| Revision as of 07:10, 28 June 2013 editYunshui (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers69,412 edits (not a) wikibreak← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:45, 28 June 2013 edit undoSagaciousphil (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,311 edits →A kitten for you!: new WikiLove messageNext edit → | ||
| Line 506: | Line 506: | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0557 --> | <!-- EdwardsBot 0557 --> | ||
| == A kitten for you! == | |||
| ] | |||
| I hope whatever is happening to you in real life works out - here's a little kitten to watch over you until it does. | |||
| ] - ] 07:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
Revision as of 07:45, 28 June 2013
 | Yunshui is not taking a wikibreak. However, real-life events mean that I will probably be drastically reducing the time I spend editing Misplaced Pages for the forseeable future. I may therefore be slower in replying to messages and requests, for which I apologise. |
 | Welcome to Yunshui's talk page.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. If you reply to me elsewhere, please leave a If you are here because of a page that I deleted, please take a moment to read this page first. I prefer to keep communications on-wiki if possible, but if you need to discuss something privately, please send me an email. |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WHAT DID YOU DO?!
|
The Destroyer of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| OH MY GOD WHAT DID YOU YUNSHUI DO THERE'S MONKEYS AND FISH EVERYWHERE SOMEONE HELP WHY DID YOU HAVE TO BECOME SUCH A PROLIFIC EDITOR I AM GOING TO MELT AND DROWN IN MY OWN LIQUID HELP Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC) ;) |
- I don't actually know; what did I do? Yunshui 雲水 07:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure, but LOL Kevin. MM (Report findings) 09:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because...
Hello Yunshui, PLease reconsider the deletion of Matthew Ogunbor's page. It has a significance that will help young entrepreneurs to always strive at their dream. Please if you can not reverse this, then allow me to make a new page with his name. Thank you soo much for understanding and cooperating. I can assure you that you will not be disappointed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herdman123 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't bother, if I were you - there's nothing in the deleted page to suggest Mr Ogunbor meets Misplaced Pages's basic inclusion criteria, and a cursory search of the web shows that there probably aren't enough sources anywhere else either. Some people just don't meet Misplaced Pages's very specific requirements - that's no reflection on their talent, importance or worthiness; it just indicates that Misplaced Pages doesn't want an article about them yet. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Footnotes
Hi Yunshui :) Do you know how to create/fix footnotes? Ugh, I've been trying in this help desk thread to get someone to make a fix in an article, but so far no one knows much about footnotes, or just isn't willing to fix the problem. I figured since you know almost everything about editing (:p) that maybe you'd be willing to fix the problem. But if you're too busy, I won't be offended if you can't do it. But I'm not getting much help at help. Haha. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. Yunshui 雲水 08:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you saw this at the help desk, so I'll say it again: You're the best! Thank you so much. One question. Should the set of sources at the end of the first paragaph be footnoted as ; the part that ends with "greatest clay court player in history."? Or is having five cites displayed together like that acceptable? If not, can you footnote that set of sources, also? I'm not sure how many sources displayed together is too many before a footnote should be used. Anyway, I just wanted to express my appreciation to you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, dealt with; should have done it earlier, sorry. AFAIK there's no hard and fast rule; in my personal opinion more than four citations in a row looks a bit ugly, but lots or articles use six or more. Yunshui 雲水 22:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! However, see this edit by Gadget850 just before yours, where he corrected the coding you had done earlier in the day. He said different templates should be used. He also posted in the help desk thread about it. Of course, I have no idea which is the preferred method, or why, so I'll leave that to you two. It looked to me like both methods worked fine. You both are much appreciated for your help on this. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Gadget's fix is definitely superior. I corrected the (comparatively complex) sorta-hack code that was already there; he had the much better idea of just using the right template in the first place... Yunshui 雲水 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mr. Y! :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Gadget's fix is definitely superior. I corrected the (comparatively complex) sorta-hack code that was already there; he had the much better idea of just using the right template in the first place... Yunshui 雲水 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! However, see this edit by Gadget850 just before yours, where he corrected the coding you had done earlier in the day. He said different templates should be used. He also posted in the help desk thread about it. Of course, I have no idea which is the preferred method, or why, so I'll leave that to you two. It looked to me like both methods worked fine. You both are much appreciated for your help on this. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, dealt with; should have done it earlier, sorry. AFAIK there's no hard and fast rule; in my personal opinion more than four citations in a row looks a bit ugly, but lots or articles use six or more. Yunshui 雲水 22:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you saw this at the help desk, so I'll say it again: You're the best! Thank you so much. One question. Should the set of sources at the end of the first paragaph be footnoted as ; the part that ends with "greatest clay court player in history."? Or is having five cites displayed together like that acceptable? If not, can you footnote that set of sources, also? I'm not sure how many sources displayed together is too many before a footnote should be used. Anyway, I just wanted to express my appreciation to you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Close an AfD for me?
I'm withdrawing an AfD because I'm concerned that pursuing it would be detrimental to articles about other authors on Misplaced Pages. I know that you're so far uninvolved, so I'm asking if you can finish withdrawing it. My concern is that there's just enough sourcing in peer-reviewed journals to merit a keep, although the rest of the sourcing is highly dubious. There's also a big, big concern about the main contributor to the article being the subject herself, as her contributions are only about the author and her daughter. I've found enough evidence based on the username ("DLCstory") to suggest that it's her, given that the author uses the exact same username in various different sites. I got a little preachy in the AfD, but I really want to make sure that the author (if it is her) knows how badly COI editing can come across. The original format of the article was pretty bad, to be honest. The linkspam was horrendous. In any case, the AfD is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dianne de Las Casas. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi TG. I'm not sure withdrawal is entirely legit, in this instance - since AllyD has also cast a !vote (and not just a "per nom", either), a speedy close wouldn't be appropriate. My recommendation would be to let it run its course (dewatchlist it, if you like - I know how tempted you get to comment at AFDs!). I'll keep an eye on it; if it looks like snowclosing one way or the other I'll step in and do the necessary. Nice work finding sources and smacking the article into some semblance of shape, by the way. Yunshui 雲水 08:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and don't sweat it as far as other, similar articles are concerned: WP:WAX works both ways, and no individual AFD can set a precedent for similar pages without some policy changes taking place as well. Yunshui 雲水 08:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Can you leave a comment to show why it's not being withdrawn? If I leave it, it might turn into another speech. XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Yunshui 雲水 08:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
SPI
Hi Yunshui, I didn't realise you were an SPI Clerk. Can I ask, is it normal for some SPIs to be stuck at Category:SPI requests for pre-CheckUser review for up to 2 weeks? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- It wouldn't surprise me, especially in complicated or controversial cases. Is it the Kauffner one you're referring to? I'll take a look at it tomorrow (I'm rather short of time right now) if it's still there. Yunshui 雲水 22:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well actually there's two stuck there. Perhaps there needs to be some guidance that says "make your case in 50 words" - because this isn't actually that complicated it's just that there's a large amount of evidence all pointing one way. Or perhaps guidance that if a sock has 7 or 8 different "coincidences" with a named account the the SPI only list the 2 main ones? In one of these two cases stuck Cuchullain has provided a "summary for the clerks." In the other, seeing as I was looking to see which are stuck and why, there also appears to be a summary. Anyway thanks, I imagine it's still be there. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks as though DoRD stepped in while I was asleep to do his CU magic on the Kauffner investigation. What was the other case you were looking at? Yunshui 雲水 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it was DQ that worked that case. ;) —DoRD (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oops. Well, he's magical too. Yunshui 雲水 11:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it was DQ that worked that case. ;) —DoRD (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks as though DoRD stepped in while I was asleep to do his CU magic on the Kauffner investigation. What was the other case you were looking at? Yunshui 雲水 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well actually there's two stuck there. Perhaps there needs to be some guidance that says "make your case in 50 words" - because this isn't actually that complicated it's just that there's a large amount of evidence all pointing one way. Or perhaps guidance that if a sock has 7 or 8 different "coincidences" with a named account the the SPI only list the 2 main ones? In one of these two cases stuck Cuchullain has provided a "summary for the clerks." In the other, seeing as I was looking to see which are stuck and why, there also appears to be a summary. Anyway thanks, I imagine it's still be there. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 June 2013
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-06-10
Hi
Why are you defacing File:Ma Yuan - Water Album - Clouds Rising from the Green Sea.jpg? :-( — Lfdder (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure what you mean - I use that image for my userpage because a) it's a nice representation of clouds (雲) and water (水) and not much else and b) I rather like it. Yunshui 雲水 11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because you've put text on top of it. Kinda ruins the picture. — Lfdder (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the original is readily available here (and also in the French version of the article on Ma Yuan, though not in ours) if you want to view it unadulterated. I'm sorry if my userpage offends your artistic sensibilities, but you're always free to, you know, not look at it... Yunshui 雲水 13:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you're right. I just think it's kind of discourteous to do this with their work. — Lfdder (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Discourtesy to Ma (although I doubt he'll raise any objections) couldn't have been further from my mind. Consider that Chinese art collectors regularly added their own personal seals or inscriptions to works that they owned, and viewed doing so as a mark of appreciation (it indicated that the work was fine enough that they would be willing to put their own name to it). I don't claim to be in the same league as them when it comes to art appreciation, but maybe you could view my userpage more along those lines? Yunshui 雲水 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thank you for explaining. — Lfdder (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Discourtesy to Ma (although I doubt he'll raise any objections) couldn't have been further from my mind. Consider that Chinese art collectors regularly added their own personal seals or inscriptions to works that they owned, and viewed doing so as a mark of appreciation (it indicated that the work was fine enough that they would be willing to put their own name to it). I don't claim to be in the same league as them when it comes to art appreciation, but maybe you could view my userpage more along those lines? Yunshui 雲水 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you're right. I just think it's kind of discourteous to do this with their work. — Lfdder (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the original is readily available here (and also in the French version of the article on Ma Yuan, though not in ours) if you want to view it unadulterated. I'm sorry if my userpage offends your artistic sensibilities, but you're always free to, you know, not look at it... Yunshui 雲水 13:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Because you've put text on top of it. Kinda ruins the picture. — Lfdder (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Your Last Warning
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yunshui, I have warned you earlier about your prolific editing; such behaviour is tolerated on Misplaced Pages. Please refrain from referring to this warning literally. Thank you. Kevin12xd (contribs) 13:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't even get it and i'm finding it somewhat funny. MM (Report findings) 21:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:ADOPT
Hi Yun.
