User talk:Shinmawa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to my talk page

Archives can be found here:

[edit] Alexander Siloti

Dear Colleague:

Finding no other way to contact you, I e- to thank you very much for your superb improvements to my original Siloti article. You made it wholly compatible with the WikiWay, and thereby much more useful.

Many thanks.

Dr Charles Barber Stanford

[edit] Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Russell (second_nomination)

Hi, you said "I know you know better". [1] Please don't use terms like that, which falsely imply that the person you disagree with is deliberately misrepresenting the facts (which I assure you is far from the case here). It seems that we have both read the deletion policy and arrived at diametrically opposed interpretations. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose we did. What I should have said was "as an admin, you should know better", because I truly and honestly feel you were mistaken. I didn't think you were intentionally misstating things, although upon a second reading I can see how that could be interpretted in my words. My apologies for the unintentionally harsh tone. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Arpaio

Can you send me a short email indicating your understanding of the nature of the copyright violation? If you could indicate the suspect text and anything you know about likely primary sources of that text it would be useful. --JWSchmidt 05:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Email sent, but all the copyvios have been resolved already. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Done the merge. Hope its ok! - FrancisTyers · 10:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

... for removing the silly template from my talk archive. I didn't notice that it was flagging my talk page as a policy page. Isomorphic 07:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

I love your linked version of the section of The Walrus and the Carpenter on your userpage - it was fun to see what each link went to! -- Nataly a 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog tag

How can 310 articles past 120 hours [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] not be considered a backlog? I do not understand why you removed the backlog tag as there is quite obviously a backlog of 5 days and hundreds of articles. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You put the adminbacklog tag on the wrong page. There is no backlog on the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. You should add it to the Prod category pages that are overdue;.Thanks, Gwernol 06:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary gave a very different impression than your explaination. In the future, I recommend that if such a thing happens, you move the tag to the proper location with an edit summary to that effect, rather than just delete the tag. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFC Wizard

As a regular reviewer of AFC, I think the wizard looks great. Is it intended to appear on the main AFC page? --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Eventually, my hope is that a link to the Wizard will replace the current link to submit an article, but not replace the main page itself. However, right now the Wizard is "not ready for prime time". Before making such a substative change to the process, I'm looking for as much feedback and concensus as I can. The whole idea of the Wizard is to improve the chances that an AfC is successful (our current 95% rejection rate disturbs me greatly) and to not overwhelm new users with the onslaught of information that the main page currently does by offering the same information in smaller easier-to-digest chunks. However, I don't want to inadvertantly WP:BITE in the process. If you have any feedback, I would love to hear it. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that 95% is far too many declines. Hopefully this wizard should make it more clearer to users exactly what to do. --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it a lot. We should centralize the discussion somewhere, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction. ×Meegs 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it a lot and I think you should go through with it unless serious opposition arises. Please keep me informed of any major developments. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For your excellent AFC Wizard....

		A Barnstar
		I MacGyverMagic, hereby award you the da Vinci Barnstar for your excellent work on the AFC Wizard. I hope there's many more Wikipedia Wizards to come to smoothen the experience for newbies... - Mgm\|^(talk) 12:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! ×Meegs 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mgm and Meegs! This is my first barnstar :) I'm really glad my work is appreciated. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad sources

In the AFC wizard you mention sources controlled by the subject of the article as bad sources. I think that's not entirely correct. They can be excellent sources as long as they are not used to try to back notability or something heavily disputed by outside sources. See also WP:ORG. Perhaps that text needs a little nuance? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Using the company's website as a source to indicate that their headquarters is in London, of course, would be completely acceptable. The idea I was trying to get across was pretty much that of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). However, the broad-brush, jackhammer interpretation of a summary list makes that come off a bit stronger than intended. Let me think on some text to indicate WHEN self-published sources are bad and when they are perfectly acceptable. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To avoid complication, which isn't good for this audience, how about we just remove the point from Wizard-Sources and leave it on Company Notability, Biographical notability, and their peers? ×Meegs 15:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Done :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Why did u revert my edits on Ligulem's page. An explanation would be nice. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. At first, it looked like a spam link, then I saw your explanation. I was putting it back when you sent me this note (and it appears you beat me to the punch). Please accept my apology for the mistake. HOWEVER, while I understand that the links to ezproxy were not intentional, you have to expect reverts when every http link on the page gets modified every time you edit. I have to agree with Ligulem that you should see what you can do to fix this before editting Wikipedia again. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin

LOL (and this is one of the very few times I have LOLed on Wikipedia). This looks bad... I swear, all I was doing was removing the testing at the top after edit conflicting with you while reverting that IP!!! Good job on the vandal squishing, by the way. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all okay. I knew what was up. If you note, we had to go WAAAAAAAaaaaayyy back to find a good version. Enjoy! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheersy! Have fun with it. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 17:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How much stupidity must I ignore?

