User talk:Shadowjams

Welcome to Shadowjam's talk page

Please start new threads at the bottom of the page.
Be nice.
Please tell me what page or edits you're referring to, if appropriate. Thank you.

Current time is Thursday 2024-06-20 4:46 pm UTC
Last edited Monday 2010-05-31 6:09 pm UTC by 75.108.193.135
Talk page size is 8,366 bytes

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

User:70.143.81.143

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

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

Ronaldo Lima's very off statistics

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

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

Legend of the Seeker...

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

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

Hi

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

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

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

7

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

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

Sorry

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

- Jack Rabbit

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

2009 Lahore Attacks

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

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

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

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

Vandalism?

How is posting a trivia about a viral video vandalism?

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

Thank you

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