not added a template to your talk page, or posted a request, pointing out your mistakes, so I am not "finding fault", or attributing blame. I have posted the reasons for making the corrections in the edit summaries, if you think any of my corrections were incorrect, please let me know.Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit caused the following notice to appear.

This article's list of alumni may not follow Wikipedia's verifiability or notability policies. Please improve this article by removing names that do not have independent reliable sources cited within this article showing they are notable and alumni or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations. (November 2013)

So why was it reverted when I did exactly that?

"Please improve this article by removing names that do not have independent reliable sources cited"

It doesn't get any clearer than that Wicks Steve (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

My point is, despite all your rigorous attempts to ensure each article is consistently within the guidelines, I doubt you will manage it.

I believe it would be better to focus on why guidelines aren't being followed in the first place. IMO They should be written much simpler, they lack readability, catering more to techies, and searches seem to requires previous proprietary technical knowledge of code phrases. Wicks Steve (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Having previously read your user page I felt positive it isn't in your nature to allow mistakes, which is why I am already sure searching would prove fruitless.Wicks Steve (talk)

(edit conflict) Firstly, please note that it was User:Theroadislong who reverted you, and who has, since, found some sources, and deleted some "non-notables". The idea of adding the template, is so that people can find and add sources. If it was just a question of deletion, that would have been much quicker than adding the template.
Alumni with their own articles are exempt from the requirement for sources, provided it is stated in their article the they attended the school. My normal practice is to add the template and wait, as people associated with the school often provide sources in the interim. After a couple of months I remove the names without either an article or a reliable reference showing their notability. Arjayay (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I was aware, as you can see from User:Theroadislong's talk page. I still maintain there is little to no consistency between how each of you treat articles, which is setting a poor example, a problem that should be addressed as I for one use other pages as a template. Wicks Steve (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (bizarrely I am about to suggest using other pages) To answer your later points, I have some sympathy with your comments about "previous proprietary technical knowledge of code phrases" there are a lot of policies and guidelines, and some of the language is not particularly obvious, or self explanatory. Whenever undertaking an area of editing I am unfamiliar with, I tend to find a Good article on a similar subject and see how it has been formatted, what templates have been used etc. Although not preventing mistakes, it reduces them and gives the encyclopedia a more consistent overall image. Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is dangerous to limit the dissemination of information to an elite group, those who can understand techie talk, I don't want my kids raised in such a world.Wicks Steve (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sure I make many, many mistakes, and will continue to do so. Having known since the 70s how unforgiving computer's are when it comes to interpreting I understand the need for attention to details, what I don't understand is the need to add unnecessary complexity in the language used to describe how simple things work. As an example, I refer you to Object Oriented Programming, namely C++, and terminology such as polymorphism and inheritance and many other bizarre words that have little to do with the code and more to do with sounding ultra-techie. Wicks Steve (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

To change the subject, I am disappointed to see the article Dogpiss was deleted, and am left wondering if the photos and videos on Dog piss will teach anything new? Wicks Steve (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot to deal with here...

People fix other people's edits all the time here. It's kind of par for the course; some editors, like Arjayay, have a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia's style and content guidelines, and spend their time trying to make sure articles adhere to these. Whilst it's probably impossible to ensure that every page meets these standards (we get hundreds of new pages created every day, most by users who are completely new to the site), that doesn't mean it's not a laudable and important task. Compare it to doing up a house; if you can't redecorate every room simultaneously to a showroom standard, is there therefore no point in re-tiling the bathroom?

Your concerns about Wikipedia's accessibility to new users are shared by many of us. Attempts are being made to make the place more user-friendly (the VisualEditor project, for example, and of course the Teahouse) but the fact remains that Wikipedia's rules and policies grew rather organically, and whilst they are coherent, they aren't always organised in the most logical way - plus, there are quite a lot of them, now. If you've got ideas for making the place better, the best palce to put them forward is the Village Pump.

Go carefully, assume good faith, and ask for help if you need it - that's about the best advice I can give. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That is the thing I least understand. Computers and their code are the best thing we have for removing human intervention and maintaining perfect uniformity, yet Wiki does not take full advantage of this. It is possible to eliminate the need for so many "edit fixes", by designing templates that restrict what elements of a page's style can be edited, and which limit to a specified range of content in key areas, and "robots" that perform certain tasks, such as the deletion of content previously flagged once it exceeds a given deadline.

