Open main menu

User talk:Sheldybett

Contents

Welcome!Edit

 
Some cookies to welcome you!  

Welcome to Wikipedia, Sheldybett! Thank you for your contributions. I am Beeblebrox and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A note about reporting usernamesEdit

WP:UAA works a little unlike other Wikipedia noticeboards for reporting user problems. Usually it is expected that a user be warned of an issue before being reported, but at UAA it’s more of an either/or scenario. Blatant violations should just be reported, while more borderline issues should be discussed first. In the case of someone using an WP:ORGNAME and posting about that same organization, blocking the user name is generally the tool of first resort so a report is more appropriate. More information is at WP:UAAI. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought somebody given the warning at first then being blocked by a administrator until I realised from yesterday when I reported someone told me it not a blatant violation of the WP:UP when is quite odd, But I began realise that warn first which is not going to get a block after I given a warning. Sheldybett (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:World Heritage siteEdit

I have decided to undo your close of the RM. I believe that there is general consensus against another non-admin closure. If you like I can reinstate it, but that would almost certainly result in another move review. There is no policy based rationale for my revert that I am aware of. Consider it me trying to save you and everyone involved a lot of bureaucracy. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Before I go sleep, I have looked through the WP:RM when I looked through thatThis page was reviewed by Amakuru which have much clearer concensus than I do. I didn’t realise that you are going to reopen the discussion since I closed it. Sheldybett (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quiet stormEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quiet storm. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018Edit

Wikipedia and copyrightEdit

  Hello Sheldybett, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Draft:The Bad Seed have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Bad Seed (October 4)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was: 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 when they have been resolved.
Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Hello, Sheldybett! Having an article 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! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have may created an article at the wrong place at the wrong time which makes me think I'm stupid, soon it gets media attention hopefully I will try again. Sorry, I was away on holiday which means I couldn't talk back. Sheldybett (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Your In the News nominationEdit

I have removed your nomination of 2018 Kaduna violence from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, as it was in correctly formatted. I have also removed the template from the article. If you want to renominate you should expand the article. Alternatively you could merge the article into either Religious violence in Nigeria or Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency. Danski454 (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to put this article up for deletion because I find really unnecessary for me. Sheldybett (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John GrishamEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Grisham. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018Edit

Speedy deletion declined: Rajganj Mia BariEdit

Hello Sheldybett, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rajganj Mia Bari, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to towns or places. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 08:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not know that was a town, seriously my mind was confused because I thought it was a person in the first place. Sheldybett (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

HelloEdit

I don’t see why are my edits considered to be vandalism, as I’m clearly doing nothing but expanding the page by adding more stuff, moving information to where it’s needed and clarifying things further. But if you don’t want to be rational and think twice before removing someone else’s work, that’s fine. Leave Red Dead as it is; an unpolished, unfinished and unclear page. Thank you very much. EmperorWillz (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry it was an accident because I was putting an unsourced notice but I got mixed up, plus please provide a source next time when you add more material. Sheldybett (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

That’s fine. And I’m sorry for being rude earlier EmperorWillz (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Love 97.2 Breakfast QuartetEdit

Hello Sheldybett, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Love 97.2 Breakfast Quartet, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: TV shows are not eligible for A7 deletion and this airs on a notable channel anyway. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 08:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy declinedEdit

Hello, Sheldybett, Please be more careful when you tag articles for speedy deletion. In your evaluation, look at an article's edit history first to see if it has previously been nominated for speedy deletion.

Horace E. Stockbridge had been nominated before on A7 grounds and admin Bbb23 had declined to delete it and provided an explanation in the edit history that this individual was notable. So, it was incorrect to retag the article for the same reason. An A1 grounds didn't apply either.

It looks like you have received other notices about CSD tagging and I urge you to be more careful and follow advice that is given or you will be asked to stop evaluating new articles. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay that's fine with you and I have a good news for you without worrying, I have putthe article up for deletion to make it more sense. Sheldybett (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If you are looking for guidance on what or who can be considered to be "of significance", please read Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance and Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. They should be helpful to you in your patrolling. Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Please explainEdit

Could you explain how this image is your own work as you claim. The content is of someone else's photograph taken 40 years ago. Did you obtain permission from the copyright holder to use it?

