User talk:Vanished user vjhsduheuiui4t5hjri/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

User:Shawnpoo/Navbar

Most assuredly the edits made by me jsimone are NOT vandalism. Did you read me edits? Did you look at what I added? I cited references the the current series running on WGN Chicago as my source for each day I make edits.

PLEASE REFRAIN from undoing other peoples work!

I can understands your intentions are good BUT read what has been added before declaring it as vandalism! Looks like I am not only one you have done this to.

Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.38.99 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

well if you actual read the edit summary i did not revert your edits i restored your edits so please check your comment and fix it where needed. also please sign your comments with for tildes like this ~~~~. So again i am asking you to check your story here. Shawnpoo 15:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The edits made by me Saedirof 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC) are not vandalism

As you can see there are proper proofs for all my edits. I have only reorganized the page and added more proofs for various sections. Please verify the proofs before reverting my changes. I'll wait for your reply before making more changes.

Saedirof 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss it first before making any major changes Shawnpoo 15:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Already discussed these changes in RFC. Saedirof 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked in Mudaliar's discussion page and i could not locate your discussion anywhere. Shawnpoo

I'm not sure what the problem is, I was trying to make minor edit and then half the page was missing, when I tried to correct that, all of my edits were reverted and I received several messages claiming that I was a vandal. Look at my track history, I've been a contributor to wikipedia or some time, I'm no vandal. Darwin's Bulldog 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I still don't know what happened. I've since fixed the problem. This kind of problem happened to me once before, but it's been a while. Thanks for getting back to me. Darwin's Bulldog 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a few tools, notably User:Werdnabot, but the easy way is to just copy all the text into a new page, then link that page.

It's good to do when your talk page gets very long, like mine had. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just in passing, there is no need to revert nonsense edits at WP:SANDBOX. The sandbox is a place to test editing skills. Deleting nonsense or badly formatted sandbox edits may confuse new editors who won't understand why what they typed has suddenly vanished. Obviously, sandbox edits containing personal information, libel or extremely offensive statements should be deleted at once. Other sandbox edits should generally be left alone. Euryalus 00:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was testing out twinkle in the sandbox. I didn't really understand how it worked so i just tried it out in the sandbox. Shawnpoo 00:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry, my mistake. Euryalus 00:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

no problem. I know your just trying to help. Shawnpoo 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was restructuring the article. Take a look at who the main creator/contributor of all those Cyclura articles is!

Thanks for keeping an eye out, though!--Mike Searson 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was actually reading your article and i dropped my stapler on my keyboard/mouse and it just reverted something my bad i changed it back the second after though. Shawnpoo 04:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Keep up the good work! My personal user page and an article I brought to featured status have been getting repeatedly vandalized the past few days...so I have a special hatred for vandals myself!--Mike Searson 04:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Which article because i can request protection on that page.

Ernest Emerson...it's been protected, but now they're trying to get it deleted. I'm going to focus more on the Cyclura stuff for awhile so I don't throw my hands up and quit altogether!--Mike Searson 04:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for you're stuff when I can. But i have a lot of school going on lately. (I am only 14 :p) Shawnpoo 04:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Cool...keep an eye on King cobra that page is hit on a daily basis!--Mike Searson 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I will ;) Shawnpoo 04:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I'm not a vandal I've been undoing User:Thistime19's vandalism to The Used's page. He wasn't following the guidlines set forth by Wikipedia which is why I reported him. --Zero Cool 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

you broke the 3rr rule so i reported you Shawnpoo 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

3rr? The only reason I reverted more than 3 times is due to his constant vandalism of the page. I was trying to keep it as clean as possible and for me to be punished for something that person did isn't fair. --Zero Cool 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hereShawnpoo 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Senscheid. I do not think that Senscheid fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because sufficient context to know it's a town in Germany. I request that you consider not re-tagging Senscheid for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. One-line town and city articles are rarely deleted however. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shawn! Just wanted to ask you not to tell a vandal he/she was reported to AIV (even if you don't mention the page directly), as they may pick up the pace with vandalism if they know they'll be blocked. Good work with your AIV reports though, usually spot on: saves me a bit of work. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 01:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the tip! Shawnpoo 03:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed a speedy tag you added to Maharani cave. You tagged it as having no context. There is no way that article could be considered to have insufficient context. It said what the cave was and where it was, what more context do you want? I suggest you stop using automated tools to add tags until your judgement improves. Take the time to consider articles properly and add the tags yourself if they are needed. --Tango 12:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shawn. Things like this aren't uncommon with new patrollers. If you come across something you want to tag or a vandalism/3RR/rule violation you're not sure about, feel free to ask me about it on my talk page before you do anything. It's important that you understand the criteria for deletion if you're going to start tagging things. I'd be happy to help you out. Into The Fray ^T/C 12:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out to me Tango and if i have any questions i will ask you, Into The Fray, first. Shawnpoo 13:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words! Its definitely encouraging! Mspraveen 16:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Shawnpoo Tell me where I "vandalized" that section.

