User talk:Shii

Please remove the article about jung myung seok. Some information there is not true. Thank you.

I Ching

Sorry I missed your question at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Ching/archive1 before the bot added the closing template. From my reading of the comments, it seems like there was healthy disagreement about the scope and some of the sourcing, which I think are best resolved outside of the FAC process. More important, it is normal for nominations to be archived when they have run this long without attracting any support for promotion. I would be good to build some capital by reviewing other FACs and making sure any outstanding scope and sourcing issues are resolved before renominating. You are welcome to renominate in two weeks. --Laser brain (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Could You Review?

Shii: I have a rewrite of Beliefs and Practices for the Soka Gakkai page in my Sandbox [[1]]. If you have time, could you look and it and maybe suggest ways in which it may be unacceptable? It's 100+ words shorter than the current. I finally found an English source for the 5 Guidelines of Faith you had suggested, and included them as a sub-subsection. Everything else is pretty much the same, except for the order in which it's presented. That the SG was once part of Nichiren Shoshu is still there, but moved down so it's not presented as THE most important aspect of SG canon. I changed the order of sub-sections also. Finally, I retained critical statements, but as one part of the subject, rather than the most essential thing about the subject. (If this request is inappropriate, let me know.) Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Daveler16 FWIW this looks perfectly good to me. Shii (tock) 08:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I made a few more changes today to eliminate typos and confusing syntax. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Shii may approve, but I don't, and I don't consider the decontextualization to be policy compliant, because SG is a Nichiren-derivative movement. I will consider it disruptive if you post that, and ArbCom is on the horizon if I have to deal with your advocacy again.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again there is a strong historicism going on here. We already have a History section in the article that makes SG's origins clear. Shii (tock) 20:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I move this conversation to the Talk Page? Seems to be it has taken a turn other editors might want to get in on. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do so... Shii (tock) 17:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Japan Communist Party flag.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Japan Communist Party flag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Providence (religious movement). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Filed by GIOSCali, but GIOSCali did not send out notifications Jim1138 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shii, yes sorry forgot to drop the notifiation, but I put in a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard to help our discussions on the Providence page reach a compromise.

GIOSCali (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shii, do you have a source for your statement on DR/N Reliable secondary sources attest that this group purposefully misleads outsiders about its true nature.? If so, it might be good to add it to your statement on DR/N. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

State Shinto

Please take a look at Talk:Separation of church and state#Japan. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello

I am advised.....Since this article was deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochelle Gadd, if you think it should be restored you should first contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Shii (talk). He may be willing to restore the article to a draft page where you can work on it. When you have added references, check with him before restoring it to the main encyclopedia; if he does not agree, you can appeal at WP:Deletion review. JohnCD.......

I believe this page should be reinstated as Rochelle Gadd is a professional actress with many credits to her name (I will locate references). Please let me know what you suggest. Many thanks Chrispanto (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Chrispanto: The page is now available to you in your userspace, at User:Chrispanto/Rochelle Gadd. Please add references, etc. or else it will be deleted again. Shii (tock) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi - thank you. I have added a few referenves, but as I am new to this, could you please check and tell me if I am doing this correctly or advise where I am going wrong? Many thanks Chrispanto (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Chrispanto: None of your references are acceptable. However, I am not able to provide guidance on this subject; please use Wikipedia:Teahouse or ask another admin. Thanks Shii (tock) 12:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Protection at Shinto

Would you consider unprotecting Shinto? It has been indefinitely semi-protected for almost six years, excepting the pending changes trial, and the editor who it was intended to benefit (Takashi Ueki) has not edited in over five years. Thanks, Conifer (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Conifer - I expect this will bring nothing but the horde of POV editors that come to articles like Religion, but nevertheless... let's give it a shot. Shii (tock) 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. TL22 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar

Hi, I was wondering if my response to your question at the FAC was satisfactory?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_L._Jones question

