User talk:Yunshui/Archive 56

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

The actor has a starring role in an upcoming Australian drama series Tidelands and has had quite a few supporting or starring roles in other notable Australian series Neighbours and international series such as The Shannara Chronicles, Roman Empire: Reign of Blood and Spartacus: Blood and Sand. He may have been lesser known in 2016 when the previous discussion happened but he is better known in 2018. I find it incredulous that he is not an actor of note. There are millions of other articles on other actors who have had fewer roles or roles not as notable as his. I spent a lot of time and effort gathering the information and there isn't one site that contained all that relevant data together. J Bar (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@J Bar: I'm happy to restore the page to a draft if you'd like to work on it further, but as it stood the deletion (under CSD G4: "recreated with no substantial changes after a deletion discussion") was valid - the version that was deleted as a result of the AfD discussion actually had more sources than the recreated version. No reason not to let you draft up a replacement, though - if you'd like it restoring (either to draft space or to your userspace) just tell me where you'd like it. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You tell me. I've never had to do this before. How many more roles does an actor need to be notable? J Bar (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not the roles but the sources - he could have been in every episode of every series of Game of Thrones, but unless a number of reliable sources had written about him as a result, we wouldn't have an article about him. This page lays out the basics - you need a bunch of sources that talk about him in some detail, and those sources must be independent of him. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you add it to my Sandbox? I will work on it. Can you also restore my version of the article there too because I'm sure there will be some different info there? J Bar (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It's now at User:J Bar/sandbox. Older versions are included in the page history, so you can pull info from them if you wish. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

OK Thanks. J Bar (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed... thanks for the tip. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you did to help me get unblocked. Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem; welcome back. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Check it for my reply! — regards, Revi 14:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Not seen that before, but your explanation makes sense. Thanks for the swift response! Yunshui ^雲_水 14:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you hide this one: [1], please. See history of this talk page. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup, was just taking care of it when I got your message. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks a lot. --09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentachlorphenol (talk • contribs)

Re protection - yeah, why not. Go ahead. Widefox; talk 10:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Went ahead. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this Sockpuppet investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Capitals00

The accused user Capitals00 and his teammate MBlaze_Lightning (sock?) vehemently tried to delete my comments citing me as a non-confirmed user although wikipedia allows editing from IPs. Eg Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Capitals00&diff=839125835&oldid=839125689 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Capitals00&diff=839126240&oldid=839125974 (Reverted plenty of times) My comments can be found in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Capitals00&oldid=839125974

Just a heads up! Cheers! 110.225.213.41 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My only input on that SPI has been - and will probably continue to be - an assessment of the checkuser evidence. I'm leaving the assessment of other evidence to the closing administrator. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sockpuppetry case review.

