User talk:Shii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)


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)


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]


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]


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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Statism in Shōwa Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Home Affairs. 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) 09:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yatsuhiro Nakagawa[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Yatsuhiro Nakagawa has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. J04n(talk page) 19:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper edit[edit]

Hi Shii, I noticed you undid my edit to the Jack the Ripper page and your explanation as to why was confusing and in an incomplete sentence. What does can't even into reading comprehension) mean? I reinstated the edit because this is breaking news with DNA evidence. It is also from a justifiable source. Please tell me with more definition and clarity your reasons for disagreement. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingslove2013 (talkcontribs) 19:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Shii, I did not use The Dail Mail as a source. I used the award winning The Independent from UK instead. The Independent is a well respected journalistic publication. Kingslove2013 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Edit war template removed Skarz (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm participating in the discussion. Why aren't you? Shii (tock) 20:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit war template removed

I'm participating in the discussion. Why aren't you? Shii (tock) 16:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
For the last time: stop the premeditated WP:EDITWARING you most certainly do not have consensus. You are attempting to remove material and refuse to cooperatively contribute new material.—Machine Elf 1735 16:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I have four editors against one. Recognize that you're in the minority, it will help. Shii (tock) 16:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop lying.—Machine Elf 1735 16:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Make that five. Thanks for your hard work. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Knechtges/Chang vols. 3/4[edit]

Hi Shii,

I thought you would want to know: Brill has just sent out a notice saying that Parts 3 & 4 are going to be released on the 30th of this month. You mentioned that you do your work from a library, so you can probably check with the librarian(s) to see when they'll be getting the volumes.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@White_whirlwind Thank you very much; I will keep an eye on the reference stacks. Shii (tock) 20:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I Ching, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Change. 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) 09:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with GA nominee edits[edit]

Shii, when you adjust the GA nominee template on an article talk page, the only change you are supposed to make is to add "onhold" to the status parameter (if it already says "onreview", then replace that with "onhold"). If you're just starting a review and not putting it on hold, then the bot will automatically take care of adjusting the talk page for you. I've just corrected your edit to the Talk:Hajj page to reflect the proper formatting, and will be correcting those for any other ongoing reviews as well. Among other things, this makes sure that the nominator is properly notified; when you remove all the other information, you short-circuit the notification. Thanks for the work you're doing on Good Articles, but please recheck the Information page to be sure you're doing the other steps in the process correctly. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: I just took a look at the On Hold instructions, which aren't as clear as they might be: basically, the ellipsis [...] is there to show you that you ignore everything else and only modify the |status= field. The same is true for requesting a second opinion: only change that status field. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset Thanks for correcting this for me. I used to do GAs when it was fully manual and the semi-automation has got me confused. Shii (tock) 01:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Glad to have you back, Shii! The semi-automation takes a bit of getting used to, but it does save a lot of time. (The other problem we run into is when people edit the parts of the review talk page above the "Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above" line. The bot's highly dependent on the exact formatting of that top section, which is automatically generated in the editor when the review is created; that part needs to be left alone.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to I Ching may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of hexagrams of the I Ching#Hexagram 11|35px]]<br>[[List of hexagrams of the I Ching#Hexagram 11|泰 (tài]]
  • * {{cite book|ref=harv|last1=Yuasa]|first1=Yasuo|title=Overcoming modernity synchronicity and image-thinking|date=2008|publisher=State

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Book titles[edit]

Hi Shii,

Recently you have added many works to Chinese-related articles, and I thank you for your interest and contributions. However, when you're adding works to Chinese-related articles, please follow the standard practice and capitalize non-minor words. For example, Nylan (2001) is not The five "confucian" classics, it's The Five "Confucian" Classics. For more information, please consult WP:Manual of Style/China-related articles#Citations.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@White_whirlwind: Thanks for the info -- I am just using the citation data that the editing tool pulls from an ISBN search, but I will edit it by hand in the future. Shii (tock) 21:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@Shii: Ok, thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


I mentioned your name at WP:COI#Dorje Shugden controversy as one of the few experienced editors around here familiar with both the academic study of religion and Buddhism. I think your input would be very welcome tbere and on the articles in general, particularly as I also think that there may well be good reasons to think that this matter maybe should go to ArbCom, and it would be a good idea to have as many experienced people testifying there as possible. I know your busy, but any input at all, even regarding the current discussions, would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Shiii, for your comments at the COI page above. Though the other user posting here thinks that the issue is ripe for ArbCom, I don't think matters are really to that point yet, as the issue is the pattern of editing, but I don't think the situation has totally devolved into gratuitous personal attacks (though it could get that way if there aren't additional eyes). I think that the combatants are trying to focus on content, but they do occasionally get BAITed and a bit snappish. I'd prefer to simply have the COI issue watched. I would welcome additional knowledgable eyes on these NKT articles, as I originally went over there as a neutral observer but have found it difficult to stay that way given the clear evidence that I posted at WP:COI. Montanabw(talk) 03:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Weihnachten10.gif Happy Holiday Cheer
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!
John Carter (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
👍 Like Shii (tock) 01:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments required on The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy[edit]

See The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy regarding if material should be deleted.--Inayity (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:20:16, 5 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DiscoAmazing[edit]

Hey Shii, You recently declined my article creation request for Cosplay Fetish Battle Drones, and I was hoping you could clarify what additional requirements I would have to satisfy to demonstrate notability. I thought that the citation of publications like Sight & Sound Magazine and the SF Bay Guardian would be sufficient to qualify as "significant coverage" (ie: more than a passing mention, as it was the sole subject of multiple published articles).

