User talk:Shadowjams

Welcome!

Please start new threads at the bottom of the page.

Snana Yatra

i hope you read thru the introduction i.e the first few lines before tagging the article on Snana Yatra about lacking an intro or lead (Sidsahu (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

It is unclear what Snana Yatra is. At best, after reading the entire article, I gather that it is a festival. It's unclear when the festival is (dates), why it exists, and what its name is. The "lead" of the article right now only has a reference to the "Bathing Festival". I guess that's what Snana Yatra says, but it doesn't say that.

To fix it, you need to have Snana Yatra in bold in the first sentence, explaining what it is. The best way is to pretend you have no idea, or context, for anything on the topic. Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC) (Copied from (talk)).

your changes are accurate and make reading smoother than what i wrote. It is a bathing festival of idols of the hindu gods of jagannath cult, held as per a lunar calendar , purnima is the date of jyestha month. thats why i have put internal links as the relation between the hindu calendar and gregorian calendar is not fixed. i am adding a bit more to make it clearer i hope (Sidsahu (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Re: Sockpuppetry

First up, I'll refer you here to read the policy on blocking users.

As I said on the user page of the most recent anonymous IP address being used by Fodient, whether or not the edits are legitimate is not the issue. He's been blocked from editing. That's his punishment for whatever he's done to disrupt Wikipedia. If he's allowed to edit anyway, it's not very much of a punishment, is it? -Dewelar (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Risking being too direct, the second sentence of the blocking policy says Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. It is not much of a punishment, and that is the point. This particular edit seems to be constructive, which is the point. Tell me if I'm missing the big picture with this user. If, for example, the category he's using has been disreputed, that would be relevant. But a player with a doping category seems ok. (Duplicated on talk Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. That was a bit of a flippant response on my part, but keep in mind that I've been dealing with this user literally all night.

So, let's approach it from the idea of containing damage. Assuming you've read Fodient's talk page, you have seen a fairly extensive history of damage-causing behavior, including the addition of copyrighted material to pages and the inclusion of uncited malicious rumors on biography pages, both pretty solid no-nos. However, since his block, he has engaged in further disruptive behavior. While block evasion and sockpuppetry might be considered somewhat meta-disruptive, he has also resorted to personal attacks on the admin who banned him. See the edit summary here for an example. So, I'd say he's shown that if he's allowed to continue editing, he will continue to behave in a disruptive manner, and that is what we want to prevent from happening.

Does that make a bit more sense? -Dewelar (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I completely understand your exasperation. It's a bit of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and I understand the temptation completely. Excuse my flippancy too. I'd seen these doping tags all night and I thought this might be removed by a big fan. Let me know if I can help with this user's disruptions in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is that, a bit. It gets to the point where, when you're dealing with a vandal like this person, everything they do becomes tainted by their past behavior, so it's maybe best to just undo whatever they've done. If it's relevant, someone else will come along and re-add it.

The categories are also redundant, given that, for instance, Tom Evans (baseball) is already in the category Category:Baseball players suspended for drug offenses, so does he really also need to be in a doping cases category as well?

As for how to help...well, if it's something that's major, or if it's a person who's already been warned repeatedly (like this person), sometimes the best thing to do is just to file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Usually that gets a response pretty quickly. However, you really shouldn't do that unless it's an urgent issue.

On a smaller scale, there's a whole bunch of other information over at Wikipedia:Vandalism, including guidance on what to do about different types of vandalism, and warning templates you can add to people's talk pages if you see them doing something that's out of line. Feel free to ask me any questions, too. -Dewelar (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Texas Silesian

Why are you putting this template? I've given the resources. Timpul my talk 10:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The resources show up now. Thanks for your work on the article. Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In use tag

Hi! How long do you plan to edit the R. Venkataraman page? The inuse is meant as a notice for people who wish to edit the page and avoid edit conflicting with other users. Please remove the tag if you're not editing the article. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I took care of it. Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My first article

Thank you for taking the time to write me.

It's exciting to be a part of the Wiki-community. A quick question, there are a few articles/pages I would like to start that I think are world relevant (people/places), but I'm not an expert, should I hold off on doing a page until I am, or maybe it would be acceptable to add it as a stub? I understand the need for expert fact giving and I will not adding anything that doesn't meet the Wiki "reliable sources" guidelines.

Again, thank you for taking the time to work with a newbe. Also, I added more detailed references to the Anders Stone page (correct Wiki nomenclature, "Article?")

Hans Schlemmer (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

a little help

Hello shadowjams.

My apologies for having attached myself to you as my guide in the Wiki world. I promise to keep this short and my questions in the future to a minimum. I would like to write a page about a knife maker in Japan named Shinichi Watanabe. While he is not famous, he is known in chef's/cook's circles as a first rate, custom knife maker. He is relatively young and this could in theory appear to be some kind of self aggrandizement/promotion. I know the subject well and he is one of the few left doing things in an old fashioned way. Most everything I know of him is from the web and not from any substantiated news sources (newspapers/books, etc). I have personally ordered knives from him and can attest to his craftsmanship. I'm on the fence as to him qualifying under the "notability of individuals." How should I proceed, if at all?

Thank you for your time. Hans Schlemmer (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Liliomfi

Not sure why you tagged this for a speedy under A7, as this applies to people. I've removed the tag, as the film is clearly notable. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I mistook the film for a personal plug for a director. Articles that are focused on an individual may qualify as an A7 for that individual despite being ostensibly about another topic. For the creator of an article to remove a CSD tag, no matter how erroneous, so long as in good faith, is a violation of CSD policy. I won't replace the tag, but please do not remove CSD tags you do not agree with in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Passive smoking NPOV Tags

Please note that this article is subjected to repeated attacks by anons and SPAs, which do not constitute a real disptute. My fourth revert was clearly the removal of an edit done by an new anon, which I identified as vandalism (I checked the Talk page of the IP). Reading the 3RR ruled, I concluded (before doing the edit) that this was an acceptable edit. If you think I was wrong, please explain. --Dessources (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New Alaska geo-stubs

Hi Shadowjams - good to see a few new stub articles about places in Alaska. A quick suggestion, though - if you make any more, could you please add {{Alaska-geo-stub}} rather than just {{geo-stub}} (all countries and a lot of subnational regions like states have their own geo-stub templates)? Not a biggie, but it saves a little work further down the line. Cheers, and keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Didn't know the stub existed.Shadowjams (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Inspiration

Would you please explain to me why you thought this is an attack page? It's more like a fan-admiring essay than an attack. And Ben Cousins lists the drug addiction, so it's not unsourced negative BLP either. Regards SoWhy 10:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Gladly. I'm actually quite surprised you removed the CSD tag. If the G10 is at all controversial a CSD:A7 is not, when looking at the article I tagged. This is an unsourced article by an otherwise new user (from a non-admin perspective) that declares a particular individual had a drug problem. They applaud this person's recovery, but that doesn't matter from a defamation perspective. As you point out this individual is notable and does have an article where the drug issue is addressed. I was unaware of that. The article I tagged had no link, and as far as I knew the individual was not notable.

