User talk:Shimeru/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with Shimeru. 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 2 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100)

Archive open: Dec. 2004 (retroactive) Archive close: Dec. 2006

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to learn more about the contribution process, definitely check out the tutorial. It's a really simple and easy explanation of all the basics.

TIPS:

If you have any questions about Wikipedia and don't know where to look, try the How do I do that? section of help.
Get your feet wet as soon as you can by being bold in editing (and using the Show Preview button).
Read what Wikipedia is not.
Learn how to avoid common mistakes.
At Wikipedia, neutrality means representing all viewpoints as opposed to just one. Read the neutral point of view tutorial to learn more.
As you learn more about Wikipedia, you may want to check out the Manual of Style and the Policies and Guidelines.

Enjoy your stay and feel free to reply to this welcome message on my talk page. - user:defunkt

(To sign a post like I just did, enter three tildes ~~~ where you want your name to appear. The three tildes will automatically be converted into your username. Adding a fourth tilde will insert a timestamp, as well.)

Hello there...

I thought the edits being done were POV edits without balance. I have left in your criticisms and added more balance to the article now. I think this means we can stop deleting each other's work. Thanks.

Given that there were several other people also reverting your changes on the same grounds, you might want to ask yourself whether your version was really as unbiased as you thought. On the other hand, I have no objection to your additions, now that you're not also deleting relevant (if negative) information. I'm reasonably satisfied with the page as it now stands... maybe we just needed to communicate sooner. Well, no harm done. Shimeru

Hey Shimeru, I'm not so much trying to screw with it as I am trying to keep the balance. Glad you noticed that with my last full writing on it. I thought the "criticisms" were creating non-balance. So rather than delete them, I added more body to the rest of the document and added more external links.

It appears that vandals are again trying to screw with it. Perhaps a reversion to refdoc with protected status would be a good way to go? I don't think those that wish to see unbalance are going to stop deleting links and adding unsubstantiated information.

I saw. Paging through the recent changes, I didn't find one more recent than Refdoc's that I felt would be a fair compromise. I'm reluctant to ask for protected status; that's a measure of last resort, and not a permanent one in any case (nor should it be). I'm hoping we can get some discussion going on the talk page to work out the issues. If there's no communication and edit wars continue, though, I'll nominate it for protection. Shimeru

Perverted Justice is a porn site that woks

To Wikipedia:

Perverted Justice is a porn site that remains unprotected by adult verification and the site operators pretend to be a public service to get rid of pedophiles. I need I am prepared to provide the links to their site of the aforementioned nude images taken of their so called bust that they then keep as trophies. Or you can download quadsucker.exe a free web downloader and look for yourself. As the members work their way up the chain of command, the more access they have to the site contents. The culture there has a don’t ask don’t tell if your are a member who is under age. Providing a opposing side on your site does little good if they delete it. If this is a forum of real intellectual dialogue or even just cyber entertainment with any rules one should be heard on the opposing side.

PJ's effort to train an army to infiltrate the web to get rid of bad guys is as ineffective as what our government did in Latin Americas in the 60's and 70's. The so called good guys became the drug cartels of the 80 and 90. What will PJ members become in ten years? All ready there activities are interfering with real efforts by law enforcement and their attacks of real organization with hate calls and hate email is a well known tactic. I have norton and MS protecting our terminals. Therefore they have had little impact. They are being served notices as we speak to further cease and decist. What more can anyone do. The public and or buyers beware. As for the kids on PJ sites, PJ should worry what the parents will do when the find out. In some states that is a crime to expose children to such sexual content. And children have not any right to consent. His argument that the child violated their site rules is not enough to protect him from the law or the parents rights to a civil remedy.

I won’t bother you again. This is my last attempt posing any dialogue pro or con. It is your site and I support free speech.

Jim and Tonia. Team Amber Alert Founders.

Raven

Please see my comment on the discussion page, and the text addiition - thanks jimfbleak 09:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Joshua Claybourn

I think you should reconsider your vote on the Joshua Claybourn entry here: [1]. From from being a blog ad, Claybourn is one of the most notable writers in the Christian community. He's been published in nearly every major Christian magazine and is frequently published in newspapers. He also happens to run a popular weblog. You should change your vote to "Keep"

I'm afraid I disgree. Mr. Claybourn is a blogger, yes. He's a fairly skilled and articulate writer. He's on friendly terms with the National Review editor, Rich Lowry, which speaks to his earnestness, at least. But I do not see that he has done anything that makes him worthy of being in an encyclopedia. His blog is known of, but it's second-tier at best, which is why I called it "not particularly notable" — its Alexa traffic ranking, for instance, is 347,711. (For comparison, Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit rates 8,245.) However, the blog seems to be the sum total of his accomplishments, as far as I can see. I've found no evidence that he is "one of the most notable writers in the Christian community" (which is, you understand, quite a claim — there should surely be some indication of it, if it's true), nor that he is "frequently" published in newspapers. I submit that he is not, in fact, published often enough to make his CV an encyclopedic topic. He may well be, some day, but he is not now. (Just to be clear, this is not a reflection on Mr. Claybourn; I myself am also a published writer, and also not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia.) Shimeru 05:02, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre

Hi! This is a note to let you know that I have just established WikiProject Theatre. Please come and join us in building up Wiipedia’s articles relating to theatre! Ganymead 18:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese language films

hi. i'm also not really sure what function this page is performing. i put some stuff on Talk:List of Japanese language films. ta. Nateji77 9 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)

re:Japanese mythological creatures

Hi, Shimeru. I've responded to your question over at my talk page. I've also tried to clarify the categorization instructions at WP:Jmyth. I hope this will explain everything well enough! — BrianSmithson 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Work!