So i've been ducking and diving IRC and one of the more experienced users reckons I could get a fine foot out of the dirt if I went into being adopted even though I have about 1,200 edits down (The situation is partly covered on my talk page), my question is, are you adopting right now? TOS has stated that while he hasn't officially announced it yet he is adopting so if you're not up for it it's fine and I won't hold it against you. I always respect those I work with (with you it was User:CardinalBadboy and the IP in case you've forgotten) and respect their side of the barrel. MM (Report findings) 21:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, why not? You generally do good work around the place, so I doubt you'll need much guidance; nevertheless, I'd be happy to adopt you for a bit. Visit my adoption school page and complete the section marked "Your first task", and we'll get started. Yunshui 雲水 07:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done User:Matticusmadness/Adoption School Let's get this barrel rolling my friend. MM (Report findings) 10:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
heads up: I've done the 'cleanup' section. Task 1 ready for marking! XD MM (Report findings) 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
RfA Pre-request inquiry
Hi Yunshui,
I have a particularly audacious feeling that I'm ready for adminship, but of course, I'm probably not. I'm sure I've come closer to adminship than before; however, I obviously need to be prepared. As you are both an experienced sysop and a turn-to guy, what do you think I should prep for before asking someone to write me a nomination - or, what do you think I'm still missing? Cheers, Kevin12xd (contribs) 22:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Kevin. Well, first the good news - you're certainly closer than the last time you asked about this. In the past couple of months I've seen you handling disputes more effectively, doing some content creation, reviewing pending changes and (as far as I can see) using STiki and AWB correctly. I'm also pleased that you haven't followed the time-honoured wannabe-admin route of pitching in on every ANI discussion going (which is a sure-fire way to scupper your chances). All this is good - whether it will get you through an RFA is another matter, though.
- A lot of what I said in my previous response still applies. Above all, you need more evidence of content work. Even with the article you've edited most (Roblox), you've only racked up 37 edits, and most of those were reverts or minor corrections. You've created a couple of new articles, but they have no independent sources (Liquid manure has no sources at all) and contain almost no information - to be unflinchingly brutal for a moment, they looks like something a complete newbie would create for their first effort. I appreciate that both the manure article and the two Samsung ones have only been up for a day or two, but even a stub should still have decent sourcing from its very inception. Creating pages like this is almost as bad as not creating anything at all; it make it look as though you don't know what you're doing where content policies are concerned, and that's going to put people off handing you the tools which deal with those policies.
- You seem to have shifted away from CSD work (and deleted your CSD log; whilst you're entitled to do so, you'll probably need to explain the thinking behind it at RFA - deleting a supposedly innocuous log page like that makes it look like you have something to hide), and your AFD stats currently show an exact 50/50 accuracy rate on just 8 !votes, which is far lower than it should be. As such, there's not enough evidence that you understand the deletion policies; you'll want a record of 100+ CSD tags and around 50 AFD !votes (in both cases, they obviously have to be correct as well!) to convince people you can be trusted with the deletion button.
- If I may make a suggestion: I think the lure of high-speed editing with automated tools is becoming a bit of a distraction. I say this from the perspective of someone who's been there; back in the days when Igloo was up and running I loved firing it up and churning out a couple of hundred edits every morning. The problem is that this sort of work doesn't show off the skills you need for adminship; that requires getting your hands dirty. I'd therefore recommend that you take a break from automated editing (or maybe ration yourself to no more than 30 minutes a day) and have a go at doing things manually for a while. Wander round Misplaced Pages a bit; use the Noticeboard template to investigate some of the more behind-the-scenes areas that admins work in (ever visited the Fringe theories noticeboard, or discussed policy at the Village Pump?) and try to spend a bit more time - a lot more time, in fact - building content. You're interested in manure (who isn't)? Well, there's almost certainly enough information out there to get Manure to at least Good, possible even Featured, status. You want to write about Samsung? The Samsung article is in pretty ropey shape; you could be the one to fix it up. Basically, get involved as a person rather than as a robot; running AWP and STiki effectively doesn't tell the !voters at RFA who you actually are.
- I know that's probably not what you wanted to hear, and I should add that I'm not saying you shouldn't run for RFA - you're perfectly entitled to do so, and it might even be a useful learning experience. I'm simply saying that I don't think it will close with you carrying a mop; you do good work here, but you haven't yet shown the community that you'd be a safe bet with the toolset. Yunshui 雲水 07:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
かわいい
ｏｋ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Ræper (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Quite. Yunshui 雲水 07:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| ThankYou4Help! TY of 09:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC) |
You're very welcome, it was my pleasure. And thank you for the barnstar. Yunshui 雲水 09:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
A change I made
Hello,
I have changed User:Yunshui/Adoption/Adoption page to add the noinclude for the "First task" paragraph so that does not get added to the Adoption page when substed. Please revert if you think this wasnt necessary. Also, includeonly would do the exact opposite - It will add the information to a substed version without actually displaying it on the Adoption page
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good idea; should have thought of it myself. Thanks Soni. Yunshui 雲水 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Morihei Ueshiba
Good luck and of course I will help move it through the mine field. The best way to do this is step by step which means Peer Review --> GA status --> Featured article. I actually think that we should submit it to Peer Review right now but if you feel you want to fix it up a bit first than that is what we will do - let me know. It is a long maddening process but in this case doable. Sorry you were ill.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, a good PR of the current version would be a sensible option; it could suggest some immediate avenues for improvement (I can already think of several, but a third-party view would be a big help). I'll post it up at WP:PR and see if anyone bites. I'm planning on working on it properly once a couple of books I've ordered have arrived (can't believe that I didn't own A Life in Aikido!), but as a start, I'm thinking of locating and adding page numbers for all the current references. I'm also wondering whether short citations might be a more appropriate format, since I imagine the biography will reference multiple pages of the same John Stevens books quite extensively...
- Thanks for volunteering to pitch in. I expect to start making my first major sandbox edits on Wednesday or Thursday of this week, but you'd be more than welcome to jump in and make any changes you deem necessary to get started. Thanks also for the condolences, but don't worry - it was nothing serious, and I'm fine now (back on the mat tonight, in fact!) Yunshui 雲水 12:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK let me submit it for Peer Review - I will archive the talk page at the same time.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- PR's already up, but the TP archiving wouldn't go amiss. Yunshui 雲水 12:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good - and I have also notified the martial arts project page. One thing you could also do is a quick troll through contributors to the Aikido and Ueshiba articles and notify some of the more constructive editors of your intent. I think there are more than a few who would be happy to give this a push.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have a look and ping a few of them; your name was first out of the hat for obvious reasons. Yunshui 雲水 13:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good - and I have also notified the martial arts project page. One thing you could also do is a quick troll through contributors to the Aikido and Ueshiba articles and notify some of the more constructive editors of your intent. I think there are more than a few who would be happy to give this a push.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- PR's already up, but the TP archiving wouldn't go amiss. Yunshui 雲水 12:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK let me submit it for Peer Review - I will archive the talk page at the same time.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yunshui, I'll try to have a look over it if I have time. I'm horribly busy in real life though and the amount of time I've had to edit[REDACTED] has taken a bit of a tumble. Good luck with it in any case. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Jim. I'm planning to sit down tonight (children permitting) and get the Early Life section sorted out. Anything you can do to help will obviously be appreciated. Good luck with that real life thing, sounds fascinating... Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Adoption
Hi Yunshui,
I am looking for adoption to get thorough knowledge of WP policies, processes, procedures and features. I did put a adoption tag in my user page for the same and a helpful editor pointed me to you as a potential adopter. To give a brief about myself, I have been mostly a recent change patroller. Most of my 2000+ edits are anti vandal edits(sing StiKi + TW), with some small involvement in edits to retail software, Indian politics and some article cleanup (less than 100 lost somewhere in the volume of anti vandal edits). I am not looking at adminship now (may be later), just want to be well versed with what I am doing. I looked at your school and liked it. So here I am if you still have some time left out and have interest in adopting me. Thanks Amit (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Amit. Sure, why not? Set yourself up with an adoption school by completing the "Your first task" section of this page and we'll take it from there. Looking at your edit history, I'm guessing we can skip the anti-vandalism stuff, but hopefully you'll find the rest useful. Look forward to working with you. Yunshui 雲水 06:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Guidance requested