Thank you for your discretion. This article should be merged into the primary article you referenced. My apologies for mistaking a personal essay for an attack. However, I am quite familiar with surreptitious attempts to disparage individuals and I take those attempts seriously. In addition, this article, as you acknowledged when you tagged it, is not particularly notable. I understand your role as an admin is to be more conservative than mine is as a tagger. I appreciate your consideration and discretion. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, I understand why you tagged it now. Well, it's a unique case I guess, so the surprise affects us both. Let's just take the prod take care of it. And keep up the page patrolling, gods know it's needed :-) SoWhy 11:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vector soliton

I am the person who creates this articleVector soliton.

Because vector solitons are rather are ubiquitous and generic in the entire field of nonlinear systems, it should be very interesting to edit this concept in this famous website: wiki. However, as I am only a foreign student with poor English, this website is not well prepared. However, I promise that I would improve this website as best as I can. I am not intending to advise something in this website but just want to introduce the basic concept of wiki. So due to my limited knowledge on vector solitons, I could only dare to introduce our works on vector solitons. But I hope other researchers on vector solitons would try to improve this and make more people know about what vector solitons are. Please give me more time on improving this and I would try to clarify something inappropriate. Wish you could reconsider after a second thought as i have deleted and added something alread.

PS:I have rewrote the articles and hope you could give me another chance!

best regards,Vectorsoliton (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the deletion discussion, I simply nominated the page and do not have, nor ever did, control over its final disposition. I appreciate now that the subject is notable, however I believe the article as written borrows too heavily from other sources in too direct a manner, and also is unintelligible given the complicated subject matter. Wikipedians have their differences on what the valid criteria are for deletion when it comes to these issues, and I of course respect the outcome that occurs in the deletion discussion. My suggestion is to improve the article's readability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Regarding this, please note that speedy deletion tags may be removed by anyone other than the article creator, as explained in the text of the tag and at WP:CSD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-read the policy and realized that you're correct. However I would note that being a founding editor of a trade journal is not sufficient to establish notability. That said, I've done quite a bit of cleanup on that particular article and I do not think it needs to be deleted at this time. Shadowjams (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Business Analysis Body of Knowledge

Would you mind providing some pointers on the tags you've add to this article?

This article is not strictly about a book, but about a body of knowledge (or BOK), which has been developed over a number of years with input from hundreds of professional business analysts and project managers, and in line with other similar bodies of knowledge is managed by the professional association that publishes the guide to it. Similar examples with articles on Wikipedia are those for Software Engineering managed by the IEEE Computer Society; Civil Engineering managed by the American Society of Civil Engineers; and the most similar would be Project Management managed by the Project Management Institute.

The latter article, for the PMBOK, has very similar content to this, so I would like to understand how to lift this article up to an acceptable standard. Any general comments would be welcomed. Specifically, with respected to the tags you added:

Notability

This BOK is recognised by the PMI, BCS and other bodies (as well as the IIBA itself) and referenced in cited publications. How could this notability be better represented?

Citations

A number of citations have been included. How many would be considered enough? Would a 'Further reading section help (like the PMBOK has).

Subjective promotion (Peacock)

I have tried to reduce some of the supposed subjectivity? Please let me know if this is sufficient, or what else might be considered Peacockiness.

Thanks. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond directly. The article is about a book, as are all the other guides you cited, but that's not a bad thing. I've updated some of the tagging as per your suggestions. I think what's left to be done is to cleanup the list of red links and to add sources from other sources. My only concern is the breadth of the sources cited. Thank you for clearing this up for me. Shadowjams (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for approving the updated introduction (by removing the peacock and notability tags) and pointing out where more effort is required to improve the remainder of the article. I will look into this over the next couple of days. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing the updates I have now made in response to your tag to wikify the knowledge areas for the BABOK? Hopefully they are up to scratch now. and not just a list of terms which I had made links in the hope they would connect with underlying articles. I will address the separate citations tag next week. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the wikify tag ... now for the citations. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your PGP Box

Hey, I noticed your PGP box. I've been trying to get my SHA-512 key to be able to show. What's the tag code for it? --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 08:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Always glad to help someone with crypto interests. I'm not sure though if you're wondering about the pgp box or the identity commit boxes since they're different but have overlapping purposes. The identity commit template is: {{User committed identity|PUT HASH HERE|SHA-512}}. With a 512 hash it tends to scroll the screen, so most people do something to size it down. I don't actually have one up, but I'm familiar with them (the PGP key is an equally adequate identifier).

I fought with the PGP boxes for quite a while, but what I have working on my user page right now seems to work pretty well. I wanted to include the key on the actual page, as putting in another website ref introduces another point of failure. Try this format:

{{PGPkey |keyid=PUT HEX OFFSET KEY ID HERE |pubkey=PUT PGP KEY HERE INCLUDING CARRIAGE RETURNS }}

I think I've seen other users include key fingerprints this way, but of course that doesn't provide any extra security. I'd check out the template format for more details. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong guy

User:3masonmusic has posted a load of crap but had nothing to do with SKWOD. And I don't see anybody removing tags from SKWOD. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Got my vandals mixed up. Sorry. I'll fix the edits if you haven't already. Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Health Movement

I added some references to People's Health Movement You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Health Movement. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that, and it certainly changes my opinion of the original article. I'll add a comment to the afd. I'm inclined to let everything play out, but thank you for your contribution. Shadowjams (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DDR3 SDRAM contradictions resolved.

See if that fixes the problems. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I put what was in the comment into the article. I don't know a lot about DDR3... that's why I ended up at the article in the first place, but everything I read said there was a reduction in latency, including the latter parts of the article. So yes, your explanation fixes things (although what was written there, that there is no reduction, is apparently wrong). I put it into the text. Tell me if there's a mistake in my execution. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm..

