User talk:Shadowjams/Archive 6

Macau museum stub

Please kindly take a closer look at it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.162.88 (talk • contribs) 21:31, May 1, 2010

I've referred it to someone who knows the full context. Shadowjams (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. From what I observed museum stub categories are usually under building and structure stub categories, and building and structure stub categories are usually under geography stub categories. Since Macau is not having a building and structure stub categories, I put the Macau-museum-stub template under Category:Macau geography stubs.

May I know where have you referred the matter to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.162.88 (talk • contribs)

User:SchmuckyTheCat who you appear to be going back and forth with on the Hong Kong articles, had referenced a ban discussion. I am unaware of the context of that statement. Shadowjams (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what ban you are referring to. My question was about your opinion with the correct way to categorise building and structure stubs.

Ban context: User:Instantnood. Long term persistent POV, resulted in Arbcom ban several years ago. He returns every few months either as an IP or a collection of sock puppets and has never reformed. (Sorry for your talk page mess.) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

New York Bomb Scare

Wow, you're fast. I looked for one without success before starting that! However, I have seen no sources indicating a "pipe bomb" specifically, but rather a somewhat undefined incendiary/explosive device. I think my title is less restrictive with what will be coming out over time. I'd suggest taking anything in yours not in mine, adding that info in, and then forwarding your article title to mine. If keeping your edit history is important, though, I have no problem with a merge. Fjbfour (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah. That's fine. As much as I'd love the initial credit :P, your article's better developed. The pipe bomb language I think I pulled from the Times article, although maybe not. It's hard to know if I made that up or if it was in an earlier version of the article--they tend to update it a lot. I'll merge in what I've got manually and redirect my version. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You earned initial credit fair and square. :) If you can find an admin to merge them and keep your credit, I'm cool with that. Fjbfour (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No need. I merged in some things and made some minor changes. The only one of any controversy would be the "terrorist" piece, which the NY Times is reporting it is not, although I think that has yet to develop. I threw in a "possible" there. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you at least let me comment on the talk page that you were first? :D Making me feel bad here... heh. Fjbfour (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, amazing I haven't seen you around given your edit history. Probably because you're not vandalizing articles or creating articles about your pets... Hope to work with you again soon. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pariangan

Thanks Shadowjams to remember me, firstly I want to say sorry about that, I want to tell you, I just to fix the location of coordinates but I don't know why other user cannot believe that, nevertheless till now, i will be patient, Thanks, VoteITP (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt on ITN

--Chaser (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug

The Norman Borlaug page I edited- and you reversed- fixed vandalism, unless a scene from Romeo and Juliet is relevant in a way that I'm too dumb to comprehend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.102.7 (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you made 2 edits. The first one added vandalism [1], your second one [2] removed some. It's all been handled now though. Shadowjams (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

pic

Hey -- If you want to have the pix go right/left/right, the better one to (resize and) move would be the hotel. Per MOS, when a subject is looking left or right, we want to have them face the text. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Feel free to switch them up. It just got a little heavy on the right side, thought I'd add some variety in there. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand. And MOS thinks thats a good approach as well ... just trying to respect both directives. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wesley (2009 Film)

Hi. I have declined your G12 speedy on this, because that only applies "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving" - in this case, only the plot summary part of the article was copyright, and a workable article is left when that is cut out. The thing to do then is remove the copyvio, add a {{cclean}} template to the article talk page and point the article author to it - see WP:Copyright problems. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Decline" is an interesting phrase to use in that context, but otherwise I'm fine with your removal. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's standard WP jargon. Now you mention it, I remember thinking it odd at first, but I've got used to it. There is a useful script, CSDHelper, which I use for simple cases, which produces a message starting "Hello xxxx. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of... " Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'm familiar with it as jargon but it always struck me as an abrupt wording--I realize that wasn't your intention and I take no offense from it. I prefer to "disagree" or something similar. I hadn't used CSDHelper but I'll check it out. Thanks for the note. Shadowjams (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Quellcrist Falconer

I sourced the book in the edit summary, none of the other quotes are sourced any better (ie footnotes), and they're all direct word for word quotations, I don't see the problem.70.79.195.123 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

nevermind, its been resolved, thank you for pointing me towards the talk page as opposed to the editor's page, didn't realize there was a difference70.79.195.123 (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I never saw the underlying page, just the user page edit, and it looked like you had a legitimate question. No problem. Glad you sorted it out. Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for that edited on my page. Shadowjams revert. I only noticed today when I made some changes on my page. :) Sir Floyd (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Always my pleasure. Shadowjams (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Funk

I noticed that you added some more content that a vandal removed. I guess I missed it. I looked over it. But vandals can be tricky! ;) Anyway, I just wanted say "Thanks!" for catching that, I appreciate it. Have a lovely day 173.57.184.131 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for catching it in the first place. Vandal patrolling is only a first-pass solution. I find that a lot of vandalism is caught by IPs or just normal editing. Shadowjams (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rain-X

So the warring IP got blocked; meanwhile, I'd be curious to know why you think this wouldn't get x-ed via AfD. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It definitely reads like an advertisement, but it's a pretty major automotive product (in the U.S.). I agree, if I knew nothing about it and saw that article I'd say it was prime for a speedy even, but knowing what it is, I think it would get cleaned up within 24 hours of the nomination.

On that note, I'd actually have been very willing to actually clean it up, but there's a part of me that doesn't want to feed the trolls or reward that sort of disruptive editing. I'm going to watchlist it and if nobody else looks at it, I'll take a stab within a few days. Shadowjams (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess since it's already getting cleaned up, and the IP just left one of the most honest post-block messages I've ever seen, I'll join in the cleanup now. Shadowjams (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's sorted out. Maybe I should clean my wipers at least once in their lifetime so I know the names of those products :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah. Not to sound like a COI, but that stuff can be magic if it's newly applied. For the first few months, if you were driving at any speed at all you didn't even have to use your wipers. Shadowjams (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:67.185.162.178

THis is how I talk right? I wasn't trying to vandelise anything, I was just trying to express the irony in his quote. ---Sorry, I have no idea how to do headers and start topics ect... I just know how to add/delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.162.178 (talk • contribs) 07:16, May 6, 2010

Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion of an RfA

A little while ago you supported a suggestion that I might consider an RfA, and said some very encouraging things. Shortly afterwards 2 more editors supported the suggestion. I wasn't considering the matter, but with four of you urging me I did stop and think about it, and I have decided "why not give it a try". You wrote "I will be the first in line to support you if you come up at RfA". If you do so I shall be grateful. I have invited Peter to nominate me, since he was the first to suggest it, but if he doesn't wish to then I'm sure you could do it just as well. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay! I mean, good news! --Morenooso (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remember an RfA can be long and painful. Read carefully all that is said. Take your time in responding and respond in a thoughtful considerative manner. If accused of something, as best you can accept responsibility or "be big". I would hope you pass on the first one. --Morenooso (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be honored to do so. If Peter does it I may chime in with a co-nom, and if not... then I'll go for first. I'm busy right now, but within the next 24 hours I'll do something. Shadowjams (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I left a message on Peter's page. I'll need time to prepare this, more than my previous 24 hour estimate. I am probably more familiar with your contributions than Peter is (and I don't anticipate finding a dead body in your edit history), but this would also be my first nomination so I'd like to be thorough. Shadowjams (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone beats me to it too I'll respond appropriately depending on where I"m at in my own process. Shadowjams (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have posted a message on User talk:Peter#Your suggestion of an RfA about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, discussion on this has been transferred to User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

71.215.225.88

ok sorry man for writing on there i guess i should use a sandbox next time and thank you for letting me know for the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.225.88 (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

User:60.242.147.75

Hey man my wireless has a few people on it, im trying to fix it now (71.215.xxx.xx) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.147.75 (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick response

I must now go to work. I will provide a better answer when I return. The short answer is that I believe the title is correct as is. but feel free to contribute content to the article which it definitely needs. I will elaborate when I return. Thank you for your interest in the article.My76Strat (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem or hurry. Like I said, I think the name is too complicated, but I know you have your reasons so I would like to know them. I don't mind where you reply, if it's here or on your talk page, but if you do reply on your talk would you drop me a line here so I know about it? Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry it took so long to reply to your suggestion, I was embroiled in a npov dispute which consumed a disproportionate amount of my time. I would have already added content which I know the article lacks if it had not also been neglected while my focus was on another issue. The reason I like the title, is because it is in fact a proper title. (see the reference) As far as generating traffic there are numerous redirect pages leading to this article, click 'what links here' under the toolbox to the left of the article), additionally a Google search of such redirected terms like chemical weapons or chemical agents for example will include a listing for this article, which I believe the curious googlers will view the page if for nothing else than to satisfy their curiosity. Additionally I believe an encyclopedia is a place for learning, and I myself did not know the correct name for these things was as titled. finally, unitary is a distinction which separates them from the binary type of similar things. ie either agent or weapon. There very well may be binary agents included in the infobox as I have borrowed much of that information from other articles. If this is so they should perhaps be removed and will be if it comes to my specific attention. Please consider adding content to this page if your knowledge base is more extensive than mine, which it likely is. When you see the number of pages linked to this article I think you'll agree it needs to be correct. Please include comments to the article talk page as we try to develop this article and improve it for all it is worth.My76Strat (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than remove certain types of weapons, would you be amenable to making the title more general by removing "unitary"? Or maybe making two new articles, Unitary chemical weapons or Unitary chemical agents, and then Binary chemical weapons or Binary chemical agents? I don't think there's any reason to prefer binary or unitary as the title, although a description of both is probably useful.

The other thing I've discovered while looking at this issue is that the individual articles on this subject are very good, but there aren't many good umbrella articles to tie them together.

I'll look at the reference you're talking about a bit later. I'm not an expert on the subject either, so don't assume my knowledge is any more than what I can research or know generally. Shadowjams (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have copied this and the other comments to a thread on the article talk page. This to encourage others to weigh in as well as to consolidate the comments to a place more appropriate to the article. let us continue collaboration on that page from here. I appreciate your interest in the article and look forward to the inclusion of content which I hope you will generate.My76Strat (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for intervention on Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Thank you for the much needed intervention on the article Communist Party of India (Marxist). I have been trying to understand the concerns of the fellow users who are reverting my edits by requesting them to participate in the discussion. But not much interest was shown by one particular user. I have answered all queries by the other user on the discussion page. I went to RSN and got confirmed that the sources are reliable for the edits. Despite that reverting of my edits continued and it was getting very frustrating as no valid reason was being provided for reverts. I also placed a request at Mediation Cabal for dispute resolution which is yet to be picked up. My request for page protection was redirected for dispute resolution. I had placed warning notices on talk pages of the account holders and one IP user also. May be you meant that I should have put more warning notices. Will keep that in mind in future. Thanks again! I further request you to monitor the edits on this page so that vandalism is stopped/controlled. --Deshabhakta (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of U.S. state governments

I like the page you created, Comparison of U.S. state governments. I recently started work on a page to track the historical partisan trends in state legislatures, User:NoSeptember/statelegis. Neither of these pages nor List of United States state legislatures has a section or column for comparing the election dates of states. If I recall correctly odd-numbered year elections occur in states like VA, NJ, MS, and LA; and while most four year governors are elected in the midterm year, quite a few are elected in the Presidential election year. I do not know weather all 4-year legislative terms are staggered or not, but would be interested in seeing that information. I know whenever an election approaches I am interested in knowing just which states are having and not having contests that year and what offices are up for grabs. Where do you think would be a good place to put this information and what is the best way to structure a chart showing this? Please mull that over for me if you would, Thank you. Cheers, NoSeptember 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I see a section of Governor (United States) has much of this information and it may just be a matter of linking to other articles better (maybe a template of state political comparison articles or something). NoSeptember 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That article took a long time to make. I pulled information mostly from other articles but sometimes I had to research the answers; doing that many entries took some time. I'd love it if the executive section included that sort of info, or maybe even a new section, since most of those elections will happen at the same time. The Governor article would probably have similar info, maybe a Election (United States) article or something like that. There is some overlap between the comparison article and some of the others like it. The only limit on the Comparison article is that I think it shouldn't include partisan information for each state, because that's covered quite well in another article (I think it's linked to in the legislative section). But election cycles would be a great addition. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

IP

What king of name is "Shadowjams..." honestly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.229.253 (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It was random. But thanks for re-alerting me to edits like this. Shadowjams (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Circumnavigation

The comments are clearly relevant. It doesn'[t make sense to have two thirds of the criticism reported. It makes the article biased and not fully consistent.

