User talk:Shirik/Archives/2010/January

Studio 54 Clubhouse on when those shows started since

Shirik I want to know when the Studio 54 Clubhouse show started since on 103.5 KTU and I want to know exact date premiere and it's hard and I want to create a new website like http://www.yes.com called http://www.classicyes.com by going back several years from the decade that it was played on the radio music old playlist and that's what I wanted for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.39.176 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I assume you're referring to the content posted on Studio 54 Clubhouse. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with this content. I was only performing maintenance tasks on the article. You may wish to contact AlvaJr, whom created the article. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

What? You don't have one of these yet? This is long overdue.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		In recognition of your tireless effort and dedication patrolling recent changes and cleaning out the muck, I hereby award you this barnstar. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks a lot! I don't go out looking for praise, but it's nice every once in a while. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Learn To Be Foundation

I'm confused as to why Learn To Be Foundation was deleted. I was working on it, I did read the notability guidelines and I believe it qualifies.

 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

this is the case

 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, 
    independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion 
    for all organizations as described above.)

I attempted to explain it's notability on the talk page and received no response, forgive me I'm new at this but notability is established by recognition by other sources besides the organization itself correct? Hulu has done this, the video is available in the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescententhusiasm (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately I am not the person that ended up making the deletion decision, I only proposed the deletion under the criteria WP:CSD#A7. The article has been deleted (several times) because the article makes no claim of notability. I am glad that you have found the notability guidelines at WP:ORG -- if you believe the organization does satisfy those criteria, then please try to incorporate that information into the article. Unfortunately, I did not see your comments on the talk page before the page was deleted, though the admin should have seen it and may have determined that it was not an acceptable justification. Please try to meet those notability guidelines by incorporating assertions of notability into the article which are verified by reliable sources. Thanks for your work! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "cheatin on me"

Thats fine, I'll leave it. Just redirect the article. -Regancy42 (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

tech help

So nice of you to offer help. I must admit I'm a bit tech inept. It's because I don't pay enough attention. This is the first time I've used the help template, which impresses me that it exists. And as far as the response time, I worried that I had not posted the template correctly. I've done things like that, XD. I will come to you with my future tech questions. I appreciate that offer. Thanks again.Malke2010 19:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you placed it right, so you did fine! Anyway, your best bet is usually the {{helpme}} template as you used; the bot just got fixed so using that template will help you get things taken care of more quickly because it will attract everyone's attention. Good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Here ya go: [1]. :D Malke2010 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Congress

Actually your confusion was quite understandable and a perfect illustration of why we need to assume good faith!
FYI, the "congress" of India is called the Parliament of India, and has two houses: the upper Rajya Sabha and the lower Lok Sabha. The system is comparable to the British parliamentary system, except that the members of the upper house ,and the head of state (President of India) are elected (indirectly), instead of inheriting the position. Government of India has some information, although its not as comprehensive or well-balanced as it should be. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks, it makes a lot more sense now! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the help. JackSlice (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem! Good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia misuse by a real‐life associate

Thank you for your support with this situation. One of the references my friend links to in the biography in question is our work website. It shows that my friend's name is the same as the user who created the article. I will use my main account (xe doesn't know my username) to point this out on the conflicts of interest noticeboard. Hopefully that will spur some uninvolved third parties to review the situation without my friend feeling personally attacked by me. Du wutz rite (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking such care with the issue. These types of things can be very tricky, and you were wise to ask for assistance. Good luck getting the situation resolved. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I missed your box about replying on my talk page. Infoporfin (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ok, I don't really mind that much, I just try to keep conversations in one place to help them make more sense. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bumblebees