Compulsory courtesy notice about a discussion of one of your CU results. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. I was reminded that you are an OTRS volunteer when I saw you verify the licensing of File:MadeleinaKay.jpg. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 April 10#Non-free road signs used in list article? The discussion has been open for a couple of months now and involves the interpretation of an OTRS ticket. I posted a {{Please see}} at WP:OTRSN, but the thread got archived without anyone responding. If the OTRS ticket can be clarified either way, the FFD discussion can probably be closed since the entire discussion seems to depend on whether the ticket is applicable to the files being discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's a big old wall of text. I'm not going to have time to go through it this afternoon, and probably not tomorrow either, sorry. Having looked - briefly - at the OTRS ticket, the basic gist is that back in 2011, we were forwarded an email from a chap at the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure which said, "Yeah, that's cool, we don't mind" without providing any licence; this was apparently accepted under the rules at the time. Then, earlier this year an OTRS responder popped them a message saying, "Actually, we need a licence statement", to which the only response (from the email forwarder, rather than the Ministry rep) was, "I don't see why, if you want to delete the images go ahead". That's pretty much where the OTRS ticket has rested since then. I'll take a more thorough look when I have the time - might not be for a few days, though. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking a look. I helped create that wall-of-text, and I can see how it might dissuade anyone from trying to close the discussion. Part of the problem is that only OTRS volunteers can see the actual ticket, and such tickets may not be able to be really discussed at a place like FFD. I've asked a few OTRS volunteers both on Wikipedia and Commons to look at it, and some have expressed concern over the ticket; none of the ones I've asked, however, except maybe Jeff.G want to clearly say the files being discussed are covered by it. Jeff.G, however, has yet added a "permissions" template to the files, so they are still seen as "non-free" for Wikipedia’s purposes. I think the key is the ticket because it makes the non-free use issue a moot point if the consensus is that it's OK. The problem is that I'm not sure such a consensus can be reached by anyone other than OTRS volunteers. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can at least clear that up for you. There's no way the OTRS ticket, in its current state, would satisfy the requirements for a free image release. We require that the owner of the copyright specifically releases the image under a suitable free licence, or that they specify terms of release that amount to the same thing. That hasn't happened here; all we have is a (forwarded) email from seven years ago, sent someone who may or may not have the authority to release the image, with no licence or terms specified. Unless someone from the Ministry gets back to Wikipedia directly with an unambiguous statement that the images are released under PD, CC-BY-SA or similar terms, there's nothing in OTRS that would stop these images being non-free. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. This ticket was part of the discussion of File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png per Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png, but an {{OTRS permission}} for the ticket was never added to the Commons file. If you're brave enough to try and read through that wall of text (in addition to wall on the FFD discussion) , you'll see that this is the key point because at least two of the local Wikipedia files being discussed are practically identical to the Commons file which was kept. So, if the ticket is OK for the Commons' file, it should be OK for these local files as well; on the other hand, if it's not OK for the local files, then I don't see how it can be OK for the Commons one. I understand there are sometimes differences of opinion between Commons and Wikipedia when it comes to copyright status interpretation, but it seems to me though that an OTRS ticket should clear things up, not make them more confusing.

My understanding is that If a file is PD, there's no need for an OTRS ticket; if it needs an OTRS ticket, however, it can't be PD. Similarly, if it's PD or verified to be free, it doesn't need to be non-free and any non-free versions should be converted or deleted per NFCC#1, conversely, if it's not PD or otherwise free, it needs to be non-free which means it needs to satisfy NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The last action on the OTRS ticket was Jeff G requesting actual licence information - this was several days after his "Keep" vote at the Commons deletion discussion (and given that all the other "Keep" !votes were basically "per Jeff G", if he'd changed his mind about the validity of the release then the discussion should probably be re-initiated). I've pinged Jeff so he can opine here - his earlier comment was that the forwarded email from 2011 impl[ied] that the signs are Public Domain under Canadian copyright law, but I don't believe it does - the actual statement is that we do not need the Ministry's permission to post these images on Wikipedia, and as we well know, Wikipedia-only permission isn't sufficient. Without a clear line from the Ministry saying that the signs are PD (or otherwise free to reuse), we can't say that they are. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Yunshui. It's been a while since you pinged Jeff.G, but he hasn't responded. It's also been a month since any new comments were added to the FFD discussion about these files. As I posted above, I've tried asking about this at WP:OTRSN, WP:NFC, WP:MCQ and c:COM:OTRSN a couple of times already, but nobody has seemed interested enough to respond. If there is a consensus among OTRS volunteers that this ticket is OK, then the discussion can be closed since the files being discussed would no longer be non-free content. On the other hand, if there still disagreement or even a consensus that the OTRS ticket is not OK, then WP:NFCCP becomes applicable again. Is there a noticeboard other than OTRSN where only OTRS volunteers can discuss things about tickets that they might not be feel comfortable discussing or be able to discuss on a WP:PNB? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Looks as though I pinged User:Jeff G instead of User:Jeff G., whoops. The non-public venue for OTRS discussion is the mailing list; I can start a discussion there if you like, but perhaps let's allow Jeff G. to actually respond, now that I've pinged the right one... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am working on a detailed answer...   — Jeff G. ツ 14:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Yunshui, I’m following up with you because you previously showed an interest in the Interaction Timeline. The Anti-Harassment Tools team has completed V1.1 and the tool is ready for use. The Interaction Timeline shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits.

