User talk:Shimeru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. If you leave me a message here, I will respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, you may respond there; I'll be watching it. I prefer to have the entire conversation in one place; it makes it easier to follow. Also, if you leave a message here, please do not subsequently edit it except for grammar, spelling, link correction, and similar technical aspects. Thank you.

Archives: 1 (12/04-12/06)

[edit] You're a sysop!

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=
 PS Please add you name to WP:LA!

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, congratulatins, now hurry over and help with the CSD image backlog... JoshuaZ 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well done indeed - Alison^☺ 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Congrats! —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 03:20Z

Sorry about the wait, I was "delayed" (my internet failed its amour save). Congratulations, you'll do fine. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jin Dui

Should I do a {{prod}} or go to full AfD? (My inclination is prod.) Realkyhick 05:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore that request. I'm putting an {{underconstruction}} tag to let her work on it, then we'll revisit the deletion issue. I didn't see the author's replay at first. Thanks. Realkyhick 05:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closure

I find your closure of the AfD on Depictions of God in popular culture questionable, though I do have a vested interest in the matter. Vote count isn't everything, but this was 7-3 in favor of deletion, and as you pointed out the arguments were stronger on the deletion side too. It's hard to interpret the merge votes one way or the other but if pressed, I'd say the "smerge" vote (slight merge) favors deletion more than keeping and the other one favors merging more than keeping, which makes 8-4. I think a DRV is inappropriate (as the article wasn't deleted) so I'm not starting one, but given that you're new to adminship, would you mind asking at WP:ANI for some second opinions from uninvolved admins? If not, no biggie, I will just nominate it again in a couple of months if when it isn't cleaned up. I may sound cynical on the matter, but the reason these articles are so bad is that they are abandoned by their creators, so I see little reason to hope that a cleanup will happen. Mangojuice^talk 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I was considering that one for quite a while, but in the end, I do think it's possible for something encyclopedic to be written on the topic, so I decided to lean toward the side of caution and close it as no consensus rather than delete. (I did read the merges as favoring a keep in some form, admittedly.) Ultimately, it's an argument that only works once; I'm hoping it will be sourced and cleaned up, but the worst-case scenario is that it's around for two or three more months.

If you want to take it to DRV, which does consider AfDs that didn't close as "delete," I don't have a problem with that; it is a questionable close. I can sympathize with your cynicism, and I'm not sure anything will come of the article. But it seemed to me worth giving it a shot. I'll take your advice about asking second opinions on cases like this one, though. Shimeru 03:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There's bound to be at least one person at DRV who thinks any reconsideration should just be a new AfD. If I just wait, the argument will be stronger, and no one will be concerned with the venue. I have had the same temptation you did here, to inject my own opinion as part of the close (although mostly, that opinion was of the form, you lazy jerks think I'm going to merge all this shit?)... when I found myself feeling strongly about the debate's outcome, what I do is I make a comment in the debate instead of closing it, except if it's a foregone conclusion. I think that's what you should have done here, and then maybe someone else would have closed it as no consensus. As the closer, though, you are speaking for the Wikipedia community, but your closing really expresses your own opinion. Mangojuice^talk 13:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you may be right, there. I'll watch that more carefully in the future. Shimeru 15:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monongahela River/Sanbox

No problem. Just an explanation, I sometimes create the /Sandbox subpages when I'm about to commit a major upgrade to the page and I want users to check on the change first. I believe I created more such pages, especially in the Template namespace. I'm responsible for the Geobox templates and before making some significant changes I also create a subpage named /Sandbox which is then tested on more pages, that's why I don't create them in my userspace. Of course, it's OK to delete such pages when the change has been commited (or refused). – Caroig 07:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scriblist.com deletion!!?

