Jump to content

User talk:Yunshui/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

Advice request re securing image free-use

Hi Yunshui. Could I get your advice re simplest way to arrive at acceptable free-use declaration for a image removed from an article I created? It's been awhile, can you still advise me? I'll wait for your ok before adding more details. --IHTS (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Long time no see, how are you doing? It rather depends on the image, I think - the way to classify an image as free will vary depending on how it was made, how old it is, who uploaded it etc.etc. Point me at the picture in question and I'll take a look for you. Yunshui 雲水 09:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Hang on, unless you mean Fair-use - in which the answer's still the same, actually; it's going to vary depending on the status of the picture... so the same response still applies! Yunshui 雲水 09:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thx. I can't point (can Email it of course though) 'cause it was deleted [1] (not sure it was on WP or COMMONS). It's a *snapshot* I took from a pdf file that is itself a *scan* of a *newspaper article* containing the image. So of course it's nothing near the orig photo resolution. The newspaper article says "FILE PHOTO" below the image, the name of the article author as well as the "page editor" are given. The photo is "circa 1978" acc. to the newspaper article, the newspaper article is dated June 12, 2011, so I imagine the photo was fed to the Lake City Reporter newspaper by the bio subject, or his government legal office, I'm not sure; so therefore I don't know who has copyright. I guess my Q is do I need to track those owernship details down, or under this circumstance might there be an easier/more direct approvable declaration of fair-use? (I started reading the WP stuff but quickly got bogged down in the technical-legal.) --IHTS (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's not going to be free to use - it's too recent - so you would need a Fair Use rationale. For BLP subjects, the only rationale that's usually permissible is if the image is needed in order to show what the subject looks like, and there are no alternative images available. In this case, though, we already have a free, good quality image of the subject at File:George_R._Dekle_Sr.jpg (which is already used in the article), and so there is no reason to use a non-free image - the existence of a free image, especially one of decent quality, negates any Fair Use rationale; we always prefer free images over non-free ones. Long and the short of it is, there is no possible Fair Use rationale you could create for the newspaper picture, so you'd have to track down the original copyright holder (probably the newspaper, but not definitely) and get them to relicence the image before it could be used in the article. Yunshui 雲水 10:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
*But*, the image has historical relevance on account of representing the bio subject during the work period that made the bio subject most notable; the permissions-approved lead image doesn't fill that same function, only the newspaper image does. --IHTS (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you'd struggle to swing that, to be honest. If his appearance was vastly different, maybe there might be some wiggle room, but apart from a different pair of glasses and white hair (and perhaps a couple of pounds, with apologies to George) there's very little difference between the two - he even has the same hairstyle in both photos. Add to that the fact that notability isn't a temporary concept on Wikipedia (he's notable full stop, regardless of when the events that made him notable actually happened) and you're extremely unlikely to be able to craft a legitimate Fair Use rationale; I'd go so far as to say it's not possible. Hate to piss all over your crumpets - I'm sure it took a good deal of work to track the image down - but I honestly can't see it being accepted as long as it's non-free. Yunshui 雲水 11:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Just going to add that trying to prove an non-free image is of historical relevance is pretty hard as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. It's not impossible, but it's pretty hard because it usually requires that there be some kind of sourced critical commentary about the image itself which actually calls it's historical. There's a tendency to by some editors to equate simply being old with being historic, or being a photo of an historic or notable event somehow meaning that the photo itself is also historic and notable.
As for changes in physical appearance, a non-free images is sometimes allowed as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI when a person is Wikipedia notable primarily for their physical appearance or their physical appearance at the time was itself the subject of discussion in reliable sources. Such a type of non-free use is not impossible to justify, but once again it's pretty hard. Pretty much everyone's appearance changes as they age, sometimes quite drastically, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't allow a non-free image just because it shows how someone looked at the height of their fame or popularity just for that sake alone; there's has to be more to that particular image that just wanting to show how someone looked at a certain time in their life.
The way I look at is that there has to be a significant improvement in the reader's understanding of the corresponding article content from seeing a certain non-free image to the extent that not seeing that image would be detrimental to that understanding; moreover, it has to be that particular non-free image that needs to be seen, not a similar image from the same period which provides essentially the same information. If one non-free image can be replaced by a free image or even another non-free image without any significant loss of information or reduced understanding, then the justification for the use of any non-free image is probably questionable. So, if there was something about the newspaper photo which generated some kind of controversy or which caused the photo itself to be discussed and you can add content related to that to the article, you may be able to make a better case for it's non-free use if the file ends being discussed at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Two similar accounts

