User talk:Shicoco

Joseph Acaba

Hello there, I personally know Acaba, wrote his article and even recommended that the Senate fo Puerto Rico honor him, which they did. So you were in his 8th grade class. I hope that you were a good student, because for your information there are many Hispanics who are United States citizens and still use the accents in their surnames. You do know that every single Puerto Rican is also an American citizen and that they use accents on their surnames and even if they have children are born in the mainland U.S.A., don't you?

I'm just messing with you. I know for a fact that a lot of Puerto Ricans who settled in the U.S. dropped the accents from their names altogether. It is the Anglesation process of Hispanic names, which was and is common. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, nice to hear from you. Both his parents are natives of Hatillo, Puerto Rico, a small town in the island. As a matter fact, his father was present in March during the recognition ceremonies, when the President of the Puerto Rican Senate, Kenneth McClintock presented him with a resolution. Since Wikipedia requires that a reliable verifiable source be cited, I couldn't place in the article that information until such a source was posted. Finally, the Astronomy Association came out with the story of his parents origins, which I would like to share with you. Here he is pictured with his dad in one of the many ceremonies which took place (It's in Spanish): [1]. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't forget to tell your family and and friends that Tony Santiago "The Marine" is now your friend too (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

You know, I'm strongly considering it! RainbowOfLight ^Talk 06:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 Coins Hotels and hangon template

Hi. It's fascinating the way people simply don't read big, flaming notices that show up on pages they've written and go right ahead and delete the CSD template—or they add a hangon tag without following up on the article's talk page. That leaves me to wonder what they're thinking. They must imagine that the person who placed the deletion notice is going to say, "Oh, he doesn't want me to delete his article! OK, I'm convinced." Anyway, instead of deleting a hangon when the person hasn't followed upon the talk page, there's a {{uw-hangon}} warning you can place in the user's own talk page. It doesn't hurt to leave the hangon tag there; it just won't do any good.—Largo Plazo (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Thanks for the help. I actually didn't see that warning :\ But the article was deleted, so everything's good. I placed a manual notice on the user's talk page. Shicoco (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling page

Hi, I noticed you just began to patrol pages. While I encourage you to do so because extra eyes are always good to help with it, I think you could be a little more careful. Several of the pages you marked patrolled are fairly clear speedy or prod candidates. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Enigma ^message 06:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples are Bag monster, The Arrogant Sons Of Bitches, and Steelers 05-06 season. There are others, as well. Enigma ^message 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do mark them patrolled if you CSD them. You're right about Bag monster, but the other two you did not mark for deletion. The Steelers one is a little complicated because not everyone knows that articles already exist for the individual seasons, but the second one clearly should have been tagged. Enigma ^message 06:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads as a promotional piece, but I see your point. Well, keep going and I'll come back hopefully to check on your progress with patrolling. Happy editing! Enigma ^message 06:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 06:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you're so good at doing it for me :D

Contesting the Speedy deletion of Bloodletting Press

This page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I have no affiliation with Bloodletting Press. They publish important and groundbreaking works in the Horror genre. "Breeder" by Douglas Clegg, "Rage" by Steve Gerlach, "Succulent Prey" by Wrath James White, and "Terminal" by Brian Keene have all been significant contributions to the Horror genre. As they were first published by Bloodletting Press, the publisher is now recognized as advancing new horror authors and ideas within the horror genre. This article does list in encyclopedic fashion the list of publications. It is very much it line with other entries in the Horror genre, both for authors and publishers. Also have added it to the HorrorWikiProject. Iguardthesheep (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpiceJet Destinations

In What Angle does the Article SpiceJet Destinations look 2 your so-called "blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article".

Are you in your Senses? (Druid.raul (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Be specific when you edit

The article I posted on Omniarchy is not original research, has been published, is properly licensed under the GDFL, and I've added the reference the policies stipulate. If you have any other problems with the article, please talk to me before editing; abide the by the policy of Assuming Good Faith. There has been no vandalism, nor any other violation of Wikipedia policy, and that article's a damn sight more informative about its subject than many here.

When someone takes the time to post an article here, I believe you owe them an explanation of exactly what you found wrong with it when you deleted it. I checked all the policies, and the only one I could find that I didn't follow was the lack of reference. I've fixed that.

Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. If you're not going to follow guidelines, it hurts your case when you delete articles you claim are not in compliance, especially when your stated reasons are invalid. RipplingBeast (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International cricket in 2009

Hi. You recently tagged this article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. I have removed the tag, having added a couple of references. Apart from being an evidently notable topic (as evidenced by the links to other such pages), it clearly does not fall under the criterion you cite. Thanks! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrbridge FC

Hi, I'm not sure why the above page was deleted as I'm presently compiling a listing for all member clubs of the Strathspey & Badenoch Welfare FA. Carrbridge FC is one of them, and I intended on making pages on the other 5 clubs too. Can you tell me where I went wrong and perhaps send me a copy of the deleted article? Thanks. --Allymac1314 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omniarcy

Where lies the vandalism in Omniarchy? My article meets the guidelines for Wiki entries. if you disagree, state your disagreement factually, and tell me how to edit that article to comply. That's what Editors are for, not to simply strike what they don't like.

