User talk:Shereth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are here because I have deleted your article or I have blocked you from editing please click here before emailing me or leaving a message on my talk page.
I use a same place method for talk-page communications. If you leave me a message on my talk page I will reply to it here rather than on your own talk page.


Contents

[edit] Arizona highway maps

I have only looked at a few, but the ones I looked at were all offcentered. The highlighted route should be centered in the map. Also a few, didn't need to be replaced, SR 64 and SR 67 were just made and work fine and I have reverted back to the previous versions. --Holderca1 talk 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, vector maps are preferable to raster maps, but if you prefer them then oh well. Arkyan 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't care one way or the other on the format, but the older versions of SR 64 and SR 67 show Grand Canyon National Park, which both provide access to and is an essential part of the map. The newer maps were all also way offcentered. --Holderca1 talk 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind them. Arkyan 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why you reverted them all, any map is better than no map. The only issue I saw was the centering. --Holderca1 talk 16:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"Hi, I have seen the various maps that you have been uploading for AZ state routes. Thanks for the effort! While I was looking I did notice that most of them are not centered, and was wondering if you might be able to recenter them. Also, the new maps have lost some of the information such as Grand Canyon National Park, and major rivers. It'd be great if you could put that lost information into the updated maps. Thanks!" Arkyan 16:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your reply here. Who are you quoting? Are you working on fixing the centering or are you just leaving them as is? --Holderca1 talk 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I was being snarky. You know, as in, "here's a more diplomatic way you could have brought up the topic". I had been having a bad morning and had just finished the batch of maps (which required a decent amount of work) and as a result your comment came off sounding critical and unappreciative. Doubt that was your intent but that was how it came across. I'm sure you can understand the desire to feel that your hard work is at least appreciated when it's being critiqued. In any case, yes I am redoing them. Arkyan 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I came across that way. I suppose I just like to get to the point. The maps are definitely appreciated as I have been requesting them five at a time on the map request page. I have no idea what it takes to put these maps together. --Holderca1 talk 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Montrose County Colorado Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Montrose Highlighted.svg

There seems to be something wrong with this image. The pointer is off to some other county but not the one it's supposed to be at;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC) already archived but not answered yet. Could you please take a look at that? Thx! --X-Weinzar (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks correct to me - could you explain in more detail what the problem is? Arkyan 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Eagbaernhdzric.JPG
Hope this explains it ;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm still a little confused. The arrow is pointing at the highlighted county (Montrose), and there isn't anything highlighted in the circle. Arkyan 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. When working on de:Littleton (Colorado) I got the impression that your maps are supposed to highlight the town again in the state map. So do you see the county borders in the highlighted circe that resemble a pin? Now I finally realized that this is just the way the county borders are laid out. Sorry, my bad. I should have taken a look at a few more maps first. Wouldn't such a pointer be a nice feature for your next maps? ;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] County maps

Hey there,

I've noticed your nice county maps from Arizona and would like to help out. I am interested in working on Texas, and have made maps currently for the southern 9 counties in Texas. For reference, see Brownsville, Texas. I have created these starting in ArcGIS using the newly updated 2007 TIGER shapefiles, then exporting as an svg into Inkscape to add the state map in the upper right hand corner. This is definitely the slow way, but it's the quickest I can do attm, and without the use of a bot. Let me know if you're interested and any suggestions. Thanks! 25or6to4 (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a large batch of maps that were not uploaded when my bot went offline due to technical difficulties. I may still have some of the Texas ones archived, but they would not be based on 2007 data. All of the data I had available to me was from the 2000 census. If you're interested in these files (and if I still have them) you would be welcome to them. Arkyan 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm going to keep hacking away at them here. I almost have ArcGIS set up to automate the image creation here, so it's possible I may be able to zip through them soon. I'll keep you informed. Thanks for the offer! 25or6to4 (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One county

Here's Sherburne County, Minnesota
Here's Sherburne County, Minnesota

Image:Sherburne County Minnesota Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Zimmerman Highlighted.svg somehow has the wrong county in the picture. Not sure what to do with it; and I must say, this is the first time that I've observed an error in your thousands of maps. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll see if I can find the archived (correct) version, otherwise I'll re-do it and have it uploaded shortly. Arkyan 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent AfD Closing

Hi Arkyan. Regarding the recent closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism, I wanted to ask you as the closing admin about the fact that the AfD nomination reasoning was a lack of definition for Hindu terrorism, raising concerns about the possible errorenous inclusion of Hindu nationalism. I believe that as far as wikipedia is concerned the fact that Noam Chomsky concluded that Hindu fundamentalism, extremism, and nationalism are all equal to Hindu terrorism}} Religious Fundamentalism in the Age of Secularism and Globalization by Maria Marczewska-Rytko, p.3 is sufficient to keep the article, regardless of a majority !vote. Might you agree? --Firefly322 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chomsky reference is certainly a fairly solid argument, I can agree with that - however, it failed to convince many of those who voiced their opinion at the discussion, and not persuasive enough for me to simply dismiss the discussion as the whole. If you still feel I made a bad call feel free to bring it up at DRV, although it might be more productive if you (or another interested editor) were to start the article anew with more solid sourcing. Arkyan 23:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LDS temple map