Did you mean to place a CSD tag on Papa Roach? I removed it because I think it was an accident. Killiondude (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. I meant to put it on the insane redirect... Papa Roach's, that wholesale copied the page. Thanks for the catch. Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Pasternak‎

The source used by the article was a press release from Pasternak‎'s lawyers. If we have the comment carried by reliable sources third party sources, then perhaps. But WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately " (emph added). -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I was agreeing with your removal, so you don't have to justify it to me, but you're still wrong about who the source was from. It wasn't from his lawyers. It was from seeking alpha, and you summarized the edit as "After Knight Trading: a press release from Pasternak's lawyers is not valid source for WP:PEACOCK language". I think you just didn't notice the reference with the seeking alpha site before the reference with the law firm site.

Also, it is not an explicit policy to remove all sources that come from a client's law firm, particularly when they state facts about the disposition of a case. WP:RS does not indicate party-affiliated sources cannot be moved. In fact, it provides explicit guidelines for when its inclusion is appropriate (WP:SELFPUB). Also, the WP:BLP policy has two parts for removal of facts from a BLP: 1) the fact has to be unsourced or poorly sourced, and 2) the source must not be "written by the subject of the BLP". In this case, it was written by [presumably] his lawyers. Either his lawyers stand in his shoes, and so it fails #1 (because it's poorly sourced by virtue of not being sufficiently second-party, a contention which isn't cut and dried) but meets #2 (because it's written by his represenatatives), or it doesn't fail #1 but does fail #2 (a strange place to be). Shadowjams (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of Internet Relay Chat daemons

This update wasn't vandalism [1] --Tothwolf (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD — Lower Rents Now Coalition

(I hope this isn't too cheeky to ask on your talk page). Hi, I see you commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lower_Rents_Now_Coalition. You had concerns about whether there were it met WP:RS (and probably also WP:NOTE). I have tried to alleviate your concerns that there is more than a "simple mention in a paper" by, in part, showing repeated, longer-than-simple mentions in a regional paper with large coverage for a Scottish daily. I'm curious whether you consider such suitable. Thanks. Nicol (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Congress Matters

Oi, mate, hey- no worries in that thread, and yeah, I'm sure "banjeboi" wasn't referring to you or Schumin. A bunch of drama going on over there, it's pretty sad. Anyway, but thanks for your support in the CM thread, it's much obliged. I'm still fairly new to this Wikipedia thing- do these sorts of shenanigans go on all the time? Ks64q2 (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

heh, yes and no. I try to avoid political discussions if possible. But thanks for your help. Shadowjams (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Bréchignac

Hi mate, you placed {{single infobox request}} on this page that I'd just translated. That template appears to refer to music or songs, and I wonder if you meant to use a different template instead?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll stop now

After reeding your threat, I'll stop being a troll. Although to be fare, my edit on the articul "Critisims of Holocaust Denial" is my most constructive edit so far. Compared to my other flaming edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.203.166 (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting referenced information from articles

Please refrain from deleting referenced information from articles without even giving a reason. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.233.190 (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have once again decided to remove referenced information from the William Stewart page, and YET again you haven't even bothered to provide any justification for this. This is vandalism and if you continue I will be forced to report your behavior to the mods.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.233.190 (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are putting in a link-less reference on a disambiguation page for an individual who does not have a page. References are also not necessary on a disambiguation page. You should instead, create the page, then insert a link on the disambiguation page, without references. I'm unsure if the person you're adding is notable, but that issue should is resolved through normal article procedures, not as lines on disambig pages. Sorry for not explaining more clearly before, but please do not continue to add information in that manner. Instead, create the page, then go from there. Shadowjams (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Semi-protect on Lesley Visser

Ah, sorry. I added my comment in the wrong spot. I protected another article. Somebody did just protect the Lesley Visser article though, so we should be all set. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed what happened. No problem. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New stubs

Hi Shadowjams -good to see a load of new stubs on US lakes. One request, though - could you please use {{StateName-geo-stub}} (e.g., {{RhodeIsland-geo-stub}}, {{Arizona-geo-stub}}) rather than just {{geo-stub}}? It'll save some work further down the track... cheers - and keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Shadowjams (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

6496 Kazuko

Hi Shadowjams.

Please check my edit, I've just removed some vandalism from 4chan users. --Felllow (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't realize your good edit among the others. Shadowjams (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I made the National Ballot Access article that was deleted. Please take a look at the Mike Arno article. He has only one reference and I honestly believe that Mike wrote it himself. He is a member of Philadelphia II. Please take a look at this and act accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.149.130 (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I merely commented at the National Ballot Access deletion debate. I don't have any special expertise or stake in any of the related articles. If you believe that the Arno article doesn't meet guidelines, you should feel free to nominate it for deletion. Looking at the NBO discussion, it looks like the principal objection, and mine at the time, was the lack of sources. Perhaps if you can find some news sources it could be recreated. I wish you luck. Shadowjams (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

May I ask why you tagged this for speedy deletion? That is a redirect created from a valid page move (I moved the page to have proper capitalization). Are you wanting to move the page back? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I have no idea about the move, and have no reason to oppose it. I just wanted housekeeping on the article since the wiki-engine handles capitalization differences and there's no need for a separate redirect page. I try to do this on pages I move. Shadowjams (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Then please don't use CSD G6; as far as I know, that template is for when you need to delete a page to move another page onto that title. Also, make sure to check "what links here" before having a page deleted; if you had looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Naming Laws in the People's Republic of China, you would see that several pages still link there and those links would have become redlinks. In general, on Wikipedia we do not need to worry about performance, so there is no need to get rid of redirects left over from moves; the best thing to do is tag then with {{R from other capitalization}}. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

symmetric key management

I was drawn to the articles because ofthe proposed merge notice. Once there I noticed that the article was written by someone who had some difficulty with the content, the structure, and English. I figured anything would be an improvement, and I had the time, so I went ahead. it's hardly complete as is, and has few or no references. Most of it is straightforward from first principles, but because computer security and crypto security are very context dependent, it's likely that references for and against most anything can be found. And on both sides there are many writers whose expertise is limited, though their confidence in their assertions is robust.

I'll try to remember to come back and keep up the work. As for 'directing' it, per your second thought comment on my talk page, this is a bit against WP individualism, except in visible forums, and in any case, my available time is limited and erratic. I suspect I'd be a lousy director, and would likely be a lousy directee as well. ww (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with directing a cleanup in the sense of creating lists, organization, etc. But you're right, "directing" is sort of a strange word to use--I'm not sure exactly what I meant. I found the article with issues similar to what you're describing and it definitely needs cleanup, but your improvements have been a great step in that direction. Shadowjams (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Leroy Jones

hello,
there is this anon bloke continuously changing the birthplace of Leroy Jones to Meridian, Missisippi, which I saw both of us have reverted already a few times
now I had a look at the link that he provided recently, which is a quite blurred scanned picture from a some 30 years old boxing magazine, but it indeed seems to indicate that Jones was born in Meridian
even though the anon bloke has some vandalism edits, he might possibly be right on this one. I try to crosscheck this with boxrec.com editors
regards,Gruen (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd noticed the deliberate factual errors from the IP, although I only recently realized they were limited to the Jones article.