Hi, these two accounts, Iambillybillyisgreat (talk · contribs) and Iambillybillyisgreat69 (talk · contribs) were created within three minutes of each other. Could they be sockpuppets of each other? JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 09:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably, but since the first one isn't blocked (yet) and the second hasn't edited (again, yet), there is no abuse of multiple accounts here. Yet... Yunshui 雲水 09:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. Also, Billythebumbleebee (talk · contribs) and Billythebumbleebee2 (talk · contribs) was created within one minute of each other. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 09:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Same deal - no edits = no foul. Yunshui 雲水 09:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 09:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Since Iambillybillyisgreat is now blocked as a VOA, and all the other accounts are a very clear match, I've blocked the rest of them too. Yunshui 雲水 12:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Thanks JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 01:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Murder Mystery Company

I don't see a clear consensus to delete both articles here. Can you elaborate on what lead you to conclude there was consensus delete both of these articles? ~Kvng (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I hope you'll agree that the consensus to delete The Murder Mystery Company itself was fairly clear-cut, even if you were the sole independent voice !voting to keep it, so I'm assuming you're asking for clarification over the deletion of Scott Crampton in conjunction. I will admit that I hummed and hawed a little before deciding consensus favoured that article being deleted, but at the end of the day, we see three clear voices specifically in favour of deleting both articles, with a fourth !vote that could potentially apply to both articles but hasn't been stated to do so explicitly. The arguments in favour of deletion are sound, citing weak sourcing and the promotional tone of the article, both of which I see as valid objections to its continued inclusion. The only voice calling for retention (discounting the guy who was being paid to lobby for it) was yourself, and Praxidicae's rebuttal of your sources for Crampton was fairly sound. I actually think the Inc. one might be okay to use, but even then, one source is not multiple sources, and the Inc. source is devoted solely to Crampton's work with The Murder Mystery Company. If Crampton were notable, his claim to notability would be The Murder Mystery Company - remove all of the references to that and you wouldn't have enough for a Scott Crampton article at all. Given that the consensus deemed his company to be insufficiently notable, it stood to reason that he, with no independent notability, would also not qualify for an article.
Hope that helps clear up my reasoning. I've no personal opinion either way on whether the article should have been kept or not, but I thought - and still do, after revisiting the discussion just now - that consensus swings towards deleting both pages. Yunshui 雲水 16:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. You did get at least one thing wrong here: I did not advocate to keep The Murder Mystery Company. I also wanted to make sure that you saw that I had an answer to Praxidicae's takedown of my sources because when I went back to look at the closing here, I noticed that I did not indent that. With the new WP:NCORP policy it is much more difficult to establish notability of a organization than a person. If both have similar notability, it is possible or even likely that the company will not make the cut but the closely-associated person would. ~Kvng (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