Did you read the comment on the discussion page? I said I was going to clean the article up but you still deleted it. Do you mind if I ask why? (Please e-mail me because I'll probably never be able to find this page again!)--**CatoftheNight** 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explaining it... --**CatoftheNight** 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated if you could put the original on my user page - Thanks. Me and the original writer are thinking of re-doing it and making it MUCH better --**CatoftheNight** 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. See your talk page. Shimeru 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou again. --**CatoftheNight** 17:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euro soccer championship templates

What's wrong with the templates? Kingjeff 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

They were created by a banned user while he was banned... being speedied now. Shimeru 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

...Additionally, they were recreations of templates previously deleted through WP:TfD, another speedy criterion. Shimeru 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ok. I didn't know that. They originally looked like perfectly good templates. Kingjeff 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My username

It is a WOT reference. My name is super common and to register a username with any variation of that is always impossible. My first internet experience was around 1994 with a Prodigy BB about WOT and I have used this name (with variation) for user accounts ever since. It is funny to be reminded where it came from, I hardly think much of it now considering the long years between books and my complete lack of participation in any online fandom since 1996. Which I imagine has come along way since Bulliten Boards and The FAQ (one of the first pages I ever visted on the WWW!) It is hard to even think of the internet without the web these days. I have seen a few other names from WOT around. There is a Nae'blis and I think a few more. Congrats with the admin bit!--BirgitteSB 01:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy vs. dated prod

I don't know much about taggin pages for deletion. Can you explain why dated prod was better than speedy? You can reply right here, if you want. - Peregrine Fisher 03:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Basically, there's a very limited set of criteria for speedy deletion. "Hoax" isn't one of those reasons, so a hoax article can't generally be speedied. The prod template is used for proposed deletions that are expected to be non-controversial; if nobody removes the template or disputes the deletion within 5 days, it gets deleted. If there is a dispute, or the deletion is likely to be controversial, the Articles for Deletion process is used instead. Does that help? Shimeru 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I auto-searched the speedy page for hoax, and found it under patent nonsense. I didn't read carefully enough to see the "This does not include" wording. Good to know. I've only ever tagged two pages for deletion, both hoaxes, and I'm getting close to doing one correctly. - Peregrine Fisher 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Quite a lot of people intuitively assume hoaxes can be speedied; I did it myself at one point. Deletion's a bit complicated, and it takes a little while to get used to. Shimeru 04:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my 'FunNet' Article

heh, well I'd like to thank you for the kind words in regards to the article, "seems pretty developed for a new article". heh, just have a concern about citing references. Of course i must admit, i am a long time reader here, however never have actually contributed on here until now. Back to the citing issue, I have read over the Wiki Citing poliy, and while detailed it seems to miss my question. To clarify; the policy FAQ on citing sources states when to cite and how to cite but not what to cite. What makes something reliable source? Also, a lot of that article was from first hand experience, ive been there since almost the beginning. Can I cite myself? heh, thanks for your time. :) Aleck79 19:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Shimeru 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Taalo

sorry, i already killed my password after i put on that speedy delete request. i've put it back up but from an Anon account. the purpose of that original request was to have the account deleted. thanks for double checking.

• hi shimuru, just checking if you had a chance to look at this. regards

• thanks a lot shimuru, also for taking the risk if this was a malicious IP. can i also have the talk page deleted? i'll put up the same request.

It's not actually that much of a risk -- if someone were to log into the account and request it, the page could easily be undeleted. Given that, and the fact that the earlier tag was placed while logged in, it's not a big deal to assume good faith. User talk pages aren't normally deleted, but I'll courtesy-blank it for you for now. Is there a pressing reason that it needs to be removed? Shimeru 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, I'd prefer to just have it removed, even so I don't have to be concerned with people messaging me by mistake. There are other reasons, maybe I can tell you through e-mail. Anyway, if it is possible, please just nuke it. regards.

[edit] Deletion of Sara londoño

Hello! Just thought you might want to know that the same user who wrote that article is up to the same trick with other articles. I left BigHaz a note about it, so you might check his userpage for the note "potentially the same user". The latter of the two "users" has also uploaded a number of photos. Thanks for your help, too! -Yupik 07:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article titled "Master Choa Kok Sui"

Hi,

I would like to know why the article was deleted. The article is about an internationally acclaimed author and the material was taken from sources cited in the article. As far as I can tell, none of the criteria for speedy deletion were met. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sg ph (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

It was deleted under criteria G11, "blatant advertising." While this may seem unusual for a biography article, the text did read in a rather promotional manner. For example, the first sentence read: "Master Choa Kok Sui is the Modern Founder of Pranic Healing^® and Arhatic Yoga^®." There is no need for the trademarks, and unless "Modern Founder" is an official title, no need for the capitalization, either. The remainder of the article was similar in tone.