Wicks Steve (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Nelvana productions

Regarding my WP:RFPP request: please look at the edit history more carefully - there were actually two IP editors making such edits recently, and that's without mentioning the older history of this page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, since it seems to have continued after I declined the RPP request, I've stuck a month's pending changes on the article. Let's see how it goes; if after a month it's clear that the behaviour is endemic and across multiple IPs, then semiprotection might be warranted. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Turns out that you were correct that it was almost certainly only one user - but one using two very different IP addresses - and both of the IP addresses have now been blocked. Perhaps the pending changes should be removed (from this page and Nelvana as well)... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Luta Sportswear page deleted

Hi there - I was in the process of creating a page for Luta Sportswear and one also for the charity called Fight for Peace. The page had been speedily deleted before I managed to indicate why the subject was notable enough for inclusion.

Please could you un-delete the page and allow me to finish?

Many thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelapaz01 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've recreated it for you. I suggest you add some sources as soon as possible; in its present state it could be deleted again at any time. If you need more time to work on the page, would you like me to move it into your userspace for you? Yunshui 雲‍水 10:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - I followed your instructions as requested, but the page has been deleted again. Please could you suggest how to proceed? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelapaz01 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference you provided didn't offer very much information about the sportswear brand - it was mostly about Fight For Peace, and only mentioned Luta in passing. My suggestion would be to abandon the idea of writing a standalone article about Luta sportswear and instead incorporate the information into an article about Fight for Peace, which is definitely a notable topic (in addition to the source you provided, there's a load of relevant stuff here (the BBC news and Comunidade Segura ones alone would suffice to demonstrate notability). I'd recommend you start off with a userspace draft (use something like User:Pelapaz01/Fight For Peace so that you can work on the page without worrying about it getting deleted. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact, given that your username suggests a conflict of interest, you might struggle to write the page according to Wikipedia's guidelines. I'd be happy to do it for you, if you wish. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

All your help would and is greatly appreciated. I would really like to have a page for each organisation, even though they are linked. Its helpful to raise awareness or both individually, and they both do something notable and different from the norm - which is why there's plenty of press and links available. If you could help get the page started, could myself and others go on to edit it, and upload images etc later on? Thanks again.

Of course - once it's up and running, anyone can edit the page. I'll put something together this afternoon; I'll drop you a line once it's up. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow - that's really helpful, thanks so much. If you're able to help get the LUTA page up and running, I can do a Fight for Peace page. My intention was to have separate pages for each organisation, and I can find more information on LUTA as per your point. For example, I've found that the LUTA logo take its inspiration from the Brazilian graffiti font Pixação - as LUTA was founded in the favelas of Rio. The sportswear is popular among professional sportspeople who support the movement which LUTA and Fight for Peace strives for. Boxers, Anthony Joshua, Luis Collazo and Lee Selby are all know to wear LUTA in support of its cause. I'm sure I can find lots of separate information on Fight for Peace, which I'll do now. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelapaz01 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've actually just finished putting up a Fight For Peace article... Luta will be much harder, but I'll have a look around for sources. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Having done some searching, I'm pretty sure that Luta doesn't meet the inclusion requirements for companies. I've been unable to locate any sources which aren't a) derived directly from Luta themselves, b) selling Luta products or c) actually about Fight For Peace, with a passing mention of the sportswear brand. Fight For Peace = definitely notable and worth having an article about, Luta Sportswear = not so much, I'm afraid. If you can find any sources that don't fall into the above three categories (i.e. that don't originate from Luta or one of their outlets, and that talk about the sportswear brand rather than the Fight For Peace program) then by all means let me know and I'll take a look - from my own investigations, however, I'd say that as far as Wikipedia's concerned, there's no reason to have a separate article. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui, I'll add some more info to the FFP page - how do I upload images? Regarding LUTA, I still feel that its a notable and worthwhile enough to warrant its own article, so I'll try and find those links you mentioned. On that note, could I ask why this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapha_%28sportswear%29) is ok? Rapha is a great brand, but so is LUTA too? What's the difference? Appreciate all your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelapaz01 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The greatness of the brand isn't an issue - what counts is coverage. Several of the sources in the Rapha article are, frankly, poor, but there are at least a couple that link to fairly lengthy articles discussing the brand. That's what counts here.

