User talk:Sh33pl0re

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Prezbo (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Arabrein


The article Arabrein has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * unlikely this word has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (Notability)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Prezbo (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Arabrein
I have nominated Arabrein, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Arabrein. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Prezbo (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Nystrom


A tag has been placed on Paul Nystrom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

April 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Poles. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Mau Mau Uprising has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. 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. S ophie ( Talk ) 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert Volation
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. S ophie ( Talk ) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * as stated above, you have violated the 3RR policy, which says here you can not revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. I have also noticed that you are attacking scott. Personal Attakcs are NOT allowed on Wikipedia. S ophie  ( Talk ) 21:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked: Edit warring and incivility on Mau Mau Uprising
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Mau Mau Uprising. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mau Mau

 * There is a discussion you may wish to participate in at Talk:Mau Mau Uprising, cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility
Regarding this edit from earlier today - I'm absolutely certain that you're more than capable of making the exact same point without resorting to comments like It's obvious to anyone with functioning brain cells that you are about as unbiased as a Holocaust denier... and [another editor] is a lying, POV-addict who should be banned from editing this page.

There are numerous ways of dealing with WP:POV issues. WP:DR lists many of them. Insulting other editors isn't a helpful way of addressing WP:POV issues, however.

I realise it can be difficult when you're in a disagreement with someone, but using this kind of language really isn't acceptable. It'll lead to blocks of increasing duration, blocks which would be all too easy to avoid.

Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 14:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I may be regarded as involved with this issue, I've noted my behaviour in this thread at ANI. The thread involves two other editors, the underlying issue is "Kenya in 1952" so I felt it was an appropriate place to raise this. TFOWRpropaganda 14:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please cease using disruptive edit summaries such as these. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative editing...
Hi Sh33pl0re.

You can add your preferred point of view but please don't delete valid material simply because you dont agree with it. It also helps to discuss your issues on the article's talk page. May I also urge you please to review No_personal_attacks. Abusive behavior is disruptive. Thanks. ScottPAnderson (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off, both of you
Yesterday was a mess, and I ended up reporting two editors at WP:ANI. As a result the article is now move-protected.

Today is shaping up to be an equally large mess. Let me be absolutely clear what I mean by consensus and discussion: I mean discuss until you resolve your differences and then - and only then - edit. I do not mean "post on the talk page and then immediately edit or revert the article". I do not mean "carry on an inflammatory conversation by way of snarky edit summaries".

Yesterday's fiasco drew a lot of new editors - posts at ANI tend to achieve that. I suspect, too, that a number of admins are now carefully monitoring the article, not because they intend to edit it, but because they're concerned about the disruptive potential it poses. You can either demonstrate that you can both work collaboratively, or you can wait until the article is fully-protected, you're both topic-banned from Kenya topics, or you're both blocked. Working collaboratively gives you both some control over the article; the other options achieve the exact opposite.

It should be clear by now that if I initiate any form of dispute resolution - including posting at WP:ANI - I will name and shame all parties, myself included, and let smarter and cooler heads determine the best outcome. Please sort this out and don't force me - or someone else - to escalate this further.

Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Identical message sent to both editors.

Talkback
TFOWRpropaganda 12:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler
Hello: You want to add a section of text to this article. I removed it for the stated reasons, as shown in the revert entry. The edit is undue material that needs consensus first. In other words, WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems. You asked why I did not mention it on the "talk page". I saw no need to do so as I stated the reasons for revert and also, as you may not know, the burden is on the person who wants to include something, not the other way around. You need consensus to include it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Visionary globalism


The article Visionary globalism has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable neologism

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, 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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, 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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)