User talk:Ywangupeica: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:57, 31 January 2016

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dew Computing (November 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of websites and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Ywangupeica/Dew Computing and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud-dew architecture

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cloud-dew architecture, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.clouddew.com/.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cloud-dew architecture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloud-dew architecture 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/Cloud-dew architecture 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. Mys_721tx (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Cloud-dew architecture

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cloud-dew architecture, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://mmm.clouddew.com/, http://www.researchgate.net/publication/277404519_Cloud-dew_architecture, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Cloud-dew architecture and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Cloud-dew architecture, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cloud-dew architecture. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Cloud-dew architecture with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Cloud-dew architecture saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question...

...is that there is no one "Administrator" of English Wikipedia, there are about 600 of them, all of them volunteers, and none of assigned specific duties. Finlay McWalter is an administrator, but he is not The Administrator. In any case, whether your articles will be deleted will be decided by a consensus of editors, both admins and non-admin, in the Articles for Deletion discussion. BMK (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to know...

...that creating and using a second (or third or fourth) identity in order to use that identity to !vote in AfD discussions is a violation of our policy on WP:Sockpuppetry. Doing so can lead to your being blocked from editing in the future. The appearance of a brand-new editor such as User:Adgjpiy to !vote "Keep" in an AfD naturally raises suspicions that it is a sockpuppet, and since you are the author of the article that is in question, it is you that suspicion naturally falls on. If you did this, do not do it again. If you did not do it, my apologies. BMK (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You had better apologize. I did tell my friends and colleagues about the situation, but I did not use sockpuppet. Such kind of claim needs evidences. If you have any evidence, please show me now. Even just warning is still insulting. Because of your last sentence, I stop here. Otherwise, this is a problem. Please say something in response to me. Ywangupeica (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BMK: Other editors do not agree with my article because they think that way, but you are different. You are another kind of person. Ywangupeica (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Meatpuppet. If you recruit your colleagues to come to your aid, it's exactly the same thing as making a new account yourself. Don't do it again. BMK (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:56, 31 January 2016 edit Beyond My Ken (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 263,266 edits →You need to know... ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:57, 31 January 2016 edit undo Beyond My Ken (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 263,266 edits →You need to know... Next edit →
Line 49:		Line 49:
	[[User:Beyond My Ken\|BMK]]: Other editors do not agree with my article because they think that way, but you are different. You are another kind of person. [[User:Ywangupeica\|Ywangupeica]] ([[User talk:Ywangupeica#top\|talk]]) 00:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)		[[User:Beyond My Ken\|BMK]]: Other editors do not agree with my article because they think that way, but you are different. You are another kind of person. [[User:Ywangupeica\|Ywangupeica]] ([[User talk:Ywangupeica#top\|talk]]) 00:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

	:Please see [[WP:Meatpuppet]]. [[User:Beyond My Ken\|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken\|talk]]) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)		:Please see [[WP:Meatpuppet]]. If you recruit your colleagues to come to your aid, it's exactly the same thing as making a new account yourself. Don't do it again. [[User:Beyond My Ken\|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken\|talk]]) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)