I strongly believe these accounts [2], [3] are operated by the same person. In addition to their similar shoddy language tone and interests, both makes misleading statements on talk pages about movies in order to deceive users who have no idea of the subject. It is possible there might be more accounts connected to this person. 2405:204:D409:9718:D4EF:2975:3E35:3FDA (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly not seeing enough of a connection to warrant a checkuser investigation; can you provide some specific diffs? Yunshui 雲水 14:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course, detail of the matter added here [4]. 2405:204:D30A:2B71:428:6D4F:A257:B4A3 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That gave me enough to go on that I believed a CU was appropriate - turns out you were correct. Blocks duly applied. Yunshui 雲水 07:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Admin, I believe this one is a new sock. Mainly because of this statement [5], which is a lie, as far as I know only Maytheforcebewithyou22 made such misleading false claims for deception and do not provide sources. Alse the agitated language tone and it is about the same topic, Madhura Raja box office. 2405:204:D38B:A9A9:998D:6E3F:D042:4883 (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Different ISP and location, probably not the same guy. Yunshui 雲水 09:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Might be User:Hackerwala111 of Mhdsuhail111, a meatpuppet of Sagar.kottapuram, same activities. His (likely) logged out editing IPs locate to Bangalore. 2405:204:D309:150D:3CB4:109B:16A:B107 (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I understand. So, Shworks999 may be different. Anyway, whoever it is, that person has created another and this one is very obvious. Same thing - [6][7][8]. This guy also created a section called "Box office collection". And apart from usual stuff, see the same "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit" on edit summary. Also see the preview of these edits [9][10], both adds a space before signing, leaving username boxed. 2405:204:D402:312E:49CE:5D9B:EF6B:D643 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Evidence relating to User:Basevoter

Hi Yunshui. Some time ago, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnsaavn/Archive#20 December 2018 you blocked Basevoter (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) based on GSS's off-wiki evidence. Would you please send this evidence to arbcom-en? Many thanks! – For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 20:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Yunshui 雲水 07:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Impersonation by a sock

You may want to have a look at this curiosity. Looks like a rather trivial puppet master is having a go at blocking itself by impersonating you here. Very curious.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Now all sorted. Blocked as a sock.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Page Trevor Maynard, writer

I should have noted this earlier, but because the page has been up for years and I thought my recent edits improved it (I cited many third party reviews), I didn’t expect this action. I am therefore calling for any undelete. I started the page after Trevor Maynard edited my book, and I discovered the reviews for his plays. He has edited eight poetry anthologies, publishing the work of 213 poets. I have accurately reflected that though the publishing company is Willowdown Books, the platform used is Createspace. Willowdown Books, like many small presses uses Print On Demand services such as Createspace and Lulu and is NOT a self-publisher. I would appreciate your advice in getting this page I deleted. PAS Peteralansoron (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This article was deleted after a community discussion, and therefore I cannot unilaterally restore it (I did not make the decision to delete it myself, but rather assessed the consensus of the discussion and acted accordingly). You can ask for a community review of the deletion at deletion review; my talkpage is not the correct venue for your request. Yunshui 雲水 08:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

Thanks Gerda, always nice to have shiny things! Yunshui 雲水 08:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

User:AhamBrahmasmi

User:Bigbang009 editing same articles created by AhamBrahmasmi. Khalid Rahman is Unda's director and Shyju his brother [11]. 137.97.166.16 (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks to have been dealt with already. Yunshui 雲水 08:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

ygm

And as is characteristic of me, I used way too many words! TonyBallioni (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

ygm

Please check as quickly as you can before they remove the advert which is still publicly visible. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

ygm

I sent you something too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Saxbophone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) request for unblock

I'm following up on unblock requests and see that Saxbophone has requested to be unblocked. You indeffed them as a sock a while ago but it isn't clear to me who they are supposed to be a sock of or how strong the evidence is. There are no details in the block log or links to their user page from any SPI page. They claim to be innocent of all crimes. Your thoughts? UninvitedCompany 17:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

By the looks of things I did a comparison against Woking123 and found a clear connection via CU. The data is stale now, so I can't reconfirm it, but generally I only block when such a connection is very evident (same IP, same device sort of thing). It also looks as though I ran the CU directly against Woking123, meaning that I had some indication that Saxbophone was their sock beforehand; not sure what that would have been since it was so long ago. Yunshui 雲水 08:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing Saxbophone (talk · contribs) block