--Ilovemusic1304 03:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

you removed the entire section Dial Z for Zombies.Shawnpoo 03:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting Assadrums inc (talk · contribs) at WP:UAA. Unfortunately the name is too ambiguous to take preemptive actions. You should perhaps either wait for the user to edit (to see if he's a troll) or discuss his username with him. Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This website is one of the oldest in Canada, I do not know of any older ones in fact.

This site delivers Usenet ads in parallel to web ads, I know of no other classifieds website on the whole internet that offers that service in parallel, it's truely unique.

Being one of the oldest and offering a one of a kind service makes this noteworthly in my opinion.

Can you elaborate why these two facts are not noteworthy? If these facts are noteworthy and it was other parts of the article that was inappropriate can you let me know what they were?

Did you even read the article, you pegged it for deletion within 60 seconds of submission? That's pretty fast for something which has a couple noteworthy features.

p.s. I wasn't 100% sure how to properly contend this, if there is a more appropriate way please let me know, thanks.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paris1745 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It was written like an advertisement. That is why I tagged it. Have an administrator review the tag. and also yes you did handle it correctly. (also please sign your comments by using four tildes (~~~~) like that. Shawnpoo 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I placed the {{hangon}} template on the article for the editor. Even if it's not an advert, then it does seem to be of dubious notability, but sometimes websites are difficult 'cause they might get a lot of traffic, but not have a lot of secondary sources. I'd have tagged it too.  ;) Into The Fray ^T/C 21:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I will focus more on noteble features and disregard the more mundane in the future. There's really just 2 main ntotable features worth noting, I thought a few more details would complment the entry, I'm guesing it got too wordy and promotional looking then.Paris1745 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been deleted Shawnpoo 01:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your message, but I see you got approved ok. Dreadstar † 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else reported Mr Tobacco, not me.Factchecker atyourservice 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I am referring to, as I linked in my edit summary. Avruch^Talk 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

nothing forbids it... Shawnpoo (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Hello. I don't understand why you reverted my edit for this page when you obviously aren't familiar with the matter. Please refrain from editing pages without proper knowledge because you are wasting another person's hard work.

Also, I'm pretty sure you're not a SkyCable subscriber like me so you have no basis from editing like me. So next time, just refrain from using Wikipedia altogether because based on the talk here, you like to revert other people's edit even if you are not familiar with the topic.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.83.123 (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

All I see are mass deletes with no sourcing whatsoever Shawnpoo (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- Not sure why you reverted my edits to elliptic geometry. I've opened a discussion on the talk page.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! — Aitias // discussion 19:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you drink soda? I'm curious. 74.74.236.191 (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do Shawnpoo (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too! But diet soda stinks. Elpablo69 (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you should quit drinking soda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.175.137 (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you block me. I have a large list of networks and IP addresses here to use. 74.74.236.191 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.--86.41.68.164 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, not about ellipitic geometry, but could you delete user: Super Smash Bros. Malin? It is false, and a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.81.18 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No I cannot since I am not an Admin. I will continue to watch him and report his behaviors to one should he persist.

