User talk:Supermann: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, Supermann, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Declaration of Socketpuppetry/COI/Paid Editing

I have come out in person to community members incl. but not limited to DGG at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC in May. I am not a ferocious writer with a lot of publicly available articles though. Over the past 10 years, I have been contributing to the community in a very small scale primarily related to the movies which I have watched. Given my immigrant background, my username is apparently inspired by Kryptonian immigrant Superman and my first edit is related to the movie Superman Returns. How time flies. In 2014, I set up a separate account supermansaga with the initial intent to edit on non-English Wikipedia pages, but it has become a sleeper account.

Because of my personal journey, I have a thing for military-themed movies and subjects. That is why I fixed List of US arms sales to Taiwan to ensure President Obama's legacy over a two-day period in Feb 2016 with some crazy hours. Regrettably, neither the president nor his Dept of Defense paid me for my efforts.

A year later, because I was grateful for movie production and distribution company Bliss Media's efforts to bring pacifist war film Hacksaw Ridge to China, I decided to edit or create pages related to their existing and upcoming projects, incl. but not limited to S.M.A.R.T. Chase, Bliss Media, Wei Han, Thomas Price (actor) from Feb thru Mar 2017. To consolidate all such efforts and go around the photo uploading rules of using high definition pictures, I ridiculously set up yet another account BlissMedia/Shxiyi without understanding the gravity of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry rules. Nor did I fully understand the impact of Bliss Media and Wei Han pages having been previously deleted years ago because of an advertising nature. I did reach out to the company to encourage them to release the rights of high-def pictures, but I presume they never acted on my suggestion. Anyways, I am the sole person behind all three accounts of supermann, supermansaga, Blissmedia/shxiyi. That's why at certain points supermann shared IP addresses with shxiyi after that account was blocked. There are no so-called coworkers there conspiring with me to spam Wikipedia in 2017. DGG has concluded that what I had created for Bliss Media the page is quite different from an earlier version. The tones and wordings of my unblock appeal requests have been consistent. I was indeed physically in China traveling to visit family and relatives and friends, but had to use proxy most of the time to circumvent the the Great Firewall of China. For example, NYTimes is blocked. Looking back, I wish I had simply and only used my main account supermann to edit all those pages. While I was writing under the BlissMedia/shxiyi account, I did claim to be an agent of Thomas Price, because I was thinking from the perspective of the company, but as I have repeatedly written multiple times: I don't have any contractual relationship with the company that has clouded my judgment or enriched my pockets. I only care about whatever should and could be written about them. I have no interest in further promoting it other than convincing others that those pages should not be deleted due to notability.

To sum up, I am indeed guilty of socketpuppetry and evading blocks in the heat of passionately defending my edits/creation. I am willing to put this chapter behind me by taking up the generous offer from Yamla. That is to say I will "agree to refrain from directly editing any article at all related to Bliss Media, broadly construed. You could suggest edits on the articles' talk pages, so long as you disclose your conflict of interest. And of course, no more sockpuppetry." And DGG will watch over me, too. However, I wish the deleted pages of Bliss Media, Wei Han, Thomas Price (actor) could be restored and have any puffery removed. I also wish there was an expiration to the stringent requirement of staying away from those pages. If there are people actively editing them without spamming, I could definitely stay away. But last time I checked, people undoing changes on S.M.A.R.T. Chase are not maintaining it well and left dead links. For example, for people complaining there is little about this movie, they did not notice Orlando Bloom appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon on the same night of Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC in May to talk about it.

Thank you so much to those policing in the community who have made me a better contributor down the road. I do believe this is a necessary lesson.

As I am the original blocking admin on this particular account, I have now lifted your block under these terms. You are free to request removal of the restriction around directly editing anything to do with Bliss Media, broadly construed, in six months (i.e. in December, 2017) and any admin may lift these editing restrictions without consulting me, so long as they have verified you've made no edits to any such articles, broadly construed. You are free to suggest edits at any time, on these articles' talk pages, but must otherwise stay away from that topic area. You are under no restriction from articles completely unrelated to Bliss Media. I do not wish to trap you here. You need to stay away from Orlando Bloom, just to use one example, as that is part of your editing restriction. That's a topic related to Bliss Media. You already know this; your previous edits were specifically to discuss the relation with Bliss Media projects, there. --Yamla (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Understood. And thank you for clarifying the expiration on direct edits. Looking forward to the unblock and restoration of those deleted pages.Supermann (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:TropicAces. [1] bonadea contributions talk 08:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Noted and responded on the Template talk:Infobox_film. Btw, would it take three more days for my talk page to start automatically archiving? I think I have added the necessary text. thanks. Supermann (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Film censorship in China shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Film censorship in China". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 June 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Film censorship in China, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Liu Yulin at the 41st Student Academy Awards.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Liu Yulin at the 41st Student Academy Awards.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Timmyshin (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timmyshin: The rationale has been written up. Could you please take a second look? Thanks Supermann (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, using a non-free image to illustrate a living person is generally forbidden per WP:NFC#UUI. Timmyshin (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You do what you have to do to delete the picture. I have no intention of becoming a paparazzi to stalk and take a photo of her to upload as free image. WP pillar states no firm rules. Supermann (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the rule is quite clear. When I first joined en.wiki I also had some photos deleted for the same reason, please don't take it personally. Timmyshin (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timmyshin:Picture is worth a thousand words, but uploading them has got me into trouble, incl. a block on socketpuppetry. Wish somebody had warned me beforehand!!!Supermann (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry what happened? Timmyshin (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It's the first section on this talk page and you could find more on the talk page of the blocking admin.Supermann (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your contributions to Liu Zhenyun and related articles!

