User talk:N Shar

Welcome to my talk page. Use the "new section" button to add a comment, please.

If you started the discussion here, we'll finish it here unless you request otherwise.

If I started the discussion over there, let's finish it over there.

Beginning of time -- February 15, 2007 February 16, 2007 -- December 31, 2007

For your information, PRODing an article because the author removes CSD tags is unhelpful. The author is allowed to remove the PROD tag, but not the CSD tag. The proper thing to do is one of the following:

1. Wait for the author to seem to be offline, and add the CSD tag.
2. Put notification about the matter on the administrator's Noticeboard. I did this once, before I became an admin.

Additionally, you should warn the user against such removals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the reminder. It's been a long time since I've done this stuff. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 23:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend,

Please Don't remove IRestorer article. It's a notable program. very better than Ghost & Acronis... extreme fast & amazing compression rate... you can try it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.172.251 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the originator of the brain types article, which seems to have annoyed people lately. I responded to some of the comments on its 'Articles for deletion' discussion section. You and a few others said you think the article is too much in favor of brain typing, but did not mention specifics. I suggested one way I could add to the article to make it more neutral. You also mentioned the article is full of 'original research.' However, this research is not my own - I provided verifiable sources for the information and claims (which I said have not been scientifically proven) about brain types - namely, the web site itself and the book associated with brain types. The Sandbeck article opposing brain types is also in the article. All three of those sources can be consulted for the information given in the article. Khendra1984 (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded in the deletion discussion. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun "cleaning up" the Cork Graham article. Any help/support you can provide would be appreciated.--Work permit (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi N Shar, i've replied to your query at Template talk:GAonhold… although it's over five years late :P Cheers, benzband (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi N Shar,

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]