User talk:Shereth/Archive06

Deletion of Redstone Commercial Real Estate

Hello, I read your guidelines about deletion of pages and blocked accounts, and I do believe there is a valid reason to have a Page for this company. As per the reasons for deletion that I was made aware of, notability of the company was a main concern. On the admin notifications incidents [[1]]board i have posted a number of links to third party sources confiming the legitimacy of the information formerly posted on the site. Another thing people found wrong about the page was the 'advertorial' tone. I'm not sure how to write about the company in a different way, and if one was to look at any other company's page, the tone would be the same. There seems to be a fine line between advertorial and informational. I am continuing to scour information sources for commentary on both the pros and cons of the company and compiling resources.

I understand people are busy, but I would really like to know how I can write this article without being deleted. I have read all the policies i was referred to, like usernames, spam, ect. I did my best to mirror other wikipedia pages for companies, but there's clearly still some elements i don't get. Nathanlgordon (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Porn for the blind

Hello. I saw you previously agreed that "Porn For the Blind" should be deleted, and recently I nominated it as well. However, a bunch of people do not understand (like you did) that it is a hoax. I saw you also agreed it should be deleted in the past. Can you reiterate your position here? Are you allowed to? Thanks. Angelatomato (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porn_for_the_Blind_(2nd_nomination)

user names

Hello again Shereth. I need your help again. Is it possible to protect your userpages as I don't want other uses vandalizing my user page? thank you.--Matt G (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to protect your user page, although usually this is only required when there is a problem with vandalism. I'd try not to worry about it too much, as so far no one has modified your user page, but if you do run in to problems with unwelcome edits, let me know and I'll be happy to apply protection to the page. Shereth 01:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PUMA pac

I do not understand why this article was deleted, we added new video references to show the validity of the information in the article.--Trish PUMA (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)--Trish PUMA (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)--Trish PUMA (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)--Trish PUMA (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the validity of the information was being contested but rather the quality of the sources and the notability of the topic. In either case, the consensus of the discussion regarding the article was to delete it. Shereth 14:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen several topics on wiki that i question the quality of the resources. Is there a way to appeal this decision. I am new to using wikipedia--Trish PUMA (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You can always appeal a deletion at deletion review. Before you do, you may wish to read up on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is an essay discussing why the existence of other, poorly-sourced material does not justify the inclusion of more. Shereth 23:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What can I change to have the page undeleted. I can add to the content, add more sources. but what other options do I have?--Trish PUMA (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A good suggestion prior to re-introducing deleted material is to create it at a sub-page in your user space, for example User:Trish PUMA/PUMA pac as a sort of temporary location while you work out all of the details, and then ask for suggestions as to whether it looks good enough to move back to a main article or not. Shereth 21:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much I will do that!--Trish PUMA (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Didier murder AfD

The was one of the best-stated AfD outcome decisions I've seen in a while. I'm sure it took a while to sort through that long drawn-out discussion. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It did take a little work but I am glad you appreciate it! Thank you. Shereth 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's situations like that one that which have reinforced my decision not to seek admin status, despite encouragement from some other admins. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RS?

Hi, can you please tell if this can be used as RS or not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. Ordinarily I would say no, because Infoshop News is a user-edited news service (not unlike Wikipedia) and thus usually is unreliable. However, that page in particular seems to have an extensive bibliography. I would say that you would be better off using the sources cited there rather than the Infoshop page itself, since it was written by an anonymous source and is, in and of itself, of questionable value but certainly it could prove a valuable source of other sources. Shereth 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Arizona FLC

Heh, I hope you mean "boring" in that they're nothing exciting to look at. And some of that I'd disagree with! I'm not too familiar with the Phoenix area (I've only been three times) but I really like Scottsdale -- They've made a desert area very beautiful, and the nightlife is pretty cool, and University Dr. in Tempe's not bad either! Although the first time I saw a reveller with a gun on a night out was surprising! :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean boring to look at :) I do live there currently so I'm going to try and scout out a few better shots than the ones currently available, but a lot of 'em are bedroom communities with nothing in terms of a skyline - mostly just a few landmarks that locals would recognize, but like you said, to someone who isn't from here looks like "any old building". There certainly is plenty to do, though, and I for one enjoy living here! Shereth 15:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Kilian Elkinson

