User talk:Shadowjams/Archive 2

User:Contentwriters1

Um, what? This is a user page being used for unambiguous promotion of a company. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that you can CSD user pages... You'll need to bring it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion or perhaps WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Sorry for not explaining more clearly in the RV. Shadowjams (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Review the CSD page, which clearly indicates that spam pages in any namespace is taggable. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, retag it. I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm just saying, people get a bit more leeway on their user pages. I won't interfere with your edits on that any more, but a little explanation would help too. Shadowjams (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Now would you remove the false warning from my talk page? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored the CSD and removed the preemptive Hangon tag. Shadowjams (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Lighten up. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New Page patrolling

Hi, with all the discussion on unreferenced BLPs at the moment, could you please at least tag articles such as Daniel Rocco and Liam Cannell as unreferenced before marking them as patrolled. Thanks.--ClubOranje^T 09:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Those are premier league players that meet the criteria of WP:ATHLETE. If you'd like to persuade me to advocate to change the standards for Athletes then I will be more than willing to listen. Even a cursory review of my opinions at AfD and RfA would reveal a remarkable tolerance for changes to wikipedia policy. But I do not think that a tangential discussion, one of which I am aware, is relevant to my rather prolific new page patrolling. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If your concern is that I'm permitting non-notable articles to persist, or perhaps making them take a longer AfD process over a shorter CSD process, then I suggest you take a look at both WT:CSD and the Requests for adminship. Both are critical to the result I believe you're concerned about. They need more outside voices there, without a doubt, and so I would encourage you to comment there. I'm not sure what you would propose I do. You don't have a lot of new page patrols or vandalism patrol experience, notwithstanding your other excellent (and I mean that) edits. That's not a problem, but I think it is relevant to understanding what it is I see when I make decisions about whether or not to mark an article as patrolled, to tag it for CSD, AfD, or prod, or to just clean it up. I think I do a fair amount of each. I take no offense at your comment, but please understand that I'm quite willing to have reasonable discussions about wikipedia policy, but also that it's a very contentious area of the project. Shadowjams (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Actually they are only Victorian Premier League players, and as such do not pass ATHLETE as that is a second tier non professional league in Australia, but that is beside the point. My request was nothing to do with any deletion process or otherwise of the article, or even their validity, merely the marking of the page as patrolled where the article is not demonstrably appropriate for Wikipedia as suggested by WP:NPPLOG, in that they are unreferenced biographies of living persons - hence the reference to the current discussions. I am well aware of your efforts in patrolling - you and others like you are the reason I don't bother to do it a lot; you are already getting that done. I only request that you tag them unreferenced as it helps helps a lot in downstream processing as far as identifying articles which can be referenced and/or improved. Cheers--ClubOranje^T 10:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I don't know a lot about Football so in any football related conflict I'd definitely defer to you. I agree with you on many of the BLP issues, although I haven't gotten into the specifics so I don't want to commit to a standard I'm not really familiar with yet. But as a general rule, I would support tightening up these criteria. It's very hard given international football leagues. The qualifications and terminology vary country to country. On top of that, I'm an American, and so you have to realize too that all of those specifications are largely transparent to me. I do my best, but I don't follow the sport, and I don't know the distinction between Indian footballers and Brazilian ones. Anyway, I hope we keep talking. If you have ideas how to make this process better I'd be very willing to listen. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, no worries. The good thing is you don't need to know about all subjects, just so long as someone who does gets to it in a timely fashion - hence why tagging is such a good idea. Even though I actually detest tags on an article from a reader point of view, it is still the best system we have for making it good, and once it it is good, the tag can go. --ClubOranje^T 10:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation

Shadowjams/Archive 2 - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Even though your position was neutral, your comments were constructive and welcome. As the community has expressed its trust and confidence in me, and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

... for reverting vandalism from my userpage. Your actions were so fast, it was only now that I realized that User:Abecedare had even been vandalized back in november and earlier today! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. You're a popular user page. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you help me?

I'm creating a page of the artist Marco Porta, an italian one. You said that I need to translate the page, but how could I do that? Could you please give me some hints? Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teoporta (talk • contribs) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Italian so I can't be of much help to you with that. You also shouldn't just plug the text into a translation program, because it is conceivable that the output of the program could be considered protected by copyright. If you need a translation engine to help you with your own translation though, I find Google Translate to be very good [1]. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines

Thank you for the help. I personally don't count the changes that were made as *true* vandalism. I do count it as a combination of lack of clue, lack of desire in a clue and not caring about the page other than to make sure that their organization and information is there. As you can tell from the history, that's fairly common on that page. I'd appreciate it if there was someone other than myself who watchlisted the page, can you do so?. (BTW, 99% of the actual references on the page come from one afternoon when I decided that it was find references for the groups or see the page get AFD'ed, and I wasn't even sure that I'd oppose that.)Naraht (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The first two messages the user got (this week) never mention vandalism. It's only after they continue (and the IP has other warnings as well) that it's even called that. Vandalism doesn't always require that the user be completely malicious. Disruptive edits in general, especially when the continue continuously after being discussed, are enough. That appears to be an IP that switches users regularly.

