Feel Free to add
ShawnIsHere 06:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
|
It might help any potential adopters a lot if you gave some indication of your areas of interest, possibly on your userpage. Also, you might find one or more group of editors who have similar interests as yourself on the Project Directory. John Carter 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I could, but right now, I'm sifting through Wikipedia on a part-time basis due to college. ShawnIsHere ( talk) 19:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Have you been adopted yet? If not, I'd be interested in adopting you, if you are okay with that... Basketball 110 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I couldn't get to a computer before The last adopter offerer went into retirement, I'm reopening my adoptability ShawnIsHere ( talk) 02:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Shawn, are you still up for being adopted? I'm too wikiaddicted to retire lol and am happy to help in any area you're interested in. A fair few of my adoptees are a bit quiet, so I don't mind if you're not always here. Just contact me if u need any help. Sticky Parkin 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet another re-opening of the adoption requests. This time because I'm a lazy git and can't respond to offers immediately (but that is hopefully changing) ShawnIsHere ( talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since the time passed between those offer adoptions and your response, I asume you´re still without an adopter, if that´s the case, then I offer my self, if not... well it´s ok but you can always send me a message on my
talk page for any questions you could have. -
Damërung
...ÏìíÏ...
_ΞΞΞ_
. -- , 29 April 2024 (UTC-5)
- Re-opening adoption status. Again. ShawnIsHere ( talk) 22:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since the time passed between those offer adoptions and your response, I asume you´re still without an adopter, if that´s the case, then I offer my self, if not... well it´s ok but you can always send me a message on my
talk page for any questions you could have. -
Damërung
...ÏìíÏ...
_ΞΞΞ_
. -- , 29 April 2024 (UTC-5)
Tell me at my talk if I can adopt you, I also like video games, Sonic, tried to get Final Fantasy, and computers! Programmer13 ( talk) 18:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Why not (Left a message, then merged identically named sections) ShawnIsHere ( talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Since my prior adopter fell off the face of the earth, and I have gotten more experience, I've decided to go on my own. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 08:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The article UTStarcom CDM1450 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No third party sourcing or assertion of notability. Not every product description deserves its own article.
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.
Durova
318 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Third Party sourcing is added. Enjoy. ShawnIsHere ( talk) 08:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
While I applaud your enthusiasm, I have opposed your RfA, as with only 166 edits (including 3 deleted ones), I do not feel that you have the experience which I (and lots of other editors) look for.
I would suggest that you are not ready yet, and that you consider withdrawing your RfA. There is no dishonour in this! When you have more experience, hopefully I would be in a better position to support you.
For your reference, here are my "standards" for RfA - what I expect to see in a candidate who I can support - it's not hard and fast, but it is an indication of what I am looking for - and I don't think that I am too far away from what the average editor looks for.
Obviously, this is my opinion - it may be that many other editors would disagree with me (although I would be surprised if that were to be the case in this situation!). You are welcome to keep your RfA open for the full time (or until a 'crat closes it early) - but I thought I'd give you my advice.
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 10:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'll keep it up, all the same, mainly as a learning experience. If it's strongly opposed or closed early, I'll manage.
