Jump to content

User talk:Shirik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JamshidAwal (talk | contribs) at 05:41, 14 January 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Speedy deletion declined: Galaxy Express Corporation

Hello Shirik, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Galaxy Express Corporation - a page you tagged - because: Mentioned in sources provided does rather imply some notability. PROD or take to AfD if required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  14:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ged. Could you please elaborate on the implied notability? The only source I see that would imply notability would be the one from spacenews which says nothing except that this rocket is scheduled for cancellation. To be frank, if that were to imply notability, that would also mean millions of other corporations are notable for being reported as going bankrupt. This "implied notability" seems to be in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Naturally, since you contested it, it's not appropriate for WP:CSD anymore as the article obviously cannot be "unquestionably deleted", so I'll take it to WP:AFD, but I would like to know what you saw that I didn't. Thanks. --Shirik (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assertions of notability can be tricky things. For me, a company that has so many major companies as shareholders implies some notability. Additionally, it's making a rocket that is notable enough to have it's own article. Both of these things were a credible assertion of notability for A7, which is a lower threshold than that needed to pass the general notability guideline. GedUK  21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ged. That makes sense; thanks for your explanation. --Shirik (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone at AfD:Galaxy Express Corporation

Ditto for your comments, both there and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sdsds#Your_tone_at_AfD:Galaxy_Express_Corporation. You are right: it is nothing personal. I understand deletionism and inclusionism are in opposition, and that much of your work on our encyclopedia is consistent with deletionism. Do you think anything could convince you to pursue a more inclusionist approach? Perhaps you could consider balancing your deletion proposals with efforts that enhance and build upon the work of other project members? (sdsds - talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I have voted keep on quite a few articles, and am at the forefront of the current discussion regarding the extreme likelihood of notability for high schools in favor of keeping high schools, I think that your comments are unjustified. I do not consider myself a deletionist, however I do feel that there are definitely things that do not belong on Wikipedia. I ask that if you have any indication of why you think my work does not "enhance" the Wikipedia project as a whole (aside from the obvious statement that you simply disagree with my feelings of what should or should not be in Wikipedia), then please elaborate. Perhaps I don't add substance to Wikipedia, but please, let's be honest, if every little thing that got posted stayed on Wikipedia permanently, then the signal to noise ratio of Wikipedia would be far less than what it is now. Instead, people like me, while we do not actually add content, we significantly improve the signal to noise ratio of Wikipedia. There are bound to be disagreements from time to time, but that doesn't mean you can come out and start calling someone "unconstructive". By the way, for the record, I rarely propose things for deletion. Instead, I tend to work on vandalism cleanup and copy editing. If that is also unconstructive, then I don't know what else you want from me. --Shirik (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been brought to the attention of WP:WQA in an effort to relieve tensions. --Shirik (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shirik, please do not take what I have written so far in this exchange personally. Until now I have tried to focus solely on your contributions! My responses would have been the same to any editor. Let me take the opportunity here though to write something personally to you in response to your comments above. I value you as an editor! Wikipedia needs more dedicated editors, and I want to encourage your participation in creating our encyclopedia, not discourage it. As an inclusionist, I believe you can do that best by researching topics that our encylopedia does not yet cover well, and then sharing the results of your research by improving those articles that try to cover the topic.
Using the case of Galaxy Express Corporation just as an example: it matters little whether the material about the company that we have today is in an article of its own, or combined into the article on the GX rocket. What attracts your attention to it, and mine, is that we have so little material about this endeavor at all! Yes, it is difficult to find reliable sources in English. But beware the subtle risk of systemic bias! Only time will tell if that company is the fore-runner of a whole new way of doing aerospace in Japan.
Sincerely, (sdsds - talk) 16:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I value everyone's contributions as well, I simply try to ensure the quality of Wikipedia is maintained. I'm going to spend a few days trying to do some research on that company to get a fuller understanding of the company's notability. I'll try to keep you informed of what I find. --Shirik (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: A little more time before rolling back

You are right, sorry, I was just about to tag it but you bet me to it. :P > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thanks again for your hard work! --Shirik (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, and Holidays!

Happy First Edit Day, Shirik, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! File:18th Birthday.jpg

MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki talk contribs wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

I (MisterWiki) created a video specially for you, wishing you the best for this christmas time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOAvuNbt1o

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:MisterWiki/Happy Holidays}} to your friends' talk pages.

