User talk:Yamamoto Ichiro/Archives/11

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saint John Mary International School

Why this article is deleted, when it follows the same criteria WIKI allows to other international school like Samakkhi Witthayakhom School, Harrow International School, Ruamrudee International School, Nantawan Trilingual School, etc. please consider this. WE always support WIKI in good heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.162.63 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is not a very convincing argument for deletion nor inclusion. The lack of assersion of notability in this article is also very concerning, unless that issue can be addressed, I don't think the article will be able to stay on Wikipedia. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Year xxxx deletion problem

Hi, I've created a target merge page called Time formatting and storage bugs for the following articles:

I didn't want to actually convert them to redirects as they still have pending AfD headers on them. Does this look OK, and if so, what's the next step? Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted all of them to redirects. Yes, you were allowed to change them into redirects yourself, because the AfD were closed. I didn't bother changing these AfD headers because they were going to be changed into redirects anyways. You are only not suppose to remove the AfD headers if the AfD is still going on, but in this case, they were already closed, so it doesn't really matter. I could of removed them myself after closing, but I was too lazy. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent -- thanks. (I also converted Year 32,768 problem, which I accidentally left out of the list above, to a redir.)--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought -- would it be appropriate to remove the call for a volunteer from the AfD page, and replace it with a pointer to the new page?--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Barnstar for you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism on my talk page in May, I should have presented you with this barn star sooner.--thanks! --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV dicussion concerning an AfD you closed

Please see Wikipedia:DRV#Barnstormers-Revolution_rivalry. Corvus cornix_talk 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break from closing XfDs

I notice that a lot of XfDs you close get contested or sent to DRV. Does this concern you at all? Respectfully, how do you feel about taking a break from closing XfDs so that you have more time to read them, participate in the process, and understand the reasons why discussions are closed in a certain way? I appreciate your willingness to help with the project, but it seems like XfD closing decisions should be uncontentious. You may wish to review the deletion policy and read it thoroughly. - Chardish (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel anything in particular if it gets sent to the DRV, it's a good way to get a third opionion about how the AfD is closed. It is not so much as the AfD's get sent to the DRV, as I think I only known of 2 AfD's that I closed were sent there, one is sent by myself and the other is the one above. The amount of AfD that actually get's contested is much less than you think, about 1 AfD's in 10, maybe perhaps because most of the dicussions I closed were not very controversial, and even for controversial ones the result were mostly uncontested. While I do believe I might not have the best judgement on making decision, I think that this is a learning process, and I do believe I have a better idea of making a judgement on XfD's than I was a week ago just from reading, and I also don't believe my judgement is always right as I do make mistakes in these sort of things. Although sometimes I have a bad habit of skimming through, which I do believe I need to fix, other than that I think I'm okay as long as there is not huge concern from the community about it. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I just feel like the best way to gain experience at making judgments is not being told when your judgment is wrong, but by having witnessed enough judgments of others that you feel qualified to make judgments in the same way. There's a reason you have to be a lawyer for several years in most countries before you're allowed to be a judge. Chardish (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, you are a machine. Both of those edits I have tried to revert straight away, but you seem to get in before me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.248.187 (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted page

you recently deleted the page Music in Brainiac: Science Abuse without notifying me that it was added to AFD. I spent over 18 hours working on this page and would appreciate it if you can give me a copy of all the songs that appeared on this page --Ted-m (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance.--Ted-m (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Spiritual Activism article

I would have contested this deletion, but did not see the notification of impending deletion. The gentleman who flagged it initially (before the article was even completed) said it did not cite references. So I added some to improve the article.

I would have been more than happy to improve the article based on additional constructive criticism, but there was none.

There has been a rise in humanitarian organizations with a spiritual (as opposed to religious) outlook. The term "spiritual activism" is relatively new, but gaining in use.

What would you suggest for the article at this point? I am rarely on Wikipedia, so would you please contact me at cbaldwinbuck@yahoo.com?

Regards, Cbaldwinbuck (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied the deleted article to your userspace, User:Cbaldwinbuck/Spiritual Activism. Once you have cited enough sources, such that it passes the WP:V guidelines, you are free to recreate the page again. There is no problem with the article itself I would say, the quality of an article is never a reason for deletion, except that if the article cites no reliable sources, it is hard to establish the topic's notability, which is what deletion is mostly all about. So all I'm asking for is that if you want to recreate the article, assert its notability by citing reliable sources, and then you are more than welcome to recreate the article. By the way, for references purpose, this page may also be helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u warn me, mind ur own business ;)(btw are u Japanese) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.200.2 (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Hill

Hi. You closed the Afd for this article as delete on the 21st, WP:Articles for deletion/Owen Hill, but you didn't actually delete the article. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala

Hi, you closed this AfD and deleted the first article listed but there were more. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wasn't sure if you were nominating them as well in that AfD, that's why I left it alone. Next time please explicitly state that you are nominating multiple articles. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GHS (high schools)

I reverted your edits bring the hidden comment. When it clearly says not to remove it, then you do not remove it. --Healthykid (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of True Catholic Church

I was surprised to see that True Catholic Church was deleted, given the lack of consensus among editors. By my count, there were three keep votes and three delete votes (but only if the nominator is counted as a delete). Will you consider reversing this deletion? Pburka (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not about vote count, if that is the case we might as well have bots closing AfD's than humans. The reasons why I did not take in the keep comments in this AfD:

One of the keep votes (which is a weak keep by the way), said that he can find some reputable sources, which is fair enough, if there are more users willing to back that up.
The other two keep comments were about how "interesting" the article is, which unfortunately is not valid argument for inclusion of articles for Wikipedia. See WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:INTERESTING. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just sections of an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. They are not good reasons for a closing admin to make up a consensus that does not exist. I was not particularly attached to that article, but I believe your closing was improper. --Trovatore (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admins has to make decisions based on the deletion policy as well as consensus. The keep arguments made no citation to the Wikipedia policy nor addressed the concerns of notability, lack of sources, or assertion of notability even, which virtually meant that their comments were virtually weightless because of the fact that they did not give a reason that address the concerns of the nominator. The closure of the AfD is not merely based on the essay, rather, it is based on the fact that the users who made those comments has not addressed the issues, and the essay is only a tool used as a reference for me to explain why those keep votes were "bad". Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular view on that particular article, but I think your general attitude is wrong. You cannot as a closing admin decide to delete where there is not a consensus, simply because you would have voted delete if you were not the closing admin. Nor can you simply discount keep votes because you do not agree with them. The large number of comments here and in your talk archives result from two factors: first because you close a lot of AfD debates; second because you often seem to take a view rather than acting as an administrator. The first is worthy, but the second is not. --Rumping (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DGFA carefully, it says

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverside Garden (Shenyang)

I disagree with the deletion of Riverside Garden (Shenyang) for reason stated at the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverside Garden (Shenyang) and I disagree with your deletion based on the content of that page. I find the reasons and numbers of people seeking deletion to be inadequate to delete. Judging by the prior section, I doubt much good will be served by arguing here about it, so please revert the deletion or place this article at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you feel a discussion would be helpful, by all means talk away. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there's a mistake in the interpretation of consensus, then I would happy to hear what you think, but I don't see anything wrong with my interpretation so far. The people who argued delete made a lot of convincing arguements, so unless you can refute those concerns, especially with the lack of reliable sources, you will not get very far with it. If you would like to have the deleted copy of the article so you could work on it yourself, then I could do that. But unless you can address WP:V and WP:N, you probably won't be able to recreate the article, or get it undeleted. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Riverside Garden (Shenyang)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Riverside Garden (Shenyang). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Immaculate Conception (Star Wars)

It seems you haven't properly closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Conception (Star Wars), as the article is still live. Because of the current fiction disputes, I am reluctant to perform any actions myself. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time if you find an article like this, just simply make it as a redirect, you don't really need me to preform the redirect itself, since the consensus established in the AfD supports it. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj Amin Elahi AfD closure

I'd appreciate if you could explain your reasoning behind closing the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hajj_Amin_Elahi and keeping the article. After I called into question the notability of the subject by exposing the fact that neither of the books provided as references actually back up the passages in the article that cited them, the author refused to provide specific page numbers, despite being prompted to do so by several commentators. In fact, the author did everything possible to avoid responding to requests to validate his references and instead repeatedly tried to confuse the issue by citing the wrong standards. At the same time, the author even used 3 different suspected sockpuppets ([1], [2], [3]) to vote "keep." Due to these unusual circumstances, the AfD should have been left open so that more editors could weigh in and consensus be reached. Teleomatic (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Absolutely 100% a lie. I did NOT use three sockpuppets to place a "keep" (Look at the IP address and there history!). That is a false and malicious accusation with no merit. Please read below!--Octavian history (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me of these issues, I'll relist the AfD for now. I already knew about the sockpuppet votes already, but the consensus for deletion still dosn't exist even discounting these sockpuppet votes (however, I could be wrong about the extend that the sockpuppetry was used). ~~I would also recommend having these issues discussed on the AfD so more people would have a better picture of what is happening, and see how the author would respond to it.~~ Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, even if you're worried about reliable sources and possible sockpuppetry, a large number (and clear majority) of longstanding editors agreed keep. I think there was consensus and keeping it open longer won't help. I understand Telomatic's concerns, but we don't keep AFDs with clear majorities open just to indulge people. I recommend reclosing it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, well, I don't really think it is that of a bad idea if it's relisted, if the article really should be kept, then relisting it will only strengthen the consensus. If no one comments after the relisting, then it's probably going to be closed as keep anyways. Having AfD open for 7 more days isn't really a big deal to me, only just more work for closing admins and the people commenting on the AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yamamoto Ichiro|会話, I abselutly agree with Georgewilliamherbert, "a large number (and clear majority) of longstanding editors agreed keep." Plus, I can prove with my IP address and the state I live in that I am not "three sockpuppetry", but even if there was such a thing, the majority of the long standing editors did agree on keep.--Octavian history (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight, it turns out that there was a RFCU that indicated abusive use of sockpuppets by Octavian history. Teleomatic (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altair