You're free to create a new article about this individual in a style more suited to that of an encyclopedia article, though; the deletion doesn't prevent that. Shimeru 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I am new to Wikipedia and appreciate your input. --Sg ph 18:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to get a copy of the original article, unfortunately I did not keep a copy. Also, is it possible to have my article reviewed by someone in Wikipedia before I post it and watch it be deleted or butchered :-)

Thanks again. Sg ph 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've put a copy in your userspace at User:Sg ph/Master Choa Kok Sui. If you drop me a note when you've rewritten it, I'll be happy to look it over, or ask a third party to do so. Shimeru 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem-I hope I can earn your vote when/if I choose to run in the future.

[edit] Ebolaworld

Hey, quick question, what happened to the Ebolaworld article? I hadn't visited it in a while (many months) so I don't know if there was a discussion to delete it or anything. It just seemed to me like a legitimate article on a popular webcartoon, so I'm kind of wondering what happened.

OK, thanks for fixing it up, jimfbleak 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BugBox (Software)

Hi Shimeru

We need your advice on the recent deletion of the BugBox (Software) page.

Despite the unexpected nomination for deletion, the page was updated to meet all the criteria of the 2nd delete nomination:

-- Validated links were added to the article -- Notability was confirmed by the required standards (e.g. BugBox listing in official APM Group pages) -- The issues of 'copied promotional material' and 'conflict of interest' were not considered as it is circumstantial (and incorrect anyway).

This edition satisifed the criticisms of both editors who proposed a deletion. There were no other comments or votes for deletion -so we were a little surprised when you deleted this useful page?

Together, how do we now tackle getting this useful page restored? The PRINCE2 software community is woefully serviced at the best of times but all the credible, free-to-access and informative information from mature sources like Wikipedia that can support our community is vital to keep alive...

Thanks

Stephen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephenAshurst (talk • contribs) 09:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

It was my feeling that the objections raised had not been substantially addressed. The main concern was notability. WP:SOFTWARE and WP:CORP were mentioned specifically, though there's also the general WP:NOTE. The main criterion in all three is that the work "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)." At the end of the AfD, the article had no citations and no references listed. It did have two external links; one of these was to the official website, however, and therefore not independent. That leaves the APM group link, which is simply a directory entry stating that the agency has evaluated the software and offering some contact information and a one-page report. This is a fair start, but not enough to source the entire article. It was, however, the only additional source offered during the debate. This in itself is not necessarily a reason to delete, although it doesn't help.

But there was another matter raised: the potential copyright violation from ITToolbox. That concern was not answered, and my review did show great similarity between the two entries. Since the ITToolbox entry is much older than ours, it's obviously not a case where another site made use of our article. Now, judging by your username, it seems reasonable to assume that you are the same person who created the ITToolbox article. However, I don't see any indication that ITToolbox is licensed under the GFDL, as Wikipedia uses (there's a copyright notice on ITToolbox's pages, though); even if it is, the GFDL requires acknowledgement of the other contributors' work, which was not present in the deleted article. I therefore deleted it as a copyright violation.

There's no problem with recreating the article in a paraphrased form and with reference to multiple independent reliable sources, though. Shimeru 05:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the redirect on Allan Russell?

Allan Russell and David Allen Russell are two different people from two different centuries from two different countries in two different professions. The redirect should be deleted.

Because the earliest version of the page was a redirect. You'd need to ask the creator their reasoning. Since it had existed in some form prior to the contextless "baseball or soccer player" version, I restored that previous form instead of deleting. Shimeru 04:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good call

Nice call on this AfD. A messy situation, but I think your solution was nicely done and quite reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)