User talk:Shimeru/Archive 5

AfD: Sticks_and_Stones_(band)
Re: Articles_for_deletion/Sticks_and_Stones_(band). There was quite a bit of information in the article, if I recall. (Of course the problem with deletion is that none of the rest of us can see.) Giving it time to be merged into the article of the notable bandmember is presumably more productive. There were only three responses, after all. - BalthCat (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted the page (for now) and reopened the AfD, since I hadn't seen the relist. (Bit of an edit conflict there.)  I'm not so sure your proposed merge target is notable by Wikipedia's guidelines, but you'll have some extra time to find reliable sources and merge information. Shimeru (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination)#Relisting?
Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

over zealous
Why would you mark a school article for deletion? I have to ask, cuz you didn't have the courtesy to explain it in the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.128.54 (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You could always read the AfD... Shimeru (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems he has nothing to worry about. Currently it's snowing over there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I rather expected as much. One day, though, I'm fairly optimistic school articles will be held to the same standard as the rest.  Perhaps after some newspaper finds one in a horribly embarrassing state after a round of the vandalism they continually attract.  Then again, I suppose that's less newsworthy than the same happening with a BLP. Shimeru (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant
If you take a closer look, most of those "sources" were from places like lewrockwell.com and other far-right websites. I still think it was a delete, and a mere "look at the Googlehits" is not an argument of any weight IMAO. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Possible, I guess, but C-Span and the Denver Post are pretty reliable sources. Besides, there's no policy that sources have to be neutral -- only that they're independent, and that the article itself is neutral.  So right-leaning sources wouldn't necessarily be disqualified. Shimeru (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Money (Michael Jackson song)
No attempts were made to merge the info that was in this article whatsoever. IF it is going to be redirected, merge it like you said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.54.202 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to merge it yourself. I'd be more inclined to help out if you'd asked politely.  Or if you hadn't come here only after three attempts to recreate the article contrary to the AfD discussion.  Or if you'd used your user account... but I suppose that'd be hard to do while you're blocked.  For the record, circumventing a block is not okay. Shimeru (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Donkey show
Are you certain about this? (the subject of this article makes my cringe but someone's gotta ask :) The snout count was split but as we both know we don't count snouts. However, Owenx does make a good point. It also would have been helpful if someone else besides a banned editor's sock mentioned those alleged new sources.

IMHO there's enough reasonable doubt here for "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably so, yes. But after looking through the sources mentioned in the article, I didn't see anything reliably sourced that could lead to an article of any length.  Given that the majority of the history of the article consists of listings of trivia (the infamous 'in popular culture' section) or outright vandalism, and that there don't seem to be any sources of substance, I decided to lean toward deletion this time. Shimeru (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. My first impression is that this was similar to Cow tipping. Something that everybody knows about but nobody can verify it actually happens. Shame we can't redirect it to WP:AN/I. Plenty of asses being shown there :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all counts. ^_- Shimeru (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

USERFY PLEASE! riffic (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're going to need to show me some sign that you have reliable sources, first. Sorry, but it's hard to assume good faith when your user page reads "Deletionism is a cancer." Shimeru (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have successfully rescued articles in the past through userfication. if you don't like what my userpage says, maybe it is you who is not acting in good faith. riffic (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Please, do explain. Shimeru (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm too lazy to find which specific articles have been userfied after deletion to be brought up to standards, but I've worked on at least more than one of these. consider it a hobby of boredom. riffic (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * btw I'm looking on google book search for some references now. I'll return in a bit riffic (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been busy but I'm making decent progress finding references for this phenomena, I'll return later. riffic (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pet naming
This close seems improper as there was no clear consensus for the result which you have stated. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed it, but will stand by my decision. I do think the section of the Personal name article could use expansion via sources, though, and it's quite possible that, if so many sources exist, it will grow large enough to re-split later. Shimeru (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

