User talk:Shadowjams

Welcome!

Please start new threads at the bottom of the page.

Quick Question from NewOrleansCC

Hello, I have a quick question for you, in order to better understand the reason behind my deletion tag. I currently work for the New Orleans Convention Commission and doing a report on the oldest transportation companies in the city of New Orleans. The reason for creating this article was merely a history lesson of one of the oldest companies in the City. There is great history behind this company dating back to the late 1940's. I have permission from the owner of the company, and explained to him that this was not an advertising stunt but merely a historical aspect of transportation in the city of New Orleans. Is there anything I can do in order to make seem like a non-advertising article. If you could please contact me back with a better understand that would be great. Thank you for your time and hope I didn't cause any trouble for you or wikipedia. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewOrleansCC (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I actually don't remember what article you're referring to. I imagine I used either an advertising or a copyright tag. If it was copyright, the issue is articles can't just be copy pasted from other sources for a host of reasons, one of them being copyright. If it was an advertising tag it was probably worded like a promotion. Perhaps you could create the page again in your userspace (a link like this) and then ask another experienced editor to take a look at it. Shadowjams (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

From the guy you just reverted

I reverted it myself.

218.186.10.242 (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there was an edit conflict. Shadowjams (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the change you just reverted?

Or did you just auto-revert because there was no edit summary and you can't be bothered to read? If you actually look at the change you will see that the previous wording was at best ungrammatical and at worst nonsensical. I tweaked it into something that did make sense, and was almost certainly the intended meaning (at least, I can't think what else the author might have meant). Don't bite the newbies - or even those who might look like a newbie but have actually been around for years. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your anger is misplaced. I read the edit. You changed the word "flow" to "floe". I don't know about iceflows, but that spelling seemed wrong to me. This, from a new IP, without explanation, and I did a simple revert. Once.

As the template says, if it was constructive please explain so and revert it. Reverting and templating test edits is not bitey. You didn't reword the sentence, you changed that spelling (which looks like a test edit to me) and then you changed passed to traveled. It looked like an editing test to me. I cannot magically discern which IPs are long-term editors and which are new users testing edits. Your edit looks a lot like an editing test, and even now there's no explanation as to why that spelling is correct. Shadowjams (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an ice flow, it's an ice floe, as is now linked in the article. Your ignorance is not a problem per se, but you should be aware of it and at least hit Google or a dictionary when you come across a term you don't understand. I don't expect you to recognise IPs as long-time editors; my point is that a new editor who makes a minor improvement in "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and finds their change undone with a dismissive message is likely to be turned away for good - they don't know that they can re-fix the article and object on your talk page. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you brought it up, my "ignorance" isn't really an issue here. NASA uses the term "ice flow" ([1]) as does the office of Naval Research specifically in reference to NP ice (See [2] at page 213) (also in the title of a paper [3]) . Googling would have been of no consequence. Besides, what you're proposing is absurd. Vandal patrolling requires diligence, but it does not require googling every edit one reverts, particularly when there's no explanation of a suspicious edit.

I guess it's easy to get angry about this when you feel your feathers were ruffled, but let's remember the context. You came to my talk page, with a header of Did you read the change you just reverted?, and then accused me of can't be bothered to read?. All of this for an edit you left with no edit summary, from your IP, and you changed 1 letter in "flow" and another word in the sentence.

I'm not sure what method you'd have vandal patrollers use to avoid whatever slight you felt, but your talk page etiquette here is more of an issue than my honest revert ever was. Shadowjams (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Catgirl haircut? I don't think so.

Listen bub, if you have something mixed up with the catgirl article take it up with me. Time and time again I run into you "faux-catgirl" sympathizers. That shit doesn't fly in this house and if you have half a brain you know that girls with cat ear looking haircuts do not equal catgirls. I'll revert my edits until we can settle this mix up. --99.26.179.113 (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:) Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick Access Toolbar

Hi Shadowjams. Forgive me if I've not created this thread properly. I added a link to an article on using the Quick Access Tutorial in Microsoft Word (to the Microsoft Word page) but you removed it. Could you give me some guidance on what was wrong with the article, just so I don't keep repeating this mistake. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulpark (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The site doesn't appear to meet WP:External links. I'm sorry if I labeled it as spam, because it doesn't appear to be that, however, I am not sure it meets the external link criteria either. Shadowjams (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Shadowjams. I've looked at the criteria you linked to and I couldn't find anything concrete that applied to my article. I thought that it was neutral and accurate material that couldn't be integrated into the Wiki article due to its level of detail. Unless it's not from a source considered to be reliable - is that the reason? Cheers. Paulpark (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Any feedback Shadowjams? The article I linked to is a big help to users and I think it would be a shame not to include it. Is there some problem I can address? --Paulpark (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Djarum Black

Hello Shadowjams. When you add a {{prod}} template to the article, as in this case, don't forget to notify original creator of that article, please. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: David Jewell (poet)

Hi Shadowjams! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on David Jewell (poet)- because: the article makes a credible claim of importance or significance. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see it. The only claims I saw were:

1. Jewell was born in Danville, Illinois.
2. Had a movie credit in Before Sunrise with his poem Delusion Angel

Grips occasionally have movie credits; not an indication of notability

1. An appearance as an animated cloud in Linklater's Waking Life

The old animated cloud trick

1. A collection of poems titled Lizards Again

Publishing is not notability

Reasonable people can disagree on these things I guess. I would ask that you would at least tag it for notability or something. It's annoying to find borderline articles months later or not at all, that should have been tagged from the beginning. Shadowjams (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, these things do not make him notable. However, the only thing required to pass CSD A7 is an assertion of importance or significance, which is a lower standard than notability. Also, if you look in the external links section there's significant coverage by a reliable source. This should also be taken into consideration. All that said, I agree that the subject's notability is unclear, and it may be appropriate to nominate it for WP:AfD or even WP:PROD, but not speedy deletion. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Shadowjams (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)