You can use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of this page
- Please sign your post by typing: ~~~~
- Sometimes I respond on your talk page, sometimes here.
- 1 Your rant
- 2 WW 2 Casualties
- 3 Barnstar long in coming
- 4 FAR nomination
- 5 Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
- 6 Adding the external link (www.justdial.com) on Vizag City article...
- 7 Theodore Roosevelt FAR
- 8 Improvements necessary to keep Rosa Parks as a Featured Article
- 9 Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!
- 10 Cato Zahl Pedersen
- 11 You've hit the big time (at least for the moment).
- 12 re: tim berners-lee
- 13 Missouri Compromise protection
- 14 Info opstuss
- 15 Jean Etienne Valluy
- 16 What about the moon?
- 17 Merge/Redirect with no discussion
- 18 Message
- 19 A favor
- 20 Ravens Bluff
- 21 Rough Diamond (album)
- 22 New Page
- 23 Stubs?
- 24 Need hep to protect the page of Albanian Armed Forces
- 25 Regarding the rant . . .
- 26 Fair use rationale for File:Per Borten.jpg
- 27 George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold
- 28 Panama Canal
- 29 Your Opinion would be appreciated
- 30 Milton Friedman Criticisms
- 31 Mathematics big change: Discrete mathematics
- 32 Wikipedia's tagline
- 33 First Crusade A-Class review
- 34 Would you be interested in helping with a documentary on the Panama Canal?
- 35 Soda?
- 36 I would appreciate your input (a discussion about cleanup tags)
- 37 Splitting Olympic medalist articles
- 38 Featured article review for Rosa Parks
- 39 MSU Interview
- 40 Inappropriate time
- 41 Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet
- 42 Hi Shanes
- 43 Thank you
- 44 Apophis edit warring
- 45 handball disambiguation
- 46 Please comment on Georgia (country) to Georgia move suggestion
- 47 Request for comment
- 48 Asylum
- 49 Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)
- 50 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 51 Happy Adminship Anniversary!
- 52 Happy Adminship anniversary!
- 53 Extended confirmed protection
Hi, I'm here to ask permission to add material to your rant, I believe there are still too many tags, and that they are too big. (IMO tags like the current one in the George W. Bush article are tolerable, but not the ones like in the Rant article. My suggestion : make most of them visible only to users that are logged in (even if I have no idea how that would work). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, the rant. It's so outdated now that it could probably have that Update tag on top of it. But I'm not up to the irony of that, yet.
- Yes, since I wrote it, almost two years ago, we've got the sprotected2 tag, which I agree is acceptable, and the spoiler-tags I've always hated are also gone. But I'm a bit wary of changing or appending much to it now. It's being linked to from a number of places, and I just think it should stay this way, outdated now, but making sense in the context it was once written. Instead I suggest you write your own more up to date essay, and I'll just link to it in my rant. Shanes (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
WW 2 Casualties
- Sorry for late reply, I'm not as active here anymore. Might improve in the future. I'll read the talk page later, but I have been watching the article now and then, and you really deserve praise for how you've taken care of both the article and responding to comments and questions about it on the talk page. Good work! Shanes (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar long in coming
I would not be surprised if you will regard this Barnstar as unjustified or over-the-top, but I think that the time has come to recognize the impact of your rant. When I first read it, a little more than 18 months ago, it made a huge impact on how I saw this project, moving me from an editor-centric to a reader-centric viewpoint. I placed a link to it on my Userpage (not that anyone ever sees it there) and also placed a link to it within the edit summaries of hundreds of edits that I did where I either removed or moved the tag. I also wrote an essay on one specific tag that irked me possibly the most, though I don't think it convinced anyone of anything (and it, too, is now dated, especially graphically).
When I first started moving tags from the top of pages, I was taken to task by a great many of our fellow editors, and was threatened on at least one occasion with being blocked for violating "policy". But as time has gone on, I have found resistance to tag removal has disappated greatly, and I think it is now at least recognized that minimizing the use of tags at the top of articles is a legitimate school of thought. Over the past year and a half I have seen several other editors who either moved/removed such tags, and out of curiosity have asked a number of them why they do this. Some have explained their reasons (which parallel yours) and more than once I have been told to read this really "great rant" which will make it clear to me, and of course, the link is to your page. We also need to look at the existence of the small icons. I have no idea whether or not Moe read your rant before creating the small sp icon, but it did come afterwards. And whereas it was argued early on that the small icon should be used only on a limited basis (for long-term use), in point of fact it has become the de facto standard, with many of us citing your rant when changing from big tag to unobtrusive icon. And it is not entirely alone, there is now a permanent protection icon as well (and another one that I saw that was green which I don't remember what it was for, but it was nice to see.)