Could you also explain how this image is also your own work. That Kurt Balzer painting you photographed is listed by Auckland War Memorial Museum as "Copyright undetermined-Untraced rights holder (Copyright)". I know that is ambiguous, but the "(Copyright)" in brackets suggests you needed approval to upload it to wiki/commons.

Incidentally you named that image "File:Esther Lindstrom.jpg". The young girl's name is Esther Lunstroth. Moriori (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that my own work since I took it myself during my trip to Auckland last month so thats should be not be a concern. Sheldybett (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Whoa back. Until you read Commons:Own work, do not upload more images. You need to understand the NOT OWN WORK section. Its first example of NOT OWN WORK is "Scanning (or photographing) an existing image that you did not originally create or photograph yourself." Moriori (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I think one of the people that I don't even know who took this under the copyright? I think it was the exhibition photo it despite that it's clearly your not my own work as I agree with you. Sheldybett (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Your responses are unhelpful. I think you have made many problematic image uploads, too many for me to investigate because of time restraints.. I have moved this conversation over to Wiki Commons where there are experts who can comment. Moriori (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Did you read the conversation over at Commons? It is important that you do. Moriori (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I Understand it now, because I will never want to take photos from No FoP or 2D from Today, but I would only take photos occasionally from now on, Thanks. Sheldybett (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What are you doing?Edit

  What are you doing? You created Christchurch mayoral election, 2019 and it is very poor indeed. You edited it four times, so please explain how you could use 2019 in the heading but 2016 in the body text. Moriori (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know why? Maybe I am still inexperienced through creating own articles because I don’t understand putting their own body text. Don’t worry I have it all fixed. Sheldybett (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you serious? You don't have it all fixed at all. Look, I have to sign off for the night, but will revisit your contributions tomorrow, and may ask other experienced editors for input, such as @Gadfium:. Moriori (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018Edit

Relisting AfD open less than 24 hoursEdit

Why did you relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPDN-LD? Bakazaka (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Because, I was intending do to this because there is only one participant was was voting, by doing that deigned to get more people to discuss which are not available around for being too busy or unavailable. Why are you worried?

What are you talking about? The discussion had been open for less than one day. There is no need to relist until the AfD has run at least seven days. Please review WP:RELIST before relisting further AfD discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: God CountryEdit

Hello Sheldybett, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of God Country, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has context. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 08:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Booklad123/sandboxEdit

I do not think this work-in-progress is spam, it's an article about the creator of a theater group in New York City that, I believe, has significance. All biographical articles have a focal point and I don't think this piece is advertising or promotional. If every biographical article that discusses a person's accomplishments and life is spam, Wikipedia might have to delete half a million articles! Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Kyoung H. Park ArticleEdit

Hi Sheldybett, I was wondering what made my article seem like a promotion? I was trying to make my article from a neutral point of view. Do you have any suggestions as to how to avoid making it seem promotional? Booklad123 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC) booklad

Because it is thought seems to meet the G11 worthy article that moved from your sandbox under the self-promotion in your sandbox, yes you can rewrite it into a more encyclopedic tone if that's okay. Sheldybett (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect copyright taggingEdit

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's copyright policies: see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. It is completely acceptable to use content from other sources that is freely-licensed, and that page lists all the acceptable licenses if you're confused. Liner House is based on content that is, as the copyright notice on that very page states, CC-BY 4.0 licensed. You should not be tagging articles with copyright-related tags if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policies. You seem to be making a habit out of doing various things in violation of policies you hadn't understood (speedy deletion, your own uploads, etc.) - you really need to understand this stuff or find something less complex to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

But the bot says that is a potential copyright violation even it's freely licensed, so you better be more understanding. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you're using is either giving you incorrect information or you don't have enough of an understanding to use what it's telling you. It may be telling you that the content appears elsewhere on the internet. That would be true. It is not a copyright violation, as Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright very clearly explains to the confused. If you do this again, I'm going to bring it up at WP:ANI, because it's out of line and it needs to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

But It's not me that I did the silly tagging, I have seen some editors tagging articles for speedy deletion from CC-BY licensed in the past which got removed because Wikiepdians outside Australia do not understand about CC-BY licensed which you had especially https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/heritage. I live in New Zealand so I actually have nothing to do with Australian Heritage places anyway. My main focus are New Zealand politics and reverting Vandalism. Sheldybett (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You incorrectly tagged three articles: Sharpies Golf House Sign, Railway Square road overbridge and Liner House. Denying it is a bit peculiar since your edits are logged in the edit history. However, I'm hoping by the tone of that last comment that it's a sign you won't do it again. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'am so sorry about that, but I do not know about the articles about Australian heritage buildings and history which is copied from another sources that is freely licensed. I hope I understand. Sheldybett (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand by-electionsEdit