I still insist that bumblebees have stingers. =D Netalarmhappy holidays! 07:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but we cannot accept original research on my userpage. Furthermore, I hereby spam you with links to commons! [2] [3] [4] [5]. Furthermore, rawr. And since rawr > meow, I win. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One of your recent edits has introduced confusing information into Netalarm's brain;therefore, Netalarm will pet you. [6] thing claims that bumblebee's do sting! But your closeup investigations of a bumblebee's butt have suggested otherwise. Netalarm waddles back to chat Netalarmhappy holidays! 07:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Deal with the Devil

hello i am unsure as to why that is unconstructive to have a different perspective that you have evidence to thy has not to do with these claimed affiliations maybe you should do more resurch before claiming such deformed acts about the devilhaving to do with murdering of children, incase you arent informedf they are people of wicca religion that are on the left hand path they view thy as a diety that ,most deffinately has not to do with the ending of childrens lifes i have beautiful coisens and would not be opposed to having them in the life of someone on that path, do you know first hand that thy is a fiend do you even know the definition of a feind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.205.180 (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I assume you are referring to this edit which I reverted. You are certainly welcome to make changes, however the manner in which you did it was not encyclopedic material, which Wikipedia contains. Check out the guidelines WP:NOTFORUM. Instead of discussing the content in the article, instead try improving the article by changing what you think is wrong along with a reliable source. Happy editing! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for help with copy edit

I have been working on School for Creative and Performing Arts for some time and am preparing to nominate it as a Good Article. As someone experienced with Wikipedia and editing articles here, I would appreciate your help copy editing the text if you have time to do it. I've done my best, but I am no expert at it. I am sure it would benefit from your efforts. Many thanks! Vaughanchris (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. Let me get some lunch and then I'll take a look at it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I spent a little over 2 hours touching up the article. It is pretty good. The only consistent problem was that of logical quotation, which is the preferred style on Wikipedia. I corrected all incorrect punctuation that I found. Beyond that, I'm a little worried about the section on extracurricular activities. The section reads like a list without any real prose content; you may wish to expand this section. But aside from that, the article is well done. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I want to award you this barnstar for your speedy, careful, and excellent copyediting of School for Creative and Performing Arts. Thank you for your help and great work!Vaughanchris (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks :) Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked vandal

Thank you for your attention to my issue about the legal threats of AvengerX. So, he still continues vandalizing his talk page with other offencese and adding absolute false accuses of racial prejudice. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately, I'm not an administrator and, as such, I can't do much beyond what I had already done (which was an attempt to promote resolution of the problem, which I could not do personally). You may wish to post this development on WP:ANI for further attention. Good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks

I had no idea that any talk pages were posted. Thanks for telling me - I thought it was like email...I changed my password so thanks. Colleen Colleenszot (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for changing your password. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Citation

Shirik, quick work on my larval Zohn Ahl; you're on the ball. Looks like you also need to get to bed earlier, young man! I tend to work incrementally, so be assured that within a week or two, the article will be much better. (I referred to its shape in another article, so I thought it was wise to slap a picture up as quickly as possible.) I'd like a little advice: technically, there IS a reference in the article, but it's rather hidden, and I'd like to know if there's a better way to manage it. The image was created by me, based on an illustration in a PD book (so no rights issues). In the Image Description, I referenced the book ("After Culin: Chess and Playing Cards"). This is not a very full description, but enought to find it; I felt because of its "hidden nature" it was not worth expanding. But of course, no one merely reading the article would ever see this. So how does one best cite an image like this? Should the full citation go in the Image Description? Is there a way to cite images within the article itself? Since Chess and Playing Cards is just the model and not the literal source, is there special language I'm supposed to use to indicate this? Also, it is not a 1:1 copy of Culin's illustration; I've modified it based on additional information in the book. I don't want to go overboard here, but I do want to provide whatever level is considered full and useful. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phil. Not a problem; I didn't tag it with those maintenance templates because I felt it was a poor article, it's just standard to mark them so people know where they can help out. It's nothing against you. Additionally, I totally agree the article is fit for inclusion (I did some research before tagging it with those templates, and would have otherwise tagged it for deletion). It's actually an interesting topic. Anyway, the comment about references and sources is not really for the image. The main reason for my posting it there is because reliable sources help to establish notability. However, be careful with statements like "It is often cited as a typical representative of many similar Native American games." Those are known as weasel statements. Those are the types of things you should try to cite. Happy editing! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Home noreaster 2009.jpg