Hi Yunshui. I was hoping you could review an issue involving Black Forest fire. The lead says, "It is the most destructive fire in the state's history". Because it is such a major claim, and only had one cite in the lead to verify it, I added several more to verify the content. However, Wilhelm meis removed all of my cites and left this edit summary, in which he claimed that they were not "the best quality sources" and that the body of the article already had "local news sources". With this edit, I re-added all but one of the sources and explained to the editor that the sources - the Chicago Sun-Times, New York Times, NBC News, and The Washington Times - are not only "quality" sources, but that they are necessary to verify the content. I also created a footnote to remove the clutter of having so many sources displayed together. Amazingly, the editor came back and yet again reverted my edits. He then started this thread on my talk page, to which I replied to address my edits and his objections. Please read it. Based on my response, I restored the cites and footnote. Because of Wilhelm's editing pattern in the article over the past few days, I'm a bit concerned that perhaps he may be trying to control the article and the editors participating in it. For example, see this edit summary he posted, in which he raged at an editor (over a statistic that obviously would increase anyway, which of course it already has). In any case, can you please provide your thoughts on the cites and footnote I added. If you feel they are improper or unnecessary, I will gladly accept whatever opinion and guidance you provide. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding that last diff, that was after about the fifth time in a couple days that different editors had come by just to change that number, which was cited from an article reporting the first 360 houses burned, without citing a new source (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5). When someone does that, they leave the article citing a source that does not support the claim being made in our article. When several people in a row do it in the exact same place, it gets old. I wouldn't say correcting the same error a few times implies WP:OWNERSHIP, but think what you will. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, inserting something new into an article and repeatedly making the same edit after it was reverted without taking the issue to the article talk page is called WP:Edit warring, and starting a thread with a third party with the obvious intention of recruiting them to your side of a dispute, without even notifying the involved editor, is also generally considered bad form. See WP:Canvassing. In regards to the original issue of stacking a string of references after a single claim, I suspect you still have not read WP:CITECLUTTER. Regarding the quality of the sources you added, I did not say they were not WP:Reliable sources, only that they are not of the same quality on this topic as the news sources in Colorado, who are on the scene and in direct communication with the Sheriff's office and the Fire Department, not getting their information second-hand. I respect the New York Times as a reliable source generally, but I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest. I was willing to work with you on this, as evidenced by the thread I opened on your talk page to engage you directly, but going about trying to recruit others against me does not show me a good faith intention on your part. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yunshui, please see these replies by Wilhelm on my talk page to the 10 points I made; this was after I clearly asked him to please continue any further discussion on the article's talk page, not my talk page. ("If you want to discuss this matter further, please do so on the article's talk page, not on my talk page.") You'll note that his final comment there, "Your move", seems to be an indication that Wilhelm looks at this issue as some type of hostile, personal battle, when in fact it's simply about a content issue. And Wilhelm, contrary to your claim that I was "trying to recruit others" (plural) against you, that's simply false, and my last sentence to Yunshui above verifies it. I said, "...can you please provide your thoughts on the cites and footnote I added. If you feel they are improper or unnecessary, I will gladly accept whatever opinion and guidance you provide". So no one is trying to influence anyone, nor are there "others" (plural) involved. In any case, I'll defer to Yunshui's judgment on this matter, as I originally indicated. If he says I'm wrong, then I'll most certainly accept that. By the way Wilhelm, your explanation for posting that raging edit summary in no way justifies that type of behavior. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Btw, this unusual belief Wilhelm keeps repeating - that "local" reliable sources are of better "quality" or are more valid than national or international reliable sources - really needs to be addressed. He even said above, "I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest", referring of course to the national/international news sources I used. If we were to accept this theory, then Wilhelm is essentially saying that only "local" sources should be used to verify content in articles about events. Or at least that local sources carry more weight or credibility than mainstream national or international sources. I have to say, this is the first time I've ever heard an editor questioning the "quality" of sources like the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, NBC News, Associated Press, etc., and stating outright that they're simply not as good as local news sources. I almost couldn't believe it the first time I heard him say it because it's so far out of the norm and so contrary to WP:RELIABLE. Apparently, Wilhelm doesn't understand that a news source doesn't need to be on-site at an event to be a high quality, accurate source of information. Further, how would Wilhelm even know if some of these national/international news organizations have reporters at the scene of the event? And of course many of them have associations with local news sources to cover major events for them. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's rather perplexing that Wilhelm is so passionately objecting to this one simple sentence, solely because of that little footnote in the middle: "It is the most destructive fire in the state's history, surpassing the 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire that also began near Colorado Springs." (I'm not sure how to show the footnote cites as Notes here, so I'm showing them as References.)
References
- Parker, Ryan; Jordan Steffan; Zahira Torres (June 14, 2013). "2 confirmed dead in Black Forest fire; 379 homes destroyed". The Denver Post. Retrieved June 17, 2013.
- Banda, P. Solomon (June 15, 2013). "Worst-ever Colorado wildfires starting to be contained, authorities say". Chicago Sun-Times. Associated Press. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
- Healy, Jack (June 14, 2013). "In Colorado, Nature Takes a Fiery Toll Despite a Community's Efforts to Prepare". The New York Times. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- DeLuca, Matthew (June 14, 2013). "Crews see progress against killer Colorado wildfire". NBC News. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
- Maurer, Al (June 14, 2013). "Black Forest fire is worst in Colorado's history". The Washington Times. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
- One must wonder why Wilhelm objects so much to a mere five cites when there are many articles that use far more than five cites to verify significant claims. I can of course understand someone objecting to too few cites. But too many? Five? For such a major claim? It just doesn't seem to make any sense. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, if you care to comment in this help desk discussion regarding Black Forest fire, it would certainly be welcomed. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow, you guys have been busy... This isn't really something I feel particularly qualified to adjudicate; it's outside my area of expertise and covers a fairly subjective disagreement on which (to the best of my knowledge) no "official", consensus-based position has ever been established. However, since you've asked here, I'll offer my opinion, for what it's worth.
As I understand it, you've basically got two position here. 76... is arguing that claims such as "best/largest/most destructive/hairiest in history" require substantial evidence from multiple reliable sources in order to be verifiable. Wilhelm is arguing that multiple citations for such a claim are excessive and distracting for the reader, and that local news sources constitute sufficiently reliable sources for local events. If either of you feel that I've drastically misrepresented your position here, please call me out on it; everything that follows is based on this reading of your statements.
Here's my take: I'm not convinced that this claim requires such a multiplicity of sources. According to the verifiability policy, the only claims which are specifically singled out as requiring multiple (emphasis in original) reliable sources are exceptional statements, such as those listed at WP:REDFLAG. The claim the the fire is the "most destructive in the state's history" is not a controversial one; any reliable source which supports this statement with figures, such as the DeLuca one above, can demonstrate this as a fact (more people were evacuated, it destroyed more homes etc.). As such, it doesn't qualify as exceptional, so it doesn't need multiple sources for support. Precisely because the information can be verified in multiple reliable sources, it doesn't need to be.
That said, I would be in favour of including a source for this claim from one of the national newspapers. The reasoning behind this is that such papers have an established and widely-known reputation for editoral oversight and factual accuracy. Local news sources, whilst more immediately connected to the events, do not have the same cachet - they are not necessarily recognised for their reliability. Much of their information may indeed be first-hand - but equally, it may not have received the same editorial fact-checking as The New York Times' second-hand information. That's not to disparage local news sources (which have an important place in the article), merely to say that if a reader here in the UK were to see a story from the Midtownsville Observer, they would ascribe less authority to its claims than to those of the NYT. For a facts-and-figures statement like this, you want the most authoritative source possible, and that's going to be a national, rather than a local, paper.
So there you are; in my humble opinion, you're both wrong - or you're both right. My suggestion for moving forward with this would be to include a single national news source for the "most destructive" claim, which will avoid citation clutter but also provide a highly-regarded source for the statement. Whether you choose to do this is up to you guys; if you don't, I highly recommend you head for the WP:DRN, since tempers are clearly starting to flare a bit. Try and remember that both of you are doing what you think is right for Misplaced Pages; you may disagree on what that actually is, but ultimately, you're both shooting for the same goal. Best of luck. Yunshui 雲水 07:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds very reasonable. You mean something like this? (Denver Post, local NBC affiliate and Washington Times) Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 12:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- At a glance, KOAA looks like something I'd classify as a local news source (albeit a long established one). I'd be inclined to pick something like the NYT or NBC sources listed above, which are internationally recognised. Yunshui 雲水 13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- That was why I picked those: one local news station, one in-state (but more widely known) source and one out-of-state nationally known source. I would be just as happy with the NYT article as the WT one though. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I clearly had the wrong glasses on; I missed the fact that you'd left the Denver Post and Washington Times references in. Yeah, that seems fine to me then, though I'd wait for 76...'s input before assuming that's the end of the discussion. Yunshui 雲水 13:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yunshui, thank you so much for your very fair and thoughtful consideration of this matter. It's greatly appreciated. I accept your determination that the claim does not qualify as "exceptional" and, therefore, that fewer sources are needed to verify it. However, I still consider it at least a "significant" claim, even though I now agree that it doesn't reach the heights of being "exceptional". Any time you say in an article that something is the biggest/worst in history, it's significant. Therefore, the local news station (KOAA) should not be included to verify that statement. In the U.S., local TV news has the least credibility of all available mainstream news sources because of oversight and fact-checking concerns, particularly with regard to stories that are receiving national and international media coverage. As you clearly indicated, local news sources do not have the same credibility as a mainstream national newspaper or network. I thought you summed it up beautifully when you said, "For a facts-and-figures statement like this, you want the most authoritative source possible, and that's going to be a national, rather than a local" source. I totally agree, and that's what I've been saying all along.
I am, however, a bit confused as to precisely how many sources you are recommending be used. In my reading of your comments, it sounds to me like you are suggesting just one source, and that it should be a national one. You said, "My suggestion for moving forward with this would be to include a single national news source for the "most destructive" claim". Yet, Wilhelm responded to that advice by showing you an example - his revert of me, no less - that uses three sources: one local (KOAA), one state (Denver Post), and one national (The Washington Times). He has been pushing very hard all along to get that KOAA source in there. So, Yunshui, if you are recommending using just one source, I'd suggest the New York Times story, which clearly verifies the claim ("As fire crews fought Friday to contain the most destructive wildfire in Colorado’s history") and has high credibility worldwide. But if you are recommending up to three, then I'd be fine with the New York Times story; NBC News, which says, "the Black Forest fire is now the most destructive on record in the state"; and the Denver Post, which says, "what is now Colorado's most destructive wildfire ever". So, a top-level national newspaper, a top-level national TV news outlet, and Colorado's biggest newspaper, all which verify that very specific "most destructive ever" claim.
