User talk:Shadowjams/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)


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:

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?
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? --AmaraielSend 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:
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. (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)


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 (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 (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 (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)


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 (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)


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

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 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: 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, 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 (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


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 an apology! Alarics (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Chinese Junior College


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

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

You need to get your facts straight before you begin to demand apologies. 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, 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 (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) 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:, 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:, 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)


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

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)


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)


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


Perhaps you should check the article's history before you judge what is and is not a persistent problem. (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 ottersOne hammerHELP) 10:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mia Washington

Ambox warning pn.svg

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. OlYellerTalktome 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. OlYellerTalktome 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 (talkcontribs) 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, –xenotalk 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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[citation needed] 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. + (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? + (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)


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. 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! (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. (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, 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. (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. (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? (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. (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

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)


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, -- (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,-- (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! -- (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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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:


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)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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


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 (talkcontribs) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phild01 (talkcontribs) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My Ilia Article

Wow, you could have at least allowed me to bask in the glow of my very first Wikipedia article for 3 whole minutes before you crushed my dreams with your deletion tag. MrMachinus (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't tag it for deletion. I tagged it for notability. There's a big difference. Shadowjams (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad, but it will still probably be deleted. I was just humorously pointing out that only like 2 minutes had passed and I had already been tagged for something bad. That has to be some type of record. MrMachinus (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Special:NewPages and you'll see how new page patrol works. Once you see some of the stuff that shows up there you'll realize why the deletion process works (sometimes) as it does. Having things tagged quickly isn't all that uncommon. Responses to new pages can be varied, but if there are notability problems it's in order of 1) Tagging, 2) Proding, 3) AfDing 4) WP:CSDing Shadowjams (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Check Again - re: notability on Benjamin Saltman page

Please consider removing the note. Thanks Foobarjones (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed deletion of Genie (programming language)

I removed the PROD template in this article as it has reliable third party sources. A preliminary Google search reveals the following sources: [17] [18] [19] [20]. You may AfD the article, if you wish. Aditya α ß 17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. Thank you for telling me. I'll take another look at the article after bit. Shadowjams (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This IP address recently vandalized the page List of the Mario series characters. I reverted the edits. When I went to the user's talk page, I found that you had given that user a final warning for a different instance of vandalism moments earlier. I'm new and don't quite know the procedure, but I thought you might want to know.
BAPACop (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That final warning was likely from a minute ago... but it's all in UTC time, hence the confusion. If I jump the warnings (from 1 to 4), it's typically because something about the pattern appears to me to be a non accident, or something similar. Thanks for telling me. Some of the confusion might be just a timing issue... huggle sometimes warns before reverting, and vis versa. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool username

Hello, i was looking on the recent changes, and saw your username. I laughed. It's a cool name, but i laughed. Good day. Uncle Tech 07:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha. Thanks. But why. I chose this name somewhat at random. What have i walked into? Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A compliement from a user who has had a turbulent past on wikipedia, and looks to salvage a somewhat good reputation. Uncle Tech 07:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that. Much luck to you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Now if only other people were as accepting and friendly as you... and if i wasn't so stupid. Uncle Tech 07:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Where can I find further discussion on this? Sounds like something I'd be interested in. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't done that yet. I'm kind of contemplating the waters though. I want to know what you think of this idea. I'm very open to suggestions about how to proceed. My general impression is that there is a very reasonable range of people that are very familiar with CSD/AfD, and who are aware that these kinds of made-up issues are a problem, but who might disagree on otherwise conterversial issues... in other words... we might disagree on the hard case... but we can all agree that this kind of article is ridiculous and should be a CSD category. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthropocene extinction event

As someone who has contributed to this page or its talk page I am informaing you of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthropocene_extinction_event. Polargeo (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Destruction and construction

Hi there. Please forgive me if I sound a little angry, I can assure you, I'm not. But could you please explain to me why you ignored a tag that said "please do not edit this page while this message is displayed"? I understand that you are eager to rid the encyclopedia of content you think is unworthy for inclusion but when another editor asks you to wait a few minutes by adding {{inuse}} to a page, you should consider doing so. Impatience like this will only lead to people getting angry over nothing and not everyone is as patient as I am in such things. You might also want do read Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Regards SoWhy 09:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In this case, it was Silicon Valley University but the problem is a general one. You need to display more patience in any kind of tagging, I have noticed this multiple times now, hence I came here to tell you. Regards SoWhy 09:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you mean Silicon Valley University. (edit confict) I realize that you and I have differing opinions on WP:CSD. I respect your opinion and work on the vast majority of the project. Clearly we agree on most of it. I know that you've deleted articles I've tagged, and that you've passed on many articles that I think deserve a pass. Your reference to this is pertinent to our sole point of contention. I've similarly noticed your reticence to delete what I, and often other, editors believe are problematic pages. I will continue to address this issue through promoted policy changes. I have not in any way analyzed this (it's difficult to do as a non-admin in any case), but my general impression is that you're quite willing to let articles persist, more so than many other admin members of the community. This, combined with your tendency to argue for more strict CSD criteria, lead me to conclude that your position on CSD criteria is quite different than mine.
I recognize that I have made mistakes on CSD criteria in the past. I'm sure we all have. But you characterizing my efforts as a "problem" is distressing to me, particularly given your activity in the community. To my recent memory, other editors have not shared this concern with me. I hope we can work together to fix these disagreements, and if that means taking more articles to AfD rather than CSD, I appreciate that. I will be more aware in my future tagging on this point. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not generally think your view itself is a problem, despite differences that we might have. The problem I see is the impatience with which you tackle this area. The Silicon Valley University is an example of this. I declined the deletion and tagged it with {{underconstruction}} and while I worked on it, you PRODded it. I have to mid-work-save to avoid a huge edit conflict and tagged it with {{inuse}}. Then you tagged it for AFD 5 minutes later - while I was working on it again, leading to the next edit conflict. Now imagine I were a new editor, not someone who has long developed the patience needed for this project. Would they have felt welcome? Would they think their work is appreciated? Or wouldn't they rather now have the impression that people here are bent on destroying their work and isn't it thus likely that such a new editor will leave the project bitten? Deletion in general (CSD especially so) is an area where we can, and unfortunately do, lose dozens (or maybe even hundreds) of potentially great editors every day because their newly written articles, created oblivious to our rules, get trashed before they had time to understand why. Only some of them will take the burden of finding out why this happened and only very few will stay to learn. As such, it is important we display patience when handling such articles. Sure, there are some that have to go quite fast but if it's not so clear, we need to allow people to demonstrate why they think an article should be included. And if we notice that someone is working on it, we should not tag it for deletion while they are at it. That's just common courtesy. You might want to read (if you haven't already) Wikipedia:Why I hate Speedy Deleters which details why carefulness is required in that area (amongst other things).
Again, I am not criticizing the tags you applied in the past as incorrect or anything. You are quite educated when it comes to knowing what can or cannot be speedy deleted. The only concern I have is the one evident in your approach to the aforementioned article. Instead of simply adding the next tag on an article after the previous one has been rejected, you might want to consider just waiting a bit to see how things develop. If someone contests a prod, consider allowing them time to address the issues for which you prodded it. That's the only reason I came here and it's completely different from any CSD related concerns (because I don't know of any). Regards SoWhy 10:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
That's fair. I'm sorry if I responded too defensively, and I see your point about being too bitey towards new editors. I also clearly misread the edit history when neglecting the under construction template. I had thought that it been added by the original poster in the original post, not after. Thank you for taking the time to explain your point, and please excuse my jumping to conclusions. Shadowjams (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Why did you add notability and primary sources tags to Gaikai. 1up, Massively, Kotaku, Gamedaily. These are big, reliable, news sources in video games. They are Secondary sources also. Is there something I'm misunderstanding? McKay (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Radical Feminists dispute

I've responded to your questions at User_talk:Iamcuriousblue#New_York_Feminists and have posted a Wikiquette alerts at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ldsnh2. We'll see if this finally resolves the issue. Meanwhile, if the dispute heats up and Ldsnh2 starts reverting again, I'm going to, first, make them aware of the three-revert rule, and then if they actually violate it, will take it to the 3RR noticeboard. If you are involved in a revert dispute before I notice what's going on, you go ahead and take these steps. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah no problem. Thanks for taking the next step with this. I think this user is unfamiliar with WP customs and practice, if not internet custom and practice generally. It's unfortunate they have to react like this. Shadowjams (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


Question: do you know if this is anywhere near typical for this editor? I'm considering listing it for MFD as an attack page (one's clearly you, I don't know nor care who the other two men are). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's a rewrite of the article New York Radical Feminists which is the point of contention (the page has been deleted so I'm not sure what it said). I really don't know about the user's past conduct. I intervened in what was essentially a tag removal edit war/content dispute. For some reason, my hunch is partially out of a lack of understanding of what I actually changed, this user has behaved pretty poorly towards me and user:Iamcuriousblue, maybe some others too. According to Iamcuriuos, the user did make constructive edits, although maybe some of it was original research. Their conduct since this incident has been completely uncalled for though. There are really 3 problems. First, they don't seem to want to discuss things on talk pages (instead using edit summaries to make most of their arguments). Second, they have attacked me, and other users using ad hominem attacks based on gender (the assumption is I'm male, which is presumptuous because neither my user pages or edit history ever state my gender). Third, they seem to be ignorant of wikipedia policy, but more importantly, unwilling to engage in reasonable resolution of these issues. I would never have guessed in nearly 10k edits that this edit would have become this big of an issue; I can only guess this user has never had their edits questioned before, even if they're something as small as cleanup tags. Shadowjams (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a pretty small article. Probably nobody has noticed it before. You want some real fun? See TfD the last few days for my fun with 1632 series. That person took their personal ownage of articles to a new level. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha, Thanks. Will do. I appreciate the support. I've managed to ignore this editor pretty well, but it is a little obnoxious. I am dismayed to be reminded people act this way from time to time. I can only imagine what a debate about actual content would sound like. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shadowjams

you have nominated Somali Student Association to be deleted. so far in the Articles for deletion/Somali Student Association there are more keeps then deletes. in a 1 out of 4 ratio i want to ask you how long does this discussion has to take. I would really like to edit this article to make it better, it is notable and should stay on wikipedia. I am writing on your talk to ask for your assistance. thank you. Diri0010 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussions are not a vote. You are more than welcome to contribute to the article at any time. You should make arguments on the AfD page for why it should be kept, but ultimately that decision is up to the closing admin. Shadowjams (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mortimer Legette edit


Mortimer legette did seve in XVII Corps, not VII Corps. This can be verified on this site. If you look up XVII corps on this site, it parallels legette's military service. VII corps meanwhile served mainly in Virginia. I also know this from memory because my Great, Great Grandfather served in XVII Corps so I've researched its history heavily Packfan1 (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why change the intra link and not the full link? By the way, this is a brand new account whose 3 only edits are to my talk page. The IP I reverted had also, only one edit. And the IP didn't provide an explanation for the change. None of this helps to convince me your edits are correct. Provide any of those, and I'd not have an objection. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

I've undone your revision of my edit, as I cannot see any valid reason why you would revert me from moving my comment to a more appropriate section in the thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I replied on your talk. I rved because it looked like you removed someone's talk and didn't explain why. I should have noticed it was your own talk. Sorry about that. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem! I'm glad we could clear it up. Happy editing! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my user page. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Teva Learning Center

Hi, Shadowjams! Might you be able to comment here? Basket of Puppies 19:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Why exactly did you respond to my talk page because of the Joseph Azar page? I reverted the edit made by the previous user. Before me it said something about Azar being a fucking mad dog or something like that all in capital letters. The weird thing is that you wrote the same thing to me and the vandal and said that you reverted the page when you did not in either case.