This will need to be brought to light by adding some sources, which this editor has not done. I'm unclear where you've seen this blurred scanned photo. I recently added a citation from a boxing website. If there's some question over the source, that's fine, but this anon editor cannot just keep changing it without providing some information. This goes on all the time on WP and 99.9% of the time it's vandalism. If he provides some plausible evidence and discusses it, people will be more than willing to listen. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You can check the scanned picture here: http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-13159482790260_2046_6976650. Though it is blurred it can be seen that it is about the same Leroy Jones, and it indeed cites that he was born in Meridian. I posted a query to boxrec.com, which you linked to the article, and which is is definitely the best online boxing source available currently, but received no answer so far, so even though this new source is quite interesting, I think for the moment we have to stick to that Jones was born in NYC and living in Denver. I try to continue tracking this Meridian issue and will be back if I find anything new. Keep up the good work. Regards, Gruen (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Again the wrong guy

check the logs, I corrected the vandalism to Oklahoma City bombing that was found by ClueBot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.149.243 (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, you didn't. An anon IP added hee hee Hi Aurora waz here!!!!. Cluebot reverted it (which is bot that doesn't vandalize on its own accord). Then you reverted Cluebot, which added the vandalism back into the article. Then you removed your edit, removing the vandalism. I probably implemented the revert before your reversion went through. However, your IP did add in the vandalism, and you did not correct it (only corrected your own reinsertion of the vandalism). So no, I was not "again" going after the wrong guy. Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pfälzische Nordbahn

Hallo Shadowjams - thank your message - yes to use to deserve for conecting was a mistake, - a false friend from french - or medieval english , - actually no modern native englisch speaker can untderstand it ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Can't be too bad, everyone seems to know what was intended. Thanks for clearing it up. Shadowjams (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello - its just me again – as I am not an native speaker – perhaps you should check my last stub creations, interventions in the English Wikipedia ( = Pfälzische Nordbahn, Palatine Northern Railway Company, Schiltach-Schramberg railway,Schramberg, Herrschaft Schramberg, Camp de concentration d'Argelès-sur-Mer) . Easter Holidays will finish soon and I will not have the time to work more on wiki.en. Thanks Christophe Neff (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks. I went through the pages you linked and made some minor grammar changes in a few places, but otherwise they look great. Shadowjams (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Demanding apologies to presumed vandals

Queenstown Secondary School

Hello

Your "revert vandalism" edit has actually done the opposite. The text you have put back was in fact the vandalism (which I see was there for months!) The school motto really is Dare to Serve. (See the school's official website if you don't believe me.)

I think you owe 203.78.12.21 an apology! Alarics (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Chinese Junior College

Hello

You have reverted as alleged vandalism an edit (not by me) which added "Bowling" to the list of sports at this school. What made you think they don't do bowling there? They do -- see http://sites.acjc.edu.sg/wpress/?cat=25

I think you owe 220.255.7.228 an apology! Alarics (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to get your facts straight before you begin to demand apologies.

203.78.12.21 has a history of vandalism. The talk page indicates a number of recent, and not so recent warnings, and the IP was engaged in vandal-revert style vandalism at the time I made these edits. This user changed the principal on a number of schools to "George Bush". In a few cases the user changed them back to the original name, but not in all. This pattern of editing tests is considered vandalism.

The edit you're referring to here was in the middle of these vandalism edits, also to schools. In retrospect the other motto seems more appropriate, but given the context of this users' other edits, it was an easy mistake.

Incidentally, 12.21 had vandalized the second page too. Oh yeah, and 7.288's talk page has a long, and also recent, history of vandalism as well, along with a banner up top that says "Any further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate or extended block." Maybe you're unfamiliar with our policies, but adding unsourced factual information is a violation of policy. Largely this is because these sorts of edits are often the deliberate introduction of factual errors. Coming from IPs with long histories of vandalism, there's a limit to how much time a reasonable person will spend investigating the veracity of the edit.

7.255 added bowling to the article. Then 7.228's "undid" the reversion, according to the edit summary, but instead of removing, he adds bowling to another part of the article. An IP 3 steps away uses misleading edit summaries to change a substantive fact about the article. It not only adds bowling as a sport, but as a "powerhouse" in that sport. As you'll also notice, that 12.21, the other vandalizing editor had also been the only other recent editor. My response was not to revert using the auto vandal tagging tool, but to restore a previous version of the page. The bowling edit does still not have a citation. I suggest you add the one you found.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. If you want to point out my mistakes so I'll exercise more caution in the future, that's fine. Insofar as you've done that I thank you, and I will be more careful in the future. However, demanding apologies for other editors for minor revisions of suspected vandalism is just strange. Shadowjams (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That IP address in Singapore does indeed have a history of vandalism, but it seems pretty clear that it is probably a shared address (I would guess probably a cybercafe), not least because several other edits from there appear to have been perfectly reasonable edits in good faith. I'm all in favour of reverting vandalism, but you need to consider in each case whether it really is vandalism, not rush to slag off people who are probably acting in good faith, otherwise you discredit the whole process.

It might well be reasonable to block that IP, but if so, let's say that it's because of a general history of vandalism from that source, not accuse one particular edit of being vandalism when it is in fact easy to ascertain that it isn't vandalism.

As for citing references, do we really have to cite a separate reference for every different sport that is played at a school? That particular article gives the school's official website as an external link, and all such information is easily checked there. You may think that is not an independent source, but a school is hardly going to say it has bowling if it doesn't, and the archive of the local newspaper in English (the Straits Times), the only other place we are likely to find such details in English, is only available on line with a very expensive subscription, so not generally available.

Alarics (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW I agree that the "powerhouse" claim in respect of bowling is a bit POV. I do a fair bit of toning down POV statements of that kind in articles about schools, many of which are far worse than that. But let's make allowances, these are probably mostly school kids who are proud of their schools (and whose first language is in most cases not English, incidentally); we ought to be kind to them and teach them gently about how to write neutrally and encyclopaedically so that they can learn to be good Wikipedians, not frighten them off with harshness. That school really did win an award in bowling, according to its website. Alarics (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 220.255.7.228 is registered to Singtel, which randomly assigns IP addresses to users, so by blocking the IP, you're not doing much to help. Just my two cents worth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.212.111 (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1)Go away. This was done with over a month ago. Why am I still getting comments on it?