Hi; I like the LDS temple map you updated. However, may I point out that the Curitiba Brazil Temple is colored blue on the map, whereas it should be red since it was dedicated on 1 June 2008. I wasn't sure if I had the skills to fix it. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The map has been updated to reflect the dedication of the Curitiba temple. Arkyan 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LIst of Largest Flags

You have merged the article but you haven't deleted the original one. Just reminding you it still needs to be done. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • An article cannot be deleted after parts of it have been merged - the history is required in order to maintain GFDL licensing compliance. Shereth 21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "What's Up, What's Happening"

Hello! I saw you just deleted the article "What's Up, What's Happening", of which I was the nominator. However, just before the deletion of the page someone added a reliable source from Rolling Stone's website, in which T.I. explicitly says that it was to be "the next single". I had also made some adjustments to the page, but I had forgot about the deletion nom. (thanks to the vandal that removed the template!) Since I'm sure it will be soon re-created, could we just restore the article since it would pass WP:RS? Just asking. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't have any issues with that. I'll undelete the history and leave it as a redirect for the time being, but the redirect should not be removed until the single is released. Shereth 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll be vigilant...and I'll also add this to the talk page so that everyone can understand what happened. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea to me. Shereth 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for your comment on my RFA. I will certainly try and keep on the track I am now. Thanks again for your comment. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

Hi, I'm suprised that you closed this with a keep on the grounds that there was no consensus. By my count, 13 editors voted to delete this article and only 6 voted to keep it, which looks like a consensus to me. Moroever, AfDs are not decided by simple voting, but by the weight of argument and the closing admin's views of the relevant policies, and several keep votes should have been ignored as they were themselves not in line with WP:NOT as they were advocating this article being kept only as the topic may be judged notable sometime in the future (clear cases of WP:CRYSTAL) and you noted that WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply here. Could you please reconsider this decision? Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • One of the problems are that strict vote-counting is almost never a good way to go about determining consensus. 13-6 does seem like a fairly good sized majority, but fully 4 of the !votes in favor of deletion were "per WP:NOTNEWS" and nothing more, and a couple of others said basically the same without citing the essay. While I personally agree that the NOTNEWS argument is persuasive, we have to take in to consideration the fact that it is merely an essay and not a guideline. Several arguments in favor of keeping pointed out that there are reliable sources for the article. Finally, the suggestion that was brought up to merge the content elsewhere has merit, in my opinion, and closing as a no consensus is something of a compromise that gives those in favor of retaining the content some time to improve the content - via a thoughtful merge to a more noteworthy topic or significant improvement to the article - while leaving open the avenue for renominating this article for deletion in the near future if no attempt is made to improve the situation. In any case, I do not feel comfortable deleting an article when meaningful arguments have been made in its favor and the primary criteria for deletion is an essay, a majority in !votes notwithstanding. If you feel my call was in error feel free to bring it up at DRV, but I still feel it was the best solution for the time being. Shereth 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

12 to 6 isn't consensus? thats a very strange rationale i think. A lot of article get deleted by 4 out of 5 or 8 out of 10 deletes, i think there should be a reconsideration, especially since you think the arguments for delete were persuasive and that deletions should be based on the arguments not votes and the blaring lack of an argument to keep.Myheartinchile (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my above rationale for the decision to close as no consensus. I am afraid that my interpretation hasn't changed. Again, if you disagree you are free to bring the issue up at deletion review. Shereth 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
it is?Myheartinchile (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I will need more context to answer your question - what is what? Shereth 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • see, i knew it sounded fishy when you said NOTNEWS is not a policy, but AGF i suppose that you were just careless and made a mistake. thanks for pointing me to DELREV by the way.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

error on my part, removed comment.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

i strongly suggest you delete the article as the broad consensus on the DelRev is to overturn, look at it againMyheartinchile (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The review has been open for 2 hours and you're already calling for the discussion to be closed? I don't think so. Shereth 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning my recommendation for a merge in your closing summary. I would say that you were clearly sympathetic to a delete/merger, as was there a clear consensus for delete. As a Chinese, I understand about 'face', and would point out that you did not need to endorse the close, even if it was your own. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment shows a significant amount of wisdom and I truly appreciate the sentiment. I'll review the DRV tomorrow and if it continues to trend the way it is I may well retract my recommendation and suggest it go ahead and be deleted. Shereth 02:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] map