You have a blank talk page (red link) that's never been modified. I never left you a message on your talk page. As far as I can tell, you undid some vandalism, and I warned the editor who had done the vandalism. I also did not claim to remove anything. The vandalism template uses passive voice, and doesn't specify who removed it. Thanks for removing the vandalism. Shadowjams (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Shadowjams,

Way back in May, we had a conversation at my talk page about some ideas I had. It's actually the first significant post I ever made to my discussion page (still there -- not that you need to reread it).

I just wanted to let you know that I've finally followed through on one of those proposals, "A proposal for a new community page - a portal/homepage/community page for "law students"/"US JDs"

I created a task force, WP:Hornbook, which will serve this purpose.

I'm about to send out invitations to law students and members of WP:LAW, and WP:SCOTUS. Before I do, will you take a look at the invitation, the task force, etc., and give me some feedback? Thanks.

The invitation is here: User:Agradman/taskforcespam

Agradman talk/contribs 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks good. You've done a lot of work making this come to fruition. Let me know if there are specific tasks I can help on. Shadowjams (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 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. (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. (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. (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" ([21]) as does the office of Naval Research specifically in reference to NP ice (See [22] at page 213) (also in the title of a paper [23]) . 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. -- (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 :) Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 5 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)

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

If you want to add it back I won't remove it. But I don't know if someone else will. I don't think it necessarily meets WP:EL. It appears to be your own site, and I think adding it for that reason is problematic. Shadowjams (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Monkey see, monkey do?

Anyone can edit Wilkipedia, including IPs, so you will just have to READ the edicts before reverting them -- (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I read every edit I revert. You added an inline web link to russian wikipedia and added "vehement Russian opponent". The HTML coded url caught my attention yes, and I should have explained what I was doing. I'm sorry for not being more clear.
However, adding external links in the body of an article violates the Manual of Style (See this). I realize that's slightly different when linking to another wiki project, so again, It does so explicitly, even when linking to a foreign wikipedia. (See here ).The link is to the russian language wikipedia, and of course, it's all in Russian. I question how useful this is to an english wikipedia reader. These links also require a note that the target is in a foreign language. I should have explained what I was doing in the edit summary. These are reasons to question the edit.
In retrospect I probably wouldn't rv it with huggle, although I will change it now appropriately. My apology notwithstanding, I resent both the tone you took coming to my page, and in the edit summary (You put "so I misspelled adn, is that any reason to revert? get a life...and a new bot :)"). I also do not appreciate the suggestion that I don't read my reverts.
For a little more context, an edit from your IP after the one you're complaining about, but before you left this message, is interesting itself[24]:
...Several attempts have been made to block my ability to edit Wikipedia because...I think that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, even an IP addressed editor. In all that time of others trying to block me, including baseless accusations of sockpuppetry which I was then invited to defend myself against (!), I have had several accounts in Wikipedia, and never stopped editing :) I live in the hope of one day having my name cleared, and being allowed to edit again "in the open", but until that far day comes, I must evade "crime fighters"
You'll find other editors a lot more apologetic and accommodating when you don't come out them dripping in sarcasm and contempt. For the record, if I was a bot, I'm a damn sneaky one. Shadowjams (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

St. michael's

Mate, I'm just trying to point out that the vast majority of the ST. Michael's page is uncertified rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Then fix it. Don't vandalize it. You can use the talk page to voice any concerns, and you can place templates WP:TC on the top that match the problem. But don't mess up the article just to make a point. Shadowjams (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Was constructive

The NPG edit was constructive. However, I can see why some people don't want it in Wikipedia because it could look like retaliation. After all, the person had no edits. He is accused of writing an email but there was no other way to deliver the message and we have no confirmation that the email is genuine, just an accusation and blocking.

However, I am for Wikipedia so it doesn't bother me too much if we censor something to not make us look bad. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've fixed it. Shadowjams (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Reverting self tests?

What was my recent experiment? (Just curious) Dr. Szląchski (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Took me a minute to figure it out. I've apparently had some software issues. It was meant for on Sangla Hill. I am 95% certain I hit the button for the IP after their 2 in a row edits. I have no idea why it went to you, and not the IP. Sorry bout that. Maybe found another huggle bug :|. Shadowjams (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That is okay I had the same mistake using MWT.Dr. Szląchski (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


What was this edit about? You removed wikilinks and changed one sentence to nonsense: "Novell, a software service firm, now part of Novell". Please be more careful. Offliner (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That Novell link didn't link like you think it did. The second part of a wiki link is the displayed text, the part before the pipe is the actual link. The Cambridge Technology Partners link was in fact a link to Novell. Disambiguation pages are never supposed to do this. By the way, the Cambridge Technology Partners link is a redirect to Novell now anyway. I've fixed the redundancy now. Removing links is actually part of the dab Manual of style. Please be more careful. Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that disambig pages are not supposed to have all the wikilinks. Seems like a stupid rule, but I guess there's nothing I can do about it. Offliner (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It's ok. It's kind of an esoteric rule. The reason is that dab pages shouldn't be confusing as to which link is the operative one, and what the link directs to. They also aren't supposed to have periods at the end but I've quit doing those changes unless there are other changes too. At first I was bothered by the removal of links, but since I've noticed links that are confusing, so I like the rule now. Shadowjams (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

George Sotitopoulos

George Sotitopoulos is actually of Gypsy (Roma) background not Greek. This is 100% factual information. How can you change my post citing 'it appears to introduce incorrect information?' He is Gypsy not Greek, you cannot prove otherwise, ask him yourself if you don't believe it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert it. I warned you about it though because the first time you made the change you didn't have any explanation of why you changed it, and the second time (you didn't really have any explanation then either). Somebody else changed it though. You need to find a source and put that in there. Just asking him isn't going to work.Shadowjams (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

About your help with mounting

Thanks for the suggestion for mounting my FAT drive, but I fixed the problem =) sorry I couldn't try your idea. If I ever have problems with it again I'll be sure to check it out though? --BiT (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

NP. It's a strange problem if it keeps coming back. Shadowjams (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the Iowa tidy-up! Bill Whittaker (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RO•BOT (film)

I hope you don't mind, but rather than start a second AfD for a closely related article I have added to your AfD the article RO-BOT by the same author, about what is evidently the "book of the film", which does not seem to have been published (if it exists at all, and I suspect both film and book exist only in the author's head). By the way, when you raise an AfD you should notify the article author with {{subst:AFDWarning|<articlename>}} or (if he's new) the more explanatory {{subst:AFDWarningNew|<articlename>}}. I've done that for this one. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem adding them. I rarely uncheck the box on AfDs. If I did, my mistake. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Solo Batik Carnival

I removed your proposed deletion from Solo Batik Carnival. I quickly found plenty of news coverage that show notability. Please try to find if sources before claiming the subject is not notable and proposing deletion. (WP:BEFORE) --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My reason was and is still valid. There is no indication of notability in the article. Because Google news shows results doesn't indicate notability. On that search, all appear to be local sources (or people's flickr photos). Its an annual carnival that started just over a year ago, and has had two events, in a small-mid-sized city. The article has little content. It gives its date and location, and then says it features mythological masks. There is little else of substance in the article.
Given the lack of assertion of notability, a prod seemed appropriate. Now that I've cleaned up the article and waded through some translated sources I might agree with you that it could be notable, although that remains to be seen.
What bothers me though is your implied presumption that I half-haphazardly tagged the article. Please try to assume some good faith, and even more, perhaps help cleanup the article or add the sources you claim to have found. At the very least tagging it so others may find it to clean it up later (the article is a mess) would be better than your bare removal. When you remove a prod or a CSD tag without fixing the underlying problem, or without tagging it so someone will, you make it very difficult for others to improve the encyclopedia later. I do not like it when users who disagree with a deletion out of a desire to improve the encyclopedia, in the end make it harder. Shadowjams (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

re: proposal to merge History of Oak Park and River Forest High School

Greetings Shadowjams!

I saw you recently proposed merging this article back into the article it was split from. You left no reason for the merge proposal, and was wondering if you could provide an explanation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I put my tail between my legs on this one. I really am in awe of your work on high school pages. That seems like a thankless task to me, but you've done it day in and day out, and on pages that I know deserve it.
I really do usually follow through on my merge suggestions, sometimes to a lot of work when it's not necessary. Unfortunately I didn't do that in this case, and it's embarrassing to me. I'm sorry about that. I am sort-of-retired (:
My only comment about the actual article is that the replacement with the history section is a little bit promotional. I think it could be toned down, and it does seem a little bit political for a high school page. But of course, none of these are fatal flaws; the article's certainly long enough for a fork. My only critical suggestion is that the original page language should be a bit more neutral.
In any case, thank you for pointing out my mistake. Shadowjams (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
There is zero need for an apology. I am going right over and checking that language ... I understand that you are retired, but I would gratefully appreciate it if you would check it any time later on, and please either make some edits, or suggest improvements. I am greatly flattered by your kindness, but I look at myself as a learner .... I might know a lot about that school now, but when it comes to editing, I am always willing to learn more. Thanks! LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I have trouble holding to this "semi-retired" thing, although I have cut back. Shadowjams (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting Sun City Rays

Would you be okay if I redirected this page to the Senior Professional Baseball Association? Message me. The other editor was okay with a redirect also. Ikip (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Zona Franca

Zona Franca and Zona Franca - Port are different things. Zona Franca - Port is an area of the district of Sants-Montjuïc that includes the Port of Barcelona and the Zona Franca (Barcelona). I create the artice about Zona Franca - Port, not the article of Zona Franca (Barcelona) and you renamed in the wrong way, you can create an artice called Zona Franca (Barcelona) explaining the industrial zone, I just create and article about an administrative zone.--Vilar 10:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I think you're saying that Zona Franca (Barcelona) is different from the Zona franca, the industrial zone. I'm not sure what this distinction means. Using the dash is not correct as per the Manual of Style. I do not have a distinct content dispute with you, however, if I cannot understand what your objection is to the otherwise reasonable naming of the article, I am not sure how to resolve any issues. Shadowjams (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've done some more research and I think I understand your point now. I've kept your changes in place, and only moved Zona Franca - Port to Zona Franca (Port), which is the naming convention. I hope this is satisfactory to you. Shadowjams (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. But there is still a problem, the name of the whole area is Zona Franca - Port not Zona Franca (Port). If you say Zona Franca (Port) that means that Zona Franca is in the Port but if you say Zona Franca - Port means that there is a Zona Franca and a Port. You can see here the official name bcn. --Vilar 11:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's true. I realize you have a website that you think is the official name, but you're mixing up the formatting of the title and the official name. The website maker chose to format the title header is the official name. In fact, the name is "Zona Franca" and the person put - Port to distinguish what it was. I quickly found confirmation of this with a google search: Lloyd's list ports of the world, Issue 2 is one example. Shadowjams (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Zona Franca is an industrial area and the Port de Barcelona is a port, both are different things but the Council of Barcelona (Ajuntament de Barcelona Ajuntament de Bcn official website.) use the name "Zona Franca - Port" as administrative area of the district of Sants-Montjuïc that includes the Port and the Zona Franca, in its website specify that is not a neighbourhood because in that area don't live nobody, so I don't understand why you don't belive me because I gibe you official sources.