Hello, I am just reviewing the block on User:Saxbophone. I was wondering what led you to conclude that this user and User:Woking123 were socks. It didn't look like this user and Woking123 ever edited the same articles, but you may know something I don't. If you are not completely sure it's a WP:DUCK, do you mind if I ask for a CU? Sasquatch t|c 17:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw the discussion above. I'm guessing there's no point to another CU request. Sasquatch t|c 17:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ygm

Please check before the advert disappear. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Checked, CUed, blocked; there's a whole pile of them. Yunshui 雲水 10:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This unblock doesn't seem to be going well...

FYI Marquardtika (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back

I want to inform you that Craft37by (talk · contribs) is back under a new IP 86.57.192.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which he admitted here. So far no edits were made under this IP except for messages at Talk:Belarus, but given the sockmaster's editing pattern, the IP should be treated with caution. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

This recognition means a lot to me, coming from an editor as experienced as you — so allow me to say どうもありがとうございました！ It's much appreciated! Warm regards,  Spintendo  22:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

User:得一忘二

[12],a new sock of User:Allthingsgo,zh.wiki have been blocked this user indefinitely[13][14].--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorted, many thanks. Yunshui 雲水 08:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Review process query

I received a query at OTRS ticket:2019062010003583 wondering about the status of a draft.

I noticed it was deleted two days after it was submitted but I don't see any notification on their talk page. I'm not involved in the review process, but that surprised me.

As an FYI, I suggested that they chat with you if they want to know more about why the draft was deleted.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

ygm

Finally found their base and it's time to strike. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

174.18.78.210

user:174.18.78.210 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Not any more they're not... Yunshui 雲水 15:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request from OTRS#2019061610003984

Hi! I've responded to the edit request at Talk:Edward Banayoti. Orville1974talk 03:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged, thanks! Yunshui 雲水 15:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hello, Yunshui

User:Martin Koolhoven has an unblock request utilizing the standard offer and we need to know if he has abstained from socking. You placed the original block. Can you check this out for me? I'll post a note on his user talk page letting him know that the unblock is being considered. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Yunshui,
NinjaRobotPirate checked Martin Koolhoven's account and didn't find any socking going on so I have unblocked him. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Given his single-minded self-promotion here I'm less than ecstatic about that, and would have preferred to see the SO put before the community as is usual in such cases... but we shall see. Yunshui 雲水 15:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

ygm

Another one with a long sock history. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by Nickm57

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&oldid=903968918

I recently made these edits. They are cited by this article (though you can find others):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/

On the talk page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Racial_discrimination

some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against. These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed. Nick is just a really bad person. At this point, I believe I need administrative help.

Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least. His abusive behavior is getting out of hand.

People like him also launched several smear-campaigns, simply because I wrote about some things that are well-sourced and well-documented that does not fit their chauvinistic point of view.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User%3AAlexkyoung

I appreciate your input on this urgent issue.

Alexkyoung (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I think all that needs to be said on this has already been covered at the ANI thread; certainly I don't feel I have anything to add to the result of that discussion. Yunshui 雲水 07:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Badvogato

[15](No any edit in there,only create account),please see [16],a new sock of User:Allthingsgo.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Dealt with, cheers. Yunshui 雲水 11:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This Is Pool page Deletion

Hi there,

We are currently trying to create a page for our upcoming pool video game This Is Pool, I would like to declare that I am an employee of the development studio making the game VooFoo Studios. We apologise that we haven't done this previously. Is this the reason why our attempts are being deleted or is there something else missing? I look forward to your reply as we'd love to feature This Is Pool on Wikipedia.

