User talk:Shawn Teller

Shawn Teller is currently experiencing mental health issues, which may affect their Wikipedia editing in various ways. They may have difficulty with:

altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them;
reduced availability on Wikipedia during times when they experience issues;
limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page or email messages in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.

Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Shawn Teller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Madeline (part of me) 16:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews[edit]

Hi there Shawn, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this discussion at WT:GAN. You might want to take the comments there into account before finishing up Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999/GA1. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes[edit]

I am surprised you didn't mention the canvassing when relisting. I would have welcomed some comments on that from someone uninvolved. CT55555(talk) 05:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t think it was necessary since there was a notice at the top of the discussion page. I also generally try to follow along with the way other people relist and I don’t usually see comments attached. But I’ll make note of this for the future. Thanks. Shawn Teller (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm just sharing an opinion and trying to be helpful, not saying you did anything wrong. My thinking is informed by the good work that @Liz does, which often includes gentle direction towards participants.

All the best, CT55555(talk) 05:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shawn Teller,

Just a note that we don't relist an AFD discussion more than 3 times unless it is an accident (which I did the other day). And according to the guidelines, we shouldn't even be relisting discussions more than twice but I do relist a third time if I can't see a consensus. So, please, if a discussion has already been relisted three times, don't relist it again even if the time for it to be closed has passed. Some admin will come along and close it in time so don't worry about it even if a few days have passed. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marikamba Temple, Sagara[edit]

Hi. Could you explain why you closed this as no consensus? The only editor who wanted it deleted was the nominator. Very clear keep. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a misclick, I fixed it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Shawn Teller (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also fix the double results at the talk page, which will be confusing otherwise?. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Shawn Teller (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Marikamba Temple, Sagara[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marikamba Temple, Sagara. 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. Nimmoun (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAC of Jakob Kaszuba[edit]

Shawn, could you please revert your close? Non-admins are not supposed to close contentious AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed pretty straightforward to me with strong policy-based arguments on both sides and editors’ opinions split down the middle, but OK. Shawn Teller (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 1999/GA1[edit]

Hi there Shawn. I wanted to reach out and thank you for taking on the review of Eurovision Song Contest 1999 against the Good Article criteria. However I did want to raise a small concern I had about the speed at which the review is going so far. Of course I understand we're all busy people, we all have different priorities outside of Wikipedia, however it has been close to three weeks since you took on the review of the article and very little progress has been made in marking against all the criteria. Per WP:GAN/I#R2 you have committed to completing the review in a "timely manner"; of course I understand this is a somewhat vague term, but I have seen my share of GA reviews and this seems to be more on the extreme side for even an initial review of the article to be completed. If you are having issues which are preventing you from completing this review then please let me know and we can find a resolution per WP:GAN/I#N4a. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t realize I’d actually started it as long ago as I did. I will prioritize it in the coming days. Thank you for raising this concern. Shawn Teller (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert explanation[edit]

Hello, I updated the KM article just now. I believe that I have reverted your changes to the final paragraph of the lead. Your edits appear to be grammatically correct and in good faith. Thus, I think it's respectful to offer an explanation of why I reverted them:

Your explanations of a macro are not false but are not entirely applicable to KM. The browser's macro language goes beyond a rule or pattern. For example, many parts of the default interface are handled by macros bundled with the browser. This makes it easier to modify the browser. KM's macros also stop somewhere well short of Emacs.

Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) calls for a concise introduction or lead. From MOS:INTRO: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Thus general information can go into more general articles, like Macro (computer science), less crucial information can go into the body of the article, and truly redundant information can be condensed.

Finally, some complex information will require complex sentence structures. If possible though, it widens Wikipedia's reach to use direct syntax. Your edits introduced this clause onto the end of a sentence: small, human-readable extensions, essentially a rule or pattern that specifies how a certain input should be mapped to a replacement output, and due to this configurability, K-Meleon was recommended for internet cafes and libraries. This combines several ideas in such a way that the connections are not entirely clear and for younger or second-language readers those connections will likely be less clear. Rjjiii (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You![edit]

		The Deletion Nomination Barnstar
		This barnstar is for people that nominate articles for deletion.

Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 08:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Shawn Teller (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night of Decadence (2nd nomination)[edit]

This is about an AfD a couple of days ago but I've reverted your edit here. I'm genuinely confused on why you would change your vote from strong keep to merge three hours after the AfD has been closed whilst not adhering to WP:REDACT at all, given that your comment has been replied to. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I am assuming this is just a good faith mistake, but please do reply if otherwise. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be less charitable than VickKiang.

I see that you have posted what is essentially the same comment on many AfDs. Now, "keep per X" / "delete per nom" are (regrettably) common at AfD and I wouldn’t hold that against you. However, in your case, it consists of one long, rambling, ChatGPT-esque comment that essentially says "notability is met if and only if notability is met". The comment isn’t changed much depending on how you !vote.

Here’s the comment to support a delete !vote: Frank Trojahn, Griffith Vaissaire
Here’s the comment to support a keep !vote: Lowe Roche, The Dooley and Pals Show
Here’s the comment to not support either: QWSTION, Ted Jorgensen, Lars Kindgen

In fact, some of those differ slightly in the number of times the same comment is copy-pasted. What is your purpose here? I am open to a good explanation, but frankly, given the above post-closure editing, my hypothesis is that you are trying to game the system.