Yeah, I guess the third or fourth time it does raise to that. Unfortunately it isn't all that uncommon on that page. That page by itself is enough to make me support flagged protection.

I made those reversions doing some vandalism patrol. I wasn't looking at any articles in particular, and I don't think I'd be well suited to watching that particular page. But vandalism patrolling is just a front line to cut down the aggregate vandalism. The fine-grained vandalism control has to come from people like you who are watchlisting those articles. It's a huge help in the project and it's incredibly valuable. I watchlist quite a few pages too, but I don't know anything about the Philippines topic. Thank you for your confidence though. Shadowjams (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I wish I could locate someone. However I agree that I've picked up quite a bit of knowledge about the subject of Fraternities in the Philippines that does help me with dealing with that page.Naraht (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia, if you haven't already. Shadowjams (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines a while ago, I should try it again. I'm not sure that the article is in the SE Asia project. But trying there can't hurt either.Naraht (talk)

Regarding my edits

If you would like to discuss their validity I would be more than happy too, I peronsally know Dule Hill and am thus a better reference thant what ever source it is you've been using. You at wikipedia have been less than helpful thus far, prove that history wrong. --68.226.125.253 (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add information about a living person to an encyclopedia article, you need to have it referenced in a reliable source. Inserting possibly contentious material into an article needs to be explained in some way. Moreover, you did so to a sentence that was already referenced, giving the impression that that reference supported your statement. In addition, adding to the lead that "He is black" is a little redundant since his picture is right next to it. That coupled with the other addition you made, twice now, you need to provide a source before you add the same edit again. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wannsee & G-41614

Ok, that was fast. I had just noticed that something was wrong. I had hit preview, saw that for some reason, all content had been deleted which was certainly not my intent, then apparently hit the wrong button. Before I figured out what happened and revert, the situation was taken care of. Thnx, but what I'd like to know is why all content was gone when I wanted to preview my edit? Happened a few times the last few edits, not only on en:w, but so far I've been able not to save before correcting. Trying to save this to your disc, it just happened again. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Just saw you reverted back to before I took the pictures out, an edit I explained at the disc. Care to explain why? --G-41614 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit [without warning] because you blanked Großer Wannsee without explanation. I made only one edit to that article. I didn't "reverted back". Shadowjams (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. History shows three edits by me, all reverted (reverted back was the wrong term, fine). Explanation is above, so - I'll just delete the pictures again. Not the page, since that wasn't my intention as stated above. Anything helpful you might want to add? --G-41614 (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, chill out. If it's a program error that's fine, I've had those plenty myself. No hard feelings. I'm just trying to help out. Shadowjams (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Chilling. If it's happening elsewhere & to others, I'll just revert next time it happens to me. Unless you beat me to it again. :) --G-41614 (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Good times. Shadowjams (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you are an extremely fast reverter

My edit to Bloglines must have been up for maybe 2 seconds? Is there a Barnstar/Award for that? 202.154.146.124 (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

:)I aim to please. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please slow down

Please stop templating me without first checking to see that I'm the one vandalizing. I'm reverting a rapid-fire vandal who is adding spurious tags. Please take the time to remove the warning templates from my page. Thank you. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding an edit summary would be helpful. You cannot simultaneously claim to be an experienced editor, while claiming to be breathlessly offended by someone reverting your (without explanation) strange edit. If you want to make controversial edits in the future, provide at the very least some explanation of what you're doing. Shadowjams (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... it seems that I offended you, and re-reading my message above, I can see how that could come across in a tone that I didn't mean. That request to remove the templates probably pushed what could have been a neutral request over the line. I apologize for any offense I may have caused. That was not my intent. Please do check the article history first, though, before deciding whether an edit is constructive or not. For my part, I'll try to include more explicit edit summaries when reverting vandalism involving templates. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No offense. But if you're making a controversial edit, an explanation always helps resolve doubt and provide context. As does a login. Shadowjams (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lebanese season articles AfD

In this AfD you wrote that User:Nameless User had created around 400 season articles, but he has actually done nearly 4000. [2] Looks like we could have a major deletion spree on our hands here. -- BigDom 12:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. There were about 400 in this latest run, all of them being football/soccer related articles but I had no idea there were that many others. Are they all equally as bad?

