User talk:Shii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Ashibaka)
Jump to: navigation, search

AN/I discussion regarding Providence (religious movement)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. Sam Sailor Sing 11:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers[edit]

Thanks for your support lately, but decided to retire for a while. Fanatics can take over the pages in question from now on. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A bit of help, please[edit]

As an admin who has not been involved in the case in the past, who is also a member of WP:WikiProject Alternative Medicine (and therefore likely to have a mindset geared in favor of, rather than opposed to, the field of Chiropractic), I was wondering if you could have a look at the current state of affairs at User talk:Drsjpdc and either talk this guy off the ledge, or at least WP:DENY him recognition by removing talk page access. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

asmallworld[edit]

hello, I noticed that you previously engaged in commentary on asmallworld, it is currently up for deletion. If you think it should be kept or deleted please voice that opinion, as the deletion debate closes tomorrow. Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC))

March 32 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect March 32. Since you had some involvement with the March 32 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 09:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Editors' Choice Magazine Journalism Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to EXILE
Masabumi Hosono (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Titanic (film)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Olympus scandal[edit]

Hi, do you have a citation for "The corporate culture exposed by the scandal is seen as the inspiration for the record-breaking drama Hanzawa Naoki"? None of the cites at the latter article refer to Olympus. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops! This is apparently a baseless rumor and you can remove it. Shii (tock) 01:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation[edit]

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Tor Browser Bundle[edit]

Hello! You've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tor Browser Bundle with "merge (or keep)" resolution, which is actually two conflicting outcomes. Could you please clarify resolution? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tor Browser Bundle[edit]

Could you say more about this close? What does "merge (or keep)" mean? These are two very different outcomes. Since merge is really just symbolic here (the entirety of the content at Tor Browser Bundle was already at Tor (anonymity network) at the time of nomination), it seems like the close should have been, if some combination of outcomes, "merge (or delete)".

By my count there are 3 keeps, 4 deletes [including one delete or merge], and 2 merges.

This suggests you found the keep arguments more compelling. But one user made no keep argument other than to take issue with the nominator's procedural choices, relying almost entirely on ad hominems. Another is an IP with no other edits (but who says he or she is a contributor to the article, so likely a dynamic IP, and realistically the most substantive of the three keep arguments). The third just says "Keep per above comments. The article should grow."

But the article is duplicate content. And when one downloads "Tor" from the Tor website, it is the Tor Browser Bundle that is downloaded; it's not some third party client that gets a lot of press, it's Tor that gets press and necessarily the software used to connect to Tor.

Anyway, I was confused. Hoping you can clarify. Thanks very much. --— Rhododendrites talk |  18:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, czarkoff: I apologize for this close which was very thoughtless on my part. I did not consider the discussion to have a consensus, but it seems to me that the article should be merged and the arguments were doing so were good. Shii (tock) 20:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm still confused. You say it should be merged but re-close as no consensus? --— Rhododendrites talk |  21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Should I come down harder? I personally think the article should be merged, based on what I read, but there were a variety of arguments presented for all three options -- Tutelary to keep, you to delete, others to merge. I don't think a merge should require another discussion. Shii (tock) 21:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for changing it. For the record, Tutelary changed his/her vote (just didn't strike the first one). --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

.lol listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect .lol. Since you had some involvement with the .lol redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 00:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Afd Vote[edit]

Hi Shii,

I see that you voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-racism in mathematics teaching (2nd nomination) then removed your vote. A relatively new user then restored your vote. Did you intend to retract your vote? Dialectric (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dialectric: I deleted my vote because I realized I was unknowledgeable about the topic. This was intentional. Shii (tock) 12:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vedic Individuals[edit]

Can you please userify a draft in my user space. As said in the Afd, I plan to work on the list articles. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: Done. User:Redtigerxyz/List of Vedic Individuals Shii (tock) 14:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Japanese sumera calendar"[edit]

Sorry - didn't realize you were an admin. Davidelit (Talk) 07:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Jewish state[edit]

Hi, I reverted your edit in the Jewish state article because it's not supported by sources. If you'd like to propose a source, please start a discussion on the talk page. Thanks. USchick (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: The first usage of the term "Jewish state" was by Theodor Herzl <-- Is there a source for this extremely dubious claim? If you can't find one I will delete it. I think the concept of a medieval halachic state is fairly uncontroversial. Shii (tock) 05:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue, I would like a real discussion to take place. Source for Theodor Herz [1]. In Halachic state the section on "Definition of a Jewish state in Halakha" is empty, so it's not clear that there was such a concept. USchick (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You really don't know the history of Judaism before Herzl? I don't think you're very familiar with Judaism. In that case you shouldn't be reverting unsourced versions to other unsourced versions. Shii (tock) 21:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't claim to know everything. USchick (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't have to, but now you're making trouble for me. The existence of a state in halacha is something known to all Jews, but now I have to go hunt down a source for it. Shii (tock) 21:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry and thank you! According to this source [2] "it virtually launched the modern debate about a modern state for Jews." So if there's an earlier concept, that would be very helpful. Is it possible that the halacha was something the Jews discussed among themselves, and then this publication made it a bigger discussion with the outside world? USchick (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that would be something to be discussed in the article, but first and foremost the article must acknowledge that there was a literature on a "Jewish state" before any "modern" debate. Shii (tock) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I see your intentions on the Medical model of autism[edit]

