User talk:Shadowjams: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 8d) to User talk:Shadowjams/Archive 1. |
No edit summary |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
::::Unfortunately I have learned that these casual discussions can be DANGEROUS. |
::::Unfortunately I have learned that these casual discussions can be DANGEROUS. |
||
::::New "Wikipedia legal fictions and contradictions" editors will never, ever admit they are watching your page. :) I believe though--just realized this '''general''' contradiction too. :) [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] 14:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
::::New "Wikipedia legal fictions and contradictions" editors will never, ever admit they are watching your page. :) I believe though--just realized this '''general''' contradiction too. :) [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] 14:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Help I don;t know what is going on== |
|||
Feel free to delete this because I did not know how to email you, but it says I altered an article on Mercedes Beinze or something but I did not do it, I swear, I may not know how to email but I am not a novice and I would never put something like that down so if you see any weird activity on this account feel free to say it and Ill make a new one or something. |
Revision as of 23:59, 20 December 2009
Welcome!
Please start new threads at the bottom of the page.
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
As the nom, I feel I have to talk to you personally. This article might need to be de-listed for now. The problem, as far I as I can see (and as you pointed out), is that her article needs far more work to establish her personal notability. I think it best to wait to see if this can actually be achieved in the article. Cablespy (here) has actually cut out a substantial amount recently (tagging as: no sources for this paragraph. may be defamatory). Also, my discussions with Opus33 aren't going too well: I actually feel as if he is being at least uncivil if not actually personally attacking me. Have I actually warranted his comments? Have I misconstrued him? I hope I have been civil back? I'm pretty annoyed any way and need someone to talk to. Please tell me politely to go away if I am out of line. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
We've dealt with this personally, now, and have accepted each other's sincere apologies. However, your feed back on de-listing would be appreciated (on both AfD talkpages). --Jubilee♫clipman 02:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll try to help in whatever way I can. You may have noticed I'm not an admin, and even if I were, I couldn't close an AfD I started (I'd prefer to have an admin close it anyway at this point), but I imagine the two AfDs will close soon.
- I haven't read the discussion for a few days--right now, what is the general consensus on the two? Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your offer. Actually I'm still getting to grips with the "heirarchy" at WP, even after a year or so here. Anyway, our disagreement is now resolved.
- Both articles have been re-listed, with the request to clarify each editor's present position. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey
That needs to be there, it's me logged out, please don't remove it. Izzedine 08:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Dealt with. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks shadow. Izzedine 09:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Shaun Quinlan (ice hockey)
Shaun Quinlan (ice hockey) Labeled the article a stub, looks like it fits that category and that will allow it to be expanded upon. And from taking a few quick moments to look in the Category:United States ice hockey biography stubs, one of the first names I clicked on was Jason Saal who never played a single game in the NHL and plays for some lower International "AA" league team. With that being said, this article deserves to be saved as a stub so it can be expanded upon in the event information becomes available via hockey archives. Bladezuvsteel (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Valid points. Contribute them to the AfD. I've often changed my mind. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You sent me this message on December 17th. Give this great athlete a place on Wikipedia that will always be there with the opportunity to absorb peoples contributions and grow. Bladezuvsteel (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be so great Shadowjams if you could save this article as a stub and take off the "article considered for deletion" tag which you placed on it. This would allow people the opportunity to search hockey archives and databases to help expand it. There is information out there, it just has to be found. There are many hockey players on Wikipedia that never made the NHL and played in affiliate leagues etc. I strongly feel this hockey player is a quality addition to Wikipedia as a stub especially when many other stubs don't contain much of anything. This article is a link to the Golden Age of hockey and one of the best college hockey teams in the world and there is more quality material and photographs that have yet to be added to it. I ask you to save it as a stub and allow it to have the opportunity over time to grow like so many others on this great project. Thank you Shadowjams & God Bless you, Bladezuvsteel (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Shadowjams, I've been very busy as of late and haven't had a lot of time to research, although I have some old hockey friends who have some memorabillia (AHL team photos etc.) that could be added to Wikimedia Commons and linked to this article. Just have to track them down. To at least have this article saved as a stub we would be honored with. Therefore the article would always be there anybody to contribute to it and make it better. Let me know & thank you again for your understanding.