In your closure of the AFD for Kilian Elkinson you didn't give any explanation of how the decision was reached. Wikipedia guidlines such as Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure say that "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached". Given that there was debate in the AFD on whether the WP:ATHLETE criteria was met or not, I think there should be an explanation. In particular, I don't understand why the criteria is not met, given that MLS reserve games are fully professional. It's a professional league with professional players unlike most European reserve leagues. Nfitz (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of this debate was unmistakable and thus did not necessitate a lengthy explanation in closing. The majority of those participating disagreed with the assertion that MLS reserve games satisfy the demands of WP:ATHLETE. Shereth 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - I've been told again and again that consensus is less to do with voting and majority, and more to do with the strength of the argument. Some of the posts on the AFD violate guidelines about AFDS. For example, PeeJay simply said "Delete, delete, a thousand times delete" providing no reasoning to why it should be deleted. Three people simply said "Delete per nom" which goes against the advice in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I argued that the article clearly meets WP:ATHLETE as he is a "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, as the MLS's reserve division is fully professional. Not one person countered this argument, except to say "reserve teams are not first teams", "no first team experience" "Second team games don't count." and "past consensus is that reserve and academy matches do not count towards professional appearences.", but with no explanation of why this is the case. As such I think I don't think consensus was met. And if you do think it was, I think at a minimum you need to provide an explanation of how the decision was reached as per Wikipedia guidelines. As I'm likely headed to deletion review (unless someone can explain why we can violate WP:ATHLETE, I thought it would be best if this was tidied up before then. Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As several people stated, we have covered the issue of reserve leagues before (with particular respect to the Premier League reserve league), with consensus being that reserve appearances do not count towards the "fully professional league" issue. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not strict majority vs. minority, and more emphasis is placed on strength of arguments, but it also does not discount strength in numbers. In spite of your assertion that no one countered your argument regarding the MLS's reserve division, you quote several above that did just that. They are not required to provide rebuttals and explanations ad nauseum and the statement indicating that they do not feel the MLS reserve league is sufficient to meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE is enough to constitute consensus. I did not feel the need to elaborate upon this in the closure. Feel free to take the matter to DRV if you desire, although I'm fairly certain it will be upheld. Shereth 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply looking for a closing statement as per Wikipedia standards and trying to give the closing admin a heads up of that is where it is going (unless they dazzle me with their explanation) so that his inaction doesn't become part of the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Greek question

Replied on my talkpage. User_talk:NerdyNSK#Greek_question. NerdyNSK (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, Shereth, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (9th nomination)

An accurate reading of consensus (even though I initially voted keep and only moved to merge later). Good call. M♠ssing Ace 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seconded. Well done. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic the Hedgehog (American TV and Comic)

Hello! I am requesting that these articles be restored and redirected so that we can see if anything can be merged as many argued in the AfDs. Specifically, as one editor said, we can "Merge the lead of Sonic the Hedgehog (American TV and Comic) and ref2 of Sonic the Hedgehog (Sonic the Comic) into Sonic the Hedgehog (character)". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can do that. I'd prefer if you brought it up on Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (character) for discussion before anything actually gets merged. As long as there are no objections I'll let a merge stand, but if there is no consensus for a merge within a reasonable amount of time, then the redirects will have to be deleted again. Shereth 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks! I have started a merge discussion on the page you linked to above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Shereth, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Review

Are you willing to revise your AFD decision on the "Murder of Joseph Dider" to "lack of consensus, default to keep". This appears to be the case. Established users commented on the first AFD for keep but may not have seen the 2nd and vice versa. There was considerable support for keep (but not a majority; but AFD's are not a vote). The delete people had varying opinions but one group of them was that they weren't from the area and don't realize that it was probably the biggest murder/kidnapping of the century, one that continues to be newsworthy 35 years later. I understand that the vast percentage of murders or kidnapping/murders are not notable enough for Wikipedia, but I think this is one of them that is notable.

I do see the lack of consensus and ask you to reconsider. The standard practice is to default to keep when there is a lack of consensus. Presumptive (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot do that. As I explained in the close, after weighing the arguments those opining to delete were the ones more firmly rooted in policy. While I will agree that a large part of the problem is related to the way the notability guidelines are written, that does not change the fact that the arguments based in policy were those to delete. Furthermore, the fact that some of the participants were not from the region is not problematic, and is in fact good, because notability should be established only by reliable sources and not personal/local interpretation. Shereth 01:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:CyclePat and advertising of his bike business.

Have you admins read this? User:CyclePat/CyclePat's - how can this be anything other than an abuse of Wikipedia's servers for advertising purposes? SteveBaker (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

SVG maps

I love the work you've done in creating things like [2] - any chance you could whip up some for Virginia municipalities? They are sorely needed, I'd say. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex Perelson

Thanks for closing the Alex Perelson AfD debate. The gang at DYK will be slapping it on the front page sometime in the next few hours. - House of Scandal (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ouran High School Host Club characters

Thanks for redirecting the characters instead of deleting as, yes, I'm planning to mine them for what useful, verifiable information there is. (Including, for ex, the kanji spellings, which I cannot type myself.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

List of cities

I noticed you reverted my edit stating "incorrect, list includes ...". However, if that were true, Hempstead would be listed as #14. Also, if you examine the .CSV used as the source, it clearly only includes "Cities". There is a version generated available on the same site that includes towns etc, but that is not the one currently being used. MrPrada (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Check again - number 96 (Gilbert) and 199 (Cary) are both listed as towns. These towns are incorporated communities unlike Hempstead, which is why the Census (and our list) includes them, as I explained on the list talk page. I am not sure which .CSV you are referring to, I am looking at [3] which is the one cited in the article (reference #1). Not only does that use towns, it also uses CDPs (49 Honolulu, 98 Arlington), municipality (65 Anchorage) and Metropolitan Government (25 Nashville, 29 Louisville). Shereth 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • [4].