Thank you for your answer and helpfulness:) I know it now. You persumed it well, I really do speak English, I've just gotten the results of my exam, I've passed:) (Sorry for telling it, you asked, I had to tell it now:) No problem for not answering me earlier, I didn't realize your comment either. At the moment I don't have any questions, but I will live with your offer later if you don't mind. Thanks again :) Ferike333 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, and congratulations on your test results! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fluther

Thanks for your comments on the Fluther delete page. I was starting to get really frustrated with the process, but I think your suggestions might be just what we need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.5.41 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I recognize that these types of things can be both confusing and frustrating, and I am totally willing to guide you in the right direction to get things in order. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for restoring my talk page. Forgive my laziness in not getting here sooner with my gratitude. See ya 'round Tiderolls 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to thank; all in a day's work. You do enough around here without taking care of your own pages. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Checkmarx deletion

Hi,

I'm posting the following request to all people participating in Checkmarx speedy deletion, hoping for a reconsideration.

A couple of weeks ago, Checkmarx was deleted from Wikipedia. It was a speedy deletion, and I didn't even have an opportunity to be there to defend myself, and this value in Wikipedia. I'm including "myself" here, because there was a personal attack on me as a user, and I don't think it was naive.

Just a reminder - a month ago, a user named Xodlop requested a Speedy-Deletion of the article named "Checkmarx". The reasons were, among others: notability, the author works for the company, many references are pointed to the company web site and after all - "it's an advertisement for non notable company".

Yes, I work for Checkmarx, and I think it is only natural that a worker of a company (just like a student of a well-known philosopher for example) would write about his company. I never tried to hide this relation; actually when I tried to put some personal info in my page, so people can contact me, if needed, I was suggested by an administrator not to do so. But I am using my name and affiliation proudly, not hiding.
I did my best to make a non-promotional article. Actually I copied the article of another company (Fortify Software, which is the leading company in the area of source code analysis today), and just "translated" it for Checkmarx. I got many requests for changes, from various administrators (and a lot of help, some of which you might find in my talk page or the Checkmarx talk page), changed according to all requests, and from a certain point I got no more about the article. And it's there for a couple of months already.

Yes, some references are from the company's website (as all articles contain) or companies related to it. Some are not (OWASP, CWE and alike).
Yes, Checkmarx is an average software company, but I completely disagree it is non-notable in the area of Source Code Analysis. The company is certainly a notable company in this field (which might be non-notable as a field, but I don't think it is), and known as one for every person dealing in this area. If Checkmarx is non-notable, I guess all (most?) other companies listed in the list of tools for Source Code Analysis (in Wikipedia) should be non-notable as well.

Still, they are not, for some reason.

I wanted to ask the user Xodlop why he/she asked for deletion of this company of all Source code Analysis companies, but the user does not exist anymore, for some reason (actually there's only a "welcome" message in his/her talk page dating 2 days AFTER the deletion request. Strange. I cannot "fight" ghosts.

So what do we have here?
A non-existent user asks for fast-deletion.
The company's article was no different than others, and (like others) was more than once cleaned from what looked like advertisements.
The article was there for a long time, and approved by more than one administrator. Where were you when I got all the comments on the article, and fixed them one by one? It was a lot of work, and I got good responses.
(correct me if I'm wrong here) All the participants were not experts on the field of Source Code Analysis, so notability in this area couldn't really be decided. It is very easy (and unfair, I think) to convince people about notability in an area they do not master. I'm sure my mother will be convinced that even Oracle (for example) is not-notable if I try to convince her. I can tell her it's a small non-notable competitor of Microsoft's minor product (SQL-Server), and show her there is no coverage of it in any book she reads.
There is coverage of the company - not very large, but it appears in relevant places (Application Security sources).

I'm sorry I wasn't around for a while to "defend myself" and the article. It was very quick, you know. As Xodlop him/herself mentioned - I was easy to access.

Thanks for reading to this point. I appreciate it.

I truly hope you reconsider.

Adarw (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Most deletion debates are open for 7 days. In this case, the deletion debate was open for 14 days. If you had an issue with the way the debate was being handled, you should have left a comment in the debate itself. That being said, I think you do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. It is not as subjective as you make it seem to be; primarily, the concern was that the company in question did not meet the guidelines identified at WP:CORP, and this guideline is entirely independent upon what the company does. Additionally, the general notability guideline is entirely independent from the subject. Yes, it's possible that these types of companies will only be mentioned in certain, niche sources, but it is still possible, and required, for them to meet the aforementioned guidelines.