I know that the sheer number of different tags has increased geometrically in the same time. (I'm waiting for the "Recently Died Albino Ventriliquist" tag.) But while the species continue to increase in number, the genus is being hunted, and the total population is being kept down. And, occasionally, we do get to see an extinction take place. Rare, but satisfying.
Maybe you do realize the extent of your impact. I hope so. Regardless, I wanted to thank you for articulating this idea and helping to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
|What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar|
|For articulating an idea that others had either never brought to the fore or had not even begun to formulate—the problem of the Plague of Tags—and for the impact that this idea has had on this Project. No, the battle is not won, and may never be, but because of your truly great rant, we know for what we struggle. Unschool (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)|
- Thank you so much for the kind words and the barnstar!
- The last months I've been a less active wikipedian due to real life stuff, but I read and refer people to wikipedia all the time, and it really annoys me when quite fine articles starts off with one or more tags with (more often than not) either trivial and obvious information (that is usually repeated in the first paragraph of the article, anyway), or with some off topic note about how the article is not perfect. It makes me want to not share the article with others.
- Yeah, the sheer number of different tags is increasing. Often this leads to even more tag-bloat in the same article because the more specific the tags are, the more of them you need to cover a slightly wider topic. Like (random example) the article on the Bering Strait bridge. The general future construction template was replaced by two newer and more specialized tags, the tunnel and the bridge tag, because they both apply. Of course, nobody seems to question whether the tags really are helpful to the reader. If someone actually doesn't know that the thing hasn't been build yet, the first sentence of the article would tell him that anyway.
- And on low resolution displays (still very common in poorer parts of the world, and I sometimes use one myself) the tags really come off as obtrusive and annoying because they are often all you see of the article without scrolling.
- Again, thanks for the kind words! Shanes (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I really have only been involved in keeping the article free of vandalism, and haven't edited it for quite a long time. I don't have the time to get involved in this review now. Shanes (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
My understanding is that if somebody is looking at the city article on wikipedia, it means the person is looking for more details about that city and if a site can help a user to find local details it should be included. As such www.justdial.com can provide many such local details and it should be included in the external links.
Theodore Roosevelt FAR
Theodore Roosevelt has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Improvements necessary to keep Rosa Parks as a Featured Article
As with most articles promoted so long ago, this article does not currently meet the Featured article criteria. Since you have been a major contributor to the article, I would appreciate your help to bring this article up to the current standards. Please don't take this as an insult to the article, as it is well-written and there shouldn't be a lot of work necessary.
I have listed my concerns on the article's talk page. I would like to get this up to the current standards without going through a Featured Article review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!
I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.
People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 08:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Cato Zahl Pedersen
Hi. Thank you for your addition to this list! I've created a stub on Cato Zahl Pedersen, based on what little information I could find in English. If you'd like to complete it based on sources in Norwegian, that'd be great. Thanks again! Aridd (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've also created a stub about Ragnhild Myklebust. But there's a problem with the medal tally. Several websites say that she has a total of 22 medals, but if you add up the 18 she won from 1988 to 1994, according the IPC website, and the 5 she won in 2002 (also according to several websites), you get to 23. Would you happen to know whether she won 22 or 23? Aridd (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You've hit the big time (at least for the moment).