could you make a map for North Richmond, California based on this map? It would be really easy, North Richmond is the white area on the far left, almost completely surrounded by the red (Richmond, California) and only bordered by San Pablo, California in grey to the right, this would be awesome, as would one for Dogtown, Marin County, California. Thanks!Myheartinchile (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to contribute, and of course, thanks for voting to support :). I'm going to focus on article writing for a bit (less chance to bite) until my exams are finished and i'm relatively stress-free. Ironholds 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] student lounge

i was just in the process of expanding it, did you see my rescue tag i put up? I recreated it, have a look, maybe you can help it out somehow.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would actually suggest merging any valuable content (the picture perhaps) into the article about student unions, unless you have some citations to indicate why a separate article on the lounge itself is warranted. Shereth 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Quahog (Family Guy). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Ryan Delaney talk 20:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Pardon? I closed the article as a redirect and edited the article appropriately. Do NOT accuse me of vandalism. Shereth 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Thanks for your message. Recent changes patrol goes fast and sometimes mistakes are made. In the future, a more meaningful edit summary (like the one you used in the end) should prevent confusion. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney talk 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You also reverted this edit which was clearly listed as an AfD result in the edit summary. I suggest you slow down a bit and be more deliberate with the way you're handling recent changes patrol. Shereth 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. No ill will intended. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney talk 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No harm done, just got a wee bit paranoid when several of my edits unexpectedly were reverted. Shereth 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for redirects

Just a friendly reminder - you should leave relevant categories in place when you make an article into a redirect. It is useful to have The Lumberjack listed in the Category:Student newspapers published in the United States, so that readers looking for college papers can find the NAU paper and be redirected to a discussion of it in the NAU article. FCYTravis (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point - I seemed to have overlooked that. Thanks! Shereth 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closing

You have recently deleted article Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy on the following grounds: "the sourcing is inadequate and that their use constitutes a form of original research at best". Actually, all statements in the article were supported by the published cited sources and therefore do not represent OR. At least, no one of this discussion participants was able to provide any specific examples of unsourced statements. Some participants expressed concerns in reliability of the sources. However, all these sources were published books or established newspapers (the newspapers/journals even have their own articles in WP). Furthermore, statements cited in the article were made by several notable experts (we also have WP articles about them). Have any of these "unreliable" sources been discussed at WP:RS noticeboard and decided to be unreliable? No, as far as I know. Could you then please explain what exactly represented original research in this article? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the grounds upon which I closed the article were actually "Consensus is clear that the sourcing is inadequate and that their use constitutes a form of original research at best." As a closing administrator it is my duty to judge the consensus of a discussion and not the quality of the article itself - the statement was meant to indicate that the discussion concluded sourcing was inadequate. However I must agree with that assessment. Individual statements within the article - such as the fact that allegations of Russian involvement with Hussein's WMD program were made - are well sourced and not original research, in and of themselves. It is the broader scope of the article, tying these individual facts together in a way to advance the overall topic of Russia's involvement with the WMD "controversy", that constitutes a synthesis of ideas and therefore original research. Shereth 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This article only provided statements by various officials and no any claims by wikipedians (which indeed could be WP:SYN). It made no assertions that the allegations are true. It also provided all official rebuttals of the claims. It was a standard "controversy" article with "pro" and "contra" views present. If any undue problems were present, I think they could be fixed by correcting the article. This page survived two previous AfD discussions, with many good people voting in favor of "keep"...Biophys (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The consensus of the discussion was to delete the article and I am inclined to agree with them - even if I was not, it would not be appropriate to unilaterally keep the article against what was a clear consensus. If you believe my reading of the discussion was in error you can request a review at WP:DRV. Shereth 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] student lounge

student lounge has recently been rescued, you may wish to review your vote at the deletion debate as new sourcing and copy editing has taken place.Myheartinchile (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movement of Request

Thanks for moving it. I had thought i put it in the right place but thanks for fixing it.

Slingshotecity (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Movement of Request

I have been listed as a sock puppet. How do i go about getting this removed from my user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sling21012 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Graham (Scientologist)

I believe that you incorrectly closed the AfD on David Graham (Scientologist), closing it prematurely under A7. While the likely result of the discussion would have been delete, the article DID indicate why it was important (see 18,000 hits for '"David Graham" Scientology' on google, and the source that WAS in the article). I still don't think that the article would have met notability requirements, but these are a HIGHER standard than A7. DigitalC (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The full text of the article was "David Graham is a former high-ranking member of the Church of Scientology who went public in 2008 about his reasons for leaving Scientology." It is my opinion that there is no sufficient claim or indication of notability in that statement. Shereth 00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
An article about him in one of Australia's largest newspapers, which WAS referenced in the article, is an indication of notability (though it may not meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY). DigitalC (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)