User talk:Shimeru/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Emma Ferreira

You deleted a page I wrote for artist Emma Ferreira- why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlove13 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I mentioned on your talk page, it was a copyright violation, with sections copied from Ferreira's official website. You're welcome to create an article written in your own words, if you have the independent reliable sources to do so. Shimeru 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted

Shemeru I wand the arcticles William Norman Lacceles Davidson and Frigidaire Unimatic back. Have you even read Automatic Washers policy? I am a member. I dont even want them back!Im leaving —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole Bear Smith (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're a member. You can't use somebody else's work without permission. It's a copyright violation. Shimeru 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete of moksha8 declined

Hi You recently declined the speedy delete of moksha8. Your edit summary was 'decline speedy -- referenced'. From what I understand, just references are not necessarily enough to preclude a CSD on A7 - Unremarkable company. The fact that it is mentioned on the web is surely enough to make it notable. What's your view? Thanks peterl (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the usual guideline for notability on Wikipedia involves having multiple independent reliable sources cover the subject in some depth. Since this article seems to have that, I declined the speedy. If you still don't think it's notable (which is reasonable), you can take it to WP:AFD for a full discussion. Shimeru 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep up the good work! peterl (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned

Hello Shimeru. Your admin actions at Caroline Glick were mentioned in the closure of this 3RR case: WP:AN3#User:RomaC reported by User:Cptnono (Result: 16 hours). No response is required unless you wish to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed speedy deletion of Moby Grape Live

Many thanks for your judgement here in terms of whether speedy deletion was warranted. I just need a bit more time and, as you note, the context of this band (going back over 40 years now) supports notability.

Many thanks again.

Dreadarthur (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with the article. Shimeru 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

article so far

Please can you look at the links I have put so far in the page i am creating and give some advice. I will remove what is not interesting and then proceed to add more after you let me know. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it within the next day or two. Might be a while, I have a project I should wrap up first before doing anything too intensive. Shimeru 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Also I am working with a friend on this and it would be easy if he can join wiki but I told him not to as we maybe accused of sock puppet or whatever next time, so he is sending me the stuff and I am adding but it would be so much easier if he joined and was able to contribute that way. Also is a facebook pic copyrighted. I wanted to put a pic from that but was not sure and if it is copyrighted how do I get permission. Is it through an author agent? can I use the covers of some books I have...is that copyright infringing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 17:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He's welcome to join in order to work on the project. It's only frowned on when someone joins "temporarily" in order to help someone in a content dispute or similar circumstance. I'd recommend being very clear about your relationship if anything like that should come up that you both take part in, but other than that, it's no problem.

Facebook photos are almost certainly copyrighted, unless it's stated somewhere on the page that they've been released into the public domain or have been licensed under GDFL or Creative Commons-Attribution/ShareAlike (CC-by-SA 3.0). There are some other licenses which may be appropriate; see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Licenses.

In some cases, there is no possible way to get a free image. A book cover (of a book published within the last 75 years) would be one instance -- it is copyrighted, and there's no way of producing a free alternative. However, WP:Fair use allows us to use that image anyway -- but only accompanying critical commentary about that book, and only in the article (or section of the author's article, if the book doesn't have a separate one) about the book itself. If you're looking for, say, a photograph of an author, you may be able to ask an agent or publicist to release one under a Creative Commons license (or to the public domain); I don't know how likely that is, but it's worth a try. Otherwise, if you're able to attend a signing or similar, you could take one yourself, and release it. Shimeru 19:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