Timmyshin (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. @Timmyshin:. Btw, what is this book by Liu Zhenyun called The Cook, the Crook, and the Real Estate Tycoon: A Novel of Contemporary China? See https://www.amazon.com/Cook-Crook-Real-Estate-Tycoon/dp/1628725206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499041592&sr=8-1&keywords=liu+zhenyun. Is this his new novel? I can add it in the grid, but just not sure. thanks. Supermann (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The Chinese title is 我叫刘跃进 (lit. My Name Is Liu Yuejin). The novel probably deserves an article, since it was adapted into the film Lost and Found (2008 film) (and a TV series). Timmyshin (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timmyshin:I see it now. Forgot to check the book description on Amazon.com. The answer is right there. I have updated the grid. I'll leave the page creation to more capable hands. In the meantime, do you think the grid should use the Chinese name of the novels or the English one? Just like this one, Someone to Talk to is now the official English title of his novel One Sentence Is Ten Thousand Sentences. thx.Supermann (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, definitely the "official English title" if the novel is fully translated per WP:COMMONNAME, this being the en.wiki after all. But for One Sentence Is Ten Thousand Sentences I would wait until the translation is published ([2] says in 2018) along with multiple WP:RS book reviews, before moving the article, per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Timmyshin (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool. I wasn't in a hurry. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Your addition to Film censorship in China has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I have a journalism degree and of course know the importance of paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism charges. But it's @TenTonParasol: who back on June 12 stressed I could avoid original research in giving reasoning of the censored scenes by simply "repeating what a reliable, published source has stated themselves" that now has landed me in trouble. If you are observant, you would see I have given all inline citations to the extent possible. But of course I am not a master at this Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please rewrite to the extent you are available. This includes the history section. That page needs more diverse contributors anyways. I'll just maintain the timeline of the censorship process and hopefully keep updating the list. ROC actually adopted the age-based rating system back in 1983 as I did some original research by reaching out to the experts. Thank you so much.Supermann (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not have time to re-write the material, as there are 83 copyvio reports from yesterday and today remaining to be checked, which represents five to ten hours of work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Marking edits minor

I've noticed that you've recently made several edits that are substantial additions to articles but marked them minor. Per WP:MINOR, if there is any chance an edit may be disputed for any reason, and that does include things like adding entries to a list, or that an edit would need review, like adding even referenced information to an article, or adding references to an article to not mark it minor. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it. boss! @TenTonParasol: Supermann (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And please cut it out with the "boss" thing, it's like annoying condescending and it makes me constantly feel like you're trying to pass off responsibility for things onto me. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: Could you please rewrite that rating lookup website sentence instead of removing it outright? Readers absolutely appreciates that url and find it has encyclopedic value. Why do you want to take away people's access to further knowledge? I just used it to verify what rating that Love (2015 film) finally got after censoring 170 seconds. Thanks.Supermann (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It being a valuable resource doesn't warrant it being mentioned in the body of the article? The body content of articles is to summarize information, not to act as a directory of links to resources for readers, and if all there is to say about it is "it is a useful place to look up ratings" than it doesn't merit mentioning in the body. Like, you can't use citations to point people at resources. That's not what referencing is. But, I'll add it to the external links section. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Cool. thanks. have a good night.Supermann (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kellymoat (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat: I don't mind going to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Edit_Warring. Why don't you please initiate that? Supermann (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

IMDB

If we hate it so much? Please read WP:CITEIMDB: "Citing the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) on Wikipedia raises questions with regard to adherence to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as much of its database content is user contributed with minimal and unstated editorial oversight by IMDb staff." It has nothing to do if we hate it or not. It's unreliable and contains a lot original content. Also, I half-apologize for the revert. The second source was giving me a Not Found page but now it suddenly works. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been educated a lot on IMDb lately. I disagree but I respect the consensus. @Callmemirela: thanks for your understanding. Supermann (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna

Please do not continue to add trivia to this article without discussing it on the talk page. This is a featured article. It does not and cannot include every single book or video game in which there is a fictionalized version of Anastasia Nikolaevna. It's not a list of pop culture references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A solution

Re your comment here, I see three possible solutions: 1) Assume all unexplained, unsourced date changes are correct. Verify nothing. Recurring vandalism, such as that outlined at WP:KIDSTVDATES is just the price we pay for deciding to pretend there is no vandalism on Wikipedia. 2) When verifying another editor's unexplained, unsourced additions, dig through the entire article, reading the entirety of the hundreds of sources cited. The hours spent are just part of the price we pay for not communicating. 3) When adding or changing material, use an edit summary. The seconds spent are just part of the price we pay, working on a collaborative project.

I've picked my solution. Feel free to pick yours. Problem solved. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: I don't have enough admin tools at my disposal to detect persistent vandalism. But I think Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith is important. So I did spend the minutes to verify and collaborate. I still hope the place is a more tolerant environment where Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules could be implemented more often than not. Just my two cents. Thank you for taking the time. Supermann (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no "admin tools". Vandalism (and a good number of honest mistakes} are best ferreted out by collaboration. You cannot "collaborate" alone. It involves communication. Editors who don't cite sources and explain edits are not collaborating, they're making it harder to spot the bad edits by making it hard to verify the good edits.

Building a verifiable encyclopedia requires that those working to build it verify content. The rules are the general case: what should be done the vast majority of the time. If you are ignoring the rules more often than not, Wikipedia might just as well be Reddit. New slogan: "Wikipedia: the random site where anyone can say anything about anything." - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Film Censorship in China". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 August 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Supermann

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alex Shih^Talk 03:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Partially inaccurate

China banned just Chinese Wikipedia from appearing online. Most of readers from China surf to English Wikipedia probably since the ban. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)