The replies to the defense are important and need to remain for the entire scrutiny to be properly articled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowabunga438 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I actually undid my warning after your second edit explained it. Thank you for letting me know, and thank you too for engaging in the discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't vandalizing at Whiteboard

Actually it was either due to my exxxtremly slow internet connection or any technical bug in the wiki server.I was editing Disadvantage section than i previewed and saved it but i don't know how the whole page got deleted excluding that section.Please see my contributions,i'm not a Vandal!I think it's either a technical problem or result of slow net connection.

Muslim Editor (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hard to know when you removed the entire into section of the page, enough so to have Cluebot revert you the first time, and me the second. here. If you're updating segments like that you need to do two things. First, use the edit preview option so you do your change all at once, and second, use the edit summary to explain what you're doing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, your edit removed a tremendous amount of article, here, and your previous edits indicate you clearly know what you're doing on wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And this [3]. That's enough. Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My first article

So I wrote an article on the Dornier 428JET. Soon after finishing, I discovered 2 things: 1. The specifications template won't work. 2. The aircraft is already covered at Fairchild Dornier 328JET. I had searched for coverage under Dornier 328, which partially covers the 328JET, but didn't realize that aircraft had it's own article. Oh well. Maybe the 428JET article has enough detail to stand on its own. Let me know what you think! --N419BH (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That's a very common frustration. If it's any consolation, not only is the subject notable, but the project is big enough to have already included it.

I know your frustration. I don't think that edit contributions need to be article creations, or feature/good articles. I think most of the drive at RfA behind the contribution segment is to do two things. First, to prove that you're dedicated to project ideals and second, that you know how to edit with others and deal with the inevitable conflict that entails.

I think these are both valuable, although I am much more willing to accept an anti-vandal editor than some are. I've created quite a few pages myself, but there's an element of luck to the ones that are important today. I wrote the first version of the New York Times bombing at 2010 New York bomb scare, but I've also written 30+ articles that have barely been noticed at all too.

I personally don't think creation is special, although it is fun to be the first. RfA isn't always logical, like most elections, but I would say that people will recognize good work if you highlight it. I find your recent creation incredibly encouraging, and it makes me only more confident in your fitness as an admin. There's an element of self-promotion that's required, but you're also dealing with an extremely intelligent group of editors.

I hope I can help, and if we have any overlap in our editing I'd be excited to work with you. I hope I see you around soon. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually looks like people like it and are helping with reference formatting and linking. It might survive after all. By the way, I have a new signature. N419BH 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's great. I'll have a look. Shadowjams (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

KSLU

I am a director at KSLU and just realized my page got deleted. I put the information in again and this time added a reference to hopefully make the plagiarism police happy. What's the problem? Robert Moehle 07:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because the article was a copy of the history page off of the website. I didn't delete it, but I noticed the problem initially--it's a 2 step process, a nomination and then a deletion, most of the time by different people. There's a specific procedure for donating copyrights that you can see on the "Contact Wikipedia" link to the left, assuming the appropriate permissions are in place. That said, even if copyright weren't an issue, copy-pasting into wikipedia is not a good way to make yourself popular. The fact you're involved in the organization isn't helpful either, we have a policy on Conflicts of interest that is important for you to be aware of. You're not prohibited from editing on such topics, but you need to be keenly aware of the risks involved. Namely, that pages are never owned by the creators (as part of the license one agrees to when submitting edits) and that creators have no special status in the editing process. If you feel you must create a page for the organization, I would suggest making a small, objective and descriptive page, adding a single link to the main organization's page, and maybe a few reference by third parties that discuss it. From there, others will help you expand and add, as is appropriate. But pages that are verbatim the same as the subject's own website are, if not in bad taste, frowned upon. Shadowjams (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Because you're a radio station, your inclusion is almost guaranteed if you don't violate copyright in doing so or just make an outrageously promotional page. We generally consider FCC licensed stations inherently notable here. But remember that people realize that this site is editable by anyone, so if they read a page that just seems glowing then they realize it's not for real.

You'd do your station or your job, or "director"ship, or whyever you're editing a lot more good by writing a very factual, very neutral article about the station and its history. If you need help with formatting use the {{helpme}} tag on your talk page. We've got tons of articles on student radio stations, most of which will soon be rabidly edited by your listeners in a mostly positive way. But the page will reflect the broader consensus. That's how it goes. Shadowjams (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

question

Excuse me, but why are you reverting my edits on Jean Shrimpton, after I have stated my explanations in the edit summary and included references that revert inaccurate information? Also I have added More information to her page including references, which u also reverted. Also, if you actually read my Shrimpton edits, I only REMOVED ONE SENTENCE about her becoming famous at age 18. The rest of the page I moved sentences around to make the grammar and chronology flow better, but i have NOT deleted any sentences except when she was famous at 18, which was inaccurate accoring to the interviews by Bailey and Shrimp in the Bailey paragraph, which I have also included citation. But you have reverted all my edits back to inaccurate information and untidied grammar. Respond please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.64.216 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to tell from your edits because you're displacing entire paragraphs, but you're removing references, for the most blatant (and first) example, the life.com example you've removed entirely. I have no idea that you removed one sentence because the way the diff engine works I just see an entire block gone. It's shifted down, but there are sentences gone. Are you saying that you only removed the double sourced second sentence of the page? I'd say that needs additional discussion.

The diff issue is hard to know about; redo the edit, but don't break up the paragraph, or break up the paragraph and remove that sentence in different edits, then I (and others) will understand better what you're doing. But as it is now I see you removing two good references, multiple times, without any discussion on the talk page about it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

oh yeah, don't start responses with "excuse me". Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tasos Telloglou

Hi there, please check the revision history of the article that shows I was removing material that basically can be considered libel since it presents a certain article of the journalist as controversial without presenting sufficient sources that characterise it as such. I am reverting back my edit. 193.92.83.92 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Should you decide to revert it back again some kind of unsourced tag should be definitely added, though my opinion is that unless evidence from sources that do characterise his article as controversial are presented the section should remain removed. 193.92.83.92 (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

He's a public official, and in the United States libel law asserted by a public official requires not only untruthfulness, of which that is unclear, but also a finding of malice. Under the laws of Florida, I do not believe that edit meets anywhere near that standard.