• That isn't the one we are using, so I don't understand the problem? The one we use does mention towns, so I am trying to figure out why you are saying that it does not. Shereth 23:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, that one was the one that includes towns. I think what you're trying to say is that the Census doesn't consider incorporated towns in New York incorporated places, so they should not be included, but if that is the case, the list should be renamed, marked incomplete, fixed, or it should be made more clear that the list is actually not the top 100 places, nor does it include every place over 100k in population (especially since this is a featured list). MrPrada (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a little bit more sense. If you go through the list's talk page (unless you have already) you'll find that the question regarding Hempstead has come up before. You are correct that essentially, as towns in New York are considered civil divisions rather than incorporated places by the Census bureau (and rightly so, as they often have other incorporated places within them) and thus are not included in the list. The lead section of the article does make an attempt to clarify the point that it is a list of incorporated places as defined by the Census Bureau, although it may make sense to add a note that this particular definition excludes certain places. I will make an attempt to clarify this. Shereth 23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed the archive, but it wasn't much of a discussion, just a statement that "If the census doesn't list it on that CSV, it's not going in." Hence my original statement that the list needs, as a featured list, clarification, because it is not in fact, a list of the most populace places, or a list of of all incorporated places over 100k. I think we're on the same page now, I had originally attempted to clarify it myself without inserting in the data from the other minor civil divisions table. Perhaps there should be another section added at some point to include the data? Also, as far as I know, the census counts the population of the town, and the villages located within the town separately. MrPrada (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

On VPP bot request

re: How about this idea

btw- I don't have time to watch a watch list, so where does that leave us! (see my talk notices! <g>)

• Is pinging someone with a &nbsp; edit all that time consuming? Best regards and good luck with the bot. // FrankB 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Maybe you can advise me on something... I don't know script technologies from lumberjacking. Is it possible to have a bot that one can give several fields... bare category names, a second field with the capability of defaulting to processing all contained items in the current category... and a third field, where you can optionally enter 'except this list of pages'. Other permutations, too, but for starters, capability to search for this stringfromNN and changetothatstringNN with half a dozen or less NN's would be truly good.

My focus is currently on old business, the maps categories over on the commons where in 2006-2007 David Kernow and I set up a group of interlocking system of schema (There are many ways of categorizing a map, usually... and so ways to find one or think about organizing them too... so the schema maps by continent, country, city, locator maps, maps annotated by languages, blank maps, etc.) Unfortunately, with DK's sudden departure, and me ignoring it, many categories there have need of tweaks as well as page moves to proper schema names... which is to say each category which is appropriately named has members which should be moved, intermingled with ones that should stay put.

Moving a whole category's contents is the easy case, but not very refined obviously, and the tolerance there for {{category redirect}} is very high. Various Bots regularly do that kind of move, or one can ask an admin to do one and get it done quickly. No involved CFD debates makes it rather refreshing to work over there now and again! OTOH, manually recatting stuff is tedious and time consuming when the matter is obvious and strait forward involving numbers. So my mind is turning to bots and AWB measures. Robert G offered me his Robot G bot when he left the project back when, and I was just too buried to think about going up a learning curve. Advice? // FrankB 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

---

xpost

I am carrying this conversation over from my talk page (since you prefer the discussion here). I will temporarily watchlist your talk page so feel free to reply here as well.

Firstly, I like your suggestion for splitting up the official (2000) populations from the current estimates. I'll play with it in the sandbox and see what I can come up with.

Regarding your question about bots in general, first I would like to clarify precisely what it is you are asking about. It sounds to me like your question is as follows - can a bot be programmed such that it takes an initial parameter (OldCategory), goes through the articles in that category, and replace it with (NewCategory), unless the article is in an exception list? If so, then yes, that would be a relatively simple task. Shereth 19:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly what I said... I like keeping conversations together. Just also believe that tickling the users notification banner is elementary politeness. (Back to your page) // FrankB 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds like I should finally stand for RFA, as I doubt even with my tens of thousands of edits, bots use will be approved without such. I suspect the Bot I want is already in play on the commons, so will hold that in abeyance pending an answer from a party there who has written at least one, and is an old contact from when I first got active over there. Thanks. // FrankB 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Date for USA obesity map.

