User talk:Shimeru/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Thanks for helping me!
Hi Shimeru! I've just read the answer you gave me at Ron Ritzman's talk about A Change of Seasons (song) deletion. As you know, I am new at Wikipedia's community, but I feel very encouraged to give my contribution to improve continuously Wikipedia's quality. Would you mind helping me become a good editor? =)
Reading about WP:NPASR, I discovered that I could renominate the article due to lack of participation, and I would like to do so without disrespecting any of Wikipedia's policies. Could you help me? Thank you! CronoF (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll be happy to try.
- As Ron said, the close was technically "no consensus," which defaults to keep. That means there's no need to formally appeal the decision. Ron chose to redirect the article as an editorial decision, but you can also edit the article and undo the redirect, if you feel it should be kept as a separate article. Here's what you do:
- Go to the article. You'll end up on the album's page, at the track listing section.
- Scroll up to the top. Just below the title, you'll see "(Redirected from A Change of Seasons (song))" -- you will not see this if you go to the album's article directly, but only if you go to the song's article and get redirected there.
- Click on the link. That will take you to the song's article and you won't be redirected. (You can also get there just by adding "&redirect=no" to the song article's URL, but it's good to know how to do this -- and often just as easy, really.)
- Click on the "History" link. You'll be taken to a page listing the article's history.
- Click the "undo" link next to the most recent entry (the one at the top of the list). That will undo Ron's edit, restoring the article.
- You may also need to edit the article and remove the AfD template from the top of it. It's okay to do this, since the AfD has closed.
- You don't need to relist the article at AfD. If you want to do so, in order to gather a consensus that it should be kept, let me know, and I'll walk you through the process. But by default, it will stay unless and until someone else chooses to challenge it and list it at AfD.
- If you have any trouble with the process, I'll be glad to help. You may want to take a look at Help:Reverting, too. Shimeru 00:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Renominating in hopes of a "hard keep" would likely be pointless. The second AFD would likely collect dust for 2 weeks like the first one did and like almost all these album/demo AFDs are. I've closed a shitload of these the same way I closed "A Change of Seasons". I'm seriously considering closing these without the relist per WP:IAR. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Capitol Hill Tubing Society
The Capitol Hill Tubing Society is sad. What's the criteria for not being deleted? Missionaryprotectiva (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- It would need to meet the criteria in WP:CLUB. Basically, you'll want to be able to point to multiple independent reliable secondary sources outside of the DC area that have written about the society. Shimeru 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect I may be removed from your Christmas list for this but I'm looking at the google cache of the article and this statement One of DC's oldest and most prestigious social organizations would seem to be a credible assertion of "significance" and that's what's needed to survive A7. I think this needs to go to AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't add it clearly enough, but Luis Garcia Fanjul was supposed to be up for deletion too as it was a duplicate of the now-deleted Luis Garcia-Fanjul article. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
How can you close it. There was only two editors that said anything. Come on. It should have been relisted. One person said redirect no one else did, yet that was the result. One person also said delete (two if you include me the nominator). I don't know what your reasoning is behind this. I've seen articles like this being relisted 4 times to get a consensus. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you have. Few articles get relisted more than once, and almost all of those are BLPs. In this case, it was obviously not a keep. I chose redirect over delete mostly because it seems like it could be a potential search term, and the redirect will keep it from being recreated by someone who does look for it. Shimeru 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Money Afd
I would rather have you replace the redirect then drv. Thank you OttomanJackson 20:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)
- I'm sure you would but as you have been told before, DRV is the very first procedure for this issue. What if every individual started recreating recently AFD-redirected articles? It would be chaos and a mockery of the AFD procedure. Consensus is that the article should be redirected. It would be ridiculous for it be unprotected and re-created against that consensus just because a single editor wants it to be, especially if that user was blocked for their disruption in the article's AFD. Pyrrhus16
minor MOS fixes
When you're mass replacing dashes, please make sure you aren't replacing dashes in image names. It breaks the images in the articles. Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, saw that one. I was going to move the file, but since the edit was reverted, there's no point. Shimeru 04:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response to my request for help
Hi Shimeru. Thanks for offering to help me publish a page I've created. I'm not sure of the correct terminology, but I think the article is in my sandbox currently. It's an article entitled Maryland Higher Education Commission. Let me know if you need to know anything else. - Nev9600 (talk) 9:14 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. There's just a quick question I needed to ask first. Shimeru 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Halloween Horor Nights
I recently noticed you deleted both Halloween Horror Nights pages. As annoying as it is, I can't blame you. However I feel I heard you say that if there were a part that weren't a copyvio, you would put it back. Well, most of the page is just official descriptions of the houses and mazes, which isn't actually studiotour's property due to THAT being taken verbatim from Universa'ls press releases. Also, why was HHN Orlando removed? I'm pretty sure studiotour doesn't even have an HHN Orlando page.71.111.232.135 (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Er... I'm sorry, are you arguing that the article shouldn't have been deleted because it was a copyvio from Universal, and not a copyvio from a website which was itself violating Universal's copyright? Because that doesn't work. Shimeru 09:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Halloween Horror Nights Orlando/Hollywood.