re: tim berners-lee
i don't have a message about this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Berners-Lee&diff=237891234&oldid=237886616 message was about the source Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Lihaas (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Missouri Compromise protection
Thanks for semiprotecting the page from IP vandals. I wish this was used much more frequently on various pages. After fighting for this before on other frequently vandalized pages I got so much resistance from the supposed guardians that I gave up on wiki's protection process. It seemed structured to waste the time of conscientious editors and protect IP vandals. Red Harvest (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hei, uunskylld - skirver dete litte forrvanssket. Kune trenngt lit rådd eller jelp. Det er vallg "over dammenn" og det virker som om dette resullterer i en del sytemisk oppførsell på Wikipedia. Jeg er interessert i forsvaarshistorie og filosofi. Stort sett kikker jeg på alt det flotte som er lagt til på Wikipedia om ulike militær-relaterte artikler; teknisk interesse som jeg har. Nå har jeg imidlertid begynt en serie utvidelser på interessante artikler - Foreign interventionism og Bush Doctrine. Eter allt opstusset derr over - om den sisste av disze artiklene - så virrker det som om de gjøre live surtt for end-ringer. Haar duu non' gode råde å giv mej? Beklager forspanskingen av språrket her, men du skjønerr kanskje - vil ikke dra u-nødigg grei-ehr om vemm jei e' och om valjet som-er-dher. Jej beer omm du får til å kjike på greja, praht på sia' om Talk:Bush Doctrine og kjik på skriivinga. Tusen takk. Scierguy (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Jeg vil også bare gjøre klart at min rettning er beggrenset ahv historie og filosofi, itjnå parrti. Sjåast Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Bush Doctrine... Scierguy (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Frestande å ji opp nær de e såå my trøblate greia, men en have nu kommi så længt. Dæm e bare gænske hårsaar av sæ oxo dæm som driv på. Mang pussi teknikker såm brukass. Trauri och vanskeli å rii ut deh aleihne... Regner med det kanskje blir en del vandalisering av artikkelen når den kommer ut av beskyttelse nå snart... Scierguy (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Forresten, og beklager all skrivingen, men du kan oversette alt over hvis det er i strid mot wiki-interesser. Eig berre sjåar på den tismessie vinkern i å få på plassa innholje, og at det kan forbedres. Det er jo det hele Wikipedia handler om. Emmene verker utruli kontroversielt før mang... och de e berre synnj. Unnskyld bryderiet uansett. See you around. Scierguy (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Jean Etienne Valluy
New user here asking for your help please. I am Jean Etienne Valluy's grandson and have made a few changes to his entry and linked to a new page on the French site. I would like to change the titles of the page to the right name but as far as I understand I can't do that without 10 edits. Maybe you could do it and also check that I have not contravened any wiki policies.
What about the moon?
In all the discussion of NEO's impacting earth, is there a possibility of moon impact that could have 'collateral damage' to earth? I assume there would be a much lower kinetic energy involved for the same NEO hitting the moon, but how much impact can the moon stand? Would 1000 MT cause a big enough chunk to come off the moon that it would,also, be a PHA? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- In general, an impact on the moon is much less likely since it's smaller. But if a really big one hits the moon, it could have consequences for the earth as moon rocks being ejected from it could shower us as lunar meteorites some time later. The moon rocks found on earth today are debris from such earlier impacts. I don't know how many MT such an impact would have to be. An impact large enough to destroy the moon would need an asteroid so big that we'd known about it by now. But when scientists calculate impact probabilities, the moon and its trajectory are taken well into account. So it's very likely that we'll know about any moon impact of that size well in advance. Shanes (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect with no discussion
Hi Shanes, In 2006 you were very helpful in combatting the attacks of a sock-puppeteer on the Ben Best page, so I am wondering if you can investigate a recent edit to that page. With no discussion or warning Sticky Parkin has effectively deleted the Ben Best page by asserting it is non-notable and redirecting the page to Cryonics Institute. This was in no sense a "merge", none the contents of Ben Best were moved to Cryonics Institute, and most of those contents would be inappropriate there. I realize that I have a vested interest in the matter, but the fact is that I am a notable personality in the cryonics movement -- not simply because of my Cryonics Institute Presidency -- and the Ben Best page has stood for over 3 years without this kind of high-handed ruling by a single user that the subject is not independently notable. Your attention to this matter would be appreciated. --Ben Best (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you take it up with User:Sticky Parkin and sort it out with him. Shanes (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