MisterWiki talk contribs 15:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Shirik (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Galaxy Express Corporation

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Like you, I hope there are no hard feelings about this! One thing to consider is the "side effects" of article deletion. If it is deleted, its revision history becomes inaccessible. If on the other hand the entire contents of an article is replaced with a redirect to some other article, then the original article's revision history is maintained. So if a redirect to another article is possible, the deletion question becomes, "Is the content so inappropriate for our encyclopedia that Wikipedia should not even show editors the work that had been done?" That's pretty severe! (sdsds - talk) 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

usurpation

The username in the russian section is free now. --Obersachse (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --Shirik (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trillenium

Thank you. I understand now. Guess I should have read the notability guidelines first. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shop&socialize (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful!

I noticed this edit you performed using rollback. Please have a re-read of When not to use rollback'. I noticed you mentioned on IRC you 'couldn't decide' if it was vandalism or not - rollback should only ever be used to revert vandalism or blatantly unproductive edits. Don't take this to be a scolding, merely pointing it out to save your ass... rollback privileges can disappear if the finger slips :) Cheers — Deontalk 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have been more clear. What I meant to say was that it really was both vandalism and a request for help. The edit was clearly unproductive based off that edit and past history, so I didn't take issue with it. The side effect was that I also went out to post a {{helpme-onTalk}} on his page. Hope that's clearer :) But thanks for the note. --Shirik (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for North American blizzard of 2009

Current events globe On 20 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article North American blizzard of 2009, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Merry Christmas! :) --candle•wicke 02:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and you too! --Shirik (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Super Saturday

Updated DYK query On December 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Super Saturday, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

iCarly iHide a star

Okay I looked And there's nothing on the net. Take a look at this.

  1. 201 - 203 iGo To Japan
  2. 204 - iSaw Him First
  3. 205 - iStage An Intervention
  4. 206 - iOwe You
  5. 207 - iHurt Lewber
  6. 208 - iPie
  7. 209 - iChristmas
  8. 210 - iKiss
  9. 211 - iGive Away A Car
  10. 212 - iMeet Fred
  11. 213 - iLook Alike
  12. 214 - iGo Nuclear
  13. 215 - iRocked The Vote
  14. 216 - iMake Sam Girly
  15. 217/225 - originally iMeet Connor and iGet cought, but no OFFICIAL statement as to what episode goes here probably iDate A Bad Boy
  16. 218 - iReunite With Missy
  17. 219 - iWant My Website Back
  18. 220 - iMust Have Locker #239
  19. 221 - iFight Shelby Marx (1)
  20. 222 - iFight Shelby Marx (2)
  21. 223 - iCarly Awards
  22. 224 - iTwins
  23. 226 - iDid That First
  24. 227 - iThink They Kissed
  25. 228 - iCook
  26. 229 - iHave My Principals
  27. 230 - iSpeed Date
  28. 231 - iFix A Popstar
  29. 232 - iSaved Your Life
  30. 233&234 - iSplit Up / iDiscover Dave & Fleck - now iquit
  31. 235 - iEnrage Gibby
  32. 236 - iFind Lewbert's Lost Love
  33. 237 - iWas A Pageant Girl
  34. 238 - iWon't Cancel The Show
  35. 239 - iSpaced Out
  36. 240 - iBelieve in Bigfoot
  37. 242 - iBeat the Heat
  38. 243-244 - iPsycho
  39. 245 - iBloop

I have been watching show fax and it was not on there even when they were going to film that episode. Also I looked and it says it will air on 12-27 and it did not even air. I looked at all the guides Tv guide, msn, tvrage, and tv. If you add the season 2 episodes and the rest as season 3 + 25 episodes for season 1 and the movies or specails as 2 episodes who will get 70 episodes for the whole show so far.T.V. Watcher 98 (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find this list? Please note that it doesn't have to be an online source. If you can find the details in a printed (reliable and verifiable) source, this would make for an acceptable citation. But it does have to be in a source somewhere. --Shirik (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know forman arn't a RS, But I found them in the upcoming episodes of iCarly therd. One of the users there emailed the casting director and she gave the production codes to them. In July I started tracking the episodes on showfax.com Witch is a casting website. Also dan has pics or videos of the episodes while shooting on Danwarp in some way or formT.V. Watcher 98 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I know this is not a RS http://iicarlyy.blogspot.com/ but the next 2 episodes are iWas A Pageant Girl [9th January], iSaved Your Life [18th January] witch hhas been confirmed already on TVguide.comT.V. Watcher 98 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and your desire to correct this information. However, the very reason the page was protected is because of unsourced or unreliable information on the page contributing to edit wars. Accordingly, I can't fulfill your {{editsemiprotected}} request until a consensus has been established that it is OK. Controversial unsourced information cannot be added. I suggest that you first go to the article's talk page and open a discussion about this change. If you can reach consensus, then the change is more likely to go through. But take note that if you fail to meet WP:RS then it is likely that you won't be able to achieve consensus without a very strong reason. --Shirik (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