After we decide how many sources to use, and which ones, I'll be happy to revert my prior edit and change it to the agreed-upon solution. Again, thank you very much for your excellent handling of this matter so that we can reach a positive resolution. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yunshui, thank you so much for your very fair and thoughtful consideration of this matter. It's greatly appreciated. I accept your determination that the claim does not qualify as "exceptional" and, therefore, that fewer sources are needed to verify it. However, I still consider it at least a "significant" claim, even though I now agree that it doesn't reach the heights of being "exceptional". Any time you say in an article that something is the biggest/worst in history, it's significant. Therefore, the local news station (KOAA) should not be included to verify that statement. In the U.S., local TV news has the least credibility of all available mainstream news sources because of oversight and fact-checking concerns, particularly with regard to stories that are receiving national and international media coverage. As you clearly indicated, local news sources do not have the same credibility as a mainstream national newspaper or network. I thought you summed it up beautifully when you said, "For a facts-and-figures statement like this, you want the most authoritative source possible, and that's going to be a national, rather than a local" source. I totally agree, and that's what I've been saying all along.
- I clearly had the wrong glasses on; I missed the fact that you'd left the Denver Post and Washington Times references in. Yeah, that seems fine to me then, though I'd wait for 76...'s input before assuming that's the end of the discussion. Yunshui 雲水 13:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- That was why I picked those: one local news station, one in-state (but more widely known) source and one out-of-state nationally known source. I would be just as happy with the NYT article as the WT one though. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- At a glance, KOAA looks like something I'd classify as a local news source (albeit a long established one). I'd be inclined to pick something like the NYT or NBC sources listed above, which are internationally recognised. Yunshui 雲水 13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
While we're waiting for a final determination on this matter, I just wanted to add one comment regarding Wilhelm's repeated theory that local news sources are of higher quality than national news sources when covering local stories. In his first revert of my sources, he said, "these are not the best quality sources". And in this discussion, he said, "Regarding the quality of the sources you added, I did not say they were not WP:Reliable sources, only that they are not of the same quality on this topic as the news sources in Colorado, who are on the scene and in direct communication with the Sheriff's office and the Fire Department, not getting their information second-hand." As Yunshui pointed out, this belief is incorrect. First, many national news outlets have been "on the scene" of this fire, as they typically are with any story receiving significant national or international coverage. In fact, all of the major broadcast news outlets in the U.S. (ABC, CBS, NBC), and others, have had their reporters in Colorado covering this event. And cable networks, such as CNN and FOX, have direct affiliations with local stations in every major TV market so that they can have reporters on the scene to cover big stories. So when you say, "I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest", how would you possibly be able to remember seeing anyone there if you're not even in the U.S., let alone the Black Forest? I am in the U.S. and have watched the coverage on the various TV networks, all which have had their reporters directly at the scene. And contrary to your implication otherwise, all of the national news organizations do have "direct communication with the Sheriff's office and the Fire Department", just like the local outlets. Having said that, a media outlet does not need to be "on scene" to have great communication with the officials handling the event. In fact, law enforcement and fire agencies are perhaps more inclined to provide information to national outlets than some local ones because of their prominence and vastly larger audiences. While there are some local news outlets that provide great coverage on major stories, the national mainstream ones have a much better reputation for oversight and reliability, and thus are generally seen by people around the world as more credible and authoritative. As well, many local outlets simply do not have the resources that national news organizations do to cover stories, even if they're happening right around the corner. I will say, though, that major metropolitan daily newspapers (in any city) do have a reputation for providing superior coverage in local events like this. So the Denver Post is indeed viewed as a highly credible source. Local TV stations, in general, do not even come close to having the same level of credibility and are clearly inferior in most cases. The bottom line is that your claim that national sources are inferior to local sources when covering local events is simply untrue. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- First, let me clear up a couple minor points. I'm not sure where exactly this IP editor thinks I am, but I am currently in northern Colorado Springs, just a few miles from the evacuation zones. Also, I would say "pushing very hard all along to get that KOAA source in there" is a gross overstatement of my actions in regard to the KOAA citation. It was already in the article (twice) when this IP editor came along and started adding these other sources to the article (diff of IP's first edit to the article - in this revision the Collier article from KOAA is ref #14). The IP editor made changes that got reverted. I haven't been pushing to include the KOAA source; it had already been included; he has been pushing to get these other sources included, so let's just be straight on who's pushing what. If I were trying to add new content/sources to the article and getting reverted, I would have gone to the article talk page. As it is, it would be a bit awkward for me to post to the talk page that someone else wants to add something just so I can oppose it. That would seem a bit contrarious, I would think. Be that as it may, I don't have a problem with including the NYT or WT article alongside the Denver Post, though I don't see what fresh information or perspective this particular article from the Chicago Sun-Times adds. I also don't see any compelling reason to exclude the KOAA article, but I also don't have any particular problem with including the national NBC article. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the national NBC News web site gets its information from their local affiliate, so they're "six of one, half dozen of the other" as far as reliability goes. If we want to include DP, NYT and one other (KOAA/NBC or national NBC), that's fine by me. I'll defer to Yunshui's judgment on which is more appropriate here, as it looks like we have at least reached agreement on including DP and NYT. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now, all of a sudden, Wilhelm happens to be at or near the scene of this event. Hmm. Well, if that is the case, then apparently he failed to see all of the reporters from the national news organizations who have covered the fire. Remember, he said, "I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest". ;) His claims about local sources vs. national ones clearly speak for themselves. So, yes, I am "pushing" for strong, mainstream national sources and not less credible local ones (like KOAA) as you've repeatedly done. "Pushing" is not perjorative if one is pushing for something proper. Perhaps Wilhelm should re-read Yunshui's comments about Wilhelm's flawed theory about local vs. national sourcing. And when Wilhelm said the "IP editor made changes that got reverted", the little part he left out is that he is the editor who reverted those sources (twice); no other editor did that, which is very telling in itself. And while NBC, like any major network, has local TV news affiliates around the country with whom they work, they, along with ABC and CBS, had their own reporters in Colorado covering the story. And if Wilhelm is so pro-local news over national news, then why would he downplay national news outlets who, as he now admits, gets some of their information from local affiliates? I'm not sure if Wilhelm works for KOAA or has some other connection to them, but they clearly aren't seen around the world as being more credible or authoritative as a major national news organization or a major metropolitan daily like the Denver Post. No local TV station has that type of credibility when it pertains to a big story being covered nationally or globally. I've already stated the three sources that would be acceptable to me - NY Times, NBC News, and Denver Post - assuming Yunshui is in fact saying that more than one source is needed. If two, then drop the NBC News one. But if he's saying that only one is needed, then it should be the New York Times story, which will be seen as credible and authoritative worldwide to verify the "most destructive" claim. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- And now I'm suddenly a WP:COI account? You really need a new hobby. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Did I say you are a COI account? Not quite. I don't know if you have a COI, which is why I said, "I'm not sure". But, yes, you are suddenly claiming to be at/near the scene of the Black Forest fire and have advocated fervently to keep the KOAA source, so one would naturally wonder if you perhaps have a connection to them. Interestingly, though, you didn't deny it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not suddenly in Colorado Springs, I've been here for over a year. I have not advocated anything fervently regarding the KOAA source (though I did point out that it was already in the article before you sought to remove it). Note, I said above that I leave it to Yunshui's judgment whether it stays or goes. That's not an act of a COI account. I didn't expressly deny a COI because the idea is truly laughable. Even a passing glance at my edit history demonstrates that this is not a COI account, so I have a hard time taking the suggestion seriously enough to even respond to it, but <speaking clearly into the microphone> for the record, no, I do not have any connection whatsoever to KOAA, NBC or any of their affiliates (nor any of their competitors). </ridiculousness> In fact, I am about through wasting my time on this. It has been entertaining, though, so thank you. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously, it is your claim of being " just a few miles from the evacuation zones" that is remarkably sudden. It is quite curious that you never mentioned it until after I questioned your humorous statement, "I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest". And then when I pondered a possbile association to the weak news source for which you've repeatedly advocated, you didn't deny any connection. So are you saying that you have been "on-scene in Black Forest" with the media covering the fire? This is getting more intriguing by the moment. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not suddenly in Colorado Springs, I've been here for over a year. I have not advocated anything fervently regarding the KOAA source (though I did point out that it was already in the article before you sought to remove it). Note, I said above that I leave it to Yunshui's judgment whether it stays or goes. That's not an act of a COI account. I didn't expressly deny a COI because the idea is truly laughable. Even a passing glance at my edit history demonstrates that this is not a COI account, so I have a hard time taking the suggestion seriously enough to even respond to it, but <speaking clearly into the microphone> for the record, no, I do not have any connection whatsoever to KOAA, NBC or any of their affiliates (nor any of their competitors). </ridiculousness> In fact, I am about through wasting my time on this. It has been entertaining, though, so thank you. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Did I say you are a COI account? Not quite. I don't know if you have a COI, which is why I said, "I'm not sure". But, yes, you are suddenly claiming to be at/near the scene of the Black Forest fire and have advocated fervently to keep the KOAA source, so one would naturally wonder if you perhaps have a connection to them. Interestingly, though, you didn't deny it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- And now I'm suddenly a WP:COI account? You really need a new hobby. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now, all of a sudden, Wilhelm happens to be at or near the scene of this event. Hmm. Well, if that is the case, then apparently he failed to see all of the reporters from the national news organizations who have covered the fire. Remember, he said, "I don't remember seeing any of their people on-scene in Black Forest". ;) His claims about local sources vs. national ones clearly speak for themselves. So, yes, I am "pushing" for strong, mainstream national sources and not less credible local ones (like KOAA) as you've repeatedly done. "Pushing" is not perjorative if one is pushing for something proper. Perhaps Wilhelm should re-read Yunshui's comments about Wilhelm's flawed theory about local vs. national sourcing. And when Wilhelm said the "IP editor made changes that got reverted", the little part he left out is that he is the editor who reverted those sources (twice); no other editor did that, which is very telling in itself. And while NBC, like any major network, has local TV news affiliates around the country with whom they work, they, along with ABC and CBS, had their own reporters in Colorado covering the story. And if Wilhelm is so pro-local news over national news, then why would he downplay national news outlets who, as he now admits, gets some of their information from local affiliates? I'm not sure if Wilhelm works for KOAA or has some other connection to them, but they clearly aren't seen around the world as being more credible or authoritative as a major national news organization or a major metropolitan daily like the Denver Post. No local TV station has that type of credibility when it pertains to a big story being covered nationally or globally. I've already stated the three sources that would be acceptable to me - NY Times, NBC News, and Denver Post - assuming Yunshui is in fact saying that more than one source is needed. If two, then drop the NBC News one. But if he's saying that only one is needed, then it should be the New York Times story, which will be seen as credible and authoritative worldwide to verify the "most destructive" claim. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- First, let me clear up a couple minor points. I'm not sure where exactly this IP editor thinks I am, but I am currently in northern Colorado Springs, just a few miles from the evacuation zones. Also, I would say "pushing very hard all along to get that KOAA source in there" is a gross overstatement of my actions in regard to the KOAA citation. It was already in the article (twice) when this IP editor came along and started adding these other sources to the article (diff of IP's first edit to the article - in this revision the Collier article from KOAA is ref #14). The IP editor made changes that got reverted. I haven't been pushing to include the KOAA source; it had already been included; he has been pushing to get these other sources included, so let's just be straight on who's pushing what. If I were trying to add new content/sources to the article and getting reverted, I would have gone to the article talk page. As it is, it would be a bit awkward for me to post to the talk page that someone else wants to add something just so I can oppose it. That would seem a bit contrarious, I would think. Be that as it may, I don't have a problem with including the NYT or WT article alongside the Denver Post, though I don't see what fresh information or perspective this particular article from the Chicago Sun-Times adds. I also don't see any compelling reason to exclude the KOAA article, but I also don't have any particular problem with including the national NBC article. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the national NBC News web site gets its information from their local affiliate, so they're "six of one, half dozen of the other" as far as reliability goes. If we want to include DP, NYT and one other (KOAA/NBC or national NBC), that's fine by me. I'll defer to Yunshui's judgment on which is more appropriate here, as it looks like we have at least reached agreement on including DP and NYT. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's not go hunting for ulterior motives where there aren't any to be found... People are interested in stuff that happens in their local area, and it's not uncommon for editors to work on articles about places they live or events they witnessed. It's no big deal. Certainly I don't see anything to suggest that Wilhelm is secretly a corporate schill for KOAA, trying to surreptitiously slip them into Misplaced Pages by the back door. If he's in Colorado Springs, then KOAA is his local news station, and it's an obvious choice of source for someone local - they would see more coverage from KOAA than from any other media outlet. An experienced editor shouldn't need me to point this out, but for those watching at home: Please Assume Good Faith.
Back to the sources. In my personal opinion, as I said above, one national source would be acceptable. I'd suggest picking one that says the current fire was both the most destructive and that it was bigger than Waldo Canyon, putting it at the end of the sentence rather than in the middle (so that it can verify both claims), and then moving on to other things. If you pressed me to choose which source that should be, I'd probably opt for the Denver Post article. That's pretty much the entirety of my take on the matter. You can choose to take it or leave it; I'm just another editor, not some guru doling out pithy wisdom from my exalted seat on the mountain... Yunshui 雲水 07:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- First you said one national source would be acceptable, then you said you would choose the Denver Post as the one. But that is a local source, not national. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Shows what I know about US newspapers, doesn't it? I sort of assumed it would be a major daily since it was listed above alongside the New York Times and the Washington Post. According to the Denver Post article it's the twelfth most widely read daily in the States, which I suppose puts it up there with the big nationals, but I'm not precious about it - the NBC source would do just as well, if you prefer it. I'd steer clear of the Washington Post one (looks like an op-ed) and the Chicago Sun-Times (minimal coverage of the story), but beyond that, I don't really have any particular favourite. The only reason I'm not suggesting the NYT straight off is that it doesn't cover the Waldo Canyon fire, and therefore doesn't fulfill the same "two birds, one stone" function for the disputed sentence. Yunshui 雲水 07:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is a major (metropolitan) daily, but it's still a local newspaper. It's the biggest newspaper in Colorado and has a very good reputation. But it's not a national paper; it just happens to be covering a global story in this case. And for the record, I was just giving Wilhelm a hard time about KOAA because he unnecessarily made a huge deal over nothing. I mean, think about it... he's totally fine with three sources, yet passionately objects to five. So over two extra cites, he reverted me - without discussing it - and then used the fallacious argument the sources were cluttering the page, even after I footnoted it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- But you can see the inherent irony in making a huge deal over somebody else making a huge deal over nothing, right?
Yunshui 雲水 07:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Had he not reverted in the first place, we wouldn't be here. When someone removes solid sources that verify a big claim and does so without even talking to the editor first, he typically will initiate a battle. And you'll note that not one other editor has reverted or even questioned any of those cites since I put them there. Only Wilhelm. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Cites placed. Wilhelm used the Denver Post and New York Times, but I replaced NYT with NBC News because NYT did not verify both parts of the sentence. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Had he not reverted in the first place, we wouldn't be here. When someone removes solid sources that verify a big claim and does so without even talking to the editor first, he typically will initiate a battle. And you'll note that not one other editor has reverted or even questioned any of those cites since I put them there. Only Wilhelm. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- But you can see the inherent irony in making a huge deal over somebody else making a huge deal over nothing, right?
- It is a major (metropolitan) daily, but it's still a local newspaper. It's the biggest newspaper in Colorado and has a very good reputation. But it's not a national paper; it just happens to be covering a global story in this case. And for the record, I was just giving Wilhelm a hard time about KOAA because he unnecessarily made a huge deal over nothing. I mean, think about it... he's totally fine with three sources, yet passionately objects to five. So over two extra cites, he reverted me - without discussing it - and then used the fallacious argument the sources were cluttering the page, even after I footnoted it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Wagner
Walter Mouton (talk · contribs) is Wagner SMF 2.0.4 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem immidately apparent, but I'll stick it into SPI anyway. You, on the other hand, are much more obvious. Yunshui 雲水 13:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- This guy loves coming out with new socks every month huh? CU's must love people like Wagner and PickManBothLol (See the first archive, PMBL has one of the biggest archives i've ever seen though.)
