User talk:Shadow311
| This is Shadow311's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
AFD/Brian Peck
[edit]Hi, I was just wondering how you concluded the consensus was KEEP when most arguments were not strong, many clearly in breach WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY, and some from accounts created solely to comment. Thanks! WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ThunderPeel2001 From what it looked like, no one was supporting the deletion of the article. Some of the people that were against the deletion had 50k, 18k, and 20k edits. Shadow311 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Shadow311 Hey, sorry. Just getting back into some Wikipedia editing. This just popped into my head again. I'm still confused by your decision, because (according to the documentation) it's not the number of votes, it's the reasons given that count. And the reasons were nearly all against WP guidelines. When the poor reasons were removed, the arguments between delete/keep seemed even? Although I've been involved in many pages, this was the first time I've gone through the AfD process and I found it completely confusing as nobody seemed to follow the guidelines? Just so I can understand, which arguments did you feel had merit? Thanks! (Still learning!) WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Could you perhaps explain which part of the draft was written non-neutrally? S5A-0043Talk 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- It repeatedly refers to the subject as popular and refers to it in a overly positive way. Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. “popular” and “viral” are among the most common words used to describe the subject by the sources themselves, including English ones. Plus, there was a “reception” section highlighting some of the criticism against the subject, so I fail to see how it was described “in an overly positive way”. Admittedly I re-read the article and found 1-2 parts where I would not have written in the manner I did a few months ago, but I still don’t find them too major for a fail. S5A-0043Talk 15:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to, you can resubmit it and I will let someone else review it. Shadow311 (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. “popular” and “viral” are among the most common words used to describe the subject by the sources themselves, including English ones. Plus, there was a “reception” section highlighting some of the criticism against the subject, so I fail to see how it was described “in an overly positive way”. Admittedly I re-read the article and found 1-2 parts where I would not have written in the manner I did a few months ago, but I still don’t find them too major for a fail. S5A-0043Talk 15:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Your warning
[edit]Hi, I noticed you recently reverted this IP user's edits to their own talk page and warned them for vandalism on their own talk page. It's important to note that most users are permitted to edit their talk page as they please, so long as they remain civil. Is there something I missed, or was this a minor mistake? Thanks,NeuropolTalk 15:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ive changed the warning and put a notice instead. Shadow311 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Battle of Hashidayama
[edit]How come it was denied? I thought the references i put were enough, ive seen pages with 0 references get accepted + i gave quotes to thr parts of the source i referenced (not to mention the japanese version of the page had 4 references unlike my 11) BeamLSB (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pages without any references should not be accepted and most likely were not processed by an AfC reviewer. Please see the Verifiability policy. Just using quotes, is not providing an actual source. Shadow311 (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ethnic Faces
[edit]Hello Shadow311,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ethnic Faces for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want Ethnic Faces to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
– Hilst [talk] 14:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, What are you doing moving this article into mainspace when its an identical recreation of article that has been deleted at csd, afd and proded about eight times and salted. Are you not checking the articles your promoting. This is clear paid for UPE article and its unacceptable to move such trash into mainspace. scope_creepTalk 19:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Confused about revision of an entry allegedly by me
[edit]Greetings, Shadow311. Firstly, that you for being a regular contributor to Wikipedia. I very much appreciate people like you who have the time and the skills to do what you do.
I am a very occasional contributor, and tend to browse anonomously. However, I've just noticed a message from you as follows:
Hello, I'm Shadow311. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jack Williams have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Shadow311 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the Jack Williams history page, I see it was an IP edit (83.219.49.130). The history for that IP is definitely not me! However, I also noticed that there was an Antivandal tag. If that's what it sounds like, it might imply I was defacing or misbehaving. I hope there is nothing marked on my account for this.
Anyway, thank you again for being an active contributor.
Beechside Beechside (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)