As far as image uploads are concerned, you'll need to be careful. You won't be able to upload anything directly to Wikipedia yet; your account is too new. If you have images relating to FFP which are unequivocally free to reuse then you can upload them to Commons, but you cannot upload anything that hasn't been released under a free licence. If the pictures are your own - as in, you personally took/created them - then you own the copyright and can release them for use under a CC-BY-SA licence, but if they aren't your own work, you probably don't have the right to release them for use here. They might be usable under fair use terms, but you'd need to check to make sure that they met all the requirements. More information is available in the Image use policy. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood about images. Trying to send you links which you might approve of for LUTA: http://lawfullychic.com/2013/06/off-to-a-running-start/ http://milkmade.com/articles/2138-LUTA-s-Fight-For-Change#.UpyQCY1Wu1P http://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2013/08/08/fighting-for-peace-and-profit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelapaz01 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about Lawfully Chic (it's a blog, albeit a multiple-contributor one, and so probably fails the requirements for reliable sources) but the other two look usable. I see you've got a draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LUTA Sportswear with some more sources, all of which look suitable; I'd suggest you add these new sources there and then submit it for review; it should pass. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

PS. When you post on talkpage like this, it's recommended - kind of required, actually - that you sign your post with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically convert to your signature and a timestamp. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok great - have added those links. So do I now sit back and wait for the LUTA page? For the Fight for Peace page - can I tweet to the FFP charity and suggest they get involved, or are not not supposed to? Thanks Pelapaz01 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea; see WP:COI. Thanks to the Wiki-PR debacle recently, conflict-of-interest editing is a bit of hot potato at the moment. There's even a fairly well-supported movement to ban such editors from writing about their organisations altogether. I'd be concerned that if employees of FFP showed up on Wikipedia and started editing the article witout having first gained a thorough grounding in Wikipedia's policies, they'd probably be given very short shrift.

I'll take a look at your draft and tweak it a bit; I'm dipping in and out of Wikipedia today so may not be able to do much. I'll see whether I can get it reviewed and posted by the end of tomorrow. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't take too long. LUTA Sportswear, now up and running. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, really appreciate it - hope you dont mind if I ask the odd question now and then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelapaz01 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Always happy to help, ask away. If I'm not around, the Teahouse is a good place to get help, too. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, I've tried to upload a LUTA logo (which I've taken from the LUTA website) - to Wiki Commons, but I could do with some help filling out the licensing info. Could you lend a hand if you have a sec? Thanks again :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelapaz01 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Woah there - remember when I said, above, that Commons is only suitable for images that are unequivocally free to reuse? Logos ain't that. You cannot upload a corporate logo to Wikimedia Commons without seriously infringing the company's copyright, since doing so basically says, "Anyone can use thos logo for any purpose, including sales, promotion and advertising." Want to give counterfeiters free rein to legally sell cheap rip-offs of LUTA products, with the LUTA logo? By uploading the logo to Commons, that's basically what you've done.

I've marked the file for deletion (since I'm only an admin here, not on Commons, I can't delete it myself). Let me reiterate - you cannot upload non-free images to Wikimedia Commons - and you can only upload them to Wikipedia in very specific cases. I'm sorry for not making things clear enough, but I'd stress that if you aren't sure about image copyrights, please don't upload anything at all; you could easily do more harm than good. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Ok, sorry about that - is it easier if I delete it myself as I uploaded it? I'm sure you were perfectly clear, its my fault not getting to grips with how Wiki works. I just saw other sports brands had pages with their logos on which looked to be taken from the brands websites - so I assumed I could follow their example. How come most other brands have their logo's on the pages? Sorry for causes problems, and thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelapaz01 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No need, the tag I put on it will see it removed fairly soon.