To be clear, I was just against a simple move of the template so that it corresponded with an article that seemed to be about a "cultural cure movement." Thanks for your edits. --Holdek (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't see any mention of a "cure movement" in scholarly literature. Shii (tock) 04:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't either. That's how this mess caught my attention in the first place. --Holdek (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 American intervention in Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stars and Stripes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User:The Satanic Sheik[edit]

As far as I can tell from your closing comment and your block of this user, it was mostly due to NOTHERE. It's not clear to me that you did any real analysis of the socking issue, even though you said that he was a probable sock in the block itself. I tend to agree with you that the user deserved to be blocked for NOTHERE, but that isn't the role of SPI. Because you didn't participate in the SPI and it's not clear what your reasoning is, all I ask is you remove the tag from the user's page. If you don't want to do that, I'm not going to make a stink out of it, but I think it would be the prudent thing to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Thought I had this down. Isn't that the difference between "suspected" and "confirmed"? The guy was literally repeating the words of the previous account. Shii (tock) 10:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, suspected means it's based on behavior, whereas confirmed means it's been checked by a CU. However, if I had thought there was sufficient evidence to block when the report was filed at SPI, I would have done so. Of course, you are entitled to disagree with me, but as I believe a CU said on the noticeboard, if there was additional evidence, it should have been presented to me. But, I'll dispense with that nicety if you would just be kind enough to give me more detail as to what you're basing your conclusion on, i.e., diffs of the suspected puppet compared to diffs of the master or a blocked puppet. That would be appreciated. BTW, it's nice to meet you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It's basically due to the diffs presented by Hijiri88 at ANI, which seem sound enough for me. Shii (tock) 23:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hijiri88 raised only one thing that was new, and there, just as at SPI, he points to an edit by the puppet but does a piss-poor job of comparing it to an edit by the master. If that's what you based it on, you must've done considerably more research to demonstrate Hijiri88's point. Without actual diffs from the master, I have no way of verifying that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
All right, I still at least have the suspicion myself. If you don't think it has enough grounding to merit inclusion on a "suspected sockpuppets" page you can remove the template. I had no idea this had become so rigorous in recent years. Shii (tock) 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I should point something out in response to the claim that I did a "piss-poor job" of connecting TSS to Kauffner. Even without all of In ictu oculi's input, my evidence was certainly stronger than what was presented in several of the previous Kauffner SPIs: User:Ich weiß dass nicht was unilaterally blocked by Favonian for a disruptive edit on a page that had been semi-protected because of disruption by User:JoshuSasori and, to a lesser extent, Kauffner. Ich weiß dass nicht does not appear to have ever been CUed (at least according to the record on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive), but is still considered "confirmed" as Kauffner, even though the evidence presented at SPI actually pointed more directly to the account being JoshuSasori. JoshuSasori edited almost exclusively in Japanese cinema, an area Kauffner never touched except when following me there, and JoshuSasori also followed me more closely than Kauffner did anyway. User:İn ictu ocli is another "confirmed" sock that never appears to have been CUed, but at least that account was clearly targeting the user Kauffner apparently considers his "nemesis" rather than me. Those are two "confirmed" socks; of the other three "suspected" ones: User:Muslim Russia was actually CUed so he should count as confirmed; User:Two from one's username does not appear once in the SPI archive; User:Warum? had a similar level of evidence available and presented, and was blocked on-site. I should not be expected to trawl through thousands of RMs trying to find the "most appropriate" example of either the main Kauffner account or a previously-blocked sockpuppet that matched The Satanic Sheik's final string of anti-diacritic edits: it was established long ago that "new account suddenly posting in an RM against the use of diacritics in article titles" is WP:QUACK behaviour associated with Kauffner. Ctrl+F the SPI archive: "RM" appears 130 times, and "diacritic" appears 22 times, and all of those were posted before my most recent SPI. I was not told until very shortly before my ANI thread was closed that when an SPI is unsuccessful in establishing a result new evidence should be presented directly to the SPI clerk: I had thought that since the RM was botched I should post my request for the bloody-obvious sock (who in close to a month had done nothing but troll me and post in diacritic-RMs anyway) to be blocked on ANI. Virtually everyone thinks the account needs to stay blocked either way, and all but one user who has commented seems convinced that this account was Kauffner. Bbb23 clearly has a significantly higher threshold for evidence than any previous clerk who was involved in any of the previous 43 Kauffner SPI cases, especially given that even the string of RM !votes doesn't seem to have been convincing enough. If The Satanic Sheik is removed from the list of suspected Kauffner socks then we'd probably need to re-examine just about every other "suspected" sock, and even some of the "confirmed" socks that don't seem to have been CUed. That would require a whole lot more work than simply checking the SPI archive to see what previous SPIs have taken as "quack"-level evidence... Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for help on a controversial page[edit]

Hello, Shii. I was directed to you from another Wikipedian who told me you were knowledgeable in religious controversies and so on and possibly would be willing to help. I would love any input you are willing to give over at Dorje Shugden Controversy and other related pages, as it seems that there is a lot of intransigence between those discussing how to make this article improved. Would you be willing to take a look? Perhaps you can give some insight in particular on WP:Label , in regards to edits removing the word cult from the article which has just been discussed on the talk page. Thank you! Prasangika37 (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I'm going to be extremely busy for the next 6 days or so and won't have time to look at this. Shii (tock) 03:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)