• The first KEEP vote was from GangofOne who said keep because he had "200,000 subscribers" on YouTube. Not a valid argument to keep something. He did not post again in the AFD.
• Johan65 posted KEEP saying the guy was the best in the world at explaining electronics, no other reason given. He did not post anywhere else in the AFD.
• Paul (User:Lpgeffen) posted just once also, saying "Valuable, public-minded blogger with a large following" as his only reason for wanting to keep the article.
• So you have three KEEP votes you can disqualify. A single magazine interview was found for the guy, plus a book published by an unknown writer with interviews with him and other YouTube people. Almost all of those who said KEEP did so before even these were found, so their arguments were just the invalid "I like it" instead of any claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements. Two(Jeb and МандичкаYO) argued these two sources were enough, while four(Dream Focus, LaMona, MAsem, and Ronz) said they were not and gave valid reasons why the book didn't count towards notability. Dream Focus 14:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My impression of the discussion was that Jeh's arguments were convincing to МандичкаYO and that he provided an extended justification for his use of sources -- although I see that there is certainly room to doubt whether the sources he chose justify a claim of notability. I guess I could change the result to "no consensus" if you'd find that satisfying. Shii (tock) 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how four delete and two keep, would end in anything but delete. (The other three keeps as I stated above were invalid). МандичкаYO stated "I think the Q&A in Circuit Cellar (with the mention of his significance in the introduction) is enough to establish notability, combined with other mentions, though I haven't researched the book yet, I'm going on WP:AGF that it exists and was not self-published and he got a chapter." So he didn't evaluate the book or stick around to read the arguments against it being valid. His keep was based on just one article saying how great the guy was, and WP:NOTABILITY says you need more than one reliable source giving significant coverage. Dream Focus 14:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Did you take time to read through all the arguments, or did you just skim through quickly? Everyone makes mistakes, just don't be too proud to admit it. Dream Focus 14:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was skimming through the discussion, especially after I checked the article and saw that it had improved from the start of the discussion, and I was working with a preconception that the guy was notable in the first place. Shii (tock) 14:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It didn't improve, it just got two sources added to it, one of them a book most said didn't count towards notability. Dream Focus 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
      • So "two sources added to it" are not an improvement?

May I remind you that it's not a vote; therefore the number of "keeps" vs. "deletes" doesn't matter? The criteria for notability for BLP were met by the interviews in Circuit Cellar and in the book chapter, provided that both are considered reliable sources. Both Dream Focus and Wikimandia said that the magazine article was acceptable.

There was then a claim that the book didn't count, that the publisher appeared to be indiscriminate or the author was too unknown, blah blah blah. However, the book is part of an ongoing series from a well-established publisher, and this book is neither the first nor last in the series, strongly suggesting an ongoing editorial process to develop, edit, and publish books of this sort. It's not our job to second-guess the publisher's decision as to whether the author is credible. If there was evidence that the author was not credible, that would worthy of mention, but no such claim has been made.

The other late arguments, that interviews don't count because they're primary sources, I claim are invalid because the RS criteria is being incorrectly applied. An interview is certainly a primary source for claims made by the interviewee, but we're not using the interview as a source for anything claimed by the interviewee. The interviews do constitute "significant coverage in a non-self-published source" (nobody has claimed that these sources are self-published, nor that a book chapter is insignificant) and therefore count as far as notability of the interview subject is concerned. I made that point in the AFD discussion three days ago and nobody has so much as tried to counter it, but here, DF just repeats the already-countered claim that the book doesn't count, and presents no new reasoning to support that.

Remember, consensus is established not by voting, but when people stop arguing. I note that even here you're not raising any new arguments, nor trying to counter the last "keep" arguments. So the result should stand as "keep".

And btw, DF, the book is not about "him and other YouTube people". It's about important people in the Maker movement. It happens that another person interviewed does post EE-related YouTube videos but that's hardly her primary claim to fame or her reason for being included in the book. (Another attempt by DF at discrediting a source without justification. Clearly he hasn't so much as skimmed the book either.)

The original result should stand for another reason; see below. Jeh (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I call foul. An AFD decision should not be changed after the fact based on discussion on the closing admin's talk page - discussion that no one else was likely aware of until after the decision change! An AFD discussion is supposed to be public, and all arguments should be presented and available for public discussion and counter (and review by the closing admin). Instead DF comes here after the decision, argues his side of the case over again (pretending, of course, that the counters to the later "delete" !votes don't exist) with no opportunity for anyone else to say anything, and Shii modifies his decision in response, writing "I guess I could change the result to "no consensus" if you'd find that satisfying" - how the hell does DF's "satisfaction" suddenly become a criterion? Jeh (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with the outcome of an AFD you are suppose to discuss it with the closing administrator. That's how things are done. There was no counters. There was you claiming the book coverage counted, while four people said it did not. Consensus was clear that the article should be deleted. Dream Focus 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"...that's how things are done." That's fine, but the closing admin should not then immediately acede to the complainer without further public discussion. The rest should be argued on the AFD. Jeh (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DF didn't asked me to change my views. I skimmed the discussion and saw your arguments were persuasive to others; but he asked me to read it more closely, and I saw they were not persuasive to everyone, and in fact it's questionable whether a single interview really changes things. The only thing a "no consensus" close does practically is invites people to read the discussion closely if there is another AFD; your arguments will be paid close attention to. Shii (tock) 00:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)