Shawn
Is
Here: Now in colors 10:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have closed your RfA per WP:NOTNOW since it's unlikely it would pass. You're welcome to try again in six months after you have gained some more experience. ~ NerdyScienceDude ( ✉ message • changes) 13:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, ShawnIsHere! I have reviewed you. I hope my observations are helpful to you. Any questions or comments can be left here, there, or on my talk page. Happy editing! PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion here. Go discuss. If you keep reverting without discussion, I will be forced to take this to WP:ANI. Silver seren C 12:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I made my discussion there, and I consider both the whois and Alexa ranking changes conclusive. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 12:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- You've only posted twice on the talk page, neither time mentioning the WHOIS data or Alexa ranking, how exactly did you make your discussion there? Silver seren C 12:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I also posted on the Alexa ranking comparisons as well, to add to my point. Your insistence on sources and reationships for a satirical wiki, can be construed as wikilawyering and gaming the system Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 12:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please stop overriding the .com screenshot? You're free to upload a .ch screenshot under a different filename. The .com screenshot is necessary to show how .com appeared before the redirection. A screenshot is a record, and since screenshots of .com can't be taken anymore, it's a valuable and informative record. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help on the reflist for the CEF article. Arjuna ( talk) 07:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know I reopened your NAC on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory (3rd nomination). I think it falls squarely into the "pitfalls" section of the NAC guide, describing AfDs that are too contentious to close. I wanted to let you know, though, that I do appreciate the effort you and the other non-admins put into closing AfDs, and that in most cases I think NACs are a good idea. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Left a message regarding this on your talk page. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 02:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Death in Jainism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death in Jainism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death in Jainism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rahul Jain ( talk) 11:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully, it was in appropriate as a non-admin to close this debate. WP:NAC only applies when an article is "beyond doubt a clear keep". This debate was particularly hairy, in my opinion, because, although there were many keep !votes, there were few valid arguments put forward to keep. I propose the debate be reopened. Pburka ( talk) 11:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Any admin is quite at liberty to reopen the debate if s/he deems the close inappropriate. (For info, I !voted keep.)-- Trevj ( talk) 20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I closed the issue because there was no consensus after two re-listings in WP:AFD The arguments were relatively even between keep, merge and/or redirect, and delete. While I understand this is a pitfall to avoid to close the debate as per WP:NAC, it is not considered inappropriate for non-admin closure as he has no conflict of interest in this issue and there was indeed little consensus to be had after two listings. If you believe I am in error, Pburka, I suggest taking Trevj's advice and finding an admin who is willing to re-open the debate. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 21:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove
Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in
Articles for deletion debates, as you did with
DeMario Minter. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create
consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please
comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a
bot about
this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please
report it.
Snotbot
t •
c » 17:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your closure of the AfD for two and a half reasons. One: The AfD has only been up a short while. Two and a half: you gave no rational for closure and are not an admin. Now it is one thing to do a non-admin closure, but you need to provide your rational for doing so. Since you provided no rational I reverted your closure. In the future I suggest you provide some reasoning in your actions in this area. Arzel ( talk) 03:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Responded on your talk page.
Shawn
Is
Here: Now in colors 04:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- What part of "you gave no rational for closure" do you not understand? Arzel ( talk) 04:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- As an additional note, which you apparently did not notice on the non-admin closure guidelines. Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions. You should revert yourself and let an admin close.
Arzel (
talk) 04:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- There was a clear consensus for keep. The discussion is a keep in this non-admin's view. If you disagree, you go get an admin to revert the closure.
Shawn
Is
Here: Now in colors 04:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the problem. Several editors provided thoughtful and detailed rational on both sides, while you seem to have provided no thought or rational other than to count up votes. And much like Seinfeld wanting to return his Blazer out of spite, you tagged on a rational without any thought. If you don't have any respect for the discussion of other editors you will find it hard for other editors to have respect for you.
Arzel (
talk) 04:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- And I believe you do not understand the problem, which is "If you disagree, you go ask an admin to re-open the topic." Otherwise, your penchant for edit warring is not going to be a recipe for a long tenure. This conversation serves no further purpose. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 04:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the problem. Several editors provided thoughtful and detailed rational on both sides, while you seem to have provided no thought or rational other than to count up votes. And much like Seinfeld wanting to return his Blazer out of spite, you tagged on a rational without any thought. If you don't have any respect for the discussion of other editors you will find it hard for other editors to have respect for you.
Arzel (
talk) 04:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- There was a clear consensus for keep. The discussion is a keep in this non-admin's view. If you disagree, you go get an admin to revert the closure.
Shawn
Is
Here: Now in colors 04:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:NACD, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. ... Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." I am undoing your closure because the outcome is not obvious. Please be more careful in the future when choosing which discussions to close. As this example shows, inappropriate non-admin closures normally lead to needless drama. Thanks, Sandstein 12:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Signpost exit poll
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?
If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.