Re this edit, why not edit the template instead so that all articles using this template are up to date in one go? Schwede66 20:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that year ranges must use an endash; a hyphen isn't the correct thing. It only means that the templates need to be moved again. Schwede66 18:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018Edit

"Result was keep"?Edit

[1]

My !vote was clearly not for "Keep" as your closing statement was worded, since I said that the page should be blanked and rewritten, and perhaps redirected in the meantime. Pratyeka's simple "keep" !vote should be discounted since it was based on all the work he had done with all the sources he found, which (per my comment) was completely bogus, and his later "keep but split" comment didn't make sense because he had argued that the topic as he wrote about it was notable, when the topic as he wrote about it was completely non-existent, being a mish-mash of at least two, and possibly as many as four, different companies (one with a nightclub, one founded by Komuro in 1998, one a film production company, and one apparently founded in 1988) -- and neither Chetsford nor I recognized the notability of any of those companies except for the Rojam Entertainment associated with Komuro; the IP's !vote was similarly bad and similarly needs to be discounted.

Closing as "consensus to keep" makes blanking and/or redirecting (something the only two substantial comments favoured) difficult -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture and that page's subsequent history for the worst example that springs to mind, but there are plenty of others.

Honestly, it comes across as you not having actually read the discussion but having looked at the boldface !votes at the front of the comments by Pratyeka, the IP and myself and said "3-1 for keep". Please remember that AFDs are not votes, and arguments need to be weighed according to policy. (If I could remember the title it I'd link it, but I remember an AFD one time where the !votes were unanimously -- like 10 people against the OP -- in favour of keeping, before an admin came along, said the article was a copyvio, and speedy deleted.)

Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, closing this AFD two minutes after relisting one other, and that one minute after relisting another ([2]), all apparently using the semi-automated XFDcloser tool, looks even more questioning. I would ask you to please be more careful going forward. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
So, are you just going to ignore this message? I'm half-tempted to revert your close as a WP:BADNAC, since it's obvious you didn't even read the discussion, and the only thing stopping me is the concern that it would be less red tape to simply implement my proposal in spite of your close. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait Hijiri88 because I was busy with other stuff. Since you do not have to worry me again, I will going to read the discussion first, make a consensus, then wherever I decide to close or not just to avoid WP:BADNAC which it will be embarrassing for me. Sheldybett (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm ... what? Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bakazaka: I hope you don't mind, but I've merged your question into the above section, since this appears to be a recurring problem. Having one section makes the discussion more unified and might make solving the problem easier. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The reason I closed the discussion because there is only one participant discussed for favoring to Keep the article because it meets the WP:GNG and no one else will be bothered to discuss the article. Sheldybett (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
How did you evaluate the nomination itself? Bakazaka (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The article open for deletion 7 days or more whenever the article would be keep or deleted, and I did not nominated the article for deletion. So who did? Sheldybett (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your reply. To simplify: did you count the nomination as a !vote for "delete" when deciding to "keep"? Bakazaka (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they need three votes for consensus to be reached, so that's end for now? Sheldybett (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand your explanation about "three votes". But regardless, it sounds like you're saying that you didn't think there was consensus, but you closed as "keep" anyway. Is that correct? Bakazaka (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
they need three votes for consensus to be reached Okay, that's all I needed to see. If only one editor other than the nom commented, but that editor's comment needs to be dismissed for whatever reason (which may or may not have been the case in the health insurance discussion), then the result is what's called a "soft delete", which you as a non-admin are not able to implement; similarly, an admin may have looked at the Rojam discussion and said "The article contains nothing worth keeping; delete and redirect", but you did not even look at the discussion but simply count "votes".
User:Sheldybett, please do not close any more deletion discussions until you can demonstrate to me that you understand how to properly assess consensus in terms of policy-based arguments. If I see you close any more deletion discussions before that point, I will request that you be topic-banned.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree completely. Sheldybett, if you're interested in AfD, I strongly encourage you to spend time as a participant in the actual discussions to gain experience in how arguments are presented and assessed. Let others handle the relisting/closing for now. Bakazaka (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sheldybett, I've got your talk page on my watchlist and have had a look at the Rojam AfD. I concur with the concerns voiced above; "keep" is certainly not the consensus of that particular discussion. I'm not experienced with AfD procedures so will leave it to another admin to overturn your closure. But what I will say is that the above advice is sound: participate in AfDs for a while to gain experience and stay away from further AfD closures. Schwede66 06:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought AfD's take little time to gain experience until you realised which I'm going to agree with you, I will stay away or participate more to prevent topic ban from happening. Sheldybett (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