I've considered prodding the others from the recent run, instead of doing AfD, but that requires checking in to see if any of the prods are contested/moved and I'm reluctant to put that kind of strain on the prod queue. If you need any help on these let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Studio Album (2nd nomination)

That'd be a good proposal. Bring it up at WT:PROD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my edit.

Hello. I was attempting to revert the extensive vandalism done by Haydenbecker on the Invermere, British Columbia page. There are still a few of his edits that should be corrected. I was working my way back through them when you reverted my edit. Sadharan (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I rolled it back to before that vandalism. The quicker way is to just open up the old version to view, click edit, and then save the old, pre-vandalism version. Shadowjams (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rostislaw Wygranienko

Hello! I've just add some citations and sources, and change the text, so, please, change the templates. Thanks! Sverige2009 (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation articles

Hello, Shadowjams Thank you for your contribution Alexander Plisetski Is it possible to transfer articles. I described all here: Talk:Alexander Plisetski Sincerely, Betsi Jane (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at Tckma's talk page.
Message added 17:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tckma (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

vandalism warning

Sorry about that- I didn't write that- it was there, someone reverted it, and I accidentally undid it, mixing up the current and previous edits. I was attempting to revert vandalism, not create it. Thanks for fighting vandalism. E2eamon (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Removed the warning. Shadowjams (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society‎‎

FYI, I've added sources to the AfD and will add them to the articles later. Can you take a look at what's there and adjust your !vote accordingly? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shadowjams (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Rain

Heh, nice work. I'm just barely one step behind you, even on WP:AIV. Kept getting edit conflicts. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Sorry for the EC, those are obnoxious. I think I'll let any new ones to you, given edit summaries as awesome as "←Replaced content with 'Shadowjam sucks arse'". Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're the one with Huggle, not me. I was trying to fix up the article when that happened. But yeah, uh, hopefully that won't happen again. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a double edged sword. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A Matter Regarding Heavy Rain - An open Letter by Dogtaro

Dear sir/madame,

I am sick and tired of you moderators being annoying and over precautions. I just wanted to get rid of spoilers so that people won't get this brand new game ruined!

Now, i have to resort to vandalizing the page just to get my point across. People look to see what the scores from metacritic are and maybe catch a glimpse of the synopsis, and have the game ruined. It's not fun when this happens.

You can put the spoilers up in two months or sometime more than that after everyone who wants to play has, and find out that the biggest twist in probably video game history to be spoilt. This is bigger than MW2 and the Sixth Sense combined.

I urge you, moderator, to please get rid of the spoilers. You can revert the page back to normal, but maybe just get rid of the identity of The Origami Killer. If your goal was to make the world unhappy then fine, go ahead. It's probably all you do, it's probably your livelihood. But as a video game lover, i urge you, i beg you, i plead with you to delete the spoilers.

Yours sincerely,

"Dogtaro"

P.s Heavy Rain is a very good game. You should check it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.135.31 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage. Here, have a cheeseburger:

Acather96 (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Acather96 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Time to welcome orphans with open arms

I think that maintenance comment like that generated by {{orphan}} should be placed on the talk page not in article space so I have removed it from Meeting on Heworth Moor -- see Template talk:Orphan#Time to welcome orphans with open arms -- PBS (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of your action. I have undone the removal, which I hope won't discourage you from the same kind of disclosure in the future, because I think that's incredibly valuable. But I do think that a recent discussion at a very unwatched maintenance template page doesn't warrant a widespread replacement of orphan tags. I would suggest, at the least an RfC on the idea. I have no actual opinion at this point on the underlying issue. Let me consider it, but in the meantime, let's get some broader input on this idea. Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It will not deter me at all as I will simply remove it again. Besides the page is new and within a few days it will have more links. Instead of putting the template back why not spend some time looking to add links to the page? I have given my reasons several times why I think that maintenance templates such as these should be on the talk page. See for example Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page -- PBS (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's not the response I expected.

Edit warring your way into a position that has been ignored since November, until your recent interest and comment, is not an effective way of gaining consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your second link is to a discussion from March of 2007, that you've recently taken up, and to which there have been no responses. Again, even if you reject my responses (I think I've been pretty generous) you need to seek broader consensus. And in any case, our exchange is not enough for any of that. You're proposing a pretty major change--it needs to see a broader consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It takes two or more to edit war. Instead of putting the template back why did you not attempt to find some article to which Meeting on Heworth Moor can be linked? I am in the process of expanding an article into which it will go, and there are at least two Civil war articles it can be linked to. So far you have not given a justification for putting a maintenance template in to the article space of Meeting on Heworth Moor so I am going to move it to the talk page for further discussion. -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm stunned at your abuse of my good faith on the whole issue. There's no consensus for any of what you're proposing. What I've seen is you edit a WT:Maintenance article that hasn't been touched in nearly 3 years, as well as a thread on WT:Orphan (hardly the most popular topic) that hasn't been edited in nearly four months. Neither of those edits have had replies.