Hello Wondering if you can add a date to the map your created about us obesity rates. ThanksDoc James (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Boy2boy

Hey, no bother. It's a mature admin can back off, I'd have been tempted just to go ahead and remove it in your position. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Semantics" of 'arts criticism' v 'art criticism'

I disagree with your closing statement at the deletion debate. Wikipedia is here to reflect language usage as it is used in the real world. So although it might not make much sense to us that two similar terms have evolved to have separate meanings, that IS the way it has happened. As I understand it original research is not allowed. So if 'arts criticism' is different from 'art criticism' then it is for Wikipedia to document that and not for us to argue or try to "fix" it or ignore it. We're here to document these things. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It was nothing more than a suggestion. Shereth 01:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

West Parish Elementary School Science Park AfD

Why are you trying to delate this one. per the discussion on the AfD I though we came to a consences to move to West Parish Elementary School Science Park as the park meets notibility requirments being as it is one of the first in the country. granted it needs to be improved but I thought that just because something might need to be Impoved that is not grounds for an AfD could you clarify this a tad bit more rather than just using the template and not even justifiying your actions. Thanks. CelesJalee (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to delete anything. The result of the DRV discussion was to re-list, which I have done. Shereth 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New Testament church

You recently deleted the article New Testament church. I ask that you put a copy of the article you deleted at User:Wakandas black panther/New Testament church. If it's possible, I'd also like the original version of the article on that page under a level one heading. Thanks, Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put a pre-AFD version of the article in your user space. Shereth 02:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Zona Norte

Because a there is an economic region in Mexico called Zona Norte (1 of 8 economic regions), such articles are being under construction in the Spanish wiki and will soon will be created in this wiki. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zonas_Econ%C3%B3micas_de_M%C3%A9xico . Cheers JC 09:42 22 July 2008 (PST)

WikiProject Stargate

Hello, Shereth/Archive06! Your username, as well as the usernames of other members of Wikipedia: WikiProject Stargate, has been moved to the inactive members list, as part of a process for update the activity of the wikiproject. If you would like to continue to be an active member, please follow the instructions on the top of the participants page to add your name to the active participants list. Thanks! – sgeureka t•c 16:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

I'm not attached to this article, but numerous Delete voters, and particularly a rush at the end, claimed that there was no evidence of notability, when I showed a series of sources showing that the book was extensively quoted and apparently considered significant. And then the votes and comments continued that there was no evidence of notability, as if nothing had been put up. Did you consider this? Thanks. Before today, the !vote was 2 Keep, 1 Merge and 2 Delete plus Nom. (I did not count the sock puppet vote from Allemandtando, now blocked, who had a habit of noticing where I'd edited and then opposing.) Then, today, there were three !votes. 2 were Delete, and one was called Delete, but was really Merge. And I had said that Merge wasn't a bad conclusion. Given that Merge is a form of Keep -- we've been over this before! -- the final was 4 Keep and 4 Delete plus Nom. That is hardly a consensus to Delete!

By the way, perhaps you recall Killerofcruft, I don't know if you followed subsequent events. Remember, he edit warred with you when you kindly revised your decision with Donna Upson to allow me to properly source the article. Turns out he registered exactly to vote in that AfD, having apparently noticed my vote. He changed his name to Allemandtando because Killerofcruft was such a big red flag. Ultimately, having figured out what was going on, I filed an SSP report and RFCU and it was confirmed with sufficient precision that, given the behavioral evidence, he was definitely User:Fredrick day, community banned for harassment. He could have been banned for quite a few other reasons, actually.

Best wishes -- Abd (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• For what it is worth you're using a fairly liberal method of interpretation here. Normally I do not do this but for your benefit I will address each !vote individually:

• Delete (implied) by nominator for lack of notability.
• Speedy Keep from User:Goethean, spent most of his energy trying to discredit the nominator. His arguments for notability were based on Google hits alone and not really pertinent.
• Delete from User:Wikidas, arguing that the supplied sources were not independent of the subject per WP:RS.
• Delete from User:RayAYang as lacking sources.
• Keep, by yourself, with links to sources (I will address those momentarily).
• Delete from User:Allemandtando, disregarded as a sock of a banned user.
• Merge from User:Priyanath citing insufficient notability independent of author.
• Delete from User:HouseOfScandal, citing nominating statement (notability).
• Delete then Merge from User:Yobmod as non-notable. Delete-then-merge is not allowed per GFDL as we know. As this user has expressed an opinion to delete, this cannot be "interpreted" as a suggestion to keep, regardless of the merge suggestion.
• Delete from User:CastAStone as unimportant, weakly based in policy (assuming user equates importance with notability).
• Delete from User:Bearian as lacking notability.

