User talk:Shadow311

This is Shadow311's talk page, where you can send them 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: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Greetings, Shadow311. Firstly, that you for being a regular contributor to Wikipedia. I very much appreciate people like you who have the time and the skills to do what you do.

I am a very occasional contributor, and tend to browse anonomously. However, I've just noticed a message from you as follows:

Hello, I'm Shadow311. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jack Williams have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Shadow311 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Jack Williams history page, I see it was an IP edit (83.219.49.130). The history for that IP is definitely not me! However, I also noticed that there was an Antivandal tag. If that's what it sounds like, it might imply I was defacing or misbehaving. I hope there is nothing marked on my account for this.

Anyway, thank you again for being an active contributor.

Beechside Beechside (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shadow311, Thanks for adding a COI tag to the Talk page for Jacob Helberg. Yep, I've disclosed my COI on my User page. Please let me know if you need any additional info. And if you're able to take a look at my latest request for Jacob, I'd be most grateful. Thanks again. Best, BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow311 Hi i want to know how these resources are not reliable what kind of wikipedia need resources to add this person's biography. Faizullah Anwar (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadow311, Last month you helped move a draft that I was working on in my userspace into AFC, which has now been rejected. I know that drafts are left up for only a limited time, and I don't have much more to add to this draft right now, but would like to continue working on it in the future. Can you help me to move the draft back into my user space for now? I am not sure how to go about that. Thanks for your help, Fluffybunny789 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I see you have relisted the deletion discussion for the last time. What will happen if no consensus is reached as it is receiving no votes? What will be done then?

Alwaysinhotwater (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually on the last relist (max relist amount is 3), if no consensus is reached by the end of the week, It will be kept and closed as no consensus. Shadow311 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, recently you moved my article to drafts, the article was called Miron Pingasov. Does this mean that it is declined?

Thank you very much! Racingworldstories (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, AFC submissions are supposed to be in the draft namespace, not userspace. It was not declined. Shadow311 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, could you also give me an approximate of how long before the article could be posted. And whether there are any recommendations to add something? Racingworldstories (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually go through the new pending AFC submissions to either fix minor errors like submissions that are in userspace, or handle quickfails. In your case, it was fixing the minor error. The current AFC submission backlog is approximately 6 weeks with 1,083 pending submissions. Shadow311 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you! Racingworldstories (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and give me feedback if any other changes. This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia so I am not a pro at this. Thank you in advance for your help. Kartunbear (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the changes didn't appear in the last submission. My apologies, hopefully its reflected this time. *fingers crossed* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartunbear (talk • contribs) 00:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was stated that the Cranbourne West Secondary College page submission was declined due to it not being suitable regarding "What Wikipedia is not".

Can you please help me understand what specific reason the page violates and assist in improving/editing the draft so that it can be suitable for draft submission.

Thank you in advance!

Best,

DebugDruid (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed more like a web page for the college than an article.  Shadow311 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shadow311,

Not every open AFD discussion needs to be relisted after a week passes. If there has been a fair amount of participation, you can just leave it. There are admin closers who just review older AFD discussions that haven't been closed yet and relisting it is not necessary when it could be closed. I know I close a lot of discussions and if I'm not certain about a closure, I'll leave it for another closer to review which can happen later that day or even the next day. They could come to a decision where I couldn't and relisting the discussion just puts off the closure for another week. Admittedly, it's hard to tell when you should just leave an unclosed AFD discussion and when one should be relisted but I'd say base it on the participation level. If there has been sparse participation by editors, then a relisting could help come to a consensus but if a discussion has had a good level of participation, then perhaps leave it for another closer to review tomorrow or the day after.

Basically, I just want to emphasize that not every AFD discussion that is still open after 7 days has passed needs to be relisted. I think if you continue to help out in AFDLand, you'll get a better sense of when relisting is appropriate. Thank you for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Shadow311 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shadow311! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Problem with AFCH helper script, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello good day Mr, i got your review regarding the changes made on my draft i wanted asking if there is any means to process my draft review faster. Calebumoru (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is really no way to affect the draft review process speed. My suggestion is to just keep working on it and making it better so when it does get reviewed, there are less problems for the reviewer. The current backlog is approximately 5 weeks with 995 pending submissions. Shadow311 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shadow311. Recently my Sandbox page has been marked as an AfC page, which you rejected. However, it is not, and I did not submit it as such. I exclusively use it as a personal sandbox, to practice editing. How can I clear this up? Harry Hinderson (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably just remove the AFC template, someone had submitted it to AFC. Shadow311 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]