Non official sources:

Official sources:

As you can see in the last one, the district council of Sants-Montjuïc uses the name of Zona Franca - Port and Parc de Montjuïc as two parts of the district that are not neighbourhoods but are parts of their zone.


  • Sants-Montjuïc is a district of Barcelona:
    • Sants is a neighbourhood of the district of Sants-Montjuïc
    • Montjuïc is a mountain of the district of Sants-Montjuïc
    • Zona Franca - Port, an area of Sants-Montjuïc:
      • Zona Franca, an area of "Zona Franca - Port (Sants-Montjuïc)"
      • Port of Barcelona, an area of "Zona Franca - Port (Sants-Montjuïc)"

It make no sense to create an article as Zona Franca (Barcelona) and another one as Zona Franca (Port), what is the difference between both? There's no place called Zona Franca in the Port.--Vilar 12:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. perhaps I understand you better now. A few little points. Our Port of Barcelona article is pretty clear that the Barcelona Free Port is part of the Port of Barcelona. That seems right for a whole host of reasons.
I propose we redirect Zona Franca (Barcelona) to Barcelona Free Port, and that we redirect Zona Franca (Port) to Barcelona Free Port.
Next, I still disagree with your assertion that the official name has a dash in it, thus the district's called "Zona Franca - Port". I have a few reasons for this: 1) the website's not "official", 2) the website's using the "- port" as a designator, not as the name, 3) the map calls it "Zona Franca- port" and the website calls it "Zona Franca - Port", 4) that it is atypical for an official name to use an emdash in that way.
Finally, it's ironic that there is no Port of Barcelona/Port de Barcelona article right now. If you have any interest I might suggest you create it, or else I can make a stub at some point, when I have time to do some research.
So, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to do the redirects I suggest above, unless you tell me otherwise. I'm going to leave your naming on "Zona Franca - Port" unaltered. And maybe I'll create the Port of Barcelona article, if you don't beat me to it. Maybe at a later date we can find a larger forum (Project transportation, project spain, project barcelona, Requests for Comment) to ask the naming convention question. Shadowjams (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but maybe the problem is that my English is not very good. I don't know where are you from, but in Catalan there are some places with official name with a dash, for example in Barcelona: Sarrià - Sant Gervasi, Sants-Montjuïc and Zona Franca - Port. You can see them also as Sarrià-Sant Gervasi or Zona Franca-Port but in a correct catalan is Sarrià - Sant Gervasi or Zona Franca - Port, in the case of Sarrià the official name is Sarrià-Sant Gervasi.
"Zona Franca - Port" means "Zona Franca i Port" in English would be "Free zone and Port". For example Sarrià-Sant Gervasi, or Horta-Guinardó: both are districts of Barcelona formed by some neighbourhoods, in the firs case there is the neighbourhood of Sarrià and the neighbourhood of Sant Gervasi de Cassoles or just Sant Gervasi so it is used as "Sarrià i Sant Gervasi" Sarrià and Sant Gervasi" but the official one is with a dash not with and "i". The problem of "Zona Franca - Port"; "Zona Franca-Port" or "Zona Franca- Port" is a mistake as you could write "Citi of London" the correct one is "City of London"; in that case the official is "Zona Franca - Port" (in a catalan correct way) but in the case of Sarrià - Sant Gervasi the official is "Sarrià-Sant Gervasi" but in a catalan way that is incorrect but that is official so you have to used the official.
I clarify some things. There is not a Free port in Barcelona there is a free industrial zone so maybe the "Barcelona Free Port" is incorrect and it seems that in that article are talking about the Zona Franca so maybe Barcelona Free Port has to redirect to Zona Franca (Barcelona) or be renamed in an english way as Free industrial zone (Barcelona) but it's not a port is a free industrial zone.
The port is named "Port de Barcelona" so here maybe the best way is Barcelona port or Port of Barcelona, I can translate from the catalan wikipedia, but it's not too long, as in the spanish too.
I go out now, we can decide a definitive thing tomorrow? And I can creat Port of Barcelona--Vilar 19:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't change the pre-existing Port of Barcelona article--lots of names get anglicized on english wikipedia and there should be a redirect, but it's not necessarily wrong to leave them. Your explanation makes more sense to me now. Shadowjams (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
So, how should we named each article? --Vilar 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest those redirects that I mentioned above, and I don't know the right way to name everything else--I'll read up on the article naming conventions for foreign language geographic names. Maybe the Port of Barcelona article should be moved, but I want to be sure that's right first. Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, we talk tomorrow. I go to dinner now that are "la festa major" (party) of my town. See you. --Vilar 20:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Upgraded warning

Just to let you know, I upgraded your automatic template on User talk: to a warning, as I'm assuming you didn't notice I gave the IP an "edit test" template for another edit on the same article just yesterday. Just an FYI  :) ....

Peace and Passion("I'm listening....") 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


sorry. I had a look at the coords that were on the original and noticed they are pointing into the middle of nowhere in the woomera rocket range. No roads, no blast area, nothing. So decided to find out real coords. This web site lists the coords for totem 1 and 2 correctly.

If you examine them both in google earth they make sense. Access roads, blast rings, cable runs, etc. Also you can see the airfield they built about 17km to the WNW on a lake bed.

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your note, I thought about CSDing it under G3, but decided against it as I didn't want to be too harsh if the user was posting about a new subject that I didn't know about. But ya, G3 would also apply in this case. If I understand it correctly, an article may fit under multiple CSD reasons. Regarding users that deCSD "improper" tags, I've seen cases of those and I'm somewhat annoyed by that type of behavior. My view is that if someone has the time to deCSD it, they should also have to time to reCSD it under the "right" CSD. Funny, the article in question was actually deleted under A7. =D Cya around Wikipedia! Netalarmtalk 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How much you get paid to do this?

I'm about as anal with my editing as most of the guys who work on here. What's the job go for?

What part of "Come on, hurry up and revert this, you homos. I need to go to sleep. " is productive? Shadowjams (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It keeps you productive by keeping you on your toes.


Thanks for the the Constructive Edits. The NT books of the Bible need a lot of work! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


I changed my vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian to support, in view of a further explanation he gave. Thought you might like to know. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. My !vote wasn't based on your analysis. I hope you might reconsider your change though, because I agree with your original analysis. Shadowjams (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page edits

Regarding this edit to the dab page Veracruz (disambiguation), and many similar edits: Please do not remove blue links that support red-linked entries. Each entry on the page should have a blue link (although exceptions are often made for place names). --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a little off base, but you're right, that entry needs to be fixed. Disambiguation pages have a very specific manual of style, and my edits are meant to remove some of those extraneous links. In the edit you're talking about, I removed the album link, per the MoS, and left the song link. I didn't make it a redlink; I only removed the blue link inadvertently. In practice, if the song doesn't have its own page it probably shouldn't be on the dab page, but I don't usually patrol for those sorts of things. If you have problems with any of my other edits please help me fix the ones that have issues. Shadowjams (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


I closed my Rfa about an hour ago and left a strongly worded closing statement. I wanted to make sure that you know that I did not mean it in reference to you. Your remarks were kind and supportive and I am very appreciative. I, for the most part, left the message that I did because I felt that I offered a legitimate suggestion to be taken into consideration for future Rfa's that was dismissed because I was power-hungry, an accusation that I am deeply resent. In any case, I hope to see you around the encyclopedia.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk Contribs 19:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving me the note. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glass America

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Glass America, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass America. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Anything for a fellow Huggler. Cheers and keep up the good work! -sesuPRIME 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


man , what db-s7 means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moruni (talkcontribs) 12:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was a mistake. I see you've removed it, don't worry about it. Shadowjams (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fast food rockers

You're right, it was unconstructive. Forgive me. This lot should have been aborted, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

changing 'the saboteur' page

I'm sorry if you felt out I was editing too extremely; the list I deleted was written up like an advertisement for the game and was more or less irrelevant to the page. It seemed like the best way to go about fixing it, I certainly didn't expect it to cause any trouble. As someone much more involved with Wikipedia, what better course of action would you suggest for the future in such cases? --Monkeyshines19 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't know what page you're referencing. Shadowjams (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your great work fighting the relentless tide of mindless maniacs... Way to go! Jusdafax 06:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


I am very sorry. I got the wrong end of the stick when the last anon reverted it. I actually thought he put in in, didn't examine it properly. That edit is not worthy of me and I apologize again. I see what I did now. Lover Of Democracy (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've reverted the misplaced warning. That sort of thing happens all the time when there's vandalism from multiple IPs. Sorry for the mistake, and keep up the good work. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting vandal on my userpage!

BlazerKnight (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Under 17 Gulf Cup of Nations Winners

hi I have create this page by mistake I was want to create a Template Template:Under 17 Gulf Cup of Nations Winners but I create a Article Template:Under 17 Gulf Cup of Nations Winners so delete it (Sm3a (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)).

I've updated the prod message so a closing admin can see your message here. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

EVENTING European cham 1993

there IS a mistake ; if you don't allow corrections (very relevant) what's the use ? if you want to leave a 13 year old rider with a silver medal , then why should anyone care ?

a diaoppointed fench wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Je n'ai aucune idée de ce que vous parlez. Shadowjams (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually I do. You inserted BORN in 1980 ! AGED 13 ! what about Ms COOK ? {{flagicon|France}} into an article completely out of place. You're using the article space for talk page material. I've left you the relevant message on your talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy declined on Pikachu Virus

Hi there, I declined the speedy the pikachu virus, as a quick google search shows there is a virus of this name. Though this is poorly written, needs refs and possibly not notable etc this is not a criteria for a speedy, so may I suggest it goes via AFD. Cheers Khukri 11:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that besides removing the speedy tag, you didn't tag this article, for prod, afd, or even with a notability tag or a cleanup tag. I see this pattern with speedies all too often, and I find it problematic. I also noticed a subsequent editor reworded the article to avoid copyright issues on the one you removed the cad for. Again, just because something shows up on google is not evidence that it's not a copyright issue or even that it's not a hoax. Shadowjams (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the lecture, which I find amusing consider you didn't do any research to find the hoax. I didn't prod as I normally do because I left the next recourse on the page above take it to AFD. I was actioning your speedy tag, not anything else that may or may not have been on the page. May I suggest you try to find a less abrasive tone, remember I left you the message above in good faith, and the message I left wasn't a critique. Khukri 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a lecture. I am addressing your bare removal, an issue that I believe needs attention. I didn't intend to be patronizing, and insofar as my tone was off (I've striken the parts that I think you're referring to) I'll try to avoid it in the future.
I stand by my point: editors that remove CSD tags should take responsibility for their removal, and not leave pages with clear issues without a tag or a further indication of action (cleanup would be ideal, but that's unrealistic and sometimes inefficient). In this case the page was a direct copy of this (maybe I should have tagged G12 instead of G3). It also appears to have notability issues.
When left without any sort of tag, articles with acknowledged issues are easily lost amongst 3 million articles. In this case, the copyright violation would have persisted without any warning, or any category so that someone looking to do article cleanup could find it.
My google search, for the first few sentences turned up the one result, that was a direct copy. It also sounded like it was a made up hoax, but I acknowledge that it wasn't well suited for G3. My oversight was using G3 instead of G12--that's my mistake. SoWhy did an excellent job cleaning it up, but that sort of attention is an exception, not the norm. So the second best possibility is to tag the article so that someone can easily find it later, and clean it up. Shadowjams (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: You have almost always (with the one exception above) addressed the article issues when you remove a speedy. The above isn't directed at your editing in general, but just at that type of editing, of which I only see this as an example. Shadowjams (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the considered reply. If you need anything in the future don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri 07:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an old dispute

Why are you looking over my shoulder?Likebox (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking over your shoulder. I've never interacted with you before. I just noticed a recent set of rapid reverts between two people and noticed an edit war. It was just a friendly warning (and since you're a regular user I wrote a personal message--didn't use a template). I sent a message to the other editor too. This is pretty standard behavior. Shadowjams (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


hi, im morciangeneral, dont get me wrong, but i was suprised when i found morcia wasnt on wikipedia so yeah, i made the page. so wether by mistake or on purpose, u seem to have thought i meant morrocan people, which it isnt, and im new to this thing, so could you change it back, cause i dont know how, thanks Morciangeneral (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand what you were trying to add now. I had thought that you misspelled Moroccan. Now I see that Morcia is a redirect to Lego Castle. I'm guessing this is a fictional place. If the fictional place itself isn't notable enough to have its own article, then an article for its people probably isn't either. I would suggest you add that information to Lego Castle which is the parent article. I've fixed the redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Inferno Canto 3 line 9.jpg
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
Kww(talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


There is no dispute, actually. The user replaced a free image of the Crown Princess with an image that is nominated for deletion. The image shouldn't be used until its status is confirmed, but I will not bother with that anyomore. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I noticed the back and forth, and wanted to send the warning out there, particularly since neither of you were new. I realize these kinds of things are often pretty clear on observation, so I'm sorry if I bothered you out of place. Thanks for replying. If the argument goes on I'd be willing to help try and get outside help, or weigh in if the issue is minor (I stumbled upon it, I have no clue about the underlying content). Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


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

-FASTILYsock (TALK) 05:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not vandilising!

