Jump to content

User talk:Shadowjams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 130.76.64.15 (talk) at 23:02, 10 June 2010 (→‎Yeah, another wiki nazi makes another wiki nazi attribution mistake). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Saturday 2024-09-28 4:12 pm UTC
Last edited Thursday 2010-06-10 11:02 pm UTC by 130.76.64.15
Talk page size is 25,517 bytes



Western Power

Please look at

Western Power (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Western Power (networks corporation) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Where there is an open WP:RM at Talk:Western Power (networks corporation)

This is a clear copy-and-paste move duplication, and I am in the right in undoing it!

It is also a circumvention of process!

76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. Already fixed. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a good disambig page before that editor. It should have been undone, which is done with now. Editor's been warned too. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the content I uploaded last week, omitting the section on strategic direction. The updates were fact based and a merely an update clarifying that Western power is a GTE and explaining what the network is. I concede the section on strategic direction can be removed, however the updated descriptions of Western Power, Verve, Synergy and Horizon should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharris wp (talkcontribs) 04:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made one edit to it. Were you editing under multiple accounts? Shadowjams (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made initial edits without registering an account. Then subsequently realised I needed to register in order to add images. My intention is to add in a diagram showing the geographical spread of Western Power's network, and a second representing the electricity generation, transmission and distribution process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharris wp (talkcontribs) 06:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do it to the appropriate page at Western Power (networks corporation), not where you did it, which is a disambiguation page. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done that. How do I get authorisation to able to upload the images I suggested above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharris wp (talkcontribs) 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have those images ready you should look at the left side of your screen, probably under the "toolbox", and see if there's an Upload file option. If there's not, you are not auto-confirmed, which means you haven't made enough valid contributions. As for your recent edits, I'll try and clean up some of those additions to make the comply with the style guide. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not autoconfirmed yet. I have the images ready and will upload them when I am confirmed. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharris wp (talkcontribs) 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few little tips. First, when you're on a Talk page, whether it's a user or an aritcle's talk page, put ~~~~ (that's 4 ~'s) after your comment, which will sign it. That helps. Second, try and write in an objective tone; this is an encyclopedia so we want to continue that tradition. Finally, try and use an edit summary so that people know why you're doing what you're doing. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EPHEDRA EDIT

Well, you undid my edits to EPHEDRA, siding with the FDA and refusing to admit this Asthma remedy is being suppressed by FDA. So a good reason to AVOID wikipedia; full of crap. I'll not use it again, for ANYTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.29.180 (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit from May 5 is what you're referring to. Shadowjams (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rain-X

Hello Shadowjams,

Could you please advise why the Rain-X page was edited and stripped of all the brand info, product info, and recognition? When editing the page, we felt it was best to be more detailed in Rain-X as a brand and what it has to offer. While we had not added photos yet, we were quite satisfied with the consumer education the page offered. Could you please share your thoughts and/or insight to the changes? I appreciate it.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rainx (talkcontribs) 01:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me. You copy pasted the rain-x website onto the page, undoing the reasonable, if yet small, article that existed before it. I expanded it massively into a reasonable article, complete with chemistry information, pictures, and a detailed history. If you want promotional, go to the rain-x site itself; that's not Wikipedia's goal. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Your opinions and input are certainly valued, but do you not find it useful to list out more products the brand offers, and also some recognition awards as well?

I appreciate that you think my "input" is valued [by whom?], and it's hard to know exactly what your history is here because you have one edit to this account, but you sound like you're advertising, also I think your username violates policy. Second, if you want to add relevant information about product lines you can, but to be honest I don't think you're going to be able to do that satisfactorily. Perhaps you should look at WP:About. Shadowjams (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the relevant edit is [1] Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate your open communication. I am not very familiar with wikipedia or the policies, and it seems you are well versed. The goal was not to advertise, but just to offer a larger explanation of what Rain-X is as a whole. Do you recommend a way to give more relevant information about product lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rainx (talkcontribs) 02:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a welcome template to your talk page. It has a lot of useful links on it. As for adding product lines, there is a Products section on the Rain-X article page. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, so that's the tone and style that we're working towards. If there is a small list you would like to add though, you can do so in that section. Use the formatting tool bar when you do so, so that you can bullet point the list (top of the edit box). But don't put in a huge long list of products. The broad product lines are already covered in the text, which is preferable to a list. If people need more detailed commercial information, the link to the main site is provided at the bottom. Shadowjams (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rainx (talkcontribs) 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crunk Rock

We have to do something to settle this issue with the redirect Crunk rock. If "crunk rock" is going to redirect to crunkcore, then there needs to be some mention of the genre being called that on its page, which currently there is not. Otherwise people who are looking for the album and quickly enter the term into the search bar will find themselves lost. --NateBiggity (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the underlying dispute, but you can't redirect a developed page to some other target without explanation, discussion, or some reasoning, particularly in this case. Typically one would add a hatnote, or maybe add a disambiguation page. I'd look to those options, but you can't unilaterally redirect a developed page, particularly when that phrase is so commonly applied to a variety of articles. I'd suggest a disambig page, but definitely at least consult with people on those relevant projects or talk pages first. Shadowjams (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting 69.106.200.112‎'s edits on my talk page. The editor may very well have good intentions, but such messages as he/she posted are not welcomed. jonkerz 06:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That was my understanding as well. Although, after that, he vandalized again on a page linked off my userpage... but I merely undid that edit. Hopefully there won't be further disruption. Shadowjams (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object

