User talk:Shadowjams/Archive 10

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


Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt 2

Hi Shadowjams. This is a courtesy note that your oppose in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt 2 is not recorded in your contributions. It was oversighted because an earlier post by another user contained an inappropriate link about a similarly named individual as the candidate. Cunard (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I was a little confused when I looked at my contrib history. Shadowjams (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Grand Canonical Ensemble

I provided an edit summary for why I deleted the info. PV is not the Gibbs energy. That would be µN, as can be easily confirmed in many places, including Gibbs free energy. The text was obviously an error. (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

See thank you on WP:Tea regarding Talk:Steven Pinker. (",) (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

your review of article Neurocomputational Speech Processing

Thank you for helping me to meet Wikipeda standards für that article! Bernd J. Kröger Bkroeger (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkroeger (talkcontribs) 07:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:

He already had a level 4 warning, which he blanked. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

He's blocked now for an appropriate amount of time. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Okay. I appreciate your help on my article for conditional statements. Thank you!

No problem. Shadowjams (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

21st Missouri Volunteer Infantry

A user contested the deletion of the above article here on my talk page. Thought you might want to know. -FASTILY Happy 2012!! 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The user mentioned it to me separately too. The Service section was copy pasted from what was, according to the creator, a public domain source. I guess that's fine. It should be in prose format, and I don't remember seeing the attribution the first time, although I could be wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


I know it essentially was resolved, but I have added a reply on my talk page. RN1970 (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Shadowjams,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Joseph

For future reference, going by this report I've blocked for a month,, and (static IP, rangeblock would be collateral), all from Sri Lanka. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I looked at some of those ranges before I logged off yesterday, and I suspected there's more to dig into there. Shadowjams (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit at Malaria

Hi there, just wanted to clear this up. The sentence, as you are trying to re-write it, states:

The challenge of producing a widely available vaccine that provides a high level of protection for a sustained period does not yet exist, although several are under development.

I think what you are trying to say is that there is a Challenge (to create a vaccine), but that the vaccine doesn't yet exist. What the current sentence is saying is that the Challenge is the same, but the challenge itself does not exist, which is a nonsense.

I think the sentence as it was made perfect sense and was eloquent. I'm going to revert one last time, for the reasons I've outlined above, but if you still disagree then I will start a discussion on the talk page. I want to reiterate that I appreciate your input and am only trying to help! Regards Basalisk inspect damageberate 12:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, see the discussion on the talk page for further info. Basalisk inspect damageberate 13:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I see now what you're saying. The fact that I could read that sentence 3 times and still mess up what the subject was is indicative of how clunky it was. I see your point now though. I certainly wouldn't call the previous sentence eloquent though.
Before the relevant part was worded: The still to be met. That wording is in passive voice. That makes for slightly difficult reading by itself. Making it worse is that there are 3 additional clauses sandwiched in between. By the time I read "is still to be met" I have 3 additional clauses I have to remember: widely available; provides a high level of protection; over a sustained period.
Of course your most recent rewording fixes all of those problems, so I'm perfectly fine with that. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Regards Basalisk inspect damageberate 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


Maybe you should READ the edits before you revert them. ----* Alan.comek - [ TalkContribs ] 06:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What's that, you redirecting someone's talk page without explanation? Maybe you should USE edit summaries. Shadowjams (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Extinct titles

Psst! There was no 2nd Viscount Cardwell, let alone a fourth one. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're saying. Are you saying Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Marie, 1st Viscountess Cardwell-Farrington is a hoax? Shadowjams (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the note. I'll have to check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Flass (talkcontribs) 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey :)

  • Tell me if you're ok with this close. Kind regards. Wifione Message 11:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    Looks like a good close to me. I guess there's a few merge targets... I wonder if it's substantial enough to be in the list of bridges in... sets of articles. But the river makes definite sense. Shadowjams (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool. See you around. Wifione Message 04:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Xcuse Me!

I Don't know whatever caused you to reduce S.B. just tell what was wrong with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minakshi boruah (talkcontribs) 10:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What name or IP were you editing under? Because it's not the same one you're using. Shadowjams (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


What is your problem? Why is it an issue to add arms to a page which directly relates to them? You are strange.

No idea what you're talking about. If I warned you it's probably because you were vandalizing wikipedia, or else you were changing information without explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

thx for info

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Nokia N9 with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Part of text was moved to the history and aviability section as it is related to them, or I don recognise my bad action correctly. My intention was to clean not to remove anything. Will try better. Thanx for pointing problem (bus still can see what I have missed :( ? ) I've Reverter your change. (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I left you that message because you made a series of edits... including undoing another IP with the edit summary "Undid revision 480432507 by (talk) undid intenced devastation or censorship) (undo)" which is this edit. You also, in total, massively rearranged the article. None of this was accompanied by any explanation. So aside from adding content that someone else thought was possibly biased, and you removed under the guise of "censorship"... you've really got to learn to explain your edits. You have a huge IP history on that article of edits without any explanation of what you are doing, over a very short time period. In fact, if I start to take out the pieces you simply swapped around, i'm growing quite questionable of your edits.
Long story short, you need to explain your edits, and if you take offensive at my reversions then you're not familiar with our reliable source policy. I'm going to take a look into the changes you've made to that article, probably because it's uncovered. You need to provide sources for changes you make, and explanations. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for SNAFU

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, SNAFU , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for cleaning up on my user page:-) Dr bab (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi there, Shadowjams. I thought you might be interested in this discussion: Talk:Motion capture#Merge from Optical motion tracking. Cheers, Waldir talk 13:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've forgotten, but I've never edited that page... and I'm not sure if I've edited others related to it. Why do you think I would be interested in this discussion? Shadowjams (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see, I huggled some spam on it about 6 months ago... I know nothing about the article/topic. First glance though looks like a good merge. Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


The change i made was not a vandalism, its deliberate to keep the information clear from nationalist bias, please review the sources before accusing me of vandalism, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djp3rso (talkcontribs) 04:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What nationalist bias are you talking about? You're systematically removing information from articles without explanation, and also changing the spelling/spacing of a word at the same time. If you explained your edits it would be helpful. I've reviewed some of your more recent contributions. I'm not sure why you're edit warring with some of these IPs over Panama and Reggae related articles, but please stop it. If you have a disagreement then discuss it on the talk page. And don't remove information without explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Well frankly i dont think you know much about, reggae en espanol, reggaeton or dembow for that matter, i will be taking this up the chain, because what im doing is precisely countering VANDALISM, the edit wars that you see, is because an IP address by the number of, has constantly been modifying the information to fit a nationalist narrative,

please check the academic sources carefully without jumping on to conclusions and accusing me on vandalism, good day mejor arma del diablo es la ignorancia (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


The changes I made to the sean mcilvenna pages were true. He was a clatty member if the republiscum army!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noiserupper1 (talkcontribs) 23:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure [1]. Shadowjams (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please move article KiKa to KiKA

... and also remove that stupid redirecton KiKA→KiKa. Thanks. Maiō T. (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


Excuse me but welfare does NOT mean "social programs" - except in the United States. My edit was perfectly fine and in line with Wilipedia policies.

Did you read the talk page before reverting my edits? If you did you will have found that this has come up before by other editors and that we had agreed to make this a short article with an explanation of the language differences and that the US usage was exceptional. According to Wikipedia policy on varieties of English, the line taken is the right and proper one.

Did you follow the Chambers dictionary reference to see that welfare has for thousands of years meant WELL BEING and that the meaning ascribed in the version you reverted to is MODERN and only has this meanng in the United States? Did you check, as I did (as you will see if you had participated in the talk page discussions that were made prior to my edits, that government web sites in Australia and Canada which do NOT refer to welfare as a set of benefit programs but rather use the term to mean WELLBEING? I am English by birth and in England, home of the language, we do not use the term "welfare" to mean payments made by the social security system. Wikipedia already has articles on social security and the welfare state (a atate in which welfare=wellbeing prevails). WP policies do not allow two articles covering the same subject to exist but the policy is that we use disambiguation pages to get readers and editors to the right page.

