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.
GiftWorks
Hello, I had created a page for my company, GiftWorks Software. Everything on the page was strictly factual and informative (non-advertising), yet you chose to delete it. Is there a way to get this back?
Thank you
Re: The Catalyst Schools
Thank you for clarification and please understand that I am trying to learn the best way to communicate with you on this. Forgive me if there are any errant comments on your Talk page or otherwise.
The Catalyst Schools are our client. They have employed us to build a website for them, generate copy for that website, and subsequently generate a Wikipedia article entry for them. How can we best prove to you that we not only generated this content, but are acting as representative of TCS in generating this page?
Thank you so much for your decision to allow my article to be kept. It has been such a valuable tool for the establishment of my career to date, and has led to a interviews, and other opportunities, that I previously did not have access. Just wanted to express my personal thanks for your decision, and I thank you so much for your support. Adam kontras (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is not the sort of statement that inspires confidence regarding your motives. Anyway, a 'no consensus' is a little different from a consensus to keep. Both keep the article on the site, but the former is a weaker case than the latter. I wouldn't be surprised if the article were reconsidered later, unless some more solid sources can be found. Shimeru (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Appologies, was just excited that I survived. Maybe the noteability issue will not be such an issue next time around if I can get enough publicity out of this, I know it has worked so far, that is all I was saying. Adam Kontras 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam kontras (talk • contribs)
Could you possibly relist my page for further discussion, I would love to not go through the last week again, in fear of losing it. Thanks Adam Kontras 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam kontras (talk • contribs)
- Since you requested it, done. I hope that this discussion will prove a little less... unusual than the previous one. Shimeru (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is actually going to wind up being even more "unusual", as I am inclined to believe that User:Adam kontras is actually a sockpuppet operated by Charles Groves, the person who caused all the vandalism and distractions in the last AfD nomination. Comparing the tone and language of this user's edits to those made by the many other accounts known to be operated by Charles Groves would make this rather clear. Keep in mind that the only account known to actually be operated by Adam Kontras was User:Adam4tvs, and that that account was banned for supposedly having a self-promotional name (a notion which I disputed on the talk page of the user who did the drive-by ban). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is possible. So far, though, it hasn't affected the discussion. If you feel you have solid evidence, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is an option. Shimeru (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shimeru, I am in the process of contacting the FBI in a cyber-stalking case with Charles Groves. He is the one who contacted you, not me. I'm more than exhausted however that no one here takes even a moment to do a tiny bit of research on the matter. You can see from the previous deletion that "Adam4tvs" was blocked and I was given a new username: Adam Kontras. Charles took the name Adam kontras, with a lowercase "k" to impersonate me and continue to harass me. Please close this and let it come up on it's own merits. If there was no consensus last week, there will be no consensus this week. More time has to pass.Adam Kontras (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also - just check the ip address of the lowercase "kontras". It's not coming from California where I live, it's coming from Virginia, where the stalker, Charles Groves lives. If you can't do this, I guess I can force the lawyers at wikipedia to subpoena his IP address. As he is crossing state lines to impersonate me, this is a federal issue. Again, please take down the deletion and allow it to rise and fall on its own merits. Nothing has changed to warrant a 3rd nomination.Adam Kontras (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shouldn't Wikipedia editors do some research before assuming that the subject of a Wikipedia page has nominated it for deletion? You're opening the door to all kinds of abuse on the site if you establish this sort of precedent.--Bradcwriter (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is possible. So far, though, it hasn't affected the discussion. If you feel you have solid evidence, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is an option. Shimeru (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Denise lester page
Shimeru could you please copy the deleted article to a subpage of my user page, so I could continue working on the article to prepare it for relisting in the future. Regards Lvadmaker (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice this closure appears to ignore multiple opinions. You appear to have substituted your judgement for that of the individuals evaluating. Can you convince me you did not do so? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. Can you tell me more precisely what you think I'm ignoring? Shimeru (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose that was my judgement, yes. If objections are founded on WP:CORP, and reliable sources that meet WP:CORP are found, then it seems to me that those objections no longer apply, no? Now, some of the sources might be questionable, but I think the Grand Rapids Press, the Muskegon Chronicle, the New York Times, the court documents, the South Africa Daily Sun, and Claudia Gross's book are probably independent reliable sources for our purposes. Do you disagree? Shimeru (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
James Bibby
Don't know if I'm doing this right (rubbish with computers)... I see you've deleted the page about me (James Bibby) - any reason why?