• Without any creative interpretation on my part, the straight-up tally is 6 delete, 2 keep and 1 merge, with one outlier (delete then merge). With "creative interpretation", classifying a merge as a "form of keep" gives me 6 delete, 3 keep and 1 "can't make up his mind". Even before going in to the fact that of those 3 "keeps", one is implied and one is based on invalid arguments. With regards to the six book sources you linked to, each of them is either a quotation from this book or a mention of it in a "suggested reading" capacity. While I am certain you are familiar with our guidelines regarding reliable sources, I will take this opportunity to re-iterate the fact that a reliable source demonstrating notability is one that "address the subject directly in detail" rather than simply mentions it. Unfortunately none of your sources demonstrate notability. As such, none of the arguments for keeping this article were able to refute the contention that notability is not established. When presented with a discussion where a large majority of the participants favor deletion and the editors expressing their opposition to this are unable to find arguments rooted in policy to refute the claims of the nomination, there is no conclusion other than a policy-based consensus to delete. Regards, Shereth 22:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there are different ways to count, and your argument regarding the sources I presented is the strongest issue. I agree that I did not find sources that specifically discussed the subject, rather, they quoted it extensively (some I could tell that they did, others, it was likely). Someone familiar with the subject might find more, especially with easy access to a library specializing in this kind of topic. I am not arguing that the !votes should control, and my question was mostly whether or not you had considered the sourcing argument, since there was no sign that any of the Delete voters had actually looked at the sources turned up. Absolutely, Goethean's argument re the nominator, while understandable to me, was a red herring. I'd consider his Keep vote as about equivalent to a Delete vote that introduces no new arguments. I am also not arguing that you should reverse your decision, and I appreciate the time you took to explain your analysis. I'm not sure that it was necessary, though, since your analysis ultimately agreed with mine, except in one relatively minor detail. I.e, I came up with four delete plus nom, you said six delete, but you counted the "Delete then Merge" as a delete *and* not clear about what he wanted, when, most likely, the user was confused about Merge procedure and thought of a Merge and Redirect as a form of Delete, which it could appear to be to an unsophisticated user. I.e., this wasn't a user who "couldn't make up his mind," he was quite explicit that he wanted the content merged. And Merge does involve Keep, as you know, so in terms of whether or not the article is actually deleted, it was five Yes and four No. And until the last day, it was quite different. I'm not sure of the significance of that, but someone looking a day ago might have thought, "that's going okay, I'm not going to bother." Or not.

If anyone is seriously upset, there is Deletion Review, of course. If I have time I might see if I can find a source that actually does discuss this book; from what I found in the time I spent I'd be surprised if it doesn't exist. But existence isn't the same as finding!!! Anyway, thanks for looking again at it. Whether I find sources or not, I wouldn't consider going to Deletion Review at all without discussing it with you. Do you want to know if I find something? Or would you prefer to simply move on and I'd go to DR if I think I've found enough. I wouldn't go with what I have at hand! The most I thought you might do was to go to Merge.--Abd (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find some sourcing that discusses the book in significant fashion and may indicate notability, I'd be happy to take a look. You may also want to look at the book-specific notability guidelines if you have not (WP:BK). Frankly, I am surprised no one brought that up on either side of the discussion. Shereth 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful. Yes, I might be able to do it, and could probably argue from that guideline for sufficient notability. If I can find what I suspect exists, from what I did find. May take some time, I might have to actually get, you know, some of those things made of paper and ink and glue. Which can drive some up the wall, if they can't find the content on-line; it must not exist. With Donna Upson, imagine what I could have done if I could walk into a library in Nova Scotia or Ontario and copy the newspaper articles. I only found snippets, a line or two from each article, as teasers in the newspaper on-line, articles-for-sale archives.... --Abd (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just found something that may do it, all by itself. There is a book about the book, by an author who apparently had an article on Wikipedia that was speedied in March. "Stephen Wolinsky" returns 13,600 hits, author of a number of books on various subjects related to psychology etc. The one in question is [5] I Am that I Am: A Tribute to Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, published 2000 Quantum Institute Inc. The publisher's blurb:

"This is a powerful companion volume to one of the most important spiritual texts of this generation, I Am That by Nisargadatta Maharaj. It both illuminates and elaborates upon the major understandings, confrontations, and contributions of this most remarkable sage. Utilizing his direct personal experience, interactions, commentaries, quotations, and the inquiry process, Dr. Wolinsky transports readers right into the room where they find themselves in the presence of this most extraordinary teacher."

I've found other references which indicate the importance of this book, coming from publishers who were not the publishers of I Am That, one was explaining how he came to publish other works by Nisargadatta (much more recently). Possible fly in the ointment: Because Wolinsky is known for his "Quantum Psychology," that's probably his publishing company. But he's not a solely self-published author, there is a list of published books by Wolinsky: [6] I notice that Blue Dog is a publisher of another book about or by Nisargadatta the publisher's preface to the book (1996) describes I Am That as a "classic work" that he had encountered, and then discovered that a publisher was being sought for other manuscripts....[7]

