User talk:Shannonr/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:


 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~ 

snoyes 17:04, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I just reverted your change to Kakadu National Park, as it contained copyrighted material from. Please don't add any copyrighted material to wikipedia. Thanks, snoyes 17:08, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hope I'm doing better these days! :) --Shannonr 06:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to comments
Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. However, I do have a question. You tell me to take action if i see something wrong. What if i feel something is wrong, but not completely sure?Delta[XK] 00:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Deconstructivism
Hey there - I've added a bit to the discussion on deconstructivism and agree it's under-represented perhaps we can collaborate --Mcginnly 14:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've responded on your talk page. --Shannonr 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Trade magazines bot-restubbings
Possibly a little bot of both. :/ The restubbing was done of the basis of that article's membership in, which is a subcategory of. That probably only makes sense for a very vague and broad interpretation of "trade", though. If you can think of a rewording of the stub type that would be more descriptively useful and accurate for the scope of the permanent category, that would be ideal; otherwise, feel free to revert the change if you feel it's out-and-out wrong. (There are several such split of the magazine stubs, and I'm beginning to think they were more trouble than they were worth...) Thanks for pointing that out. Alai 15:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Duckworth-Lewis method
What you're requesting is page semi-protection, so I'll do it. Daniel Case 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hugely appreciated! --Shannonr 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Too late, I've already done it!! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then thanks to both of you! :) --Shannonr 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Collected Rantings from 62.64.2xx.xxx
You may be annoyed that your high-handed editing is criticised but that is no reason to vandalise discussion pages, trying to make things suit your version of reality. Just because others misbehave that is not permission for you to do so. PS I don't look at your comments. I hold them in disdain. -- Unsigned comment left by 62.64.211.225 04:36, 9 August 2007 You can archive your talk pages if you wish but you are not allowed to pretend they do not exist. -- Unsigned comment left by 62.64.211.225 04:59, 9 August 2007
 * This strangely hostile user also appears under 62.64.205.5, 62.64.201.211, 62.64.202.195, 62.64.207.25. -- Shannonr 06:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Corridor of Uncertainity
Thanks. Looks neat. Tintin 17:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Baijiu
Thanks for great baijiu info! Badagnani 01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of your edit was good, but I really do not agree with the wikilinks, pinyin, and entire sentences that were removed entirely without first discussing. Badagnani 02:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no good, because it isn't made clear that this beverage is usually considerably stronger in ABV than other liquors from other parts of the world. It certainly is potent and this should not be removed. It's like removing the fact that Malta (beverage) is non-alcoholic, or that Near beer is slightly alcoholic. Baijiu is very potent. Badagnani (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point! See your talk page (and baijiu) for an attempt at a compromise. --Shannonr (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AGSM
Disruptive user. Deleting information without discussing and should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.165.244 (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. As you're an anon user I'll respond here rather than the usual place (ie. your talk page). I'm sorry you feel that I am being disruptive by deleting information on a family of birds nesting in a building from an article about a business school. In fact, Wikipedia policy on "deleting without discussion" is clear: editors are asked to Be Bold and I try to do that. Please see the discussion page for AGSM to continue talking about what constitutes appropriate information for an encyclopedia article on a business school. Thanks! --Shannonr (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)