What i Did to I Can't Drive 55 is just creating a link to my 'NiN10Doh!' page. Yes, I actually Helped the article link to other internal pages. --RotMS (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I had undone my reversal, and now I've undone the warning too. Sorry for the trouble. Shadowjams (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al najah secondary school

Hi, Shadowjams. I have rewritten Al-Najah Secondary School. Would you revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al najah secondary school? My suggestion is to keep the current article and purge the page history which contains attacks on the school's principal. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I think your edits are excellent, but in an AfD context I don't have the background to evaluate those sorts of claims, so I rely on others. Shadowjams (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)



--Flowersmadgirl11 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)



--Flowersmadgirl11 (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

The welcome message is appreciated, but I'm not particularly a new user! I've been editing for around 2 to 3 months, and have been signed up since December last year.

Thanks all the same. RWJP (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that, but you also had never had a talk page edit, which seemed odd given your activity. So I figured I'd give you a concise one to start it off, and see, as I did, what your response might be.

Of course, good to have you here. I like your work. Shadowjams (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, fair enough. Didn't mean to come off rude or anything, just surprised to s get a welcome message out of the blue! RWJP (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
not received as rude at all. Shadowjams (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, and cheers for the compliment on my work, i've tried my best to help out! RWJP (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


{{Talkback|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients}}

Please explain Internet Relay Chat services in this edit [25]

--Tothwolf (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. Shadowjams (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. Why did you include that article in your comment on that AfD? It isn't a "comparison" article and it doesn't seem to make sense to have it in that list. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure. Looks like a mistake. Feel free to remove that one. I don't think it will confuse anyone though. Shadowjams (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You'll need to strike it out then, I can't remove your text in that AfD as it is too political due to the nom and his "friend" having wikistalked me for months. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I already did that, but who cares? It's not part of the deletion discussion. I just added the note so others would have context. I haven't even commented for keep or delete either way, not to mention the AfD seems like a quick keep. Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that AfD seemed pretty obvious to me too. My main issue is the continued wikistalking and harassment. The nom has AfD'd at least two more articles since he AfD'd that one (one is the mobile clients comparison article). --Tothwolf (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes

I've presented evidence there that this is a notable intersection which you may want to consider. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello. I noticed you'd removed blue links in some dab page entries. In cases where there are red links we should leave one "navigable" blue link so as to provide the reader at least one choice to explore further. There is a lot to know about those types of pages. Thought I'd let u know. Dawnseeker2000 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Which one was it? I had that problem in the past but I thought I'd fixed it. If you let me know which one it was I'll take a look and see if I can update my regexes accordingly. Shadowjams (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I should've mentioned it. The TCP dab page was the one. Have a good weekend! Dawnseeker2000 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I see it now. It's TCP. It's a hard problem to fix actually because there's no way (that I know of) in AWB to have it test if the link is a redlink when doing the find/replaces, so the only way to catch it is to look manually, and occasionally I miss them. It wouldn't be a problem if the entry was already formatted correctly, since there shouldn't be redlinks in there anyway (unless the article's very likely to get created soon), but if people followed the MoS then I wouldn't have to be doing this in the first place. Shadowjams (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The red links are OK sometimes. If there is another page that links to that red link item (other than the dab page itself) then it meets the threshold for inclusion. Anyhow, good work. Dawnseeker2000 04:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned about the redundancy created in the "symphony #" disambiguation pages. For example, "Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 in A major (Ludwig van Beethoven)." But not concerned enough to actually do anything about it. James470 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fair. I was just following the DAB rules. That set of pages is already problematic because it has links to both the composer and the symphony itself. I didn't remove the composer links because it would have orphaned the redlink ones (more than a few) and I figured doing the pipe removal was a compromise between the two. But I see your point about the redundancy now. I similarly don't feel strongly either way.
After staring at it for a minute I think your point's a good one. I've rolled them all back. I'm still a little uncomfortable with the layout of those pages. I don't think we should have both links to the composers and the symphony (it outright violates Manual of style) and it makes the entries muddled, especially since there's no unliked character (other than a space) between the two different links. That's the kind of confusion the disambiguation style is an attempt to avoid. But I'm not going to change those for now. Shadowjams (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we could remove the composer links for those symphonies that have their own articles and keep them for the others. James470 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent disobedience

hi. so thanx for welcoming me. my tanks. so you are aso having my article deletion. i dont get it

Let's discuss it at the AfD page above. Shadowjams (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, but i dont see why you want to delte this. its important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest Fawn (talkcontribs) 14:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent disobedience

I'm reasonably sure this is a WP:NEWT article. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Shadowjams (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ono palindromes

Hello Shadowjams, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ono palindromes - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem; like you mention in your AfD nomination, the article makes a number of (unverified) claims to significance, so it's not an appropriate choice for WP:A7. Keep up the patrolling,  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

Face-grin.svg Thanks, Shadowjams, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know!
Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your'e not reading the edit history very well

There was no context on that article, and it's been redirected for months now. Is this driving towards something? Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There was enough context that someone could have figured out what explicit context-setting should have been added. It's been redirected only for a couple of days; I redirected it after restoring its edit history. Where did you ever get the idea that it's been redirected for months? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought this issue was answered. I've always been referring to Additive models. Maybe you're seeing something different because you're an admin, but here's the history I see (w/o edit summaries):

   * (cur) (prev)  04:47, November 17, 2009 Michael Hardy (talk | contribs) (27 bytes)
   * (cur) (prev) 22:06, April 29, 2008 Victor Lopes (talk | contribs) (574 bytes)
   * (cur) (prev) 19:40, April 27, 2008 Icewedge (talk | contribs) (541 bytes)
   * (cur) (prev) 09:23, April 26, 2008 Addshore (talk | contribs) m (531 bytes)
   * (cur) (prev) 05:36, April 23, 2008 Vaneetchadha (talk | contribs) (468 bytes)

Now I've been told that it was restored. I expect you're seeing some of the history I can't see in regards to that. But that was cleared up a while back. I mispoke saying it had been redirected, but then wrote a second part to that three minutes later. I expected that would have cleared any confusion up. Shadowjams (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tipsy (T-Pain)

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Tipsy (T-Pain) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

doesn't assert notability, orphan

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Josh Parris 03:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your quick work is appreciated

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You are very quick in reverting vandalism, I appreciate that.  Merlion  444  07:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I sincerely appreciate it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Native to Pluto

He's a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor XXV/Archive. (have you any idea how to report him as such?) Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 09:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

i.e Native to Pluto: I try to rv his vandalism, but somehow you keep getting in the way. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 10:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, i.e the AIV report you made: he wasn't a spambot or a compromised account. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 11:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA comments

That's a fair criterion you've got there, I'm just glad the others didn't agree with you! I'm going to take CSD involvement slowly, I'm not going to jump straight in at the deep end. Fences&Windows 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Thank you for taking such an interest in my comments. For what it's worth, I have known your contributions for a while and I've never been disappointed in what I've seen. I'm sorry if I was out of the norm in injecting NPPs into the debate. If I had not been more busy I probably would have changed over to a pro vote, but that wasn't even necessary. I know you'll be a great admin, and thank you so much for the consideration in responding. It means a lot to me. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - transport in Bulgaria

User talk: Thanks for the warning! - but do you really think mistakenly adding a "library of congress" template to an article constitutes vandalism.? Which I reverted myself within 3minutes when I discovered the mistake [26]

Your message seems a little harsh? Also you added "Level 3 warning which I read means "Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; cease and desist" - is there any reason why you felt so strongly?

I realise you are very busy so don't feel any need to respond to this. Just wanted to say I was suprised! Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you've undone the edit. That's completely fine. I think you undid it before my RV went through, and you know quite a bit about the wiki process because you posted a diff, a login and an IP, edited with templates, and know the warning template levels. If I'm not sure I usually open them up in my browser and undo or roll them back as appropriate. I'm sorry if I mistook your edits for similar and more problematic edits from another user, perhaps because of the previous edit tags in your history. I'm removing that warning, because you undid your own edit. Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Comparison of state governments

Well, I'm sorry if that was a bit sarcastic, but you've done a great job with the article! With a longer lead and prose and references this could make a great FL. Reywas92Talk 15:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I didn't take it that way. I thought it was funny. Shadowjams (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You are a Ninja

obviously Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi Shadowjams. You really had me scared there for a second :) Cheers, Favonian (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha. I almost posted an apology, but hoped you hadn't seen it. Vandalism gets weird at this hour. Shadowjams (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
So true! Huggle is a swift reporter of traffic on the talk page. Favonian (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback re. bf2

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

SMC (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Hey! The edits I made were legit and were not vandalism! Those are legit player nicknames placed in the format player nicknames are commonly placed in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I shouldn't have reverted all of those without discussion. I thought they were made up vandalism additions, but it looks as though you were adding things in good faith. I see that there's a discussion about whether or not they should be added, so I hope that resolves it. Shadowjams (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That's what happens a Bot is unleashed on Wikipedia. Legitimate edits are flagged as pages needing maintenance or deletion. Tsk. It's enough to make a person ditch PPP for something Else. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Turnor

Please explain why you want it deleted, and what ought to be done. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 20:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Shadowjams explained in the prod template why; it is a disambiguation page with only one active link, and therefore pointless. Why do you want to keep it? On the other hand it should be a redirect, not a deletion. SpinningSpark 21:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking for advice. Any chance you could offer some? Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 21:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
First, you would have to make the article on the judge. Then, you'd have to find a third Christopher Turnor and make an article on that, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The above responses explain my prod reasoning. It's pretty much a technical prod. The whole point of disambiguation pages is to point to multiple articles, so it doesn't make much sense when there's only one link up. I wouldn't necessarily object to a redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Spinningspark has also explained it on my talk page. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 10:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