Hey. You just deleted Altair as I was editing it. You obviously saw the deletion discussion I saw just a few moments before you did. However, in the few minutes I edited it, it improved significantly. I was adding references to the article as it was deleted that I believe would have passed WP:N. As such, I was wondering if you could restore it and re-open the AfD. If you do so, I am confident I can convince people to keep the article. And just to be clear, I know pretty much nothing about this video game, I merely saw the AfD, researched a little, and saw there was significant coverage and that the article could be improved greatly. Warm regards, SorryGuy Talk 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that even the right article? I don't see any deletion history. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, found it, Give me a sec. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, thanks)No, sorry, my mistake. I realized it after I commented, but figured I would wait for your response. It was at Altair(Assasin's Creed) during the AfD, but I moved it to Altair (Assasin's Creed) when I started working on it. SorryGuy Talk 03:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have relisted the AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looking at it now, as I fail to find reliable references, maybe I overstated myself before. Either way, at least now it gets a fair look. Thanks again, SorryGuy Talk 03:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Sucks

Hi there...I wanted to draw your attention back to the Survivor Sucks page because I think there was a serious mistake made in deleting it.

I really think this page needs to be reinstated...Survivor Sucks has become a serious cultural phenomenon on the Internet, attracting posters world wide. As others have mentioned, it receives tens of thousands of page views every day--but more importantly, there have been numerous ways that it has played a role in the success of various TV shows. Take American Idol. Remember that guy, Sanjaya, who was everywhere? Well, at the time, many media outlets (especially the notorious Howard Stern, who brought this site up daily) cited the website "Vote for the Worst" as part of the effort organized to keep Sanjaya on the show. This website was run and organized by Sucksters, and when the founder of Vote for the Worst went on David Letterman, they discussed Survivor Sucks.

Many reality TV show contestants post there on an active basis, including numerous winners--Jenna Morasca (who has gone on to pose for playboy and remains a high-profile celebrity) and numerous others do too. Keep in mind--this is something for Reality TV Fans, so while you personally might not view the site as something of great importance, anyone who watches Reality TV would--and over 50 million Americans do. Not to mention that the site received tons of attention during the first season of Survivor for having users spoil the reality TV show successfully. In more recent seasons, spoilers revealing the boot order for entire seasons have been posted, including the All Stars season.

Furthermore, other forums on the internet have pages that are maintained and kept by you guys--take Television Without Pity as an example--but receive much MUCH less attention, and they have their own Wiki page. This just seems like a double standard, and I'm not sure why Survivor Sucks has to take the heat for it.

Somebody has saved a version of the page, so it shouldn't be hard to reinstate. Just think--is a website that receives 26,000 hits a day and has attracted over 200,000 different users really "irrelevant"? I'm not sure if there are 100,000 people who have read some of the famous literary figuers listed on Wikipedia...

Just some points to consider. If it is reinstated, it will be updated to include these facts, and will have proper citation to the hundreds of articles that have discussed the Survivor Sucks phenomenon. Cat spasms (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter much you argue the article should be kept, the article in question did not pass our guideline for website articles, see WP:WEB. The evidence for notability you provided are simply not one of the criterias listed on WP:WEB, so therefore, arguing about what the criteria should be does not help since it's already established by the consensus. If there is any way that you can assert its notability so that it passes WP:WEB, then you are more than welcome to recreate the article. If you really want to work on the article and cite reliable sources so it passes our inclusion guidelines, then work on it in your own user space (places like User:Example/Article title, and move it back into the article. However, you probably need to do a very good job of making good citations to convince the rest of the community. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj Amin Elahi Ethnocentric censorship

Dear Yamamoto Ichiro, sorry to say, but the things Teleomatic has written are absolutely 100% a lie. I did NOT use three sockpuppets to place a "keep" (Look at the IP address and there history!). That is a false and malicious accusation with no merit! This just shows that he is desperate to fight me and try to prove his invalide point. I have made over 1200 constructive edits on wiki. I have started dozens of new pages and have included hundreds of citations that have never been challenged by anyone.