The purpose of the tool is to better understand the sequence of edits between two users in order to make a decision about the best way to resolve a user conduct dispute. Here are some test cases that show the results and also some known limitations of the tool. We would like to hear your experience using the tool in real cases. You can leave public feedback on talk page or contact us by email if the case needs discretion or you would prefer to comment privately. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I see you created Lea Luboshutz. I was wondering if you had any idea why with only 49 revisions, 18 editors, and 2 pageviews per day, that this article has 16,237 page watchers?!? As of September 2017, it is the most-watched article across all of Wikipedia... I can't figure out how this could be, unless it's a bug in MediaWiki — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That is incredibly strange... I didn't actually create the article, I just moved some content around back in 2015 (back when I evidently didn't understand page moves very well, although there may have been some other reason for the odd way I did it, I suppose). No idea why it's suddenly so popular; I suspect a bug is the most likely explanation. Most odd. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Figured it out! Or rather, PrimeHunter did :) See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 540#Watchlist — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be another at User talk:Dinadineke bot, not sure what is going on there, or who is looking after it though...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh goody, another badly-thought-through outreach project... Yunshui ^雲_水 14:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've emailed the organisers of the hackathon responsible, asking them to think this through properly next time. Not much we can do now; the seminar in question is over in an hour or so. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Thank you. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean it's badly thought out? It's fairly standard practice for a user account to create a "Bot" account as a linked account. They've not made edits yet, and as long as they're not being used for automated editing, it's not a problem. If they had been making many poor edits, sure, block them. Many people have alternate accounts for this purpose, rather than running pywikipedia on their primary/personal account. They're being supervised by numerous experienced bot creators and pywikipedia developers.

You're not assuming any good faith here, and all you're doing is potentially alienating possible new technical contributors. It doesn't reflect well on any of us. Reedy (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The hackathon is being organised by nl-wiki, who quite possibly (I haven't checked) have different policies regarding the use of bots. That's totally fine; I have no issue with bots being created on nl-wiki. Which member of the en-wiki bot approvals group authorised the creation of such bots here, though? Yunshui ^雲_水 15:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

They don't need approval to create accounts. Other bots accounts are created before any work is approved, and sometimes used for testing their editing before it's automated. In these cases, they could've just created a bot without "bot" in the name, and it wouldn't have been blocked. Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot_accounts suggests creating separate accounts is best practices. Like I say, it's not even like the accounts were editing, and they were created in the proper way; by their "owner" - [2] Reedy (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, after a few days off and with a cooler head, yeah, maybe I did jump the gun a bit. It reminded me of other outreach or education events which caused problems in the past, and I reacted over-hastily. I'm not going to lift the blocks myself (since I'm assuming those bot accounts are never going to be used) but I have no objection to others doing so if they are going to be needed. Apologies to anyone who was alienated by my actions. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I just under intellectual property rights called dibs on a new page that describes all laws pertaining to all investments. Say like a government bankruptcy; ( I can't type that fast so if anyone had access to my screen or knew what I was thinking would have just now made it by, "Would that be infridgement?), then has don't new laws and other necessary changes for its citizens to live under and abide by. I don't know if you think it's a good idea but, since you were the first to communicate to me on Wikipedia I thought id run it by you. Please if this does take of and becomes critical inform me by email and I would love to know what others think. Jimmy Fortino Mendoza (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about and am beginning to think that re-blocking your account under WP:NOTHERE would be appropriate. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. GiantSnowman 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

np. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you have time to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56/archive1? Threatened to be archived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

Hi Yunshui. Was wondering if you'd mind watching Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Concord for a bit? There's an IP editor who keeps trying to inappropriately add a non-free logo to the infobox. I've tried explaining about WP:NFCCP in edit sums and in more detail on the IP's user talk page, but that just led to a new IP showing up to try and add the logo. This last edit sum kind of indicates that the IP misunderstands how non-free content can be used and perhaps WP:COPY as well. Anyway, I've made a WP:RPP request, but perhaps a word or two from an administrator might also help slow the IP/IPs down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks as though Fish and karate, today's official king of RFPP, has already slapped a padlock on it, so that ought to prevent further shenanigans. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps things will slow down a bit now that tha page is protected. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I seem have been keeping you busy yesterday and today, so I figure I'd ask you about Talk:Fiona Graham#Wanaka Gym court case.