That being said, I find it mildly offensive that you consider that "all of the participants were not experts on the field of source code analysis" considering I am a software engineer and know exactly what you're talking about. However, this is irrelevant, as the above comments show why someone who has no knowledge of the topic would be able to maintain a delete position on the article. However, I strongly advise that, in the future, you do not try to determine who knows what, and simply stay to the facts of the deletion argument itself, which remain unchanged regardless of what those involved in the discussion know about the subject.

Finally, if you have a problem with the way the discussion went, and if you think it was out-of-process, then I suggest you go to deletion review and discuss the problem there, however I should point out that I do endorse this deletion. Regards. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded offensive. I never meant to be (I was frustrated, I worked hard to write and correct the article in the first place). I thought I removed the word "speedy" (it was not a speedy deletion), I didn't. I was just out of town for a few weeks, and then saw it disappear. I guess for some people 7 (or 14 days) is too short, but that's MY problem. It was a surprise to me, because the article was checked more than once. Concerning the "experts in the area", I definitely asked to be corrected if I was wrong. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. That concludes my apologies.

That being said, and after reading your (and other's) replies [Thanks for the honest reply! It was very important to me to understand what happened and why], I will try to understand better the problems (especially notability) and see if I can fix them and try to get the article back. I hope to succeed. -Adarw (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with your adjustments to the article. If you need an independent review of the article to see if there are any concerns, don't hesitate to ask. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for that help. I wasn't sure how to go about it; I "inform an involved editor in the thread"? I'm a bit confused... an editor from the same article? Sorry for the inconvenience. Also, how will we know that they will stop and not just use more IPs or usernames? C.Kent87 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Basically, if you use a name on WP:ANI, you should also let those names know that they've been commented on. The easiest way to do this is by substituting the template {{ani-notice}} on their talk page. As far as more IPs, I wouldn't try to think about that right now. Let's just see how it plays out. Hope that helps! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks so much for the help. I will try to go on as usual, but may need to do some cleaning up on certain articles... Again, thanks! C.Kent87 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Sorry about the recent vandalism to your user page. It's a shame someone would do that. With all the vandal-fighting you do, I would suggest requesting semi-protection for your user page. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention to semi-protect my user page; there's never any real damage, and as stupid as this sounds, it actually makes me feel good because not only does it prove I am having an impact, but it also takes them away from vandalizing articles (where it has the potential to go unnoticed). Besides, protecting my page would be somewhat of an admission of defeat, and I refuse to give them that. But thanks for your concern, and thanks for taking care of it. Regards. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that completely. Have a nice day/night - I.M.S. (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You too! And thanks again. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

JamshidAwal

Hi there Shirik, So sorry to bother you. Since I was physically and psychologically exhausted with what now seem the worst idea ever that I had to creat this article (Ali Mirzad) I had decided to delete my own article. I thought I have the right to delete my own article. It is sad and unfirtunate ..but I felt helpless and tired. You'll understand by reviewing my talk page.. all the editors are fighting amongst themselves and are becoming more and more violently anal. In a world full of violence the last thing I ever want is to be the reason between on more conflict.

Unless you can help to setelle their dispute I respectfully urge you to allow me deleting my own article.

kind regards,

P.S. I should add that I found the incessant comments about my capability of the english language quite hurtful. as I am an masters student and am studying english literatur. I don't believe that someone's ability should be judged by a few typos.. :-(

--JamshidAwal (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi JamshidAwal, and I'm sorry things have been going so poorly on that article. I understand your desire to delete it, but unfortunately because so many other authors have contributed to the article, no one person can decide to delete it on their own anymore. Instead, the article must go through one of the standard deletion processes, either Proposed Deletion (PROD) or Articles for Deletion (AFD) in this case. However, I should note that the article has already been proposed for deletion through the AFD system. There, editors are discussing the article about whether or not it should be deleted. You may wish to offer your own opinion; this insight would be useful since you were the original creator of the article. You can comment on this discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Mirzad.