How can welfare be the right page for information about social security if the term welfare only has that meaning in one country? Welfare mostly means "wellbeing" but not in the U.S., and that was what the article said before you reverted it.-- (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been making similar claims on these articles. I've responded to some of them. I don't think you understand the ENGVAR policy very well, and I think more importantly, your personal soapboxing about government is not helpful to your editing. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I am aware of ENGVAR and am totally in agreement with it, but in the case of the welfare article it was more important to be neutral and simply explain the matter. I agree with you that we can be more relaxed about this in American related articles, but equally I think it is possible to be sesitive to both traditions and offend neither of them. The changes I made today are an example of how this can be done. See also where I gave an example of how this can be done. The same article uses direct quotes from people such as Bill Clinton and these of course should be left in tact.-- (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If you will be so kind as to answer these questions it might help me to better understand what your objections are
  1. Do you believe "Welfare" IS the accepted general term for "government aid to the poor" in ALL English speaking countries?
  2. Do you think there is no commonly agreeable international term for "government aid.." and that you think that WP should use the American English version?
  3. Do you think the general idea of cutting the content to essentially a disambiguation format was probably okay, but that too much good text was lost in the edit?
  4. Do you think as the previous question but that the title should simply be Welfare (disambiguation) and that there should be no page titled Welfare in view of the linguistic ambiguity?
  5. Can you tell me where you think I have misunderstood WP:ENGVAR? I agree that American articles CAN use American terminology.. My comments at the US article and the edits I made were meant to assure you and that I was not trying to delete any reference to welfare in the context of the welfare system and that language can be used which acceptable to all readers without harming content.
I think this would help us to make some progress, and if we do come to some agreement, will you be active in support of an idea of making all the Welfare (as government aid) articles consistent with each other? I am sorry if we got off on the wrong footing. I do not think we have to be at loggerheads, so long as we can discuss the issues civilly. I think it is perfectly possible to come up with a better and more logical organization of articles around this topic and use a form of English that is universal and not colloquial. Whatever happens, I think we will need to try to obtain a wider consensus among the wider group of editors at all the related articles. (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1) It is in many. Supposedly Churchill coined the term saying "welfare not warfare." It was used first by the British, not in the U.S. See also Social welfare in Japan, Social programs in Canada#Usage, Italian welfare state, Social welfare in Sweden... there are others.
2) No idea. 3) No, 4) A Welfare (disambiguation) page hatnoted from Welfare would be fine, if there are sufficient articles that could be confused with Welfare, 5) When there are multiple uses of a word, the first "style" used in an article, or the first use of the word as an article title, is preferred, unless there are strong reasons otherwise.
In this case "welfare" describes means tested government assistance around the world and the article's been describing that since 2003. You're asking to shift the meaning of a highly read article (averages around 1,500 per day) that's had a stable meaning for almost 9 years.
As I said before, first, prove the word "welfare" is so unreasonably out of context for commonwealth speakers that they would be astounded when they find this usage, and not the one you prefer, then demonstrate that "welfare" as meaning general well-being, or whatever way you're using it, is sufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article. If you do that, then we can go to WP:Requested Moves and consider rearranging the order of these articles. Shadowjams (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
With regard to 1) Churchill meant WELLBEING not SOCIAL ASSISTANCE. Churchill was a Conservative and did not support the idea of the Welfare State. He lost the 1945 election which was fought on the basis of creating a state in which the government used its powers to eliminate the poverty and poor living conditions that prevailed before WW2.
As for your reply to 2), what would be wrong with copying it back to Welfare (financial aid)? Please address this issue at talk:Welfare not here.
I take 3) and 4) to mean that you think there is nothing wrong with regarding Welfare as being the primary topic and that you choose to ignore the evidence from the dictionary sources which shows it to be primarily North American usage. Perhaps you can tell us at the article talk page why you choose to ignore the dictionary references.
Now to 5). The text you quote is just arguing for consistency within the article. It tells us nothing about how the article should be titled. If you are worried that it would impossible to write about the topic of social assistance without using the word welfare, that would be a misunderstanding. Of course we can use the word welfare. It is used all the time in this context outside of the U.S. but almost always as an attributive adjective (as in Welfare State, Welfare payment, welfare assistance, where the root meaning is wellbeing (try substituting "payment from government" in these usages and you'll see what I mean. Sometimes welfare is used as a noun with a qualifier such as in social welfare, but again this means "social well-being". In the UK (where I am from) when welfare is used without an attribute or a qualifier (as in the phrase "we are doing this for her welfare" it ALWAYS means well-being. No Brit would think that meant "for her government payments". So yes, we can use the world welfare in the article as an attribute or with a qualifier but we ought not to use it as a simple noun meaning "government payment" as that is purely United States usage and we should not write general articles using a national usage. And for this reason, IMHO, we should definitely not use the article Welfare to describe government assistance for the poor. There are different terms for this around the world and "Welfare" is only used that way in the United States.-- (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we please keep this discussion on the relevant talk page. I don't like having it disjointed because you seem to be answering everyone on their respective talk pages. Shadowjams (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Apostle's Creed

I did not mean to violate any Wikipedia rules -- it's a site that I love and have been using (and occasionally editing) almost since its inception. But I'm not quite sure what I did that was wrong: the only change I made was to change the spacing the reflect the (12) sequence as in the CCC and as was quoted above. I did not change a single word. Thank you very much for your commitment to academic integrity on Wikipedia (User talk: 2012-04-25 10:51 (UTC)

You're right, your edits were not vandalism. I should have written an edit summary to describe any Undo I did there. I also though don't know why you're re-setting the spacing, which seems to be important to the creed too. Shadowjams (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point, except to say that ..

You really did want to belabor the WP:Point. And you were wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I don't think so. I was amazed at how adamant you were defending a block that I think was way out of line. As far as I know I don't have any issues with you (or any affinity for Fleet either, which I only know by name... I don't think I've interacted directly with him/her either). Which is why Imm all the more surprised you're posting here on my talk page about it after the fact. Did I say something unfair in that discussion? The discussion was rendered moot pretty quickly, before anybody else had much reason to comment. I provided a succinct summary of it that I think was very fair. I understand if you're upset with me disagreeing with you, but I'm 100% uninvolved with either of you or whatever issue precipitated the recent dust up, and the one before. ANI's all about 3rd opinions. Dennis was excellent in providing that. I wasn't wrong either. So why are you here, other than to register your displeasure? Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider the entry for Red Heart Books LLC

ShadowJams, I appreciate that you volunteer to make Wikipedia a better place for all. I also respect your time, so my appeal will be brief.

Please reconsider your hasty decision to delete my article (before an hour of creation; I am a new user and have augmented it since the initial post) Red Heart Books Wikipedia Page

Although I agree that the first post lacked significance, you will find that the revision includes references to for two published books (with ISBN numbers) and includes other references of significance such as publicly posted plans for future books and currently relevant social network page and application references.

I promise to learn from this experience and become a better contributor to Wikipedia.

--Jamesphamilton (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Then add some references (which you know how to do) that are unaffiliated with the book. All of the current references are to a single publisher. Outside sources are ideal in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarity at ANI

I noticed a comment you made at ANI and rather than muddle up the conversation there, I thought I would answer you here. I'm not involved in that discussion, and just offering my perspective in general. It is considered standard that if an editor makes a claim against another editor, he back it up with diffs. Many times, an editor only has a dozen or so edits in the last day, so it is easy to go and find them, but other times it is not so easy since some people make hundreds of edits in a day. When it is easy to find, I will just go find it as it is easier to find it than explain to the editor why they should provide diffs, or to educate them as to how this is done. Lazy, but equity and efficiency is my goal. In a complicated discussion, with lots of claims, if one editor is providing diffs and the other editor is only giving generalizations and not providing *proof*, then I tend to listen to the one providing proof. The reason is simple: often people will make claims that are not founded in fact. If Editor 1 says "he called me a liar!!" and provides no diff, often what you find is that Editor 2 really said "You have provided NO sources to prove this fact". This is quite common. As far as Editor 1 is concerned, that is the same thing, but it isn't.

The goal of ANI isn't to find out who is wrong or who is right. The goal is to find a solution to a problem. Doing it fast is helpful, but doing it right is more important. This is why it is helpful if people refrain from commenting until they have combed through the diffs for each editor, checked the block logs for each editor, check the diffs for the article when that is the issue, and have actually read the diffs, not just the summary. Jumping the gun can lead to offering bad advice because you don't have the whole picture. When editors provide diffs, it is only part of the picture. They might also be cherry picking diffs that support their claims, but looking at their comments before and after those diffs paint a different picture. Maybe Editor 2 was rude, but Editor 1 was rude first. Doesn't justify it, but it explains it. ANI is a very tricky place, and it is easy to do more damage than good if you are careless. I've been here well over 5 years and only over the last year that have I gotten deeply involved, after I spent years learning about the policies and guidelines, as well as observing how others handle disputes. I would suggest being very careful when offering advice and refraining when you aren't completely sure of the policy issues at stake, or the full histories of the participants. It can backfire on you quickly and get you in hot water. I've made a few mistakes over the years at ANI and had my head handed to me on a platter once or twice, so I know. Dennis Brown - © 00:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit at ANI? The point I was making there is that TP began to chastise Director for lack of diffs when in fact there were diffs in the post. I've seen a lot of digressions on there lately that seem to miss the bigger issue and that was one of them. Or do you also have in mind my comment about Todd's admin actions (referenced above)? In that case I think it needed to be said, and in that case I was the only one who reconstructed the timeline between the three of them. The exact "comb[ing] through the diffs for each editor" that you're talking about.
I've been editing for a while too Dennis. You've edited in 45 months, me 39. I've certainly made my share of mistakes at ANI and elsewhere. But do you think I've made one in that post or any other of my recent ANI ones? Shadowjams (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of military slang terms

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, List of military slang terms , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of United Defense Manufacturing Corporation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on United Defense Manufacturing Corporation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Except for it being a major defense contractor to the Philippine Armed Forces... I'm going to userfy it and see if I can add more. Shadowjams (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually looking at it now you're right, it's a little sparse... more than I remembered. Anyway I'll work on it. Shadowjams (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for removing vandalism from my talk page - enjoy! Denisarona (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your revert on Physics major

Why did you revert Physics major from its redirect to Physics education into a redirect to Engineer? The undo I performed was reverting an edit likely inspired by (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fabian Bachrach


I wanted to let you know I replaced Fabian Bachrach, an article you created, with a redirect to Louis Fabian Bachrach, Jr.. I merged some details from your contribution into the 2nd. Cheers, Superp (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh interesting. I didn't know he was a Jr. Shadowjams (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Good Times (Kool & the Gang album)

FYI: According to the cited reference on Good Times (Kool & the Gang album):, the album was released as the IP said Nov '72. It reached the top of the chart in '73 Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think All music is a reliable source. More importantly, the IP continued to make that edit to numerous articles without explanation and without source, even though the IP was advised about it numerous times. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Amazon also lists it as being released in '72. I agree though, I really detest the lack of edit summaries and replies to the warnings. Thanks for all of your hard work! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a reply...