How does my friend contribute to the article I am creating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're building it in your user space, it works just like a regular article... you just point him to it, and he can edit it like any other article. Shimeru 07:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you glance through the article and see if I am going in the right direction. I am working so hard on this and I don't want to waste time on it if it doesn't meet your requirements. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start. There are some things it would be a good idea to provide citations for, including "While at Harvard after receiving the highest grade in her course Micro Computers and Information Technology she was invited to become an assisting lecturer in Micro Computers and Information Technology by her then Professor Chayim Herzig-Marx, PhD, Director of Information Resources and Services, Financial Administration, Harvard University.", "The result was a prolific output of 10 books in 11 months, earning her the title of "Sri Lanka's Prolific Author", "Both Visually Learn PC and On Your Marks Net Set Go! Surviving in an e-world were on India Times bestseller list for almost seven months.", and ""Study Buddy" which was a guide for students taking the University of London degree and "Computer Tutor" which was a computer workbook were both endorsed by the Government of Sri Lanka to be used in schools in the country." Basically, anything that seems unusual or noteworthy should come with a citation. Shimeru 18:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give your thoughts on this despite you being busy with other stuff. I have no idea how to put a citation. How do I put one? I don't have all ten of her books but I have some and one with a government seal. Shall I scan that and add it? Also, how can I add video clips if I can get them? Thanks.

Let me direct you to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for a more complete rundown. The basic idea, though, is to include it as bibliography data wrapped in an HTML-style code. The below code would produce a footnote for a book, for instance:

<ref>Author. Title. Publisher: Year. Pages.</ref>

You can copy and paste that into the article where you want to place a reference, and replace the text with the actual author, title, etc. Then, in a section titled References, you would add {{reflist}}, which displays all of the references.

There are also various templates that can be used for citation, which will handle formatting -- for instance, {{cite-book}}. You can use these if you feel it would be easier. Shimeru 22:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I luvz you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.35.39 (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

On Caroline Glick

Hi Shimeru. Are you up to having another look at the Caroline Glick article. Regarding her "We Con..." video and controversy, I thought we'd found a good neutral presentation -- but editors have just now removed information on the controversy and criticism. First is was Jiujitsuguy, with no Talk participation:

• first
• twice
• I warned the editor on WP:3RR, moments later Brewcrewer arrived to revert again: here

Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look sometime in the next day or so. Best I can do right now. Shimeru 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh I reverted the above content removal twice, waited a day and a bit then reverted again -- and bing-bang got myself blocked by an unsympathetic admin who also seemed to have it in for you: "I don't care what Shimeru has to say. As far as I can tell, she is involved here in this edit war, and she over-stepped her bounds my protecting a page where she was clearly involved in this dispute. Blatantly improper move." [1] :( Any advice on how I could appeal this so the block log doesn't haunt me (my first and only block in five years). Yes I understand I didn't handle things as well as I might have, still. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You could ask for a block review at the administrators' noteboard, but I wouldn't recommend it; I don't think the community will find fault with the block unless you've got some sort of evidence of improper conduct. I doubt his not liking my actions would qualify; admins are entitled to their opinions. Shimeru 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the advice Shimeru. There was a protracted and acrimonious content discussion several months ago on an Israel-Palestine article, in which the admin in question and I had very different opinions. Regarding the conditions specified in WP:INVOLVED, do you think it was proper for him to use his admin tools to block me this time? RomaC ^TALK 11:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends. I don't really feel inclined to involve myself further than that in something that occurred a couple of months ago related to an area that's one of the most acrimonious on Wikipedia, as in real life. If you'd like to ask for a block review on those grounds, it is at least a piece of evidence, but unless the two of you have remained in contact and in conflict since, I doubt it will amount to much. Shimeru 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shimeru. I totally understand, and sorry you got caught in the crossfire. There are some editors who've had it in for me since the grand Jerusalem/Israeli capital content clash of a few months back. I'll take it to the AN/I so the facts are set down somewhere. (add: Here) Cheers, RomaC ^TALK 02:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonsai Kitten

We're both assuming good faith here but take a look at where the first "delete" !voter's IP geolocates to. Compare it with the IP from the talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We are the same person. Am I not allowed to express my opinions in the AFD? Sorry, didn't know that.