That being said, please don't take any edits on your article personally. Part of the power of Wikipedia is consistent efforts for compromise and improvement. This collaborative effort is what helps Wikipedia be the most up-to-date and useful encyclopedia to-date. These edits are only an effort to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Shirik, thanks for tips. I did what you suggested and made a post on the deletion discussion page of my article. Please have a look at it and let me know if it's done right. thanks so much

--JamshidAwal (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I know this is a bit contrary to what you've learned from articles, but you should continue the discussion on that page's main page, not the talk/discussion page. Place your comments there so that everyone can see it (this page shows up in several places). You can place your comments in a similar fashion to everyone else (who prefix with one bold word like delete or keep or comment, though this is not required) on a new line on that page. If you need more help, check out Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD which goes over this in detail. Hope that helps. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hi Shirik. The article Pichilemu needs a urgent copyedit, because it's currently a GA nominee and I want that it could pass it. Thanks in advance. --MW talk contribs 16:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aspect weaver

On January 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aspect weaver, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 12:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi Shirik. I was pointed to Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers#General copyediting and wanted to see if you had the time to go over Qwest Field? The article received positive feedback and support at FAC but the writing simply wasn't good enough. I see that you are picky about commas (my mortal enemy for whatever season) so thought you might be able to help before I resubmit it for FA. Let me know if you get the chance. Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, sure I can take care of that for you. Unfortunately, I'm about to eat dinner, but if it can wait an hour or so, I can certainly get to it tonight. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the quick response and take your time. Suggestions on general sentence structure, voice, and such clean up are my highest concern. Anything else is of course appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to see if you would have the time for this still. Thanks for considering it.Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I totally forgot! I will try to get to this today. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks again.Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoo Hoo! I grabbed the couple of things you mentioned. Feel free to adjust anything if it just looks terrible to you. I'll swap it back if the tinkering upsets the accuracy. Feel free to make a long list if it is easier. Whatever makes it read better is OK with me. Thanks again for the assist. I know it is not a short article so it is really appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Classes are more important! Good luck. Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

re

Thank you for pointing that out, I wasn't sure myself if G4 is the right tag. Will keep that in mind. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter update

This is not about Wallflowers98 but about another vandal we are dealing with, he is known as the LeeD vandal and particularly goes after a certain user. I replied to an ANI thread about it here and gave that there is a filter for him. It will probably need updating to reflect his recent edits. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've adapted filter 273 per the discussion on WP:ANI and replied there. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthday

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Shirik, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

South Bay (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Shirik, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

-- Lady Rose (talk • contrib) 21:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Shirik's Day!

User:Shirik has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Shirik's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Shirik! Peace, Rlevse 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! That was a bit unexpected. A nice birthday present too! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 11:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Many happy returns, Shirik! AGK 12:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Amanchu!

I do not agree, Amanchu!, the article should be deleted! But "TheFarix" "die die" confirm want to "Nominated" this article for "deletion". Like what you state in your attention.. Since that article fail to follow Wikipedia's Guidelines.. Then just delete it now..

If that will make "TheFarix" happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OchaHK (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Unfortunately, neither you nor I can make the final decision on whether the article should or should not be deleted. The Wikipedia community operates on a basis of consensus and thus the deletion discussion has been opened. To delete the article, there must be consensus agreed upon at the discussion page, as I linked on your talk page. Please post any feelings you may have with regards to whether the article should be kept or deleted there. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

consensus? check this out! --> Arrow's impossibility theorem

I have enough of this user - "TheFarix"!

From first day I create Amanchu! article..

Instead of assisting, he has been keep nominating article for "deletion".

Enough.

I'm not going to create/edit any articles in wikipedia anymore..

Do whatever you want to Amanchu! article, I will not touch it again.