Regards, Manisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manisha.jhitta (talk • contribs) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have already told you - on both your current talkpage and that of your previous account - what you need to do and which policies you need to comply with. At this point, it appears that you are not here to edit Wikipedia, but have created an account solely to promote your product. If you continue to do so, your account will be blocked. If you continue to edit without making the required disclosures, your account will be blocked. Wikipedia is not a billboard for your company to advertise its latest game. Yunshui 雲水 13:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Yunshui, we have read through your notes and wondered whether you could provide us with more information on how to formally declare us as paid employees. We would also like to mention that the idea of setting a page for This Is Pool was not to promote but to inform readers of the existence of the game. We believe that our attempts complied with Wiki's regulations. If you could provide us with some info regarding how to declare us as paid employees close to the subject we would be extremely grateful.

Regards, Manisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manisha.jhitta (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"Informing readers of the existence of the game" is advertising. I have already provided the information on how to disclose your paid status on your talkpage, as I reminded you in my previous reply above; it is also available at WP:PAID, which is linked to in my previous reply, above.
Your use of the term "we" is concerning; how many people have access to the account User:Manisha.jhitta? Yunshui 雲水 14:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

There is only 1 person running this account, by "we" I was speaking on behalf of my organisation.

We have also added this disclosure to our talk page

Regards, Manisha

The disclosure is supposed to be on your userpage, not my talkpage or yours; this is made clear both in the message at the top of your talkpage and in the paid editing requirements. That is a minor issue however.
Your edits to Wikipedia are made in your personal capacity as a Wikipedia user. Edits made on behalf of your boss User:Joshre1998 will be regarded as an abuse of multiple accounts.
Please don't open a new talkpage header every time you reply here. Indent your replies instead. Yunshui 雲水 07:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the info, we have now added this to our userpage, User:Joshre1998 will no longer be making changes or edits to the page. Where do we go from here to start making our page again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manisha.jhitta (talk • contribs) 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Basically: you don't. If This Is Pool meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, someone will write about it here sooner or later - that someone should not be affiliated with VooFoo studios. Aside from perhaps adding This Is Pool to the list of Requested Articles, you shouldn't be doing anything to have it included in the encyclopedia.
Beyond that, you can edit whatever you like. Yunshui 雲水 08:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"It's raining barnstars..."

The Admin's Barnstar
For the many, many daily tasks you do on Wikipedia. Thank you. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Um, the section title link is for humour. There is no deeper meaning to it. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't get many barnstars these days; in a way, it feel like this is the first time in history. Thank you, Mark! Yunshui 雲水 21:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aeverson

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aeverson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

D'oh! I meant to go back and delete that, but it slipped my mind - I've dealt with it now. Thanks for the reminder! Yunshui 雲水 08:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scholar911

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scholar911 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That's two of those in as many days - I'm not doing brilliantly clearing up after myself; must try harder... Yunshui 雲水 07:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Drostas21

user:Drostas21 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I like to leave the talkpage active for two reasons in such cases - firstly to allow the user to make an unblock request if they realise that their behaviour was out of line and they'd genuinely like a second chance, but also because I find the imaginative vitriol some of the responses such users provide rather amusing. In this case, though, the subsequent talkpage abuse was mundane, pedestrian, even; I give User:Drostas21 a meagre 2 out of 10 for that disappointing effort. If you're going to ladle out abuse, at least do so eloquently... Yunshui 雲水 14:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Yunshui. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Katietalk 14:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

UTRS Request #25986

Hi, please see my question on this appeal. Thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Replied there. Apologies for the delay; I've been away. Yunshui 雲水 08:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Elisa Rolle AN thread