Teleomatic has alternative motive for personally attacking me so many times. By the way, there are 8 "keeps" on the page with many individuals who have a long history on wiki. There is absolutely no reason to reopen the case.

1. New York Time (the world largest circulating paper) has his obituary and states "Thousands of people mourn his death around the world and are united in prayer."

2. I have read many article in Kurdish about him and he is the greatest Kurdish musician. But, many of the article are in Kurdish and not English.

3. If you look at the www.TanburSociety.com website that is endorsing Hajj Amin Elahi’s music, you will notice that they are official members of the Recording Academy, which is the same as the Grammy Awards. The Grammy Awards are the most prestigious venue for musicians in the world. If it was not true, why on earth would an official Grammy member state "Hajj Amin was a master at the art of tanbur... His style which is known as the “Hajj-Amini” style has become universally accepted by many mainstream tanbur players...".

4. There are two valid books listed, one of which even tele agrees he is mentioned a few times.

We have to be sensitive to foreign languages, especially here in the United States. President Bush said Africa was one country, and most Americans believe the same. Most individuals in the United States think the Japanese, Chines and Koreans are the same, but we both know there is a substantial difference. People here know absolutely nothing about the Kurds, and the poor people don't even have a land they can call there own. It would be an absolute crime against humanity to try to wipe out an article about one of the greatest musicians they had. It would only show the level of ignorance and the high level of ethnocentric censorship.--Octavian history (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of relisting is to either strengthen the consensus, or it could be used to gain a new consensus. As I said earlier, if the article really should be kept, then it will be (at least I hope so). I don't know wether if the sockpuppet accusation is true, but for all I know it could be very well a single purpose account made to serve a purpose. At any rate, I don't think having the AfD tag on an article for 6 more days is not really a big deal. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warning?

You just sent me two warnings that I was vandalizing an entry "Sinclar Method". All I did was remove a section that contained uncited claims of unusually high success rates for a treatment for alcoholism. Somebody else asked the author to provide references a year ago and nothing happened. What am I supposed to do, just let unreferenced, probably misleading information just sit?Desoto10 (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) In addition, I described what I was doing on the Discussion page.Desoto10 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request explanation of closing AfD on "Barack Obama media controversy‎" as Delete.

By my count the vote was 21-5 to merge or delete vs. keep,[4] so you certainly had a majority for the result you chose. But, beyond nosecount, what was your thinking? Andyvphil (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's mainly two strong reasons came up from the discussion. First, the consensus has determined that the content is a WP:POVFORK, which according to the guideline, should be deleted. I don't really know which POV is being advocated myself nor I really care, but I know that it is a POVFORK if the content has a POV that is deviated from the consensus from opionions from numerous editors with high standing, including editors who are mainly known have strong inclusionist belief voted delete because it's a POVFORK, thus I have established it is a POVFORK from the consensus that is presented during the debate, since POVFORK is something that is to be determined by the consensus. Second of all, there is a case of WP:BLP issue, although this is a secondary reason, it is also taken very seriously on Wikipedia, especially after the Seigenthaler controversy. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. So, if I understand you, the key is that "POVFORK is something that is to be determined by the consensus...from numerous editors with high standing", and as the closing admin you have no authority to examine the arguments for or against its actually being a POV fork? Andyvphil (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is based on is building of consensus, and as an admin, we follow the consensus that is generated and we act accordingly to consensus, unless the consensus suggests that Wikipedia's core policy should be violated, such as WP:V. So, POVFORK is in this case, determined by the consensus. The consensus does not goes against the core policy of Wikipedia, so the decision is based on mainly consensus. Also, the "numerous editors with high standing" is only a rule of a thumb, it is not something written with stone and there are exceptions. There are times when even an IP address editor can know more about the Wikipedia policy than an administrator do (I know, it's sad), but in this case, it is enough to suggest the consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to direct your attention to the Wikipedia policy, WP:CON, and in particular the section WP:PRACTICAL, which reads, in part: "To [find actual consensus] you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree... If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable."(emphasis added) Can you square the requirement that you "carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves" with your declaration "I don't really know which POV is being advocated myself"? Andyvphil (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be practical to apply that in a case if the opionions are divided by 50:50 or even 40:60. However, in this case, if the arguments against the POVFORK was strong, then the amount of users disagreeing with that statement should be strong as well, which would result in a more divided opionions. However, this was not the case in this AfD, as the large majority of the users suggested that the content was a POVFORK. Which hints that the strength of argument against the fact that POVFORK is not very strong or convincing, therefore that's how I arrived at the consensus being that the content is a POVFORK. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the policy doesn't say you need personally consider the strength of the arguments only if the "vote" is close. It says "only the thorough approach is acceptable"(emphasis added). Failing to familiarize yourself with the actual "strength and quality of the arguments" is therefor, logically, "unacceptable". If it was impractical for you to take the time to follow unambiguous policy perhaps, instead of relying on "hints" as to what the correct outcome should be, you should not have "volunteered"? Andyvphil (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. I just discovered the article was deleted after only a week of discussion. This is how it works, eh? A request for deletion is made, we all discuss it, the request is withdrawn - and then remade AFTER those wanting it to be deleted have rounded up enough Wikipedians to achieve an apparent consensus, without of course inviting anyone who had different suggestions. Which is all you claim is needed to delete an article. If that were true, why bother with an Admin at all? Just use a bot, count up the votes and be done with it. Are you seriously claiming you were "just doing your job"?! Gosh - sorry I was working articles for boring State Senators and didn't think to check this article every day to see if someone had nominated it for deletion once again. Obviously I should stop contributing, and just patrol any and all articles I've ever worked on. Is that your idea of the 'Wikipedia spirit'? What a coincidence it happened right at the time this was such a big issue in South Carolina. And Super Tuesday is coming up next week - how handy! Most importantly, since Wikipedia doesn't keep archives of deleted articles available, the material that's useful can't even be recreated elsewhere. Lee Atwater would be so proud - and you must be very proud of being played for a patsy. Maybe next time you'll think about just why you were trusted to be an Admin, that maybe it wasn't about your ability to count to 20. I can't tell you how disappointed I am about this rush to judgement, and how it affects my attitude toward Wikipedia. Flatterworld (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Survivor Sucks