What an bad experience in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OchaHK (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, however I've shown you the appropriate discussion venue for the topic. If you feel you have an issue with this user, I encourage you to report it at WP:WQA or WP:ANI, but I strongly advise that you try to talk over the issue with TheFarix first. I hope you reconsider and wish you luck in your future endeavors. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lyndley Craven

Hello! I have been doing some work on the article, and it's a bit better now. Would you mind taking a look at it? Thanks. Cheers! —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 00:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks a little better now. Thanks for the edits! As some advice, I think it would be a good idea to condense that list in the middle of the article a bit to help out with the readability. Good work. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Is what I have done with splitting it off acceptable? Thanks. Cheers! —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 01:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that looks great. Nice work. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Con Artists aka The Love Child

You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Con Artist.. An initial problem affecting a search for sourcing was that the current name The Con Artist is less than a month old. Under its original working title of The Love Child, there is plenty available that speaks toward production, cast, filming, and completion of the film. I have since expanded and sourced the article per soureces. I hope you find I have met your concerns. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Schmidt, the changes you made are excellent. I think the reason I was having trouble finding sources (which prompted the deletion) was because of the name change of the film. I agree the article is fit for inclusion, but I think it's appropriate to make a move to the new name at the conclusion of the discussion. I have no objections to leaving the original name in with a redirect. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was a bit confused. If The Con Artists is the new name, then that's the name it should be at. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. But yes... Con Artists is the newer name and less than a month old. That's why searches for it were darn near impossible, as all production so far was under its working title. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the work on the article. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lawton AfD Page

I wanted to thank you for helping me with the AfD process and let you know that I put up the reasoning on the page. I don't know if this is usual, but it seems to me that the only people posting on the page are people with some sort of connection to the article author and subject. If you know how I could get some unbiased editors to take a look at the page before it get closed, I would appreciate it. 67.193.129.239 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I marked the AFD with {{notavote}} and marked off one of the !votes as being from a single-purpose account. I also replied to one of the comments asking for clarification. However, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to get much more involved in the discussion as I'm not really a neutral party. I created the discussion only procedurally. However you are doing a good job of maintaining the discussion and encourage you to challenge the responses given for more policy-based decisions. If the closer feels that it hasn't had enough policy-based discussion, it may be relisted, so that may encourage further discussion, but I strongly advise you do not go out looking for editors on your own, as that may violate WP:CANVASS. Regards --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: SPB Software

Hello Shirik. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of SPB Software, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: That one of their pieces of software won an award is sufficient notability for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  11:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see the mention of the award. I need to pay closer attention. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 11:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoping I can get your help again

Hi Shirik. I am working on another schools article that is getting ready for GA. You did such an awesome job on School for Creative and Performing Arts, I could really use your help on The Avery Coonley School. Aside from a good review, there are some nuances I am not sure how to handle with capitalization and punctuation that I am sure you would know. If you have time to do it, I would really appreciate your help. Thanks!Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty Housecat. I have a little backlog right now due to the fact that I've been a little busy for the past week, but I can probably find some time for this if you still need it. It may take a few days, though. If that's ok, I'll gladly take care of it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Finetooth did a pretty good copyedit and proof as part of their peer review, which was very nice of them. So I think (hope?) there is not much left to do. If you are busy, please feel free to work on other things. Thanks for the offer. I have nominated the article (and the School for Creative and Performing Arts article) for GA now. What I am really hoping for is a GA reviewer to come along. I noticed you've done GA reviews. If you were inspired to review one of mine, that would be really great.Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly do the GA review on The Avery Coonley School; I will try to address that when I get home tonight. As far as School for Creative and Performing Arts, unfortunately I think I have a conflict of interest there now since I copyedited it, so I'm afraid I can't review that one. Sorry I wasn't able to do the copyedit for you. Regards. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry in Motion

Please revisit your posting of the Inquiry in Motion page as being an advertisement. The original posting was in a crude form that has been revisited. I does not seem to be an advertisement in its current form. It provides multiple sources to support claims and is written from a neutral point of view.

Marsha9 (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm still not really satisfied with the article. I left some comments on the article's talk page that should help this be addressed. However, I'd like to stress that if you feel that the issue has been addressed, you can remove it at any time. {{advert}} is just a maintenance template. If it no longer requires maintenance, you can remove it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowstorm

Crazy. So there's a road under there, completely buried to the point where it looks like an open nature scene? I'd have never known. Was it like that everywhere? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this happened to be a minor road so it wasn't really taken care of until much later. It was pretty bad except for the major roads. It was just falling too fast to be handled. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Japan copyedit

Pretty please :) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So I'm finally catching up... Did you still need this copyedit or did someone else take care of it? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Another set of copyediting eyes would not hurt. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Musaazi

Hi, Thank you for your kind response. If my item on Musaazi is "live" why does it not show up when I search Google? Also how do I get it reviewed for possible improvements and quality assurance?

