User Talk: ShakespeareFan00

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Archive box|Archive 1{{·}}Archive 2{{·}}Archive 3{{·}}Archive 4{{·}}Archive 5{{·}}Archive 6{{·}}Archive 7{{·}}Archive 8{{·}}Archive 9{{·}}Archive 10{{·}}Archive 11{{·}}Archive 12{{·}}Archive 13{{·}}Archive 14{{·}}Archive 15}}

{{Adopt offer}}

Adoption

Considering you're pretty experienced and adoption is for new users, are you still interested in adoption? If you still are I would be happy to though it really should be you adopting me lol. GoldRomean (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:What I am needing is what in academic circles would be called a 'supervision', where a n experienced academic monitors what the supervised academic is doing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:Yes I am still interested. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
::Got it, reccomend directly asking some of the people here ↗ then, since considering you've been here like 10x longer with 20x more edits than me I don't think I'd be fit to adopt you. Also wanted to let you know that you appear on the list of users seeking adoption twice, since you have the userbox on your talk page as well, so if you want you might want to remove that. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the above -

After thinking for a bit, I'm probably willing to adopt you (if you still wish). What I'll do is just check a portion of your contribs once in a while and sort of "review" them. (PS: When I took a look just now you are at a perfect, round 88,000!) GoldRomean (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

: {{ping|GoldRomean}} If you are prepared to undertake a 'supervision' in the academic sense, feel free to review away. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviews

I'll probably take a look at your contribs every month, let me know if I forget/you want one done sooner. You're going to have to let me know how this works as we go :). GoldRomean (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Lint overkill

I appreciate your creativity with this Linter error fix ↗, but that signature, or whatever it was, was so messed up to begin with that I would have just changed it to a span tag and removed the nonsense "2px" font sizing. I almost always try to preserve the original editor's intent when fixing Linter errors, but when the intent was harmful, I try to fix it. Signatures should be inline and not be so small as to be unreadable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

: Seems the "Do No harm!" maxim should apply to Lint fixes :) Thanks for the heads up 17:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::I agree. Text at 2px is actively harmful to accessibility, so I will sometimes remove that specification entirely. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:I'll second the request to be a bit more careful; Special:Diff/1321226855 ↗ actually introduced a new error by doubling the /u. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Nomination of :Let's Pretend (TV series) ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Let's Pretend (TV series) ↗ 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/Let's Pretend (TV series) ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.</div> 4meter4 (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ShakespeareFan00!

<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">
left|x173px ↗x173px|right ↗
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''Happy New Year ↗!'''''}}}}
'''ShakespeareFan00''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year ↗, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
<br /><span style="color:orange">'''''Volten'''''</span><span style="color:lime ">'''001'''</span> <sup><b style="color:red">☎</b></sup> 07:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)<br /><br />
</div>
   ''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}} <span style="color:orange">'''''Volten'''''</span><span style="color:lime ">'''001'''</span> <sup><b style="color:red">☎</b></sup> 07:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Adoption

Do you want to be adopted? <span style="color:#0000FF">User97104: Overview (communications, numbers)</span> 18:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

: I thought I already had been, and generally as a long standing contributor, what I was needing was more akin to a "supervision", where my editing contributions were monitored. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Exambible

Hi ShakespeareFan00. I wanted to let you know that I removed the CSD tag you placed on the above page. We don't delete user talk pages without a very good reason ↗, and that spam isn't it. The next time you see someone misusing their talk page, you should just replace the offending material with {{t|uw-usertalk}}. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

{{-}}

Precious anniversary

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Eight}}
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Potentially a goodbye..

This is not the kind of project, I feel happy making long term contributions to anymore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clop_(erotic_fan_art)&action=history ↗ being the reason

Some contributors seem perfectly happy to include externally sourced obviously 'explicit' images,
reusing 'brand' like imagery, and when challenged repeatedly, revert what seems to be good-faith
efforts to tone-done the content.

I am not as active on English Wikipedia as I was, and generally I accept that Wikipedia (and Commons) are not generally censored.
However, the seeming lack of reasoned restraint shown, is forcing me to reconsider if it worth contributing to a project, where
anyone can edit is curtailed not by reasoned compromise, but by external pressures that are "incompatible" with an open editing model.

At minimum, the article needs to be tonally adjusted (including media content) to match something that would be expected of a mainstream academic publication, with 'boundary testing' media dealt with extremely firmly. It would be much much better if the community did this by restrained compromise, rather than higher levels of governance having to impose solutions they have never really wanted to have to implement, such solutions being 'incompatible' with an anyone can edit philosphy.

You have potentially '''lost''' an otherwise long tern contributor, because in the intrests of 'policy a reasoned compromise to remove 'boundray testing content' cannot be reached.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)