- Don't quit your day job of entertaining us Wagner. XD MM (Report findings) 21:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello
Message added 14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I regret Sir. I shall be more careful. Sorry Faizan 14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- +1 at my talk. Faizan 14:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yunshui, just as I came to your talk, I remembered an edit notice. Do you know a talk page having the notice of "Did I revert your edit?" Please check this page first. Actually I use STiki and Huggle frequently, and my talk page may need such notice, to guide the fellow editors. Just like you have the one for deletion of articles. Faizan 14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know of a preexisting one, but you can always make your own. Just create a new page called (for example) User:Faizan/Why I reverted your edit and list the most common reasons why you revert. Then create an editnotice for your talkpage - open your talkpage in Edit mode, select the small link labelled "Page notice" (near the top right) and then add the banner message that you'd like people to see when they leave you a message, linking to your new page. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok Yunshui. Thanks. A user has also commented on the RfC here. He was involved in the conflict, and has commented in the RfC too. Can involved users comment on RfC too? Faizan 08:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Of course they can - that's largely the point: to formalise the arguments that have been taking place, and get input from other editors. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok Yunshui. Thanks. A user has also commented on the RfC here. He was involved in the conflict, and has commented in the RfC too. Can involved users comment on RfC too? Faizan 08:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know of a preexisting one, but you can always make your own. Just create a new page called (for example) User:Faizan/Why I reverted your edit and list the most common reasons why you revert. Then create an editnotice for your talkpage - open your talkpage in Edit mode, select the small link labelled "Page notice" (near the top right) and then add the banner message that you'd like people to see when they leave you a message, linking to your new page. Yunshui 雲水 08:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yunshui, just as I came to your talk, I remembered an edit notice. Do you know a talk page having the notice of "Did I revert your edit?" Please check this page first. Actually I use STiki and Huggle frequently, and my talk page may need such notice, to guide the fellow editors. Just like you have the one for deletion of articles. Faizan 14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- +1 at my talk. Faizan 14:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Adoption
Hi, I noticed you were adopting users. If you'd be willing, would you adopt me? I'd like to learn how to keep my edits constructive and helpful. Makkapakka3ROBLOX (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Makkapakka3ROBLOX (or GreenCKE, as I imagine you'll be called in the very near future). I don't see why not. Misplaced Pages hasn't changed much since 2009, but it wouldn't hurt you to have a bit of a crash course in how things should be done. Visit this page and follow the instructions under "Your first task"; that will set up your adoption school. Let me know once you've done so and we'll take it from there. Yunshui 雲水 07:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Alright! I've done that. I don't really understand what I just did, though. GreenCKE (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's why I'm here. Basically, when you enclose something in double curly brackets ({{like this}}), Misplaced Pages's software will attempt to do the following:
- Treat the bracketed text as a page title
- Copy the contents (the code) of that page
- Display that code instead of the bracketed text
- This is called transclusion. It usually applies to templates - for example, when you want to request an unblock, rather than typing out all of the code needed to create the text box, list your userpage in the appropriate categories, format the text and so-on, you simply use
{{unblock|reason=}}- this takes the information at Template:Unblock and copies it across for you. - What you did was something slightly different, called substitution; this works in the same way, except that instead of just displaying the code, the software actually deletes the bracketed text and replaces it entirely. Basically, it's the same as copy-and-pasting the content of a page. A common example of this is a vandalism warning template: typing
{{subst:uw-vandal1}}will show you the text from Template:Uw-vandal1, but that text will also appear if you view the page in Edit mode as well. - Have a look at User:Yunshui/Templates for beginners for a more extensive overview. And well done on completing your first task! Yunshui 雲水 11:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- The substitution was all I didn't understand. I copied a little template and suddenly the page was 35 kilobytes. I think I have the full hang of templates now. GreenCKE (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent. It's a minor distinction, but an important one - for example, had you simply transcluded the page all you would have seen in the edit window would have been this:
{{User:Yunshui/Adoption/Adoption page}}
- which would have made answering the questions rather difficult... Yunshui 雲水 12:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think I'm done with the cleanup task now. GreenCKE (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- The markup module has also been done with. GreenCKE 00:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent. It's a minor distinction, but an important one - for example, had you simply transcluded the page all you would have seen in the edit window would have been this:
- The substitution was all I didn't understand. I copied a little template and suddenly the page was 35 kilobytes. I think I have the full hang of templates now. GreenCKE (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's why I'm here. Basically, when you enclose something in double curly brackets ({{like this}}), Misplaced Pages's software will attempt to do the following:
- Alright! I've done that. I don't really understand what I just did, though. GreenCKE (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Gregorian Bivolaru
hi. can you please speed up a process of protection? the guru was convicted and they try to make him looking persecuted. with no proof, they come with info from his site. Bivolaru had the right to defend himself but instead he ran to Sweden granting political refugee. he didn't show up at his trials for years. not the decision is definitive. Valosu 18:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks as though I'm late to the party - it's already been dealt with. Yunshui 雲水 21:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Al-Khalid tank
Well, I don't recognize the gender of this "Yunshui". That's why I refer to you as a male. Please inform me if I am wrong. I wanted to get the article of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him, to Featured article status. But as a prerequisite to it, and for preparations for the main operation, I started tuning the article of Al-Khalid with an aim of making it a good article. I have tried my best there, can you have a glimpse at the article? Any recommendations? Flaws? Suggestions? Mistakes? Regards. Faizan 12:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am indeed of the gentlemanly persuasion, so no worries there. As far as the Al-Khalid tank article goes, I think it will take me more time than I currently have to review it - it's pretty extensive! At a cursory glance it looks pretty good, but I'll need to take the time to read it in detail, check the sources, make sure the images are okay and so on. If you don't mind waiting for a bit, I'll try to get around to it tomorrow morning, when I've got a decent block of wikitime to play with. That said, I reckon there would be no harm in sticking it up for GA review as it is - at worst, you'll get some suggestions for improvement and it might well be good enough to pass already. Yunshui 雲水 12:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. I will try more there. No worries for the delay, whenever you give a glance, I will be on here. Hoping for the best. Faizan 12:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. I will try more there. No worries for the delay, whenever you give a glance, I will be on here. Hoping for the best.
Okay, using the Good Article criteria as a guide, here are my thoughts:
- Writing: Generally a pretty high standard of prose, although there are a few grammatical errors and inconsistent stylistic choices; it could use a copy-edit by a native English speaker. I'd be happy to do this, if you'd like. The technical stuff is pretty tedious to wade through for a lay reader, but I appreciate that it's all but impossible to write engaging prose about such things. The lead needs a little bit of work; at present it contains some information that isn't covered elsewhere (like the information about Peru) and given the extent of the technical specs later in the article, these should be more thoroughly summarised in the lead.
- Sourcing: The "Development" section is in serious need of sources for its first four paragraphs (some of the sources currently used in the lead might suffice). There are also a few unsourced paragraphs in the "Design" section. Most of the sources are good, but several (e.g. , , ) do not meet the standards of WP:RS and should be removed or replaced.
- Coverage: The technical sections are very thorough (and for a non-military chap like myself, quite a slog to read through!). I'd be interested to see some history of the tank's use in combat (if it has been used at all), but beyond this, I can't think of anything that's missing.
- Neutrality: Mostly pretty good, although there are very occasional hyperbolic flourishes that need to be trimmed (words like "great" and "legendary" appear every time Khalid bin al-Walid gets a mention, for example).
- Stability: I can't see any major edit wars brewing, looks okay on this front.
- Images: File:Al-Khalid MBT.jpg is currently at WP:PUF, discussing possible licence fraud by the original source. File:Bangladesh Army MBT-2000 tanks.jpg doesn't appear to exist at the page it is supposedly sourced from, and there's no evidence that it's actually available under CC-BY-SA. These two are going to scupper a GA unless they are fixed.
Hope that's useful. It's not far off GA, just needs a bit of tweaking. Let me know if you want to take me up on my offer of a copyedit. Yunshui 雲水 08:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Very nice guide Yunshui. I am thankful to you, and I will start work on it very soon. I was a bit busy due to Friday, and Anti-Vandalism tasks, I will catch up. Thanking you. Faizan 11:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Lol, I will not dislike if you aid me by editing it. Your offer of copy-editing accepted. Faizan 07:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- Very nice guide Yunshui. I am thankful to you, and I will start work on it very soon. I was a bit busy due to Friday, and Anti-Vandalism tasks, I will catch up. Thanking you. Faizan 11:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 June 2013
- Traffic report: Most popular Misplaced Pages articles of the last week
- WikiProject report: The Volunteer State: WikiProject Tennessee
- News and notes: Swedish Misplaced Pages's millionth article leads to protests; WMF elections—where are all the voters?
- Featured content: Cheaper by the dozen
- Discussion report: Citations, non-free content, and a MediaWiki meeting
- Technology report: May engineering report published
- Arbitration report: The Farmbrough amendment request—automation and arbitration enforcement
Something to make you laugh
Well, it made me laugh anyway. Read this comment that 71.251.170.71 posted on my talk page. My reply will explain my confusion. Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: I think a very nice admin (Fuhghettaboutit) solved the mystery. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Non-admin close on Dianne de Las Casas?
I'm not entirely comfortable with this one being a non-admin closure as far as AfD goes. I did withdraw, but there were a lot of concerns over the sources and there wasn't an overwhelming support to keep the article as a whole. I think that this would have been better if it'd gone over another week or been closed by an admin rather than a non-admin user closing it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have left a comment on this at User talk:King jakob c 2#Non-admin closure to AfDs. I don't think it needs to go any further. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree with the actual outcome, and would have closed it the same way myself, I do concur that this was not appropriate for an NAC. That said, I'm sure the messages you both left for King jakob will suffice to resolve the problem, and I don't think it's necessary to go through the process of undoing the close only to redo it immediately afterwards. In the grand scheme of things, it's not going to cause anyone any headaches, so at this point, I don't see that any further action needs to be taken. Yunshui 雲水 06:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of page H.Narayan Murthy and Image. Restore Please
Hi, The photograph (File:Dr Hosur Narayan Murthy.jpg) and content on website (www.srikanta-sastri.org) are my own. Putting all of them on an encyclopedia like[REDACTED] gives it a wider audience and deserving one too. This was a legendary psychoanalyst, thinker and philosopher who did his PhD at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium and knew people like Arthur Koestler. He was a professor Excelsior. There were NO copied lines from any website. The article will be well written on Misplaced Pages. Believe me Yunshui, Misplaced Pages deserves this addition. The copyright to the content on the said website is entirely mine. The Website can be looked up on "whois". It is registered to me. Please, Please In this regard I request you to restore the deleted page and image. The World deserves to know about him. I fully respect the morality and values to which[REDACTED] stands up ....Please give the article another chance my friend. I promise it's not a frivolous shoddy copied work. Thanks Dr Bhagirath bugs2beatles 10:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Bugs2beatles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugs2beatles (talk • contribs)
- Your site clearly states "© All Rights Reserved 2010-13" at the bottom of every page. Since Misplaced Pages's content is freely available under a CC-BY-SA licence, that means that any text added from another source must already be available under the same licence. The text you added is not, and therefore cannot be hosted here.