I've replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#replacing references temporarily.     The Transhumanist 11:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added a possible solution to your newest issue as well. The idea is, instead of using just XXXX for all references, use something like XXX$randomXXX and then store the random as the hash key, and the references as the value. Then replacement just involves iterating through your hash, looking for the key, and replacing it. This allows you to do more manipulation in the middle section of your program too, because you're not dependent on order to reassign the references. Shadowjams (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Flash crowd merge

Ok, now the Flash crowd prod has been closed. Do you want to proceed with the merge like you suggested? Flash crowd can be merged into Slashdot effect first, and then moved back to Flash crowd or something. Is it possible to merge the edit histories with the content in article/talk pages or will it just be a copypaste merge? If you have any comments/suggestions about the merge, just post it on the Slashdot effect talk page in the section that was already started. Thanks - M0rphzone (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Update: On a second thought, the two articles might not be entirely the same. A flash crowd seems to refer to a crowd of people who appear in a flash (on a site), but the slashdot effect refers to the effect. The two topics are slightly different.. I'm not sure about this merge; what do you think? - M0rphzone (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think they are the same, or at least close enough to not warrant two articles. Whatever the opinion about that though, it's a foregone conclusion since the consensus and outcome was to merge it. Merge it in, and then if you want to change the name you'll need to list it at WP:Requested Moves because it will require a move over the other page since they both exist.
But do the merger first because that will simplify any ultimate move (and there probably should be a debate about that move). Shadowjams (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Pasha Hashemi

The above article is now at AfD see here just thought I'd let you know as you orginally PRODed it. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented there. Shadowjams (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting

Syzygium malaccense, Mangunharjo Orchard, Dlingo, Yogyakarta.jpg at my successful RFA
Thank you, Shadowjams, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


Why have you edited the page "dirt" to remove the description: Dirt, a tasty snack? I honestly do not personally think this is vandalism( I would know, I was the one who contributed it). People around the world have been known to eat dirt when times are bad, of course, they would not eat it plain. They did/do what they could to make the dirt appealing( although it's pretty hard XD). I was only posting a piece of legitimate and valid information. Yes, I did post it in a humorous format, but it is still true nontheless. Sorry if I put this in the wrong place, I really don't know where to( I'm still new to this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Except you've used 4 IPs, and two ranges, over the course of multiple weeks, to insert the same vandalism. So those are all flagged now. Shadowjams (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Nice job reverting vandalism on APGAR score. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

IP's Sockpuppet

Hi! The user who you reverted and reported has made a sockpuppet, named Thomsenc23, who has tried to blank your talk page multiple times (see edit filter log). Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya, it's the dirt sock. There's probably a few accounts as well. I may file an SPI soon, I'm not sure yet. Let me know if you beat me to it and I'll add what I know. Shadowjams (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I warned the user and then he made legal treats here:, plus vandalized my talk page again, and blanked my userpage twice. I reported the sock to AIV, and TerriersFan blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely, so unless he makes another sock (highly unlikely because blocks prevent the IP from making new accounts, and the sock was made before the IP block was made), I will report him to SPI. Thanks! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

François René Auguste Mallarmé

I notice that in this edit, you restored an article that was simply a duplicate of another. The article's creator obviously realised his mistake and tried to correct it. Anyway, I have gone ahead and turned it into a redirect. StAnselm (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed an edit that blanked an article and replaced it with text saying "this article should be deleted." I didn't investigate further, which perhaps I should of, but I was doing vandalism patrol at the time and I can't deeply investigate every instance of page blanking. Thank you for following up on it. Shadowjams (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yasuhiro Konishi

Actually, jujutsu is a correct romanization for the japanese art. Jujitsu or jiujitsu are misspellings (although latter is in use when talking about Brazilian Jiujitsu - which, although sharing history with jujutsu (via judo), is considered to be a different art, thus recognizing their different spelling.

Switching "jujitsu" to "jujutsu" in Konishi-article was mainly to service the unity and correct spelling in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Maud Powell Signature, Women in Music

The article is not about an organization; it is about a magazine that publishes remarkably in-depth articles about women in classical music. The magazine is notable, important, and useful as sources for musicologists, historians, and women's study researchers. Try this: Put "Maud Powell" and "Women in Music" in quotes; then do a search under

The Maud Powell Signature, the Society's magazine, is devoted to the achievements of women in classical music. As stated by the IAWM Journal, the publication has become an international clearing house of information and resources on women in music (Maud Powell, IAWA Journal, Volumes 7, Nos. 1 & 2, pg. 5 (2001) OCLC 32329621 ISSN 1082-1872). The publication is reviewed in numerous other publications, including Strings (magazine) (Vol 10, pg. 9, 1995). It is also listed in the Sourcebook for Research in Music; Second Edition, by Phillip D. Crabtree and Donald H. Foster, Indiana University Press, Bloomington (2005) ISBN 0253314763. Eurodog (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a month ago, I don't remember what it had then. If you have developed it into something notable, great. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yo, I just read over this. Wikipedia:Notability is not about the article's content. It is about the topic itself. The article's content has nothing to do with the notability of the topic it's about. You need to correct your idea of what you consider non-notable. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting comment when you can't see the original article. You're just upset about my prod, and now nomination, of your article, that I believe is not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I am upset about your actions, and thus I'm reviewing them. You, however, don't seem to care to justify your actions. Instead you simply ignore people's valid arguments and simply write them up as (perfectly justified) annoyance at your misbehavior. So respond to what I wrote huh? Instead of just being a dick. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Date windowing

Looking at an article for 20 seconds is not due diligence when marking something as non-notable. You have to do some research before you decide that. I've removed your hastily added deletion tag and responded on the talk page. I urge you to take a little bit of time to think and do research before you jump to destroying people's work here on wikipedia. I'm not a newbie to this site, and I don't appreciate my articles being marked for speedy deletion without talking to me first. Thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. Please try to keep your responses in the relevant sections. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
See WP: BEFORE. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
Huh? You also !voted delete...and don't leave snarky links for me here. Shadowjams (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me? Relevant sections? What in god's name are you talking about? I created this relevant section so we could talk about it. It'd be nice if you quit ignoring me and just talk to me. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Shadowjams, why you ruin everybody's fun?

on many occasions you have denied the great work of Jean-Paul Maddou. I provided clear evidence of his existence from the masterpiece 'Thin Buddha on ice'. you are disrespecting his legacy (may he rest in peace). i misinterpreted the rules with references and apologise. i would very much apreciate it if you would be so kind as to let me honour this great large mans work. yours sincerely Aidan Maddou x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliejulesb (talkcontribs) 09:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The above was from a vandalism only account that had been trolling me for a while now. It is now blocked. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul edit

Congressman Ron Paul has a pluarity of 5-6 states and is on the ballot at the RNC. Please correct the mistake you made with the RNC in Tampa page ASAP

Quite untrue as Ron Paul has qualified to be at the RNC and has 5-6 states to be on the ballot as well. Please correct yourself.

From May 4th, 2012 as Foxnews already admitted that Ron Paul has already qualified to have his name on the ballot. The mainstream media hoax of "needing" Nebraska to win has been exposed.

Ron Paul wins 5 state plurality (May 5, 2012)

Ron Paul wins 7 states (May 8, 2012)

Ron Paul wins 11 states (May 10, 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually never reverted you before your comment. That said, it seems like someone's been edit warring about this for a while, from multiple IPs. And the changes you're making appear to be factually incorrect, not to mention they change what's already cited without changing the cite, a pretty suspicious tell. Shadowjams (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Marissa Mayer

Hi, Shadow. I saw your message on my talk page. My edit was not non-constructive. I reverted a revert by, with a full explanation. He removed very important content regarding Mayer's key roles at Google by showing the well-known services she oversaw. And the revert he did was with no explanation. The message you left me should have instead be left for User:, whose sole edit is this one inappropriate revert. Please revert your revert. Thanks. -- (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC) 06:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your message here. I reverted it because you already had some warnings (your constant page blanking is hurting your cause, not helping it) and it looked like you were adding random links to unrelated pages, that plus your early admonishment for edit warring. I didn't make the Google connection until reviewing it more in depth. Thanks for the follow up. It's back to your earlier edits. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Shadow. As a number of my administrator friends know, I blank my own user page (as allowed per WP:OWNTALK) simply because I like to keep the page neat and clean. So when there are no pending issues, I clear it. In fact, it was an administrator friend who told me that I could clear, or archive, it. (Although that admin lectures me about creating an account. Haha.) If you look at my edits on Marissa Mayer, you'll see that they've been very constructive. And when I have questions on anything, I ask an administrator or experienced editor for guidance. In any case, my revert of User:'s revert was constructive. His of mine was not. So, no, I was not adding random links. I was simply putting back very important content that was inappropriately removed. Thanks for your reply. -- (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want with your talk page. My point is that it makes it difficult to have conversations, and it also makes you look evasive. If you want to keep blanking it nobody will stop you, but I'd recommend you don't. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand. Although I would never purposely edit in any type of malicious or unconstructive manner, I always like knowing if I do something incorrectly. I have been praised on a few occasions for my editing and writing skills by a few admins (who, of course, also urge me to create an account). As I said, I am not being evasive when I clear my talk page, I just don't like resolved content sitting on there. Just my little quirky preference to keep it clean. Anyway, thanks a lot for putting the content back. I hope you will leave a warning for User: about making such inappropriate reverts, and with no explanation. Have a great evening. -- (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I learned through experience that there are experienced editors who had no idea a user was allowed to clear his/her own talk page, until I referred them to WP:OWNTALK. Most of them thanked me and admitted they didn't know. But one pretty hostile editor kept putting back all the content on my page until an administrator finally intervened and told the editor to knock it off. -- (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Failure to do Due Dilligence

I've noticed you've often failed to do due diligence when reverting people's work and/or nominating things for deletion or speedy deletion. I understand you have lots of work to do, being a vandalism patroller, however this does not release you from the duty of an administrator to treat contributors with the respect they deserve. In the recent past, I've noticed you have destroyed or attempted to destroy the work of the following people, without any discussion with those contributors:

  • Your edit here [2] was reverted by someone other than who you reverted
  • Your edit here [3] was also reverted by someone else
  • This edit [4] was clearly not vandalism, and yet you treated it as such. Again, another user had to correct it
  • You never bothered to defend or apologize for your edit here [5]
  • Bizarrely (since you yourself are a vandal chaser), your edit here [6] reverted his obvious revert of vandalism, and then you cited his warring with IPs that had already been repeatedly warned for vandalism. Had you made even a cursory 30 second investigation, you would have known this.
  • You reverted someone's edit to their own talk page [7] without even asking them about it. And then you had a snarky response when they told you you should keep your hands to yourself.