In fact, that section is just an assertion of a blog post. Are you saying that's untruthful and thus libelous? Or are you saying that there's some Greek law that prohibits statements to that effect (in which case it's not libel).

I won't add it back because I don't know anything about it. I undid your edit because it removed sourced content without explanation. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone else does. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Decora#List_of_collateralized_debt_obligations_issued_in_20xx.2C_by_participants

I have replied to both yourself and Ginsengbomb on my talk page. Thank you. Decora (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. My pleasure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:84.241.53.54

This user is currently under investigation. See Wikipedia:Abuse response/84.241.53.54.--MacRusgail (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit seemed pretty obvious to me. Feel free to reference this discussion in the abuse report you informed me of. Shadowjams (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

AYANA Resort

Dear Shadowjams,

thank you for your advice. i'm writing the page for the hotel and think that it would be more suitable if i use the AYANA Resort, Bali title instead of the Ayana resort. I looking for the best practice from the other hotel like Mandarin Oriental, Hongkong. thanks (Kusmae (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusmae (talk • contribs) 07:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a deletion template to it because you previous blanked it and apparently want it deleted.

If you create a new article, a few notes. The article sounds promotional, and it is not formatted properly. See the WP:MOS, or easier, just follow the format of other pages. Have a short introduction, use sections, and don't write in all capital letters. Keep it small rather than make long lists. And most of all, write objectively. Good luck. Shadowjams (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

incorrect info

http://www.noblesanctuary.com/AQSAMosque.html read the info in here. Al aqsa was completed in 705. Since i have provided a reference I will now undo your reverts until further notice. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Some of the other removals you made also seemed controversial, and I initially saw the date change. But if you have a source then please change it back and add in the source. Thank you, sorry for any trouble. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.noblesanctuary.com/AQSAMosque.html read the info in here. Most sources say Al Aqsa was completed in 705. Since i have provided a reference I will now undo your reverts until further notice.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If yo think the info i added was incorrect, please cite the references or sources or before making reverting any edits i have made. Thanks you and kind regards.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

If you want references for the other changes, i have them too. http://www.lifeintheholyland.com/al_aqsa_mosque.htm thats one, and http://www.stanford.edu/~jamila/Aqsa.htmlthats two.

Here i have a list of sources. If you feel the need to add them, then do so by all means. Thanks and kind regards.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

David Andrew Campbell

Wrong IP shadowjams! I changed the title only from "Gay sex club scandal" to "Resignation. You reverted it back! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. When I hit the button, it was on an edit that changed resignation to something like "gay sex scandal"... Now there are a few IPs doing the same edits. I have no idea about the underlying content, I'm simply trying to make sure that controversial claims are accurate / sourced. It looks like it needs more sourcing right now. There are lots of sources related to this concern, I have no idea. I won't involve myself for those reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)122.148.213.55 is the 'culprit'. See DIFF . I was going to revert the entire section, but it appears to be a 'reliable source! david-campell-resigns-from-ministerial-post, Boy was I surprised when I saw that appear when I saved after just altering a link! (Even more surprised to be blamed!) No worries, things like this happen! It was a wp:GF revert! Could you just go back and strike the warning from my talkpage? Thanks! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite the talk page. I've removed that warning, thanks for discussing with me. It's rare there's an IP this distinguished. I know that there are some advantages to IP edits like this, but we also could use you doing logged in edits. Just a suggestion. Good luck. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For Services to Vandal Whacking with Extreme Prejudice
(And the occasional Whoops!)

Yes, I need to see about archiving!, if that's what you mean?
File:Blush.png<blush> You're fairly distinguished yourself! # 539 and 45K + edits! (10 x me in only 2x the time! Beware of 'burn-out' and don't forget to !
David Andrew Campbell seems to have calmed down. Undoubtedly other Vandal Whackers are watching now! Maybe you could use this little 'toy'?
Cry Havoc! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

ps. I passed on your lvl4im 'compliments' to the true vandal/s, bit of a copy, cut and paste, with my sig. on it. As for my advice, I haven't had any yet! & it's now ≈6:45 AM (local)! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams, can I ask you whether .....

you are a beef eater or not.....??? You are doing bullying like a cow --124.78.208.227 (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I already tried to discuss this edit with you when you were on another IP, but you never responded and instead went on making those edits. As others indicated on the Sleepwalking article, those changes are not advised, useful, or within consensus. That, plus edits like this, are the reasons for the warnings. Shadowjams (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

what is the problem?

Why my changes have been removed? I fix a few mistakes and add objective-c 2.0 example, if you look at NSApplication.h you can see that early version of Cocoa has no property. Then where is superclass of @interface MyCoolAppController { in the declaration?, then why do you not use lang="objc" pattern? What did I wrong? I believed wikipedia is open to improvements, unfortunately it is not. 212.44.130.15 (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood those edits. I've removed the warning and put back your changes. Shadowjams (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 212.44.130.15 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopton-on-Sea

Why do you revert my edits of the Hopton-on-Sea article? There is obviously an error in the infobox which I corrected, and yet you revert my corrections! Have you checked the source Census population and household counts for unparished urban areas and all parishes? It says 2,706. The text in the article also says 2,706. Obviously the infobox has an error. Whu won't you let me correct it? /83.248.184.90 (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I'm sorry. It looks like this IP added that incorrect information in January. I saw your change of a date, by a magnitude of 10, without explanation, and assumed it was incorrect. Thank you for informing me. I've removed the warnings and restored your edits (someone else did). Thanks again. Shadowjams (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Asian Five Nations

This edit was not destructive. As is typical of tournament qualifying pages (world cups, for example), teams are colored on the standings table according to their qualifying status. Upon completion of the qualifying tournament, the color denoted which teams are unable to qualify is typically removed, as it is redundant at that stage.

I admit that deleting the standings template was a bit hasty. The reason the template existed was because the standings were shown on two different pages (the 2010 Asian Five Nations page and the 2011 Rugby World Cup - Asia Qualification page) and it was easier to maintain from one central template. With the end of the competition, the template has outlived its usefulness and the standings may reasonably be displayed in full on each respective page without fear of them diverging. However, that was merely sloppy on my part, not "destructive".My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what I warned you for was blanking a template; blanking a template makes no sense, especially since you haven't bothered to explain any of those edits. The others, similarly. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:70.143.81.143

I did not make those edits. I usually go by the username hEyyy XxMjF. I'm not sure how my IP address from this laptop was used and taken to vandalize the wikipedia project.
70.143.81.143 (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably a shared IP address. Yeah, seeing as this was 10 months ago, I wouldn't worry about it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronaldo Lima's very off statistics

Are you the author of Ronaldo Lima's page? The goal records obviously do not match with the goals and appearances amount in the infobox. Also, by referencing to this site http://www.ronaldohome.com/statistics/, the goal stats are slightly off. Please correct them especially the very wrong infobox. I was editing it halfway through when I received a message from you claiming that it's not correct due to lack of references and the page is reverted back! Remember I was in the process of editing and all of my work is gone!