James Bibby
Why did you delete the entry for James Bibby? 88.2.162.136 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, it was in response to a discussion at Articles for deletion/James Bibby. The primary concern was a lack of independent reliable sources. Shimeru (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus-Norway
Excellent close. Beat me to it. You will of course get DRV'd, but your rationale is spot on. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cyprus–Norway relations
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cyprus–Norway relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. You should vote or close, not both. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha, that was even faster than I'd anticipated. Shimeru (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exceptionally good close, Shimeru. Specific and perceptive. Don't let the DRV worry you! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  duumvirate  ─╢ 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, I have no personal investment in deleting or keeping most articles. But thank you. Shimeru (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I believe this close sucked balls. It did not reflect consensus, no matter how idiotic the consensus of wikipedians may be.  I understand that the admin's role is to "assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion".  Its clear there is no consensus regarding this particular article, indeed the same applies to many of these bilateral relations AfDs (which I have been learning the history of this week).  The !vote count was 13-7 to keep, and while that of course is not dispositive, I didn't even bother to !vote on this one because I found it to be an obvious no consensus close--most editors simply don't have time to opine on every AfD.  On this article, this is a legitimate debate as to whether the sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, and since its not even a BLP, a default no consensus to keep would be the only fair result.  I can't even finish this comment without the DRV being started I see, which is going to waste a huge additional amount of editor time with no benefit to the project.  What needs to happen (among those who want to participate) is more collaboration on how these bilateral AfDs should be treated.  Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't bother to !vote, you can't be too offended when your opinion is not taken into consideration, can you? "No consensus" might have been a fair close as well, but I felt a significant portion of the keep !votes were attacks on the nominator or the process rather than arguments for the article -- and I feel it's only right to discount such votes wholesale.  Accusations of bad faith and disruption should not be made lightly, and they're pretty clearly unwarranted in this case.  I do agree that more collaboration on standards for these articles would be welcome, though.  Oh, and you needn't say "with all due respect" when you don't mean it.  I've got pretty thick skin. Shimeru (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly there are attacks going back and forth between both factions here on all these AfDs, and Libstar (the nom) is among those in the middle of the heaviest fighting. (Appreciate your thick skin, its always better to have rational debates that don't immediately lead to cries of WP:CIVIL when any color creeps in to our comments.--Milowent (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think sometimes people get a bit carried away and start imagining their opponents in opera capes and monocles, twirling their mustaches while cackling "Soon... soon I'll [write/delete] all of these articles... and Wikipedia will be destroyed!" Or maybe that's just me. Shimeru (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! – xeno talk 12:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pet naming
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pet naming. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Polarpanda (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Australia–Barbados relations (2nd nomination)
You get the big brass balls award for saying what needed to be said when closing this AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, thank you. I'm not entirely happy with the close as no consensus -- it strikes me as a little too close to a heckler's veto for my tastes.  But I think it was necessary in this case.  There was precious little of use in that particular discussion.  Happily, the most recent bilateral AfD seems to be going more politely.  So maybe it worked. Shimeru (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for responding so that the balls in question are no longer poking down into the next section :). However, I just noticed this my criteria comment. Now this sort of comment is common at RFA but I'm not sure that it belongs at AFD where we are suppose to be discussing whether or not an article conforms to guidelines developed by common consensus. (granted these are lacking for XY relations articles) If this becomes widespread at AFD then we may start having a lot more of these battleground discussions with different editors arguing from their own set of personal inclusion guidelines. (did I just commit the "slippery slope" fallacy?) Thought I'd ask your opinion on this before I call the editor in question to the carpet. To be fair, the link in question might be a good starting point for a guideline. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with these recent debates is that there is no guideline adopted by consensus. As long as he's not presenting his proposed criteria as an actual guideline, I think it's okay to use a link like that one as shorthand.  It'd be better if they could work out a WP:BILAT -- it looks as if that one was abandoned after a short time, and instead of taking it up, we've been getting more AfDs, and the discussion's been heading downhill in every one. Shimeru (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
Sorry that my speculation that the ongoing deletionist obsession with bilateral relations articles had roots in a personal vendetta. Of course I should have assumed good faith, and I'm sorry I didn't do that. By the way, only on Wikipedia is a 14-5 drubbing regarded as "no consensus." Please let it go. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You'd have to take up the result with the admin who actually closed that discussion. Shimeru (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Undelete "Stupid Jokes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris3037 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Closure
Hi Shimeru.

Would you re-close an article that I have closed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_William_Aguirre_%282nd_nomination%29 I closed it as a redirect but as I am not an admin and it is the first one I closed as a redirect, I actually would have liked to delete the article and then created the redirect. It is a learning curve. Would you please re-close it so that the page is deleted prior to the creation of the redirect/ Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I might be missing something -- why would you like the page deleted prior to the redirect?  Is there a pressing reason that the history needs to be deleted?  I don't see any blatant BLP violations or anything, and redirect looks like an acceptable close based on the discussion.  Deletion doesn't actually save space or anything, if that was your concern; the deleted revisions are kept around, just invisible to non-admins.  (That's why deleted articles can be restored so easily.)  Shimeru (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He's following up to my reply when he asked me about it on my talk page. The close was ok, but a close of "delete" or "delete/redirect" would also have been "ok". One thing I have learned from doing all these NACS for 2 years is that if there's a possibility of a close as "delete", then it's best to let an admin close it. WP:NAC advises non-admins not to close anything on the fence but this is not because non-admins are stupid but it's to save them from any "ZOMG YUR NOT AN ADMIN" stickassery. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks Shimeru, there is no pressing reason. Thanks for your comments. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to provide me with a copy of a deleted article
Dear Shimeru,