2) I never blocked or even reported either of these IPs. I reverted their vandalism. Shadowjams (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Annie Antone

The citation style I used for this article is exactly the style prescribed in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Quick summary, i.e. inline citations under "Notes" (page numbers, web articles) and books under "References". So what exactly is your issue with it?-Uyvsdi (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

"McFadden and Taubman, 219" is not sufficient context to identify the source. The reference/note citation is atypical, but fine. In the future, also use the reference name <ref name=abc></ref> so that citations with the same format don't appear twice. Shadowjams (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's fine, care to remove the {{citation style}} box? -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

In the future, when the problem's fixed, anyone can remove the box. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Philippine literature

The word "Filipino" is both a noun that refers to a person of or from the Philippines, and an adjective that is applied to things/concepts/people originating from the Philippines. Please see Talk:Philippine literature. --seav (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. See here (Philippine as an adjective), here (filipino as a noun, listed as an adjective with the definition as philippine), here (same), here (philippine as an adjective), and here (filipino is a noun) for my reasoning. I don't think it's particularly wrong to use Filipino as an adjective, but I think the more formal approach is to use Philippine as the noun. Obviously there should be a redirect from Filipino literature to Philippine literature. Shadowjams (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

your comments on bilateral relations

thank you for your comments on the AfDs for bilateral relations. basically, one editor has been following every single AfD for bilateral relations I've involved in with the same copy and paste and telling me to stop. there is already the basic criteria which all articles must pass WP:N. thanks again. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

3 A.M. (Song)

Mmmm..okay..so wtf is the reason to delete the page? O_o (talk)

"Oh yeah, go ahead delete this one, this isn't the original one. Toonamiguy (talk) Original is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_A.M._(song), thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonamiguy (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)"

That work? Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:189.156.177.26, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). However, these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It feels ironically appropriate to remove this message... but I actually thought the policy was the other way around. Thanks for the info. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that it has not always been this way; the official WP:VAN policy was changed 1,211 days ago to reflect this. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

An unfriendly note [from a vandal]

what is wrong with contributing a little info on henry the 2nd. im sorry i didnt get it perfect but maybe you could try it sometime instead of critisising all the time!!!!!! if you think that you can do better then go on because you dont think mine is right so why dont you do it instead smary pants? answer me that!!!!!! unsigned contribution from 90.206.205.78

You blanked the page and added henry the 2nd was really good friends with thomas becket and they both met in france which is when henry put forward to becket asking him to be the archbishop of canterbury and with the hope that becket would take charge of the church courts but the king was being selfish because he wanted to take charge of the church which is why he put forward the ofer for becket.

Altrion

I was looking at this page you proposed for deletion, and did a Google search on some of its key terms... it's a copyright violation... which merits a speedy deletion.

Most all of the text is copied verbatim from http://www.freewebs.com/alfmellon/racesofaltrion.htm

If you don't mind, may I change your tag to a copyvio tag for speedy deletion?

That way a mod can just kill it. --StaniStani  23:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. If you think it's a close call though, leave the prod on there too. Shadowjams (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

notenglish

Hi, when adding {{notenglish}} to a page. Please rememeber to add the page to WP:PNT. Thanks for your work around WP:NPP. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder

Hi -- thanks for imposing some discipline on the article -- but I do have a request. If you're going to tag a statement and then very soon after remove it, please leave a note on the Talk page saying what you did so that people won't miss it. There are lots of valid and necessary statements in articles that have poor sources. In this case the statement was pretty questionable -- there is strong evidence that caffeine exacerbates symptoms of panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, but not much evidence specifically for OCD. Even so, it's worth bringing the issue to the front and giving the experts a chance to respond.

If you prefer, I can start a talk page thread about this, but I thought it would be good to discuss it with you first. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I tagged it first with the intent of just letting it sit, but I investigated some more and decided to be bold and remove it. I'm amenable to a talk discussion on the point. Shadowjams (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

HH

Perhaps you should check the article's history before you judge what is and is not a persistent problem.68.73.93.130 (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's have this discussion in one place. I'm going to post a response to your talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Country music

Yes, alt-country counts too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 10:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mia Washington

I have nominated Mia Washington, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Washington. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. OlYeller^Talktome 04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not my page. I tagged it for notability and unreferenced before it was deleted, but my tags got in after its deletion. I think it's probably not notable, and at least one admin agreed and deleted the page. Be careful and check the logs. Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly left this message. Sorry if this was such an inconvenience. OlYeller^Talktome 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that "logs" comment to sound like that. It wasn't any inconvenience at all. Shadowjams (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Mojo Rules System (RPG)

You referred to Mojo as a "non-notable video game." It is not a video game. It is recommended that you defer comment on, nominations for deletion of, and other administrative actions regarding this article to people who are more knowledgeable of the subject matter. it is important to be able to tell the difference between a tabletop RPG – one that is played with dice, pens, and paper, with rules written in physically-printed books – and a video game. — A lizard (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you have strong feelings about this game. I called it a video game and that error remained in place for 5 minutes. I realize this is an ad hominem attack about my "qualifications", but I do not think "it is recommended" that I defer to the fans of an article. That's not how AfD works, or has ever worked.

As for the article, I can't find google news searches on it, and all of my pre-nomination google searches showed up either ads, and one mention of the "mojo rules" in a non notable context. The article was barely a stub when I tagged it. Leave your comments at the AfD and people will sort it out. Shadowjams (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I find it troubling that you nominated an article you either didn't read or didn't understand. At the time indicated it was being published as magazine articles, and I'm not sure how that would work for a computer game. It also compared itself to two other pen-and-paper RPGs and referred to dice, so it seems pretty clear it wasn't a computer game. I also don't understand why you didn't propose a merge first as there is an obvious target (the magazine) as that is what our deletion policy suggests. So it seems like a "drive-by" AfD rather than really taking a look at the subject and considering other options per WP:BEFORE. Just suggesting that in the future you be a bit more careful in "dotting I's and crossing T's" when it comes to following WP:BEFORE. I suspect that we'll end in merge here and that could have been done without the AfD... Thanks. Hobit (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've explained here, and on the AfD why I believed the article was not notable, and if you check the history, the version I tagged had a very brief description of the dice aspect.