Well, you obviously were editing from an IP and then after you got warned, switched to an account. The actual page is Ronaldo. Since late May there have been a lot of unexplained edits. Here's what you need to do: provide an accurate edit summary, provide some references when you change things, don't undo edits without explanation. But if you continue that same edit process, as we've previously dealt with, you may be blocked. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Legend of the Seeker...

Um...why would you revert my episode summary the one you reverted it back to wasn't good enough, it was only the episode synopsis and not a summary of what happened in the episode like all the other episodes have. Every episode has a summary and so the finale needs one as well. Give me a good reason or I will revert your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekeroftruth469 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have reverted without an explanation. I'm sorry about that. I don't remember exactly why I made that change, although I think it has something to do with you undoing the IP editor, and then the huge chunk of text. I may not have even seen the second edit but just saw the IP undoing, just a timing issue. In any case, I've added it back, but it would be more useful if it was cut down to a more manageable summary, rather than a detailed explanation of each plot point. If you go look at the page text, that last episode box is just a huge chunk of text. Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Not a huge deal, but was wondering why you (unilaterally) increased the archive time from 21 days (without comment). That seemed fine to me, and 80 seems long -- if nobody has commented in 3 weeks, archiving seems appropriate. IMHO. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I unilaterally started the archiving too :P, but you're probably right. I worried that as interest died down the archiving would be too frequent at 3 weeks. I looked at the page view hits earlier and they have dropped off to a steady level, but you make a good point. I've undone that change. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks. I have no problem with the unilateral archiving (though I've been scolded in the past for doing so myself). I see your changes often, and almost always am in complete agreement -- tx for all your good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for my recent edit to Cartel. I am new to Wikipedia and I must learn to maintain a neutral point of view. Will you point me to resources to help my understanding of the great worldwide project that is Wikipedia? Thank you and Mazel Tov.

- Jack Rabbit

96.245.43.48 (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

2009 Lahore Attacks

According to Pakistani law, Ahmadiyyas are not considered Muslims and their worship places are not considered mosques. So, I believe that i didn't "vandalize" that page! As that event happened in Pakistan, the word "mosque(s)" has to be replaced with "worship place(s)"! Thank you! now please revert back! Pakistanfanforeva (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You add a source for your contributions. Then you can revert back while you add the source. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

aaahhhh..... i think i cant find a Pakistani law website. Pakistanfanforeva (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't follow what the Pakistani law or what its people say. If the sect claims that it is a mosque, then it will be that way according to wikipedia policies. Wikipedia gives full right to the owners of the buildings to call it whatever, mosque or not. Since Ahmadis identify it as mosque, let be that way. Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

7

Hi from me. I see your comments about 7. I do not have an opinion either way. However, I do have an observation. When one edits to get GA, there are many problems that crop up. The pain and anguish of resolving them builds character and adds to experience. Otherwise, a person may have theoretical knowledge but no first hand experience in trying to improve articles to a high degree. This is my observation, not a judgement of qualifications of a person. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I only ask because I think the benefits to article contribution are real, but for two reasons. Like you said, it creates disputes and forces people to resolve them, a necessary skill. The other is that it lets everyone else see the person's true colors, grace under pressure. So while the two reasons are related, they have slightly different goals. In some cases one of those goals is clearer than the other. Thanks again. Shadowjams (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

How is posting a trivia about a viral video vandalism?

"The wabbit who came to dinner" has a segment which has become popular and is now considered viral on youtube. I added this to the wikipedia article to stop confusion surrounding the subject, and you call this vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.91.188 (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit, because that's how I first noticed you, then another editor beat me to undoing your viral edits. Viral videos aren't really relevant. Given the 8 other edits you made trying to get the formatting down, someone else noticed it and left a message explaining why. I added the warning given the other problematic edit. Shadowjams (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your clarifying comments at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Capitalization in legal documents! 75.108.193.135 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I hope I helped. Shadowjams (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Western Power

Please look at

Western Power (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Western Power (networks corporation) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Where there is an open WP:RM at Talk:Western Power (networks corporation)

This is a clear copy-and-paste move duplication, and I am in the right in undoing it!

It is also a circumvention of process!

76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Chill. Already fixed. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a good disambig page before that editor. It should have been undone, which is done with now. Editor's been warned too. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the content I uploaded last week, omitting the section on strategic direction. The updates were fact based and a merely an update clarifying that Western power is a GTE and explaining what the network is. I concede the section on strategic direction can be removed, however the updated descriptions of Western Power, Verve, Synergy and Horizon should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharris wp (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You made one edit to it. Were you editing under multiple accounts? Shadowjams (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I made initial edits without registering an account. Then subsequently realised I needed to register in order to add images. My intention is to add in a diagram showing the geographical spread of Western Power's network, and a second representing the electricity generation, transmission and distribution process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharris wp (talk • contribs) 06:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Do it to the appropriate page at Western Power (networks corporation), not where you did it, which is a disambiguation page. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. How do I get authorisation to able to upload the images I suggested above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharris wp (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you have those images ready you should look at the left side of your screen, probably under the "toolbox", and see if there's an Upload file option. If there's not, you are not auto-confirmed, which means you haven't made enough valid contributions. As for your recent edits, I'll try and clean up some of those additions to make the comply with the style guide. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not autoconfirmed yet. I have the images ready and will upload them when I am confirmed. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharris wp (talk • contribs) 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A few little tips. First, when you're on a Talk page, whether it's a user or an aritcle's talk page, put ~~~~ (that's 4 ~'s) after your comment, which will sign it. That helps. Second, try and write in an objective tone; this is an encyclopedia so we want to continue that tradition. Finally, try and use an edit summary so that people know why you're doing what you're doing. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