I could go on, but this is what I found in 15 minutes of looking through people's complaints about you on your talk page. With almost none of these people did you attempt any real communication - even after they came to you. Not on your talk page, not on their talk page, and not on the articles' talk pages. I do not see this as proper conduct for someone with administrator privileges on wikipedia.

My request to you is this: remember that people who come on here and spend their time trying to improve wikipedia are the most important thing wikipedia has. Your time is not more important than theirs. The time you spend making mistakes far exceeds the time it would take to do your due diligence and ask people about their edits if they're at all borderline.

Discouraging helpful contributors from being helpful is a scourge on wikipedia that I'd like to see gone. Scaring away 1 helpful user cannot be made up for by correcting 1000 accounts of vandalism.

So slow it down, give people the benefit of the doubt. The world won't end if you catch a few less vandals. However, if you scare away real contributors you're doing this site, and the world, a terrible disservice.

Thanks, Fresheneesz (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My nominating your article really seems to have upset you. Why don't you find some sources for your article instead of taking time to dig through my over 72,000 edits to cherry pick a few (all easily explained) examples. None of your examples are damning. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As for your specific examples, your first example is characteristically naive: the article had been recently created (within hours) and there was edit warring over the redirect target, and if you'd taken 3 seconds to check the log history you'd see it's now currently locked. I'd seen another IP make similar edit wars over it before, and it's difficult to tell on the fly which version's preferred, however the edit warring was the problem. The second, jujitsu spelling change was unexplained and is a slightly different transliteration of the word; either option is correct, however without explanation it looked like a mass intentional misspelling. My revert to the long-standing standard made sense given the lack of explanation. After it's explained, I didn't revert it again. The third is clear vandalism where the page is being blanked by someone who wants to delete it. There had been substantial edits in between the creator, therefore db by author would have been inappropriate. I'm not sure what happened with edit 4, probably a mistake on my part. Edit 5 seems to be clear vandalism, and was "overturned" by the same user that did it in the first place. They appear to be still edit warring over that edit (others are with the one I reverted) so I may need to follow up on that...thanks for bringing it to my attention. And finally, the user talk page edit was a user redirecting another user's talk page. Often that's vandalism. I guess you're assuming that they are the new account, but there's no claim of that on the new user's page and even now I would be more comfortable if the old account did the redirect, not the new.
So there looks to be 1 non-explainable mistake in there, a single incorrect revert that I did not repeat. And that's apparently going back to January. I'm not even defending myself that deeply either. There are often trends going on at any time while doing vandalism patrol that are buried in the logs (multiple IPs or accounts, similar types of edits across other articles that aren't obviously linked, crowd sourced vandalism following a pattern) that I forget when asked about 6 months later.
It's pretty easy to second guess me on small mistakes months later, particularly given the volume of work I do, and even with that advantage, those are hardly gotcha examples. Quit wikihounding me and calling me a dick. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
"your first example is characteristically naive"
I beg to differ. There was no edit warring when you made your revert. The user even put a clear comment in for his edit.
"The third is clear vandalism"
Being a newb that doesn't know how to recommend a page for deletion is not the same thing as a vandal. The edit itself, had you looked at it before reverting it, made it very clear that this was the case.
My mistake on edit 5, I was looking at the wrong edit there.
My biggest grievance here is that you failed to properly communicate with any of these users, even the ones who came to your talk page. This is, in fact, exactly how you treated me. You ignored my comment on the talk page of Date windowing. You ignored my comment on your talk page about the Date windowing afd. You ignored my comment on your talk page about Maud Powel. My only surprise is that you're not ignoring this comment too.
Why not discuss these things with good-faith users? The problem is you're not assuming good faith. You seem to treat people as vandals by default. This reminds me of cynical cop syndrome, which hurts them and the people around them. Why did you completely ignore wikipedia policy on the criteria for speedy deletion, which my article did not meet? Why have you chosen to forgo many of the policies laid out in WP:Before? Why did you choose not to collaborate with me, but instead create an official AfD with no discussion?
Fresheneesz (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If I sound exacerbated it's because it's quite clear to me what you're doing. You're upset I nominated your stub article for deletion. You then came here, piled on to a totally unrelated complaint about a CSD'd article (a CSD that was implemented by someone else... so that's 2 eyes on it, and was recreated with the admonishment that it should actually meet the notability criteria this time; and notably, an article that you can't see what state it was in when I nominated it, and someone else deleted it; I know it probably seemed like a "gotcha" moment, but if you dig into the log you'll find the truth). You then proceed to waste time going through my edit history for the past 6 months, and you come up with the 5 examples above. Then, after I take the time to go through each one of those and provide a pretty simple look at each, you still won't put down the whip and step away from the horse. During this time I see very little improvement to the article that started this whole thing.
The better question is who are you trying to convince? I've been around here for a while. There are plenty of actual issues you could bring up about my work, most of which I hope I've corrected but I'm sure some remain. But your attempt here is transparent, and I presume unconvincing to most other people who look at it. Stop spending your time on this. This time would be so much better spent sourcing your article, or perhaps making merit-based arguments at the AfD. It would be nice if I didn't have to deal with this silliness too. So, leave it alone. Shadowjams (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Went through two of your most recent archive pages - not your edit history. Yet again, you're reducing my grievances to petty .. I don't even know what. You think I'm, what.., just exacting my devious yet transparent revenge onto you?
No. Thats a pretty silly idea. I do, however, have a special place in my heart for those that systematically discourage users from positive contribution. Its the very reason I wrote the essay Don't Destroy - One I had more than cursory support for as a wikipedia guideline, I might add.
You, however, continue to ignore my valid concerns about your actions. The main one being that you failed to correspond with users who's work you manhandled. You still haven't responded to my comments about your AfD above.
Fresheneesz (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
We're done. Please stop posting about this on my page. Shadowjams (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that you're unwilling to discuss anything relevant with me, I'm going to start following Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution in dealing with you. Since you're unwilling to discuss with me, the next step is a dispute resolution notice, which I've posted at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Date_Windowing_deletion_proposal_and_Shadowjams_misconduct_discussion. It seems it'll be nice to get to know you. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Regional Research Station

Hi, did you notice the red warning when you saved your edit? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's funny.
I added a cleanup tag to an abysmal article. You apparently added on quite a bit more cleanup notions. You want to quit being passive agressive and confront me on the fact that I didn't give a reason for a cleanup tag? The cleanup tag was obvious. this article ought to be deleted as it is right now.
I don't know where you think you're earning points by taking snipes at me, but I've been around the block enough times that this sort of silliness doesn't mean much to me. Clean it up. Don't spend your time chastising me. And your description of adding a {{cleanup}} tag to an article isn't exactly how it happens in real life. You might try doing some real work. Shadowjams (talk)
Here is my response to you directly. This is the most ridiculous complaint I've gotten in a long time from a reasonable editor. Seriously look that over, and respond to me directly if you want to follow this up. Or maybe you're one of the multitude of editors who got adminship back when it was easy. Shadowjams (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite an outburst. I can assure you there was nothing that was intended to be aggressive in my post whatsoever. So please calm down. I just wanted to let you know that there was an error with your edit (which I fixed) just to save it happening in future. The syntax for {{cleanup}} has changed recently so you probably were not aware that a reason was required now. So I was not trying to criticise you (although I admit I am mildly surprised you didn't see the bold red warning after you saved the edit). Can we move on now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was an overreaction on my part. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Volunteer at WP:DRN, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 03:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A haunting philosophy draft, with ghosts and everything

You might want to revisit this discussion, which is still open. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedway League

Re: Speedway National League - Some of the articles are just stubs at the moment but i'm planning to build them all up to the same standard. I was just filling in the gaps - if you check the categories you'll notice all the other seasons have been done so it's nonsense just to want to delete 1984. Your tone is quite aggressive about deleting them, might be more constructive to help me build the articles if you're interested in speedway? cheers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talkcontribs)

This was what I left for you. Both those facts still remain. My tone's not particularly aggressive either. These are stubs of just a table and 1 sentence. That's not an article. And you're creating them en mass and it doesn't look like you have expanded them either. This is a typical problem with kitten creations. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not edit the cotton candy article

  • Please do not send me messages directing me to refrain from vandalism. I did not do anything. Please be more cautious in your enforcement in the future as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone from the same IP address made this edit and this edit back in May. So there's no mistake on my part. However, it's possible you're on a dynamic IP address and it has been reassigned from someone else to you. To avoid this in the future you might consider creating an account. I wouldn't worry about past vandalism like that if it wasn't from you. You'll likely change IPs soon anyway. Shadowjams (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about RRA vs RfAS

Hi. As you noted others might be interested in the information, I copied your request and my response there. - jc37 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok! I was confused because I reloaded your talk and it was all gone! I've read through both and have some thoughts so I'll follow up there. Shadowjams (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Sorry for the confusion. - jc37 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I posted my comparison. Please let me know if you think I got the comparison wrong or left out something important. It's at the RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept/Proposals#Comparisons of RfAS and RRA and debate. I have some opinions about the proposals, but I want to make sure my reading is correct first, so please let me know what you think. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I entreat you to please read the discussions I had with Dennis Brown on the talk page of RfAS. You have (unintentionally) glossed over quite a bit. The broadness of possible results in his proposal, for example. the fact that it allows for any sanctions created by the community for another. - jc37 05:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I've looked over your discussions... I think your main beef with Dennis is the remedies section... which is fine, but is my comparison inaccurate? Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
First, I know it may be nitpicky, but to clarify, I have no "beef" with Dennis brown at all.
I have concerns (many) about his proposal, at nearly every stage of the proposal. - jc37 05:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Lol. Ok fine. "Your main point of contention." But like I said, I'm not trying to be political here, I just want to present an accurate summary of the two proposals, because I doubt everybody will read through the whole thing. But I also don't want to have a bias in that explanation, which is why I ask you. But short of listing every single change it's kinda important to summarize the important ones, which I think I've done fairly accurately. I'm just asking for a fact check, that's all. This part doesn't have to be a debate (we get to that later :)) In other words I'm not asking about your concerns on the merits of either proposal, but I want to make sure I summarized them fairly. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I started to post my "main concerns" here, but I'll post them there instead. - jc37 06:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Works for me. Shadowjams (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs

No problem. I've seen it done before so I didn't think it was a problem. Moving them over now. --MrIndustry (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there may be ways to do it without screwing up the formatting, but they escape me right now (actually, maybe subst: the reference template might do it... but I'm not really sure.) No biggie either way. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of SHS vs. Kingdom of Yugoslavia (about Hamdija Pozderac)

Hi Shadowjams. Hamdija Pozderac was born on January 15, 1924. at which time his country of origin was known as Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and was only later renamed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I did not cite that fact since it can be reached very easily by simple following the new link (this link leads to Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and is immediately redirected to Kingdom of Yugoslavia, new name of the country).