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page The Preacher's Wife: Original Soundtrack Album has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Shawnpoo (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt unconstructive. Did u even look @ the edit? 70.108.91.208 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

says right on there, stop reverting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.221 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're the one that got to that before me. Thanks a ton! Gnowor (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem =p Shawnpoo (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never vandalised Wikipedia. Other people on my IP address have, as clearly stated on the page. If you had taken one look at the source material you would see that the individual has been moved to the limbo section, as I originally explained. Everyone who goes on this page will now think that you are a fool for reverting correct edits so many times without considering for a single second that it might be true. For wasting my internet time and questioning my integrity, I DEMAND an apology. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I question the edits as 1. you have not provided any form of proof that these are factual 2. You are not discussing any edits 3. It appears to be blatant vandalism as I have already warned you and you continued to edit Shawnpoo (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID, ABE IS IN LIMBO

AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID, LOOK AT THE SOURCE MATERIAL

AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID, APOLOGIZE212.183.136.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

I'm still waiting for my apology. If you had any class then you would. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As i said before you have not linked or provided any proof your so called "limbo???" Shawnpoo (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You are making yourself seem really, really stupid here. The main link for the page is GRG, where you will find my 'so-called limbo'. If you knew anything about the page, or simply didn't jump to conclusions, it would have taken you seconds to confirm this. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please try to avoid personal insults- comment on edits, not on editors. Remember to be civil. Thanks. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 00:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've correctly edited a page 7 times.

This editor has reverted 7 times. That is tantamount to vandalism.

Yet this editor accuses me of vandalism.

And you warn me for incivlity. Warn him! At time Wikipedia is utterly unbelievable.

And I still DEMAND AN APOLOGY. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter who is to blame, please be polite. Demanding an apology in CAPITAL LETTERS won't help. Try and sort out the problem calmly. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 00:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the website and found that you are correct. I am sorry. I assumed it was vandal edits due to your shared IP's. To avoid further confusion on edits due to a shared IP address i reccomend that you create an account. Shawnpoo (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. 212.183.136.193 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I hope that you, Shawnpoo, and you, 212.183.136.193, will cease reverting on that page: both of you have exceeded the three revert rule, and any further reverts will likely lead to blocks. Also, Shawnpoo, I note that your reverts were done with Huggle. Please be more careful when reverting in future, and what you label as vandalism: further incidents like this may lead to having Huggle and rollback removed from your account, and some admins may not even warn you. I'm not going to remove Huggle or rollback, but please consider this for the future. Thank you. Acalamari 00:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I was responding to a report at AIV, and the first part of my message was indeed out of date by the time I had posted it. However, I am correct on the rollback issue: some admins would have removed your rollback and Huggle access after this, regardless of an apology to the IP, while I only gave you a reminder over it; that's all. Thanks. Acalamari 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello... FYI, simulating the Mediawiki interface (such as the "message waiting" indicator) is generally discouraged. Please see Wikipedia:User page#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces if you want more information on this guideline. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding a comment to your talk page but you reverted my revert. I understand your point and will leave it off for now until I do further researching. I was going to add the comment asking that it would be more polite for you to leave me a comment requesting me to remove it rather than removing it yourself without notifying me in the first place or having my consent. Shawnpoo (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick reply, and understand your thoughts regarding leaving a message. The problem is that these fake messages can be (unintentionally) disruptive to other users; there have been many cases where the "joke" target was an off-site page, and one situation where I had to deal with an external link that went to a page that could possibly infect a reader's computer. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate if i edited the background and made it a "light blue" rather than the default wiki yellow? THis would allow for the joke to but without fully spoofing. Shawnpoo (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Shawnpoo!

I was in the middle of my edits on the Beethoven Waldstein Sonata when I realized I had forgotten to sign in! SORRY! I'll try to be more careful in future! Prof.rick (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

On Legends of Wrestlemania I am posting a link to a youtube user who OWNS the video. Owns as in the publisher and copyright holder. How is that vandalism? Figures universities don't allow citations to this site given the intelligence of the editors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.51.25 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? You're telling me that universities wont allow citations because I took out a YOUTUBE link? If anyone in college is citing a youtube link anyway there is something wrong. Shawnpoo (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note as I noticed your AIV report: Shanpoo, his edits were not vandalism. He was adding the link in good faith because he did not understand our content policies (as should have been obvious from his edit summaries and complaint on your talkpage), and good faith edits are never vandalism. He was blocked because of his violation of the three revert rule, and that's what you should have warned him for. Warnings are supposed to advise an editor about the rules they're breaking and tell them what they should do instead, so as to avoid having to block them. Giving vandalism warnings to an edit warrior does not help stop the edit war; in fact it's much more likely to inflame the situation by angering the person you're falsely accusing. Please be more careful in the future while RC patrolling.--Dycedarg ж 05:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I noted it as vandalism due to the fact that Truco noted in the edit summary that we could not use the link, but I see your point and will make sure to keep in mind when dealing with anon good-faith edits. Shawnpoo (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your apologizes :] User_talk:141.155.157.221#March_2009 Yug (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we do. You are welcome. :) --♠Dspradau♠ ^{♠talk♠ ♠contribs♠} 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Arby's has new Roastburgers no reason to revert to previous entry

Mfurman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfurman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shawn,

Thank you for alerting me to an error in my entry for AbsolutelyNew, Inc. Could you please help me understand what needs to be edited in order for the entry to be valid?