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Survivor Sucks. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please move it to my userspace at User talk:Allstarecho/SS. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help with edit/flame war

Good morning. This message has been addressed to you because you were around at the time. I'm an administrator currently keeping my distance from work here to avoid being sucked in, since I really need to finish an essay about the ethical impact of killer robots. And yes, I know that the previous statement is in the same realm of believability as a talking frog claiming to be a prince.

We seem to have a situation between two anons at Theta Nu Epsilon. I hate to ask this of you, but could you pop in to see that article quality does not suffer and no one is dissed more than necessary? --130.232.106.75 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since these ip's are anon IP's, blocking them is not really a feasible option, so the only option that I can see at the moment is page protection, which I have just done. I don't know if this is the best option, but seems like for now it is the only option avaliable. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Barack Obama media controversy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Barack Obama media controversy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Terraxos (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I nominated this page for DRV after reading your justification of deletion above, which I found unconvincing. Feel free to comment at the deletion review.)Terraxos (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already nominated it the day before. My apologies for not leaving a notice here -- I was on the dead run. Your attention is certainly welcome. I think you made a mistake, but I appreciate your civility, attention to my questions, and the seriousness with which you are excercising your powers as an admin. Andyvphil (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Merlin (Shrek)

And while I'm at it... would you mind explaining the rationale behind your closing of this AfD? I don't see how 'merge', 'merge', 'speedy close as bad nomination' and 'keep' results in a Keep, especially when also taking into account the implied 'delete' of the nominator; and especially when one of the 'keep' justifications was 'part of a navbox'. The nominator claimed that this article does not demonstrate notability, and as far as I can tell he is correct, and no one supporting 'keep' showed otherwise. In short, I just don't understand how this was closed as a keep; it looks to me like it should have been no consensus, at best, and quite possibly delete.

(By the way - I don't mean any offense in challenging your closure of these two AfDs. As far as I can tell, you've done a pretty good job with AfDs in the past, and generally make the right decisions; but I just felt these two decisions in particular were dubious ones.) Terraxos (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a lack of consensus in any direct in this AfD, and the lack of consensus for deletion is very clear. So I closed it as keep, but in this case I suppose it could be debatable between wether the dicussion should be closed as no consensus or keep, but either way there is no need to delete the article. Merge does not require a deletion discussion either and therefore it should be discussed within the talk page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Nu Epsilon

You blocked the Theta Nu Epsilon page, fine. Unfortuinately you left nonsense on that page. Worse, this maniac 65.141.156.17 is still left free to post. He's posted under fake names, he's used my ISP to sign his posts (look at the 'Founding Date' section of the discussion page. he is pretending that he represnets a Purdue Chapter of Theta Nu Epsilon when there hasn't been one since like WWI. It's all just a prank he's pulling, and it really can't be more obvious. And the admins are letting him do what he wants.129.133.124.252 (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're letting this person sign things with other people's addresses. Excellent choice.129.133.124.252 (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the signature and replace it with the proper address, I think that it is obvious enough that someone should of done that already? Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. And since that's fine with you, I'll just start using your signature line to sign all my stuff with. You say it's okay policy to impersonate other people, so I'll get started right on it.Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.252 (talk) [reply]