Would you please give me a copy of the deleted article List of people who died in their thirties? I mean the latest version, right before the deletion. I liked that article but the version I found at www.archive.org is from late 2008. Thank you in advance. Adam78 (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. It's at User:Adam78/List of people who died in their thirties. Shimeru (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to do more drama, but to understand
Hi Shimeru,

I must say I've been thoroughly surprised of your block on me. I admit freely that my comments were quite over the top, but despite your rationale I've seen no previous warning (nor has the unblocking admin), while instead you took care of warning TreasuryTag for example. Also, I see much worse violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA everyday that even when protested at AN/I or WQA for admin attention do not lead to blocks. I also explicitly stated that no personal attack was meant at all and that mine was (harsh, agree) criticism of opinions.

What done is done; however I would like to understand the rationale for such a tough action against me. I feel strongly I didn't deserve it; however I'm ready to hear your reasoning and in case I'd like to learn from my mistakes. Thank you. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The warning was in the AfD itself, linked from the request for civility. For what it's worth, I would have unblocked you myself following your apology, but I was beaten to it.


 * The rationale, though? Personal attack.  You called everyone who didn't agree with you ignorant.  Saying you didn't mean that as a personal attack but "technically" doesn't make it not a personal attack.  Think about it:  if someone had replied to you with "You're a moron.  But that's not a personal attack, I mean it technically, because your IQ is clearly lower than 60," would you not consider that a personal attack?  It's much the same with "You're ignorant and you want to make others ignorant."


 * As I told TreasuryTag, I would have blocked him if he hadn't clearly labeled his remark as sarcasm. That was enough of an indication that he didn't fully believe what he'd written that I gave him a final warning instead, as I've done to two or three others following their own remarks.  Yours, though, was labeled "no sarcasm" and was pretty clearly (to me, at least) over the line, so I feel the block was warranted.  It's certainly nothing personal, though.  You've got a long record of positive contributions, and I respect that.  I hope in the future you'll focus your discussions on the article and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than on other editors. Shimeru (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean, but there has been a misunderstanding (my fault for sure). I didn't call "ignorant" in the same meaning of "moron". A person with an IQ < 60 is hopeless; an ignorant can always learn. I explained that I attributed to "ignorant" a very specific meaning, that of being unaware, not knowing. Which I don't see as an insult in itself: I am myself ignorant of an incredible amount of things (while, instead, I don't think to be a moron, while I know I can have poor judgement from time to time). As to make the encyclopedia poorer, well, I think they do it in good faith, but they nevertheless do it. Yes, I understand it sounded insulting, and I should have kept a cooler head after TT's remark. But I thought to have been clear.
 * I still disagree on your action (a serious final warning on my talk page could have been enough to let me understand) but I understand you did it for good, and in fact it will help me as a reminder to think twice before typing. I also hope you'll think twice before blocking in the future. No bad feelings. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "A person with an IQ < 60 is hopeless"? You're a regular font of compassion, aren't you?  Shimeru (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Is there any way to improve significantly the mental capacities of mentally disabled people up to normal level that I am not aware of? Last time I checked, they were incurable conditions. What do you mean by "compassion" in this context? -- Cycl o pia talk  23:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Your phrasing was... rather negative, colloquially.  It's probably an artifact of English being a second language for you.  I apologize for my misunderstanding of your words, and I'll try to bear that in mind in the future. Shimeru (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch. My fault. After a year in UK, I still have a strange English probably. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's understandable; English is a difficult language. You use it pretty well, for the most part.  Just try to be careful with words that could be interpreted as a negative statement about someone -- you're fluent enough that it isn't easy to tell whether it's intentional or not. Shimeru (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Norton
Hi. I have a small problem – he's still at it – please can something be done about this? I really cannot continue on Wikipedia if he is going to be badmouthing me like that at every opening. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Lord Speaker  ─╢ 07:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And on Commons as well. This is absurd. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 08:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'd suggest Dispute resolution. You've both been complaining about the other for a while; maybe it's time to open a WP:RFC/U. Shimeru (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Relistings
I notice that some of the AFDs you've relisted lately appear to be outwith the relisting criteria at WP:RELIST. Please have a read over the criteria, as they are updated from time to time, to ensure that any discussions you relist are in keeping with them. It's also recommended that you add a brief explanation for your relist when it's outwith the criteria. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "/me goes into talk page stalker mode". With your second point I agree. When relisting a debate where at first appearance it would seem that there is enough discussion to make a call, (or for any second relist IMHO) a relisting comment is a good idea. As for the first, I've reviewed his relists for the 27th. He seems to be being careful with BLPs which is a good thing. I did find 2 that probably could have been closed. This one is unfortunately a "no consensus" (or "admins discression" "delete" if one wants to take his lumps at DRV). The relist hasn't changed anything. this one could have been either relisted or closed NC. I would probably have relisted it. (a 4 !vote split is the upper limit of my "normal" relist threshhold) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben Lowe's a BLP, though. I prefer not to close those as no consensus on the initial list.  I'd rather take the extra week and see whether a clearer consensus emerges. Shimeru (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