Thanks,

Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhass (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest unless the company is notable (Walmart, Barne's and Noble, etc. Nothing. Articles need to be notable and articles associated with companies need to be not written in an advert fashion. Shawnpoo (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it vandalism? the information in Scoti is worthless, there is no research to support it. That information should be removed, it is simply wrong to pass all that off as truth without support. This is why wikipedia is not accepted in universities as legitimate research, because you guys pass up useless myths like the Scoti article as truth and when someone tries to remove the lies you accuse them of vandalism and put them back up?... Seriously, if you have a problem with me fixing the lies, then you fix them, research the subject and re-write the article accurately and well cited because I don't have time to do so. If you don't either then leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithyphallic Giant (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit here is considered vandalism Shawnpoo (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks [1]! Have you been to Kathmandu?? 202.79.40.131 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope I'm afraid i haven't Shawnpoo (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you work for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owainw1994 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

y r u called shawnpoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owainw1994 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No I do not work for wikipedia, and I am called Shawnpoo because that is my username. Shawnpoo (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I received an e-mail saying that Nikita Khrushchev dancing the Ukrainian Gopak dance was an act of vandalism. As proof that its not, here is the web page i obtained it from: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hopak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.232.231 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The topics have no correlation whatsoever. Shawnpoo (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

All state senators and representatives are considered notable per se. Flatterworld (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I see thank you for the input Shawnpoo (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly note on Ricky ten Voorde. I declined the speedy deletion request -- FC Emmen is a professional club, so the article has a claim of meeting WP:ATHLETE. If you think he's not notable, AfD would be the way to go. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmk Thank you. Ill review the article again and put it on my list to do. Shawnpoo (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shawnpoo. Can you please be careful when tagging pages for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense"? I have come across several you've tagged that do not meet the speedy deletion criterion:

Patent nonsense. Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.

If you can tell what the article is supposed to be about (e.g. a Digimon character), then it is probably not patent nonsense. Hope that helps. Somno (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic: A1 requires that an article lacks the information to identify the subject. If an article is titled "Dangerous Man (film)" that's already enough context to identify it, and that particular article even named Steven Seagal as a lead actor. If you don't think we should have an article on it it would have to be decided at AfD. From what I read at IMDb though principal photography has begun, so it should be past WP:NFF.
Thanks for NPPing, and Cheers, Amalthea 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I see thank you. I misunderstood patent nonsense as no context. Will be more careful when tagging for now on. Shawnpoo (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly note on Barbara Lefcowitz. I declined the speedy deletion request. Being a published author is a good faith claim of importance, and if you follow the external links on the page down to the bottom of each site, there's a claim of having won awards, which would pass WP:N. The article definitely needs better references, and if the awards can't be referenced an AfD deletion discussion would be in order. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me! I may just put in an AfD request. Shawnpoo (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i am not leaving "Copenhagen Record" empty, i was just editing it, as i saw it is up for a speedy deletion.

Ahh I see. Ill remove it then. Shawnpoo (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I placed a hang-on tag and added another fact, category, and comment. Hope that helps. kilbad (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was not aware of the list of latin terms when I made this article. Therefore, I would favor a merge and redirect. Sorry about that mistake. kilbad (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Good job on the article though §hawnpoo 00:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently, you reverted some changed to the Classless Inter-Domain Routing‎‎ with no edit summary, which as it says when you do a revert, implies that it is vandalism. You also gave the user a warning about unsourced information. I have reviewed these changes and they certainly are not vandalism as defined by WP:V. Nor do the edits seem to contradict any of the sources given in the article, the editing appears to be pretty straight forward copy-editing. Wrs1864 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you the person who posted the original rude comments on the director's page for the First Canyon Rain dispute? If so I think you should be banned form Wikipedia. And your dispute about the postings I made on Wikipedia is unfounded. Did you even research before you agreed with the first person? Have you ever tried to get a project into IMDb? Have you ever worked on a film project?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WLaccount (talk • contribs) 01:56, March 8, 2009