It's a crap article. Come on! Bonsai kitten. Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.35.39 (talk • contribs)

Of course you are allowed to express your opinion, that's what AFD is for. However, by bolding delete as 72.82.35.39 and being the "de facto" nominator as "71.246.157.23" it appears as if you are 2 different editors. Though it's likely that you did this unintentionally, it might appear that you are sock puppetting which is a big no no. It would be the same if I nominated an article for deletion and then used User:Ron Ritzsock, (my alternate account) to !vote "delete. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP just changes. Plus, I've been criticized for NOT describing rationale in a Delete/keep form. I figured everyone would know it was me. Was I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.42.81 (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're safe. It looks like the article is likely to be kept, in any case. Shimeru 23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol - feels like an F1 race

Hi

Thanks for the competition in the drive - it feels like some mad motor-race with overtaking and pulling back and overtaking again !

I probably will have to calm down over the next few days as my eyes and fingers are hurting and it's too hot here lol - my PC was out of action for half of yesterday after one of my graphics cards started to fail...after a quick hoover out and competely scanning my hard drives (which took 2 hours for all them them) I'm back in action

Anyway I hope we have encouraged others to join in rather than put them off with such high figures :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'll be slowing down myself... after the holiday, I won't have so much free time to put into it. It has been fun, though. I never imagined I'd be close to 50,000 words three days into the drive. Shimeru 19:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

List of The Price Is Right pricing games

The changes I made to this article expanded upon edits you had made where the descriptions became less clear. For example, you edited Cover Up to read the following:

Above each digit in the price are alternate digits: two alternates for the first digit, one for each of the second through fourth digits, and six for the fifth digit.

When reading that statement, it appears that there is one alternate digit for each of the second through fourth digit, which is not true.

You made the following edit to Let 'em Roll:

The contestant is given one roll of the dice and can earn up to two more: the price of a grocery item is given, and the contestant must determine whether the price of each of two other items is higher or lower.

Which provides no clarity about what the price is "higher or lower" than (Is it the first item? The second? A target price? etc.)

Additionally, "gameboard" is one word [2] and there were grammatical misuses of colons and semicolons that were changed into statements. Most of the other changes/additions you made were left in tact. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're making grammatically-incorrect changes and inserting unnecessary parenthetical statements and phrases. You've changed, for instance, "aces could not take on a value above $1,000." to the less-clear and grammatically-incorrect "aces could only be made value below $1,000." and "the contestant has an opportunity to win the car by selecting its price from among the price tags the contestant has won." to the less-clear and grammatically-incorrect "the contestant wins the car by selecting it's price from among the five pricetags using the choices they earned." ("It's" is not a possessive, for the record; "it's" is a contraction of "it is" or "it was".)

I've invested quite a bit of time copyediting this article for clarity, grammar, and spelling, and I do not appreciate you undoing that work. Kindly fix it. Shimeru 20:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, for Bullseye, the hidden bullseye is behind the price tags – not the markers on the target as in your edit. The contestant can still win if the mountain climber in Cliff Hangers takes exactly twenty-five steps, which is not necessarily true from your edit ("However, if the climber takes fewer than 25 steps, the contestant wins a large prize in addition to the three small prizes. ").

For Card Game, aces are inanimate objects and do not "take on" any actions. The contestant makes the action. The error I made with "its" versus "it's" was just that – an error. When playing Five Price Tags, the contestant is technically winning choices of the price tags and not the tags themselves, but your edit is just as clear.

Just as you have taken time to copy-edit the article, so have I. Obviously, everyone's contributions are welcome here on Wikipedia. Also, I didn't simply revert or rollback any of your edits. I expanded upon your work and provided additional clarification where it was needed. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only base my edits on the text that was present. If that text is incorrect, then it will remain incorrect following my edits; I am copyediting, not fact-checking.

Your contributions are welcome, but introducing or reintroducing mistakes is not. The phrase take on does not imply any action taken; to "take on" a value is common usage and means the same as to "be assigned" a value. Replacing it with a passive and ungrammatical phrase is not an improvement.