There is however consensus for the current orphan standard, which is what my prior edit was. You're resurrecting esoteric discussions on unvisited pages. The typical bold edit cycle would have ended your edits by now, although you've defiantly indicated you'll continue. I'd have hoped we could have had a reasonable discussion, especially after my initial detailed and open responses. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the points made by PBS. You slapped an orphan tag on Church of St. Nicholas Within, which is a stub, just after I created it. Of course it's an orphan at this stage! What's the point in adding the tag? Hohenloh ⁺ 01:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument above is more about the procedural considerations of a policy change. I think we've resolved that issue, or at least directed it to the right places.

What prompts most people's concern over "quick" tagging is the belief that tagging is a slight against the article. I don't see an accurate tag as a slight at all. Instead I look at most of them, especially orphan tags, as benefits for an article, something that puts them in the categories and allows others to fix them. I regularly look through cleanup categories and try to fix problems. I did a major overhaul on 15 minutes of fame just yesterday, to the point that I believed the tag was no longer necessary. So I suppose I find the aesthetic considerations of a tag at the top no more intrusive than the wikipedia globe, and certainly less intrusive than the problem that justified the tag in the first place. I almost never (if I do it's a mistake) will edit a page only to add an orphan tag. In this case I made some typo corrections too.

As for the quickness of my tag, I added it an hour after you created the article, and it hasn't been edited since. And Church of St. Nicholas Within still only has one mainspace link, and that is from Church of St. Nicholas Without, Dublin.

It's a good looking article though. Maybe there are some other incoming links that could be added? Shadowjams (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Shadowjam

Hey There!

I am a new to "Writing" to Wikipedia. I am just trying to get familiar with all the rules and regulations. I did go through all the prerequisites of how to write an article. I then posted an article which gave two definitions for the phrase "Host Machine". When I checked today, I saw that the page was redirected to "Host". I had already gone through all the descriptions of a "Host" before I could post that because I couldn't find a description of a "Host Machine" in the contexts which I had described. If I would have found it, I wouldn't have created the page at all. Is there something which I am missing out on? Or was this related to any kind of plagiarism or something related to that? I do understand that a "Host Machine" is ambiguous to "Host", but the meaning in the contexts I had described were not there, Should I then create a sub page under host describing my meanings? For now I have undone your redirection. Please don't mind and guide me in the right direction.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawalparkar (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My concern was that the term itself is a minor subset of Virtual machine. That, and the entry looks a bit like a dictionary definition. I still have those concerns, but I'll help you clean it up and we can see how it develops.

My other concern too is that the term "host machine", while used in relation to virtual machines, is used in pretty much every other computer context too. I'm not so sure its use in relation to virtual machines is the overriding usage. I may disambiguate it, but if I do I'll leave a message on your talk page so you can know where the new link is. Shadowjams (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your edit of the article, looks good. Thanks. But it can definitely be developed more by people. I had come across the "How to write articles" on Wikipedia when I first created this article. In there, there was a way mentioned to leave article open to be reviewed by experts, get their comments and suggestions and then finally confirm it and submit it. What is this service called? Where should I be looking at? Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawalparkar (talk • contribs) 15:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably refers to the {{expert-subject|Computers}} tag. You would replace "Computers" with the appropriate topic if it were about some other topic. What it actually does is add itself to a category that certain portals, such as WP:WikiProject Computing, would look at. Whether or not people from the project actually look at them depends on the project. But it's always worth a shot. Another option is to go to the project's talk page and ask for people to help you review it. That might get more attention. Shadowjams (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stir bars article

I apologize for the stir bar edit. I did not cite a source because I have personal experience with stir bars that are approximately 6-8 inches in length and approximately 1 inch in diameter. Perhaps the wording should be changed to "many centimeters" or "1-2 decimeters." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.89.188 (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a product page for a large 6" stir bar 75.50.89.188 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Decimeter sports equipment measures are rare even in fully-metric countries. Thanks for telling me what was going on. In the future please use an edit summary, because it'd make it a lot easier to know why you made those changes. But in any case, thanks. I hope you stick around. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Saralasolutions

