User talk:Shimeru/Archive 2

Archive open: Dec. 2006 Archive close: Mar. 2007

Happy and a wiki New Year



 * Thanks! Shimeru 05:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge
Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge

The article Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge has been substantially rewritten with multiple nontrivial sources, after your vote for deletion. Would you please reconsider your position. --Kevin Murray 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have. Excellent work there -- I turned up nothing myself, and I'm happy to see you were able to.  I note we have an article on the Stono Rebellion -- think I'll go link that.  We don't seem to have one on the Civil War battle, though, which is mildly surprising.  (I'm probably just looking in the wrong place.)  If there's really nothing, though, I'd like to see the battle gone into in more detail in this article.  Also related might be the Revolutionary War's Battle of Stono Ferry. Shimeru 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Jannali East School
Hi Shimeru - despite my rant at the AfD on Jannali East Public School (which I was annoyed about, merely because so many people just vote for deletion without doing any checking on whether the article is notable or not), I realise that you may have put the merge tag there in good faith, and had suggested it as a good way to keep the information - you at least suggested a rationale for why the information should be deleted, so thank you. I only took your merge tag away because the tag suggested the school district should be the article where the information should go, and we don't have school districts in Australia. However, I'm more than happy to do some work on the information if it gets merged to the Jannali, New South Wales article, which is where we normally merge school articles to for Australian schools. However, that requires you to withdraw the nomination. Can you do that and merge the article? I won't oppose that at all even though in some ways I'd like the article kept. Even if you don't, I'm still going to userfy the information to myself, delete the useless bits and put it in the Jannali article anyway. JROBBO 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if you'd prefer to merge and redirect, or to expand the article with information from the soruces you mentioned.  If you can suggest a way to rephrase the tag to better indicate a merge to either the school district (if appropriate) or the locality (if not, as in this case), too, that'd be helpful. Shimeru 23:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Verbascum thapsus
Move is done. That was easier than I thought Circeus 14:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, and great work. Shimeru 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GA
You didn't step on my toes, I just don't think the GA is warranted. My guess is that the confusion over reviewers being on the list somehow started from the fact that there is one. Otherwise, why have a list? I can see how Sumo thought this.Rlevse 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How far over the civility line?

 * Thank you very much for your comments on the Nick RFC. I deeply appreciate them. I do have a question or four about your comment, "Is Nick crossing way over the civility line? I don't think so."
 * (1) When you wrote that, were you aware of the rude photo (and edit summary) with which Nick had replied to Kuntan?
 * (2) Do you feel that was not "way over the civility line?"
 * (3) If not, what would be the minimum required?
 * (4) Civility aside, did it demonstrate a neutral or impartial approach toward a user he would block two months later, or a degree of hostility which called for recusal and disengagement?
 * I would appreciate learning your viewpoint, to add some perspective (or parallax) to my own. Thanks again! – SAJordan talkcontribs 04:44, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).


 * I was aware of it. I don't condone it, and Nick should have known better.  But I don't detect a pattern of such blatant incivility, and I'm not prepared to judge Nick too harshly for what appears to be an isolated incident.  (Most of the other comments linked read, to me, less as intentionally incivil and more as hasty and blunt.)
 * As far as the block, I'm not an admin, so perhaps not qualified to comment. I wouldn't have issued a block against a user I'd recently had a heated exchange with, if only for appearances' sake.  I also wouldn't have done it for the stated reason.  But I do think this user deserved a block on conduct grounds, and I'm not prepared to decide that Nick was serving some personal retributive interest rather than the project.  It's a little dodgy from my perspective, but perhaps understandable.
 * In general, I think Nick is not too much worse than the average admin. He could certainly improve.  I don't see that he's running wild with admin powers, though.  I'm hoping he'll take the RfC as a sign to pause to evaluate his prior decisions and resolve to do better in the future.  If he were to continue in the same vein, especially posting images like the one above, that'd be another matter, but right now I don't think there's so much cause for concern as to desysop him. Shimeru 06:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this carefully considered (and considerate) reply. – SAJordan talkcontribs 06:30, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Only Fools and Horses FA
All of your objections have now been rectified. If there are any other queries please let me know and I'll try and fix them. Thanks. SteveO 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick RfC
Hi Shimeru,

I really appreciated that you made the effort to give your sane/objective outside viewpoint at the RfC--there's been very little of that at this RfC. If you have time/don't mind, could you take a look at it (and the talkpage) again, in light of new developments regarding "Encyclopedia Dramatica"?