Hey, just wanted to say nice job on the kitsune merger. MikeDockery 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a topic of particular interest to me, so I appreciate the compliment. I'm still not entirely happy with the way it reads, though; I'll likely reorganize it again, once I figure out a good way of doing so. Shimeru 10:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Harvey Littleton.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Harvey Littleton.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've got this cleared up, though, it looks like a very nice article! Have you considered putting it on WP:DYK? Jacqui ^★ 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got all the information now, and I'll look into DYK?. Thanks. Shimeru 19:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment on DYK - Do you have references for that article? He looks like a good candidate for adding to DYK, but without references he'll prolly be passed over. Syrthiss 13:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must be slipping. I could've sworn I'd already listed those. Anyhow, they're in place now. Thanks. Shimeru 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harvey Littleton, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Peta 00:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan avery

Hello! I removed your prod, as the article asserts the notability of the subject with reliable sources cited within the article, as well as on the talk page. Thank you! PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don't feel he's noteworthy, so I have nominated the article for deletion. Please see Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion. Shimeru 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caro Blymyer Dawes

You flagged Caro Blymyer Dawes for deletion because you felt that she is not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Apparently being the wife of a Vice President of the United States does not make a person noteworthy enough for you. Why do you feel that the Second Lady of the United States is such an unimportant position? By your logic, there should be no article on Jennie Hobart, Cornelia Tappan Clinton, Eliza McCardle Johnson or any of the other less famous Second Ladies. I ask you to please remove your request for deletion from the Caro Blymyer Dawes page, explain why the above three ladies deserve a page yet Blymyer Dawes does not, or delete all of the pages concerning the Second Ladies of the United States. Thank you. Wscc05 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being the wife of a noteworthy individual does not, in and of itself, make one noteworthy. I will look into the other articles as well, though you could nominate them yourselves, if you feel they aren't sufficiently noteworthy. The Dawes article caught my attention because it happened to be listed on New Pages when I did a sweep. Shimeru 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at FDR

You're right, that's a much better move than speedy. [2] :) Guess I think too much in the box. Thanks. Luna Santin 07:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you. It seemed like a reasonable misspelling. Shimeru 07:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Skully's for speedy deletion with the reason "Not noteworthy". However, "Not noteworthy" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:PROD if you still want the page to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isla del Caño

Please explain why you tagged this article as 'vandalism'. Owen× ☎ 20:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant beetles. Nuff said. Shimeru 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(my previous comment withdrawn). Please be more careful with your CSD, PROD, and AfD nominations. Owen× ☎ 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isla del Caño

Hi, Giant child-eating beetles the size of a school bus looks pretty much like a hoax to me too :-) Dlyons493 Talk 21:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Re:Etomite

I'm sorry if you thought my response wasn't civil. It's not directed towards you, but it was just more of a rant of my frustration with lack of understanding of CSD G11. It's really annoying when I'm running through CSD for articles to delete and I see people using G11 inappropriately. Anyway, I'm sorry if I sounded a bit uncivil with my response. But in fact it was not G11 (afterwards) or any CSD to start with. (It had an article on DeWiki) Nishkid64 15:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamanote Halloween Train

The Halloween Train article was deleted, and while I think the party makes the foreign community here look bad, I don't think the article should have been deleted. Please see the deletion review and contribute. Vincent 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not. I think it's a noteworthy event, but with no reliable sources produced, I can't say they were wrong to delete it. There's nothing preventing recreation later if sources can be found. Can you point to anything along these lines? Newspaper or magazine articles about the event, perhaps? Shimeru 08:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cullybackey High School

I was wondering what evidence you have that the school is located in Cullybackey or that the school has 500 students (etc.) Guettarda 02:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very little, but I don't feel it's productive to scatter that many 'fact' tags around such a short article. I think, for instance, a single tag will do for the 500 students and the 70 staff, and the citation that establishes the founding date will most likely also establish the location. Shimeru 03:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kabuki.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kabuki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a replacement. I hadn't previously seen one. Shimeru 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morristown West High School

Deleting article content on unverified tags is considered vandalism. If the article was in violation, then post the tag at the top whilst preserving the article. If it is indeed found in violation, it will be deleted. Mkdw 07:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. In the case of a copyvio, Wikipedia's policy is to blank the page that's in violation. See WP:CP. Shimeru 07:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morristown West High School Copyvio

How does this infringe copyright? Atlantis Hawk 08:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is copied practically verbatim from the "student handbook" section of the school's website. In fact, the earliest version looks as if it might be a cut-and-paste. Shimeru 05:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haverford Middle School

1. The middle school shared a campus with the high school when it began in the 1930s.. then the high school got its own campus in the 1950s.