I've never edited any of those articles but have only commented on the AFD nominations for them here. Please try to be civil and handle this on the appropriate discussion page that I have listed above. §hawnpoo 07:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You may want to direct your attention at WP:ANI in regards to the conduct by WLaccount (talk · contribs). Thank you, MuZemike 08:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do now. §hawnpoo 08:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re edit war on Them Terribles, Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I won't delay you here as my reply is on the relevent discussion page if you wish to go through it all. ( The page is growing quickly) .--Dmol (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed you Speedy Deletion tag from Ian Neil. The SD was already applied and rejected and the article is currently in AfD. Probably just as well to let it run its course. Thanks ttonyb1 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep I saw it in my watchlist. Probably the best course of action now that I think about it. Thanks §hawnpoo 16:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if a misunderstanding has taken place. From where I stood it seemed like a redirect to a vandal created page. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. §hawnpoo 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Shawn. I'm sorry that I was speedy-deleting too quickly, and I was wondering which article(s) you were referring to (if you remember). I'm trying to remember which ones I requested to be SDed today. Looking at the time of the warning I would assume you were talking about the article Mr Bottomly? DreamHaze (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No Mr. Bottomley was pure vandalism. I do not recall which one but you tagged it within 30 seconds of it being created. Give them around 15 min and if there isnt anyway that it can be improved to meet policys then tag it. §hawnpoo 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! C: DreamHaze (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! §hawnpoo 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please undo the close of "Hay Island (Connecticut)"? Given that there were only 2 options on the mater and they were split, I don't think an early close, let alone a non-admin one, is the best plan here. Thanks Hobit (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