Bladezuvsteel (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
A serious vandalism you give the last warning to the IP/user? --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 10:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're talking about. Tell me what article you're referring to for starters. Shadowjams (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- In the Huggle you give a IP the 3rd level of vandalism, why? Becose the Ip did a serious vandalism? --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 10:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you're referring to Apollon Limassol, and that I warned a user with a level 3, although it was that user's first edit. I see you followed up, not only giving a L4 but, I think, reporting that user. If this is at issue, I did that edit because another user from the same domain, location, etc., made very very similar edits earlier on the same series of articles. I strongly suspected some connection. That's my explanation. You don't seem to disagree that user is making vandalism edits. My intuition, which isn't new, was validated. I appreciate your concern, but I'd rather we both spend our time on vandalism patrol. It's an important part of the project. Shadowjams (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- In the Huggle you give a IP the 3rd level of vandalism, why? Becose the Ip did a serious vandalism? --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 10:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Only I ask you the question... In the spanish wiki it's diferent. --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what you mean, but I think it's typical to afford some leeway to experienced vandalism patrollers to things they find fishy. After all, somebody signs off on any block, and in that case it's only temporary, in most cases extremely short. I've been doing this for quite a while, and I think it looks like you have too. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving a stronger warning to vandals that are either strongly associated with another identity that's already vandalized and/or been warned, or with vandals that are well beyond simple mistakes, and are clearly aware of policy but vandalizing anyway.
My general theory on vandal patrolling is to give the benefit of the doubt to the experienced patroller when it comes to warnings, give editors that respond to warnings in person a tremendous vote of good faith, and to also give short blocks to most editors that after warnings, and good faith, are still making problem edits. The editors that don't need short blocks are the editors that are clearly the same, whether on the same IP (often) or a different one, that continue to do almost exactly the same thing as before after being warned and being blocked. Those blocks should escalate, and should be strong. It's a classic 80/20 rule. 20 percent of editors do 80% of the work, and 20% also make 80% of the problem.
Whether you agree with my huggle approach, no hard feelings. I appreciate anyone taking their time to do vandalism patrolling. I think we're an under-appreciated part of the project, that is critically important. If I can help you in the future, please let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Opps?
RE: My user page.
No harm, no foul I guess. :) Ikip 10:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Damn you're quick. :) Shadowjams (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do I have the privilege of considering you one of my centijimbos? It is unnerving to see that I have 187 editors watching my page, (up from 181 a couple of days ago). Based on the history of my talk page, many of these editors are not out for my best interest here on wikipedia :( If you are watching my page, it will make me feel 1/187th better :) FYI, you have 32 WP:centijimbos in comparison.[1] Ikip 11:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- WTF. 32 people watching my page?! Sorry to worry/disappoint. I'm not watching your page. I remember being freaked out when the page watching was caped at 30, and i somehow fell below it... but I guess I'm stalkable. I'm going to hope most of my page stalking friend are Australian high schoolers bored during their free hours, or weird, or my friends, or all three. Shadowjams (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you disappointed only 32 people are watching your page? I can start a watch User:Shadowjams's page drive. ;-)
- I just invited editors to edit my user page. Last time I invited editors to edit something I was working on, it led to the admin being desopyed. Once bitten, twice shy. I will my comments here at that.
- Unfortunately I have learned that these casual discussions can be DANGEROUS.
- New "Wikipedia legal fictions and contradictions" editors will never, ever admit they are watching your page. :) I believe though--just realized this general contradiction too. :) Ikip 14:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- WTF. 32 people watching my page?! Sorry to worry/disappoint. I'm not watching your page. I remember being freaked out when the page watching was caped at 30, and i somehow fell below it... but I guess I'm stalkable. I'm going to hope most of my page stalking friend are Australian high schoolers bored during their free hours, or weird, or my friends, or all three. Shadowjams (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do I have the privilege of considering you one of my centijimbos? It is unnerving to see that I have 187 editors watching my page, (up from 181 a couple of days ago). Based on the history of my talk page, many of these editors are not out for my best interest here on wikipedia :( If you are watching my page, it will make me feel 1/187th better :) FYI, you have 32 WP:centijimbos in comparison.[1] Ikip 11:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Help I don;t know what is going on
Feel free to delete this because I did not know how to email you, but it says I altered an article on Mercedes Beinze or something but I did not do it, I swear, I may not know how to email but I am not a novice and I would never put something like that down so if you see any weird activity on this account feel free to say it and Ill make a new one or something.