2. Now that the school district article exists, there are two options for HMS - Either keep it as is, or redirect to the district article. WhisperToMe 05:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the school district history... what troubles me is the lack of reliable outside sources, which are necessary in order to expand the article beyond basic name/location/demographics. I'm not sure whether a merge would help there, but I'll admit I hadn't thought to research the district itself, so you may be on to something. Unfortunately, I won't have access to Lexis-Nexis for a little while, but I'll make a note to see whether I can find anything online. Thanks. Shimeru 05:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) - Yeah, I work on school articles a lot. Sometimes municipal websites and newspaper reports may mention information about the school. WhisperToMe 05:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ries opus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ries opus.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok ☠ 00:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't believe this image is replaceable in practice. Of course, it may not be necessary to use that particular image at all. I'll see what else I can turn up for Ries. Shimeru 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VP

The reason that I did not approve you is because of your recent conflict about moning things for AfD I am going to not approve you if you would like come back in a month a then we will re assess your status Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Please also nominate these for Deletion

Shimeru! Perhaps your research was not complete before you proceeded to nominate List of people who left Islam for deletion (I have a feeling you were requested by someone to nominate it). Now for consistency, please also nominate the following articles for deletion:

Nominate these too and the so many OTHER sub-lists as well. As you can see now, Lists are not the same as categories. Its not against policy to create these lists. Its the responsibility of editors to keep the lists up to date. Lists can provide more information than a category. I believe it was not wise of you to nominate this page for deletion. I know that somehow someone would come and try to get that page deleted. Thankfully we have other sister pages existing. I await for your response as to whether you have nominated those other two pages for Deletion as well or not.

I see you request deletions a lot, some of them are valid and some are not like this Lists case. Here's the thing: By nominating pages for deletion right when they're in their infancy, you are preventing them from ever growing again. My suggestion is for you to look at all factors before requesting deletions and wait for a little bit and resist that initial "deletion" urge.

--Matt57 15:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look what the other user wrote and I agree with him.:

Keep all - Its stupid to nominate so many pages at once. Its actually stupid. Bakaman Bakatalk 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Next time try to keep your foot off the delete pedal. --Matt57 20:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid the nomination was entirely my own idea. Those other lists are of a different scope and subject matter than the ones I nominated, which all deal with people leaving one religion for another. By the way, you might want to read WP:CIVIL. Oh, and I've reverted my talk page to reinstate your last remark; I prefer to leave such things on the record, in general. Shimeru 20:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists provide ways of providing information that Categories cannot. Another way you can tell which side is right, when people dont give any reasons for their vote. In this case, no one is giving any reasons for "Delete". And please also nominate List of Muslims for Deletion? Whats the problem in having a list thats for Conversions or Apostasy? Whatsup with that? --Matt57 20:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting that you feel there's a settled "right" side to the discussion. Of course, others seem to feel differently. I do see reasons for deletion, though. As for List of Muslims, as I said, it doesn't fit in with the other lists in this nomination. Perhaps once this is closed. If you feel it's urgent, though, why not nominate it yourself? On another note, I appreciate your interest in the debate, but please be careful about posting notices asking for a vote, as you did on Talk:Criticism of Islam. Going overboard on this can lead to accusations of "vote canvassing," and I'd rather avoid that. Religion's a touchy enough subject as it is. Reverted you again, by the way. Shimeru 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt see you explaining why List of Muslims is ok, but not List of converts to Islam.--Matt57 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I explain why it's okay? I explained why it doesn't fit into this AfD. That implies nothing about my feelings toward it. Shimeru 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think List of former muslims (or whatever) really has anything to do with List of Converts to Judaism / Hinduism/ Xtianity. Each converts page has a section on what religion people converted from anyways. I would have voted delete had you not been so adventurous (or crossed into the Hinduism line). Rabid deletionism is against the spirit of wiki.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel otherwise, and I will note in the deletion debate that you voted as you did simply because I included Hinduism. I do not play favorites. Shimeru 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - note the word "or". Its what motivated me the most. If List of converts to Judaism were to get deleted, would not precedent take off Hinduism, Xtianity, and vice-versa.? I've gotten into enough afd's to know how to fight people hell-bent on deleting anything with the word "Hinduism" in it (though I will admit you spread the deletionism fairly).Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at Shimeru's contributions, we can see he likes to nominate for Deletion a lot. In some cases it may be ok, but in this case, it was most definitely unwise. --Matt57 20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor. I don't mean simply on Wikipedia when I say this. As such, I am very much aware that the best way to improve something is often to cut material. I'm also aware that this strikes many people who are not editors as counterintuitive, yet it remains true nevertheless. Shimeru 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the above user said, "Rabid deletionism is against the spirit of wiki". And like I said, when you are in a hurry to get new articles deleted, you're preventing them from ever growing. You should infact be striving to protect articles in their infancy.--Matt57 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. I'm in no particular hurry, though. Shimeru 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you have changed the vote and added to it AFTER people have voted for this. This gives an inaccurate vote, you know this, right? I hope you're not doing these kinds of votes on your other bagful of deletion nominations.--Matt57 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed no votes, and I'll thank you not to claim that I have. I am adamantly opposed to such malicious vandalism. Shimeru 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<reset indent> By the way, you know that you are wrong in your core argument which says the lists are redundant, and you have not been able to defend that. In lists, we can use:

Images
Tables and other displays of information
Links to other related articles
ANY other type of information

None of that is possible in a category. And read Psychonuat's vote too where he explained that Lists and Categories have their own places. --Matt57 22:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the lists aren't redundant. Some of the defense is along the lines of "I worked on this article" or "This is my religion." I'm not disputing that work has gone into them or that people may hold their faith dear, but neither of those is a reason to retain the articles. Some of the defense can be summed up as "Good list." While I respect that opinion, I continue to disagree. I am also aware of the WP policies and guidelines governing lists and categories, but thanks. I do not see that images are important to these lists, nor do any of them use tables. They mostly link to each other or to List of people by belief. That leaves "other information," and looking at these lists, I'm not convinced that's sufficient. I am also not persuaded by your demands that other lists be deleted or your threats to bring the matter before ArbCom -- feel free to nominate and report as you feel necessary. I do agree that Psychonaut's vote is well-reasoned, as are a few others. Shimeru 01:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what one user had to say (bold mine):