Just directly link the evidence shown from the diffs and add a small note after the signiature saying that the user has forged a signature would of been sufficient. Judging from your sarcastic attitude here, it also tells me that you are quite stressed with the situation, I would might suggest taking a wikibreak so you can take a while to think about the situation? I would also think that WP:RFC would work well in this case for the article, if the discussion on the talk page is going nowhere near a consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your interpretation of human behavior quite misses the mark, I associate sarcasm with happiness and wit, not stress. There certainly was no consensus, but it seems that the perpetuators of the hoax have since been proven wrong on that discussion page, and that seems to be an even more effectual result.

The article still suffers from the fact that unsubstantiated argument from a past and current hoaxer is still on the page. I'm sure you don't intend to do anything about it.

It is true that the wildly divergent standards of the various admins make wikipedia almost unbearably inconsistent. Seeing things that some admins have blocked users for in the past, I would have assumed that a direct attempt to steal another person's identity would have been a serious problem. The incident itself is one thing, but random enforcement of standards is virtually indistinguishable from no standards at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.252 (talk)

Well, then do you have any least diffs I can point to for that? At least show some evidence of signature forging if you are going to accuse someone of it. I actually searched it by myself earlier and I couldn't find it for some reason. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion page, he went to *every* topic and added comment, whether was new old, or irrelevant. Including on 'Founding Date' He added two paragraphs, and I added the third. I've copied all three here below. The first paragraph of his, he laboriously added something that is trying to look like an e-mail address, but is bogus, the second one he signed with MY ISP, the third is me signing with my ISP. The very next section, he uses the "fake e-mail address" thing again. I don't care about having him banned, barred, or blocked. But if the article could go back to when this particular edit war started, ** 11:07, 22 December 2007 Myland (Talk | contribs) (15,842 bytes) (→Post WWII history) ** this version, (after then you can see it gearing up around January 17th or so), then we will be back to where it substantially has been for several months, and lock it indefinitely from there after, I'd be fine.

x Not to get into the middle of a minor squabble and NOT FORGETTING DISCUSSION OF SOCIETY AFFAIRS but as long as it is out there might as well keep it correct. Dec. 5th is the date for everything in our records and our century old original const.; it is what we have kept to. Maybe 12/11/? was the formation of one of the factional groups? If so I respect that but it would help to clarify and add that in its proper area. We have the original documents that we keep to but it might help to compare notes, and see if these fellows want help if they have a functioning chapter or are starting one. Obviously the fellow knows what one officer is. Good luck- thetanuepsilon at alumnidirector dot com x

THE original papers say December 11, sworn affidavits of the founders prepared decades later say December 11. December 5 was never correct. Let it go. ---Writing from Middletown. 129.133.124.252 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here the Purdue poster has tried to fake that he's from Middletown.129.133.124.252 (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent "rv to the revision before the edit war, this looks like a reasonable revision to me" removes much of the information from the article that actually is sourced. There's nothing reasonable about that action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGold73 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any specific information that you wish for me to add, information that are cited by reliable sources which is independent of the subject? As long as the information is not disputed, I can manually add them to the current revision, as it does seems to be the revision before the edit war broke out. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring to before the edit war. On the discussion page, I've responded to the above poster, I don't think anything substantive was lost, and there were problems with the validity of some of the citations anyway.129.133.124.252 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HTF Characters Gone

Yamamoto, i was told you were the administrator who assessed what should happen to the HTF Character articles deletion, i just want to know:
1) Have you watched HTF?
2) Enough to understand what was on those well?
3) What exactly was wrong with them.

Because me and a large amount of people badly want those articles back, i have seen multiple comments on talk pages saying "where the hell are those articles? Why were they deleted?"
Is there a way you will let us have those articles back? Because i know a lot of people worked hard on that information, and i think it should be there.
Pyro Python (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of other Happy Tree Friends characters, the articles are still in the history so if you want to look at these individual articles, you still can. However, the idea is to incorporate those contents into one page, which is what merge is. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about the history, thanks, and i can see what your idea was, but you haven't answered my questions, because i want to know if you knew enough about HTF to think "this is too much", and what was directly wrong with the articles; was the info too random? No references? I need an answer.
Pyro Python (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with the article per say, it is because the consensus from the discussion is that plot summary does not warrant it's own article, so it should be merged into one. There's no consensus in either in the direction of keep or delete either, so merge seems to be the most logical choice. However, the AfD decision could be super-seeded by another merge or a split discussion on the article talk page I suppose. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but i still need to know what the criteria would be for a new merge or split discussion, what would have to be done to the information to reach this?
Pyro Python (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained it multiple times, Pyro. Information in any Wikipedia article must be sourced to reliable, third-party sources. That's covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, excessive plot summary is frowned upon (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)), and fictional topics need what we call "real-world notability" (see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)). Have you read those guideline and policy pages I linked? Powers ^T 14:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want add that only create individual articles if the subject is considered notable individually, which could be considered a rule of a thumb criterial for an article split. If you can establish the individual notability of the subject, then you can split the articles. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		message Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been following your admin efforts from the sidelines. I'm truly amazed at how well you manage to keep your cool despite all the incivility directed toward you. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad that there are people who appreciate the work admins do, even though we are not all perfect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - Lumber