When you struck my entry, you left behind a blog-summary by a sockpuppet. Is this Wikipedia's level of editing quality? Your repeated editing of this entry violates the three-edit rule and looks like vandalism. RipplingBeast (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omniarchy is a project of Freehold Technologies, a not-for-profit foundation, and the source for the Omniarchy article is their website. There is no possibility of non-neutrality, because the article is simply a description of their way of life, with no approval nor disapproval stated nor implied.

The first article posted on Wikipedia, which was added AFTER Freehold Technologies published their project documents, is a summary of a blog entry posted by a sockpuppet, referring to a blog which attributes completely unverifiable notions to a movie character --- yet you say that the source I've cited is not a good source. If this is wikipedia's publication standard, Wikipedia's problems are more than factual.

Now tell me why my source is somehow "not good," and where the non-neutrality lies in that article. RipplingBeast (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

Hi. In case you don't know, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines state: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users."Absolut1966 (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Carrbridge FC

Thanks for the advice. I think I'll just amend the Strathspey & Badenoch Welfare FA page instead, adding a section for each member club including small kit graphics for each. I'll get the hang of this thing eventually! --Allymac1314 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By Yanna

Hi.

I just got your message on my talk page, and I came here to thank you for your consideration. Feel free to show up any time you want, and know that your help is truly useful, for I am new to this. I hope you'll be patient and keep helping me up. Oh, and thanks for the cookies.

State your real problem with Omniarchy

Your note on my talk is a demonstrably false statement. That short article sat there untouched and unnoticed until I made my edits; that's when the controversy. I've requested feedback, and will continue to keep my article where other editors can see it and comment on it until it's either confirmed or deleted. Policy states that you must leave it up until that happens. Stop deleting it, and stop pretending that it's not the real controversy. Your problem with it seems to be entirely with the concepts it introduces here, not whether it conforms to policy. That's proven by the fact that you keep trying to keep other editors and readers from seeing it, even though feedback's been requested on it. If you have a dispute, take it to dispute resolution; stop vandalizing it.RipplingBeast (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yanna Asloth (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WrongendofthestickTM

Hi. I changed your db-g4 tag, and the warning on the user page, to db-spam, because g4 only applies where the previous deletion was at AfD - WP:CSD#G4 specifically rules out using it after deleteion by PROD or speedy. The user certainly needs some education about what WP isn't for! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft hijacking

Hello,

This is in reference to your this edit. Could you please specifically list your concerns. Just having templates does not help and as per policy, a poster of such templates needs to start a relevant discussion on the talkpage of the concerned article discussing various outstanding issues. Failure to do so can result in a removal of the templates. Thanks --Nosedown (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Let me know if you need some help. Though my knowledge in this field is not very extensive, I'll be more than willing to help improve the article. --Nosedown (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Transitional fossil, you will be blocked from editing. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Transitional fossil. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution as theory and fact

Shicoco, you repeated an edit here after I specifically asked you here not to remove information that complies with the core and mandatory WP:V policy and replace it with information that does not comply with this policy. Please ensure that your edits to Wikipedia comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you abuse a warning or blocking template again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Continued use to issue warnings for legitimate posts on a talk page that you just happen to disagree with will be met with admin notification. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you abuse a warning or blocking template again, as you did to User talk:Raeky, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed that you'd already had one, but I think it's best coming from someone else in any case. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Shicoco! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Creationist misrepresentations section in Transitional Fossil article

A few years ago you brought up the issue of removing that section (which was later named "Creationist arguments") from the transitional fossils article on the grounds of WP:NPOV. I have recently removed the section, but for other reasons. I argued that there are other articles that discuss the controversy, and that this article should focus only on transitional fossils. I am working on expanding the examples in the article and improving it so it eventually gets GA or FA status. See these recent discussions for more information:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks less like Ilya Kuryakin

What part of my edit summary did you not read? The review wasn't on Amazon. The review is a PDF you can read on Amazon. I have a copy of the original. I also have a website name attached to it, but can't find the original source, & I'm not inclined to spend hours on Google Books (where I first found it) looking for it again just to satisfy the likes of you. So you can either assume good faith or get in an edit war over this. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you have to recommend about grain farming and food grains?

Hi, Shicoco, I see you have visited the talk page for the article Maize, and I wonder what reading you have done about that topic and what reliable sources you have to suggest to other editors for improvements to that article. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Shicoco,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Shicoco. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]