- You can donate this material to Misplaced Pages by posting your website under CC-BY-SA terms, or by following the instructions at donating copyrighted materials. However, until the content on your site is legally available for anyone to reuse, share, alter or sell, anywhere in the world, it cannot be used on Misplaced Pages. Yunshui 雲水 10:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have corrected this discrepancy. As there is precious little on my website from which anyone can make any real money, I am more than pleased to share the wealth of knowledge there under the creative commons license with the world and wikipedia. The website banner (bottom of every page) now reads and sets free every word and image for free and creative use. Please confirm the same. Can you please please please please resurrect my page and reverse the image deletion so that I can get on with my work. Please ....... -Dr Bhagirath bugs2beatles 10:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Bugs2beatles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugs2beatles (talk • contribs)
- It's done: H. Narayan Murthy. I'll take down the A7 tag as well, I think there's enough of a claim to notability to avoid deletion under that criterion. Yunshui 雲水 10:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a ton Yunshui. -Dr Bhagirath bugs2beatles 10:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Bugs2beatles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugs2beatles (talk • contribs)
Hi, Sure. Yes, As a matter of fact, much of his works remain in old books and journals. I have been searching online, in vain. But I promise that I have not concocted a single detail. Now that you say, even offline books can be quoted, I shall do so. Thanks for your guidance. -Dr Bhagirath --bugs2beatles 13:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugs2beatles (talk • contribs)
- Yes, offline sources are fine; see WP:OFFLINE. Yunshui 雲水 14:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Discussion on 2 haze articles
Hi Yunshui, you are invited to participate in this discussion. Please note that participation is optional and the discussion closes at 12:15am sharp tonight (GMT+8). Cheers. --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
COI and/or socking concern
Yunshui, please see this discussion at the help desk regarding Death of Shane Todd, to which admin Orangemike responded. It was started by a woman claiming to be the mother of the deceased subject of the article. It's a delicate situation, but I'm concerned that perhaps we have a significant COI issue, and possibly unintended socking also. Based on the user name and edits of Theinsidefacts, an account started just today, it appears this may be a family member of the subject. 72.160.36.63 is the user (mother?) that started the help desk thread, and 72.160.41.108 and 72.160.9.191 have also edited the Shane Todd article. All of the 72.160 IPs are in Kalispell, Montana, which happens to be the exact area where Shane Todd's parents live, according to this story from a Kalispell TV station. Of course, I have no idea where Theinsidefacts is located, nor would I even try to find out, but the location of the IPs are of course easily available to anyone, and even provided by Misplaced Pages with the "Geolocate" link. One would have to assume that Theinsidefacts, based on the chosen username and edits, probably has a very close connection to the subject. I realize, as I said, that this is a delicate issue but I think there's little doubt that many would assume that a family member(s) of the subject is editing the article and perhaps that all of the accounts mentioned above are the same person or family. I have total empathy for the family, but I thought I should let an admin know about this so that the integrity of the article and the project are maintained. I know that your expertise is in socking concerns, but I'm not sure how much you deal with, or want to deal with, COI issues. Therefore, I notified Orangemike about this, since I know he's very active in dealing with COI concerns and is the one who replied to the IP (mother?) at the help desk. I also realize that there's probably not a socking issue at this point because the editing of the article started with the various dynamic IPs, then switched to the registered account edits today. But one of the IPs (the mother?) is the editor that posted at the help desk, which was after Theinsidefacts had already made seven edits to the article. I'll leave this in the hands of you two since you are obviously the experts. I just wanted to make you aware of the situation so it could be dealt with in whatever way you deem appropriate. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- What an SPA-tastic page (you've also got User:Rightsandwrongs, who seems to espouse the opposite position to User:Theinsidefacts). My first instinct would be to look at page protection as a solution (although that would obviously prevent you and other editors from contributing to the page as well). An SPI probably wouldn't be terribly constructive at this stage, although it remains an option for the future if this continues. Right now, my best advice is to keep an eye on it (which I will also do), weed out or revert any blatant violations of BLP or unsourced statements, and weather the inevitable furore when the official verdict is released... Yunshui 雲水 07:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for looking into this and putting the article on your watchlist. I think it's abundantly clear that Theinsidefacts is a family member of the subject. I certainly empathize with their pain, but we must protect the project. Based on their editing history, although short, it's probably the most clear-cut case of COI I've ever seen, short of someone outright admitting to a COI or having a user name that makes it obvious. And we know all the IPs I mentioned above are almost surely a family member (or someone else extremely close to the subject). For the record, I have no interest in editing the article so page protection wouldn't affect me either way. Thank you again for addressing this and agreeing to keep an eye on the article. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Look over an article for creation?
Hey Yunshui! I have another favor to ask. I know that you've done some editing on the anime and manga front and you've been around a while, so I would like you to take a look at a proposed article for Dragon Ball Z. It's a content fork, but the main article for DB is pretty long and could probably stand to have a different page for DBZ. The difficulty is that there's been a pretty long debate over whether or not to make a separate article on the DB talk page and there's been some heated argument. I sort of stepped into the middle of it when another user created a sandbox within the mainspace and I've been asked for my opinion on it. While I am worried about it maybe having complaints about being English dub-centric and having some content that's already on the main page for DB, I do think it could stand as its own article for the most part. I'd like to have your input, as I trust your opinion. You can find the proposed page at User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox5. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I just looked at your "about me" page for the first time oh, ever. You're a guy? LOL. I had to laugh at myself because I always get genders wrong here on Misplaced Pages and I thought you'd get a kick out of it. I think that's why I put "girl" into my username, so I wouldn't confuse my own gender. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad that my contributions are apparently sufficiently gender neutral as to throw my masculinity into doubt, but can confirm that last time I checked, I was still included in the male half of the species. That's not the only issue you seem to be a bit confused on, though - whilst manga's precursors are definitely an area of interest for me, any Japanese art produced after the Meiji era is pretty much outside my remit. The only manga I've ever followed was Hikaru no go, and that was only because it dealt with one of my favourite subjects... Whilst I'm aware of the existence of Dragon Ball, that's about as far as my knowledge of the topic goes.
- Looking at the pages involved, I'm inclined to agree with you - given the size of the respective articles, forking DBZ into a new article makes a lot of sense (and Chris's draft looks pretty sound to me). However, I think I'll recuse myself, with apologies, from the discussion - the background reading alone would take me most of the morning, and as I said, my expertise in this field has been flatteringly but massively overstated! I doubt I'd raise any points that haven't already been discussed, and may well just muddy the waters further - besides which, my editing pattern on Misplaced Pages is about to be seriously disrupted due to Real Life™ events, and so my ability to follow through on any discussion points would be severely curtailed. Sorry not to be more helpful, but this is way outside my area of knowledge. Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 07:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Adoption School - Broken Link
Hi Yun.
slight problem's come up in your Adoption School stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Metka_Hercog&diff=prev&oldid=530213137 is in the 'proposed deletion' section however if you follow the link you'll see that it brings up One revision of this difference (530213137) was not found. This is usually caused by following an outdated diff link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.
- I checked the DL and it's been cut down as an A7. You may want to find a replacement for it. In the meantime i've pointed out this error while answering the question. MM (Report findings) 20:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I came along to say this exact same thing, though it looks like you got here before me. GreenCKE 00:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry guys. Just ignore that one, then. I'll delete it from the base adoption page until I can find a replacement. Thanks for letting me know! Yunshui 雲水 06:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I came along to say this exact same thing, though it looks like you got here before me. GreenCKE 00:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Your block of Johneburn
Thanks! Not sure that will solve it.
I believe that the same person has been hammering that same arcane point into the same article 27 times in two days. These are 3 SPA's who's only work has been to hammer the same unusual point into the article. The point is unusual (about the number of versions of the amendment that exist) and is not even under discussion.
as Jeb2000
as 71.205.138.110
as Johneburn
Sincerely,
North8000 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Jesus wept. I've protected the page again; hopefully that will stem the tide for a bit. Yunshui 雲水 14:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Help with a user?
Hey Yunshui, can you look at a userpage for me? I probably should have just blocked the account as a pretty blatant attempt at self-promotion, but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. The account in question is User:Speirosmusic. His page was tagged pretty quickly as non-ambiguous promotion, which is the reason I've deleted it. I've tried to explain to him why creating a page just to promote yourself is a big no-no on Misplaced Pages even if it's just in the userspace, but he doesn't quite seem to get it. The more I talk to him, the more it is quickly becoming apparent that he's only here to create a page about himself (userpage or otherwise) and isn't actually here to contribute. At this point I actually think he should be blocked as someone who is here to advertise, but given the back and forth I think it'd probably be better if someone else did it. I'm going to list his name under the username board, but I thought I'd ask for you to step in at this point. I don't think it'd entirely be appropriate if I blocked him and that an uninvolved admin should do it at this point. There's a long, long discussion on his userpage you should read first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Generous behaviour by both you and Daniel (you two are so nice, dammit! Makes the rest of us grumpy admin bastards look bad by comparison...). My view, especially considering his comments, is that an indefinite
{{spamublock}}would have be appropriate, and I'd have delivered it as soon as I deleted the userpage - discussion with this sort of editor is usually both pointless and frustrating. They don't understand how Misplaced Pages works, and aren't interested in learning; all they want is their face on a billboard. I've been dealing with this sort of thing for a while, and so I've got a pretty good sense now of when a user is just here to blow their own trumpet; spotting them and delivering a suitable block is therefore pretty much instinctive. Spend a bit of time working in CSD and you'll soon develop the same mental spam-o-meter. Or possibly I'm just irredeemably jaded, who knows? Either way, Daniel's block takes care of the problem; if the user chooses to change his username we can deal with him again then. Yunshui 雲水 07:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Yunshui
A long time ago you impressed me when you wrote that talk page contents should not be blanked. At the time you were speaking of comments that I made myself which I had blanked, but I assumed that blanking out others comments on a talk page would be an even bigger no-no.
Since that time though I have witnesed editors removing others comments almost routinely. For example on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention this happened more than once. The most recent is an edit reverted on June 24, 2013 (my own comments have been removed there twice in the past and I no longer participate there on a regular basis because of that). Since this is an important project at Wikipeidia, I wonder what your take is on this and who I am supposed to inform of this posting. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ottawahitech; nice to hear from you again. There are of course times when removing talkpage posts is appropriate (see WP:TPO and WP:REDACT for what's acceptable), but as a rule of thumb, that shouldn't be happening. In the case of Biolprof's redaction, I think it was just an honest mistake: somehow in adding a comment the editor deleted everything below his post. It doesn't look to me like a deliberate attempt to delete the discussion (which was restored shortly afterwards). Prior to that, the only recent removal of text (aside from minor fixes) from the W:ER talkpage has been Mizabot doing its archiving run, which is obviously nothing to be concerned about.