1867 Avon by-electionEdit

Hey, Hugo. The Article that I Created just now is plain boring. I tried to find the voting numbers for election, but I could not find it, would it be lovely if you find the numbers on the election? Thanks! Sheldybett (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article needs categories; alter those for 1862 Avon by-election. The newspaper ref goes in the separate template. Hugo999 (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The newspaper refs is from Papers Past using dates around the election date and search terms "Election" and "Avon". And if you wanted to find more on the losing candidate say "Avon" and "Allen" for a week or three before the election. But for 19c elections look at the nomination meeting and here read past the speeches you will see that the returning officer (who got three cheers) said there was no other candidate just Reeves; nominated by Robert Wilkin and seconded by George Allen. Sometimes with two candidate they had a show of hands. The losing candidate could then demand a poll which the Returning Officer would set a date, say in a couple of days. See the ref declaring Reeves elected: [1] PS: as advised by Schwede66 you can just cut off the part of the Paper Plus internet ref after the query mark (?).

NB: the template needs percentages of the vote as well which I get from an Excel spreadsheet. And now I have two screens with a bigger new one for Xmas. Hugo999 (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Avon Election". Lyttelton Times. 12 March 1867.

2019 Wellington local elctions moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, 2019 Wellington local elctions, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Another AfD relist issueEdit

Given the multiple complaints about your relisting/closing at AfD, with an editor even ready to take you to ANI for a topic ban, I am absolutely mystified by your relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Israelitism. Can you please explain why you would relist a discussion where there are at least seven recommendations to delete, and no opposition? Bakazaka (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion as delete. As mentioned above, continued poor relists/closes may lead to a topic ban and I would strongly recommend just removing Xfd closer script. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Why removing my AfD script since I promised that for not participating from AfD closures until I have gained more experience, sorry I did not know that relist must contain at least strong oppose to delete. Sheldybett (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

2016 Auckland local board elections moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, 2016 Auckland local board elections, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

  Hello, I'm PamD. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Britishfinance that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Watch your language, even when you disagree with someone's edits. PamD 08:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

He moved my page that i created into Draftspace while the article is under construction to expand soon as possible, he states that is undersourced, incapacitate in Draftspace? One source is okay for very short articles since it has to be large enough to qualify. Sheldybett (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Even when other editors are doing things that are rather insensible you still need to remain civil. Because if you don't you may get blocked, and that would be even more silly, wouldn't it? Schwede66 23:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1877 Napier by-election (January 20)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was: 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 when they have been resolved.
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1877 Napier by-election has been acceptedEdit

1877 Napier by-election, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Schwede66 18:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

UnisoundEdit

Hi Sheldybett, thanks for getting in touch and welcoming me to Wikipedia! I'm trying to sort out the company information relating to Unisound but very new to Wikipedia, I've tried to do a complicated move relating to Unisound. (I wrote about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_technical_moves).

If you're able to help regarding this that would be very much appreciated! :) :) Thanks!! Redwards21 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy/pasting BLP assessments without checking contentsEdit

I noticed you recently assessed Gurgen Baghdasaryan, an obvious stub, and it looks like there's some sort of error, since you added B-class assessment to two projects, Stub-class to another, and listas information from another subject entirely. Then I looked at other recent assessments, and it appears as though you are copying/pasting from one article to another without checking contents. For example, in Talk:Ashley Hinson and Talk:David Martimort you also added listas information from different subjects. Please fix your assessments, and check your work. Thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I have just reassessed as a Stub class since has no claim of huge significance yet. I might have done it accidentally anyway. Sheldybett (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
If you mean Gurgen Baghdasaryan, you changed the assessment on one project, so now 2 projects are assessed as stub and one is still B-class. The listas still refers to a different person. Bakazaka (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and fixed/partially reverted the assessments in the articles I identified above. To be perfectly clear, you added incorrect information by copy/pasting without checking your work. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But your response suggests that you do not understand the mistakes you made, such as leaving the name of a different person in the "listas" parameter, or only changing one of the multiple obviously wrong assessments in different WikiProject templates. So, please stop copy/pasting assessment info from one article to another. Bakazaka (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Finished (with) by-elections!Edit

