When you answered an edit request, you didn't mark the request as answered by setting |answered=yes. Thanks for completing the edit request itself; just a quick reminder to mark it as done. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shadow311, I'm not sure if you saw but I made an updated infobox edit request on the Florida Power & Light Talk page after your last message there. Would you be able to take a look? I'd really appreciate it. FPL Daniel (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
You left a comment on my draft suggesting I add inline citations to every entry. I've looked at other lists and I thought that linking the separate article for every entry was sufficient enough. That if somebody wanted to read more or get sources, they could check its own page. I'm just wondering and want more clarification if you think that it's best to add citations to everything or if links to other articles are enough. :-) SourPieMe (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but practically every list under Lists of weapons doesn't have everything cited except for things that are not on each item's Wikipedia page. I don't see how the draft is any different from those on that list of lists. SourPieMe (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've went and looked at some guidelines, and I'll just say this now, I absolutely appreciate your comment and you trying to help, I just think I've made my mind up. WP:LISTVERIFY says they must have inline citations if they have any of the 4 materials where they're required. A list of grenades doesn't fit any of them. It also says obviously appropriate material does not require citations for stand-alone lists. SourPieMe (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shadow. I dispute your non-admin close and request an admin do it. May you please revert your closure and add a note discouraging another NAC? Cheers, Mach61 02:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alr, sorry for only seeing this now. Shadow311 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like it won't let me undo the close anymore. Shadow311 (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofOpen Book Collective. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mach61 22:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Hope you're keeping well.
My draft was just declined. Is it to do with my references? The links I'm using? or something else maybe? I'm very new to this so any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you Martynlukeact (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of it is that you used multiple external links in the body of the article, which goes against WP:ELBODY. You also were using a large amount of Self-Published references, which goes against WP:SPS. I suggest reading WP:RS. Shadow311 (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Qcne(talk) 13:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps explain which part of the draft was written non-neutrally? S5A-0043Talk 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you want to, you can resubmit it and I will let someone else review it. Shadow311 (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ive changed the warning and put a notice instead. Shadow311 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