All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian
The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
quick and easy
exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
|
|---|
|
|
Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).
how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
|
|---|
Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) |
We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Michael Jackson death certificate amendment form.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 03:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, ShawnIsHere. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ShawnIsHere. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ShawnIsHere. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of UTStarcom CDM1450 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UTStarcom CDM1450 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTStarcom CDM1450 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra ( talk) 10:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Peterborough. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Feel Free to add
ShawnIsHere 06:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
|
It might help any potential adopters a lot if you gave some indication of your areas of interest, possibly on your userpage. Also, you might find one or more group of editors who have similar interests as yourself on the Project Directory. John Carter 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I could, but right now, I'm sifting through Wikipedia on a part-time basis due to college. ShawnIsHere ( talk) 19:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Have you been adopted yet? If not, I'd be interested in adopting you, if you are okay with that... Basketball 110 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I couldn't get to a computer before The last adopter offerer went into retirement, I'm reopening my adoptability ShawnIsHere ( talk) 02:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Shawn, are you still up for being adopted? I'm too wikiaddicted to retire lol and am happy to help in any area you're interested in. A fair few of my adoptees are a bit quiet, so I don't mind if you're not always here. Just contact me if u need any help. Sticky Parkin 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet another re-opening of the adoption requests. This time because I'm a lazy git and can't respond to offers immediately (but that is hopefully changing) ShawnIsHere ( talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since the time passed between those offer adoptions and your response, I asume you´re still without an adopter, if that´s the case, then I offer my self, if not... well it´s ok but you can always send me a message on my
talk page for any questions you could have. -
Damërung
...ÏìíÏ...
_ΞΞΞ_
. -- , 29 April 2024 (UTC-5)
- Re-opening adoption status. Again. ShawnIsHere ( talk) 22:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since the time passed between those offer adoptions and your response, I asume you´re still without an adopter, if that´s the case, then I offer my self, if not... well it´s ok but you can always send me a message on my
talk page for any questions you could have. -
Damërung
...ÏìíÏ...
_ΞΞΞ_
. -- , 29 April 2024 (UTC-5)
Tell me at my talk if I can adopt you, I also like video games, Sonic, tried to get Final Fantasy, and computers! Programmer13 ( talk) 18:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Why not (Left a message, then merged identically named sections) ShawnIsHere ( talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Since my prior adopter fell off the face of the earth, and I have gotten more experience, I've decided to go on my own. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 08:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The article UTStarcom CDM1450 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No third party sourcing or assertion of notability. Not every product description deserves its own article.
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.
Durova
318 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Third Party sourcing is added. Enjoy. ShawnIsHere ( talk) 08:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
While I applaud your enthusiasm, I have opposed your RfA, as with only 166 edits (including 3 deleted ones), I do not feel that you have the experience which I (and lots of other editors) look for.
I would suggest that you are not ready yet, and that you consider withdrawing your RfA. There is no dishonour in this! When you have more experience, hopefully I would be in a better position to support you.
For your reference, here are my "standards" for RfA - what I expect to see in a candidate who I can support - it's not hard and fast, but it is an indication of what I am looking for - and I don't think that I am too far away from what the average editor looks for.
Obviously, this is my opinion - it may be that many other editors would disagree with me (although I would be surprised if that were to be the case in this situation!). You are welcome to keep your RfA open for the full time (or until a 'crat closes it early) - but I thought I'd give you my advice.
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 10:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'll keep it up, all the same, mainly as a learning experience. If it's strongly opposed or closed early, I'll manage.