Hello, the two wiki pages for HHN Orlando and Hollywood were recently put up for deletion by you and subsequently deleted, cause the Hollywood one was vandalized and one you noticed you said you have no sources to cite to keep them both up. Halloween Horror Nights is the biggest Halloween themed event held in the World.
They're held yearly at Universal Studios Orlando and Universal Studios Hollywood. Both events bring in millions of tourists. They also have major sponsors like Burger King and Publix. If you would've simply "Googled" them, you would've seen what a big event it is. As asked here are some sources.
(links removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.252.217 (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good. How about using those sources to write an article that's, you know, not a direct copy of text somebody else owns the copyright to? Shimeru 09:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous
Saying we can't put up official haunted house descriptions that were released by Universal is like saying we can't use the official synopsis of a movie that the press release gives out. It's ridiculous. Why couldn't you have just sourced it instead of deleting the whole thing? You keep complaining about there being no sources, but I doubt you actually did any REAL research. It's extremely popular. I mean, for God's sake, it has to do with one of the biggest movie companies in the US. At least try helping us out.71.111.232.135 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, you can't use the official synopsis of a movie that a press release gives out, except as our fair-use policy allows. You certainly can't copy it wholesale and establish it as an article. You need to use your own words. It's a very simple concept. Shimeru 19:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
A couple of new accounts have appeared trying to edit this closed debate and complaining of slander, malice etc. I have referred them to you, as closing admin - see here; I have also put {{Afd-privacy}} on the AfD debate and protected it for a couple of weeks. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've left a note on his talk page, we'll see what he has to say. Shimeru 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Halloween Horror Nights Orlando and Hollywood
To whom it may concern;
I would like to plead the case of the deleted pages pertaining to the above mentioned. These events are in fact hosted by Universal Studios Orlando Resort and the Universal Studios Hollywood resort. There are webpages for both events at the link I am providing: (cut) and by doing a simple whois search you will find that this is registered to Universal Studios. Much time and effort was spent placing a chronical of the events and you will find that there is a very large public following of the event. Search in google for things like HHN, or just doa search in youtube for civilian posted video of the event.
I myself live in the Orlando Area and have attended many years past. I would surley hate to see this information go away and I think that the news media in both Orlando and California would have a great story if the articles were not reinstated. So please with the power you hold as an administrator and for the love of humanity repost the pages so we can continue to track the event.
Thank you, John Lucey—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.222.55 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it cannot be reposted in its former form. It would have to be completely rewritten, from scratch, in a way that isn't a copyright violation. Shimeru 19:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Habba syndrome
It appears the consensus was merge. I am not sure how it ending up being delete. It appears that the last comments were from someone unfamiliar with the medical literature. Uptodate is indeed a reliable secondary source.