In response to a {{npa2}} being left at User_talk:RussNelson [7]:

The problem here is that Jayvdb originally posted a stupid comment about an edit on my talk page. Rather than flame him or anything, I just deleted his comment. He then posted the same stupid comment on the talk page for my edit, saying that I hadn't responded. In fact, I did respond with a pointed silence. How patient should I be with incompetence? He had asked for a reference, yet the facts in the case were easily found. Okay, fair enough, if he couldn't find them, they were arguably needed. But how much should we cater to idiots? Must everything be spelled out so that even easily found facts have references? Where's the limit? How do we know somebody's birthdate? The correct spelling of their name? Etc etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RussNelson (talk • contribs) .

I wouldn't, and didn't, expect anybody to Google for the gpsd maintainer when there was a link to gpsd right there. And then the gpsd page has an external link to the gpsd home page. From there any number of links make it clear that Eric is the maintainer. Yes, I understand that some things need to be cited, but I don't believe that everything needs to be cited. I still don't believe that the Eric Raymond as gpsd maintainer needs to be cited. Instead, I have edited the gpsd page to make it clear that he is the maintainer.

Thank you for letting me know about Wikpedia culture. RussNelson 19:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Message

Ah, you see in reply to your message you did not get the other half of the of the plan. 50 percent of the wrestling stuff on the lovely wiki does not belong anyway. You see in an attempt to get our page made, we did read the rules. And throughly. We do know how to use the articles for deletion system now, and no doubt many of the said wrestling articles are advertising flat out, misinformation that is non sourced, far less notable than the stuff we wanted to add [e.g. backyard wrestling federation pages], simple vanity pages by non-notable people who have no verifiable information, or just very short fancruft pages. Naturally being on a pro wrestling board who takes advantage of wiki, alot of us noted a great many pages not within the wiki rules at all, or on the border. No editing will be made to them of course, but we will do all we can to bring them to the attention of the regular community here, who will then no doubt tear the articles to pieces or vote solidly for deletion. One or two I may personally save if I feel the desire and correct the information and update, but most can fall victim to the own guild lines of this site. Given how much we seen our own page sabotaged if you have the means, remove the people as you see fit that you believe are from our site. However the main group will be well within the proper guidelines for conduct to point out all the articles within the wrestling field that we have knowledge of that are simply not fit according to the official wiki guild lines to be allowed here, and leave it up to your community to decide on action. It is obvious however that we can already gauge how your community will react.

Also bear in mind that pissed off people who know the internet well know exactly how to bipass any ban that can be place. Being on a site with persistent troublemakers we do know well the faults in the way websites lock people out as well deal with how to do this daily. As I said though, we seek to work in the system and not abuse the pages. Those who do abuse the site, can get what they deserve.

coldwavekid 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By any other name

It's far from unilateral (see e.g. Special:Contributions/David Gerard) though I admit that it hasn't been discussed much on-wiki. That's mostly because what term we use has little effect on-wiki. However, despite what you say, renaming a guideline is hardly a drastic change to editors. However, the term is derogatory to outsiders; if an article on a small corporation gets deleted, it is quite plausible that the AFD discussion will rank very high (or even top) as a Google result. If that AFD discussion says the article was "corporate vanity" or somesuch, the owner of the corp will get upset. The place to look is OTRS. This is not hypothetical, this happens a lot, and gets complained about, and harms Wikipedia's reputation. There simply is no good reason for us to use derogatory terms if we can avoid it, and the fact that we've been doing it for a long time is even more a reason to stop now, now that we've become the world's 10th most popular website. >Radiant< 17:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comment. What I've done is rename a single page. No meaning was changed, no information was lost. We do thousands of renames per week, why would a rename be such a big deal? In the spirit of the wiki, simple edits do not have to be discussed before they're being made (I've renamed a few other guidelines this week, I don't see why that's a problem). Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we don't have to debate over everything before taking simple actions. This is a simple action - a removal of an insult. Do you seriously think we should be using a derogatory term if we can avoid it? Do you really believe that consensus supports that opinion, and if so, why? I really fail to understand why a simple rename would be such a big deal. Anti-community feelings have nothing to do with it. >Radiant< 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Yes, I was unaware of that point. But, couldn't you say that people who want articles on their company avoid conflict of interest by asking other people to write it on requests for creation? The issue of educating novice users is a complex one, but there's still Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. I agree that COI isn't the best phrase to use, but couldn't we advice novices not to write articles about themselves or their friends without using the word vanity? >Radiant< 09:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  - I've added a note to COI's talk page, which of course I should have done earlier. Thanks for the feedback! If there is any confusion with this at AFC please let me know. >Radiant< 08:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be a bully