There is no need to shout at me with hidden comments in the article. I am perfectly well aware of the rules at MOS:DAB and this should have been clear from my edit summary when I reverted you. The purpose of a guideline is to guide, not to establish firm rules with the full authority of law. As it says at the top of the guideline page, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." The reason for the rule against pipes is to avoid the reader being misled over the article they are about to jump to. Do you really think that a user following a link to "car tuner" is going to be disappointed to arrive at "car tuning"? Correct english is way more important than avoiding pipes. Do you really think that "car tuning" is a "car enthusiast"? If the pipe really bothers you, reword it with acceptable grammar and I will stop messing with it. SpinningSpark 15:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apology. I did not remember that I'd edited the article before. I was working from the same, somewhat outdated database dump, and reverted it twice because it came up in my list twice. That I put the header in there (something I was experimenting with--it's not a regular practice of mine) was a total coincidence. I see now looking at the history that it looks like I was reacting to you, but please take my word that I was ignorant of my previous edit when making this one, and I hadn't seen your revert either.
I also tried to tweak the wording so that it was grammatically correct. I realize the first round I did sounds wrong, but the second one I think is a good model. Something like * [[Piano tuning]], adjusting the pitch of pianos using a tuning fork or a frequency counter fits well, and meets the guidelines. I think the piping guidelines serve an important purpose. If those entries can be reworded to make them comply I think they should. I won't change it for now, but I'll add a comment to the article to note the point, and I'd also invite you to take a crack at rewording them too.
Thanks for handling the question below as well. Shadowjams (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Your edit to the "piano tuning" entry is right on the money. The same thing on the "car tuner" entry would be good. If you confirm to me that you want the Turnor article deleted to make way for a move, I will do it right now as "housekeeping" speedy if you like. SpinningSpark 13:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll change it similarly to the Piano Tuning entry. Shadowjams (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Phil Bridger deprodded the Christopher Tunor article. I don't like the idea of letting redlinks hang in a disambiguation page, even if there's a second blue link, because the lack of an article effectively removes many of the checks and balances on article's accuracy, etc. But because Bridger objects, and because I've got no worries about that particular instance as a problem, I'm fine to let it be. Shadowjams (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedian Game

Frankly I think that the page is of value to Wikipedia, and if you try to bring it down, I'll get my solid Wikipedia posse on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny4026 (talkcontribs) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please comment at the AfD then. I'm open to changing my opinion if there are good arguments. Shadowjams (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Pulpitis

I agree with the proposal to merge Acute suppurative pulpitis with Pulpitis Ashley Payne (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a bit longer and then implement the merge (if the consensus I'm seeing develop holds), or maybe someone will beat me to it, which is fine too. Shadowjams (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedian Game

This is what I won't do if you continue your random campaign of hate against the Wikipedian Game page. Jonny4026 (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


I just saying something true. there is a mrrior spongebob and if you dont belive it, I will delete all your stuff, so what are you gonna do about it?!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioToonlink7777 (talkcontribs) 00:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tajikistan under17 national football team

Do not remove the page. This should be kept, as Tajikistan only featured at the world cup at U17 level and made it to second round. The best performance by a Tajik national football team at international level. (Rooyintan (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC))


I challenge your Prod request and have removed the tag. I see no reason whatsoever for this request. I have properly documented notability in the talk page of the article as requested.  kgrr talk 21:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Eli Whitney Students Program possible merger

Greetings! I see you've commented at the discussion of a possible merger of Eli Whitney Students Program into Yale College (discussion here) but haven't made clear whether you favour or oppose the merger. Right now, the only clear opinions are mine and Milkbaba's. Could you weigh in with your opinion on the fate of the article? I'm only asking you since you have commented on the topic already; I've not asked anybody else, though if there are no new opinions by the 9th, I'll request a third opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure I'll take a look. Shadowjams (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

FarmVille Merging

'Ello! You recently suggested that the List of things that you plant on Farmville should be merged into the FarmVille article. I have left a response and started a discussion here. If you would like, you may add input. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Shadow, there is a debate about co-ordination. I argue that it is not essential since of the 60,000 WP:FDUB edits I checked there were effectively only 2 reverts, and they have been changed again with no complaint. However I did "coordinate" by doing the 0-9 range which FDUB will not do.

Effectively you can co-ordinate with FDUB by not editing pages with the ranges it has completed (jan 1- feb 14 and dec 10-31), but it cannot currently, and is not currently required to, coordinate with you.

It is important I think that you catch effectively all the full dates on a page, so you should pick up the three main formats. Make sure you include an optional "." in your abbreviations. Sprinkling the regex with " *" is a good idea, although it is probably about .1% of articles that have these types of dates.

\[\[ *0?([1-3]?\d) *(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) *\]\] *\[\[ *([1-9]\d{2,}) *\]\]

for example picks up strangely spaced links and suppresses leading "0"s

\[\[ *0?([1-3]?\d)(st|rd|nd|st) *(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) *\]\] *\[\[ *([1-9]\d{2,}) *\]\]

also gets links like 1st September 1999, finally

\[\[ *0?([1-3]?\d)(st|rd|nd|st)[ _]*(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) *\]\][, ]*\[\[ *([1-9]\d{2,}) *\]\]

catches legal underscores between the parts in the first link.

For a test page copy User:Full-date unlinking bot/Test environment to your userspace. It tests for false negatives, I.E you should get everything on this page (and some more). It does not test for false negatives - for example two half dates split by a sentence end, or things that look like dates but aren't. I did find one Octember I think, the context made it clear what it actually was. Rich Farmbrough, 07:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Oh and more than 4 digits in the year is very rare, more so than 2 digit years I would say. Rich Farmbrough, 08:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
Yes you missed most (all?) of the dates here. Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
15 of the last 100 edits left date in the articles, all except one were either mdy of ISO, one was dm,y. Rich Farmbrough, 08:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for everything you posted. Those, and especially the test page will be immensely helpful.
I had a test message for a few, I probably should have left it on, hence all of my non-complete edits. I was only addressing non-Americanized dates, pretty much using only the regex I posted to you. I'm trying to work into the date formatting slowly since I know it has quite a few hidden pitfalls. I'll go back over the ones I did soon (hopefully most won't need it), but sorry if I gave the impression that I was working with a fully-functioning set on this initial batch. Shadowjams (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I picked up those that you just did. Do feel free to use the settings I posted at WP:AWB/settings. Rich Farmbrough, 08:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
On coordination: my instinct was that it wouldn't be necessary--after a short time the bulk would be handled and then it would be like any other semi-automated edit that gets handled at the rate that issues pick up. Shadowjams (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Typographic vandalism

Could you please ensure that you do not replace typographically correct quotation marks and apostrophes with dumb quotes? You have done that in at least two places: [27][28]. Amongst other things, this indiscriminate replacement broke some of the links in the articles. Thank you. — Richie 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Those edits are in accordance with the Manual of Style. Specifically, WP:MOS#Quotation_marks. Using typographic "curly" glyphs is not the preferred method. I don't see any links broken by those edits either.

The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes (see preceding section) is recommended. They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. Mixed use interferes with some searches, such as those using the browser's search facility...Furthermore, html elements (such as <ref name="foo"/>) may not always work if curly quotes are used.

Whenever quotation marks or apostrophes appear in article titles, make a redirect from the same title but using the alternative glyphs.
The Christ's College, Cambridge edit would have broken two links that were improperly piped had those pages existed, but neither did. I have fixed those improper redlinks.
Nor were there any links broken in Peterhouse, Cambridge. No accents were edited in the links in that one.
You'll notice that I never edit an article solely to make that change (if that was my only change then it was my mistake), but only do those changes when there are other, more substantial changes to make. But in either case, this is the preferred Manual of Style edit.
I do thank you though for pointing out a very helpful point: that many articles are going to have improper pipes like this. I'll adjust my filter so that it won't make these sorts of changes to the piped or linked pages, and perhaps adjust them so the displaying one is piped correctly as well. It also opens up some possibilities for necessary moves, of non-redirect pages whose titles have those accent marks.
Even without me citing the above policy, do you honestly believe my edits were in bad faith? I'd appreciate it if you didn't call mine, or other editor's good faith edits vandalism. Shadowjams (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed reply. Please let me apologise – I did not mean to sound aggressive.
I am very well aware of that passage in the Manual of Style and disagree with its recommendation of dumb quotes over typographic quotes. The only reason against typographic quotes appears to be that browsers and search engines may not understand them. If anything, that is a limitation of these technologies and not something that Wikipedia should pre-emptively avoid. After all, correct typography improves articles and make them look more professional.
As per the Manual of Style, inserting typographic quotes is harder than straight ones, but once they are in place, they do not require any further editing. I do not ask anyone to use any specific type of quotes, all I want is just to not see this typographic work undone by a script.
I am not sure what you mean by “improperly piped”, but your replacement broke some interwiki links in the Christ's College, Cambridge article that have now been fixed by a bot [29]. — Richie 21:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I see what you're talking about with the interwiki links. I hadn't noticed them because they aren't rendered on a normal page view. I'll make sure to exclude those from any edits in the future. As far as the set of Cambridge articles, I know you've done a lot of work on them and if you convert them back I won't revert it again.
All I would say to defend the MoS choice is to point out that searches, like a ctrl+f in firefox/ie, are affected (since most North American keyboards don't have the curly one on it; I'm not sure about euro). I don't think anybody's working with a browser so ancient it can't handle the unicode characters, although I suppose some terminals might have a problem. I misspoke: "improperly piped" I meant to refer to the redlinks. Where the curly marks are definitely a problem is in article titles, because it necessitates a great number of redirects and many, if not most, keyboards are unable to reproduce them easily.
Thanks for the response. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. I think the best solution would be if browsers would treat typographic quotes as straight quotes when you search in a website – that should not be too hard to do. — Richie 12:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna van Beethoven

As the nom, I feel I have to talk to you personally. This article might need to be de-listed for now. The problem, as far I as I can see (and as you pointed out), is that her article needs far more work to establish her personal notability. I think it best to wait to see if this can actually be achieved in the article. Cablespy (here) has actually cut out a substantial amount recently (tagging as: no sources for this paragraph. may be defamatory). Also, my discussions with Opus33 aren't going too well: I actually feel as if he is being at least uncivil if not actually personally attacking me. Have I actually warranted his comments? Have I misconstrued him? I hope I have been civil back? I'm pretty annoyed any way and need someone to talk to. Please tell me politely to go away if I am out of line. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We've dealt with this personally, now, and have accepted each other's sincere apologies. However, your feed back on de-listing would be appreciated (on both AfD talkpages). --Jubilee♫clipman 02:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to help in whatever way I can. You may have noticed I'm not an admin, and even if I were, I couldn't close an AfD I started (I'd prefer to have an admin close it anyway at this point), but I imagine the two AfDs will close soon.
I haven't read the discussion for a few days--right now, what is the general consensus on the two? Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer. Actually I'm still getting to grips with the "heirarchy" at WP, even after a year or so here. Anyway, our disagreement is now resolved.
Both articles have been re-listed, with the request to clarify each editor's present position. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


That needs to be there, it's me logged out, please don't remove it. Izzedine 08:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Dealt with. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks shadow. Izzedine 09:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


A serious vandalism you give the last warning to the IP/user? --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 10:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Tell me what article you're referring to for starters. Shadowjams (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
In the Huggle you give a IP the 3rd level of vandalism, why? Becose the Ip did a serious vandalism? --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 10:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to Apollon Limassol, and that I warned a user with a level 3, although it was that user's first edit. I see you followed up, not only giving a L4 but, I think, reporting that user. If this is at issue, I did that edit because another user from the same domain, location, etc., made very very similar edits earlier on the same series of articles. I strongly suspected some connection. That's my explanation. You don't seem to disagree that user is making vandalism edits. My intuition, which isn't new, was validated. I appreciate your concern, but I'd rather we both spend our time on vandalism patrol. It's an important part of the project. Shadowjams (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Only I ask you the question... In the spanish wiki it's diferent. --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean, but I think it's typical to afford some leeway to experienced vandalism patrollers to things they find fishy. After all, somebody signs off on any block, and in that case it's only temporary, in most cases extremely short. I've been doing this for quite a while, and I think it looks like you have too. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving a stronger warning to vandals that are either strongly associated with another identity that's already vandalized and/or been warned, or with vandals that are well beyond simple mistakes, and are clearly aware of policy but vandalizing anyway.