First Crusade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OpenSeven (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Shanes, what would it take to have my own IP address permanently blocked? Without, of course, impacting my ability to edit under my username? I have an adolescent in the house that I am trying to control, and I want him to edit only with a username, not as an anonymous editor. Our home's IP address is 184.108.40.206. Can this be done? Unschool (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I've blocked that IP from editing now. Users with an account can still edit if they log in. Shanes (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Man, I was wondering when you were going to respond, and I was just checking back now before I went to bed, to see if you had edited at all today. Turns out I had forgotten to put your page on my watchlist. Anyway, thanks a million for doing that for me; that timing is good, too; it'll give him plenty of time to develop good habits if he has the desire to really do this. Thanks again! Unschool (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure what content was under Ravens Bluff when you deleted it; since then a redirect has been placed there. If it was not copyvio, could you please restore the edit history? Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. As you can see, the original ip-author blanked its content, someone then placed a db-empty there, and I deleted it. This is over 3 years ago. Shanes (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not by David Byron, it's by a very short lived, NN band that he was part of. The band has absolutely no notability besides that he was part of it (no sources at all), so I felt that A9 was warranted. The source is just a copy from allmusic that doesn't even mention the album really. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can argue about the fame of the band, but there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the album is notable simply from the fact that he sang on it (and co-produced it etc). David Byron was a very notable musician. So is Clem Clempson and to a lesser degree Geoff Britton. I notice that you're rather young and probably haven't heard about any of these people, and maybe you didn't bother to find out who these guys are/were, or maybe you're just being anal about sources. Google for 'Rough Diamond David Byron' if you want sources. In my opinion any recordings by these people are notable and the article on this album should be kept. After finding out what the proper procedure is nowadays I'll either just restore it myself and have you take it to afd if you still insist that the recording isn't notable, or I'll take it to delreview. Shanes (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, how do I get a Contents box to appear?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also what is the current Wikipedia template for citing sources? ref>>> ??? Please take a look at my edits to the new page and let me know if I am doing it correctly, thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Shane I reverted the edit you made this moring Pietas (goddess) but on second thought I would like some advice. Is it implied in stub that they do not have references or is it appropriate to mark stubs as requiring a reference? RP459 (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Need hep to protect the page of Albanian Armed Forces
Hello Shanes. Sorry, I went through you name trying to contact an administrator because I need help. Since 2 years so far I have been building the page on the Albanian military. Adding neccesary info and pictures. I am a former albanian military, and I work within a NATO HQ that provides advice to the Albanian Armed Forces. Recently there are many people who do set up fake info in this page, last one yesterday, new user Saranda1, mainly copy paste from stupid nationalist pages, quite common on the net. The page on the Albanian military used to be protected, I mean only established users were able to change it. Recently this doesn't seem to work. Of course wikipedia fo me is a free time passion, but because my work is important I am not a master in delaing with many technical details of it in case I would need some help. Would you help me? I would appreciate that. Best regards. Gerd_72 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerd 72 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- It looks to me like an ongoing content dispute on the Military of Albania article. Looking through the recent history of that page, I see some editors that want to add a an "Equipment" section to the article, while you keep deleting it. On Talk:Military of Albania a user has even called your removal of that section for vandalism. I have no idea which one of you is right, but I believe the article's talk page is the proper place to discuss content issues like this. So I suggest you try to reason with the other editors on Talk:Military of Albania, maybe start by explaining why you don't want that "Equipment"-section in the article. Shanes (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the rant . . .
Shane, as I'm sure I've told you, I often place a link to the rant directly onto talk pages. Of course this means that the reader, if they actually click on it, is getting a taste of archeology. Now I totally understand and support your position on not updating the rant. Indeed, I don't think its necessarily necessary. But I would suggest that some type of disclaimer be placed on it, indicating that you are aware that it is dated, but that it still serves the same purpose.
After all, you have achieved total victory on spoiler tags and the semi-protected tag has been replaced by a small icon 99% of the time. An acknowledgement paragraph at the top might be good for the editor who has been on Wikipedia for only a couple of months and lands here and just doesn't know what you're talking about. Cheers. Unschool 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Per Borten.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Per Borten.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Panama Canal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Your Opinion would be appreciated
I would appreciate your comments regarding the use of sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for WW2 losses in Asia
Milton Friedman Criticisms
The 'Criticism' section in Milton Friedman's article is so inherently biased that it does more harm than good. Instead of creating an objective list and explanation of academic/popular criticisms the article offers straw man arguments and conservative rebuttals.