EPHEDRA EDIT

Well, you undid my edits to EPHEDRA, siding with the FDA and refusing to admit this Asthma remedy is being suppressed by FDA. So a good reason to AVOID wikipedia; full of crap. I'll not use it again, for ANYTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.29.180 (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit from May 5 is what you're referring to. Shadowjams (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rain-X

Hello Shadowjams,

Could you please advise why the Rain-X page was edited and stripped of all the brand info, product info, and recognition? When editing the page, we felt it was best to be more detailed in Rain-X as a brand and what it has to offer. While we had not added photos yet, we were quite satisfied with the consumer education the page offered. Could you please share your thoughts and/or insight to the changes? I appreciate it.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rainx (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. You copy pasted the rain-x website onto the page, undoing the reasonable, if yet small, article that existed before it. I expanded it massively into a reasonable article, complete with chemistry information, pictures, and a detailed history. If you want promotional, go to the rain-x site itself; that's not Wikipedia's goal. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Your opinions and input are certainly valued, but do you not find it useful to list out more products the brand offers, and also some recognition awards as well?

I appreciate that you think my "input" is valued [by whom?], and it's hard to know exactly what your history is here because you have one edit to this account, but you sound like you're advertising, also I think your username violates policy. Second, if you want to add relevant information about product lines you can, but to be honest I don't think you're going to be able to do that satisfactorily. Perhaps you should look at WP:About. Shadowjams (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the relevant edit is [4] Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your open communication. I am not very familiar with wikipedia or the policies, and it seems you are well versed. The goal was not to advertise, but just to offer a larger explanation of what Rain-X is as a whole. Do you recommend a way to give more relevant information about product lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rainx (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a welcome template to your talk page. It has a lot of useful links on it. As for adding product lines, there is a Products section on the Rain-X article page. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, so that's the tone and style that we're working towards. If there is a small list you would like to add though, you can do so in that section. Use the formatting tool bar when you do so, so that you can bullet point the list (top of the edit box). But don't put in a huge long list of products. The broad product lines are already covered in the text, which is preferable to a list. If people need more detailed commercial information, the link to the main site is provided at the bottom. Shadowjams (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rainx (talk • contribs) 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Crunk Rock

We have to do something to settle this issue with the redirect Crunk rock. If "crunk rock" is going to redirect to crunkcore, then there needs to be some mention of the genre being called that on its page, which currently there is not. Otherwise people who are looking for the album and quickly enter the term into the search bar will find themselves lost. --NateBiggity (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the underlying dispute, but you can't redirect a developed page to some other target without explanation, discussion, or some reasoning, particularly in this case. Typically one would add a hatnote, or maybe add a disambiguation page. I'd look to those options, but you can't unilaterally redirect a developed page, particularly when that phrase is so commonly applied to a variety of articles. I'd suggest a disambig page, but definitely at least consult with people on those relevant projects or talk pages first. Shadowjams (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting 69.106.200.112‎'s edits on my talk page. The editor may very well have good intentions, but such messages as he/she posted are not welcomed. jonkerz♠ 06:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. That was my understanding as well. Although, after that, he vandalized again on a page linked off my userpage... but I merely undid that edit. Hopefully there won't be further disruption. Shadowjams (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I object

I object to this removal [5] - it was not a request for legal advice, it was a request for information about the law, which is a very different thing. You will not that the question of whether or not it was a request for legal advice had already been addressed within the thread. I would also ask that if you ever feel the need to remove a good-faith response of mine on the reference desks you do me the courtesy of informing me. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You can add it back, but I think that it's too close to be comfortable. I wouldn't want you, or any other editor, to rely on advice that wasn't accurate--there could be severe consequences--nor can most people give such advice unless they're licensed attorneys, and even those that are must similarly limit their advice. This wasn't meant as a slight against you or your question, but for everyone's protection I think that my approach was the best.

If you want to add references to a specific source of law, or have general questions, that is fine, but your question was quite specific, required an application of law to fact, and gave the impression that you might rely on whatever answers were given. Those things all qualify as legal advice. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize now it wasn't your question, but your answer... that said, the same applies. We respond to lots of legal-related questions, but this one is an editor clearly asking whether or not he can do X. We simply can't answer that, for all of the above reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

International Institute of Directors

Thanks for the removal of the long standing vandalism on International Institute of Directors. I was just about to remove that too. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazing it lasted that long. In all of my AV patrolling, that has to be the longest I've seen. Amazing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion nomination of We have band

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on We have band requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jonusbaum (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC) ==

Hi i'm a fan of this group i would like to create a simple wikipedia page ? why can't i ?

User:Glenfarclas nominated it. I merely added it back after you violated policy by removing the CSD tag. You should read the warnings on that page and on your talk page. They explain our notability policy and our other policies, all of which are relevant here. I'm a fan of many band and topics that don't have pages, but I recognize they're not notable unless they have reliable coverage in third party sources, and the pages reference those. That's our touch stone. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Anna Lincoln 10:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

cbat, and for the record, I think your assertion you don't speak good English is wrong.

Cheers. Good to see you around. Shadowjams (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If a second person says that, I'll remove the assertion from my user page. Regards, Anna Lincoln 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you speak English good, but not well... maybe that's the distinction I'm trying to make. :) Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

:-) Anna Lincoln 10:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Who are you?

You joined and your first edit was certainly not one that a new user would make. What was/were your previous username(s), if any?64.250.228.220 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean like [6] that? Many people edit as IPs before getting accounts. That's the most I'll dignify your comment. Shadowjams (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you become so defensive when questioned about your identity? I have noted that you have not actually stated that you edited as an IP address prior to creating this account. Why must you create an alternate account, and respond with a non-denial?Road2Peace (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, I shall note that the above IP is me. Road2Peace (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"That's the most I'll dignify your comment." Why is that?Road2Peace (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm Batman. Shadowjams (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So, for all we know, you could be someone who was blocked for a real-life offense, such as pedophilia or harassment (actual harassment, not Wikipedia's re-definition of it) trying to gain adminship, and you respond with frivolity?Road2Peace (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck? There is no "we", just you. I've never interacted with you before as far as I know, but you're a brand new account making detailed changes, then accusing me of, something, I'm not sure what. So, quit defaming me. I've entertained this quite enough. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"There is no 'we'..."

