User talk:Shultz the Editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello Shultz the Editor, and Welcome to Wikipedia!New-Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Shultz the Editor, good luck, and have fun.NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 07:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 07:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dechronification[edit]

I have deleted the above article, as it was previously deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dechronification. I am also going to delete User:Shultz the Editor/Dechronification and User:Shultz the Editor/Joshua Brown (motorist). The reason is because copying other people's work into your sandboxes does not include the attribution history of the page, which is required under our CC-by-SA license. These pages are therefore copyright violations. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is over 10 years old. Wouldn't a statute of limitations on them have expired by now? What does it take to legitimately remake an article deleted so long ago?
I started "Dechronification" under another username long ago, so I copied my own work. Would I please get that and the Joshua Brown (motorist) articles' latest versions in some kind of a private message or email so that I can keep them in a private pastebin? I would feel aggravated to see my efforts and time going down the drain like this. If anyone notified me that they were going to delete it; gave advance notice, I would've saved my efforts by archiving a copy of them privately. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Shultz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), the account that started Dechronification, is blocked, meaning that you are in violation of our policy regarding multiple accounts and evasion of previous blocks. The block was a very long time ago, so perhaps you'd like to explain the situation before I block this account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question about "statute of limitations", there's no time limit on this; if the new article's content is the same as that in the article that was deleted, it qualifies for deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4. If you disagree with the outcome, the place to go is deletion review. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Shultz IV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was the last Shultz username I used under which I agreed to a mentorship under ESkog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I edited under there for a while, did better because I got better acquainted with the rules, and even started various articles. Eventually other aspects of my life got in the way, and I ended up editing Wikipedia with that username less often. (Sometimes I'd make occasional edits with IP addresses.) When I decided to edit Wikipedia again a little more often, instead of going back to Shultz IV, I decided to start fresh with another username that sounded more official and important. It's been years since I used Shultz IV so that was another reason I felt it best to resume editing under a new handle. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so we've got Shultz (talk · contribs), Shultz III (talk · contribs), Shultz IV (talk · contribs), LUUWDA (talk · contribs), and Shultz the Editor (talk · contribs). Are there any other accounts we should know about? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Shultzii (talk · contribs) and LUUSAP (talk · contribs). I used The Former Shultz (talk · contribs) very briefly to catch up with ESkog (talk · contribs). --Shultz the Editor (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Dechronifying for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dechronifying 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/Dechronifying 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 notice from the top of the article. RexPatricius (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that repeated recreation of an article against a consensus to delete it is considered disruptive and is grounds for blocking. Thank you. RexPatricius (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Miracle Mattress[edit]

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.
Ambox warning pn.svg

The article Miracle Mattress has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article was about a real person or group of people, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or an organized event, but did not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is actually significant enough for an encyclopedia article, you are free to re-create it, but this time you need to demonstrate that, which is best done by citing to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected to the topic.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)