User talk:5hin3

Speedy deletion declined: PEOPLE DESIGN[edit]

Hello 5hin3. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of [PEOPLE DESIGN]. This language is published at the Japanese version of wikipedia. I only merely translated it into English. Please check the page of a Japanese version. --LJESKL (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal tags[edit]

When you tag a vandal, the correct format is

{{subst:Uw-vandalism1|Jon Stewart}} ~~~~

rather than

{{Template:Uw-vandalism1|Jon Stewart}}~~~~

Please make a note of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry. 5hin3 (talk)

Latham of Bradwell[edit]

Having just started a new article Latham of Bradwell, it is not particular helpful to tag it for speedy deletion, when the page is no more than 60 second old. It then turns out I can't remove the tag, because a bot replaces it automatically. I'm sure that the tag was placed by mistake, and would recommend that the speedy deletion tag is not added until an article has been dormant for at least a few hours. --Iantresman (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were planning on adding to it, I would suggest using {{In creation}} to deter people from tagging it. Because in its former state, it definitely deserved it. 5hin3 (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. It is wholly inappropriate to tag an article that is 60 seconds old. Perhaps I was about to add the tag. --Iantresman (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Kal Naismith[edit]

Hello 5hin3, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kal Naismith, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Always worth checking to see if there's an infobox. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 02:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that. I actually read that page, but apparently glanced right over that part. 5hin3 (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can empathise with that, I've never been much of an infobox person myself. But some are and that one has quite a bit of info about the subject, though not a hint of a reference so I've BLPproded it as a new unreferenced article about a living person. By the way, would you mind telling the author when you tag articles for deletion? Otherwise they are liable to find their article has simply disappeared without explanation. There are convenient templates in most of the deletion tags, and they do help get some editors to meet our requirements. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Evil Twin (song)[edit]

Just to let you know, this one did not qualify for CSD A9, as it is a song by Arctic Monkeys. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you are tagging something for deletion, please say so in the edit summary. And do not mark it as a minor edit. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves[edit]

I've done the moves that you requested that were for "person names get capitalized". However, you are able to do this yourself, without needing to request it; see WP:MOVE. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions[edit]

Hi there. You have been here, it would appear, for only a very short time. May I suggest that it is a seriously bad idea instantly to dive in and start nominating articles for deletion? A history of productive article editing is a very sound basis before doing this. At least three months, six months is better. Happy wikying. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:15, 13 November 2011 (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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]