I am also disappointed you think the AfD was unnecessary. I understand your comment to suggest that I should have unilaterally merged the article. I don't believe this would have been within consensus. I would much rather post it to AfD, attract comment, and then merge it. I would hope you would favor this consensus building approach over the unilateral one.

WP:Before means users do some homework before nominating an article. It is not a standard by which an AfD is judged. I acknowledge I've made myself an easy target by saying it was a video game. But my mistake should be viewed in context. I let it persist for minutes, and also provided an explanation of my research. It appears you're familiar with the subject matter and have the benefit of a part way through AfD. A previous commenter already attacked me for not being familiar with RPG games. This approach to AfD is flawed. Nominations by unfamiliar editors are useful because they require objective criteria through reliable sources. There's nothing in wikipedia policy that would encourage such a result.

Thank you for your comment, and I hope you'll agree that nomination and consensus is preferred to unilateral merging. Shadowjams (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but I think you missed one part. I believe you should have proposed a merger as a first step. Being BOLD and merging would have been fine too IMO. If you got reverted then you would be needing to discuss somewhere. Per WP:DEL you shouldn't be nominating things that should be merged. It isn't "articles for meger". In any case, best of luck! Hobit (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to understand my position. I agree with you on policy and I did not propose a merge because I still support deletion. I don't think the alternative position is unreasonable though. Shadowjams (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

New user

Fair enough, I would like help on editing pages, would you please advise me where this help is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylias, hah (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Take a look at WP:RA for a few articles that people are interested in having created. That tends to be a random assortment. If you're interested in a particular topic, sports, geography, history, movies, music, whatever, there are plenty of topics that haven't been covered yet.

I've put the Welcome notice on your talk page which has a bunch of useful links on it. Let me know if you have any questions. The wikipedia organization for beginners really isn't very user friendly, so if you have any questions let me know. I realize you're having a good time adding pages and info, but people spend time patrolling changes in order to stop incorrect information from getting in, and so if you want to help towards the project we'd appreciate it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Jazz standards

Hi! I've reorganized List of jazz standards (basically, split it in four) and changed the table format into a bullet format with some info on each tune. Since you participated in the merger discussion earlier, I thought you might want to check out the articles and give some feedback on the split (and possibly how to improve the articles). I've explained my changes in detail here. The text format I'm proposing is demonstrated at List of jazz standards (before 1930). I'd like to get some feedback on the proposed format before changing the other articles as well. You can compare the current version with the old version, which was in table format. Thanks for your time! Jafeluv (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Non-admin closure

I watchlisted Ron's talk page, so I'll answer anyway. Ron, you may remove this if you wish. The exact process for closing an AfD is listed here. You'll want to make sure you have a clear consensus of what you're going to do. A glance at the AfD shows there are at least 4 different articles that Degenerate Key can be merged into. While merge and redirect is the obvious option, you'll have to decide which article, so you might want to establish consensus first. Antivenin 03:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I realize that this AfD is not ready for closure now, since I did some research on the topic, and I understand the need for consensus on closing. I just was unfamiliar with the technical procedure, and now that you've pointed it out, amazed I hadn't found it before. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No prob. =) Antivenin 08:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mario Central Music Player

Hi there. Please remember that A7 cannot be applied to software. Regards SoWhy 10:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be applied to websites. And the first sentence of the article indicates that it "was created by a small website". I suppose that's not a "website" but it's certainly "web content". Do you think it's otherwise notable? Shadowjams (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about the website but about a product developed there. Web content is only such content that relies on web-based platforms and never content that can be used independently, even if it was created for/by users of aforementioned website. Declining the speedy was not a judgment whether it's notable (A7 is not about notability anyway) - it probably isn't. It just cannot be speedy-deleted. Regards SoWhy 10:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that CSD in general is not a question about notability per se, but rather a threshold question. I cannot find this music player on the listed website, and so I concluded it's embedded music playing flash "software". I may be mistaken about that, but I see very little on the page to suggest otherwise. I believe that qualifies as web content (flash, java script, etc.). I didn't tag a distributable software program (at least if I did I couldn't find it easily). I don't ask you to delete articles you're not comfortable deleting.

Of course A7 is not about direct notability, but rather about assertions of notability (of course for A7). I only asked if you thought it was notable because you've removed what I believed was a plausible CSD completely, and did not replace it with a prod or indication of what the assertion of notability was.

If taggers should exercise more caution tagging CSD's, then please also provide the same caution when denying these. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, a software written in Visual Basic (refer article) almost never is embedded in websites (I don't think that's even possible. So I think we are safe to assume it's not web-based but stand-alone.

Then: A7 is not about the assertion of notability either, rather about "indication of importance or significance", which A7 calls a lower standard. I know that there are no such indications here either but I do think it's important to note. To take an example decltype used at WT:CSD: "...if an article about an actor states that he starred in one film, it makes a "claim of importance" (but not an assertion of notability, since the relevant notability guideline requires roles is multiple films). Thus, this should not be deleted under A7 despite not asserting notability."[2] But as I said that is just a general reminder, unrelated to the article at hand.

And no, I do not have to replace it with a prod, even if I do not think the subject might even be remotely notable. I removed the tag because it couldn't be used on such an article ever, no matter how notable the subject might be. That didn't mean that I thought the subject to be possibly notable. After all, my edit summary did not mention this question in any way, thus it should not give the impression that I disagree whether the subject might meet our inclusion guidelines. Regards SoWhy 10:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As I explained, I had not found a release package. You believe it's unlikely to be web based because of the programing language it is written in. Both of these are reasonable assumptions, and in retrospect perhaps I mistagged it.

I don't see a difference between "assertions of notability" and "indications of importance". I think your assumption of what most people mean by an "assertion of notability" is different. The CSD criteria provides guidance: CSD doesn't apply to "any credible claim of significance or importance". The key here is claim. It doesn't have to be proven, but it does have to give someone looking at the article some idea where to start.

You're under no obligation to prod articles. I am just surprised to see you not taking action after removing a CSD on an articles that you acknowledge is probably not notable. Cheers. Shadowjams (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 15:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Erik Qualman

I'm definitely not an expert user at Wikpedia like you are. If I do something wrong by hitting the undo on Erik Qualman notability please let me know. I saw him speak at BookExpo America this past weekend in NYC (5-29-2009) and felt compelled to add to his page. He was there alongside Dr. Ruth, John Grisham, David Baldaci and Mary Higgins Clarke. His autograph line was just as long if not longer than those mentioned so I was suprised by the notability tag. I added some more third party to help. Most of his interviews are video, which I'm not sure how to upload. Anyhow if I did something wrong please let me know!! Thanks for all the help and your Wiki expertise. This is Aclausen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aclausen (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It took me some time to figure out what you were referring to. I see now that I added a notability tag to the Erik Qualman article. Notability tags are used to alert readers/editors to find sources to demonstrate notability, or to nominate the article for deletion. Tags are not a bad thing, they just indicate an article has issues that need addressing. Tagging also adds the article to the appropriate category so editors who are looking to fix specific problems can easily find these articles.