So we see a derivative work published in 2000, another book in 1996 that considered it a classic. Yes, they are writing about Nisargadatta, but they are mentioning the book as being of importance. What do you think? --Abd (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest it's fairly tangential stuff - no one is really trying to refute that the author himself is notable. I'm not sure that a book that bills itself as a "companion volume" to the work in question can be considered sufficiently independent of the first to qualify. My honest suggestion might be to include any pertinent information in the article about the author himself. As an aside, I remembered that there was one issue I wanted to bring up to your attention - you did make a statement in the debate (and I am paraphrasing here) to the effect that the sources indicating notability need not be in the article itself, but may reside elsewhere, such as the talk page. While I am unsure if there exist any proper policy-based precedent for such an argument, I would like to point out that any information that "proves" the work notable really ought to be something mentioned in the article, itself. The point of finding sources is not merely to "prove" that a subject is notable, but more to the point, to reliably source something notable about it. If a source cannot be made to work in some useful context within an article it probably is not as indicative of notability as it might appear on first blush. Shereth 03:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also - the article about [Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj]] notes that Wolinsky is known as one of Nisargadatta's most prominent disciples, which really calls into question the applicability of his writings as being sufficiently independent per WP:RS. Shereth 03:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

oops

Just a friendly reminder to be careful with edits such as this. The article was completely blank for 3 hours until an IP noticed. Cheers. APK like a lollipop 10:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh - the rollback button shouldn't have done that, but I suppose I should have checked after hitting it to make sure it did what it was supposed to. Shereth 01:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

page move requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rename#Moving_over_an_existing_page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fraternities_and_Sororities_at_Southern_Miss

Move to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fraternities_and_Sororities_at_University_of_Southern_Mississippi

For the same reason, the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia" is "Wikipedia", not "WP" or "George W. Bush" is not "W" or "Geo. Bush". Chergles (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

US place pop templates

I was going to categorize these but I didn't know where. :) Any ideas? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's still a "work in progress" :) I'll give it some thought though .. I hadn't really considered cats! Shereth 02:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) I'm guessing something under Category:United States city templates. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA

This needs to be handled elsewhere if you disagree with the decision

Yep, not by you. That statement cuts both ways, and I especially note that you ignored the decision of User:MCB in enforcing your eccentric and unilateral interpretation of policy. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Shereth. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Calton. Thank you. I mentioned your name, so I thought I should let you know. –xeno (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting at my RfA. Looks like my experiment didn't really pan out so well. I don't regret it — I learned something — but I'm sorry if I jammed things up. Since I plan to work with MedCab soon, I will probably be asking for your advice sooner or later and look forward to working w/ you in the future. Cheers! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My bot suggestion

Hi there, you promised to bring up my bot suggestion at WP:BAG, so I would be very grateful if you could do so so that we could advance this whole process (unless, of course, by "weekend" you meant 9-10 Aug; I assume you meant 2-3 Aug). It Is Me Here (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

UAA reports

Thank you for your reports to WP:UAA regarding potentially improper user names. I could not help but to notice a recent report in which you stated that you were seeking a user warning rather than an outright block. I just wanted to let you know that any user, not only admins, may politely notify another user that their name may potentially be problematic. Use of the {{uw-username}} template is usually the simplest way to handle this. If you are unfamiliar with the use of this template then let me know and I'd be happy to explain it further, but for future reference, if you see questionable usernames, feel free to use this template to bring the issue up with the user yourself. Cheers, Shereth 23:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me at this! This was actually a very rare case since most of the times promotional accounts just create pure spam articles, while this one was actually doing a good job. I have one small question about the usage of the template though; As it is obvioudly a "request discussion" template, what should be done if the user does not react? (Either by ceasing to edit, or by removing it from his or her talk page?) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Prince Chunk

Please contribute to current discussion on the AfD for Prince Chunk.--DrWho42 (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ArkyBot

ArkyBot is updating census information in settlement infoboxes, which is fine, but it's also moving GNIS information to a parameter that the settlement infobox apparently does not support. The article I looked at in particular is El Mirage, Arizona but there appear to be others as well. You might want to look into this. Regards, Leofric1 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion as to putting this information in a standard field such as "GNIS_id", but there hasn't been a consensus as far as that goes. If that fails to gain traction, I will have the bot go back and move the parameters to where they were before. Shereth 16:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. I just thought you should know that the field is not implemented yet. Regards, Leofric1 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arky bot is breaking (some) Alaska articles which use the Location map (a.k.a. pushpin map) as well as "deleting" GNIS link information by deleting a Gnis3 reference link and replacing it with. NOTE: Alaska articles should usually the USGS GNIS id for the "Populated Place" for Coordinates and Elevation. The "Census" or "Civil" GNIS id (aka FIPS codes) often does "not make sense" because they refer to the geographical center of a Census Tract which is often either "in the water" or "ontop of a mountain"). LeheckaG (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to some of the ones where it broke the map? As far as the GNIS code goes, it's putting it in to a different parameter that's being discussed - as I stated before, if the discussion does not go over well I'll have them reverted. I also know about the differece between FIPS and GNIS codes (FIPS55 is deprecated anyway). Anyway, let me know which ones it broke the map. Shereth 04:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I had reverted Craig, Alaska - not sure why ArkyBot broke the map, going through and looking for others ... A GNIS id field should be: [{{Gnis3|gnis_id_code}} gnis_id_code] so that a "one-click link" is provided.