Apparently an OTRS ticket was received requesting that the content be removed. A "OTRS talk" was added to the article's talk page in March 2017, but the content wasn't removed from the article by the OTRS volunteer who processed the ticket. The content was removed the other day by what appears to be an SPA editor for a WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of reason, but I re-added it because it seem relevant and reliably sourced. I didn't consider the possibility of a copyvio, so the content was removed once again for that reason, which is fine.

My question now has to do with the OTRS ticket/complaint and what that means with respect to BLP. Can the content be re-added without the copyvios and excessive detail, etc. or is it basically a no go BLP-wise because someone (assuming wither the subject of the article or someone representing her) complained about the content to OTRS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

People complain about the content of the articles about them all the time, but ultimately, we're here to report what others have said about them, not what they want to say about themselves. This applies to OTRS tickets just as much as if they complained on-wiki, so there's no prohibition on re-adding the section if it meets all the usual requirements. That said, it seems like a fairly minor event and doesn't have much to do with the reason she is notable - there's no compelling reason to have it in the article. A sentence or two is all that would probably be needed, if that. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The more I look at the matter, the more I tend to agree that it might not be worth mentioning. The case did, however, reach the NZ Supreme Court so that might be worth mentioning in brief. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. The FFD about these images has been relisted yet again. If the OTRS ticket issue has been resolved, then could you comment on the outcome in the current FFD. If not, then perhaps some mention about the ticket issue could be added so that others are aware that an attempt is being made to sort this out. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There's been minimal response on the email list. Two OTRS agents (Mdann52 and Jeff G.) believe the permission is sufficient for a pd-gov tag, one agent (me) thinks it isn't. No-one else has offered any opinion, and the ticket is still floating around on OTRS, so make of that what you will... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui for the update and continuing to try and get this resolved. Whatever the consensus on the ticket turns out to be is fine, but the FFD discussion probably cannot be properly resolved without the ticket issue being resolved one way or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This discussion concerns User talk:Yunshui/Archive 56#OTRS verification request and multiply relisted Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 5#Non-free road signs used in list article.

• 15:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC) @Jcb wrote about Ticket:2011011410009399 "this 7 years old ticket does not satisfy our current standards" in this edit on page c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png.
• 04:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC) @Yann closed c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png as Kept.
• Wed, 31 Jan 2018 07:27:04 +0000 Given that this FFD was still open, I took Jcb's writing above to heart and asked for a better permission statement via email.

We have still had no useful response. I stand by my Keep of 07:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC) in these edits. File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is a diagram which is derivative of a sign design for which British Columbia disclaims copyright, @Fhsig13 put work into it and can claim cc-by-sa-4.0 for that work but should indicate the underlying PD work. Let's look at the potential PD templates. The subject works should qualify for {{PD-Canada}} or {{PD-Canada-Crown}} due to age, but without sources for the designs, we don't know who created them, when they were created, whether or not the creations were subject to copyright by the Crown, and consequently why they are PD. None of that information is revealed in the ticket. Sorry for the delay.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not an OTRS volunteer so I cannot see or evaluate the specifics of the ticket. The FFD discussion was based upon the files being licensed as non-free; therfore, if they are converted to PD there is no longer any NFCC issues and the FFD discussion can be closed. However, the files cannot remain licensed as non-free content because doing so would not satisfy WP:NFCC#1. So, the files have to either be relicensed or deleted.