My general theory on vandal patrolling is to give the benefit of the doubt to the experienced patroller when it comes to warnings, give editors that respond to warnings in person a tremendous vote of good faith, and to also give short blocks to most editors that after warnings, and good faith, are still making problem edits. The editors that don't need short blocks are the editors that are clearly the same, whether on the same IP (often) or a different one, that continue to do almost exactly the same thing as before after being warned and being blocked. Those blocks should escalate, and should be strong. It's a classic 80/20 rule. 20 percent of editors do 80% of the work, and 20% also make 80% of the problem.

Whether you agree with my huggle approach, no hard feelings. I appreciate anyone taking their time to do vandalism patrolling. I think we're an under-appreciated part of the project, that is critically important. If I can help you in the future, please let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


RE: My user page.

No harm, no foul I guess. :) Ikip 10:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn you're quick. :) Shadowjams (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Do I have the privilege of considering you one of my centijimbos? It is unnerving to see that I have 187 editors watching my page, (up from 181 a couple of days ago). Based on the history of my talk page, many of these editors are not out for my best interest here on wikipedia :( If you are watching my page, it will make me feel 1/187th better :) FYI, you have 32 WP:centijimbos in comparison.[30] Ikip 11:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
WTF. 32 people watching my page?! Sorry to worry/disappoint. I'm not watching your page. I remember being freaked out when the page watching was caped at 30, and i somehow fell below it... but I guess I'm stalkable. I'm going to hope most of my page stalking friend are Australian high schoolers bored during their free hours, or weird, or my friends, or all three. Shadowjams (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you disappointed only 32 people are watching your page? I can start a watch User:Shadowjams's page drive. ;-)
I just invited editors to edit my user page. Last time I invited editors to edit something I was working on, it led to the admin being desopyed. Once bitten, twice shy. I will my comments here at that.
Unfortunately I have learned that these casual discussions can be DANGEROUS.
New "Wikipedia legal fictions and contradictions" editors will never, ever admit they are watching your page. :) I believe though--just realized this general contradiction too. :) Ikip 14:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Shaun Quinlan (ice hockey)

Shaun Quinlan (ice hockey) Labeled the article a stub, looks like it fits that category and that will allow it to be expanded upon. And from taking a few quick moments to look in the Category:United States ice hockey biography stubs, one of the first names I clicked on was Jason Saal who never played a single game in the NHL and plays for some lower International "AA" league team. With that being said, this article deserves to be saved as a stub so it can be expanded upon in the event information becomes available via hockey archives. Bladezuvsteel (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Valid points. Contribute them to the AfD. I've often changed my mind. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You sent me this message on December 17th. Give this great athlete a place on Wikipedia that will always be there with the opportunity to absorb peoples contributions and grow. Bladezuvsteel (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be so great Shadowjams if you could save this article as a stub and take off the "article considered for deletion" tag which you placed on it. This would allow people the opportunity to search hockey archives and databases to help expand it. There is information out there, it just has to be found. There are many hockey players on Wikipedia that never made the NHL and played in affiliate leagues etc. I strongly feel this hockey player is a quality addition to Wikipedia as a stub especially when many other stubs don't contain much of anything. This article is a link to the Golden Age of hockey and one of the best college hockey teams in the world and there is more quality material and photographs that have yet to be added to it. I ask you to save it as a stub and allow it to have the opportunity over time to grow like so many others on this great project. Thank you Shadowjams & God Bless you, Bladezuvsteel (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Shadowjams, I've been very busy as of late and haven't had a lot of time to research, although I have some old hockey friends who have some memorabillia (AHL team photos etc.) that could be added to Wikimedia Commons and linked to this article. Just have to track them down. To at least have this article saved as a stub we would be honored with. Therefore the article would always be there anybody to contribute to it and make it better. Let me know & thank you again for your understanding.

Bladezuvsteel (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Help I don;t know what is going on

Feel free to delete this because I did not know how to email you, but it says I altered an article on Mercedes Beinze or something but I did not do it, I swear, I may not know how to email but I am not a novice and I would never put something like that down so if you see any weird activity on this account feel free to say it and Ill make a new one or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your IP appears to be a dynamic one, so you may be receiving a message because someone who had the IP earlier made a problem edit. I'll update your talk page to provide some general information. Shadowjams (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My Edit on Men's Movement

As my edit summary pointed out, putting pro-feminist matter on the article on the Men's movement is like praising nazis on an article on jews. Further, in the talk, many people seem to believe it should not be there: Wwmargera (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about edits to Men's movement.
Your edit's fair. I am sympathetic to your edits. I've been doing some huggle patrol, and I overreacted it was probably because your edit summary was "(filling this article with stuff favoring feminism is like filling an article on jews with praise for nazis)". I'm sure you realize that the whole nazi throw around, per Godwin's law, isn't what we're talking about.
On Huggle patrol the Nazi analogy gets thrown around too much, and I, as most patrollers do, have a characteristic reaction to it, which is to revert and warn. I'm sure that was my reaction to you. I don't think your edit summary is accurate or correct or tactful, but I also don't think it should be erased and warrned as a vandal. I think you probably agree with me on this.
I hope you'll edit the article, talk about it, and go on from there. If at the talk about it part you want someone to join in, drop me a line. I would like to help. Shadowjams (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me. I am making the changes again with a more tactful edit summary, and also posting it to the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwmargera (talkcontribs) 10:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to sign in time there. Also, thanks for offering to help. Wwmargera (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. It's kind of random, because I do vandalism patrol sporadically, but I am vaguely familiar with the article-set you're editing, and I know what you're driving at. The wiki has gotten a bit too concentrated, the approach to "newcomers" has been misguidedly directed towards absolute outsiders, not just newcomers. But I don't know if there's a better answer. In any case, smart people need to keep editing, and I hope you keep doing so.
Hope to see you around. Shadowjams (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

George Augustus Stallings

Well! You have LOTS of time on your hands if you care about my edit of "Bishop" George Augustus Stallings. I removed his "bishops box" as he had been removed from the priesthood of the Catholic Church and excommunicated. I did not sign in and could have noted this, which I regret. I have this question to ask. Can anyone just declare themselves a bishop of the Catholic Church and create a Wikipedia article? I understand that there is an Archbishop of Canterbury that Pope Leo XIII declares to be a layman by a Papal bull but is George Stallings a bishop in the church in which he was ordained and meant to be called "most reverend". Who is the judge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the history, and I reverted your edit because it removed the infobox without an explanation. If the individual's been excommunicated that probably should be noted in the article and infobox, but I don't have any idea what the standard format is to do that.
I would ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, maybe they'll direct you somewhere more specific. See what the standard format is. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed on Haagen Dazs

Hi, Lentower and I have some kind of irreconcilable differences here: . I suspect the issue boils down to the extent to which the controversy is a non-routine news event. From my perspective, I appear to absolutely right. However, I realize that I am new to Wikipedia and so room for misunderstanding is there. At this point, the dispute there seems to have got stuck and I don't see us moving towards consensus. Also, the discussion on whether to have the section is now many times larger than the section itself - and it's going nowhere. As a result, I suspect both Lentower and I are merely wasting our time there in a fruitless dispute. Do you think you could weigh in on the issue? Wwmargera (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Shadowjams (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I made a comment on the talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Wwmargera (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


[31] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to not apply to me, and the offending user has been blocked. Post here otherwise if this is incorrect. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It's indeed resolved. I just wanted your opinion since you also gave a vandalism-warning for this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Who are you referring to? Shadowjams (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The original account, not the sock:) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
ok :) I've been doing some patrolling tonight, which tends to attract some strange efforts from time to time; sorry for any strange reactions. Shadowjams (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

Please explain to me why you reverted my perfectly fine edit on WVMV. It would make sense that the callsign meaning would've stood for that, I added former format's website, and I shifted photo to the other side so it would cut off the blank space in between. I hope you have a good explanation to give me. (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought your highlighting of the radio logo was a bit much, and distracting, but I won't revert your second reversion. Sorry for warning on that (if I did), that was inappropriate, because your edit is reasonable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if my post sounded a little rough, it's because I thought someone just reverted it for a simple count of a contribution. And perhaps because I was without sleep at the time. I take it by the radio logo highlight, you mean it didn't seem much of a contribution. If so, I understand, I just thought to snip off that little space, and it may look better having it close to the other content. But then again, it may've looked better aside, either way, it's nothing to ruin one's day for.:) Have a great day and a enjoyable New Year! :) (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


Would this be classified as vandalism? Wwmargera (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hard to know without the full context, but depending on the user's edit history, I would revert it with a note about the lack of a source and explanation. If it happened again, without explanation, I would revert it and go from there. Shadowjams (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Plain White T's article

No, like Tom Higgenson is a Plain White T! DUH! IT'S TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE! SO IT'S ARE! (SIGHS) I'LL ASK MY ENGLISH TEACHER WHEN I GO BACK TO SCHOOL JANUARY 4TH! We're off for Winter break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouTubeaholic2009 (talkcontribs) 16:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The singular verb is the right grammar. The noun, in this case the band's name, although having a "'s" on the end, is still a singular entity... there aren't multiple Plain White T bands. Shadowjams (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

BIG Mistake

Hey I am really sorry about that edit I made to Sophia Loren's page. I saw the vandalism put there just messed up and click the wrong things trying to undo it. Thanks for fixing my error! I will be more careful next time. 2000's Silence Dogood (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Seems like a weird edit, but I understand some configurations can lead to strange outputs. No problem if that's it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I reverted to the wrong version. I didn't see that between the time I went to undo the vandalism and the time I got to the edic page someone else had already reverted it. Then I reverted it back to the vandalized version. Thanks! 2000's Silence Dogood (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Luke


I work for Dr. Luke who's having with identity theft. He has asked me to remove information that could be used maliciously. There are several ongoing situations that is why I keep reverting to a previous version. Is there something else you recommend I do instead?


Megan for Dr. Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That is a legitimate concern. I would suggest you contact an administrator. The problem is that if you're worried about identity information, it's still available even after you've removed it through those edits. The only way to remove it from most viewers it to have an administrator remove it. To remove it from all editors would require even more work. I am actually ashamed that I don't know the link to the source you need offhand, but try the WP:ABOUT page to start. I will remove the warnings I put on your page for now. If this is important, please follow through to make sure it gets fixed. Please explain your edits too, it makes it a lot easier for those of us looking for problem edits. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Thank you very much. It seems also that Dr. Luke's page is edited a lot and often the fact are not accurate. Is there a way we can go about getting a more accurate and tighter version of his page? Are there people one can hire to regularly check the page and make sure it's factually accurate, designed better and tighter?

Thanks for you help.