I beg to differ: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29680

I am a banned user, but apparently it is all right for me to evade if I make constructive edits (see User:FinalRapture, who is, of course, a sockpuppet of Oldwindybear). I am not trying for adminship. Who are you? Road2Peace (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. At least I know what this is about. For that I'll answer you. I'm not a banned user. I'm disappointed to hear NW tacitly accept that notion. I edited as an IP for a long time, I knew wiki syntax, and I was tired of seeing automated edit removals that I couldn't do, so I got an account. That was my main goal, otherwise I was content to remove vandalism as an IP. My first strings of edits were with twinkle for that reason. And I know about the Review, but I'm not a regular there. I'll admit I laughed when I was described as "a massive waste of human potential." I guess that's a compliment. Shadowjams (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Road2Peace (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk Removal

There is a discussion about your removal of a thread on the Humanities Reference Desk here. Right now, it looks like most people are disagreeing with your removal, so if you want to say anything about it you might want to scoot over there and make a comment. Buddy431 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Shadowjams (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with Manuel Espinosa

Could you help fix up the page, what do I do about the boxes at the top?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espmone (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about them. When the issues are fixed, someone will remove the box. Many articles have boxes. They help others find articles and improve them. If you can address those specific issues though, do so. Shadowjams (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!

Shadowjams - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship

Minimac (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'm extremely flattered but I'm afraid this isn't something I want to pursue right now. Your confidence in me though means a tremendous amount, particularly given some negative interactions I've had on Wikipedia lately, it's a helpful reminder that my work's appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, another wiki nazi makes another wiki nazi attribution mistake

You left me a message about my unhelpful edit, most likely because you're just another wiki nazi more intent on wiki masturbation and wiki nazi actions than in providing useful information to people and helping people become wiki editors.

In telling me my change was reverted and unhelpful, you forgot to notice my changes were:

1) to remove a claim that Betty Friedan like anal sex 2) to remove a change from "Lesbian" to "Wesbian Wovers woo woo woo" back to Lesbian

In short, you're a dumbass and yet another wiki nazi.

Fuck off.

72.222.210.123 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. I realize now that reverting edits is uncomfortably close to massive genocide. Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you do get it. The edit you call unhelpful and may have reverted was an edit that reverted vandalism. And you blamed the wrong person for the vandalism. And you don't get that at all which is why you have the makings of a perfect wiki admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.15 (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesBWatson

As you have previously requested, I'm letting you know that I've now completed a nomination for James. If you think there is anything you need to add in a co-nomination, maybe suggest it on User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA and we can see what the best format is. Peter 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks great. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

41.191.235.34 (talk · contribs)

I've removed this report from WP:AIV, as I don't feel comfortable blocking without more evidence that the edits are actually vandalism. Did you do those spot checks you mentioned? If you can show the edits are false, then I'll have no problem applying a fairly lengthy block, as this type of editing is particularly disruptive. Peter 13:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly suspicious but you're right. I'll review those when I have more time. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Grand Prix

Hello dummy the Spanish flag and the German flag and the British Flags are not the flags for Europe they are the flags for Britain Span and Germany, you Wally Europe flag is the flag for Europe.--Somali123 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That is barely comprehensible. All I know is you're changing the "country" section from Germany to Europe. Europe is, at the time, a continent, not a country. You also seem to be allergic to edit summaries, which are useful when you're placing "Europe" in the field that is for nation-states. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it only changes it to the right flag which some user decided they were going to change on every article I am simply doing what someone else did who is wrong. You have to correct things that are wrong.--Somali123 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, you're changing it to the EU flag, of which some European countries are not... but I have 0 interest of getting into those issues. You need to go to the appropriate talk page, or Grand Prix project page, and get a consensus, then use an edit summary, and comprehensible language, and explain why you're changing a "country" field to a non country. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You cant warn me about an Edit war when you are the other editor so I now warn you about being in an edit war with me.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Somali123 (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't undone you since our discussion, but you keep undoing all of my edits after we've had the above discussion. How about you use an edit summary and seek some consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rajinikanth

Good call. I was trying to dissect those date issues until I saw your fix. That article's been constantly vandalized for at least the last 2 months. Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It could certainly use some more references as it is currently hard to verify most statements in the article. But at the very least the birth date change issue should be solved for now, as i found a reference for it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's great. The birthdate vandalism on Indian articles is pervasive, but I'm often reluctant to undo it because I have no context. This one seemed like a clear example, and you cleared up not only the issue on the vandalism edits but the underlying factual issue. Most of these Indian film articles have massive referencing issues, it's incredibly impressive you were able to verify what you have. Thank you again. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned comment added by 98.215.85.137

Shadowjams, you changed what i wrote about Indiana being an imposter state. It most certainly is an imposter to Illinois, and also Larry Bird did in fact live in Indiana. Jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.85.137 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope Shadowjams doesn't mind me interrupting on their talk page but I just wanted to say that I too would also have reverted this edit. You've removed content without explaining why, and the sentence saying "Larry Bird also known as Fairy Turd" (something like that!) looks very suspect, it's almost looking as an attack on someone as it is looking like name calling --5 albert square (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

08:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And again...

Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Huggle use

This bizarre revert led to an angry email from someone connected with the school, and rightly so. Please be more careful with your use of Huggle in the future.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Not sure why I did that. It was a while back so I don't remember specifically. I didn't read that bottom section closely enough, which was a hint as to the problem. I was patrolling from the back of the queue (the 3 minute difference between edits) and so I only saw the second diff. That second one isn't as obvious as the first, although there is a clue in that bottom comment. I probably saw the removal of the reference template and lack of explanation. Sorry for the trouble. I've removed the warning to the IP and added warnings to the 2 accounts that made those changes, which are SPAs that each have one edit. Shadowjams (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Template

Hey There....I don't think there is an actual rule on this, but a general thing we do, but I think the {{resolved}} template goes on the top of the section in question under the header so it is more visible. Again, I don't think there is a rule, but wanted to let you know. Take Care and Have a Good Day...NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's a lot of unspoken (or maybe just buried) rules at ANI that I think are pretty silly, but I guess good to know. Between the done, resolved, and all the other similar green checkmark templates, who knows. Thanks for the heads up. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at Lerdthenerd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

08:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Barnes

Please see the article talk page before reverting again. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And then consider rescinding the warnings you left the newbie. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a brand new editor created a page, it had a speedy tag placed on it. An IP removed it without explanation. It was undone, since most IPs that swoop in on new pages only to remove CSD tags are actually the page creators logged out.