Shawn
Is
Here: Now in colors 10:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have closed your RfA per WP:NOTNOW since it's unlikely it would pass. You're welcome to try again in six months after you have gained some more experience. ~ NerdyScienceDude ( ✉ message • changes) 13:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, ShawnIsHere! I have reviewed you. I hope my observations are helpful to you. Any questions or comments can be left here, there, or on my talk page. Happy editing! PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion here. Go discuss. If you keep reverting without discussion, I will be forced to take this to WP:ANI. Silver seren C 12:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I made my discussion there, and I consider both the whois and Alexa ranking changes conclusive. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 12:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- You've only posted twice on the talk page, neither time mentioning the WHOIS data or Alexa ranking, how exactly did you make your discussion there? Silver seren C 12:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I also posted on the Alexa ranking comparisons as well, to add to my point. Your insistence on sources and reationships for a satirical wiki, can be construed as wikilawyering and gaming the system Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 12:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please stop overriding the .com screenshot? You're free to upload a .ch screenshot under a different filename. The .com screenshot is necessary to show how .com appeared before the redirection. A screenshot is a record, and since screenshots of .com can't be taken anymore, it's a valuable and informative record. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help on the reflist for the CEF article. Arjuna ( talk) 07:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know I reopened your NAC on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory (3rd nomination). I think it falls squarely into the "pitfalls" section of the NAC guide, describing AfDs that are too contentious to close. I wanted to let you know, though, that I do appreciate the effort you and the other non-admins put into closing AfDs, and that in most cases I think NACs are a good idea. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Left a message regarding this on your talk page. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 02:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Death in Jainism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death in Jainism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death in Jainism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rahul Jain ( talk) 11:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully, it was in appropriate as a non-admin to close this debate. WP:NAC only applies when an article is "beyond doubt a clear keep". This debate was particularly hairy, in my opinion, because, although there were many keep !votes, there were few valid arguments put forward to keep. I propose the debate be reopened. Pburka ( talk) 11:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Any admin is quite at liberty to reopen the debate if s/he deems the close inappropriate. (For info, I !voted keep.)-- Trevj ( talk) 20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I closed the issue because there was no consensus after two re-listings in WP:AFD The arguments were relatively even between keep, merge and/or redirect, and delete. While I understand this is a pitfall to avoid to close the debate as per WP:NAC, it is not considered inappropriate for non-admin closure as he has no conflict of interest in this issue and there was indeed little consensus to be had after two listings. If you believe I am in error, Pburka, I suggest taking Trevj's advice and finding an admin who is willing to re-open the debate. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 21:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove
Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in
Articles for deletion debates, as you did with
DeMario Minter. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create
consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please
comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a
bot about
this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please
report it.
Snotbot
t •
c » 17:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your closure of the AfD for two and a half reasons. One: The AfD has only been up a short while. Two and a half: you gave no rational for closure and are not an admin. Now it is one thing to do a non-admin closure, but you need to provide your rational for doing so. Since you provided no rational I reverted your closure. In the future I suggest you provide some reasoning in your actions in this area. Arzel ( talk) 03:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Responded on your talk page.
Shawn
Is
Here: Now in colors 04:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- What part of "you gave no rational for closure" do you not understand? Arzel ( talk) 04:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- As an additional note, which you apparently did not notice on the non-admin closure guidelines. Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions. You should revert yourself and let an admin close.
Arzel (
talk) 04:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- There was a clear consensus for keep. The discussion is a keep in this non-admin's view. If you disagree, you go get an admin to revert the closure.
Shawn
Is
Here: Now in colors 04:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the problem. Several editors provided thoughtful and detailed rational on both sides, while you seem to have provided no thought or rational other than to count up votes. And much like Seinfeld wanting to return his Blazer out of spite, you tagged on a rational without any thought. If you don't have any respect for the discussion of other editors you will find it hard for other editors to have respect for you.
Arzel (
talk) 04:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- And I believe you do not understand the problem, which is "If you disagree, you go ask an admin to re-open the topic." Otherwise, your penchant for edit warring is not going to be a recipe for a long tenure. This conversation serves no further purpose. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 04:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the problem. Several editors provided thoughtful and detailed rational on both sides, while you seem to have provided no thought or rational other than to count up votes. And much like Seinfeld wanting to return his Blazer out of spite, you tagged on a rational without any thought. If you don't have any respect for the discussion of other editors you will find it hard for other editors to have respect for you.
Arzel (
talk) 04:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- There was a clear consensus for keep. The discussion is a keep in this non-admin's view. If you disagree, you go get an admin to revert the closure.
Shawn
Is
Here: Now in colors 04:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:NACD, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. ... Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." I am undoing your closure because the outcome is not obvious. Please be more careful in the future when choosing which discussions to close. As this example shows, inappropriate non-admin closures normally lead to needless drama. Thanks, Sandstein 12:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Signpost exit poll
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?
If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.
All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian
The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
quick and easy
exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
|
|---|
|
|
Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).
how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
|
|---|
Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) |
We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Michael Jackson death certificate amendment form.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 03:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, ShawnIsHere. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ShawnIsHere. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ShawnIsHere. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of UTStarcom CDM1450 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UTStarcom CDM1450 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTStarcom CDM1450 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra ( talk) 10:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Peterborough. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)