1. Don't revert my contributions 2. Don't dismiss my contributions as vandalism Lime green cat 06:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Me calls 'em as I sees 'em. [8] [9] [10] -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That attitude won't get you laid Lime green cat 06:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shinmawa, just wanted to let you know that I'm keeping an eye on this user too. Cnwb 06:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfC Closer app.

Hi, thanks for your offers :) - I'm honoured that you'd consider me for an RfA, but can I ask you to remind me again in a week or so (I'm advocating at the moment (WP:AMA), so don't have that much wiki-time, along with bot and program writing). For testing, I'm going to make some fixes to it (there was a problem with it being screen resolution dependant, which is avery major, destructive problem). Once I've doen that, I'll email you the link - it's up to you if you want to test :). Thanks again :) M a rtinp23 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit further, I'd be overjoyed if you would nominate me, and I'll leave it until I'm ready (not long at all) before posting it on the RfA page - that is if you're still willing to nom me :) - Huge thanks, M a rtinp23 18:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation policy question

Your opinion regarding whether editing to an article should continue during the mediation process would be appreciated here since there doesn't seem to be a relevant policy. I've also asked two other seasoned mediators for their opinion. Thanks. Antonrojo 22:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, I hope you didn't feel slighted / taken back by the way I responded to your comment on Talk:Yoshiaki Omura. I worded it a bit strongly, admitted, because I feel very strongly that certain important things should not be compromised (and in trying to mediate the aforementioned article, and in other cases I've tried, it often becomes necessary to make it clear that, while compromise can be applied to an article, it can't be applied to conduct). We seem to be in agreement (I responded to what you said on the relevant talk page), but I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't offended you with the vigor of my comments. Peace, and happy wiki'ing! :) - Che Nuevara 05:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Shinmawa, may I ask why you assume that Antonrojo's edits "have nothing to do with the mediation"? Crum375 22:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to bow out of this discussion for now. I really don't have the context I need to understand the issue, and I'm afraid I'm just making things worse. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affirmative action in U.S. mediation

I hope you are right that Psychohistorian will agree that "whatever Kirsanow may have or may have not said is rather out of scope now"; however, if he does that will be a change of position. The reason I sought mediation in the first place rather than just do the research myself is that he was stating that it would be irrelevant what these people actually said; this is exactly what I was saying was such a disagreement over policy that he and I (and the others working on the page) lacked the basis for discussion. But we'll see. Or at least I presume we'll see. - Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian has clearly been on Wikipedia, and editing; have you contacted him in some way and asked him to respond? (I see that there is no note on his user talk page.) - Jmabel | Talk 02:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And now we've seen. If one grants an assumption of good faith (which I'm trying to do, but it's not easy) he has, as I said, a fundamentally different understanding of policy than I do, and than it appears you do.

By the way, the other Kirsanow passage has not yet even been discussed. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm not seen as pestering, but... at what point am I free to edit if Psychohistorian continues to ignore this? Up to now, I've left his content in the article, but that was on the assumption that this would move forward. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[copied]
I don't think there's any reason why you can't edit the article now. I have to admit, Psychohistorian is not as active in this discussion as I would like. It makes no sense to hold up the article while this drags on. Thanks and happy editting! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[end copied]

Just to make sure we've understood each other correctly: I'm not asking just "can I make any edits to the article"—I've made at least a couple of unrelated edits in the meanwhile—I'm asking if I may remove the passages cited from Kirsanow. I don't want to be seen as edit-warring here, or breaching the standards of behavior expected in the context of a mediation. - Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter (November '06 edition) can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello, 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article A Bathing Ape, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.

[edit] Edit summary vandals...

You're welcome!

Actually those edit summaries are a new feature. Whenever a vandal entirely blanks a page, or completely replaces its content, there is now an automatically generated edit summary, which makes it a whole lot easier for those of us who fill our idle hours with watching recent changes. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not long ago at all. It confused me at first! I even blocked a vandal with a "replacing block reason with 'vandalism'" message once. Oops. Here is the page on it: Wikipedia:Automatic_edit_summaries Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/i/User_talk%7EShinmawa_fb4c.html"