Just to be clear, having good AfD stats isn’t a goal in itself. There is no point in making drive-by "keep" or "delete" !votes by guessing which way the wind blows (it’s not very hard, but it doesn’t help the community to decide an AfD outcome). Any AfD comment you make should argue the particulars of the article, not be copy-pastable from AfD to AfD. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not acceptable. When you are closing AfD, you are acting in an administrative capacity (even if you are not an administrator) and therefore subject to WP:ADMINACCT. (I happen to agree that your keep closure was appropriate, or at least within closing discretion, but that makes it worse - it would have been very easy to justify it.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the same comment about the bizarre Markovian buzzword salads. Additionally, you do not have the substantive experience at AfD to be closing AfDs, let alone contentious ones, and certainly cannot refuse to reconsider a close once it's been contested. JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this user's votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumar Almadjed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dooley and Pals Show I came here to make a similar point as Tigraan. If your comment at an AFD includes over 20 links to pages like WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE, you are doing something wrong. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As others, I came to make the same comment. I interpreted your votes as indicating an WP:AXE to grind about Wikipedia policies. In order to avoid being misinterpreted, I would recommend making more concise comments that are more relevant to the discussion at hand. (And, I would avoid any NACs.) Thank you! Suriname0 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to share my thoughts comprehensively and in detail, and back up my votes with solid reasoning. I’m sorry, I thought I was contributing to the discussions by being thorough in my comments. I didn’t mean to upset anyone, and I have been trying to think about how best to express myself before I responded here, so I apologize for the delay. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits[edit]

Please see Talk:Mac_(computer)#Reinstated_copyedits; I don't believe your recent copyedits to Mac (computer) were helpful. They introduced poor grammar, which I see you've done before on other articles (during GANs), so I suggest you practice and improve your copyediting skills, and that you follow WP:BRD rather than reinstating disputed edits. Thanks, DFlhb (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto here, which I've reverted...by itself, it would have been awkwardly redundant, but with the phrase about the two children, it downright changed the meaning. My gut feeling is that you're going to wind up with a WP:CIR block if you don't step back and only edit where you're able. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their contributions immediately after the two edits noted above were similarly bad (bolded): and as such saw many improvements and realignments carried out over 30 years through the next three decades[1] and The Ottawa–Prescott Road, before being improved by the DPHO, was narrow, ungraded, and featured brush fences that intruded into the roadway. These caused issues such as reducing visibility and shoulder space for motorists, among other problems. Visibility and shoulder space were improved after the brush fences were removed, thereby reducing problems.[2] Looking back even further I'm wondering if all of their mainspace edits are either ungrammatical/redundant junk or pointless word substitutions.[3][4][5][6][7][8] I think a CIR block might have to be accompanied by mass rollback of all current edits... JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CIR is likely. User page showcases GARs and GANs, but the the GARs were superficial (But thanks to these wonderful images, I now understand that Ontario Highway 11 is a paved road that vehicles use to travel.) and the "GANs" taken credit for were often just one or two edits like these. DFlhb (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOW.

This article is extensive in its coverage of such a rich topic as Ontario Highway 11. It addresses the main points of Ontario Highway 11 in a way that isn’t just understandable to a reader, but also relatable.

Neutral point of view without bias is maintained perfectly in this article, despite Ontario Highway 11 being such a contentious and controversial topic.

This has got to be a low-quality chatbot. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, you need to address the concerns that other editors have raised here (in this section and the above one) before you start editing again. In particular, you need to stop copying outputs from AI programs—these tools are not substitutes for human judgment, and you're responsible for making sure that every edit you make is constructive. If disruption continues, I will have to block your account. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another obvious example here. I see they've since been blocked as a sock but I do also wonder if rollback should be used on the edits. -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to make the language in articles more clear for a reader to understand, but I apologize if people feel that they weren’t improvements. With my high functioning autism, I sometimes process things differently from most people and have a different understanding of what is and isn’t clear. I truly hope that I can still be welcome here at Wikipedia even if I don’t always think like everyone else. Lastly, I hope it’s ok if I point out that I have been watching these comments about wanting to block me despite me trying to be helpful, and they have caused a significant amount of anxiety. I am not used to this many people criticizing everything I do all at one time. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t mean to be a burden here, but I also notice that everyone in the discussions above is referring to me as “they/them”, and I hope that isn’t due to a refusal to use my preferred pronouns. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the pronouns, I briefly considered trying to figure out what the "hy" equivalent of "their" was, but on April 1 your pronouns were "he/her" and then on April 2 when the first complaint was opened they were "hy/hym", so forgive me for getting the impression they were just part of a rotating cast to mock neopronouns rather than sincere. JoelleJay (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I would suggest focusing on the good anti-vandalism reversion work rather than adding material to mainspace or wiki discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Architect 134 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Shawn Teller, you really had me fooled. I had criticism of your work on AFDs but I clueless that you were socking. I think it might be time for you to move on to a new online hobby. I'm sorry if this experience is causing you anxiety but this is just unacceptable and can not continue. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations \| August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economics in developing countries has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Economics in developing countries has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations \| March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]