Hi Shirik, I was wondering if you'd be able to copyedit the John Christie (murderer) article. I'm in the process of getting it nominated as a featured article and it's been suggested to me that the article requires more copyediting. If you could go through it and fix up any errors, that would very much be appreciated. Cheers, Wcp07 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm currently in the middle of something so can't get to it right away, but if it can wait a few hours I'd be more than happy to do it. --Shirik (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, there's no rush. Thanks for going to the trouble of copyediting it. Wcp07 (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I spent about an hour and a half doing a copyedit on the article. It was fairly well-written already but I did make some touchups. Please let me know if you have any concerns! --Shirik (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for setting aside the time to do the copyediting, your work has greatly improved the article. You have very good copyediting skills! Wcp07 (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In celebration, appreciate and tremendous thanks

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar for your extensive, amazing and excellent copyediting of Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak Basket of Puppies 07:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks a lot! --Shirik (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of adventure films

Thanks for beating me to the punch on the vandal on the list of genre films page. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry :) I just figured you were a bit annoyed and wanted to help out. Hope you don't mind. I've watchlisted the page as he seems to be continuing to revert, so I'll keep an eye on it too. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do! I'm out to take some friends out to a casino, so I can't watch it forever! Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WSVG

It isn't incorrect, the information is from several sources, one being the FCC. Gimme a moment and let me provide two sources. I reverted your revert, but accidently hit the Vandalism button instead of Rollback. That was a mistake on my part and I apologize for that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page before throwing templates at me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I can only go so fast; the templates were given before I had seen any messages from you here. Hopefully you can find some sources for it, that's all I'm looking for. But please note that you've already violated WP:3RR. I'm willing to assume good faith here, but the other reversions you've done on the article are also not vandalism, as they were marked. Anyway, this discussion might as well continue on the article's talk page; hopefully we can find some sources for it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the WSVG page now. It has three references, one from a transaction reporting site, one from the FCC and one from the station's own "About Us" page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks! The only reason I was removing it was because there were some people saying it was wrong, some people saying it was right, and there was no source to confirm one way or another (and I am not someone who can judge which is right). In such a controversial situation with no source to claim that the fact is right, it should be removed. Now that this has been confirmed, we can move forward. I only ask that you try to be a little more careful with the "vandalism" button, as this should only be used for blatant vandalism, and I wouldn't call any of the edits in that article blatantly unconstructive. Thanks for your work in resolving this issue! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I do ask that the other users, who claimed to the point of creating multiple accounts, are warned not to edit war as well. This was solved simply by adding a reference, which is all they had to ask, not vandalize (I still feel it was that) and edit war. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention to the user while he was in the channel that edit summaries should be left as to why the changes were being made, and that this probably would have alleviated the issues that arose here. At this point I don't think it's really reasonable to toss a warning template onto his page as he's aware of what went on and what needed to change. Since the issue is resolved, it's best not to kick up more dirt. I'm sure you both were trying to be constructive; I only moved in as a neutral party to try to resolve the conflict peacefully, which seems to be where we are now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie...I am cool with the "not-kicking-up-of-dirt" idea. I have the page on my watchlist (as I have for about 2 years) so I will watch for any further edits by those users. I doubt, though, with the references, any will come. I think, thankfully, this is the conclusion of this situation. Thanks for your help. Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 54 Clubhouse on when those shows started since

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

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

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

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

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
In recognition of your tireless effort and dedication patrolling recent changes and cleaning out the muck, I hereby award you this barnstar. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, thanks a lot! I don't go out looking for praise, but it's nice every once in a while. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learn To Be Foundation

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

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

this is the case 

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

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

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

Re: "cheatin on me"

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

tech help

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

Actually, it looks like you placed it right, so you did fine! Anyway, your best bet is usually the {{helpme}} template as you used; the bot just got fixed so using that template will help you get things taken care of more quickly because it will attract everyone's attention. Good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. Here ya go: [1]. :D Malke2010 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congress

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Wikipedia misuse by a real‐life associate

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

Thanks for taking such care with the issue. These types of things can be very tricky, and you were wise to ask for assistance. Good luck getting the situation resolved. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry I missed your box about replying on my talk page. Infoporfin (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, I don't really mind that much, I just try to keep conversations in one place to help them make more sense. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblebees

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

I am sorry, but we cannot accept original research on my userpage. Furthermore, I hereby spam you with links to commons! [2] [3] [4] [5]. Furthermore, rawr. And since rawr > meow, I win. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of your recent edits has introduced confusing information into Netalarm's brain;therefore, Netalarm will pet you. [6] thing claims that bumblebee's do sting! But your closeup investigations of a bumblebee's butt have suggested otherwise. Netalarm waddles back to chat Netalarmhappy holidays! 07:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deal with the Devil

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

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

Request for help with copy edit

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

Sure, not a problem. Let me get some lunch and then I'll take a look at it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a little over 2 hours touching up the article. It is pretty good. The only consistent problem was that of logical quotation, which is the preferred style on Wikipedia. I corrected all incorrect punctuation that I found. Beyond that, I'm a little worried about the section on extracurricular activities. The section reads like a list without any real prose content; you may wish to expand this section. But aside from that, the article is well done. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I want to award you this barnstar for your speedy, careful, and excellent copyediting of School for Creative and Performing Arts. Thank you for your help and great work!Vaughanchris (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks :) Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked vandal

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

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

thanks

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

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

Image Citation

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

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

File talk:Home noreaster 2009.jpg

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

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

Request

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

Hi there, sure I can take care of that for you. Unfortunately, I'm about to eat dinner, but if it can wait an hour or so, I can certainly get to it tonight. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for the quick response and take your time. Suggestions on general sentence structure, voice, and such clean up are my highest concern. Anything else is of course appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluther

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

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

Thanks...

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

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

Checkmarx deletion

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

Still, they are not, for some reason.

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

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

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

Thanks for reading to this point. I appreciate it.

I truly hope you reconsider.

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

Hi there. Most deletion debates are open for 7 days. In this case, the deletion debate was open for 14 days. If you had an issue with the way the debate was being handled, you should have left a comment in the debate itself. That being said, I think you do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. It is not as subjective as you make it seem to be; primarily, the concern was that the company in question did not meet the guidelines identified at WP:CORP, and this guideline is entirely independent upon what the company does. Additionally, the general notability guideline is entirely independent from the subject. Yes, it's possible that these types of companies will only be mentioned in certain, niche sources, but it is still possible, and required, for them to meet the aforementioned guidelines.
That being said, I find it mildly offensive that you consider that "all of the participants were not experts on the field of source code analysis" considering I am a software engineer and know exactly what you're talking about. However, this is irrelevant, as the above comments show why someone who has no knowledge of the topic would be able to maintain a delete position on the article. However, I strongly advise that, in the future, you do not try to determine who knows what, and simply stay to the facts of the deletion argument itself, which remain unchanged regardless of what those involved in the discussion know about the subject.
Finally, if you have a problem with the way the discussion went, and if you think it was out-of-process, then I suggest you go to deletion review and discuss the problem there, however I should point out that I do endorse this deletion. Regards. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I sounded offensive. I never meant to be (I was frustrated, I worked hard to write and correct the article in the first place). I thought I removed the word "speedy" (it was not a speedy deletion), I didn't. I was just out of town for a few weeks, and then saw it disappear. I guess for some people 7 (or 14 days) is too short, but that's MY problem. It was a surprise to me, because the article was checked more than once. Concerning the "experts in the area", I definitely asked to be corrected if I was wrong. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. That concludes my apologies.
That being said, and after reading your (and other's) replies [Thanks for the honest reply! It was very important to me to understand what happened and why], I will try to understand better the problems (especially notability) and see if I can fix them and try to get the article back. I hope to succeed. -Adarw (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with your adjustments to the article. If you need an independent review of the article to see if there are any concerns, don't hesitate to ask. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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

Hi. Basically, if you use a name on WP:ANI, you should also let those names know that they've been commented on. The easiest way to do this is by substituting the template {{ani-notice}} on their talk page. As far as more IPs, I wouldn't try to think about that right now. Let's just see how it plays out. Hope that helps! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks so much for the help. I will try to go on as usual, but may need to do some cleaning up on certain articles... Again, thanks! C.Kent87 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

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

I have no intention to semi-protect my user page; there's never any real damage, and as stupid as this sounds, it actually makes me feel good because not only does it prove I am having an impact, but it also takes them away from vandalizing articles (where it has the potential to go unnoticed). Besides, protecting my page would be somewhat of an admission of defeat, and I refuse to give them that. But thanks for your concern, and thanks for taking care of it. Regards. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that completely. Have a nice day/night - I.M.S. (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You too! And thanks again. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JamshidAwal

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

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

kind regards,

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirik&oldid=337746468"