It is extremely "poor" Wiki behavior for a bot to be moving data into an UNIMPLEMENTED field for which consensus has not been achieved. I understand the point of view why a GNIS field should be added, and the competing view that GNIS fields make no sense to some regions. But bots should follow "implemented" behavior and not be "inventing" it. Where does one lodge a "poor behavior" complaint against a bot?

On a separate note, "census" data really should be centralized into a template "tree" transcluded by articles so that it can be centrally managed and controlled rather than bots making edits across articles.

LeheckaG (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not chide me for "poor" Wiki behavior. The field had been implemented, and then another editor took it back out of the template and I immediately paused the run of the bot. Shereth 13:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD?

AFD this????? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_Four Show me the best way to handle it. I will study exactly what you do to this article but I won't do anything myself. Teach me by example. Presumptive (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

SVG image

Sherˑeth, I was hoping you could help me edit this image, since I know nothing of SVG. Basically, I wanted to enter text in Spanish, i. e., the same text, but translated. Do you have time to do that? If so I'll write down the statements in Spanish for you. Thanks ... Bobjgalindo (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Caray ... perfecto

I can't think of any changes. I just added an acento for construcción -- ajá, last minute change, a c instead of j in introducen:

Historia de la construcción de los templos de la iglesia SUD 1835-2008

• 1877 - Primer templo aún en uso
• 1919 - Primer templo fuera de Utah
• 1955 - Primer templo en Europa
• 1984 - Se introducen templos de diseño normalizado
• 1999 - Se introducen templos mas pequeños
• 2000 - Récord de 34 templos son dedicados

I will learn about the program you sugested. If you have some free time and could add those lines in spanish to the image, it would turn out much faster than to wait for me to learn it all. Thank you so much for responding so quickly. Un abrazo, Bobjgalindo (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000)

Regarding the above, I strongly believe one of the participants is a ban evading sock per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• That may or may not be the case, but ultimately has little bearing on the result of that discussion. Shereth 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not so much about that discussion, but so you're aware as the closer of the above discussion should you see the other one's he's commented in if indeed the checkuser confirms my suspicions that the comments are discounted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll keep an eye on the checkuser request to see how it resolves. Shereth 19:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

National Monument

Why did you delete National Monument? Turbo Golf (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• It was an empty redirect. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National monument. Shereth 22:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Non promotional?

Have you looked at the contributions of MixnetARN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I would class them as promotional since all they edit is ARN owned Mix radio station article. Bidgee (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the edits are promotional or not is immaterial to the question of whether the username is promotional, which it is not. Shereth 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mix Network (IE: net) ARN is promotional. Bidgee (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply having a company name is not the same thing as having a promotional name. If you disagree, file a report at WP:RFCN regarding the user name. Shereth 15:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCN is for possible violations and the above username is clearly a violation. Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this user has been editing on and off for the better part of five months. People have expressed concern that s/he may have a conflict of interest going on, but never once has anyone raised an issue with their user name. UAA is for blatant violations that require immediate blocking. I refuse to believe that an account that has been editing for any length of time in a largely constructive matter is so egregious an issue that it requires immediate blocking, and to suggest doing so without at least informing the user that their name might be a violation of WP:U is particularly bitey. Consider voicing your concern with the user (such as with the {{uw-username}}. If you still think this requires blocking, again, try RFCN. Shereth 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that the user knows (About the username) it since I gave them a second CIO warning and it was ignored as the user went and edited another article which also happens to be a ARN owned station and just because that the user has been an editor for 5 months means that this is an bitey issue and it's clear that they know what they're doing is wrong other wise they would have replyed on my talk page or someone else. Bidgee (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning about a possible conflict of interest does nothing to alert a user to the username policy or the fact that they may be in violation of it. In any case, let the issue be decided at RFCN. Shereth 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And just let ARN to spam articles about their own stations? Removing the unsource ref tag and adding Schedules (which is against Wiki policy) IMO is making it another webpage for themselfs. Bidgee (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Musk

Hi! I'm pretty sure your deletion decision regarding the article on Justine Musk would have been different had other editors put more (really any) effort into researching the notability of Ms. Musk and her fiction. Yes, many people know of her as Elon's wife, but that isn't really the point. The point is that de-facto standard measures of notability for authors were not presented as part of the deletion decision. No mention was made of the publisher releasing "Blood Angel" in a mass-market paperback edition, for example. In other deletion debates about authors, Amazon.com sales rankings have been used as quantitative measures of notability. No one attempted that in this case.