Keep all and comment - Mass nominations of even remotely controversial subjects don't work out for anyone. Afd is not the place to argue the value of lists versus categories as policy and mass-nominating lists relating to all the world's major religions, to me, is dangerously close to violating WP:POINT. Furthermore, adding additional articles to the nom after other editors had voted is seriously out of order. I suggest this Afd by closed as "trainwreck -- no consensus" and mass nominations of this sort be discouraged in the future. Dina 01:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Now - you havent told me why List of Muslims doesnt qualify to be deleted. The same goes for List of Muslim entertainers. Do these lists qualify for deletion as well? Why have you not nominiated these lists? How are these lists different from List of people who left Islam? And no, all these lists are relevant to each other. If one should be deleted, so should be the others. They are basically "Lists of people" who belong to a certain religion, or who left a certain religion. If its a List about apostasy or conversion, that doesnt mean it shouldnt be taken out and the list of Religions they belong to now, is Ok - thats wrong. There's no reason - well you got my point. You made the mistake of looking at things from only your own point of view. These lists are useful and interesting to a number of people. I predict the final decision will be Keep and then people might improve the original article I started. Also, the title may be renamed to List of Former Muslims --Matt57 01:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More comments for you from people regarding your Deletion Drives

This is an abuse of the AFD procedure. Edison 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep All - I sense an abuse of the AfD procesure to push a certain POV.Hkelkar 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop abusing the AFD procedure, Shimeru. --Matt57 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do follow the discussion, you know. Nice editing on that first quote, though.

Admittedly, I seem to have erred in combining all of the nominations, rather than separating them. Odd, since the last time I was accused of WP:POINT, bad faith, and what have you, it was for listing a number of similar nominations separately, rather than together. Such is life. Shimeru 09:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well dont kill new articles in their infancy, is the point I'm trying to drive home. The user was right, you disrupted the process of WP by doing all this. All of those lists have that silly deletion notice there now. In the future I will advise, take a deep breath - put the new articles in your watchlist, see if they grow or if they can be merged anywhere and then request their deletion after judging. Some of your del requests are valid, this one was not. Can you ask some OP to get those deletion notices out now and close the debate, or we have to wait the full length of the debate I guess?

Now I hope my new article will stay there because there are others who dont want to see that page. I might work on it some.--Matt57 14:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I followed the process of Wikipedia by doing all this. At worst, I misjudged by nominating as a group rather than individually. And I have no doubt you want to see your page stay -- you've jumped on every bandwagon you could and recruited every voter you could to that effect. Be that as it may, I will not renominate any of those articles for at least a couple of months, but someone else may see fit to. Shimeru 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not possible to get just one of those lists deleted. If one goes, the others go. These are just lists of people but ofcourse they do have a purpose like many users said, research value to those interested in religion. Anyway, thats good. I knew it was impossible to get all these deleted. --Matt57 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's quite possible. Just not in this particular nomination. If the perception is that the nomination was overly broad, then this one might not even make for a useful precedent in defending future single nominations. Hard to say, really. Shimeru 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like somoene said they sensed "an abuse of the AfD procesure to push a certain POV.", maybe you have a beef with these lists, maybe because they're about religion. I didnt see you nominiate List of people with epilepsy for deletion. Remember your core argument: Unmaintainable lists of questionable encyclopedic value as lists. Would be better served as categories; fortunately, those categories already exist, making the lists redundant.

Lets suppose you were only nominating ONE of the Religion lists, not many. Now, my question is: Why not nominate the Elilepsy list too? And so many others. The problem is that you're thinking that lists are redundant in the presense of categories - this is NOT true as the user said "Do not replace lists with categories". So now again: What is your reason for not nominating the Epilepsy list? According to YOUR argument, that TOO is redundant as there is already a category. Right? See the flaws in your reasoning? There are deeper reasons for your nomination and that was your disinterest or displeasure in seeing these lists, which is why it looks like you are you trying to "push a certain POV" by only nominating these religion lists. Remember your core argument.--Matt57 16:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because that list, too, is not related directly enough to raise in the same AfD. You keep assuming that because I haven't nominated a given list yet, I support the presence of that list. That's a false assumption, and one I've corrected you on numerous times. I have no POV to push, being neither religious nor anti-religious; I simply chose to start with these particular lists because one of them caught my eye. There are a great many lists to work my way through. And many lists, incidentally, are redundant in the presence of categories. Lists get deleted all the time for similar reasons as I proposed. Shimeru 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you're talking about. At the time the list was created, it was NOT redundant, as it says in the policy page:

"(Lists) May be redundant with categories if not formatted, annotated, or equipped with invisible links (see above)"