Is my understanding of that requirement incorrect, or is there another aspect of notability that the article failed to meet?

Thanks a lot for the clarification, it would be especially appreciated as I'm new to wikipedia and you are clearly an experienced editor.


DiscoAmazing (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@DiscoAmazing: It does seem that the only place the film was prominently mentioned is in the Bay Guardian, although that does count as a good citation. I got that wrong as I was looking through the article -- my mistake. I am not sure whether the Bay Guardian article qualifies the film as notable, but I won't muck with your creation of the article. Shii (tock) 21:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Shii: Thanks for getting back to me! One more question for future reference (you don't have to reply if you're busy I know its not your job to answer my Qs) but are websites like io9 (and others of similar caliber) generally not considered reliable for the purpose of citation on wikipedia? It was the cited io9 articles that I had expected to be the most solid evidence of notability for the article I created, but I realize that it's not exactly a prestigious peer reviewed journal. :P Thanks again. DiscoAmazing (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@DiscoAmazing: I don't personally like io9, but the consensus I've seen on Wikipedia is that it is better than nothing, so feel free to add it if you have it! I don't see it in the article right now. Shii (tock) 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

First things[edit]

Conservative sites and people who are brought up in this debacle get their wiki edited into attack pages/whitewash their achievements (see Christina H. Sommers before Dheyward stepped in). It would be best to keep an eye on its edit history if you care about it. Good luck mate (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've said before, this is not a problem with Wikipedia but with elite society at large. Shii (tock) 18:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how wiki would curb editors who have a vendetta against people/websites and ignore policies like NPOV. I would like to do something but attitudes which admins/editors have against new accounts is unnerving. Especially editors who exhibit WP:OWN (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi Shii, would you like to weigh in on this? [3] [4] [5] Thank you for inserting the source in the first place. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Lockmaster1 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Michael Greer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Futurist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to wield the mop?[edit]

Yeah, we're dealing with True Believers here. We're dealing with a cult leader, so it's to be expected. Self-published, web-only - totally made up smears, AFAICT. says : "The Pahrump Valley Times is a bi-weekly newspaper published by Stephens Media LLC. The print edition of the Pahrump Valley Times is distributed on Wednesday and Friday mornings." It seems to me that Castaneda's cult antics are well documented in many published books and reliable media reports. ISTM these challenges are being made in bad faith.--Elvey(tc) 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Elvey -- I did not actually click the link to the PVTimes page before. I wanted to give the IP a chance to state his case, but I think you've debunked him successfully. Shii (tock) 04:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you revert their last edit to the article? I'd rather avoid even the appearance of edit warring...--Elvey(tc) 05:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Firstly, I'm neither hiding, nor a vandal, nor a 'true believer' (I had to look it up), just someone who wishes to see unbiased, neutral encyclopedia entries, with no vandalism nor ad hominem from any editor, whether IP'd or under a pseudonym.

A précis from Wiki:


Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say.


   ^ Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.

Applicability to deceased persons, corporations, or groups of persons

Recently dead or probably dead

Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Avoid victimization

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

See also: Wikipedia:Libel

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.

Avoid gossip and feedback loops

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Anyone can self-publish information regardless of whether s/he is truly knowledgeable about the topic in question. For that reason, self-published works are largely not acceptable to use as sources, though there are exceptions.

Self-published material is characterized by the lack of reviewers who are independent of the author (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.

Sources that are usually not reliable

Self-published sources

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid

Some self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved.

Properly published sources are not always "good" or "reliable" or "usable", either. Being properly published does not mean that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, or subject to editorial control. Properly published sources can be unreliable, biased, and self-serving.

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources. (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi, with several well-argued delete !votes, I was surprised to see that not only did you close this as "keep" (instead of "no consensus"), but even commented that this "clearly" is notable. A lot of the "coverage" brought forward in large walls of text during the AfD are, as pointed out by several participants, trivial at best and promotional stuff at worst. Perhaps you could have another look? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Randykitty I did look at the "delete" votes and saw that they were going by the standard for boxers. But the "promotional material" you're talking about amounts to quite a few articles about the subject in independent sources, hence my closure. Shii (tock) 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

On yer barn![edit]

Barnstar of Integrity Hires.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For the honorable way you handled that unblock request. Squinge (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

AfC-related ban discussion[edit]

Thank you for a number of recent, interrelated edits. One point, however, on this: it's not a permanent ban but an indefinite ban that's being discussed. (The latter would default to the former, but needn't entail it.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Woah... I learned several new additions to community guidelines today. Shii (tock) 00:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PS This mess is worse than we'd feared. ¶ Right, now I have to go off to work. (I'm already late.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)