Thanks and happy new year, Cindery 18:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Coca Cola GA
I think the article, Coca Cola, is now ready for GA status. Since you last reviewed it I have done the following: I apoligise for the time taken to respond. Leave me a message at User talk:Natl1.--Natl1 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Added references to the "World War II" section
 * Added one reference to the "New Coke" section
 * Split the "New Coke to the present" into two sections
 * Added a "See Also" article to the "New Coke" section
 * And Used Cite-Web Template to format all website references.

Laisterdyke High School
I was able to add some additional information to the article on Laisterdyke High School in England, so I removed your prod. Sometimes a quick Google search can find enough new information to mean the difference between an article that can't be kept in its current state and one which is worth keeping. --Eastmain 05:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

About the Foie gras RfM and GA review
Hello, Shimeru! Not sure if you're an admin or not, but as I don't have much experience in these kinds of things, I was wondering if there was anything that could be done to speed up either/or the GA review and/or the beginning of the mediation on the article. At this point, I feel like the debate is getting out of hand and just polluting the pages. I almost feel like I'm speaking to trolls when answering certain editors. I know it's in good part my fault for having let myself become involved in this so much, but I'm afraid that if I start ignoring them, these editors will think they've won the argument and start doing as they please with the article. I would honestly need the opinion of an uninvolved third party as to what my best course of action should be from this point on. I've been tempted lately to put up the "do not feed the troll" picture on the talk page, but I realize this would probably be the worst thing to do. Any comments or opinions, good or bad, would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.--Ramdrake 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin. However, I'll do what I can to help.  Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done to speed up either process.  Mediation is by its nature not a hasty procedure, and the GA review is likely to hinge, at least in part, on the results of the mediation.  Please do refrain from posting the troll image; that would only inflame the situation.  I'm not certain the discussion is achieving anything at this point -- you seem to be going in circles -- but it can't hurt to keep trying.  Just try to keep a level head, and not to reply hastily in anger.  Remember that if you happen to say something you might later regret, there'll always be a record of it in the page diffs.  Of course you can apologize, but it'll always be on record.
 * The edit warring is a concern. I wonder whether, at this point, it might be a good idea to ask for the page to be protected, pending mediation.  There's no telling which version will be the one to get protected, of course, and the wrong one might anger people on either side.  But it would force a stop to the editing and, hopefully, focus attention on working through the dispute.  It's something of an emergency measure, though. Shimeru 07:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

From the foie gras GA review: ''Suggest revisiting the matter after mediation/arbitration/defenestration has occurred. '' It had me up in stitches. Nice to see the people around here have managed to retain a sense of humor despite all the recriminations. And I forgot to mention, thanks again for the advice the other day.--Ramdrake 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Saint Mary's Catholic School
Hi, I understand that you're displeased with the results of [|the Afd] on this article, but please respect the decision of the closing admin. Deleting the content of this article and replacing it with a redirect is inappropriate. You may renominate the article for AfD at some point down the road, but continuing to replace the article's contents with a redirect is disruptive. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't presume to speak for the closing admin unless you're sure that you know his opinion on the matter. It was a no-consensus close which he specifically has stated leaves open the option of merge and redirect.  Continuing to replace the article's contents without providing requested secondary sources is disruptive.  Thanks. Shimeru 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The closing admin said quite clearly there that no consensus defaults to keep. Merge and redirect should be done after discussion on the talk page - but you have never posted to that article's talk page at all, instead unilaterally deciding to blank the page and change it to a redirect. It's an end-run around AfD and it is disruptive. If you want to merge & redirect, open a discussion on the article's talk page and abide by whatever consensus is reached. (And FWIW, you didn't even merge - just redirected. Adding one sentence does not a merge make.) | Mr. Darcy talk 20:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I merged all verifiable and encyclopedic information, per policy. A merge does not mean "copy and paste the entire article."  However, having made two efforts to merge and redirect, I shall not do so again.  Will see whether any secondary sources are found, first; if not, I'll take it to DRV. Shimeru 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