I am aware of the previous Wikipedia/Commons discussions on this image since I was part of them. What I am not fully aware of are the details of the discussions going on between OTRS volunteers taking place off-Wikipedia except what Yunshui has posted above. The validity of the ticket is something which cannot be assessed in the FFD since not everyone is privy to same information as you OTRS volunteers are. Please note that another OTRS volunteer JJMC89 has posted in the FFD that the ticket is not OK, so that's at least two OTRS volunteers (Yunshui is the other one) who clearly disagree with your assessment plus possibly one more in Jcb who thinks the ticket is questionable; so, if you guys are unable to reach an agreement among yourselves, then maybe the files should remain non-free until you can. I'm not sure if all admins can see the same things you OTRS volunteers can see, so it would make it much easier for one of the admins who typically closes FFD discussions to know for sure that the OTRS consensus is that the ticket is OK. Does this make sense? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, it makes sense.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If they are PD due to age, that is one thing. There is no evidence that BC (or SK) disclaims copyright in the OTRS ticket. The email relates to SK, not BC. Even if it were for SK, the representative saying we don't need permission is not the same as disclaiming copyright. The ticket doesn't provide any statement of permission that Wikimedia can use, so the ticket is useless. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui: Which email list?   — Jeff G. ツ 12:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: It was sent to the otrs-en list on May 25th, the subject line is "Permission discussion". Yunshui ^雲_水 13:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui: I found it, thanks. You were not mischaracterising.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Good to know; didn't want to think I was putting words in your mouth! Yunshui ^雲_水 15:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Trying to find out why you took the liberaty to delete a page I created when there was still on on-going debate that was equally sided????? I'm putting it back up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Rouas had run for seven days and there was a clear consensus to delete the article. If you wish to have the close reviewed, you can do so at Deletion review. I would advise against recreating the article without first having the deletion reviewed; such a recreation would be immediately eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4, and could be regarded as disruptive editing. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No there was just as many arguments to keep it so I would not say that concludes a clear consensus. There were just about equal amounts of people who said keep compared to those who said delete. On both articles. Don't just delete my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

SO I looked up this page and found to my surprise that their were attacks listed for this month. NOW on my outlook I got a message from Violetriga on my mocrosoft xbox360 outlool email

He stated he made changes to the main page Talk:Main page was xhamged on june 7 @4:20pm. NOW  this page stars all attacks that happened or are to happen outside the US. NOW I have not read it yet and wanted to bringing to your attention. I don't know how to get a hold of anyone else. NOW these are all the links he had given me. 1https://en.wikipedoa.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page. Second is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

Third. title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=844883394 Fourth. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? Fifth title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=oldid=84488339 contact the editor https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Violetriga Wiki:https:/_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Violetriga. I'll try not to open all of them until you respond. I hope we can take this shit off the net. Oh and

Editor's summary: /* ... */  new section. Is also something. Thank you and Amen.
DOWNTOWNJIzMBROWN26 (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Straight off your unblock, this is what happened at Kurukkal. No attempt at resolving the dispute etc, although I left a detailed explanation at that article's talk page. SpacemanSpiff was right in their reply to you, I think. AGF'ing with people like this is pointless. - Sitush (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that went downhill fast. I've indeffed them for disruption. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Expect socks soon. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to have deleted the Camnden Assets Recovery Interagency Network page entirely on the 6th June 2018? Why? This is an international organisation and the wiki page was used as reference material by CARIN itself, the EU Commission, and other international bodies. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolfraedic (talk • contribs) 12:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The page content was copied almost verbatim from the CARIN website (http://carin-network.org/), which is not labelled as being freely released under a CC-BY-SA or similar free licence. As such, the addition of the material constituted a copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot host content that violates copyright, for any length of time, and given the extent of the copyvio, deletion was preferable to an attempted rewrite.