Megan for Dr. Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not usually. There's been discussion about regulations for hiring people to edit. I don't know who those discussions have ended up. As a general rule though, suppressing information is never going to be effective. That includes whether or not that's through edits or otherwise. I'd really recommend against editing an article for a political/business purpose. This is an encyclopedia after all. You can always use appropriate legal measures to address libel, but be aware that those assertions are taken very seriously on wikipedia, and people who instigate legal procedures are prohibited by the terms of service from editing during the pendency of those claims. If there are simply improper claims made on a page, then provide sources, and discuss them on the talk page. I hope you'll find the editors here very reasonable. But they are going to reflect what's available from reliable sources. I can't and won't help you change the perspective of an article, but I'm very willing to help you enforce legitimate privacy concerns. If you need help in that manner, please let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Mary Hon

Hello Shadowjams. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Mary Hon, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Theleftorium 12:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your improvements are good. Shadowjams (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks


Zascha Moktan

Just wanted to give a friendly reminder to place the Afd notification template on articles nominated for deletion. I went ahead and placed one onto Zascha Moktan. Any questions feel free to ask. Kindly Calmer Waters 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed. Twinkle error I presume. Shadowjams (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem. It happens :-) Calmer Waters 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit at Nicole Oresme

Your recent edit cleaned up a lot of things, but incorrectly changed the word latin to Latin in the title of a book in French. French usage minimizes capitalization, and the lower cased latin was correct. Please be careful when you encounter foreign texts. BTW, thanks for bringing this article back to my attention; I'd forgotten how bad it was and will get to work on it as time allows. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. That's actually a typo edit, not one of my custom ones, so it might be worth bringing to the attention of the people here, because I'm not the only one using a faulty set of typos. Shadowjams (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually the regex responsible is here: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Cultures, languages, and ethnic groups. It's a simple capitalization: <Typo word="Latin" find="\blatin(|[ao]s?|is[mt]s?|i[sz](e[sd]?|ing))\b" replace="Latin$1" />.
It wouldn't be an easy one to correct; I guess I just need to look more carefully. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the blanking of this page by the original author was intentional. I marked it for speedy as spam, he wanted to take the article down do he could rewrite it, I told him to blank the page so I could put a {{db-author}} on it, and he did. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I saw the db on there when I RVed it, but sorry in an case. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bike Rock

It looks like the person who decided to nominate the page for deletion chose to mistype the name causing the link in their original post to be red. This is why I was under the impression they did not follow proper procedure. PeRshGo (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that stuff happens. I bet most AfDs are done through Twinkle, and even those screw up sometime (I had one within the last week or two). I assume since it's on the AfD boards now that all the templates are fixed, by the bots or otherwise. I see you remove my comment; no problem, I was about to do that too. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Kenwood Towne Place

You just recently tagged a page Kenwood Towne Place as not meeting wiki notability guidelines. There has been press coverage of this project and its failure in local, regional, and national news. The coverage has been ongoing for over a year, and there was charges pending against the management group for buying a personal items like a yacht with the money from investors. Can you please explain why you take it as not meeting the notability guidelines, as you did not leave an edit history to back up your taging of the article. I ask that you re look at the article and remove the tag for not meeting guidelines as it does meet them. Thank you for your time. Jsgoodrich (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a message

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

I changed the dates for consistency since below the picture there was 1949 and then at the end it was 1949. I did not do it to provide wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymody (talkcontribs) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Note: I moved this from the article's talk page here, because it's directed at me. SHADOWJAMS... As you may have guessed, I'm a new Wikipedia contributor. To be honest, I'm not even sure how to get this to you, but hopefully you'll see it and respond. Hopefully I'll learn the markup mechanics, too.

Thanks for your help on my KGCU redirects. I am retired after a 43 year career in radio, thus my interest in some of the station history sections. You might find this of interest.

Regarding's something that's about to get lost in the sea of call letter changes...and I feel that since the station was KGCU (without an AM or FM suffix)...that's how it should be referenced. Since the current station in Alaska is an FM operation, it would more properly be listed as KGCU-FM.

This all brings up a question. Does Wikipedia have a "similar to" popup list like Google? I don't remember ever seeing one...but it sure would be handy.

You're right about the year of sign on. When I located 1925 (Broadcasting Yearbook - 1969) it didn't sound right...but that's a generally reliable source. Later I found the 1926 date elsewhere, then ran into your note. I have made the appropriate changes.

Anyhow, I worked at KBOM for a brief period in the 1960s, and prior to that at KFYR and KFYR-TV. I also made some additions to their historic content...particularly with a list of 1953-1965 TV personalities on the KFYR-TV page.

Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to maintain protocol.

tjbdx (I have not idea what the 4 tildes accomplish, but here they are!

Tjbdxtjbdx (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


ok (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Im sorry about the 2014 in spaceflight for being immature but I really want to learn how to make one of those fancy boxes in all the rest of the spaceflight years and ill work on 2013 in spaceflight Mickman1234 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: DJ Official

Hello Shadowjams. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of DJ Official, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Signed to a label with an article is a credible assertion of notability for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I tagged that as it is. I didn't tag it. Eekster did. I just restored the speedy template removed by what [I'm pretty sure was] the original poster. Shadowjams (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

2014 in spaceflight

i am going to remove the prod and do an AFD. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer you don't. Do you have any particular reason? It's a pretty uncontroversial prod and it's been endorsed. Not to mention we're halfway through the prod period. If you need too I guess it's not too late in the game for me to be that bothered, but I just don't think it's necessary to take the time. But if you have reasons go ahead; no hard feelings. Shadowjams (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I already made the move. Feel free to express your opinion at the AFD. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


How can I help? Shadowjams (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have been VERY helpful. Thanks so much for the tips and Wiki instructions. Should I have occasion to be involved with future edits or additions, I feel like I'll be much better prepared.

Thanks again.

Tjbdxtjbdx (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Hyde AfD

Perhaps you could read a little more about his accomplishments, and possibly re-consider your position. You said that you based it on his having "not been president of the ACA, just a council." But, he WAS Secretary-general of one of the TWO Recognized WORLD governing bodies. The FICS has been determined to be "notable". And, many times, secretaries-general have more power than presidents.Д-рСДжП,ДС 18:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I like to keep these discussions on the AfD pages so they're more widely accessible. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

why do you revert my edit?

i was only spreading the truth about Botswana, my motherland of all motherlands and telling the truth about the namibians and they blood crunchy thirsty nazi ways, why did you delete my truth? i know it was a little too harsh i just want to spread info on my country Namibia. --KhamaPula (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. By changing links to "hitler town". Ok. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

i just said that because they were owned by germany which is nazi. im sorry for doing that but i hate namibia. --KhamaPula (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nazi's had an unfortunate habit of acquiring quite a few countries for a while there. I gather you think that's a bad thing, so I guess on that point we're getting somewhere. In any case, you're obviously a smart guy (girl?), I would like it if you'd turn your attention towards building up some parts of the encyclopedia. We could use you help. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

okay ill be good now. what can i edit. --KhamaPula (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. You could try Wikipedia:Cleanup, if you go just a little bit down the page there are category listings of pages that have problems. Pick the category you like (cleanup being the most generic), and then have at it. There are way too many. If you've got any questions let me know. I'll throw you one of those welcome templates that have a lot of links on them (if you don't already have one). Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your revisions to Chamber music

Thank you for your minor corrections to Chamber music. Almost all these changes were fine. You did, however, change two things which were direct quotes. Louis Spohr called his quartets "quatuor brillant" and not "brilliant". And Terry Riley really did say "in order to" and not just "to".

In the future, please do not make editorial changes in direct quotes, unless you know that they have been transcribed incorrectly (by checking the original source).

Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


Sally Martin from Power Rangers Ninja Storm was born 1985 IMDB and say 1985 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Yeah I saw your summary. I've left that alone because you explained it. IMDB can sometimes have erroneous information, so I"m told, but unless someone else has other info then I won't change it... I just am on the lookout for unexplained changes like that. Thanks for explaining. Shadowjams (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Data dictionary" page

I just made a minor change to the Data dictionary page, yet, increadibly you backed it out within 30 seconds with the comment: "Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content". The change I made was to say that the "Data dictionary" is commonly also known as a "metadata repository", and, in fact, the metadata page says the same thing. So, in a sense, I was simply cross referencing the two terms.

I find it offensive that you backed out my change so rapidly, withourt a moment's thought - perhaps you have done it via a robot???

My change was so small and so trivial, and self-evident, that I felt there was no need to first enter into a discussion.

On this page you say you are a new contributor. ok so am I. However, I question your expertise on the subject of "Data dictionary" - if you claim to be an expert let me assure you that you have demonstrated you are not, and if you are not an expert then you should not meddle with things you know nothing about.

Finally, I thought that Wikipedia welcomes contributions from all people. Luciano Q. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored your edit. Sorry for the inconvenience. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


You have it backwards, it is the other person who keeps undoing my edits. My edits should stand while the other user goes to dispute resolution should he want to do so. I was discussing my edits with him on his talk page while that person continued to reverse my edits, showing lack of good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdiver68 (talkcontribs) 05:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't care to get involved in this content dispute. That doesn't matter for 3R because none of these edits are vandalism, so you both need to discuss it on the talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you did get involved by warning the wrong person, and we are at an impasse.Sdiver68 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah. No, I warned you about 3R rule. Take a look at WP:3RR. And again, please talk with the other editor. Shadowjams (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pitcairn islands / Steve Christian


I saw that you quickly reverted my latest edit on Adamstown,_Pitcairn_Islands. You asked me to provide a source for the controversial statement about Steve Christian being convicted of rape. However this is already on his Wikipedia page along with source references. I didn't introduce this change myself, but merely reverted vandalism claiming that instead of being a former mayor and later convicted felon he is a "calculator programmer". I think this is just some kind of bad joke.

Just trying to help,


Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. You have to realize what I saw was a new edit that put "rapist" as a summary byline for an individual, that wasn't on the page for the last 3 months. Even with your version fully in context, that byline is a little glib, and strange, for the severity of the statement. I think that needs a huge overhaul. The original revert, that you just now undid, was from November of 2009. There seems to be a page for the individual. Perhaps make a slightly more explanatory byline. Shadowjams (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Quite understandable. I didn't want to put my own words into this as I really know too little about the entire matter. I just saw this absurd statement introduced in November that seemed like obvious vandalism, so I simply reverted it. I guess it would be better to just write "former mayor" without any special accusations and let people find out more by visiting his wikipedia page. -- (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps former mayor, maybe a reference to the scandal. Provide the reference (which I'm sure is in the target article.) I know nothing about it so it's hard for me to say specifically. Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Tewid

My apologies, the page was marked for deletion, and it was in fact a vanity page I had created not ten minutes prior. Can you revoke the warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Withoutamartyr (talkcontribs) 11:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shadowjams (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Crevolin

Please don't ever change a horse's name based on what you think, only on a known fact. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was a common typo expression. I should have checked it better. Drop the attitude in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

hello sir / madame!

sir! madame ! there are wide range of vandalism in the informations about the Afghanistan, Afghans, Pashtoons , Pakhtoons and Scythians. every one of the name i mentioned is joined with iranian history or in their fever, thats all false. everything is explained has some incorrect informations, if you do not correct them i have to suew the wikipedian manager.. regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you after you removed content. Don't make legal threats here either, if you do, you'll be blocked from editing. If you notice an error, then feel free to correct it, but explain what you're doing, and even better, provide references. Shadowjams (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you've made a host of edits that do nothing but rename Iranian to Aranian. I don't know what the correct spelling is, but I'm pretty sure the previous consensus on the number of pages affected was enough to agree that "Iranian" was right. Your changes break all of those links, so I'm reverting them back. If you think those are errors, discuss them on those pages, as you've begun to do. Shadowjams (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for helping out with my spelling mistakes, I was just going through the article now to check for them. :>)--Az81964444 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Article looks great. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bohdanov article


Just wonder what make You people so upset that You want to delate my article!? :)

Its kind of funny here. I just started to write articles and specially with the last one on Bohdanow, posted few lines and then when i come back i see the discussion. There are some people that cannot find sources on google and they make some comments that follows. In my opinion, those comments are on similar level that my knowledge in creating articles on Wiki is.

