User talk:EditorShane3456

This is EditorShane3456's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the Balkans or Eastern Europe articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles COVID-19, broadly construed the Balkans or Eastern Europe gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups pseudoscience and fringe science genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hi @EditorShane3456, I saw that you draftified Alta (company). That had already been done once, though, and the author had moved it back into the main space, so per WP:DRAFTONCE we wouldn't normally draftify for the second time (unless we know, or can reasonably suspect, COI). However, on this occasion the author subsequently submitted the draft to review at AfC, which I took to mean that they weren't violently objecting to the 2nd draftification, hence I've allowed it. Just bear this in mind in the future, okay? Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i just wanted them to go through the afc process shane (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's probably a good idea... especially as I've now declined that draft for having zero evidence of notability. I was just offering this advice for future reference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EditorShane3456, I hope all is well. I was leaving this note to let you know I reverted your move of Rosetta to Rosetta (town). The move was undiscussed and I believe that the city in Egypt still is the WP:PTOPIC for Rosetta, so I reverted the move. If you still think the page should be moved, please start a discussion per the instructions at WP:PCM. Having said that, I do have a question. Did you want Rosetta (disambiguation) to move to Rosetta, or did you have a different page you wanted there? If so, you would want to include that in the move discussion as well because otherwise Rosetta (town) or Rosetta (disambiguation) would be misplaced per WP:MISPLACED. All the best! Casablanca 🪨^(T) 21:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah pretty much and also, when some people think of rosetta, they think of the spacecraft shane (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This page is written in an in-universe style; please provide more context for those unfamiliar with the source material.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:BBY-01 Yamato (fictional spacecraft) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 07:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EditorShane3456! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 07:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:BBY-01 Yamato (fictional spacecraft) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I have declined your G15 speedy deletion nomination of User:ToriTinkers/Tallahassee Sustainable Black Farmers History. Although the draft article has what may be user-facing text (i.e., "[Work in Progress - Insert rest of information here]"), the rest of the page does not read as LLM-generated, receiving a 0% LLM score through ZeroGPT. Through a human review, sentences such as the following are unlikely to be LLM-generated: "A quote from the film: 'I'm just farming to live, not no money I'm trying to accumulate'." Based on my reading, the alleged user-facing text is more likely to be a note-to-self and/or to the instructor, given this is a WikiEd page. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about this matter. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EditorShane3456, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Bulla Brodzinski, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your clerking of that (obviously appropriate) post is badly wrongheaded; edit-warring about it is even more-so. Knock it off. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made 2 reverts......? please re-read WP:3RR, and you should be the one knocking it off, and I stopped reverting so, I am not breaking the rule on 3 reverts before your done. shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of us should re-read WP:3RR for sure! [Hint: it's the one who is doing the obviously inappropriate clerking!] 173.79.19.248 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're BOTH edit-warring. IP, be lucky you didn't get blocked yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're three minutes late to the party :-p. (For the avoidance of doubt: I know we were both edit-warring. But I also know there's often a degree of flexibility around edit warring when one person is obviously right on the merits.) 173.79.19.248 (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did 2 reverts...... that doesn't count shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring does not require 3 reverts, see WP:EW. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy ping for unblock request @Tamzin @173.79.19.248 @331dot @Jéské Couriano shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EditorShane3456 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was trying to clean up the administrators noticeboard, but when the IP reverted my edits, I got a tiny bit irritated and reverted his edits. I understand that being mad and editing while mad has consequences, and that I hope that I can still try to clean up wikipedia from promoters, vandals, sockpuppets, overall just try to be a good samaritan on this wiki. In the future I will look back on this block and try to steer clear of being blocked once again shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am genuinely shocked by that NAC, let alone the edit-warring over it. Please use the 12 remaining hours of this block to reflect. asilvering (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged me: I generally don't do "lesson learned" unblocks on short blocks like this. I think there's value in having the memory of having to serve out a block for violating a policy. I'd always rather do positive reënforcement than negative, but the latter does work, sometimes. Now, if another admin is satisfied with your response above, they have the discretion to unblock. I aim to be asleep shortlyish (we'll see...) so no need to ping me. But for me the main question here would be, do you actually understand what was disruptive here? Between your initial close (per our previous discussions about over-eager projectspace work) and your edit summaries, do you see why the IP user was upset, and do you see why your attitude was problematic even without hitting four reverts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while we're talking about edit-warring, please don't draft-war. If an editor challenges draftification, and you disagree that the article is suitable for mainspace, the next step is either improving the article or sending it to AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to modify your nomination statement. You've misunderstood the status of People magazine at WP:PEOPLEMAG. That entry is not saying that People can only be used for living people. People is considered a reliable source but should not be the only source for any contentious claims. Schazjmd (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straightforward case of WP:NATDIS: hand fan is preferable to fan (implement) and Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title (my emphasis). 173.79.19.248 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

does Boxers(movement) fit more now? shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not use parenthetical disambiguation at all when natural disambiguation (the original title) is possible. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this policy? Will you self-revert? 173.79.19.248 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been constituted as vandalism and a case of icanthearyouitosis. Please stop or your going to get blocked from editingBhj867 (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how have my edits been constituted vandalism when yours have been shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, you seem to have started an ANI thread but only posted a header and nothing else! Just a heads up in case it was unintentional; that page is so long there's often issues with the editing interface! CoconutOctopus talk 12:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok im still working on the ANI thing, so dont worry, there is something there but im just working on it shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would highly recommend you refrain from responding to the editor at every opportunity; it will largely pointlessly increase the size of the discussion. Also, editors are allowed to remove comments from their own talk pages, as doing so confirms they have read it (relevant to this). I get the desire to defend yourself, but less is more in this case; let the original post at ANI speak for itself. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 13:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok sorry shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]