The list was already formatted into sections when you nominated so it was NOT redundant. Now it has 2 pictures there as well. Suppose a formatted list is just about to take birth. It does so by just being a simple list. Along comes Shimeru and kills the unborn list before it even takes shape. Can you give some TIME to lists or even pages to develop before you nominate them for deletion? I think you see these new undeveloped pages and feel an urge to contribute but maybe you dont feel like contributing so you just get rid of the page so it doesnt bother your conscience when infact you should leave the page alone and let people work on them. Put the Template notice ("This page has not reached Wikipedia's standards. Please contribute to it"). THATS what you should be doing instead of nominating it for deletion. Dont you think so? Anyway more importantly, I'd like to see an example of a list which you thought was redundant and which was deleted on your recommendation. Lets see what you got deleted. I can say yes the list could be deleted if its just a simple bulleted list and looks identical to the Category page. I believe only then a list should be deleted. --Matt57 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly show you a list that's been deleted, can I? Now that we've come to the point where you're making illogical demands and bald attacks, I suspect any useful conversation is over. Good day. Shimeru 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELPRO

No worries! Non-admins can close articles that are out-and-out keeps, or fairly noncontroversial merges and redirects. Since that discussion wasn't going to go any further, it didn't seem worth it to keep it live. Now I just hope I won't get into trouble for it :) riana_dzasta 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

WikiFur article

I notice it didn't survive the second AfD, but I think it's very close to a no-consensus. If you think you can rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic style and address the verifiability concerns, I'd encourage you to do so. It was greatly improved from the first incarnation of the article, and with a rewrite, I suspect it would pass. Shimeru 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that would be the result, and was actually a little surprised at the deletion. Not too surprised, though - AfD has been going that way for a while now, and as stated in the article, it's one of the reasons WikiFur exists in the first place. As far as I can see, the problem was simply that it did not meet people's notability criteria (e.g. WP:WEB). I thought of bringing it up at deletion review, but I'm really not sure it's worth the hassle.

I do not think I can address these concerns, because there are not really any "better sources" in the sense that will be accepted. I can only provide more sources that will not be accepted. That is why the article was so short and something of a definition to start with. I could have written an expanded article that might have been more interesting (like I did for Samuel Conway), but it would have to draw on things like LiveJournal posts and articles on Crush! Yiff! Destroy!, because those are where the matters of the furry fandom are talked about. Torley of Second Life mentioned it - but to trust that as a source, you'd have to know who Torley is, and accept that he's a reliable source, which I doubt people would. And when all coverage they need to do is "it's like Wikipedia, but furry", you don't get much of a reference out of it.

I saved a copy of the article. As far as I can see, it doesn't actually have any problems with verifiability in terms of "you can verify it by going to the referenced sources and seeing that they are as indicated". Its crime is that there is only one "verifiable media source" in there, and that's only because I happened to be at Anthrocon 2006 while the con crew were looking for safe people to be interviewed by visiting reporters. The furry fandom has not tended to seek out such attention, for reasons that are obvious upon reading the parts of the furry fandom article relating to the media. When we do, they are usually looking at our fursuits, not our encyclopedias.

The irony is, I actually went the academic route of verification by writing a paper describing the creation of WikiFur and presenting it at Wikimania 2006, too. I guess they missed that session. :-) GreenReaper 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Looks like someone did so anyway. Here we go again . . . GreenReaper 05:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. I hadn't been planning to bring it up, mostly because I lack any experience with it and couldn't expand the article myself. I'd encourage you, though, to write that expanded version. And if you've written a paper about it and presented it at Wikimania... I think that's a reliable source. Wikimania is an important wiki-related conference. Shimeru 05:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miltopia

Would "something like that on Wikipedia" include boasting about "sav[ing] an article from Wikifur spam" on your talk page? [3] Seems an odd sort of comment to make, for someone who's concerned with remaining neutral and not editing according to his biases. That said, Reaper, you probably shouldn't have called it out on DRV. Taking it to him and/or an administrator in private might have been a better approach to begin with. Shimeru 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have done so. I didn't, because I was angry with him for not playing by the rules when I'd tried hard to, and because I felt his motives were not to make Wikipedia a better resource for its users, but to "stick it to the furries". His LiveJournal was where the confirmation of this was, and that is why I posted it. I had no wish to solve it quietly, because I felt that this would just encourage him to do the same thing next time, but to be more careful in hiding what he was doing. GreenReaper 21:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Tony Oliver; Jack Fletcher; Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township; Yuri Amano; Toshihiko Seki; Miki Narahashi; Jessica Boone; Sakiko Tamagawa; Bristle; Masaki Kajishima; Ai Orikasa; Idris Muhammad; Yumi Takada; Debi Derryberry; Laura Chapman; Girls Bravo; Jeffrey Lang; Caprolactam; Chisa Yokoyama

Cleanup: Dragon Half; Wauwatosa West High School; Gamča (school)
Merge: United Nations International School; The Castle of Cagliostro; Status effect
Add Sources: Suspension (school punishment); Christian Heritage School (Georgia); Veronica Taylor
Wikify: Holy Cross Convent School; James "Buster" Douglas; Zaid Shakir
Expand: Scanimate; Education in Africa; Vanessa Morley

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Implemeting a new system call feedback

Hi,

I understand that the article I posted is headed for deletion.

I would like to know the exact reason:

1. Is it not appropriate content?

2. Or, the formatting, presentation, etc. is not proper? - If this is the case then I already have the new version that satisfies the look and feel of wikipedia.

Please let me know.