GA
Why are you ending your involvement with GA (our of curiosity)?-- Esprit15d  (talk ¤ contribs) 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was informed that my name wasn't on the list of GA reviewers, and therefore I shouldn't be reviewing articles. I consider that mentality antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia, but since my contributions are not desired, I see no reason to force them upon the GA project.  I have plenty of other projects I can spend the time on, instead. Shimeru 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the definition of ridiculous. And from the few reviews of yours that I saw, you do a good job and are refreshingly thorough with feedback.  Considering that GAC is on constant backlog, I would hope you would consider coming back.  But hey, WP isn't suposed to hurt - no pressure.-- Esprit15d   (talk ¤ contribs) 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but if reviewing articles without being on a list is going to cause problems with other GA editors, I'd as soon avoid that. (I could just sign the list, I suppose, but that's not really the problem.)  I'm beginning to suspect the GA project is going the way of Esperanza, in any case. Shimeru 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pet Shop Boys fix
Could you tell me how you fixed the nomination for Pet Shop Boys? I was trying to fix it for the person who incorrectly added it to the FAC list, but wasn't able to. Since I do regular work on that page, and that's a common mistake, I would really appreciate knowing how to fix that error. Thanks. Jeffpw 10:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I went to the article's talk page, clicked the 'leave comments' link to get to the discussion subpage, and changed the title from == Pet Shop Boys == to ===Pet Shop Boys=== -- three =s rather than two, and outside rather than inside the square brackets. Shimeru 10:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How silly of me. I knew the title needed changing, but didn't think it could be changed in the edit function. Thanks for the info! Jeffpw 10:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe later
Actually, efforts are going on to merge the articles into one big list or to merge more generally. I think this can be done before AFD crunchday. If I'm wrong, I will withdraw the AFDs, but now I feel that to be premature. Much obliged for the civil tone of your post. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 12:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll
Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote formatting
Thank you for your support of Adolfo Farsari as FAC. This edit of yours to the article was no doubt well intentioned and I think that on balance it's an improvement -- but I think it's based on mistaken assumptions, that it's a pleasing tweak to something that's fundamentally wrong. I've made (rude?) comments about this matter in the article's talk page; do please take a look there and argue back there (or, possibly, even agree there). Thanks. -- Hoary 09:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the edit and for the comments there. Actually I was a bit surprised, because in the past I've found many people are strongly (and to me inexplicably) in favor of small lettering for footnotes. -- Hoary 04:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I do favor the two-column format when footnote lists grow sufficiently long, just to cut down on the screen scroll, but I don't have any particular attachment to font size.  (Even then, if the list gets long enough, two columns will still require scrolling.) Shimeru 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Kitsune
What a great article. Congratulations on getting it on the main page, and thank you for writing it. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't take all the credit for it, but thanks all the same. It was quite an experience. Shimeru 06:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dekimasu 08:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Shimeru. (^_^) ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 09:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Shimeru 10:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

ANI self-promotion issue
Although we differ in opinions on the issue, thanks for responding to me with your viewpoint. Atom 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Platform game copy editing
I wanted to thank you for the copy editing you've been doing on the Platform game article. I've reverted and changed a couple minor things, usually where the edits lent themselves to difficult or choppy transitions, but I do appreciate your help on the article, and I hope you continue.Frogacuda 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, and I intend to. Shimeru 06:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yiff
Sorry that your edits keep getting deleted by the anti-furry editors. Don't give up trying, though. I might have more information for you soon, depending on my research. :) Lithorien 06:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not. I'm just not about to put myself in a position of violating 3RR, or something similarly stupid. ^_-  It's a minor frustration, nothing to get worked up about. Shimeru 07:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it always tends to suck when AfDs are tainted by people who are part of Project Deletion or other speedy-delete groups. Lithorien 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with Project Deletion. We could stand to delete a lot more articles.  Not this one, though.  As Internet neologisms go, it's got far too much currency.  Wish people would be half so demanding of independent reliable sources when it came to schools, streets, and miscellaneous Pokemon. Shimeru 20:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration regarding Trodel
Because you have been working so hard to try to resolve the dispute, I am requesting that you once again help in resolving the dispute. I am filing a request for Arbitration, as it has become clear that Trodel will not abide by any decision we try to come to in the RfC. You won't be asked to do much, I think, just give your statement, much as you have for the RfC. Your help would be most appreciated. TheGreenFaerae 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#.7BFinal_Resolution_for_dispute_between_Tr.C3.B6del_and_TheGreenFaerae.7D