Haven't edited anything within 2 weeks, and never even seen the Lumber article. Confusion of IP's maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.184.1 (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, just ignore it as always. Or create an account if you don't want to receive these irralevent messages if you are planning to edit Wikipedia at all. If you are not planning to edit Wikipedia, then there's no point worrying about it since the worst thing it can happend to you is that you get blocked from editing Wikipedia, not reading it. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brethren of Datu Abdillah

Why was this page deleted? The explanation given was solid enough?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed niz89 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brethren of Datu Abdillah, and yes the explaination was solid enough. It doesn't mean that you can't recreate the article if you can address these issues. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting of Carmelo Papotto

Hi, I see you just relisted Carmelo Papotto for deletion, and I'd like to ask you something: Are the previous votes still valid, or do the users need to vote again? Thank you, Victao lopes (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous votes are valid if these arguments still are sound at the time when the AfD is closed. For example, if the argument was "article has no sources" but sources were added the day before the AfD is closed, then it's not valid anymore, but if the article still has no sources, then the vote would still be valid despite it is a very old vote. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Victao lopes (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay films (2nd nomination)

I'm not sure how you found my nomination unconvincing; straightforward lack of notability, as evidenced by the poor content of the article and a lack of reliable, independent sources. Honestly, if that's not clear enough then I don't know what is. Besides a comment by Groyn88 about updating the article, what exactly did you find so compelling about the "keep" rationales?PC78 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need a compelling keep raionales in order for the article to be kept, but you do need a compelling deletion raionales in order for the article to be deleted, Wikipedia always worked like this. Your opening statement on the AfD answers the question "what is the wrong with the article" more than "why is it not notable". For example, if you find it non-notable, directly show how it is non-notable by using the definition from WP:N and support it with sound argument and evidence from the article. You should be answering the questions like "What is wrong with the sources?", or "Why are these sources not reliable?", etc. instead of "What is wrong with the article" There are just too many statement that are irralevent to the deletion criteria and there are not many proper arguments and evidence to support your statement regarding how the article is non-notable. Which is why I find your statement hard to follow. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to forgive me, but I still disagree. "What is wrong with the article" and "why is it not notable" are not two seperate questions. I quoted a sentence from the lead which seemed to make it rather clear that this was a non-subject, pointed out the loose connection of the few listed films, and noted that the article used no reliable sources. These statements aren't irrelevent; the complete lack of any substance to this article should be evidence enough that it is a non notable subject. Frankly, I don't know how I could have made my case for deletion any stronger, but I guess I'll have to try harder next time. PC78 (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "what is wrong with the article" can be fixed by simply editing the article, not taking it to deletion. Notability is something that can't be fixed through editing. If something is not notable, you just simply cannot make it notable. For example, if I was to write an article about you and let's assume that you are not notable. No matter how hard I try, I can't make you notable, no matter how hard I try to edit the article. So, roughly speaking, before taking anything to a deletion debate, ask yourself, "can this be fixed through editing?" There are many issues that you bought up in the deletion debate, that could be fixed through editing. If you don't believe you can fix these through editing, then make your point as to why it can't be fixed. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

Kon'nichi wa, Can I have weekly lessons of japanese? I tried websites but I ran out of free ones. --Jay ^Tur ₁ (Contribs) 19:04, 5 February 20 Heisei (UTC)

There are probably plenty of resources out there if you want to learn Japanese. I don't think they are that hard to find. Try places like isoHunt, I think you should be able to find something from there if not other tracker sites. I would recommend actually going to a class, as probably most people find it works the best. However, I do think that before everything else, even the volcabulary, it is vital to know Hiragana from A to Z, and then maybe later you want to start on Katakana depending on what you want to study next. This would probably avoid getting you into a bad habit of using romanized Japanese, like most people I know who studies Japanese, which is not a good thing. For now, could you please breifly describe what level you can speak Japanese at and how much you know about the language?Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know most of my hiragana and katakana, although I need to study again as I took a break from learning for half a year, but I know basic words like hello and the numbers, but i still need to catch up again on lots of stuff. I also plan to move to japan in the future, I don't have time for class, or the money, I'm only juu-san years old. (Sorry this pc (my mums) dont have a kana or kanji generator.) Oh, and I forgot the words for sorry and thank you and please.