As far as other pages are concerned, most brands do have an image of their logo. In some cases they can be freely used because they are simple enough not to create a copyright in the first place, and are therefore in the public domain (e.g. File:Oglogo.gif) - these images can be uploaded to Commons. In most cases, however, the logo can only be used because it would not be possible to visually represent the company any other way (e.g. File:Chick-fil-A Logo.svg) - this falls under a claim of fair use. In such cases the owner of the logo retains their copyright, and the image is uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) with a notice regarding the continued rights of the image's owner. The LUTA logo definitely falls into the latter category (it incorporates design elements beyond simple typing or geometric shapes), and so will have to be uploaded to Wikipedia under the appropriate fair use terms. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Don't forget to ~~~~ sign your posts! Yunshui 雲‍水 12:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded the logo to Wikipedia with the correct rationale, and I've put it into the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you once again! So, shall I follow the process for Fight for Peace and their logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelapaz01 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Already done. File:Fight For Peace logo.png Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Amazing! Thank you :-)

Thank You

Thanks Yunshui, for handling that Greek user. I was starting to get a headache chasing back and forth. No sooner as I removed one piece of unsourced content, he end up putting more while I was issuing the warning. I need some headache pills after that one. Phew! Wes Mᴥuse 13:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do have one

Thank you for the nomination, looks like it did it's job really well. But the question: in a content dispute, when do you block and when do you protect the page? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the exact nature of the dispute and the disputants, but I'd go with the following as a very general rule of thumb (with the caveat that negotiation and discussion should be the first port of call ):

If there are no 3RR violations or endemic edit warring, go for protection over blocking. If at least one of the parties involved is a registered user, go for full protection over semi - semi-protecting an article where only one of the disputants is an IP editor is tantamount to taking sides against them. However, if the edit war concerns the introduction of disputed material by an IP/unconfirmed editor to an otherwise stable article, my predilection is usually to favour reverting to the stable version and semi-protecting it. The important thing is to avoid imposing your own idea of what the article should look like and protecting that.

If you've got clearly disruptive edit-warring going on, and the parties involved are refusing to enter into discussion, blocks are usually the swiftest way to get their attention. However, blocking obviously make any discussion impossible for those users, so short blocks (24hrs or so) are preferable. You don't need me to tell you that one doesn't have to hit 3RR to get blocked for edit-warring.

The thing to remember is that it's your job to stop disruption to the article - if you feel this is best achieved by blocking, then block; if you feel it warrants protection (full or semi) then protect. You have a considerable amount of discretion in your actions; as long as you can give a justification for what you've done, it's probably the right thing to do. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. A much better explanation than I've been able to find anywhere else (do you mind if I steal it for some reforming of the new admin school I'm planning to do? So in this case would you have done the same thing I did? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Help yourself. As regards the Manolis Kapelonis page, I'd certainly have declined protection - in this case, one editor is clearly using Wikipedia as a soapbox and the other is trying to maintain the encyclopedia's integrity. That's not a content dispute, that's a new editor who wants to push a POV. I don't see the need for an AFD, as it makes a perfectly sensible redirect - had I dealt with it, I think I'd have imposed the redirect (if it hadn't already been done) and dropped the page creator a note about what Wikipedia is and isn't for. That said, I don't see any issues with your handling of the situation; there is, after all, more than one way to skin a cat. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Only reason I went that was was because at least one version of the page seemed to contain be a reasonable argument that Manolis Kapelonis was notable on his own and so it should go through an AFD. But as you said more than one way. While I've got you, could you please check this block for me. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like an okay block, but consider whether there might be some relationship between that account and User:Tanveer Alam... Yunshui 雲‍水 09:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought it's a possibility but that account hasn't edited for 2 a bit years so I thought it was probably something I could ignore? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That is, of course, your prerogative... It's pretty clearly the same guy (presumably Tanveer Alam himself), since all of his edits concern Alam in one way or another. My personal take is that he's a self-promoting SPA, and has a serious COI with everything he edits; I'd be inclined to, at the very least, drop him a note explaining WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO, and alert him to the fact that he shouldn't be editing from a new account without declaring his old one. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've left them a message, thank you for that suggestion. As well as a message that their next block is likely to be quite long, so hopefully that'll get the message across. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Good message! I might nick that myself... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't take that much credit, nick a bit from here, nick a bit from there. ;) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Callanecc: welcome to the mop-cupboard! Re Tanveer Alam, here is new user Newsviewsmedia (talk · contribs), created 09:18 (just before you blocked Mytanveer, which is odd) trying to create Tanveer N Alam. Perhaps we need an SPI? JohnCD (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah that sounds like a good idea given we've got four accounts (just found another). I'll file it now, with a CU request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it did. SPI filed. Well I'm having a good first day, a few cases of sockpuppetry an attack username, what's next I wonder. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

