User talk:Shadowlynk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I will respond to your message on this page. Thank you.

Speedy deletion declined: LASTER Technologies[edit]

Hello Shadowlynk. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of LASTER Technologies, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  19:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. The original editor seems to be interested in cleaning it up. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 08:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page Needed for "Andy Thompson"[edit]

Hello Shadowlynk. Looks like my attempt to create a redirect for "Andy Thompson" to a disambiguation page has been reversed. That's okay. Can you please help me do that? It appears that if one types in "Andy Thompson" into the Wikipedia search engine, the user gets automatically sent to the Andy Thompson Canadian Member of Parliament. It would be a better Wikipedia if the user got sent to a disambiguation page to pick which of the MANY Andy Thompsons out there that s/he wants to research. Many thanks in advance for your help.

Randomlyacting (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got it worked out now. Andy Thompson is now at Andy Thompson (Canadian politician) with its page history, and the other page redirects to Andrew Thompson. It may get moved around some more to meet Wikipedia guidelines or if someone disagrees with the move, so continue to discuss this with other editors if the situation changes. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 01:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

List of theatrical film distributors[edit]

I had a long list of theatrical film distributors that I spent days creating it wasn't blank. It should be listed under and it matched in style. If this list provided no content then the other one doesn't as well. A lot of work was contributed to both. Can you please undelete it. It's ridiculous that it was deleted for no good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterix (talkcontribs) 06:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and cannot undelete any deleted material. However, creating a large number of "please undelete" pages will not help you get the deleted information back. You should contact the administrator who deleted the page on their talk page, and ask them nicely to undelete the page and put it in your userspace so you can fix it. Be sure to specify exactly which page had the information you want, so you don't end up with one of the "please undelete" pages. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Qarbon Page[edit]

Hi Shadowlynk: I'm not sure why my Qarobn page got deleted because there are many other companies that have their pages up on Wikipedia with references to their products as well. In fact, when you say there is nothing notable about Qarbon, if you read the article, you would have seem the comment about Qarbon being one of the pioneers in eLearning software, providing a product that captured onscreen actions when presentation software was in its infancy (users having only Microsoft's PowerPoint to work with). In fact, Qarbon has a history that I didn't go into where they were a leader in the eLearning market and actually worked with other companies before they broke away and started their own, using information gained while partnering with Qarbon for their own profit. I didn't market or bash any other company, nor did I go into sensitive stuff and wholely believe that though Qarbon is quite as "big" as some of these others, they one of the leading reasons why eLearning software has become what it has today. So, please tell me, why is Qarbon not permitted its place in Wikipedia when others like TechSmith, MadCapture, etc. are? Especially with the history I've outlined for you? I'm just trying to understand, not offend nor use Wikipedia any more then these other companies do.

Thank you.

Qath (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Generic claims of being a leader in this or pioneering in that tend to sound gimmicky and promotional without much in specifics to back them up. I understand that was not your intention, but with vague wording it can still end up reading that way. I would suggest reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines on corporation notability. If you feel that this company meets those guidelines, you can try rewriting the article. Try to do so as neutrally as you can, with specific facts, and reliable sources cited to back up those facts. If you're concerned that it might take time to compile all that information before it might get deleted again, you can start writing the article on your user page and then transfer it to main article space when it is ready. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fairly straightforward. Thank you very much! -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 02:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

ScriptDoc entry[edit]

Hi! Thanks for the help!

I will read the links that you provides me and when I be ready I will start the editing of the article with my own words. By the way, how I can mark the topic as nonexistent for other people to write?

thanks in advance!

Diosney (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no personal ownership of articles or topics on Wikipedia, so there's no need to claim any topics. Once you write an article in your own words, other people are free to edit it. Of course, it works both ways, so if someone else writes an article on the topic, you're more than welcome to improve it as well. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 02:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

user article in mainspace[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up after me on an article I had inadvertently put in mainspace. I could've sworn I put "User:" before the title. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. It happens all the time. :) -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wintempla and Neural Lab[edit]

I am the author of Wintempla an Neural Lab. This free software was created to help researchers and students. The first release was in 2004 and since then, many professors and students have contacted me with questions and suggestions. The Neural Lab page has been around for more than a year. At this moment, I would like to create the Wintempla software page. I'm currently working on improving the page so that it can be of value for others. I'm open to suggestions. Sergioledesma (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The tag at the top of the article gives the number one issue I'd name right now. You need citations from reliable, third party sources. Some sort of newspaper, magazine, or other article from a publication that is not related to your software. Since you are the author of the software, it might also be a good idea to review the conflict of interest guidelines. While you are welcome to edit the article, it can be difficult to keep the article neutral when you're invested in the subject, so you must take care. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Article about MARZIA PRINCE[edit]


As the messages on your talk page state, it would be best for you to look at the policies and guidelines such as biographical notability, verifiability, and reliable sources to understand why your article was not acceptable and how to make articles that will meet the guidelines. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 22:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All Saints Church, Dunedin[edit]

I removed your speedy tag, which had several issues. First off, please avoid biting newbies. Secondly, it is clear (from a very simple online search) that you did not even bother to try to fix it before nominating it. Finally, the stub already had a suggestion of notability; thus, speedy deletion is not appropriate. It was designed by New Zealand's most prominent colonial architect. Thank you for trying to clean up others' messes, but please be more careful in the future. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. :( -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
yeah you should be —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am, but there's no need to pile on just because I reverted a POV term. ;P My anti-vandalism motivations may not be entirely altruistic, but I do genuinely try to avoid mistakes. If the wrong people get tagged, I apologize, and I try to change my tact to keep that from happening again. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 21:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Loosen up, man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not a fan of making light of an entire town wiped off the map. There's lots of other stuff you can joke about, though! -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 09:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1-800-Pack-Rat Speedy deletion was wrong[edit]

Looks like you were too quick to delete my 1-800-Pack-Rat page. It's as "notable" now as it was when I first created it. All the history is now lost. Slow down with the nuke button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bottsjw (talkcontribs) 02:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all you might want to consider the difference between the current article and what you wrote. The current article backs up its claims with multiple reliable sources, so no one is confused about its notability. Second, I only mark articles for deletion; an admin has to do the deleting, which means someone agreed with my assessment at the time. All of that said, it's good to see a good article has been created. There's no call for unpleasantness; feel free to contribute to the current version. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 10:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Shadowlynk! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Shadowlynk,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)