So I make my own comment to show those people the links. Then i see that the discussion continue so I improved this page a lot to hopefully end it all when i see You comment that You still want to delate that page! And this makes me wonder here! What wrong did I or my page to You so You want to delate it!?

I have certain picture of why i want to write such article, do You know at all why You want to deleate it? It would be very interesting for me to know and to learn the Wiki policy about creating articles! Cause all You do is following the policy? Creating creative comments?

Im very open for suggestions so...if You please read the article again (since im not sure You read the article before posting Your last comment), then tell me exactly why and on what ground You want to delaete this page! As for incubition, I dont know what that is...

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Incubation is moving the article to either your "userspace", an area similar to your User Page User:Camdan, or to a place where other editors can help you work on the page. Read this for more detailed information.
None of this is personal regarding you or the article you created. I see now that 5 hours ago you added a lot of new content. Before then the article was two lines. We have criteria for article inclusion here. This helps the encyclopedia focus on topics that are proper encyclopedia topics, and also helps ensure its accuracy. There are dozens, sometimes hundreds, of articles nominated each day. Take a look at WP:AfD. I am simply commenting on this article. I did spend more than a normal amount of time looking up sources and adding a detailed explanation about your article on the discussion page too.
I hope that answer helps. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for taking time to answer this, its very kind of You!

I do understand that there are more important matters in life than checking up links I past but I also explained that I just put those 2 lines to start the article and gave You the links so You dont think that i make it all up and that there will be more information placed in the article. Im not familiar with the Wiki proceedure or how to do those article, i simply copy how other people do so it will take tiem for me to learn it all.

I study polish history since 1986 and and past years do lot of reearches but I must say that i sometimes wish that I was studying something more easy since the sources often contains wrong information and you have to dig into the archives to find out more. I also have normal life, work and kids so I simply dont have time sometimes to follow up. I would rather work on my article in my own speed rather than to squeeze the time and write comments right now.
Dont know if the article regarding Bohdanow give so much alone but together with other future articles it would form an interesting part. The work of Aftanzy (to with I refer) and his volumes is epic. Knowing how difficult there is to find proper sources on this matter, I would say that he made one of the most impressive books containing 11 huge volumes I ever seen. This is part of European history and there should be a place such information here on Wiki.
I hope that my contribution on Bohdanow I made today will be enough to end this deleting discussion so we can spend our time on other subjects. I do appriciate any comments that can improve my articles!

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank You for Your kind help on the Bohdanow article sorting it all up in proper way! I really appriciate that! :)

All the best, Camdan (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem.
You should probably track down the copyright information on that image soon too, because images that don't have copyright explanations are removed after a while if they can't be proven to be licensed.
Keep up the good work. Shadowjams (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank You! I now use similar structure in my other article so I copy Your fine work.
I dont know if there is any copyright since its a photo of the painting from the National Museum in Warsaw and there are lot of postcards of the painitng. I downloaded it to my computer and then past it on Wiki. I dont that there is any force that could forbid me in using this picutre.
What would You suggest I should do?

Camdan (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to ask about this because it's not an area I deal with very often. You can ask Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems for some help. From what I do know, if you can find out the date when the image was created that would be very helpful. Sometimes that might be enough. In other cases if you can find a government source that publishes the image that might work. Shadowjams (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


The bit I changed said APV. I've no idea what it means. The editor who keeps changing it back is a serial sockpuppet who has been vandalising beer articles for months. (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the trouble. I'm having trouble following the history on those pages... I think I got mixed up about when whatever got added. Shadowjams (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at ShadowRangerRIT's talk page.
Message added 21:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the help fighting vandals on my user page. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


I appreciate your "sticking up for me" as it were at the RfA, but it's clearly a lost cause. I'll let it run a while longer in case some more interesting posts arrive. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate the work you've done, especially at WP:MOSDAB. Shadowjams (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Everton FC

Thanks for the revert I actually trying to revert myself as I make this edition by mistake (I actually work on the french counterpart article) but I was unable to complete it myself. So thanks for helping me. (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I've removed my warning since this was an honest mistake. I normally would just RV something like that but I saw a few [bad] foreign language translation vandalism edits over the past few days. Happy editing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to more contributions

I can see you contributed to "Contracts" article. If you have some spare time would you like to contribute to It is a non-profit law school study guide resource for law school students. Looking forward to your help! Thanks for kind consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Will do....

But with these Croatian nationalists, there is no room for rational talk. He will not respond, of course.

I have no opinion about the Eastern bloc naming issues that have been an issue for some time now. I'm willing to assume good faith for everybody, but I think that procedurally, this qualifies as a nearly epic revert war. I'm surprised nobody noticed sooner. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the assist with this guy. Cheers! Wine Guy Talk 08:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your !vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Taelus

Hi there. I just noticed your !vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Taelus doesn't have a # in front of it to differentiate from the previous. Thought you might like to edit that, just in case the closing 'crat misses it. I would have done it myself, but I wasn't 100% sure that you were not tacking on to the end of the previous discussion. Regards, GedUK  15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I never seem to get the formatting quite right on those. Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


WuhWuzDat 05:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Should lead to some interesting pages. Shadowjams (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the edit. --TudorTulok (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Super Ball (TM)

Hey Shadowjams, what happened with that speedy tag? You referenced a prior edit revision as the copyright issue! I've deleted as I have found the link that is the problem, but was there any reason for referring back to a previous revision? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Coren tag? Or are you talking about my CSD tag that I added. I don't think I removed it. The deal was, Coren tagged a wiki mirror, the poster put a note on the talk page saying that it was a mirror tagging and not because he'd copied it. That was misleading, to be generous. I found the original page which was a wiki page from 2007 that was still in some really old wiki mirror. The new post was a verbatim copy, and the strange naming convention was because the original article (the one the copied test comes from) is a redirect. Even the link to the old wiki one has copyright issues because it's like a copy-paste move (but worse).
I'm not sure that answers your question... let me know if I can be of any help. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah... so it's a copy and paste move, not a copyright violation. That was confusing! But fixed now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sort's a copyright violation, and a half-copy paste move... it was a strange resurrection of a consensus merge from 2007 done somewhat surreptitiously. I think that some of that info could be merged into the article, but it's all in the history of Super Ball, so there's no need for the copied article.
Thanks for taking the time to investigate. It's always interesting unraveling through the diffs. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't, in general tag a copy&paste move or fork as a copyvio, {{copied}} can provide sufficient attribution. In this case I have edited Super Ball to convert it from a redirect back into an article, and added significant content and a number of references. Something like that is what the creator of Super Ball (TM) probably should have done, but perhaps didn't know how to do. DES (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've tried to explain above a few times now, that it's not a copy paste move. It has some similarities, but that was not what was going on.
I don't mind the resurrection, but I'm going to put a merge template on those articles so there can be some discussion about it. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling fix

Thanks I'm sure you're correct; I'm pretty ignorant. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 05:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not adding an edit summary

But I was merely completing an undo someone else half made. A recent user called Biggus Dickus OMG has been making near malicious edits to the article without regard for the standards for aircraft articles and another user had already undone one of his edits. I was merely finishing the undo to remove duplicate material.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think I just undid those edits. Sorry for not being more careful. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Shadowjams, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams, I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 02:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

John Francis

I addressed you in the talk section of the article which you have a problem.Johnjfrancis (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Shadowjams, could I ask you what settings you are using to add the {{convert}} template with AWB? I'm guessing it's something to do with setting up a search/replace special rule, but I'm not sure how to code it. If you have time, please let me know :-) -- Marek.69 talk 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm putting it here. It will be up in a few minutes. Shadowjams (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much Shadowjams, I owe you one ;-) Cheers! -- Marek.69 talk 04:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I've been meaning to put more of those up there. I did some of those way back when I started with AWB and I've tweaked them since, but I ought to do a few more like that. I hope they work well. And if you make any improvements I'd be interested to hear them. Shadowjams (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I ran a short test and they appeared to work perfectly :-). I'll let you know if I come up with any new ideas.
Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 05:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Good to see you back

Alas, I shall only be back sporadically. School first, you see. :) Pingveno 08:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I envy you. I wish my worries were school. Enjoy it. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hello. I just wanted to let you know I removed the speedy tag from Decennium (Fly to the Sky album). Granted, that article needs to be fleshed out but CSD A9 requires that the artist's article not exist. In this case the article doesn't qualify for speedy because the artist's article does exist. BTW, I also want to congratulate you on the incredible volume of work you're doing tonight. I see your name every time I turn around. Keep up the good work, and Happy Editing! (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Already fixed it. The original creator seemed to know how to create wiki tables, but not link to the primary article. Shadowjams (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned that up. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for doing the Trefousse article. Hans Trefousse was one of the United States important historians. I read his books about President Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction. If no one had done the article-the redlink would had been removed from the recent deaths section in 2 days. RFD (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know about the redlink. Where was that from? Shadowjams (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hans Treffouse died on January 8, 2010. His death was listed in the Recent Deaths section. At that time there was no article so there was a redlink. The rules for the Recent deaths section is if there is no article started- the redlink would be removed and the person consider to be not notable-RFD (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The redlink would be removed one month from the time of the listing-clarification-RFD (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: 5am

Thank you. I actually do have an account (User:SWAdair) that I rarely log into any more. I've gotten into the habit of pulling up Wikipedia and jumping right into editing without taking the time to login. These days I only login if I need to do something that the software won't allow an anon to do, such as fixing vandalism on protected pages. BTW... Durham or Durham? I live in Raleigh, very near Durham, North Carolina. (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: message

I am sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. My change was not designed to introduce any incorrect information, and I even cited my reference. What more do you want? It is clear in the reference I cited that the subculture of Straight Edge incorporates abstaining from Promiscuous sex. Wikipedia is the ONLY source that does not mention it, do you have any references that would indicate that abstaining from promiscuous sex is not part of the subculture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misread your edit. I thought you were adding that doing such was part of the culture. I restored your edit. Sorry for the problem, and thanks for taking it to me. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


for the cleanup on Church of Bible Understanding--Epeefleche (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Shadowjams (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Avadhuta Gita

I have just categorized the Avadhuta Gita article but I would like a category to tag all the Gitas with as it is a particular class of literature. May I please have some assistance to create a Gita category? Thank you for the prompt as well. Keep up the good work.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 09:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually have never created a category before, I'm not exactly sure how it's done or what the requirements are. I searched for that category too, as I'm sure you did, but I didn't see one. Sorry I can't help more directly, but I would suggest asking for help at WT:Category or looking at WP:Category#What_categories_should_be_created. I hope that helps. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me. Sorry, but I just don't know a lot about categories. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 ;-) Anna Lincoln 09:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Cat-MaineCoon-Cookie.png Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that further discussion on the merits occur at Talk:Firewall (computer)#Proposed rename. DES (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)