There is no reason for Wikipedia not to have a page on CARIN (indeed, which quite probably should), but such a page must not be derived or copied from CARIN's own content. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You might wish to remove talk page access at User talk:MauroTassara, since instead of making unblock requests they are continuing to make legal threats. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 05:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BitShares is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Yunshui! Following a link from AN to a user talk-page diff, I happened across an edit you hid but whose content is still visible in the revision immediately following, and in the diff of your edit that deleted it: you’ll probably want to zap that one, too. I hope I’m not being too vague, just trying for discreet … feel free to ping if you need clearer directions.—Odysseus1479 03:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: I greatly appreciate you spotting it, but I hid quite a lot of stuff yesterday and I'm not sure which action you're referring to - would you mind emailing me the diff, please? Yunshui ^雲_水 06:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind; in the meantime it’s been dealt with.—Odysseus1479 18:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks Tony for sorting that. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up at AfD. I would have revdel'd them but I was trying to keep an eye on things on my mobile while also cooking a barbecue for a school fete. Unfortunately, Icewhiz had also posted the same link at AN. I've redacted it and revdel'd the intervening revisions; would you mind oversighting when you get a chance? Thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Damn, I missed that. Suppression applied. Hope the barbie went well! Yunshui ^雲_水 21:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you accepted the unblock request of this user (and mentioned that you unblocked them on Oshwah's TP), but I see that the original block from a year ago is still active. Perhaps you forgot to actually do the unblocking? =) byteflush _Talk 20:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Boy, is my face red. Unblocked, thank you. Yunshui ^雲_水 17:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

When you closed the afd, XFDcloser seemed to delete only the talk page and the redirected pages, but the the article itself. Not sure if you noticed or not. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Bit odd. Might be something to do with the multiple nominations, but that doesn't usually cause a problem... I'm going to chalk it up to gremlins, and I see that Just Chilling has already helpfully G6ed the article; thanks for that! Yunshui ^雲_水 07:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You have previously attended or expressed an interest in attending a meetup in Bristol. I am organising one for this summer - provisionally 1 September 2018. For details see m:Meetup/Bristol/3 to join the discussion, including expressing preferences about dates and venues, see the talk page at m:Talk:Meetup/Bristol/3. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Yunshui/decline copyvio not sure how I got there from mine. I'm very sorry.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries, it's absolutely fine. You're just somewhat more polite than I am! Yunshui ^雲_水 07:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yunshui,

In light of a few of your recent relist(s), it might be prudential to note that the community has authorized sysops to treat AfDs with no participation after one/two week(s) as equivalent of unchallenged PROD(s).

Regards, ∯WBG^converse 11:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was was aware of the softprod rules, but I generally prefer to see discussions of that sort relisted at least once (and probably twice) before making a call on their deletion - it doesn't hurt anyone to leave the AfD running for a while longer, and not everyone with an opinion on the topic will necessarily edit as often as once a week. IMHO, if something's gone to AFD, it's preferable to get a definite decision one way or the other, either to stop articles on appropriate subjects from being deleted through lack of interest, or to stop unsuitable articles from being recreated as contested PRODs. As always, though, YMMV depending on which admin you ask - that's just my personal take. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

Hi, it seems you were the last to touch the article "Antonio_Delgado_(Politician)" Can you send me the source (or post it in my sandbox) so that if he wins, we have something to start from? I am not affiliated with him in anyway, I am just interested in this election. Thanks, in advance! Diablanco (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Diablanco: I see no good reason not to do so; the content is now available to you at User:Diablanco/Antonio Delgado (politician). Yunshui ^雲_水 07:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Diablanco (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Can the page be restored? I realize that this is a form of WP:DENY but since the film is actually notable and the content is not promotional (as I saw it during the AfD), I believe that an exception could be made. — FR ⁺ 10:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Not so much the essay WP:DENY as the policies WP:EVADE and WP:BANREVERT. You can recreate the page with new content if you wish - I'm perfectly happy for you to do so if you think it's genuinely notable - but restoring deleted content from a globally locked user would verge on proxy editing; that I'm not comfortable with.

If you do decide to create a new article for the film, be aware that Windows Production socks are pretty persistent; any page you create about one of their productions is likely to draw socks like moths to a flame. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Why article five core electronics limited was deleted when you have lesser companies listed in Wikipedia. The company is listed in national stock exchange of India. The company has significant coverage in media and yet it was deleted why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanmohan (talk • contribs) 12:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The reasons for deletion are given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Core Electronics Limited. You can ask for the deletion to be reviewed at WP:DR if you wish, but given that there was not a single Keep vote registered, the deletion is unlikely to be overturned. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not the answer I hoped for but I guess I have no other option. I do not know how come a listed company with notable mentions in 7-8 news reports can't be listed in wikipedia(which is listed in stock exchange) but a company with single citation can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanmohan (talk • contribs) 08:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)