-Amit

The first -- instructional articles aren't appropriate content. I'm sorry to say it, because from what I know of Linux, it seems a very well-written and clear article, but WP:What Wikipedia is not is explicit on this point. I would recommend Wikibooks or Wikihow for this type of article. Shimeru 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Puerto De La Cruz

Just noticed you blocked this user indefinitely as a "vandal sockpuppet." I don't think anyone is disputing he's a sock, but nobody has yet shown that he's an illegitimate one or has committed vandalism. I also question whether you should have blocked him, since you'd already commented on the AfDs he listed and seem to have a personal involvement in the issue -- and since it doesn't appear that you made any effort to communicate with him prior to issuing the ban. Perhaps you're privy to some information which I am not. Shimeru 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here is proof he's a vandal... he's had 1 image upload: [4] this image you will note was linked from BJAODN. From an article called House Made out of Vegetables (afd here) If your an admin you can see [5] that he was the original creator of this article. This is just one proof he's created nonsense articles. Unfortunately there is no simple way to find articles he created that were deleted already, that was the only one I've been able to find as of right now... I'm sure there are more. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A single incident two months ago does not a vandal make. I'm uncomfortable with the "there must be more" school of thought. There are former vandals who have become valuable contributors, and I've seen nothing to indicate that the recent spate of AfDs was in fact in bad faith -- some of them don't appear delete-worthy to me, but others do. If you're saying that you acted completely impartially in issuing the ban, and were not influenced by your own opinions regarding school inclusionism, then I'll accept that. I'd feel better about it if it'd been done by an uninvolved admin, though, or if there were any indication of trying to address the matter short of a ban. If a single incident is constituted as grounds for banning without warning, now, I find that rather chilling. But perhaps he was a career vandal with many deleted nonsense articles, after all. Shimeru 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Implementing a new system call feedback

But you have technical articles on wikipedia. Some of them are listed below. Please have a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_sockets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX_Threads

Good point. Those should probably be cleaned up. I'll see whether I can bring them to the attention of an editor with more practical knowledge of the field. (My own sysop days were long ago.) Shimeru 10:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsune in popular culture

Since you seem to be "in charge" of the article at the moment, I thought I'd mention that the "literature" references to Akira Kurosawa's Ran and Dreams are out of place. Both are movies. I don't know if you want to create a singleton section, but they probably shouldn't stay there. Dekimasu 07:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's really in charge of any article. You could have just moved them. You're right about the section title, though. For now, I'm changing it to "film and literature," but feel free to change it if you think a separate section would be better. Shimeru 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I should have, but I'm personally against pop culture sections and articles altogether (see Talk:Raijin, for example). If I start editing them I start removing things. Sorry to make more work for you. Dekimasu 07:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem. It wasn't much. I actually sympathize; I think there're a lot of articles with way too much trivia and pop culture attached. Problem is, just removing it doesn't help; it comes back, especially if there are references important enough to be pointed out (and I think some of these are). Splitting it to another page at least keeps it out of the way, and if some people find it useful or interesting, that's good too. I guess that puts me with Bolivian Unicyclist. It is sort of like "sweeping it under the rug," but I don't think I'd have the patience or the fortitude to continue to police it in the main article. Lesser of two evils, so to speak. Shimeru 07:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia as an emerging superpower AFD

Hello there, I nominated the above for deletion. Unfortunately I made a mistake when making my nomination. The details would probably bore you, and I'm not sure that I understand what went wrong myself, but essentially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia as an emerging superpower contains the proper deletion debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia as an emerging superpower (2nd nomination) (to which you added your comments) is a mistake. I'd move your vote across myself, but I'm not sure that this would be proper, I'll leave it up to you.

Sorry for the mix-up, Xdamr^talk 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Shimeru 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I understand your point of view, but the fact is that Russia has been discussed before on Talk:Superpower but people have failed to back it up with sources. This has led the general consensus that an article on Russia would be factually innacurate (to put it on the same standing as China and India, growing at over 7% a year each). The same has occured with Brazil, Japan and the United Kingdom which are now also deleted. I do contribute a lot to the China and India articles, but this is because there is a lot to add. I honestly don't believe Russia is an emerging superpower and that is why I am "shooting it down". Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It does seem there's consensus toward that point of view. Shimeru 05:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLS4

You've done some good work on Wikipedia, Alansohn. It's disappointing to see you resorting recently to bad-faith WP:POINTs and demagogy in opposition to policy. This does not help reach a consensus. It also doesn't help inclusionists — it just hurts your credibility. It's a controversial issue, but please try to discuss it rationally. Or if you're unwilling to help forge a compromise, at least don't hinder those who are. Shimeru 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point well take. WP:SCHOOLS4 has served its purpose and can be deleted. WP:SCHOOLS3 is a thinly veiled attempt by deletionists to disqualify 99.999% of schools from appearing on Wikipedia. While WP:SCHOOL may not have reached consensus, it was a good-faith attempt at a guideline before being derailed by deletionists. I have participated actively at WP:SCHOOLS3 and see no shift in the rigid gauntlet that is being proposed. My suggestion to put the two proposals head-to-head for consideration is an effort to encourage an effort among the deletionists to recognize that its current version is a non-starter. I agree that not all school articles are worth keeping, and I have voted to delete plenty of such articles. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to face the inertia for deletion of any article put up for AfD, and if we don't make a greater effort to achieve a consensus proposal, this will never end, taking up much time to deal with on a constant basis. Alansohn 21:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's an attempt to construct a set of guidelines to use in determining whether or not a school rates an individual article. Most schools, like most businesses and most people, do not. WP:SCHOOLS is flawed because it's too inclusionist in nature (see the "50 years old" criterion, for one example), and therefore has not achieved consensus. It will not achieve consensus unless these matters are addressed, yet there is a clique of extreme inclusionists who evidently will not allow for compromise. This makes it, in your words, a rigid gauntlet. That's exactly why it's failed. A guideline cannot be written exclusively by inclusionists.