Anyway can you please send my a copy of this article so that I can take care of this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- No need. After reviewing, I see that Uptodate is accepted as a reliable source, and I've overturned myself to merge. Shimeru 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised at the reason for your close - mostly because I would have thought someone would have spotted a blatant copyvio quite some time ago! Since I'm one of the ones that missed it, could you point me to the exact page? I couldn't find it searching thestudiotour.com, but I know the MediaWiki doesn't have the best search functionality. Regards, --~TPW 10:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Take a look at the pages linked from [1] -- several sections of the article (scare zones, mazes, etc.) were copied verbatim. Sometimes these things slip under the radar; I was pretty surprised myself. Shimeru 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- How exactly was the result of the debate to delete it? It was a debate and ONLY the person proposing the delete believed that it should be deleted. Everyone else wanted to keep it. I see Wikipedia is not a democracy...it's all about who has the correct permissions to do whatever the heck they want. Kiwisoup (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why didn't you just remove the sections that had violations or add a header? The Orlando page, if you looked at the edit history had many contributors rewriting to avoid plagarism, including several edits by myself. I was not entirely opposed to the Hollywood page being condensed into a brief overview because the quality and popularity was not that of the Orlando page, but deleting them both is ridiculous and due to how popular the Orlando event is and the fact that it is approaching, you can count on the article being back. Is all you do deleting pages? It seems so from your talk page. Kiwisoup (talk)
- Almost the entire article was copied from that web site. That would be a copyright violation. If there had been any version of the article in its history that had NOT been a copyright violation, I would have reverted to that version and then proceeded to assess the discussion. However, since there was not, the article had to be deleted -- it actually met one of the speedy deletion criteria. This is a legal issue. If you'd like to create the article in your own words based on sources, feel free, but copying directly from sources is not allowed. Shimeru 22:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Much of the original article, especially the last few years have been my personal work, totally written in my own words and now I can't even access the parts that weren't a violation. You guys wanted the article deleted before you even could blame it on copyright violations. The information that was a "violation" was all taken from the original press releases. Copying text from a press release is NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. That's the WHOLE POINT of a press release! In fact, you wouldn't have even be looking at the sources if you weren't specifically looking for reasons to delete the articles. Stop trying to hide behind your reasoning because if it weren't for that reason, you'd just find another. If people weren't fighting to keep the article, you wouldn't have even bothered putting the effort into having it deleted. Kiwisoup (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Almost the entire article was copied from that web site. That would be a copyright violation. If there had been any version of the article in its history that had NOT been a copyright violation, I would have reverted to that version and then proceeded to assess the discussion. However, since there was not, the article had to be deleted -- it actually met one of the speedy deletion criteria. This is a legal issue. If you'd like to create the article in your own words based on sources, feel free, but copying directly from sources is not allowed. Shimeru 22:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
you don't mind me relisting with a semi protect as many single purpose editors visited this AfD. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind. You might want to wait a couple of weeks to see whether sources improve, though. Immediate relists are sometimes counterproductive. Shimeru 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
4 points for your attention at Caroline Glick Talk Page
Dear Shimeru, I responded to your post with 4 points that are begging for your attention at the Caroline Glick Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caroline_Glick#Efforts_to_purge_.22allegations_of_racism.22_section
Thanks! 69.110.29.179 (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
OUR ISSUE
Please can you look into the deletion of the page for author anushka. This is a clear case of slanderous deletion initiation without looking into any facts and we need the page restored. If you need any verifiable info we can give it. If you have a person who we can talk to via phone or letter we will be happy to do this. However not taking any positive action on this is allowing those who want to say bad things for no reason about a wikipedia entry just continue without action or consequences. We know you are busy but please can you respond asap as negative items are on google due to slanderous comments by a member of wikipedia for this author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You're overdue
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| for deleting the Halloween Horror Nights articles against consensus, but for a reason none of the rest of us noticed, and for patiently answering the many, many questions that have resulted from same. ~TPW 21:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
Ha. Thank you. Shimeru 01:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I was only barely convinced to support and was terribly surprised at the deletion, but I am actually glad you discovered the copyvio because the new article that's been started from scratch will probably address all problems it had with poor referencing. Destruction leading to better creation is a nice thing.--~TPW 14:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Star naming controversy
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I know to do the job properly took some time. I did however think that a minimum it would be a "merge and reduce". A word or two on your decision would be comforting. Glennconti (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- The topic already covered to some extent in at least one of the articles linked from the AfD. What do you feel would have been necessary to merge? Shimeru 18:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think only the IAU's position gets stated in the mentioned articles. There is also an industry position that was expressed in wired magazine http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/12/49345 that also needs some air. i.e. consumers need not be leery of private company star naming as long as they don't mind an unofficial product that is an entertaining learning experience. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/17/name-a-star-real-or-ripoff/ Glennconti (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, you could add to an article the fact that the businesses defend their practices, based on the Wired piece. I'm not so sure whether Universe Today is a reliable source. I'm not sure I see any "controversy," though. It seems that all parties agree that the names these businesses give to stars are not in any way "official" and will not be recognized by scientists. Shimeru 19:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Anushka Wirasinha Author Page
Thank you Shimeru for getting back to us. I accidently replied John when I should have replied you as you had sent the message. Why do we consider it Libel? Please look at the reason for deletion below and the edit done on June 1. we have used "you" here to address the person who wrote the edit and it is not to you. I have taken each paragraph to outline why it is without any doubt slander, malice and done through an agenda not by researching facts.