I object to this removal [2] - it was not a request for legal advice, it was a request for information about the law, which is a very different thing. You will not that the question of whether or not it was a request for legal advice had already been addressed within the thread. I would also ask that if you ever feel the need to remove a good-faith response of mine on the reference desks you do me the courtesy of informing me. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can add it back, but I think that it's too close to be comfortable. I wouldn't want you, or any other editor, to rely on advice that wasn't accurate--there could be severe consequences--nor can most people give such advice unless they're licensed attorneys, and even those that are must similarly limit their advice. This wasn't meant as a slight against you or your question, but for everyone's protection I think that my approach was the best.
If you want to add references to a specific source of law, or have general questions, that is fine, but your question was quite specific, required an application of law to fact, and gave the impression that you might rely on whatever answers were given. Those things all qualify as legal advice. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I realize now it wasn't your question, but your answer... that said, the same applies. We respond to lots of legal-related questions, but this one is an editor clearly asking whether or not he can do X. We simply can't answer that, for all of the above reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute of Directors

Thanks for the removal of the long standing vandalism on International Institute of Directors. I was just about to remove that too. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing it lasted that long. In all of my AV patrolling, that has to be the longest I've seen. Amazing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on We have band requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jonusbaum (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC) ==[reply]

Hi i'm a fan of this group i would like to create a simple wikipedia page ? why can't i ?

User:Glenfarclas nominated it. I merely added it back after you violated policy by removing the CSD tag. You should read the warnings on that page and on your talk page. They explain our notability policy and our other policies, all of which are relevant here. I'm a fan of many band and topics that don't have pages, but I recognize they're not notable unless they have reliable coverage in third party sources, and the pages reference those. That's our touch stone. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lincoln 10:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cbat, and for the record, I think your assertion you don't speak good English is wrong.
Cheers. Good to see you around. Shadowjams (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a second person says that, I'll remove the assertion from my user page. Regards, Anna Lincoln 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you speak English good, but not well... maybe that's the distinction I'm trying to make. :) Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Anna Lincoln 10:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?

You joined and your first edit was certainly not one that a new user would make. What was/were your previous username(s), if any?64.250.228.220 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like [3] that? Many people edit as IPs before getting accounts. That's the most I'll dignify your comment. Shadowjams (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you become so defensive when questioned about your identity? I have noted that you have not actually stated that you edited as an IP address prior to creating this account. Why must you create an alternate account, and respond with a non-denial?Road2Peace (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of transparency, I shall note that the above IP is me. Road2Peace (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"That's the most I'll dignify your comment." Why is that?Road2Peace (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Batman. Shadowjams (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, for all we know, you could be someone who was blocked for a real-life offense, such as pedophilia or harassment (actual harassment, not Wikipedia's re-definition of it) trying to gain adminship, and you respond with frivolity?Road2Peace (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck? There is no "we", just you. I've never interacted with you before as far as I know, but you're a brand new account making detailed changes, then accusing me of, something, I'm not sure what. So, quit defaming me. I've entertained this quite enough. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no 'we'..."

I beg to differ: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29680

I am a banned user, but apparently it is all right for me to evade if I make constructive edits (see User:FinalRapture, who is, of course, a sockpuppet of Oldwindybear). I am not trying for adminship. Who are you? Road2Peace (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. At least I know what this is about. For that I'll answer you. I'm not a banned user. I'm disappointed to hear NW tacitly accept that notion. I edited as an IP for a long time, I knew wiki syntax, and I was tired of seeing automated edit removals that I couldn't do, so I got an account. That was my main goal, otherwise I was content to remove vandalism as an IP. My first strings of edits were with twinkle for that reason. And I know about the Review, but I'm not a regular there. I'll admit I laughed when I was described as "a massive waste of human potential." I guess that's a compliment. Shadowjams (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Road2Peace (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk Removal

There is a discussion about your removal of a thread on the Humanities Reference Desk here. Right now, it looks like most people are disagreeing with your removal, so if you want to say anything about it you might want to scoot over there and make a comment. Buddy431 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Shadowjams (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Manuel Espinosa

Could you help fix up the page, what do I do about the boxes at the top?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espmone (talkcontribs) 04:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about them. When the issues are fixed, someone will remove the box. Many articles have boxes. They help others find articles and improve them. If you can address those specific issues though, do so. Shadowjams (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you!

Shadowjams - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for adminship

Minimac (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'm extremely flattered but I'm afraid this isn't something I want to pursue right now. Your confidence in me though means a tremendous amount, particularly given some negative interactions I've had on Wikipedia lately, it's a helpful reminder that my work's appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, another wiki nazi makes another wiki nazi attribution mistake

You left me a message about my unhelpful edit, most likely because you're just another wiki nazi more intent on wiki masturbation and wiki nazi actions than in providing useful information to people and helping people become wiki editors.

In telling me my change was reverted and unhelpful, you forgot to notice my changes were:

1) to remove a claim that Betty Friedan like anal sex 2) to remove a change from "Lesbian" to "Wesbian Wovers woo woo woo" back to Lesbian

In short, you're a dumbass and yet another wiki nazi.

Fuck off.

72.222.210.123 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I realize now that reverting edits is uncomfortably close to massive genocide. Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you do get it. The edit you call unhelpful and may have reverted was an edit that reverted vandalism. And you blamed the wrong person for the vandalism. And you don't get that at all which is why you have the makings of a perfect wiki admin.