Thanks for closing, but you forgot to sign the statement. I can of course always add {{unsigned}}, but I though I would better show up here and let you know.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops - sorted now, much obliged! Yunshui 雲水 13:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, would you mind re-opening this? Victoria expressed concern about the thread, and I was about to post something. SarahSV (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Given that Elisa.rolle has specifically said on her talkpage that she accepts the ban and wishes to leave Wikipedia, I fear reopening the discussion at this juncture would generate more heat than light. The appropriate venue to request reopening of a CBAN discussion is via email to ArbCom; if you feel that my close was not appropriate, that is the avenue of appeal. Yunshui 雲水 13:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It was open for less than 48 hours, and you closed it in the middle of the night in North America. Tony posted there than no admin would have unblocked without an AN discussion, but in fact I was considering unblocking when Ritchie announced that he was taking it to AN. I would like to make that clear, and explain what happened. People supporting the ban acknowledged that they know nothing about her. Please reopen and allow the discussion to continue. SarahSV (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Re. the timings, for the record, no-one had plainly supported the unblock request since 22:33, on 17 July 2019. Put it another way, out of the ~39 hours the thread was open, only the first 5 1/2 saw any support whatsoever. ——SerialNumber54129 14:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
So perhaps others of us were !voting on the evidence, not from the point of view that we "knew them"? - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I started writing up last night an explanation of what happened, going back to the one-month block, only to find the thread had closed. This was a case of one thing that shouldn't have happened leading to something else that shouldn't have happened. I would like the discussion to explore that, and indeed there are now two posts there. Also, Yunshui, please adjust the time in your signature to reflect when it was closed. SarahSV (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You've lost me a title in your comment there. Which of her five blocks are you saying shouldn't have happened? And as to the thread closing "in the middle of the night in North America", is there a rule that it has to be working hours in the US? It's always the it in the middle of the night somewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Like I said on the AN page, I think that if we're going to claim "community consensus" on something, then we have to give it enough time to actually gain consensus. 48 Hours isn't a lot of time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the process for appealing this ban, but I, too, would like you to reopen the discussion (I hope you are allowed to do that). I see some anti-woman fervor in one of the anti-Elisa remarks. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I see some anti-policy fervour in rather more. ——SerialNumber54129 10:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Not all policies are good. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: That's what RFCs are for, is it not. ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, there doesn't need to be consensus to ban in this situation. There merely needs to be no consensus to unblock after a discussion that is open for 24 hours. If there is no consensus to unblock, it's a community ban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
24 hours isn't enough time at all. That's ridiculous. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yunshui, I hope now that it's Monday you will be back online to address this. Several editors have asked you to undo your close on the grounds that the discussion was closed too soon to constitute "due consideration by the community", or have expressed concern that Elisa wandered blindfold into a CBAN without realizing what she had agreed to. They include Megalibrarygirl, Victoriaearle, SusunW, Levivich, Montanabw, and myself. In addition, I've found three of her articles so far that were speedied as copyvio that seem not to be copyvio, so there is some confusion about how this has been handled.

Several of us are working on a proposal to form a mentoring collaboration to help Elisa get back to editing, which we intend to propose when it's ready. See User:Valereee/ER and the discussion on my talk page at User talk:SlimVirgin#ER. Would you please consider undoing your close so that at least Elisa does not face the hurdle of a community ban? In theory it should make no difference, but in practice someone is likely to argue that, because she's community banned, she has to wait a certain period before appealing it. SarahSV (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I suppose ADMINACCT applies? ——SerialNumber54129 09:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for not being on Wikipedia 24/7/365; every now and again even I need a holiday. Given that the ANI discussion has now been archived, that the close was entirely in line with policy, that the number of editors who have asked me to reopen it is considerably fewer than the number who have endorsed the close, and that I really would rather not drag this unfortunate editor through the mud any further than she has been dragged already, I maintain my previous position. If you believe the close was incorrect, you are welcome to challenge it via the normal process for the closure of CBAN discussions. Yunshui 雲水 08:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

ygm

You have multiple emails and the latest one is for Dineshsomasundar's sock. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sockblocked, your vigilance is, as always, appreciated! Yunshui 雲水 08:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Elmakkan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is back see your inbox. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorted. Yunshui 雲水 14:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Johnsaavn is back with an IP please check your inbox. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui/Archive_61&oldid=1140657158"