Taking the 1ST POINT: "Previous revision Revision as of 15:10, 1 June 2010 Line 7: Line 7: ::"Hello, I am writing to inform you that this particular article is a vanity article and should thus be deleted from the Wikipedia. "[...] I am a Sri Lankan and to my best knowledge she is not a *renowned* Sri Lankan writer (information technology or otherwise). Her body of work seems to be basic instructional IT guides, that pertain to using email, chatting online and avoiding computer viruses."
Muthuwella explaination: Her books (3 of them "Visually Learn PC", "On your marks...net set go! Surviving in an eworld and Flash in a Flash: Web development) were published by Prentice Hall India (verified by me and verifiable at www.phindia.com). In addition to that her books were endorsed by the Sri Lanka government to be used in Schools and Universities. The books are listed under University curriculums in 24 universities and can be easily verified if whoever put the above slander text simply bothered to do a google search for the author. If you want to verify check the author page at www.anushkawirasinhafoundation.org and go to link "about me" and click on the University and Colleges links. Look at their curriculums and you will see her name and publications. Whoever wrote above text has not read the author's books as if they did they would know better what she wrote about.
- This is an opinion, and not libel.
Taking the 2ND POINT: "Reference 1 is from a website where one can submit their own biography so the reference is questionable at best.
Muthuwella Explaination: The refernece you are talking about is the young Asian American bios. Many notable young authors are listed there. You have not bothered to take the content listed in the bio and verify the content. If you bothered to do this you will see that all info in the bio is verifiable and true. There is so much more than this bio to suggest author notability but since you pick this...perhaps for your convenience as it appears in the first page of google rather than later pages...I want to add that if you research further you will find that what is stated is true facts...nothing false has been put here. There is no crime in having your bio on a site if the content is true. You just have not bothered to check and used it to warp something positive into implying something negative.
- It may be that the information is true, but that doesn't make the source reliable. See WP:RS. This is not libel.
Taking the 3RD POINT: "Reference 3 is a link to a known unaccredited degree mill called Cosmopolitan University that awards honorary doctorate degrees to people who apply and pay a fee (it's on their website)."
Muthuwella explaination: President Nelson Mandela has got a honorary degree from Cosmopolitan University and many other reputable people. There is nothing wrong in getting an honorary degree as long as it is stated that it is a honorary "PhD (Hon)" rather than "PhD"
- That may be, but the statement appears to be accurate, and therefore is not libel.
(Cutting some stuff that doesn't appear to relate to libel claims.)
Taking the 7TH POINT: "She is not a post graduate of Harvard University, she obtained a CSS from the Harvard Extension School http://www.anushkawirasinhafoundation.org/. This is a Certificate of Special Studies and not a post-graduate degree."
Muthuwella explaination: This is the most serious of the slanderous comments IMPLYING that the author lied and fabricated her credentials to "boast" "boost the persona". Please note that the author has put her Harvard qualification as "CSS Harvard". This is perfectly accurate and truthful...there is no boasting and boosting done more than she is entitled to. She should be boasting as it is a much deserved qualification received after dedicated hard work. The CSS IS one year above the bachelors degree. Please reasearch before slandering and accusing. You HAVE TO have a bachelors degree to be enrolled to do the CSS. IT IS POST GRADUATE. CSS is not graduate as you have to have a grad degree to even think of enrolling in it in addition to an array of other requirements. She is definitely a post graduate of Harvard. CSS IS POST GRAD NOT GRAD. Harvard has 13 schools within it. Harvard is Harvard no matter what school. The qualification is endorsed by Harvard. She is also a past member in the Harvard Faculty Club when she was assisting lecturer in Micro Computers. ALL VERIFIED FACTS!!!!!! This slanderous edit shows a jealousy towards a Harvard qualification. Please get facts right before attacking others.
- As I mentioned on your talk page, CSS is not a post-graduate degree; that is accurate. It's post-graduate study, but its completion does not make her a post-graduate of Harvard University. Accurate statement, therefore not libel.
- This is not an accurate statement. You are confusing a couple of things here. Firstly there is no mention of a post graduate "degree". It is post graduate.