 * Should the case be accepted, I will do what I can. It seems a little early to me, but if it must be done, it must be done.  Either way, I'll be following the case. Shimeru 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any way I could get you to make a statement before then? It would help the case be accepted, or maybe denied, it It would help to present a more complete case.TheGreenFaerae 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I really doubt I have that kind of influence over ArbCom. ^_^ I wouldn't mind in theory, but I have my doubts about whether making a statement would be helpful at this point.  I don't see a need to rush things -- Trodel is avoiding you for the moment, outside of the RfC, correct? Shimeru 07:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No he isn't. That's why I filled out the RfA, simpyl because of that reason.TheGreenFaerae 08:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm. Is there anything beyond that single edit to 4chan?  That doesn't seem like much to hang an escalation on, although Trodel's outright dismissal of Val's suggested compromise is itself borderline disturbing.  If it's just the one edit, though, that makes you look oversensitive or vindictive.  Not a good thing either way.  I'd suggest just going about your normal editing for another week or two.  Don't have anything to do with Trodel unless you absolutely must -- no direct interaction, no bringing up the matter to other editors, definitely no edit/revert wars.  But, if he should continue to follow you from article to article, make a note of it.  Not publically, by adding to your RfC or RfAr, but privately:  if he is indeed stalking you, it'll be much to your advantage to have a documented history showing that editing pattern rather than an isolated instance or two.  It will also show a willingness to attempt to disengage, which, frankly, appears to be the weak spot in your case at the moment.  I would urge you to take extra care to make certain that your edits are clear of mistakes in such areas as spelling and punctuation usage; if by chance Trodel is stalking you, and not acting in good faith, the lack of such mistakes would make that clearer.  Making such corrections, even if done persistently, is unlikely to be considered stalking.  In short, I would suggest avoiding him as best you possibly can, and keeping track of any instances where he fails to avoid you in turn.  I understand that you feel wronged, and I don't think you're entirely without justification -- but what you'll need to show is that Trodel is acting maliciously, and your case for that is not without its weaknesses.  Your own conduct would also be examined in a RfAr (or an RfC, for that matter), and it hasn't been so sterling that it doesn't leave you open to question.  I think you'll find that a little forebearance will go a long way here. Shimeru 11:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I see one of the committee members has suggested you withdraw the request until the RfC has run its course. I'd second that suggestion -- if nothing else, it will show patience. Shimeru 11:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your feedback, and I'll keep it in mind.TheGreenFaerae 08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pasadena HS
I sourced the uniform stuff for Pasadena HS. WhisperToMe 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! Thank you. Shimeru 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the Rockhurst High School Website
I see you have made multiple changes to the RHS wikipedia page. I'm not sure why you made some specific edits. Can you explain why? More specifically, I am interested in the edits you have made in the notable alumni section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AgBrick (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Certainly. If you take a look at this diff, you'll see all of the changes I made.  I'd set out to remove some vandalism, but my initial rollback didn't catch all of it -- take a look at the name in the infobox, for instance, or the "Interesting Facts" statement in line 33.  While I was manually removing the additional instances, I noticed that the infobox was missing some pipes, and fixed that so it would display as intended.  Further in the article, I converted a numbered list of sorts to prose, seeing no need for the numbers.  I saw that there were two links to the Rockhurst web site and removed one as redundant -- we only need to provide one link to that page.  Looking at the list of alumni, I saw that many of these were provided without any sources showing they are alumni.  Another scan of the article showed no sources for claims such as its athletic championships, either, and that there was little to no information about the school's history and academic programs, so I tagged the article as unsourced and in need of cleanup.  Finally, back at the list of alumni, I removed a handful of names who did not seem to meet the WP:BIO notability guidelines, including at least one that seemed to be a joke entry.  Everyone I removed was redlinked, meaning they have no Wikipedia article, but I did not remove all redlinks -- anyone I felt would meet WP:BIO, I left in place.  For example, many college professors, university-level athletes, or lower-level elected officials are not considered notable by Wikipedia, but professional players, University presidents, and higher officials generally are.  I also left anyone who did have a Wikipedia article.  I tried to err on the side of caution here, but it is definitely possible I've erroneously removed an entry or two; the best way to address that would be to cite a source regarding that individual and their time at the school, and ideally to write an article about that person.  Hope this explanation helps. Shimeru 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed and professional response. I'm not sure how to go about finding the graduation years of some of the notable alumni. Is a link that details why a person is considered a notable alumnus insufficient?