EVER TEAM Page Deleted
Hi, I would like to know why you deleted my page?? i was debating with several persons and reading their comments, and preparing an update to this page. Now i have to do everything again from scratch?? please help. Note: I do not accept my page being deleted for the third time, especially that I am working on enhancing it, and I am ready to do whatever it takes to have it back again online! i strongly disagree with you deleting it and i do not see at all that other competitor pages are written any better. i request that you put it back again online... thank you--Sazarian (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sazarian has also posted about this to my talk page, and I have made a reply there. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent response, and I agree. I'll add that I'm able to userfy the article if it's desired.  Let me know if you'd like it moved to your user space, Sazarian.  As JamesBWatson says, though, it would be best if you had strong sources in advance. Shimeru (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Once i gather these references, i will ask you to usefy my page.--Sazarian (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, please move the page to my user space, i have gathered references, you can find them on JamesBWatson's(talk)page EVER TEAM Page Deleted. thanks--Sazarian (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. The page is at User:Sazarian/EVER TEAM. Shimeru (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks. what do you advise to do know? did you review the references? thanks --Sazarian (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not fluent in French, so I'm unable to review all of them. However, at least some of those are not reliable secondary sources.  PR Newswire, for instance, publishes press releases, so the source there is really the company itself, a primary source.  Another of those links goes to somebody's portfolio -- a part of a resume or CV.  (And that one doesn't appear to mention EVER TEAM at all, although it does mention that this person used their EverSuite software.)  Please be careful to check that your sources are independent of the company, and that they discuss the company in some depth (just a mention of the name will not be considered sufficient). Shimeru (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Donkey show
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Donkey show. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And my apologies for !voting to overturn. I was satisfied with your answer but since somebody else decided to file the DRV I felt compelled to chime in with my opinion. However, endorse or overturn, I still think the close was within admin's discretion.


 * A bit of advise though, (consider this a minnow not a trout). The next time you're in a similar situation with a close AFD, (you examine the article yourself and look for sources) that you !vote not close. Then when another admin closes "delete", the decision will be more DRV resistant. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't much care about that. I close enough AfDs not to take it personally when one gets DRVed. Shimeru (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru, I didn't want to get involved in the DRV, but the unanimous result of the second AfD should make it clear that your judgement on the first AfD was very poor. You may dismiss the whole thing as you did above, but keep in mind that every inappropriate deletion is a setback to the project, and often discourages new editors from participating. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't think so. The first AfD was anything but unanimous, and that's the one I closed, not the second.  The fact that one reliable source was found after the close of the discussion doesn't mean that the article in the state it was in during that discussion shouldn't have been deleted.  I just hope some of the "keep" !voters will keep an eye on the page and revert the frequent vandalism it tends to attract.  Either way, I doubt the presence or absence of a "donkey show" article has much to do with encouraging or discouraging editors from pitching in. Shimeru (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't resist: Shimeru, keep up the good work! You've made some tough calls and I applaud you for your willingness to make those calls. I haven't always with the consensus, but I think you've been a good judge of that consensus, at least in those cases I've observed. I thought you're donkey show close was within discretion, and as the DRV showed, there was no consensus that you were wrong. Don't let folks bully you around or scare you away from making more tough calls in the future. Yilloslime T C  15:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. Someone has to close them eventually; might as well be me. Shimeru (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)