I feel "game board" is preferable to "gameboard", but I'll let that be since it's not important. Shimeru 20:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Road to the Multiverse

Hello, I noticed you are paricipating in the GOCE drive for July, and I was wondering if you could give a second opinion copyedit to the article Road to the Multiverse. It was recently copyedited by another GOCE member, Chaosdruid, but I think a few of his edits removed way too many commas. Could you take a thorough look at the article, and possibly give it a further copyedit if necessary? The article is currently listed on the GOCE requests page, so it should contribute to your total articles/words in the drive. Gage (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. It might take a day or two; I have plans for the Fourth. Shimeru 06:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just went ahead and did it, since it was on my mind. Shimeru 07:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a very thorough copyedit. Gage (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jorge Castillo (artist)

The article Jorge Castillo (artist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP, May 2009

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jorge Castillo (artist)

I have nominated Jorge Castillo (artist), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Castillo (artist). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking editorial consensus on File: Skip Spence Columbia Promo Photo.jpg

You saw the context of Moby Grape in countering the speedy deletion decision of another editor in relation to Moby Grape Live. I am encountering what may be a similar lack of appreciation of context in relation to a promotional photo of Skip Spence that I have now uploaded twice to illustrate the article. I don't know how much more justification I can provide to User: Eekster and am concerned about the photo continuing to be inaccurately categorized as one for which a fair use justification has not been provided, and hence possibly deleted. If you have a moment, could you please review the talk on Eekster in relation to this and perhaps convey a second opinion to him or her. If you have the authority to change the photo categorization and believe that a change is justified, could you please do so. On the other hand, if both of you are of the opinion that there is inadequate fair use justification here, please let me know. Many thanks in advance.

Dreadarthur (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a lot of experience with images. I know that use of copyrighted images is discouraged, but it's possible when, as in this case, there's no chance of taking a free picture (because the subject is dead). You'll want to add a fair use rationale to the image's page; see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. If you need a more experienced third opinion, I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Shimeru 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your suggested direction. I have opted to first seek the opinion of User: 7, who had previously reverted a speedy deletion decision of Eekster in relation to another photo. User: 7 seems to be fairly familiar with photo acceptability. If this doesn't resolve matters, I will then go to the more general forum that you have suggested.

Dreadarthur (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabs For Israel

Good to see I was right the first time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru, 4 votes to merge and 3 to keep is not consensus to "keep", please change it to "no consensus" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There's obviously no consensus to delete, which means we keep the material in some form. There's not enough overwhelming consensus to merge to close the discussion as merge. Keep, leaving open a possible merge as an editorial decision, seems like a better close to me; "no consensus" generally indicates that there's no strong case for deleting an article, but also no strong case for keeping it, which isn't the case here. You could WP:BOLDly do so, or you can initiate a discussion on the article's talk page if you think the decision would be controversial. I also should point out that not all of the merge !votes were in agreement; one proposed a merge to a different target article, which was demonstrated to be an inappropriate one. Shimeru 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. No consensus is for cases where you have a significant number of "delete class" !votes (delete, userfy, incubate, and transwiki) with credible arguments and a significant number of "keep class" !votes with credible arguments. ("redirect" is a gray area, it depends on the situation). It's also for when there are not enough comments to determine consensus (WP:NPASR). The only exception would be for cases like this AFD I closed last year where everybody's saying "merge" or "redirect" but nobody can agree on a target. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cvision

Could you please weigh in on the cvision technologies article which is up for discussion to be deleted Jake08041990 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Arabs for Israel

Can you please add your rational for closing the AfD for this article as a keep, because it looks like a merge or no consensus to me. If I am satisfied by your edit to the AfD there will be no need to take this to DRV. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My rationale is right above. Take it to DRV if you care to, but the odds of having it overturned to delete are slim at best. Shimeru 18:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please add your rationale to the discussion where it can be referenced in any future AfDs. Verbal chat 19:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I suppose it's always possible that explicitly pointing it out will keep time from being wasted. Shimeru 20:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Verbal chat 21:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)