- Ok, I'm fine and agree with that. But it's important that you put a comment/explanation in the edit summary field when you make substantial edits like that. Shanes (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Mathematics big change: Discrete mathematics
I see you want to protect the integrity of the article Mathematics, and rightly so. Yesterday, Bethnim replaced the paragraph about Discrete Mathematics with a paragraph about Theoretical Computer Science, removing half of the subdiscipline-indicating images within Discrete Mathematics. The quality seems to be far less than the previous version, but I don't feel myself the right person to solve this problem. Can you? Thanks, BertSeghers (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you participated in a 2005/2006 discussion and straw poll on whether or not the tagline at the top of all Wikipedia articles should be changed from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know if you're still interested in this issue or not, but this exact change has been proposed once again, this time at the Village pump, and there is currently an RFC (Request for Comment) on the subject where it is being discussed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
First Crusade A-Class review
Would you be interested in helping with a documentary on the Panama Canal?
Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shanes. A couple of weeks ago I began a discussion concerning the size and number of cleanup templates found in articles today. Within the discussion, your "Why tags are evil" essay was brought to my attention. Given our two concepts are roughly similar, I would appreciate your views on what is being said in the discussion, whether or not you agree with my point of view and attempt on the issue. Thanks. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 07:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Splitting Olympic medalist articles
Hello, since you have been involved in managing the articles List of multiple Olympic gold medalists and List of multiple Olympic medalists a lot longer than I am, and are in favor of splitting at least the former, perhaps you would like to comment on this again on the respective talk pages if you feel the need to do so. I just added a split template to each of the pages, but I'm not sure how long to wait for response before actually carry on with splitting, since you didn't get much response on your earlier call for opinions. Thanks. Gap9551 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you. And we've been waiting more than long enough. Just go ahead and split it. --Shanes (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Featured article review for Rosa Parks
I have nominated Rosa Parks for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You have received this notice because you have been identified as one of the top five editors of the article by edit count. Brad (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication
Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia
Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU,
a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known
about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!)
want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea
(the class) to the community [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_
where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a
few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes,
dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of
communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym)
will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission
to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an
interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics
review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students
have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to
speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org (to maintain
anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable
doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at email@example.com. I will
be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Hi Shanes, may I ask you to remove all the tags in the article subjected to this Afd (except the Afd one, of course)? Whether or not you agree with the "keep" over there, yet you know that tags are many times used under bad faith, thus you will easily realize the tags there may be used as an attempt to influence the direction of the debate to a specific view. I mean, those tags were posted after the beginning of the Afd (though they have a early history), and the Afd’s debate in most part concerns if the subject (repeated in the tags) is a prejudice without any fundament. Therefore the tags are bad faith at worst, or totally redundant at best. Excalibursword (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'll stay away from that article. I sense major controversy, and since I'm not very active these days, I shy away from stuff like that. And, to be honest, that article doesn't interest me at all. Sorry. Incidentally I think tags warning about factual mistakes or original research are one of very few tags that could be appropriate to have in an article since readers might not become aware of problems like that without them. They are tags meant for the readers. Whether or not that article really is full of original research or not, I have no idea. Sorry, again. --Shanes (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is OK. As likely you realized numerous editors, including me, realize that article very well sourced and totally encyclopedic (so, there is no room to SYNT or OR); besides, as I told you, those tags were inserted after the Afd (so hardly they were put for readers). Anyway, you were very courteous, thanks. Excalibursword (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet
- You received this invitation in view of your significant contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
for helping me (and others) keep an eye on the List of architecture firms. The list thung can get tricky - when to remove red links and when to let them stay. This is a list where I believe they should go as soon as possible. What to you think/feel about this list, for example? Carptrash (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's tricky. I think at least lists of companies should be limited to those with an article. In general, if a list could have many thousand entries without any filtering, the "article first"-rule is good. I'm more reluctant to the rule for older and more historical lists. But it depends on the number of potential entries. Medallists is a topic I don't know anything about, those who do should weigh in. But maybe it could be enough that the medals they made are notable. --Shanes (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Apophis edit warring
You recently blocked 220.127.116.11 for disruptive editing at 99942 Apophis. Almost the moment his block expired, he went right back to the same edit war, without even pretending to discuss. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Georgia (country) to Georgia move suggestion
Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC). Your comments
Hi i just wanna ask you if i already have finger print in belgium can i do asylum in uk? Or any chance to stay in uk because here in belgium life is shit have no place to live many problems
- Hehe. I'm really dying to know why you came to me with that question! Shanes (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)
This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.
Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.
While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.
Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.
This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Wikipedia:Translators available list.
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) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)