FYI, I personally am completely unaffiliated with the Musks, and know of Justine only as Elon's wife. But I did happen to notice a large stack of "Lord of Bones" copies on the featured books table at a Barnes & Noble bookstore last Sunday. I can't really understand the motivation for the nomination, and I don't know why no one presented a defense of the article, but ... this wasn't really an article where AfD needed to be used at all. Really, a sober discussion over the course of weeks or months at Talk:Justine Musk would have been the better course.

How you would like to handle this? Would you like it taken to a formal deletion review? I'll watch your talk page, so if you prefer we can keep any discussion together in one place. (sdsds - talk) 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately my "job" when closing discussions is not to take in to account what might have happened in other circumstances - it is merely to judge consensus as it stands. However, since there was relatively little in the way of discussion I do not have an issue with re-opening the discussion for a few more days to see if we can't get some more input on the matter. Shereth 15:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you. (sdsds - talk) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply

I am already working on this. I have no opinion on the man. Don't hate him. Don't like him. Don't know much about him yet. After a few days, if people think he is no more important than Thaddeus Montgomery then it's fine with me. On the other hand, I've worked on this only a short while and already it's longer than some stubs. Radiomango (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article looks to be in a decent state thus far. Please let me know if you have issues with the article, and keep in mind that there is some possibility that the article may attract unwanted attention (vandalism), but so far so good. Shereth 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

References

You may be interested in the Reflinks tool. For articles like Todd Palin, where not a single reference was properly formatted, it saves an enormous amount of time. - auburnpilot talk 21:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I love you :D In all seriousness, trying to repair those refs one by one, by hand, in the middle of edit conflict after edit conflict was ... ugh. Thanks so much for alerting me to this. Shereth 21:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

advice?

It seems that you had some questions about allowing the article but have been most helpful since then. That's very nice of you. I'm just interested in the average dude who is now semi-famous.

What is someone is opposed to the article and is hurting it? There is one editor that was opposed to the Todd Palin article before and is now editing it, removing some details. If this continues, more and more details may be removed until it will look like a joke article ripe for removing. The person seems very partisan having a hatred of Republicans (looking at his other edits). I am not interested in Republicans or Democrats; you won't see me editing John McCain or Barack Obama. There seems to be an effort to remove anything remotely positive so that the rest is just bland.

Without having to "prove" this person has bad motives (which I don't intend to do), what prevents others opposing the article from making the article shorter and worst? Is that a way to delete an article you don't want (make it worse) or delete any positive aspects if you disagree with his political beliefs? Radiomango (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is theoretically possible to sabotage an article and make it look unworthy of inclusion and then try to have it deleted - but generally that won't happen because the article history will be scrutinized to ensure this sort of thing does not happen. As far as one editor removing details in the articles, it might be helpful to analyze the material s/he is removing - what kind of information is it? There is a chance that they have removed information that really isn't pertinent to the article or perhaps belongs elsewhere. In any event, when you run across a situation where an editor seems to be in disagreement with you regarding an article and its content, the first thing you should do is approach that editor on their talk page and request a clarification for what they are doing, and attempt to resolve the situation via discussion. If that fails and they continue to edit in a fashion that you believe is detrimental to the article, there are a number of dispute resolution procedures you can pursue, but discussion is always the best way to go. Shereth 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The more I look, the more confrontational I see this person is. This person is very political, seems to be very anti-Republican. Like I said, I am interested in this average dude turned semi-famous, not politics. I am also not interested in a fight. I've even not mentioned his name so he won't think I am picking on him. Radiomango (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very diplomatic of you! If a problem does not arise it is probably best to not worry about it too much, so as not to stir up issues, but do keep a good eye on the article. If you begin to see a pattern of edits that is clearly advocating a specific point of view or otherwise detrimental to the article, then it is probably time to initiate discussion. Shereth 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This person has complained about me by e-mail. I am sure that this person is trying to get me banned for being a sockpuppet. Well, this person is correct. I have an alternate account that I have stopped using and I notified an neutral adminstrator of that intention. This alternate account made only 15-20 edits, none of them about Palin, Alaska, or any person but had to stop because it was the recipient of some incivility and accusations of being a sock. Another checkuser and two administrators discussed it and came to the same conclusion as me that I am not a sock. It was agreed that starting a new username was ok to clear my smeared name. Those events were very emotionally trying so I do not wish to go through that again. If that happens, Wikipedia loses because it just chases people away. Radiomango (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shereth - the above editor, along with a bunch of others, have just been blocked as sockpuppets of Oprahwasontv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who is a blocked sockpuppet of the community-banned Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I'd certainly be curious to know which "checkuser and two administrators" came to the conclusion that he is not a sock and suggested that he start a new username - but I don't expect them to materialize. Just thought you should know. Nice to meet you - I'll try to repair Todd Palin - as I said, I'm willing to wait and see if it develops into more what looks more like a section~of Sarah Palin at the moment, but not by padding it with irrelevant stuff. Tvoz/talk