Citations from the mentioned web-page: "The kingdom was formed on 1 December 1918 under the name "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" (Serbian: Краљевина Срба, Хрвата и Словенаца / Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, Croatian: Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, Slovene: Kraljevina Srbov, Hrvatov in Slovencev) or Kingdom of SHS (Краљевина СХС / Kraljevina SHS) for short." "Not long after that, on 6 January 1929, using as a pretext the political crisis triggered by the shooting, King Alexander abolished the Constitution, prorogued the Parliament and introduced a personal dictatorship (known as the "January 6 Dictatorship", Šestosiječanjska diktatura, Šestojanuarska diktatura). He changed the name of the country to "Kingdom of Yugoslavia", and changed the internal divisions from the 33 oblasts (županije) to nine new banovinas on 3 October." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Another edit by


I just wanted to ask your opinion about an edit, since you were previously involved with and his contents removal from Deus Ex (series) article. Now, this user made another edit, which I don't exactly like. It adds an unpleasant white space at the beginning of the section 3 for the table caption. But I thought if I used WP:BRD, it might offend the user. So, I though I consult you for a third opinion. What do you think?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ya I'm not exactly sure what's going on there... something about that edit history felt very odd to me. I've looked at some of my reverts there in retrospect and I'm still unsure. I don't have time to follow up on it right now, but I will soon. Thank you for inquiring. I'll take another look and give a more detailed response soon. Shadowjams (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Although you abstained, I appreciate your input in the discussion and hope to see you again sometime. Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Sandra Fluke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Maja Alojado

Evening Shadowjams. While it's potentially a hoax, my impression is that the article constitutes a personal attack. Cheers, Mephistophelian (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Tomato, Tomatto. Shadowjams (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Black Keys

Yeah did you look at the beginning of the page? The last few IPs who edited it had changed the name to "The Black Guys"... I was trying to undo that. Why don't you do it for me instead then?

Sortsdam 08:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you didn't do it right if that was your intention [8]. Shadowjams (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I undid the most recent version, assuming it was the only vandalized edit. Noticed I was wrong, was planning to fix it, saw your message. What did you think I had done wrong exactly? Sortsdam 08:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

NOAA Weather Station articles

Due to the high number of NOAA Weather stations, I do not believe a single page listing all the NOAA weather radio stations would be particularly effective. However, I would support the idea of an orderly merger of individual NOAA Weather stations that are programmed by the same forecast office.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That would work. Do you have a url that lists these by those stations? Shadowjams (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This link lists the stations that receive the majority of their programming from the Chicago National Weather Service Forecast Office in Romeoville, Illinois [9]. This link lists the stations that receive the majority of their programming from the St. Louis National Weather Service Forecast Office [10]. I do not know of any url that lists all of the weather stations in the country by the forecast office that programs them. --Tdl1060 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see if I can find one that does. NOAA's or the FCC has got to have a list somewhere. If I find that I'll let you know and then I can start creating pages for the Forecast offices. Do you have any sense about how subdivided the regions are? I'm wondering if the size we're talking about here is regional... large city (e.g. Chicago), or smaller. Shadowjams (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This article lists the reporting offices, and articles already exist for some of the reporting offices. If you switch the office codes in the urls that I gave, for each of the reporting offices, they should list all of the weather stations that receive their programming from that office.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I am going to start work on merging the stations' info into National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok great. I'm going to follow your format and do the same for the St. Louis office. Shadowjams (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I tried to do this for Miami, but it seems like the individual weather service offices are not all standardized. See [11] for example. It doesn't have the listings in quite the same way Chicago does, or St. Louis. This could pose a problem for doing all of these. In any event I'll do the St. Louis one right now and maybe we can find a better data source later. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thank you for new article reviewing International Aeronautic Exhibition and the tidying.

As you're a fellow Perl hacker I thought you might appreciate a cup of coffee Icarusgeek (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Shadowjams (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Weather Service St. Louis, Missouri, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Montgomery County and St. Charles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your change back on "Camouflage (band)"

I changed the former band name "Licensed Technology" to "Lizenenced Technology" because it is written like this on their own website:

and also on the German wiki it is spelled this way. I already gave that reason in the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Evanna Lynch

You've threatened to block me for vandalizing a page for Evanna Lynch - but I haven't! I don't even know who she is and I have no idea how Wikipedia even works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Animal sentinels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bats (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Spontaneous Human Combustion

Dear shadowwhoever. That was under unverified natural phenomenon and constructive or not it was well thought out and your exclusion of it not only displeased me , but kind of hurt my feelings. How do you know this is not true ? I was under the impression unverified meant -unverified  (ʌnˈvɛrɪˌfaɪd) — adj not having been confirmed, substantiated, or proven to be true. So by my placement of my hypothosis about SHC, I do not see why it was removed. - unsatisfied wiki user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This edit was not productive. If you keep messing with my talk page jacking up formatting, or if you continue to vandalize articles, you will be blocked. Shadowjams (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow . You are kind of like hitler of wiki . And a fun sucker. Feel free to block me jerk — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

^^Yea I've had a problem with these dykes before too. Shadowshit runs around with these guys called TideRolls and Mark Arsten. Can anyone say 3rd Reich?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Payal Rohatgi

Hi I am Ms Payal Rohatgi .. My page URL is ... I have an uncorrect mention of my age on my page ... I would appreciate u could take my request to change it to 1984.. If u need relevant papers I can provide u that..someone is wrongly mentioning my age on Wikipedia and hampering my profile..please do the needful...u can contact me on if u need to speak to me for further details... Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. We rely on reliable sources from third parties in order to establish facts on Wikipedia. This is why your changes, which were without explanation or a source, were undone. There is a large amount of vandalism on wikipedia that involves changing facts, especially dates. For that reason you need to find a third-party source that verifies the date you're trying to change it to. The article already has one source that lists a birthdate, so in the absence of another source, it should not be changed. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the history I also note that this is not the first time someone from your IP range has tried to make exactly the same change. Here, here, and here. Strangely there have been other changes to different dates. However the 1980 date is the only one supported by a source right now. Shadowjams (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I've dug into the history more and I'm astounded at the duration of the fighting over this birth year issue. Because of that history I've removed the year, and referred the issue to the BLP noticeboard (I left a message at your IP page). Shadowjams (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference desk

Ok. I'm sorry. I wasn't trolling. I suffer from an OCD. Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used the term troll. It just frustrated me that you asked a question that is in the infoboxes of the War in Afghanistan article. But I overreacted in my response. I've since removed that term. Shadowjams (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring/vandalism on the Soledad O'Brien page.

It seems that you are some type of Wikipedia administrator with certain privileges. I am kindly requesting that you take a look at my contribution that is continually being deleted by AndyTheGrump without any meaningful and specific criticisms. I believe that an honest evaluation of the language used in my edit reveals that it is clearly written in a NPOV. Moreover, the controversy WAS notable and is newsworthy, and relevant for the reader to glean a better understanding of this media personality. O'Brien certainly considered it notable enough to subsequently revisit the issue on her show shortly thereafter. Beyond that, I am looking for some sort of assurance that the content will be protected from those who wish to erase it to fulfil a personal vendetta against me. There is absolutely no point in me engaging in this back and forth of deleting and replacing the content. Thanks in advance. Bobinisrael (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. I'm only an editor who's been around for a while. I don't typically edit political articles for exactly this reason, nor do I intend to do any editing of the O'Brien article beyond commenting at the BLP noticeboard on what I see as the issue. As you know, because you've posted there, there's an ANI going on about this as well. Shadowjams (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Schistosoma nasale / Schistosoma incognitum

I observed the article Schistosoma nasale which contained some wrong informations hence i edited the same added more information. However, additional information is not shown in the article thereby minimizing its importance. Pl see the additional information on save page. As there was no article on Schistosoma incognitum, I added that in your wikipedia but it is shown no where. I am not very savvy to the computer software .It will be better if you may please mail me on my e-mail <> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmcagrawal (talkcontribs) 08:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Shadowjams. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


I WP:BOLDly went ahead and moved the Wikipedia:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce page to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Subtle Vandalism Taskforce. I fixed all the double redirects except User:Shadowjams/Subtle Vandalism Taskforce. Hopefully we can get some interest going. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take a look soon. Shadowjams (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


What does it mean when a page has been marked for review? Red Rebel 05 (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help. Shadowjams (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Rebel 05 (talkcontribs) 03:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism when they're not vandalising

This is in reference to your warning on User talk:NicolaWood. This edit[12], which I assume you were warning her for, was not vandalism; it was removing poorly sourced information about a living person, which is explicitly required by WP:BLP policy. See WP:NOTVAND. (However, it was edit warring, and I've added a note to the user's talk page to that effect.) Robofish (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I meant to warn the 217 IP for this edit, I must have gotten mixed up who had made the relevant edit. However, now that I look into it more, and given the subsequent history on that page, some interesting things stick out.
First, it's been semi-protected for a rash of vandalism that all came around that time. Second, this account that you refer to, while I would not have warned had I not erroneously, has only edited that article (with one exception). As you note, they're in clear violation of 3RR. There's often the possibility too that IPs edit, get reversed, and then log in to edit.
So while I take your point that the warning was erroneous (because I didn't actually intend it for that account, but rather an IP, and because it was the wrong template), the account is definitely in need of a L1 warning for removing content without explanation, or edit warring. When new accounts start popping up in the midsts of articles that have been vandalized a lot, that raises some red flags. Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


I don't understand what possible purpose having the article and its talk page not have the same title could serve. I also don't see a requested move anywhere. I don't care about what the title ends up being, but and article and its talk page should have the same name, and I don't see why that should wait. Monty845 19:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Having found your RM request, I see we mostly agree. Still not sure why you think it should go through RM instead of CSD G6. Monty845 19:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Just because it was linked off of ANI and the db made the auto-redirect skip, which I was worried would confuse the new editors. However now it appears that it's just one person who's editing there, and not a broader discussion, so either way is probably fine. There's almost 0 history in the talk though (which was my previous concern) so I guess it's just a question of which is faster. Either way works. Shadowjams (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


Oh, I know it's available. Thing is, I'm really rusty on my category nomenclature. And I like the slow-ish approach so I can be sure I get the right category. Call it a quirk of mine. (Of which there are many.)