- In most cases, if you see talkpage discussions being deleted without good reason, the first step is to restore the content and ask the deleting editor what they were doing. If you find yourself in one of the (thankfully) rare circumstances where the user keeps blanking talkpage messages without explanation, and doesn't respond to warnings, then you can report it to AIV just as you would any other sort of vandalism. Yunshui 雲水 07:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Chicken and duck blood soup
What was supposed to be an easy nomination has turned out to be some frustrating roadblock. Can you revisit the nom and pitch in? I hate to see my noms failing... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- No-one likes to see their nominations being failed, but "frustrating roadblock" isn't the language I would have preferred... I've added a comment at the DYK nomination page. Yunshui 雲水 06:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
|
Thank you for helping ! Bloom Cheryl (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC) |
- The best thing about Wikibrownies is that they can be enjoyed without any corresponding damage to my waistline... Thanks very much, always glad to be of help. Yunshui 雲水 07:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
IP vandalism warnings & AIV
Hello, Yunshui. I just thought I would let you know that I disagree with the comment you made at AIV here, and have blocked the IP address. I know that there are many administrators who take the view that warnings to IP addresses should be ignored unless they are very recent, but I am firmly of the opinion that this depends on circumstances. In the case of a dynamic IP address with widely spaced edits that have no connection to one another, it makes sense to think that the edits are probably made by different people, so that the current user of the IP address may never have received any warning. However, this is not such a case. Almost all of the edits from the IP address have been made on a small group of closely related articles, and it is perfectly clear that one user has been repeatedly editing from the IP address. Under these circumstances, there does not seem to be any remotely reasonable grounds for having different requirements for warnings than we would for a registered account: the user has been given adequate warnings, but has continued editing in the same way. I remember at least one case where a highly disruptive editor edit-warred to add spam to one article for over two years, evading blocks simply by leaving time gaps between edits, so that AIV reports kept getting declined. As far as I am concerned, I will give the benefit of the doubt if it is not clear whether one person or more than one is involved, but if it is unambiguously clear that a particular editor has been given enough warnings, then that is good enough. Of course, you will make your own decisions on this, and you may not agree with me, but I thought it worth while letting you know my opinion, in case you might like to take it into consideration. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy to defer to your opinion (I was rather on the fence with that one anyway) - appreciate you letting me know. Yunshui 雲水 11:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
AfD
Hello Yunshui, This AfD is pending closure. 16 days have passed after it was nominated. As you are not involved, can do a favour and close it? Faizan 11:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that was fun. Closed (after reading through reams of tangential arguments and accusations) as Keep. Yunshui 雲水 11:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was some useless conflict, and even involved much sockpuppetry. Anyway, thanks for the closure. Faizan 11:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Yunshui! It would have been better if we could get the decision about the possibility of a merger through that AfD, actually that was the reason to go for an AfD instead of a merger. You may know, the merge discussions often take too long to get a consensus (even several months). There was also a discussion in the village pump about it and some participants said that an AfD should be the best place to get a consensus about a merger. Your take on that? Thanks. --Zayeem 13:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Zayeem, no one voted for a merger there in the AfD concerned. An AfD runs for an optimal 7 days. It is not Yunshui's fault, he was uninvolved, and he did not side with me. Faizan 13:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- As Faizan said, no-one really suggested a merge at the AFD. AFD is emphatically not for cleanup - sometimes a merge is decided on as the best result for an article, but you can't propose a merge at AFD; if you take an article there, the debate is over whether to keep it (which included merging) or delete it. The majority - once Nangparbat and his sockfest were stripped out (thanks for flagging them all, by the way!) - of !voters made good arguments for keeping the page as is, so that's how I called it. I've no objection to a merge, but a merge discussion, rather than a deletion discussion, is the venue for that decision. Yes, the merge process is slow - but there's no deadline on Misplaced Pages. Yunshui 雲水 13:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's also worth pointing out here that, whilst AFD discussions normally run for at least seven days, there's no compunction to close them after that time limit's been reached. I opted to close because there were sufficient contributions to make a reasonable informed call on the consensus there; relisting was an option if the community's view wasn't clear enough. Usually, we'd expect to relist at least twice before declaring no consensus. Yunshui 雲水 13:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for your clarifications Yunshui. Can you take a look at the discussion on the article's talk page? Is there any harm to have some related articles as the hatnotes using Template:See also?--Zayeem 14:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yunshi my regrets, I did not intend to drag you to the conflict. I just wanted to get the AfD having enough input closed. Faizan 12:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's okay; I'm under no obligation to participate in the discussion, and if I start thinking that I'm doing more harm than good, I'll back out. You guys get a neutral third party observer (I have no real opinions on the conflicts under discussion), and I get to learn about a historical period that I previously knew nothing about (until last week, I had no idea that Bangladesh had only been around slightly longer than I had!). Really, all I'm interested in is trying to help all of you get to some sort of mutually satisfactory conclusion - I don't actually care what that conclusion is, so long as everyone involved is willing to accept it. Yunshui 雲水 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Eh.. that is not like that. Watch the article for future, I fear it may get more edit-warnings. I agree with you, and you are not harming anyway. The other party ios welcome to opt for any resolution, etc. My regrets again Yunshui, I am also not feeling good after this, fed up of conflicts. We belong to a conflicted region, not like your peaceful countries, thus edit-conflicts. They can be avoided to an extent, but somehow everyone is affected. I wanted a good impression of mine on other fellow editors, my regrets again Yunshui. I will try to stay away from these diseases. Faizan 13:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's okay; I'm under no obligation to participate in the discussion, and if I start thinking that I'm doing more harm than good, I'll back out. You guys get a neutral third party observer (I have no real opinions on the conflicts under discussion), and I get to learn about a historical period that I previously knew nothing about (until last week, I had no idea that Bangladesh had only been around slightly longer than I had!). Really, all I'm interested in is trying to help all of you get to some sort of mutually satisfactory conclusion - I don't actually care what that conclusion is, so long as everyone involved is willing to accept it. Yunshui 雲水 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yunshi my regrets, I did not intend to drag you to the conflict. I just wanted to get the AfD having enough input closed. Faizan 12:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for your clarifications Yunshui. Can you take a look at the discussion on the article's talk page? Is there any harm to have some related articles as the hatnotes using Template:See also?--Zayeem 14:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's also worth pointing out here that, whilst AFD discussions normally run for at least seven days, there's no compunction to close them after that time limit's been reached. I opted to close because there were sufficient contributions to make a reasonable informed call on the consensus there; relisting was an option if the community's view wasn't clear enough. Usually, we'd expect to relist at least twice before declaring no consensus. Yunshui 雲水 13:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- As Faizan said, no-one really suggested a merge at the AFD. AFD is emphatically not for cleanup - sometimes a merge is decided on as the best result for an article, but you can't propose a merge at AFD; if you take an article there, the debate is over whether to keep it (which included merging) or delete it. The majority - once Nangparbat and his sockfest were stripped out (thanks for flagging them all, by the way!) - of !voters made good arguments for keeping the page as is, so that's how I called it. I've no objection to a merge, but a merge discussion, rather than a deletion discussion, is the venue for that decision. Yes, the merge process is slow - but there's no deadline on Misplaced Pages. Yunshui 雲水 13:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Zayeem, no one voted for a merger there in the AfD concerned. An AfD runs for an optimal 7 days. It is not Yunshui's fault, he was uninvolved, and he did not side with me. Faizan 13:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Yunshui! It would have been better if we could get the decision about the possibility of a merger through that AfD, actually that was the reason to go for an AfD instead of a merger. You may know, the merge discussions often take too long to get a consensus (even several months). There was also a discussion in the village pump about it and some participants said that an AfD should be the best place to get a consensus about a merger. Your take on that? Thanks. --Zayeem 13:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was some useless conflict, and even involved much sockpuppetry. Anyway, thanks for the closure. Faizan 11:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
"columns-list"
Thanks! (Didn't know about that one.) Most appreciated!! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- No problem.
{{Columns-list}}is a very handy template to have under your belt, especially for numbered lists. Glad I could help. Yunshui 雲水 13:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)- Glad I could help. - So am I! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Magazines
Following our conversation from here: User_talk:Sintaku#Looking_for_help
The Paper Magazines are:
- Loaded - Issue 152 - Page 136
- Stuff (don't have the issue details)
- Games Master (Owned by Future)- (GM 220 CHRISTMAS 2009) Page 17
Online Magazines:
- Vice - http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/fashion-uk-shoot-arthouse-antics-v19n4
- FHM - http://www.fhm.com/reviews/gadgets/apex-arcade-cabinet-why-you-want-one-20100325
Are these links any good?
Also the only one I've used so far on the page is (I assumed C-Net would be ok, but please clarify): http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20109176-1/arcade-machine-to-raise-funds-for-japan-relief/
~~ Sintaku 13:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Sintaku. None of these is ideal (C-Net's ok, but all of the others are a little... tabloidy? You'd be better off with stuff like Computeractive or Computer Weekly). However, I'd say they all pass the minimum bar for reliable sources: they are written by professional journalists (not bloggers) and the publications are subject to editorial oversight. As such, I reckon they suffice; as long as you aren't using them to validate some extremely controversial statements, you're good to go. Yunshui 雲水 13:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't know you could put controversial statements on wikipedia. I didn't feel these sources were up to scratch, there are a ton of sources for the same thing C-Net said but you can't really use it multiple times. ~~ Sintaku 14:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Liu Rushi
 | On 26 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Liu Rushi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Chinese courtesan Liu Rushi dressed up as a man in order to woo her husband Qian Qianyi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liu Rushi. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 June 2013
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-06-24
A kitten for you!
I hope whatever is happening to you in real life works out - here's a little kitten to watch over you until it does.
SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).