 * Yes -- there are already a couple such links in place, in fact. It'd be best if the source at least mentions their attendance of the school, though.  Thanks for seeking out sources. Shimeru 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For the support. Replied on my talk. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A Vote?
Maybe I was asking for a vote. Can I do that? DUBJAY04 07:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can. I'm not certain why you would, though, since AfD is not a vote, and Wikipedia consensus doesn't override US copyright law.  You seemed to be assuming that the article's writer was the same as the thesis'; if not, he doesn't have the ability to license it under the GDFL.  (That is, of course, assuming it's a copyvio at all; we can't be sure of that yet.) Shimeru 07:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe im confused because i cannot find the original work? DUBJAY04 08:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for chiming in on the Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow talk. A level head is always appreciated. --Oakshade 05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Hope it proves helpful. Shimeru 18:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Natl1's RFA

 * Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fairhills High School
To SHimeru,

About your editing of the fairhills page, the competition that they are competeing is the Rock Estedford. Its a major dance competition that takes place all over the world. Its run by the Australian Goverenment and its m,ain purpose is to encourage some other interests apart from drugs and alcahol in High School students, as well as them making friendships and learning dance skills. All the placings Fairhills claim to have are true, and that can be varified on the Rock Estedford website. Please return the information, as I cannot, not being an old enough member. Thanks!


 * Done, but please see the talk page -- I was not able to verify the information. I believe it to be true, so I've restored it, but it does require a citation in order to remain.  If you know of another source independent of Fairhills from which to verify it, please let me know.  I've tagged the statement for now. Shimeru 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
 It's been a week and a bit since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 13:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Arts Institute deletion
Hi-

I'm the one who posted the bit about the Arts Institute. I am a member of the Arts Institute, and have been good friends with the coordinator of the program for several years now. In regards to your deletion of the Arts Institute section of the Arcata High School page; although I did gain explicit permission to post the information from the program coordinator, you're right, to be fair to Wikipedia, it needs to be properly cited. Thanks for the heads up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RAryanpur (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Not at all. Thank you for your understanding. Shimeru 07:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks man
Thanks for stoping all that vandalism on the Hermitage High School (Virginia) page. That guy is pretty annoying. Eventualy ill make you an award of some sort..."Protector of the Hermitage" or someting.
 * The Doctor 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay Straw Poll
Hi, would you mind checking that your comment to this poll is correct as it now stands? There was an edit conflict at the time I was trying to restore it after restoring Hipocrit's content. Thanks. The text I added is below in case it helps you make sense of this. --Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes to checkuser, at least. Checkuser is restricted because of privacy concerns. Essjay, apparently to ensure his privacy, manufactured credentials and lied (at least by omission, perhaps by commission) to the press. Much as I appreciate irony, there's something that strikes me as fundamentally wrong about giving this individual a tool that might be used to invade the privacy of others. And it's a shame, because he's done a great deal of good work in this area -- but I think this is where the trust issues most come into play. Shimeru 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to be in order -- thanks for checking. Shimeru 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I've made a draft at Requests for adminship/Shimeru. Feel free to finish it whenever you're ready. JoshuaZ 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you again; it will be an honor. Shimeru 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Time Lord GA nomination
Hi, I've made some of the changes you asked for, would it possible for you to look at it again please? Thanks, and kudos, Smomo 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I've passed the article; it would still benefit from more secondary sources, but I think it meets the criteria for a GA. Shimeru 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical
It's not a case of "either it is inactive or it isn't". It's quite possible that something is inactive at some point, and becomes active again at some later point. Note that historical is not the same as rejected; see also WP:POL.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, but tagging it "rejected" one day and substantially editing it the next? Something about that seems wrong to me.  He doesn't appear, from his later comments, to be calling for a re-opening of the proposal; he seems to prefer no topic-specific guideline.  Keeping that in mind, I don't see the purpose of editing it further -- it seems to only introduce potential (if unlikely) confusion for someone who does want to put forth a new proposal at some point.  Perhaps I've missed something, though. Shimeru 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, seems it doesn't matter -- he's replaced the historical with rejected again. Shimeru 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd call heavy editing of a rejected page pointless, but not particularly harmful. To avert potential confusion, you could simply look at the "permanent link" option in the toolbox, and copy that link to the talk page with a short note.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Yellow GA
I've added a few more citations, especially to the sections you metnioned. Can you take a look and see if this is what you meant? Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you've addressed that nicely. It's in good shape now, although I think a copyediting pass would help out. Shimeru 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I went through and fixed some akward sentences. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 15:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inari (mythology)
The article Inari (mythology) you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Inari (mythology) for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Vassyana 10:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Ignore that request. I'm putting an 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)

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)

You're a sysop!
Hi,, Congratulations on Becoming 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)

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. Mango juice 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.  Mango juice 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)

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)

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!-- Birgitte SB  01:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)