Jim (email jimbibby@btinternet.com)
- According to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bibby. The primary factor was the absence of independent reliable sources to support an article. Also see WP:BLP. Shimeru (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Croatia–Mongolia relations
As the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination), I wonder if you'd be willing to comment on this. If I'm out of line in removing the box discussed in that thread, please let me know. Conversely, if you think the use of the box was improper, then I'd appreciate you letting the editor who used it know. Thanks. Yilloslime TC 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know that I'd say 'improper'... it's a bit odd, and not particularly helpful, but there's no policy against it that I'm aware of. I can say that I don't assign any more credence to it than I would a regular text comment -- in fact, it risks the opposite. I will note that it's not an established individual template, but rather the general-purpose Template:Ambox, so TfD isn't exactly an option. It is rather close to the template deleted at TfD in 2009, though.
- Even so, editing someone else's comments in an AfD discussion is probably not a good idea.
- I see you've approached the editor in question about it and been brushed off. If it's a serious concern for you, then WP:RFC/U might be an option. However, I might suggest first broaching the issue at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, to see what the general feeling about the issue is. Shimeru (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion seems like a good a venue to take this up at. I may just do that. Thanks. Yilloslime TC 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please reopen the Croatia–Mongolia relations AfD. None of the Keep voters could point to any sources, and AfD is not a vote. Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- There are sources in the article itself. They seem to be both independent and, at least in some cases, reliable. Can you explain in more detail why you feel this is not the case?
- Also, as you're probably aware, 'no consensus' -- though it defaults to keep -- is not the same as 'keep.' An actual keep closure represents a consensus to keep the article. I saw no such consensus -- but also no consensus to delete the article at this time. I suspect it may well end up at AfD again in the future. Shimeru (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- One has to understand that the topic of the article is what needs sources. Compare, for example, Nigeria/France relations. Entire books have been written on the topic. You have mistaken primary sources for secondary sources. The definition of secondary source is that the source analyzes the topic. Per WP:PSTS, a lack of analysis by secondary sources means that the topic fails WP:N and therefore must be deleted. Any other outcome is vote counting. Abductive (reasoning) 07:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I sympathize with that view, actually. (I wish we were more rigorous about sources, but that doesn't seem to be consensus.) I would need more time to go through the sources in depth and make that determination; I may not have time to do so for a couple of days. But even then, I'd feel compelled to list it again, rather than re-opening the now-closed AfD. With a no-consensus, there's nothing preventing rapid reconsideration of the article. In the meantime, I suppose the supporters will have their opportunity to strengthen the article further. If nothing significant happens, that might be telling in itself. Shimeru (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I see from your vote in the above discussion that you see my point. "All high schools are notable" -- regardless of quantity or quality of sources. Just so, there are those who say all bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable. On what grounds do we deny that, if quantity and quality of sources are irrelevant? Once we've discarded sourcing, there is only consensus, and if consensus is to keep despite sourcing issues... well. You know. Shimeru (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I sympathize with that view, actually. (I wish we were more rigorous about sources, but that doesn't seem to be consensus.) I would need more time to go through the sources in depth and make that determination; I may not have time to do so for a couple of days. But even then, I'd feel compelled to list it again, rather than re-opening the now-closed AfD. With a no-consensus, there's nothing preventing rapid reconsideration of the article. In the meantime, I suppose the supporters will have their opportunity to strengthen the article further. If nothing significant happens, that might be telling in itself. Shimeru (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- One has to understand that the topic of the article is what needs sources. Compare, for example, Nigeria/France relations. Entire books have been written on the topic. You have mistaken primary sources for secondary sources. The definition of secondary source is that the source analyzes the topic. Per WP:PSTS, a lack of analysis by secondary sources means that the topic fails WP:N and therefore must be deleted. Any other outcome is vote counting. Abductive (reasoning) 07:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also, as you're probably aware, 'no consensus' -- though it defaults to keep -- is not the same as 'keep.' An actual keep closure represents a consensus to keep the article. I saw no such consensus -- but also no consensus to delete the article at this time. I suspect it may well end up at AfD again in the future. Shimeru (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
AfD: Sticks_and_Stones_(band)
Re: Wikipedia: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)#Relisting?. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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 | 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)
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)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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. --Cyclopiatalk 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. --Cyclopiatalk 21:29, 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. --Cyclopiatalk 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)
- Ouch. My fault. After a year in UK, I still have a strange English probably. --Cyclopiatalk 11:33, 28 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)
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
Message added 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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)
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. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 07:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- At this point, I'd suggest Wikipedia: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)