A guideline also cannot be written exclusively by deletionists, which is why comment on WP:SCHOOLS3 was invited at WP:SCHOOLS. The final guideline we arrive at must lie somewhere between the SCHOOLS and SCHOOLS3 proposals. I think SCHOOLS3 is closer at the moment, though its first criterion does need further definition, and its other criteria warrant cleanup. Shimeru 23:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with what Shimeru said above and an additional point. Alan, the first thing you did on the talk page for WP:SCHOOLS3 was make your suggestion for a "rumble" and haven't gone much beyond that aside from continuing to edit that section (a total of 4 comments in that section two related to your rumble suggestion). Instead of engaging in WP:POINTS like demaning face-offs and making WP:SCHOOLS4 it might help if you would actually discuss the issues. JoshuaZ 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with Gladys and for the welcome

I'm still struggling with formatting, but will be addint a ton more images and text--James.lebinski 15:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I'm glad to see it was kept. I hope you didn't take the nomination too hard -- I'm sure it wasn't personal. You've done a lot of work on the article in a couple of days, and that's impressive. Hope to see more from you in the future. Shimeru 20:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing

[6] I like the motto. JoshuaZ 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I couldn't resist. Shimeru 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Imlementing system call

Hi,

Was there any resolution as to whether these articles will be deleted or kept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_sockets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX_Threads

Also, I read the pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#What_your_user_page_is_not and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. I did not see anything that would cause my page to be deleted.

Can you please give me the exact reason as to why you decided to delete my page.

-Amit

Because I felt your page was a set of instructions regarding how to set up a system call, with no "encyclopedia article" content to it. If you feel I made a mistake in this determination, then feel free to recreate it. If you do, you might want to preemptively list it at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion -- this will prevent it from being deleted quickly as a recreation with substantially identical content, and will allow 5 days for the community to generate a consensus on whether or not it's appropriate to keep it. (If you're not familiar with the process, I'll be happy to list it for you.) This will also give you a wider forum in which to point out how the article does meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Shimeru 21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your advice on how to handle things

Hiya, I have lately spotted a fair amount of information being added to Utopia Temple that I feel is faulty in several ways. Some things are purely based on (wrong) assumptions, other things are written just to sound "good" or "funny" but has little to do with what really happened, and I fear that a lot of the edits are just made to gain popularity amongst a small clique in the Utopia Temple community. And some things are just plain irrelevant.

I feel that if I keep correctiong/changing things over and over it'll just escalate into an edit war of some sort, and if I don't correct things the article will contain a great dose of faulty (what I see as) BS. How does one handle situations like this in an open system such as Wikipedia? Do you have any advice, or can you point me in the right direction for what to do? - Starfriend 12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first step is to discuss the matter with other editors, either on their user talk page or the article talk page -- or both. I see you've made a start to that already.

If that doesn't work, then you may need to move on to dispute resolution. You could try asking a neutral editor for assistance, or go to requests for comment to open a case on the article. If it's a specific editor or two who's making the changes, you could also try requests for mediation. If you need help with the process after you've opened the dispute resolution case, you can request an advocate, though this takes a few days.

I might suggest just removing the list of moderators entirely. I'm not certain it's relevant to the forums' purpose. If it is, you might try removing that last box in the table -- commentary such as "He is at lost because Kansas never wins any basketball championships" isn't very encyclopedic. Shimeru 20:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also am not really sure what purpose or relevancy the moderator table has, it's one of the things I was talking about in my initial comment to you here. I am currently re-making the table, removing the nonsense comments and adding (to the best of my ability) some neutral and objective comments on why some of the moderators resigned.

Thank you for your quick reply and your input. :) - Starfriend 20:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The only advice I'd have for you is to be careful to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, since you're writing about something you're deeply involved with. I'm pretty sure you're already aware, but it can be difficult to take a step back and approach the subject objectively, when that's the case. Good luck with the rewrite. Shimeru 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On November 20, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wyoming Seminary, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I'd like to send you an email but your email isn't activated. JoshuaZ 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've enabled email. It goes to a throwaway account I don't check all that often, but I'll watch it the next day or so for your message. Shimeru 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. JoshuaZ 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgefield Park High School

You have tagged Ridgefield Park High School as failing a notability standard, but did not specify by which Wikipedia standard the article did not meet the requisite criteria. While additional material has been added, it may not be possible to be certain that the notability criteria have been met without the relevant notability criteria being specified. Alansohn 13:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're well aware of my preference in this regard by now, but I'll also settle for yours for the time being, until a compromise is more closely approached. Article duly untagged. Shimeru 18:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fur Affinity

An article about an art site called Fur Affinity is currently up for deletion. My instinct is that it might be noteworthy, but I lack sufficient experience to say definitively. You seem to know a bit about the subculture, so I thought you might like to offer an opinion. Shimeru 07:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have commented on the deletion. GreenReaper 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kell High School

I go top kell and so i would know who is who —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachenglish (talk • contribs)

Irrelevant. We need reliable sources for including information, and the information needs to be noteworthy and verifiable. I'm guessing it could be verified through school publications, at least -- but that doesn't address the issue of whether the information is important to the article or not. Let me put it this way: Why are the coaches important? Are there any sources, like newspaper articles, saying so? (These sources would need to be independent of the school -- a student handbook or school paper doesn't work for this purpose.) I don't feel the inclusion of this information adds anything to the article. Can you show that it's relevant? Have all of these coaches and minor administrators, for instance, received some sort of notable award or commendation? Also, on a side note, you should beware of potential conflicts of interest, since you attend the school. Shimeru 01:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo -- failed Good Article candidate

Hi Shimeru,

Can you tell me where to look for the discussion on whether Tokyo should be a Good Article?