- I edited out the rest of your explanation. Read once more what you were responding to: "This is a Certificate of Special Studies and not a post-graduate degree." That is absolutely correct. There is nothing libelous about writing that. It may not be a claim she actually made, but the editor also didn't state that she'd made it. In context, it would be reasonable to take it as exposition. Shimeru 03:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Where does it say she got a post graduate degree?...all she says is CSS Harvard. I have taken parts of the statement to explain each part but if you look at it as a whole it says just after that :"she obtained a CSS from the Harvard Extension School http://www.anushkawirasinhafoundation.org/". "I mention these trivial details because they all seem to point towards an attempt to boast about questionably obtained/stated credentials to boost the persona of a non-significant writer in Sri Lanka."
It goes on to imply that the author fabricated her qualifications in an attempt to boost the persona as she is a 'non significant writer in Sri Lanka'. It also says "she obtained a CSS from Harvard Extension School"...so? that is what the author has put as her qualification...the author states her qualification as CSS HARVARD. The statement clearly implies that it is a claim she actually made. Otherwise what is the point in bringing it up as evidence of vanity! If she made no such claim it would not point to vanity. It also says "questionably stated" and the author stated no such thing. Also who did make this statement in the first place? It was a ticket made to initiate deletion on June 1 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Taking the 8TH POINT: "I mention these trivial details because they all seem to point towards an attempt to boast about questionably obtained/stated credentials to boost the persona of a non-significant writer in Sri Lanka. Thus in my opinion this is a vanity article."
Muthuwella explaination: This slanderously angled edit was clearly done out of malice or severe ignorance. When the facts are available so clearly they have not been looked into or taken into consideration on purpose or through ignorance. A slanderous edit has been created by someone wishing to ignore the facts and discredit and downgrade the author rather than use the facts and verify credibility. This kind of slander without proof and evidence is libel. This is not a simple disagreement. This is a failure to purpously look into the array of facts online and simply slander without validity. There are no "trivial details" to point to anything questionable in any of the credentials of the author. The details of the edit points to jealousy and slander done to imply the author mislead through wrong credentials when nothing of the sort was even remotely done. I urge wikipedia to look for slander in the edits and verify content in slanderous edits before an innocent and highly respected notable person is unduly harrassed.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is a harsh criticism, but probably is not libel. Unless the author has been materially damaged by the statement, it doesn't rise to the level of libel -- and that bar is pretty high in the US, which is the law applicable to Wikipedia. Libel laws don't protect from criticism and negative statements, only from statements that are both untrue and directly damaging to their subject. Unless you have some firm proof of such damage, I would suggest refraining from claiming libel, as it could be seen as a legal threat if stated in a confrontational way. If you do have evidence of such damage, I would recommend providing that information to the Foundation directly, as they will be better equipped to handle legal matters than a volunteer administrator. Shimeru 21:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The statement goes far beyond critisism and negative statements. It is accusing the author of lying when it was not so. It is malicious in nature and it is reducing the credibility of the author by distorting facts. I urge wikipedia to look into such inaccurate statements prior to it being circulated over google search engines and protect credible authors from such statements that are far more than just negative critisisms. It is libel as it is an untrue statement and one that the author has not made. It is damaging because it hits her credible reputation implying she is a liar. But I am not claiming libel or threatening libel. I am saying it is a statement that is within the context of libel and asking wikipedia to please make sure that people who just want to spread nasty content about someone does not get a free pass to do so.
I am now more interested in getting the author page up and running so that she is represented in the way she should be. I must however admit that the earlier article had some stuff that were not correct. These were that "some of her books were translated to English"- not true. All her books were in English. Going forward I need some advice here. She has loads of offline reviews in magazines, newspapers, articles in English as well as Singalese and Tamil translations in papers by journalists. She has United Nations work that she has done. She has publications that were India Times bestsellers...How do I include these? Can these be scanned and the links entered? John gave some good advice also that I am taking into account while creating her page again but I would like input from you as to the best way to proceed.
- You can scan the covers of her books; under our fair use policy, we can put those in the article if her books are being discussed. (This necessitates a reasonably in-depth section about the books.) Scanning the entire text would be a copyright violation, and we cannot link to a site containing a copyright violation. You can absolutely cite any of her newspaper articles -- although you'd want to use articles about her, rather than ones written by her, if your concern is satisfying the notability guideline. Articles by her can certainly be used for expanding the encyclopedia article, though. Shimeru 03:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)