Have completed all 19c by-elections (by midnight) with 1878 Waipa by-election Hugo999 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That’s good to hear least you can come and see you in person one day. Sheldybett (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

AFD closings/relistingsEdit

I have gone ahead and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Lössl as keep. Even though not very many people commented, I think there was enough of a consensus forming that you could tell it wasn't going to suddenly swing the other way, and relisting it for a third time was not going to benefit anyone. In the future, if you see something like that and aren't comfortable closing it as "keep", just leave it for someone else to handle. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

AfDEdit

Hello Shledybett: I am writing to request that you undo your non-admin close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ángel Abrea (2nd nomination). I would prefer that it is 1) possibly relisted to gain more input in the discussion and 2) closed by an administrator. Thanks. North America1000 14:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sheldybett! I'd like to echo Northamerica1000's request, even though closing as "no consensus" technically sides with those of us who !voted "keep". The reason for this is that productive discussion was ongoing at the time of the close, and there was still a chance that consensus could develop, though there is no guarantee. So even if "my side" ends up "losing", it would likely be better for the encyclopedia if the discussion were allowed to continue. Thanks for your efforts here, they are truly appreciated. All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
PS, I realize you may be gun-shy given the message above this one, but this would be a second re-list, not a third. And I am fully aware that closing AfDs can be a challenging process, and that often nobody is happy with whatever your judgement is. There was nothing "wrong" with your action (and if closed, "no consensus" is certainly correct), but myself and another highly experienced editor/administrator feel a re-list would be an even better action at this time. You are by no means required to follow our request, for what that's worth, these requests are made from a fellow editor standpoint, not from an administrator standpoint. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of political parties in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of The Wild Body Edit

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from The Wild Body , which you proposed for deletion. A Google search would have shown that this clearly meets WP:NBOOK.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I Didn’t know that would pass the WP:NBOOK despite being undersourced. Sheldybett (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem Sheldybett. Wikipedia has many guidelines to become familiar with, and that takes time. The one that applies in this situation is WP:NEXIST. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Sweta RaiEdit

I am fairly new to wikipedia editor. Neither I am Sweta Rai's publicist nor a ghostwriter, if I was this article might have been approved by now. I read a lot of articles about Sweta Rai; she is doing a great work coming from a small town in India. I have given references in the article, all of her movies are currently running on Hulu, Showtime, Amazon, etc. She has also obtained three master's degrees (also mentioned in one of the news articles) still someone is constantly deleting the information. Every time I edit her education by giving proper references and citing links to colleges, someone deletes it. Not sure what should I do at this stage than to wait for a deletion. Even if it is up for deletion and I have no personal interest in it rather than her inspiring story, the article is still visible on everybody wiki, which it shouldn't be. Please help how to delete it from there.(Suzzane lasale (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC))29th Jan 2019

Deletion review for Ángel AbreaEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ángel Abrea. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. North America1000 08:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try my best to participate at AfD more often and close the discussion when the consensus has reached without any issues. Sheldybett (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I've undone your close as violating WP:BADNAC; I think the message you should be getting is to not close any discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have understood the WP:NAC policy is not to close it early to avoid undoing my close in the future. One step is partipate more to gain more experience around AfD to stop the topic ban from happening. Sheldybett (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019Edit

File:John Buchanan,ca 1894.jpgEdit

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

NoticeEdit

Hello, Sheldybett. Can you please not relist clear consensus AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growth recession in the future. WP:RELIST serves purpose only if "the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments". I see neither here. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I understand that I won’t do the same resting the discussions with number of particpanits again. I hope to participate in AfDs in the future without issues. Thanks. Sheldybett (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Olivia-Mai BarrettEdit

Hello Sheldybett. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Olivia-Mai Barrett, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: playing the lead role in a notable TV series indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 09:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Sheldybett".