User talk:Shadowjams

Welcome!

Please start new threads at the bottom of the page.

Thanks for the welcome

The welcome message is appreciated, but I'm not particularly a new user! I've been editing for around 2 to 3 months, and have been signed up since December last year.

Thanks all the same. RWJP (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that, but you also had never had a talk page edit, which seemed odd given your activity. So I figured I'd give you a concise one to start it off, and see, as I did, what your response might be.

Of course, good to have you here. I like your work. Shadowjams (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, fair enough. Didn't mean to come off rude or anything, just surprised to s get a welcome message out of the blue! RWJP (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

not received as rude at all. Shadowjams (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, and cheers for the compliment on my work, i've tried my best to help out! RWJP (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{Talkback|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients}}

Please explain Internet Relay Chat services in this edit [1]

--Tothwolf (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. Shadowjams (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. Why did you include that article in your comment on that AfD? It isn't a "comparison" article and it doesn't seem to make sense to have it in that list. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Looks like a mistake. Feel free to remove that one. I don't think it will confuse anyone though. Shadowjams (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to strike it out then, I can't remove your text in that AfD as it is too political due to the nom and his "friend" having wikistalked me for months. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I already did that, but who cares? It's not part of the deletion discussion. I just added the note so others would have context. I haven't even commented for keep or delete either way, not to mention the AfD seems like a quick keep. Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that AfD seemed pretty obvious to me too. My main issue is the continued wikistalking and harassment. The nom has AfD'd at least two more articles since he AfD'd that one (one is the mobile clients comparison article). --Tothwolf (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes

I've presented evidence there that this is a notable intersection which you may want to consider. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello. I noticed you'd removed blue links in some dab page entries. In cases where there are red links we should leave one "navigable" blue link so as to provide the reader at least one choice to explore further. There is a lot to know about those types of pages. Thought I'd let u know. Dawnseeker2000 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Which one was it? I had that problem in the past but I thought I'd fixed it. If you let me know which one it was I'll take a look and see if I can update my regexes accordingly. Shadowjams (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I should've mentioned it. The TCP dab page was the one. Have a good weekend! Dawnseeker2000 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it now. It's TCP. It's a hard problem to fix actually because there's no way (that I know of) in AWB to have it test if the link is a redlink when doing the find/replaces, so the only way to catch it is to look manually, and occasionally I miss them. It wouldn't be a problem if the entry was already formatted correctly, since there shouldn't be redlinks in there anyway (unless the article's very likely to get created soon), but if people followed the MoS then I wouldn't have to be doing this in the first place. Shadowjams (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The red links are OK sometimes. If there is another page that links to that red link item (other than the dab page itself) then it meets the threshold for inclusion. Anyhow, good work. Dawnseeker2000 04:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned about the redundancy created in the "symphony #" disambiguation pages. For example, "Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 in A major (Ludwig van Beethoven)." But not concerned enough to actually do anything about it. James470 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. I was just following the DAB rules. That set of pages is already problematic because it has links to both the composer and the symphony itself. I didn't remove the composer links because it would have orphaned the redlink ones (more than a few) and I figured doing the pipe removal was a compromise between the two. But I see your point about the redundancy now. I similarly don't feel strongly either way.

After staring at it for a minute I think your point's a good one. I've rolled them all back. I'm still a little uncomfortable with the layout of those pages. I don't think we should have both links to the composers and the symphony (it outright violates Manual of style) and it makes the entries muddled, especially since there's no unliked character (other than a space) between the two different links. That's the kind of confusion the disambiguation style is an attempt to avoid. But I'm not going to change those for now. Shadowjams (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could remove the composer links for those symphonies that have their own articles and keep them for the others. James470 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent disobedience

hi. so thanx for welcoming me. my tanks. so you are aso having my article deletion. i dont get it

Let's discuss it at the AfD page above. Shadowjams (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, but i dont see why you want to delte this. its important.