User talk:Lawl95

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Fair Shannon)


Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Fair Shannon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Old Al (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Hi there SHANNON, VASCO from Portugal here,

Thanks for the friendly tip on my new "invention", did not take offense whatsoever, i know how the "boat rocks here" :) Will find some references as of NOW (although i have often said the EXTERNAL LINKS could act as such as well, they have info that can be consulted too), and put them "where they belong".

You were indeed FAIR, keep up the good work, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • After providing requested refs, took the liberty of removing tag. Please feel free to reinstate it if you think i should not have (still) removed it, i will keep trying to improve piece as the days go on...Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD of Costuras[edit]

I've just provided some more info about the Costuras article that I've just created, adding an external reference. If you think that the provided information is good and enough, please remove it as proposed for deletion. --Bigs slb (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"no context"[edit]

You nominated the article Jack Edwards (actor) for speedy deletion as having no context. [1] At the time of your nomination the first sentence of the article was "Jack Edwards is an English actor best known for playing the character Marco Maloney in the CBBC sitcom Tracy Beaker." That clearly identifies who the article is about and establishes context. Please be more careful when tagging articles for deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion are deliberately very narrow as they are intended only for uncontroversial deletions not requiring a discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you proposed the deletion for the billy bitter article. i added a source so can you remove the tag for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchdales (talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

Please also read the comments I left at WP:RFPERM. Happy editing, and if you have any questions, my talk page is always open! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your 14[edit]

dont you think you should be part of the group of people vandalising a webpage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.22.233 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)No, it's awesome that she's joined the bunch of us younger editors, who are above adding "omg lol" to every article. And isn't she 15? (Hi, Shannon, btw, and a very late welcome!) {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 07:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm 15 (so yes Sonia, you are correct.) My age does not have anything to do with my reputation and what I should or shouldn't be doing on Wikipedia. I am mature enough to realize that vandalism is pointless and child-like, and that is why I will not take part in it. Shannon ♫ (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vandalism Barnstar[edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You are doing a great job clearing vandalism. Therefore I award you the Anti-vandalism barnstar. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Lawl95. You have new messages at [[User talk:Logan#[edit] Thank you for your contributions!|Logan's talk page]].
Message added 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Logan Talk Contributions 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Florida[edit]

  • I want to file an official complaint with Wikipedia about the postings by User:Derekstevens. This posting was deemed vandalism by another established editor. I agree with him, and I think it is borderline conspiracy theory bravado. The Tampabay.com blog was just an opinion editorial. Jccort (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Shannon,

Here are the posts that were linked in the content that Jccort repeatedly deleted:

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090617/ARTICLES/906171007 http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1011155.ece

The St. Petersburg Times link is an editorial that was published in the newspaper. That is a fair link to post, because there was a significant firestorm regarding this issue. Google "Bernie Machen US News rankings" and there are 56,600 results. That's hardly "conspiracy theory bravado."

This incident is nothing but an attempt by a University of Florida supporter to squash valid and factual information in an attempt to make this Wikipedia site a misleading PR mouthpiece for UF. I will not stand by and let such attempts at free speech be squashed.

Sincerely, Derek C. Stevens

User:Derekstevens —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure if you ever noticed Derekstevens' insertion of Jeffrey Dahmer as a prominent Florida alumnus (see bottom of diff). I'm pretty sure that qualifies as WP:VANDALISM. You may want to check out an alleged vandal's history before backing him or her so quickly in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usurp request[edit]

This [2] went stale. You might not think it now, but if you contribute here on a regular basis, you will eventually have some business to do on commons - which is why I am hesitant to give you the name in that you won't be able to unify. There is also the issue that as bureaucrats we aren't supposed to rename users such that they will "slide into" a position of best claim on the SUL, which will happen here. If you can usurp the commons account, I think it can go ahead though - and if you are unable to do so, we can reconsider the request if you are absolutely certain you don't mind not being able to have the global account to use on commons. –xenotalk 13:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for catching my screwup in accepting the change at Selena Gomez. First time using the review feature. --Ari (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And double thanks![edit]

I thank thee, fair Shannon.  :) I genuinely appreciate the gesture and you put a real smile on my face, especially since it cam from a fellow SoCal native! Besides, there's nothing like trout sashimi in the morning to start off a Father's Day in style. Cheers and more thanks from the high desert. We need all the good vandal-slayers we can get and you've done fantastic work in a very short time. Drop me a howdy if you need a hand. Warmest regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: Thanks for the compliment. I'm a leeeetle bit older than Justin Bieber, but hey, I'll take a compliment like that anytime I can get it. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shelly Martinez[edit]

Thank you so mjuch. I really appreciate the review and pass. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer Right Granted[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Helpful One 12:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source on Top Gear[edit]

The source you admonished me for removing of which the subsequent content was proved to be wrong vindicates my removal of the source which has been proved unrelaible. I would like an apology for your actions. Many thanks Lucy-marie (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that you waded in blindly to this issue without reading previous edit summaries from my-self and other user regarding this issue. I would also like to draw your attention to the discussion on my talk page with an editor regarding this issue. I find you to be an editor with flaws as demonstraed by your recent actions regarding this issue and now question your being granted Rollback and Reviewer Rights.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy-Marie, I suggest you don't call people flawed until you prove yourself to be flawless. You have absolutely no grounds to say that this user "waded in blindly" - how do you know he didn't check out the facts and edit history for himself first? The fact that he found my edit amongst all the other rubbish suggests he did actually look through pretty thoroughly. Is this assuming good faith?? More to the point - the only thing that was proven wrong was the currently printed and published content of Top Gear Magazine which stated one particular car would be the next Reasonably Priced Car (RPC). This was proven wrong by the Top Gear production team news blog last week ("my source" that you disputed the authority of as it was called a "blog") which stated this car would NOT be the RPC, and then subsequently backed up by a second page on the Top Gear website stating the same, and then in the show yesterday when a completely different car was unveiled. Nothing in "my source", the Top Gear news blog, has been proven wrong by anyone. I did not use "my source" to state a positive fact - I used it only to state that a currently published statement had been contradicted. If you are going to take an anon user's edit summary over my 5 year long edit history then so be it. Unlike you, I assume good faith so I assume the anon user wasn't you. Anyway, I have explained the above to you at least 4 times already, and why your reverted version was unreferenced, superseded and contradictory, and I assume you will ignore all the above and continue to stick your head in the sand. Halsteadk (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that I've edited your post Halsteadk, changing "she" to "he" - yes, I am male. Shannon! talk 19:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TMI[edit]

You've got a lot of personal information on your user page such as birthdate, mother's name, birth location etc. It's best to keep that kind of information private, see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Fences&Windows 20:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lawl95&oldid=1144398218"