You seem to have done exactly what you needed to. You added sources and removed the tag. Don't worry about explicityly putting "notability" in the article's text, just demonstrating coverage by third party sources is usually sufficient. Keep up the good work, and thank you for asking the question.

Curiously I've noticed that most of the editors to this article are accounts that have edited only to this article, or to a similar subset of articles. Do you know why this is? Shadowjams (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! This is a huge relief that I didn't make a mistake - thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aclausen (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit error on the Croats article

Pardon me, I read your message on my talk page and that edit was NOT vandalism. It's not allowing me to keep the citation tag for the edit: |region17=Peru

|pop17= 20,000 to 40,000 (the article stated it was 38,500) |ref17= * Asociación Croata Can you help me out here to include this and the verified source from the Association of Croatian Peruvians? I will apreciate your efforts to repair the misunderstanding. Thanks and have a good day/night. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain what you're doing to that article. You've added an external link to a geocities website that was reverted by linkbot, and then you've removed South Africa from the table and replaced with Peru, changing a load of numbers along with it, and removing placed references. All of this, with no explanation. Please explain what you're doing and that might help me evaluate your recent edits. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

All I was doing is to reorganize the list of countries by rank or in numerical order, and your edit occurred in the midst of my edit. I wasn't completed with the edit, was about to put Peru above South Africa anyways. The Croatian Peruvian association web site was geocities-based, like the wikipedia server cannot accept the web site? + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A bot reverted your edit because you're a non-registered user who added an external link to a non reliable source. That website is not a WP:RS reliable source.

I'm sorry if my revert wasn't well enough explained. But these changes need to be at the very least explained, and at this point, need to be accompanied by a reliable source. For instance if you could provide a reliable source (maybe a government or well published source) that would be convincing. Additionally, if South Africa was not incorrect, it makes no sense to remove it. Just add new table entries and push it down the list. There's no numbering on this list, and you can add as many sources as you want.

I understand now you may have been in the middle of this edit. I'm sorry if I disrupted that. In the future use the Preview button and you can implement all of these edits in one edit, with a concise summary as well. Then you can correct any changes necessary in fewer edits.

Feel free to re-add the information, just please don't delete the south africa information in the process, and please, if you can find it, add a reliable source to the page as well.

Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

SOWPODS

I notice you removed some text in the lead for SOWPODS that explained that is it just a term. I don't mind except that now the lead appears to convey incorrect information. Is the a way to describe this as a term that is within the MoS? HumphreyW (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As you recognize, all articles have titles that are just a term to signify their respective topics. The acronym for the scrabble dictionary is no different. The manual of style explicitly suggests against this wording. Nothing is innaccirate about that wording. Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I've removed the message you left me on my talk page, as it seems to be in error. You see, my edit was correcting the genre based on what the reliable source says - it clearly states "pop rock", and makes no mention of "hard rock". If you believe "hard rock" should be there, then find a source to support the claim. In any case, "pop rock" is supported and must remain. Thanks! 124.179.170.87 (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I responded on your talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how much you looked into this, but I've actually been using reliable sources and adding correcting information, while at the same time removing incorrect ones. I have discussed on many article and user talk pages about the proper use of sources, and you know what the response was I got most of the time? Sometimes, I was just ignored while these guys just continue to revert, and the rest of the time, I got a "fuck you idiot, you and your sources know nothing, I'm right". I've asked for intervention many times, as I'm clearly in the right, and asked for protection of articles, and none of this has helped at all. So I will say that I firmly believe that what I'm doing is correct, and I will continue to revert any unsourced, dubious genres that I see.

On a related topic, a lot of those "users" seem to be socks, as they all make the same edits over and over again, and soem were created right after teh other accounts first couple of additions were challenged. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look in the meantime at some of the edits, and I've noticed a few single purpose accounts. I've warned one of them so far, and I'll try and keep an eye on them. Do you have a list of these accounts, socks or not?

Well, I think Gotica and NatriX are the same person - they both just keep undoing my edits, and both seem to have a problem with the term "pop rock" for whatever reason. Nickelback12345670 is surely the same guy as 86.150.229.62, although this is probably not a case of sockpuppetry, he probably just forgot to log in. Those are the guys on Nickelback related articles. On the Jet related articles, Peter B pumpkin is the same guy as Papermanjack, and I think Honkytonks could possibly be the same guy as Slam3, since they both used the exact same edit summary once. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think genres will always need explicit citations, but in the cases I saw I didn't see any at issue, either for or against your/their changes. So while, again, I think you've got the better argument, when I first stumbled upon your edits they seemed odd. So my initial warning was mistaken, which is why I retracted it. I'll try and help out with some of the related genre shenanigans. Shadowjams (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself whether or not albums need explicit citations - around the end of last year, I added a few without sources, and I got jumped on from all sorts of people saying I need a source to support my claims, so that's what I've been doing since then. But these guys seem to believe you don't need one for albums, so maybe they know of a guideline/policy that I don't know. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any particular policy on point. I'll take a look at those names and let you know. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to start a checkuser investigation at this moment, because none of them so far have used the accounts to circumvent 3RR. Or is there a policy that says I am supposed to report any accounts that I suspect of being used by the same person? 124.179.170.87 (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. In fact, I think CU is probably overused. Most socks, like you suggest, are obvious on their own. You know a lot about WP policy as is.

Again, sorry for my original warning. Shadowjams (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's no problem. Take care. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonny Eagle High School

I've restored the section at Bonny Eagle High School about the kiss, it's making the news, it was on the front page of Yahoo! earlier today. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A public high school got transformed into a military academy? I didn't see a reference for it, and I'm not sure there's one there now. Shadowjams (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the diff between my restore and the current version. What changed was to make a public high school (in the infobox) become a military academy. Is that correct? Shadowjams (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, hopefully that's fixed now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing Web Application Security

Hi I'm trying to establish Web Application Security as a significant sub sector of information security. I am in the process of adding external and internal references etc to establish notability. Linehanjt (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Zona Franca and La Bordeta

I don't agree the change that you have done: Zona Franca - Port to Zona Franca (Barcelona). Zona Franca - Port is an administrative zone of Sants-Montjuïc (see Ajuntament de Barcelona) that includes Zona Franca and Port de Barcelona.