UAA looked a bit busy last time I was there... Y'know, if you're bored or something. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My shirt will get all dirty, ah well that's the way the mop works. Looks like SPI needs some admins as well. I just need to be able to get away from AIV and RFPP for a decent period of time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone inactive there myself, but SPI clerking was a very interesting and educational experience; you might want to consider putting yourself forward there at some point. Not that you don't have enough hats already... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That 117 IP

Hi Yun.

In the midst of the not so smart edits to your user page the IP was trying to ask why their page was deleted. You wanna take that one to his talk page or will I? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 10:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If I knew who they were or which page they were talking about I'd be happy to respond, but that IP has only ever made two edits, both to my userpage. If they want to log in and have a conversation with me about the deleted page, I'm perfectly happy to talk to them about it. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have actually worked out who that was now, but since we try to avoid tying IPs to accounts I'm not going to mention the username here. Suffice to say that the page I deleted was unambiguous self-promotion, and was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11. If he wants it back he's going to have to apply at Requests for undeletion, since I'm certainly not going to grant him any more free advertising space here. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, G11, fair dice. Just thought it was a complete idiot beginner. That said that was probably was he was trying to put across. It's a good thing we have admins like you eh? Heh. You take care my WikiFriend. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

• Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who

• Recent research: Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia

• Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more

• News and notes: One decade of Wikisource; FDC recommendations raise serious questions

• WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie

• Featured content: F*&!

• Arbitration report: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case opens; New discretionary sanctions draft proposal available for review

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam Pepper Page Deleted

I dont understand why my page about Sam Pepper was deleted - as I clearly stated why the person is of significant importance. Additionally, I don't understand why the page was considered a promotion for Sam, as it was just detailing his career.

This article should be in an encyclopedia because Sam is emerging talent on one of the most rapidly growing mediums of the time - YouTube. It is not a promotion, is purely factual, and educates the public on him, as most information about him online is spread out. Please explain why 1) it is a promotion, 2) it does not show significance or importance

Kpshu (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(The eager unpaid intern of The Schooner) Try reading this page. Besides, if all you have on them is YouTube then they most likely aren't deserving of an article here. Look at it like this, an encyclopaedia is for people or things that already are popular, not those rising to fame. Chances are they also fail this page, our general notability guideline. Just read the pages that I've pointed you towards and if something doesn't add up then ask on my talk or reply here. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to Writ Keeper's response at the Teahouse - if you can't or won't write the article in a neutral voice with citations to appropriate sources, then it's just going to keep getting deleted. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Legionarius

He is erasing all my contributions to the page, erasing all my sources, everything to him is "unreliable", this is pathetic. If it is a single IP doing it without talk nothing, any admininstrator ban him immediately. I'm not seeing any diference, except the fact that he is doing wiki-advocacy. Look to his contributions, 6 months editing just 1 article, if this is not single-purpose account way of edition, I don't know what it is. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Raising concerns about sources and removing text based on those sources is not vandalism. If you addressed his concerns, rather than repeatedly accusing him of ulterior motives and demanding that he be blocked, then you might find the community would be more willing to listen to your opinion. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Luckeno94

Could you revoke the talk page access please? This is the same person as the person behind User:Jrpr1966. Going off to SPI to request a CU, to see if we can find a master. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Done and dusted. Mass rollback doesn't seem to want to play with me today, so I'm going to go and wipe out any traces he's left manually. I'll be online for a bit today; feel free to ping me if you see this character turn up under a new alias. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Already gone through and done most of that :) The reason mass-rollback is failing may be quite simple; most of their contributions are to start new talk pages. The Jrpr1966 account did exactly the same thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be it. Ah well, children have to get their kicks somehow, I suppose. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)