That's the general case. In your case though, your first edit was to remove a CSD template (this was about less than 10 hours ago) from another similar article, 10.5:Apocalypse. You then made a couple of COI warning templates (your 3rd and 4th edits), all within 5 minutes of your first edit.

So, I don't believe for a second you're a newbie... and in fact that history makes me all the more suspicious about your CSD removals. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "newbie" referred to this guy. Nonetheless, it looks weird. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I nommed it because the whole thing looks weird. Could use some more eyes on the other linked articles too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Wow, you're just so wrong on so many levels. An explanation for removal of the CSD tag was left on the article talk page, which the edit summary clearly stated. My first edit was to redirect a new article to the previously existing one, hardly an incorrect edit. Finally, who said I was a newbie? IP does not equal vandal 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion at the AfD page. I copied that comment here.

Actually Hqb tagged it for speedy (because it was a virtual copy), and then the above IP removed that speedy... after that the creator continued to mess with it, at some point flagging huggle (mostly because it removed 3 paragraphs of sourced info), which I undid. I did that two more times until investigating further, leading us to where we are. I never actually touched the article until after the 69 ip removed the CSD tag from another editor, and XLinkBot was triggered by the editor's removal. Just for context on the above IP's comments.

Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned contribution by 12.73.20.87 (talk)

Thank god for the thought police!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.20.87 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, adding "you win, jack ass" 2x times to a private enterprises website is the epitome of freedom. Anyone who fixes that is a facist. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits from MakingItRight0429 (talk · contribs)

Why would you re edit Tony Deniro? It is a fake page you dumb fuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by MakingItRight0429 (talk • contribs)

Aside from having to make your comment fit here ( AT THE BOTTOM, IT'S QUITE CLEAR ), and you calling me a dumb fuck, it looks like you're just blanking pages. We have ample criteria to deal with fake pages, but none of them involving calling people a dumb fuck and blanking pages. Shadowjams (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(no I'm not stalking you :P)The personal attacks need to stop; however, I took the whole thing to AfD. I don't know what to do with it; you might wanna chime in. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:The Legacy

Some people are a little AfD trigger happy on here, esp with sujects they may not know as well, Personally I try to stick to topics I know well when placing AfD's unless blatent. Generally [[college newspaper] articles are considered notable. Here's a list of more articles for you- List of student newspapers in the United States of America. Bhockey10 (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, and I've responded there. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Bugzilla (pin-pong)

Please apologize for the inconvenience, Bugzilla page seems pin-pong game, undo/redo/redo... [Revision history of Bugzilla]. I will start my holidays tomorrow and I'm not capable to do that myself, and neither I want to seem a moderator doing it myself. Thanks .--Rbuj (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The praise is yours, and it's well deserved. Shadowjams (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning or notifying a user without reverting yourself?

Hello! I was looking at your note on User_talk:24.85.135.149. You notified the IP-adress for this edit in the NHL 11 article that he/she made, but why didn't you revert the edit by yourself then? 2 hours later I detected the edit and reverted it with an explanation. Thank you. /Heymid (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Sometimes I warn before reverting because either the situation isn't clear, the editor is new, or some other permutation. Some of what I do with the vandalism patrol is instinct, and I get it wrong sometimes, occasionally the tools get it wrong. Most AV patrollers deal with volume, and frankly I'm almost more amazed I'm being chastized for something I didnt't do than for something I did. No hard feelings, and I hope you'll join the effort, because we need more good, observant people. Thank you for your note, and let me know if I can help in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Help is always needed! /HeyMid (contributions) 10:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA question

Hi Shadowjams. :) I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question. Do you want me to compare these three reasons for deletion? Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for responding directly. I'd just like to hear you discuss copyright in lieu of images, an understandably difficult topic, but in light of the relevant wiki criteria. Sorry to sound too academic. I'd just like to know what you think about copyright in the abstract, and as applied. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, please feel free to graft my clarification here onto any answer you provide. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I think I understand. I'll try to answer your question tonight. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm much less important than I try to sound. I have immense respect for your contributions in any event. If I ask questions at RfA it's a macabre combination of curiosity, sport, and real interest. I think that's the best approach for any would-be admin. Good luck. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. :) Sorry for bothering you once more but I'm having a hard time coming up with a good answer to your question. Is this at all what you are looking for, or am I way off:

"I think the copyright policy is among our most important policies and I do my best to apply it. One of the reasons that I want to become an admin is that I would be able to protect the copyright of others more efficiently than I have before. Copyright tags are very important when it comes to protecting someone’s work. For example, if it’s a non-free image and there's no information on the copyright, one might assume that it has been released under a free license. That could cause damage to both the creator of the work and persons that reuse it thinking it was free (if they use it to the extent that it infringes the reproduction right of the owner). Personally I think a copyright tag should be a requirement (i.e. you can’t continue without adding one) when you upload an image, free or non-free, just to assure that nothing like this happens. Although there might be a good reason I’m missing to why it’s not like that. All I know is that I’ve added tons of copyright tags to non-free images that the uploader have forgotten to include."

Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right, my question was unclear. Substantial similarity is a copyright term, but I think you're right, it's not exactly what I'm asking about. I changed the question to a much simpler, more relevant version of what I was getting at. Sorry for being so verbose. Shadowjams (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I wasn't aware of that term. No wonder I didn't understand. :) I'm going to bed soon, though, so you'll have to wait for an answer until tomorrow. I hope that's okay! Cheers, Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 06:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salty Boatr

You wrote

SaltyBoatr is one of the most principled editors I've seen, opposing edits that would, from my opinion, appeal to his/her view because they don't meet wiki standards. The discussions I've seen on the 2nd amendment talk page appear to be civil, but they're not the place to debate the merits, they're a place to discuss additions and those sources. Find the sources that say these things and it's not a problem... but this disruptive pattern of editing is a problem. There are a lot of people that want to improve these articles, and the irony is that I don't think this is at all an ideological debate, but rather an issue over procedure. So please... just discuss on this level, and provide sources, whose merit can then be discussed. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My response

I again would like to point out that the current freeze on the Second Amendment article is due to SaltyBoatr engaging in and edit war with multiple 3rr violations. An edit war which I had no part in. If you wish to complain about disruptive editing you should bitch at SaltyBoatr, not at me. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)