Another thing is "La Bordeta, Barcelona" to "La Bordeta (Barcelona)". As you can see all the others districts are name as ", Barcelona" and not "(Barcelona)" for some reasons. So I think that for coherence you can not change just one. --Vilar 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You know the details better than me about how they should be named, however the format used before, whether a comma or a dash, are not used in the Manual of Style. Instead they use parenthesis. Feel free to move the article to what you think it should be, but if you do, do it according to the Manual of Style... This section specifically: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).

Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I would read the manual style. (If you change more titles of neighbourhoods of Barcelona do it in the template:Barcelona too, thanks.)

And the reason about Zona Franca - Port to Zona Franca? Are different things you can create Zona Franca but that is just a part of Zona Franca - Port. --Vilar 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Proposal:_New_Wikiproject.2C_offering_free_legal_research

Hi shadowjams,

We chatted at my talk page a few months back about my ideas for making Wikipedia more useful for law students. Now I've made a proposal for making it more useful for lawyers (i.e. making it slowly kill off Wexis) and I'm wondering if you'd like to take a look, or make a comment. Thanks Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering whether your critique took into account the modification of my proposal, write a "brief" answering their question aggregate, organize, and summarize the caselaw that's relevant to the question. 21:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. I'll take another look soon. Shadowjams (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello Shadowjams, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 22:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't Understand

How is the link which i added more different than the ones listed, like these links [Editor's note: other links removed]

Is there a limitation of links which that article has reached, or else according to you all of the links should be removed. Unsigned contribution by 96.21.11.120

It appears to be a site that users must sign up for in order to enter or display content. Perhaps the other links should be removed as well, but I'll leave those to other editors to determine. Take a look at Wikipedia's external link policy at WP:EL. Take a look at the specific policy: Sites requiring registration. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it, Thanks for being specific.

Harrison Ford

1st of all it was correct, there were reports of his death but not clear. 2nd another admin warned me. You were the second one to warn. What makes you so special vs the last admin. I didn't edit anything since that admin warned me. Your threats are excessive and unwarranted. Have a good day sir!

It's a known hoax, many people have added it and been warned, and your edit hardly said it was reported. Instead your edit put the "death date" right after the born date, along with "possibly dead". I wasn't gratuitously warning either; I had hit revert probably at the same time as the other editor, and we both warned without knowing the other was doing so. This happens occasionally. I chose a stronger warning template. Not all of your previous edits have been constructive either: [3] and you haven't been warned for those. Shadowjams (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Explaination!!

Hi, I wasn't creating Malicious Rederects, I was Merging Stubs into the Bog Body Page. I mispelled the Rederect thing... and i was quick to fix it. Have a good day, --97.86.43.86 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the mistake to forget to log in, and before, I talked to WikiDan61, and he told me to rederect the stubs I made to the bog body page, or something like that. thank you,--97.86.43.86 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now. Try to make sure that the redirects are to the specific section using Page#Section. I've fixed most of your recently created redirects to do that. Shadowjams (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very much! --97.86.43.86 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Alpha test" page

I was working on the Alpha test page. I think you should have waited more than ten minutes before deleting it. Failing that, GIYF: the company's site is the third result [[4]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefano85 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete a thing. It didn't appear that anyone was working on it, just an IP editor who made one change. It looked as though the IP had made an honest error, and I corrected it. Just go to your diff and copy paste the old page, and rework it. But when you make it live on the site, prepare for it to be corrected. I actually spent some time reformatting it into a proper disambiguation page before realizing there was nothing to disambiguate, which is kind of the point.

I'd suggest you make the second page that you want to disambiguate from first. And if you're working on something that won't need continuous revisions, use preview. Shadowjams (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

AWB use

Was this really a necessary edit? Debresser (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes.

It is a manual of style edit. In fact, it's not merely some esoteric manual of style recommendation, but one of the three wiki generated commands when making a disambiguation page. Why exactly do you have an issue with this edit? Shadowjams (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, they're all about as useful as these similar edits: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], I could go on. Small technical fixes to articles within templates, largely, but occasionally without. You've referenced this particular one because it was soon after you made some similar reference. The difference between my edits (and I've made dozens), and yours, is that the version you reverted was not incorrect, just suggested against by internal style templates. My edits are not only explicitly correct, but mandated by the template given to any dab page. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My issue was twofold

1. Why did you remove the final punctuation?
2. Why do you make such minor edits with AWB?

The first issue is now solved, since I found it in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Individual_entries. But the second one still stands. Consensus seems to be that we should not use AWB for such minor/trivial edits. Debresser (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is a clear rule, see Wikipedia:AWB#Rules_of_use. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not a minor edit (although I did mark it minor, probably because AWB has an option for this; you should take that issue up with the awb creators/admins that grant access, not random people you encounter making those edits), nor is there any problem with AWB making "minor" edits. I think your AWB edits I referenced above are perfectly legitimate, although equally, actually more, minor.

And yes, it's a clear rule... that I didn't violate. The "clear rule" you reference says "Avoid making insignificant... edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." (emphasis added). Your edits changed internal template tags that worked before, and similarly worked afterwards. I am fixing one of the 3 standards given at the top of dab pages, and on top of that, very few of my changes only have only that change. many of mine fix other issues as well.

I'm seriously at a loss as to why you think this is worth your, or my time. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:88.70.47.191

Hey,

I think you may have inadvertently knocked over a genuine edit by an IP on the article Kohen. You might want to take another look, the anon editor seems genuinely annoyed. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

User talk:Phild01

Hey,

Im the one who edited the FC Tweete page and i got a message from you that said I'm incorrectly editing this page. Letting you know what there is a mistake on the FC Tweete page. Under current squad, Nikita Rukavytsya is listed as a Ukrainian. He is actually Australian. Yes he was born in Mykolayiv, but he was raised in Australia and represented Australia at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, locking him to the Australian National Team, hence making him an Australian. Don't believe me then look it up. Don't accuse me of incorrectly editing false information on Wikipedia if you do not know the content I'm editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phild01 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tracked down the user who made the original erroneous change. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I marked your edit because you didn't explain your edit at all, nor have you provided a source. Always remember to explain any controversial or suspicious edits, and provide reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll be sure to explain my changes next time. If not I'll provide a source.