Nice work on the freshly-dead, by the way. :-) I see you a lot as I'm doing newpage patrol - keep up the good work! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

hahah, thanks. I've never heard it described that way but I love it! I used to have a nice RSS feed for obituaries but apparently my RSS feeder's all messed up, so I have to do it the old fashion way, with paper. Shadowjams (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well...'nother one of my quirks. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


What the hell are you talking about? Shadowjams (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Walk me through this paranoid accusation you're making. I didn't create that article, nor am I canvassing (wtf does that even mean in this context?). It's a good candidate for ARS. You and Dream Focus need a very big lesson in WP:AGF. I expect an apology from both of you. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


I was wondering whether you could clue me in to what is going on with Iowafromiowa, alias Timothyhere. I've been reviewing a DYK and essentially rewriting an article for someone who is ostensibly new to Wikipedia. However, nothing is adding up. New, but correctly formatted references and links? Knows how to submit to DYK? Permablocked? I'd appreciate your feedback. I think I've been spinning my wheels. Thank you. Anne (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah... I had to do some digging but I see now the connection; they seem to like asking really trolly questions at the reference desk. I noted this to the original account, and the other questions from the Iowa account are about the same. They seem to be good at walking a line that doesn't seem obviously mischievous, and baiting the usual reference desk tendencies. I would not be surprised if there were more accounts. Beyond that I don't have much extra to add. They're both blocked, which I assume you know. Shadowjams (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Depressionsymptoms - Warnings for inappropriate editing

I feel apologetic for having bypassed the editing policies. I am new to Wikipedia and didn't know what kind of edits can be made. I will go through the edit guidelines before I contribute. I also want to know as to how can I contribute an article to wikipedia?

Thanks depression symptoms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depressionsymptoms (talkcontribs) 08:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shadowjams! I agree with your reverts on Depression (mood) but still would like to kindly remind you of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Depressionsymptoms doesn't strike me at all as a vandalist but rather as someone who maybe got frustrated at seeing all their first efforts being reverted immediately. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
By the time I'd warned them (for the first time) you'd already reverted them 3 times before. Then I had to do it two more times, after which they finally engaged in some conversation. Not to mention they're spamming a website of which they have the same name (username policy). I appreciate your message to them, but I escalated the warning level because it'd been going on for a while before I noticed. Shadowjams (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I know, but they were all very much good faith edits. A newcomer who tried to contribute. Lova Falk talk 18:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Null edit?

This edit appears in the diff to be a null edit. The diff highlighting shows a difference in the word "Perfecting" but using a browser based search indicates the phrases are exactly the same. Can you explain what the actual change is? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Upon further investigation with Emacs, I see that you eliminated a soft hyphen (AD16). I guess that as long as we are stuck with the crippled Wikimedia diff display, there is no way for an editor to eliminate such inadvisable invisible characters and make it easy for subsequent editors to understand what was going on. Unfortunately, many edits cause diff to display purported changes that seem to be false alarms, so it is hard for subsequent editors to distinguish non-changes from invisible changes.
The soft hyphen thing is something I put into AWB after someone mentioned it on the AWB page. There was a discussion there, maybe at village pump, but the general consensus was that soft hyphens make some sense on long spanning words (there are a few examples that escape me offhand), but almost never else. I assume they get inserted when someone copy pastes something from a website or a word processor, because manually inserting one would be surprising. But they break a lot of things, like search functionality, AWB checking, links, etc. So largely they're a problem. They are not very frequent though, so when I find one randomly, as I did with that last page, I get excited. Shadowjams (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


I was trying to fix this, but my browser kept hanging! Ghostwheel ʘ 05:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It can get a little laggy at times. Shadowjams (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

An apology brownie.

Brownie transparent.png Sorry for jumping onto your talk page like that. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


I added a proposed criteria addition to the DGU AFD conversation (as well as the article talk) It does not limit things as far as you were proposing, but I think it would cut down on quite a few of the more "routine" entries, and give a better line for evaluating future incidents. Let me know what you think. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll take a look in a few. Shadowjams (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you updated your !vote (which is of course well within your purview). However, you did not comment about the proposed criteria change. Do you think that is a step in the right direction? I realize you may want to limit it even further, but do you consider that a step in the right direction? Are there any areas you think we could reach a meeting of the minds on? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi thanks for your edits earlier today, according to Wikipedia policy, the " burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material ". The content you have restored has remained unreferenced for five years and is likely to be deleted again, unless you provide appropriate references to your restored content. (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you the one that removed the entire section? Because your IP is on the same ISP as the one who did. A large removal of a relevant section of an article, with only an edit summary explanation is not sufficient. I suggest you bring this up on the talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I am content that content stays on the proviso that you provide documentary support of your edit, the talk page is superfluous, as the removal of unverified material is already WP policy (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Huh. You're the one that removed content. Take it up on the talk page. You should be aware that those sets of articles are on a 1RR restriction as well. Shadowjams (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have started a thread on the talk page, please feel free to contribute (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not the right venue. You should use the article talk page, or maybe a WP:Noticeboards. I'm still at a loss as to what the objection is. Shadowjams (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Tryptofish's advice to you is exactly what I'm suggesting you do. Shadowjams (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

George Orwell Edit


I'm not sure I understand what I did wrong. I added a "citation needed" tag to a line from Orwell's page. I wrongfully marked this as a "minor" change and then made a dummy edit by inserting a space stating that I marked the previous edit wrongly.

Where did I screw up? And doesn't that line require a "citation needed" tag?

Wiki.correct.1 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed that warning, and you're right, nothing in that particular edit string should have been reverted. I think I got your edits mixed up with someone else, and so when you removed a blank line (and did nothing else) in your second edit, I think I thought it was another user who had made some problematic edits. However, I think that perception was strengthened by some of your edits that had been undone recently and probably gave you a warning. And after looking over some, I think you probably should slow down some and discus those on their respective talk pages. In any case I was wrong in this instance, so I removed the warning. Shadowjams (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry if I'm going to quickly; I'm new at this, and have been editing certain poorly cited remarks on pages that have bothered me for a while - when I was a spectator only. Is it considered necessary to always discuss edits on talk pages before making them? Also, I see that you've still removed my "citation needed" edit on the Orwell page. Is there something wrong with that claim? Wiki.correct.1 (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No, go ahead and add the cn back if that's appropriate, I don't know the details of that one (I think I only responded to the second of your edits, but with rollback the whole sequence gets reverted). It's not necessary to discuss most changes, but my very quick look at some of your edits suggested that you had made some major edits on some controversial subjects without sources, or with some otherwise suspect issues, so if an edit could be perceived like that, it's best to tread lightly. Anyway, good luck. Shadowjams (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Broncos–Patriots rivalry

I've expanded the AFD by nominating Broncos-Patriots rivalry along with it. It would help if you returned to express an opinion about deleting or keeping the latter article. Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The user, who's now blocked, who created the copy is clearly abusing the good faith of a lot of editors. I only noticed that page though because he created the virtual copy under the different title. Shadowjams (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Narcissism, Individualism".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 11:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me you didn't get your way on the talk page, and so you edit warred to an extreme extent, which got you blocked before. Now you're doing the same edits again. This has been the subject of 2 AN/ANI reports within the past 2 weeks. There's 0 evidence I see of any consensus for the change you want. You're not going to find forum shopping around any more productive.
For the record, I could care less about the merits of the underlying discussion. I only noticed this because I saw the ANI and looked into it. It's the edit warring, the lack of consensus while claiming it's there and the dogged persistence that I'm concerned with. Shadowjams (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

ontoforce deletion of links

Hey.. I don't understand why you deleted the external links to the press? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zofie be (talkcontribs) 08:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I see now that this was part of a wider article addition you made. I think the article's probably not-notable, but in context it's not spam, so I restored your edit. Shadowjams (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

deleted link

The edit was made because the link is a redirect to the new website. The new link is the correct one. --Carlstr (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that was my mistake. I restored your edit and removed the warning. Shadowjams (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please assume people are honest