what do you want to do? delete the redirect? Its pointless. I included all information in the other article (the very little it had) §hawnpoo 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have undone the non-admin close. This was not an appropriate early close, regardless of whether it was an admin or not. StarM 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was. I already made the edits per WP:BOLD. This is not helping to improve the encyclopedia but merely arguing it for no purpose what so ever? Instead of just reopening it please tell me what you would have done with it. §hawnpoo 01:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not appropriate as Hobit said above. Opinions were split and the discussion had barely been open. It should not have been closed early by anyone, especially not by a non-admin who had participated in the discussion. Others disagreed whether it should be re-directed or kept. There's no cause for SNOW or IAR there. While we're here, your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon J. Lundahl Middle School was also inappropriate as a) you'd already participated in the AfD nad b) the target was not correct. I did not re-open because the outcome was known -- it was not in this case. StarM 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to my redirect on Leon J. Lundahl Middle School I decided to be BOLD and also it was correct to clsoe both pages as it is just wasting time there since we decided that deletion was not a correct course of action and AfD stands for articles for deletion not articles for discussion. If you wish to dispute the redirect take it to rfd §hawnpoo 01:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and re-opened the AfD to let it run its course. Re-directing to the school district is normal practice when the district exists, not the town. Town is used when there's no district page or if it's a private school. Afd btw = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It should never have been brought there but you cannot close a discussion in which you've participated. That applies to admins or not. Discussion will come to consensus on where the re-direct should be. 02:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the AfD has been re-opened, the article should stand. There is no consensus to re-direct anywhere. If consensus is formed, it can then be re-directed. Until then, it remians an article. You have made a large number of inappropriate closes today. I suggest you read guidelines on NAC as you're not following them in the slightest. Please leave the discussion here. StarM 02:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to atack me like that. You seem intent on pointing out my every fault, also there are no guidlines and NAC closure. §hawnpoo 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, it's now a supplement but the bottom line is people care enough to have written them up here Wikipedia:Non-admin closure and here. You have at least three people here telling you your closes aren't good. This isn't an attack, but a sign that you need to change what you're doing. People clearly don't agree with your course of action. There is no harm in letting deletion discussions run five days which is explicitly said, Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for at least five days, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. There was a kerfuffle of late of whether four days was appropriate, but one is not. StarM 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Having both kww and I here about early closes in AfD may be the first time the two of us have agreed on anything ever. Probably not the best sign that the topic is that you're closing things too early. Just try to be careful. I'd suggest you avoid closing anything early for a while. No biggy, AfD takes a while to get a good sense for. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He may be right in this case. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? §hawnpoo 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He delinked DJ Supreme who seems to be different from the one mentioned in the article. He now even states that he's one of them. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well now he's claiming that he is Dj Supreme... and hes deleting refs and changing dates so even if he is DJ supreme that still falls under WP:OR §hawnpoo 22:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Them Terribles, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a standard template in this case is the right thing... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Really Jez? Do you even know what your talking about? §hawnpoo 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if a non admin closure is a good way here and wanted to contact you after you first closed it. I saw something like that coming, User:Kww further complaining. Now that you closed it for a second time, hmm, we'll see... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I closed it again because its obviously SNOWing early. I knwo this isnt a majority vote but a 9-0 (excluding the nom) is obviously a snowball. Also the article was just created today and the author made some pretty significant edits to it compared to when it was attempted to be speedied. Also arguing over this article really isnt helping the encyclopedia as a whole but it seems people are just arguing for the heck of it. §hawnpoo 01:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I was too fast with the clicks when on vandalism patrol. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you're right, and I'm on your side - but you may understand that this is a bit different from other AfDs. I would NOT have it closed early. But that's just my 2 cents. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your comments here also User_talk:Shawnpoo#Hay_Island_.28Connecticut.29§hawnpoo 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know nothing about that case and am not too open right now. Next time! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 08:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of an AFD is available on non-controversial closures. Given that the person that opened the AFD has objected, this isn't non-controversial. Your accusation of bad faith was clearly out of line as well. This is a myspace only band ... no albums, no singles, no recording contract, nothing beyond some local writeups and winning a glorified battle-of-the-bands contest. I nominated it for deletion in good faith, and do not want the AFD closed. Please undo that closure immediately.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will remove it, just because of your persistence. But I believe that I made a fair call. And also there are no non-admin guidelines §hawnpoo 02:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are two guidelines that apply: first at WP:Speedy keep, a close cousin of a "snow" keep, which states No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. (emphasis mine). WP:Non-admin closure contributes Common sense needs to be used, as 10 WP:ILIKEIT Keeps in one day for a popular topic can be joined 2 or 3 days later by a handful of knowledgeable Deletes which result in a Delete closure. I have my fingers crossed for those knowledgeable Delete votes to come in 2 to 3 days, which does occasionally happen. As for Star Mississippi's comment, I read that as her way of saying that she was reopening on procedural grounds, not because she had formed an opinion on the correct result of the AFD itself, which doesn't seem like something to be upset about.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, no comment on the notability. I'm not looking into it. I've never heard of the band, don't like music and in the grand scheme of things don't care whether it's kept or deleted, but I think that correct process should be followed. I meant no comment on notability as I don't have a comment. Im just relisting and explaining. StarM 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok i see your point about Them Terribles and yes I now believe it should stay open. But with the middle school the debate should be closed and moved to rfd as it is no longer discussing deletion. §hawnpoo 02:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it's no longer discussiong deletion is because you closed a debate in which you'd participated. No issue with the AfD running its course since its been opened. Guidelines don't allow closure because you think you know where it should be even when that is contra established process, Subject to the above paragraph, if a school article fails to establish notability, but the school can be confirmed to exist, then the page should be merged and redirected. In the United States and Canada, schools are usually organized by school district. The article about the school district (if one exists), or the municipality (if not), is the normal target. StarM 02:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm walking away from this as of now. §hawnpoo 03:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to pile on the above, but you have closed quite a few redirect discussions early and I have a couple of concerns.

1. I don't believe a non-admin should be closing any discussion which is not unanimous.
2. Please let nominations stay open a week. There is no deadline around here, and so no rush to get these things closed. SNOW should only be invoked in extreme cases (such as bad faith nominations).

Don't let this discourage you, but please do consider these points carefully. Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a non-admin, you should not be closing deletion debates as deletes. That just adds more work all round. Since you cannot delete articles yourself, an admin still has to verify the discussion & perform the deletion. It doesn't save any steps. If you haven't already, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, when you close something as keep, please remember to take the deletion tag of the article. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, never close a debate in which you participated in as you did with America Jr.. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vamdalism revert. ♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem §hawnpoo 00:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you testing on mIRC here? [2] Tothwolf (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Every edit I tried to make said the data base was down so, every 10 sec I resubmitted that page, nothing was done. §hawnpoo 01:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I know the database was read only for awhile earlier today but I've not had any more problems with it so far this evening. Tothwolf (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)