Tagging a user page being used to promote a company is not a test or vandalism - it's a perfectly valid use of the tag. Believe me, this has been discussed multiple times at ANI. 98.248.41.128 (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the page, and I'm not sure why I would have RVed your edit. I can only chalk it up to user or software error. But it wasn't intentional. I say this too without even reviewing the CSD policy on user pages, which I admittedly do not know offhand. Thanks for your note. You'll notice I've rolledback that edit. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't undone my edit to your talk page because you've blanked it. There's an intervening warning, that may or may not be appropriate, but you've removed it. In any case, I've undone the userspace edit, as above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Farmville, Virginia

Removing unsourced controversial material is neither a test nor vandalism. If a source for the allegations can be provided, then and only then is the material appropriate. 98.248.41.128 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You removed a whole section of information without any explanation, someone else reverted, then you removed a single paragraph of the same, again, without explanation.

We're not talking about a BLP issue either. You want to remove broad swaths of content, the least you can do is provide an explanation for why you're doing it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" isn't an explanation? Yeah, that's the edit summary I used both times. 98.248.41.128 (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced isn't especially enlightening when you're removing whole paragraphs. Shadowjams (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 09:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Avicenna_sis @ 09:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

=Cheif marketing officer

ow I'm sorry I'm sorry, thought this was America, thought this was a free country

I suppose it is in a way. The beauty of America is that when you remove three paragraphs of content from a private server, also located in the U.S., and I add it back, I don't worry about politics related to that edit. I suggest you don't worry about politics either, and instead focus on facts that you can reference, and if you're interested in the American version of free speech, take a look at Freedom of speech in the United States, one of the few things I'm passionate about. Shadowjams (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

May I ask for the clarification please?

here you write "You both are involved in contentious article disputes." I'd like to ask you to clarify in what contentious article disputes I am involved? May I please ask you do not include in the list my edits at article talk pages because article talk pages is the place to discuss the articles, and cannot be considered "disputes" IMO. So, if you only could concentrate on "disputes" I will appreciate it very much. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're both editing articles that attract a lot of opinions that will never be solved on wikipedia. Some conflict is inevitable. The question is if that goes to the required degree to ban an editor.

That being said, after looking at some of the diffs you posted after I made my comment, I'm more amenable to your proposal now, although it seems there's not a lot of discussion at the moment. Shadowjams (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you more on your statement "that will never be solved on wikipedia." That's right it will never be solved on wikipedia. That's why I hardly edit any of those articles, mostly discussing one or two at the talk pages. Anyway...I am going to put up a new proposal for 1rr edit restrictions for the user. Maybe you will consider supporting that one. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look. Shadowjams (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's in.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Regex (from refdesk/my talk page)

Thanks for the help. The expression you gave left 'href="$3$2$' as the value in the 'a' tag and completely removed the 'img' tag altogether. I don't know if that was down to the expression or the way TextWrangler treats them. I found another way to do what I wanted, though - TextWrangler allows for rectangular selection and pasting so I just copied the image names as a column from the 'img' tags and pasted them into the 'a' tags, in two steps as I was able to use rectangular copy and paste. Thanks for the help anyway. --Joe^Talk_Work 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Ok that makes sense. Yeah the $1 is just a grouping variable. So in perl, anything within parenthesis that matches will be in the variable. So if the sentence is This sentence is matching and the regex is is s..(.e[abcn]c)e then the $1 will equal tence, if that makes sense. Anyway, sorry couldn't help more. It appears that TextWrangler doesn't let you do substitutions (or if it does it uses a different convention). Shadowjams (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Jaffe

My pleasure - happy to be of help. :-) (Hey - gotta use that HotCat for something, right?) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Parselmouths

Hey! Just FYI, I checked in on your AfD nom (ref'd above) and wanted to let you know that Google News turns up a -ton- of hits on that band. I'm not sure why your link is turning up nothing. Try the News link in the AfD template on that page. Just wanted to let you know in case you want to revise your statement that GNews turns up zero hits, lest someone who is less familiar with your contributions than myself think you are acting in something less than good faith! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have been more careful. It actually wasn't my link, but that's no excuse. I'll take another look. Thanks again. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed after I posted this that you were actually just quoting the PROD nom. Certainly no worries, just wanted to make sure you were aware. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. With the more appropriate link I found enough hits that not only would I have never nominated, but I wouldn't have supported either. I think I was mislead by some bizarre formatting that led me to do a procedural nomination in the first place. Anyway, my comments on the AfD should make my position apparent. Thanks again. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Émile Louis Picault

Hi. There are now four other articles that link to the Émile Louis Picault one. Is that enough to remove the banner? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Shadowjams (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)