Many thanks,

Patrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Kabangla McKerrow (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, Google takes some time to index the page. Usually this happens quickly, but sometimes it can take hours or even days; it all depends on the current load of Google. Rest assured that soon enough it will be handled. As for improvements, there are generally two ways: because of those maintenance templates at the top, volunteers may randomly find your page and start trying to resolve the issues. Alternatively, you can ask for a peer review, but preferably first you should check against the featured article criteria for ideas (peer reviews are generally used for articles that are pretty high quality already but need a second opinion). Good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To add to Shirik's comment above: I think that the place to ask for feedback on your article is Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. Best, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Talk page stalker! Anyway, yes, that's a good place to go as well; completely slipped my mind I don't know why. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Musaazi

Many thanks re the above. I misspelt Kabangala in my user name, is there a way of correcting this?

Patrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Kabangla McKerrow (talk • contribs) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. You can file a request for a name change at WP:CHU. Good luck. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

help thanks

Thanks so much for the help on my talk page. Appreciate it.Malke2010 06:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

<math> vandalism

Please see [7] and [8] which I reverted a few minutes ago. I wonder if a filter is the best soulotion. Sole Soul (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from a programming perspective, I'm finding very little similar between the two diffs you presented. Is this really a significant enough problem that it warrants detection? If so, I would need quite a few more examples. Unfortunately, these two don't really provide me enough to work with. (That's not your fault; I don't expect you to know that, it's just how it is for a filter of this nature.) Thanks for the heads up though. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I now realize that such edit will appear in the category that tracks ref errors, so no need for a filter. What is similar between the two edits is adding <math> without closing it with </math> which prevents the wikitext format and produce an ugly red text in all the text that follows. If you scroll down in the diffs I gave you above you will see how appealing the result looks to vandals. I have to admit, quite scary :) Sole Soul (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the GA review of The Avery Coonley School. Your comments helped make the article better. I appreciate it. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Nice work! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello Shirik!

I was wondering if you could take a look at the peer review for Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire). I don't need a full copyedit of the article, but I would truly appreciate any comments you have on it. Many thanks for your time, - I.M.S. (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look at it, but it won't be able to be until tonight. Regards. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! If you don't have time for it, don't worry—I'll find someone else. Whatever works best for you. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hello. I'm new and was hoping for any advice at all on something I wanted to post or submit. I've got an article I want to publish about a local writer (san antonio texas) who has helped me and my family, as well as many here in town. She is also a talk show host for two shows on our radio, as well as a guest/host on a couple of our weekly local morning shows. Her subjects are caregiving, or helping the needy such as elderly or special needs persons. She also helps with marriage counseling. I did not see her on wikipedia and thought I would get her out there. I don't know how to submit anything so that you can help me, can you offer any type of advice at all? I'm disabled and bedridden, so have mucho time on my hands. Thanks for YOUR time. Bobby Turner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Turner (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome. You may want to use the Article Wizard to help you get that page started. However, before you do that, I think you might want to review some guidelines. All subjects on Wikipedia must maintain a degree of notability – evidence that the subject is fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The relevant guidelines in this situation may be WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Please note that it is extremely important in this case that there be verifiability of what you write. Biographies of living people are held to very high standards, primarily due to legal reasons, so what you write must be cited by an independent, reliable source. Anyway, assuming you can find those sources, I strongly encourage the Article Wizard which I referenced earlier, and furthermore, recommend that you choose its option to place the article in userspace so that it can be reviewed by someone else before being published in mainspace. Hope that helps; if you have any further questions please feel free to ask. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and thoughtful reply. I have found 17 independent sources for this writer and talk show host online. Newspapers, Radio and Television websites for instance. I will make sure to only include verifiable information found on these, and include them as source material easily referenced.

Take care!

Bobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Turner (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)