P.S. I use BitTorrent, it's slow, then theres finding the torrents, don't get me started. --Jay ^Tur ₁ (Contribs) 21:32, 5 February 20 Heisei (UTC)

Ow, what does 注：メッセージを日本語で書いても構わないんですが、できれば英語で書いてください。 mean? --Jay ^Tur ₁ (Contribs) 21:34, 5 February 20 Heisei (UTC)

You must realize that learning Japanese is a huge task to undertake, and probably the best way to actually learn Japanese is to actively speak Japanese to other native Japanese speakers, if there is one in your community, or better yet, move to Japan. There is not much we can do over messaging on wiki's due to it's limited functionality.

Before you begin, as I noted, you should start make full use of Hiragana and Katakana when writing Japanese. Because when you get to Tokyo, nobody is going to write Japanese in latin alphabets, it just doesn't work that way. So be sure when studying the written Japanese language, avoid using romanized Japanese as much as possible.

First of all, if you havn't already, this is a guide on how to set up Japanese input/display on your operating system:

nihongo ok click on the video tab, these videos should be straightforward and there are english subtitles on them

A Japanese textbook on wikibook Wikibooks is a sister project of Wikipedia, and they have a textbook on the Japanese language. I don't know how much it will help, but it is worth taking a look.

Japanese resources I don't know if you know these sites, they are probably good references.

If you have any questions on the Japanese language itself, I can answer it. However, it is very hard for one to "teach" a language. It is not math, where you can learn a lot of concepts in a very short amount of time. The best way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in an environment where everybody speaks the language you want to learn, so you are actually forced to think in that language. I don't have any experiance personally in learning Japanese so I don't know what usually people struggle on, however, there may be other people who have learned Japanese themselves and they might be able to help you. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. What's 注：メッセージを日本語で書いても構わないんですが、できれば英語で書いてください。 mean? --Jay ^Tur ₁ (Contribs) 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It roughly means "You may write in Japanese if you wish, however, if you could, please write in English." It is obviously not a message directed at you. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be easier with an accual japanese person, there are no japs in my school, and im too young (and poor) to move to japan. --Jay ^Tur ₁ (Contribs) 19:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance Service of Manchester

I would like to request a copy of the deleted version of the article "Ambulance Service of Manchester." Unfortunately, I did not have the time to do additional research on notablility during the weekend. However, i would still like to post the article in my subpage (which i have not done before). Thank you! 76.243.124.240 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see User:76.243.124.240/Ambulance Service of Manchester. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schizodactyly

Hi! Quick question for you since you were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schizodactyly. I'm just curious because I don't fully know Wiki's ins and outs about why a prod would go on the page after the AfD was completed. As you can see, things got a little confusing on the page following the closure. Not sure I should have reverted where I did, but I was confused on process so I'd love a little info or point in the right direction. Travellingcari (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like to me a deletion might not be nessesary if everybody is happy with the redirect? If not, you can always use WP:RFD, but I probably would not recommend it unless there's some issues with the redirect itself. AfD consensus is not an absolute consensus, and if something does comes up, newer consensus may superseed it. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the redirect, I just didn't understand why something would be PRODed immediately after consensus was to delete and transwiki. It wasn't as if some time had passed and consensus changed, this was less than a few hours later. I think that's where I got confused. Travellingcari (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Bethisad Deletion

Can you direct me to the AFD page for Ill Bethisad? It was restored after being deleted once. Why was it deleted this time? BoLingua 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Bethisad. It was deleted for failing WP:V, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. If you want to work on it so it passes it, then you are more than welcome to do so. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Medical Practice Deletion

I was wanting to hopefully reinstate the article for ideal medical practice. I'm not sure why you deleted it. I read through the discussion and I disagree with the "spam" comments. The idea has no particular commercial tie. It is a new concept and term in Medicine, you can google micropractice or ideal medical practice, the terms are synonymous. I am new to wikipedia so if you would like me to change the way the article reads please let me know. It is definitely distinct practice model and is definitely different than a electronic medical record. Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordred42 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:YFA, especially the part about gathering sources, which is vital. Gather sources to the information for your article. To be worth including in the encyclopedia a subject must be sufficiently notable and that notability must be verifiable through references to reliable sources. The article fails this criteria, which is why it was deleted. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.