User talk:Deane Shafortock

Welcome!

Hello, Deane Shafortock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?[edit]

Please provide more cites and clean up the text. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Dr. Pyckle and Mr. Pryde do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnSulYWoP_M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UckEH8BR7_M&NR=1) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie (2002 film)[edit]

Please stop trying to readd the excessively long plot summary to this article. It is nearly 2000 words when at most it should be 400-700. We do not do blow-by-blow plot summaries in articles, nor should an film article's contents consist of nearly 95% plot summary. Your continued attempts to put back the summary, both logged in and not, are inappropriate and go against the Film article MOS. Collectonian (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have to agree with Collectonian. If you read the style guidelines on how to write a plot summary, it says: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." Being 2,000 words in length is very excessive. We want to provide a summary of the film's events to put the rest of the article in context. If people want to know everything that takes place in a film, they have the opportunity to see it for themselves (which is more engaging than reading prose, in my opinion). Can I suggest trying to rewrite the 2,000 words into a shorter summary that would be between 400 and 700 words? It may take some time, but I think that this middle ground would quell any issues between editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rewriting the plot to bring it down in size. That is better, however it is still at 1400+ words, so it needs to be about half the current length. Do you want to try shortening it some more? Collectonian (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the plot is still twice as long as it should be. Please do not remove the plot tag until this has been addressed. Collectonian (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Sisters of Count Vampyre has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters of Count Vampyre[edit]

I declined your G7 speedy deletion on this because the account requesting it was not the same as the account that created it. Looking at the accounts, I see a redirect suggesting that they are probably the same, but even so, substantial content was also contributed by a IP. That may well have been you again, but I cannot be sure of that, and we have to be very careful about speedy deletions. I have PRODded the article instead, and it should be painlessly gone in a week. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Norma Bates (Psycho) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Norma Bates (Psycho) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norma Bates (Psycho) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AldezD (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Desjardin[edit]

Hi. As the creator of the Rita Desjardin article, could you edit it in order to explain, with citations of secondary sources, the real-world impact that makes that character notable in a way that is independent or transcendent of the original novel and its media adaptations, and the articles on those works, in keeping with Wikipeida's Notability policy? I think it would really improve the article, and more easily demonstrate why its topic deserves one. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2013 (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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]