Look, folk have different ideas about RFA, always have always will. The point of any discussion is to listen to their points of view and debate them, not to attribute hidden motives to people. You said "Anything that threatens their [admins'] autonomy is expected to be met with resistance. It's just human nature.". Has it occurred to you that those expressing reservations, or opposing the idea, might not be doing it because they feel threatened, but might be doing it .... I don't because of the reasons they are actually giving you! Assuming that people have other motives is unhelpful, uncivil, insulting, and not conducive to collegiate working. I could equally start assuming that non-admins who support de-admining do so, not because of the reasoned arguments that they put forward, but because they are jealous and covet power for themselves. But I don't do that - I assume they want what's best for the project, even if I disagree with their conclusions. The only way that anything ever has a chance of reaching consensus is if we choose to believe people say what they mean, and then debate the concerns they express.--Scott Mac 01:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've delayed responding to you Scott because I've wanted to think about this for a little while. I'll admit, when I made most of those responses I was in a bad mood for reasons disconnected from Wikipedia. For my tone, I'm sorry. That's not an excuse but merely an explanation.
I do think there is some self-interest in most of these proposals, and I am not at all surprised that admins might, statistically, take a more cautious view towards these proposals, because they're the ones that stand to lose the most. My mistake was in insinuating [inadvertently] that those motives were specific to anyone in particular. I didn't intend that, but my tone was too strong. I don't think that means anyone's dishonest either. It just means we all view things from different perspectives; it's by no means a question of integrity. And I agree with you as well, that argument runs both ways. Non-admins are much more likely to be supportive of proposals to constrain adminship. I am certainly guilty of that charge.
I attempted to address your concerns on the merits, though I agree, my animosity in tone was unhelpful and deluded my point. I don't think anything I said was particularly uncivil or insulting, though perhaps unhelpful. Full disclosure too, I found your initial responses to me unnecessarily aggressive and callously dismissive, which prompted my response somewhat. That said, we both probably drew that argument out way too far on a straw poll page, and I agree with you that I should have tempered my language much more than I did.
I doubt I'm going to agree with you ever on this argument, which is fine. I'll make a commitment in the future to try and be more circumspect in these discussions, and I take your comment to heart. I hope you will too. I'm sorry for stirring up animosity over something that should be a strong, but civil debate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I struck my overstatement. Shadowjams (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom request

Hello Shadowjams, Happy New Year. I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case request submission. While you are not a party, your comments would be appreciated. LittleBen (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I doubt I'll comment beyond what I said at AN, but I appreciate you informing me. Shadowjams (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops - sorry

I'm sorry - I hadn't noticed that I misspelled your name on ANI when responding to your comment on the MMA country of birth section. An IP editor spotted it and called it out. My brain totally missed it until that point, I've since corrected it. Sorry for that - I always try to get usernames correct. Ravensfire (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No harm no foul. I don't take offense to that at all, but I should point out I have zero interaction (as far as I remember) with those editors. My comment was more a general statement about the state of MMA strife that pops up at ANI way too much. I didn't mean to give the impression I was somehow involved in the content dispute. I'm not involved with the MMA content issue directly at all, aside from a few AfDs months ago (before I realized the magnitude of the strife). I would like to just see the issue resolved... i don't have any skin in the game about how it is resolved. Shadowjams (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
You and me both! Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


" Your recent edit to the page Isaac Newton appears to have added incorrect information " ...

This information is false: "French mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange"

  • "Lagrange" was born in the Italian city of Turin and baptized Giuseppe Lodovico Lagrangia. He was born in Italy of Italian parents (the reference to his French great-grandfather is hardly relevant); he was educated in Italy and there began his magnificent career. He is in the fullest sense a son of Italy. Source: I am a teacher. --Aries no Mur (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Our article on the subject describes him as French. Place of birth doesn't always describe nationality, and obviously that had remained the designation on the Lagrange page as well as the Newton article. There have been discussions on this topic in the past (Talk:Joseph_Louis_Lagrange#Lagrange.27s_nationality).
I didn't realize though that you were making a valid argument; I mistook your edit for deliberate factual errors. I've removed the warning. If you want to change it though you should discuss it on the talk page for Lagrange. I think that article should control how he's referred in other articles. Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Pulling Teeth (song)

You said my edit was reverted because it didn’t appear constructive; however, I don't see it as nonconstructive. The song itself isn't notable as it's not well-known outside of the band. Also, the only source provided for the article is from a fansite, and I'm fairly certain (though I'm willing to admit I have no sources) that the information is false. slimey01 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I agree with you about the notability on songs. It probably should ultimately be taken to AfD. As for the revert, I think I made a huggle mistake on that one. Sorry about that. Shadowjams (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, no problem. Thanks. slimey01 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your personal attack on me

I consider this type of personal attack inappropriate: "As usual Stu has no expertise or even research into what he's talking about, he's just building on a relatively good education and making educated guesses. That gets a little annoying, especially when he gets things wrong."

1) I did provide sources.

2) If you disagree with what I say, say so and list your evidence to the contrary.

3) An ad hominem attack is also a logic fallacy. So, using such an argument is invalid.

4) This is also a violation of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

5) You're also guilty of "jumping on the bandwagon". That is, you see others make personal attacks against me and then think this makes it OK. It does not.

6) Any discussion of my contribution history belongs on talk pages, not the Ref Desk.

I've expected such bad behavior from unregistered I/Ps and Mr. 98, but expected better from you. Please remove the personal attack portion of your response. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I probably have made the problem worse by offending you; for that I'm sorry. But my goal in saying this is to let you know that you need to be more circumspect in your reference desk answers. Your prolificness there is distracting and at times counterproductive. Like I said, I'm not above reproach in this sense at all; I've made my fare share of mistakes, answering wrong, being short with people, etc. But we all should try to improve the accuracy, and efficiency of the RD.
The problem and frustration is that you fire off the cuff at tons of questions on the reference desk. This is hardly a new complaint, and not the first that you've heard of it. When Mr. 98 loses his patience with you (by far one of the most restrained commentators I've seen), it's a good indication it's too much.
You did provide 2 links after that, one of which I responded to directly, the other is not talking about trials, but the more broad question of studies. I was referring to your original post with the no reference remark, but yes, I should point out you did provide subsequent references, although I think they don't address the question directly. The sentence that offends you is "As usual Stu has no expertise or even research into what he's talking about, he's just building on a relatively good education and making educated guesses. That gets a little annoying, especially when he gets things wrong." It's bitey, probably not my best phrasing of the complaint, and probably the wrong forum (you ec'd me on #6, and you're right about that), but it's not unfair.
My response to you is not an attack, nor is it ad hominem. It's a response to what you said, after which I did provide multiple paragraphs of specific response. That multiple people recognize similar patterns does not mean that I'm jumping on a bandwagon.
I've certainly been wrong and offbase before on the RD. But you should know that your reputation is that you jump into many questions and provide your educated guess. Sometimes that's fine and it satisfies the OP. But on some of the more complicated questions your response gives the illusion that the question has been answered when it hasn't. And in the worst cases, you give a wrong answer. The worst is when that wrong answer's not tempered by doubt. A little "I'm not an expert but..." would help.
You often provide good, sometimes great responses at the RD. I certainly understand that it's fun to share what we know and help people out at the same time. The system isn't setup naturally to reward this kind of recognition, so we only end up hearing the complaints. So, maybe if my criticism was grounded in a broader context it wouldn't come across as rude. But please, recognize that my concerns and others are based on years of interacting with eachother at the RD. I owe you more respect in my tone; but I want you to be more cautious in your answers too. Shadowjams (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's break it up a bit more:
  • "As usual": This is drawing a general inference about the quality of my contribution based on previous contributions. Each contribution should stand on it's own. To do otherwise is indeed ad hominem.
  • "Stu has no expertise or even research into what he's talking about": You don't actually know this. You are just guessing.
  • "That gets a little annoying": Not the place to discuss personal annoyances with other editors.
As for the "jumping on the bandwagon" thing, I proved in many of the previous instances where others disagreed with me that I was correct, as I did here, with references. However, all that anyone will remember is your ad hominem attack, and they will then repeat it. As you've agreed that it doesn't belong there, I ask you again to please remove it. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you now have. Thank you. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
(ec) It was gone before you posted this response, but the underlying point of my criticism still stands. You respond too frequently with an educated guess. Note that everyone's been complimentary to you about your intelligence; nobody doubts your aptitude, it's just that you don't and can't know in depth about all the topics you respond to. I'm not going to diagram my sentence with you. You know what I mean, and even if you don't agree with me, you should at least recognize what I'm telling you. My regret is my tone, and the venue. For those two things I'm sorry. But the central point remains. Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, there we disagree. I believe we should list as many POV's as possible, while remaining civil to each other, and eventually we will get to the truth. In this case, I think you misinterpreted the Q as being solely about the FDA approval process, and thus my contributions were valuable in providing broader, sourced answers. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So God Made a Farmer

Sorry about that, I misread the statement in the NPR article. Care to take a look at my most recent comment at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Fair use from a speechRyan Vesey 14:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're at fault... I actually have been digging into that link a bit more since I made my last edit, and I'm wondering if it should be included at all... I say that because it's more like a blog piece, a tiny short snippet, and the "critics" are "the Twitterverse", and the link for the criticisms is just a link to the commercial itself. I'm sure there will be criticisms (which is in a way baffling) which of course is fine. Most are going to be short, virtual opinion pieces from individuals or blogs.
I only make the point not to criticize you--you created the article and are doing a great job with it--but because I don't think many other people are looking at it. I just think that criticism in the cited website is strikingly off-mark, and isn't perhaps up to RS standards.
I haven't looked at the fair use comment yet, but I will. Shadowjams (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
As for the OR concerns... I think the net benefit is to include it... it doesn't seem like a stretch, and I'm sure we can find a reference somewhere for it. Those are obvious and relevant comparisons. I don't want to comment too much on the copyright issue... whatever copyright board we have (the link escapes me at the moment but I'm sure you know what i'm thinking of) is probably ideal. Quoting the whole thing might be problematic, but comparison snippets are probably fine. It depends a lot on context, but I haven't seen anything so far that I find alarming. Shadowjams (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
So, I understand your point on the NPR source, but I also checked clicked the about link at [13] and it appears that The Salt is an official part of the program. In addition, the blogs would be official ones, which Wikipedia allows. That being said, if you think it's best to remove it, I wouldn't have a problem. Ryan Vesey 15:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I've used official-blog sources; they're not a problem, and often they're the only ones commenting on some things. The NPR snippet is not bad; there's an Atlantic piece that says the same thing more explicitly with a lot more opinion to it. I find those particular criticisms wildly off-base and desperately searching for a political angle to make something negative and worth talking about, but that's my opinion and it's not alone a reason to remove anything. I suspect there will be reactions to reaction, but I doubt any major source will, so we're left with a bit of a from-the-hip reaction from people on what are essentially blogs of writers. Again, that's usually fine, but I guess I'm more worried about giving some undue weight to someone trying to make a point. I'm not going to toy with that sentence though as it is now. You might want to link the Atlantic article in there, if you haven't already (, even though I think it's (their conclusions) ridiculous for the reasons I said above. Shadowjams (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree for the most part that the comments are ridiculous, but I think it certainly makes sense to include. On another note, I wonder if a news organization will pick up on the history of the speech now that it's been included in the article. Ryan Vesey 15:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 :) it's certainly possible. Shadowjams (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Shadowjams, thanks for your support and expression of confidence during my RfA. I will work to earn that confidence in my future editing. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your clean up of article Heat Wave (novel)

hi there, I seen that you clean up and fix-typos on article Heat Wave (novel), I don't know if you know this but almost or all of that is copyright material and user who created article has been warn a couple of times about it but they don't seem to pay attention to warnings. Plus an acquaintance of mines told me that user doing the same wikia sites. I just thought I let you know in case you come across this user is working again. I believe in good and fair editing or contributing and hate when we have to clean alot.Katarina79 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that comment: [14]