Thanks

Fg2 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article candidates are reviewed by individual editors, so there isn't a discussion per se. You can find the process at Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates, and the criteria used for evaluation at Wikipedia:What is a good article?. If you feel that an evaluation was in error or came to the wrong conclusion, you can ask for a Wikipedia:Good articles/Review of the evaluation. I hope this answers your question; if not, I'll be glad to elaborate further if I can. Shimeru 07:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (and thanks for the message on my Talk page). That makes it clear. Fg2 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. If it helps, I think the only major issue is references and citations; normally, I'd put a page like that on hold, but I saw the comment of about two weeks ago making the same request, so I decided to remove it from the queue. Shimeru 07:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krusty Gets Busted

1) Are you certain that the image, tagged as promotional, is in fact a promotional image from a press kit?

Yes, I am sure. You can tell by the "Matt Greoning" signature on Bart's shirt, which is placed on all promotional artwork for the Simpsons. And no, it is not a screenshot. I do not know where it came from as I did not upload it.

2) There's a lot of plot summary and trivia here, and not all that much information about the real-world impact. Please review the guidelines for writing about fiction and consider whether more "out-of-universe" information might be added.

I'm actually not entirely sure what you mean by this. Since it was an episode of a TV show (no matter how popular) no episode itself could have had any major impact (unless it was something like the Super Bowl incident or another controversey thing, but all of those happen on non-animated TV). My question is what do you mean by more "out-of-universe" info? Trosk 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I look at it again, don't all of the Cultural References qualify as that? (I'm pretty sick, so I'm not thinking as clearly as I usually do.) Trosk 16:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Good to hear about the image.

As for "out-of-universe perspective," it's a point of Wikipedia style. It refers to examining a work of fiction from the perspective of the real world, rather than the perspective of that work of fiction. A plot synopsis will of course be "in-universe," but an article about fiction should contain some "out-of-universe" information as well, if at all possible. To be honest, I'm not certain that will work with an article about a single episode of a series as long-running as The Simpsons, but some things that might be considered: Is there anything that can be said about the writers or the development process? What were the ratings for the original run of the episode? Is it widely popular among the fan base? Did any television critics have anything to say about it? Did it have any influence on later episodes? Finding a reliable source for this information might be difficult, but it would improve the breadth of the article to encompass more than just a synopsis.

On the subject of the cultural references, are there citations for any of those? Some of them are fairly obvious, such as the Hamlet reference, but others are not. What source do we have for the Beatles reference, for instance? And how are we sure that Lisa's crack about cartoons in prime time is a reference to The Flintstones and not to The Simpsons? Shimeru 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that not much has been done with this article since you put it on hold. I didn't want to take any action without consulting you, but I would think it should fail. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I agree. It's been a week, so I've failed it. Shimeru 08:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid Dreaming GA Status

FYI, I fixed the citation tags as you requested. on the Lucid Dreaming article. Thanks! LilDice 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Congratulations to you and the other editors. Shimeru 08:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On hold status of Pauline Kael

Your on hold placement for Pauline Kael has expired. It has been over 7 days since you put this article on hold. We, as in the WP:GAC review team, request that you review this article and either pass or fail it. Diez2 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Kitsune

Hey, Shimeru. I've gotten about a third of the way through my text copy of kitsune making the copy edits I mentioned. I just wanted to drop you a line since I said I'd have the copy edit done this evening. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, but tomorrow is probably a safe bet. Sorry! —-BrianSmithson 13:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Thanks for letting me know. --Shimeru 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Feels nice to have a featured article under your belt, doesn't it? :) I hope you decide to work on more Japanese folklore articles. — BrianSmithson 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It certainly does, but I think you ended up doing a good part of the work yourself. Anyway, I do plan to move on to other articles, since I now have a couple of good sources to hand. I'll probably do something about Inari (mythology) next. Shimeru 05:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshige print

Thanks for uploading that Hiroshige print. Like all his other work, it's Free, so I've taken the liberty of copying it over to Commons under the same name and asking for the en.wikipedia copy to be deleted. (It's not very high resolution, so I'm still going to one day get around to scanning a better copy, but this is a lot better than nothing!) --Gwern (contribs) 16:23 14 December 2006 (GMT)

My pleasure. Looking through woodblock prints isn't exactly a chore, though I'm not as well-versed in them in general as I'd like to be. A higher-resolution copy would be wonderful. Thanks for making the move; I hope it'll be useful. Never hurts to have more free art on hand, though. Shimeru 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo!

You see, it was all worthwhile. Well-done for Kitsune. If you feel something itching in the back of your trousers, maybe it's that second tail! --qp10qp 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. It's nice to have it done, that's for sure. I owe Brian, too. And I think I might wait a couple of months before I try that with another article. ^_- Shimeru 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me too! I hope it was clear that I did not object; in fact, as I wrote, the only comment I made was about the title, not the contents of the article -- great work! Fg2 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and don't worry -- I gathered as much. And I do see the argument regarding the title -- I'm just convinced that the native term is the better one. I've been toying with the idea of opening a discussion at Naming Conventions for names of creatures of folklore; most of them seem to use the native term, but not all of them. Shimeru 07:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]