I agree that comments attacking others don't belong on the Ref Desk. An exception is for those using a dynamic I/P, where there doesn't seem to be any other way to communicate with them. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I made a few overzealous comments that I should have reconsidered. Oddly enough, I didn't mean that as offensive, it was supposed to be a tounge-in-cheek kinda comment, but i realized it doesn't sound like that. Shadowjams (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I had hoped that was it. Unfortunately, there seem to be a number of people who like to "pile on" whenever they see an opportunity, so it's best not to give them one. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong

I am not trolling, whether you like it or not I am not. Kotjap (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good. I'm just a little worried about some of the recent pattern of questions, and I'm not the first person to ask about it. Please excuse my skepticism; I, and I think most ref desk regulars, are more than willing to help when we can. If my concern was wrong then please accept my apology for suggesting otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology absolutely accepted. I ask weird questions, I recognize that, but never to stir up controversy. Kotjap (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


After reading more about this in detail, it's all about definitions I think. The Arabsat-1A was ordered by a private company Arab Satellite Communications Organization headquartered in Saudi-Arabia and the Saudi-Arabian state being the biggest shareholder as of 1985, while Saudisat 1A was made by Saudi Institute for Space Research. Because Arabsat-1A was not primarily constructed by Saudi-Arabians I will give credit to your point. The original source for the chart shows Saudisat as the first Saudi satellite. Schlabbi (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised how little recent discussion there was on the talk page. You're right, it's all about the definition used in the article. Lists like that have a lot of questions because so many of the satellites are put up with substantial cooperation between nations. I put a thread in the talk page about it, hopefully some people with context will respond.
Thanks for looking into it. I would say it's a toss-up right now. I don't know enough about the Arab Sat program... the fact it's based out of Riyadh does suggest it is a SA launch. If you find more let me know and I'll try to help. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up!

Just to let you know, there is somebody (an I.P. user) going around Wikipedia user talk pages, vandalizing them under your name. Just letting you know ahead of time so you can do something about it. Cheers, best regards. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. Graham87 05:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the heads up. I'm not sure who it was since I haven't vandal patrolled in a week or two, seems odd. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

United States with territories.

Okay. thanks.

By the way, I am new, so it was frustrating to have three editors argue me down on a source I interpreted as supporting "include territories" -- four months worth on and off. In the last three weeks, I have found two editors, one for "including territories" and one against "including territories", who both see my reading of the source as "include territories" just as I do. My faith in Wikipedia is restored.

I'll try to ruthlessly trim. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm new to this discussion so I'm getting the lay of the land. But for context, I found a lot of that discussion really confusing to come into, and I have a few years of wikipedia experience. Sometimes it helps to have someone boil down issues and cut through so much extra detail. Lots of those answers provided that and I have a better grasp on it now. I'll answer more later in the next day or two. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I blanked my earlier post, my repost is, @ Shadowjams, on implications as rewritten following your critique.
_ 1) Articles related to the United States at present should conform to its view of itself at present. The implication is that there should be no unsourced Wiki-specific system to treat republics with territories and monarchies with territories alike. Articles which have done should be amended as discovered.
_ 2) Historical articles should reflect their time alone. The implication is to report earlier and later changes by reference in the introduction and by subsection links. Articles which imply the past is present should be amended as discovered.
_ 3) Data bases for tables, charts, maps and graphs should be used which are commonly available. The implication is to rely on conventions as each government reports itself. Articles with charts and graphs without a labeled scope should be sourced as discovered. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 4:43 am, Today (UTC−5)
_ _ Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a follow up, I haven't forgotten, I'm just busy at the moment. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Your 3 points above are generally how things work already. As for #3, that's fine but the scope needs to be identified if it's ambiguous. I don't know what you're saying about territories/monarchies. We use the term, whether it's describing the British Empire, or the United States, or the United Kingdom, as the terms are generally used. Usually this requires some context. In the cases where that context is unclear, we elaborate to clarify it.
Here's my more general thoughts about the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. First, it's in dire need of an outside opinion. That discussion seems to me to be going in unproductive circles, with nobody talking about what matters. That is, reader clarity. Outside input will never happen if people keep writing walls of text for every reply.
Second, there's way too much ink being spilled. I'm not always the most concise, but the discussion has morphed so many heads it's impossible for anyone from the outside to follow. That's probably why there's such a small group of editors discussing it, and few new ones. This is a small discussion, with less than a dozen (maybe half dozen?) active participants. But some are arguing for changing every article that uses the term "United States." No matter what this discussion concludes, without a well-trafficked RfC, there will never be appropriate consensus from such a small discussion for such a large change. And without a more concise approach, that just practically won't happen.
Third, the rote focus on definitions is misguided, and it avoids the only issue that matters, reader clarity. There are clearly multiple official definitions of "United States." Even within official definitions, it depends on context. U.S. is used in the Internal Revenue Code differently than it's used in other sections of the U.S. Code. If you expand that to public laws, court decisions, and colloquial usage, it's even greater. You guys can argue til everyone's blue in the face and never conclude anything because both are correct, depending on the context.
Whichever definition picked: territories + 50 states + dc, or 50 states + dc (these are the two definitions being discussed; though one would have to dig through tons of text to know that), both have the problem of requiring additional explanation in many contexts. The "one's ambiguous" argument is equally true for both.
Here's my basic conclusion: this discussion is largely unneeded. Many articles use the term "United States" without any ambiguity right now, and it's clear depending on their context. When it's not clear, such as in the introduction or general use in the United States article, it should be clarified. The infobox should list population of 50 states + dc, and then population including territories, possessions, etc. When it's unclear, specify it. This discussion is largely ineffective, partly because of style (nobody from the outside can penetrate such a verbose discussion), and partly because the focus on specific definitions misses the point. There is no one definition that's so obviously correct that it trumps concerns over reader expectation. And ultimately, that's what every policy on WP:TITLE and WP:DISAMBIG is getting at. Shadowjams (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I may post some of these ideas to the discussion later. Shadowjams (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to address the problem of "exclude territory" editor citing references that are "include territory". Lets look at the two uses of Sloane by TFD. Earlier on TFD, spent much text to say, Puerto Rico is not a part of the U.S., referencing a Puerto Rico independence movement press release.
_ _ The petitioners were heard a couple years ago, although the Cuban representative courteously explained that international procedure required mutual negotiations between U.S. and Puerto Ricans, the U.N. would take no direct action on the U.S. The committee report was not placed on the U.N. General Assembly agenda, to return Puerto Rico to the list monitored as occupied colonial peoples. Professor Sloane is a reliable scholar who points out in one of two articles referenced by TFD that both U.N. "elites" and "a majority" in the U.N. Assembly believe the U.S.-PR relationship violates no international law. Only a "small minority" of the international community does so. So I say, WP:fringe if that is Sloane's estimation, considering where he is coming from.
_ _ There are republic nation-state members of the U.N. with territories such as the U.S. and France which meet the U.N. standard of "self-determination" for overseas populations as nation-state minorities. These three criteria are set out in a TFD source, Lawson and Sloane (Boston College Law Review) analysis of PR constitutional and international status. PR has 1) fundamental human rights, 2) local autonomy, and 3) participation in nation councils. Lawson and Sloane concluded that the territorial Member of Congress, like that of previous territories in U.S. constitutional practice was sufficient, the lack of presidential electors did not "disqualify" PR as having "self-determination". Self-determination is what populations get in states and territories of a federal republic. Local autonomy does NOT dissolve the union of a modern republic in an internationally recognized nation-state.
_ _ An additional consideration Lawson and Sloane addressed was their interest in PR consultation in any constitutional changes in its status. Since the article, in 2012 PR held its own plebiscite without Congressional approval -- it included "independence" on the ballot. For the third time in sixty years, only 4% of all Puerto Ricans voting chose independence, the majority declaring for commonwealth or enhanced commonwealth, 15% of the total for statehood. The vote was two-tiered as recommended by U.N. plebiscite convention, making vote-count-interpretation difficult. 48% of the total voted status quo in the first round. In some online news sources, independence was reported as 6% from the second round.
_ _ I am now into the weeds, tall grass, bullrushes, whatever the WP image is. The point is that TFD requires statehood to be "a part of the U.S." The only source I can find is 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. None is provided by "exclude territories" I have provided linked source with direct quotes that the five are "a part of the U.S." federal constitutional republic. I think. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
TheVirginiaHistorian, when you misrepresent sources and other editors, and present synthesis of sources, you encourage other editors to respond, extending the discussion. For example, I did not say "TFD requires statehood to be "a part of the U.S."" Your misrepresentation of my statements wastes time because it requires me to respond. Also, you misrepresent the dispute between Cuba and the US. The US claims that Puerto Rico is a separate state in free association with the US while Cuba claims that it is a colony. Neither claims that it is part of the US and in fact the US continues to assert that three of its unincorporated territories are non-self governing territories, which is the status that Cuba claims for Puerto Rico. You also misrepresent that organic legislation incorporates territories into the US when it only "organizes" territorial government. The fact that PR retains the right to self-determination is not an argument that it is part of the US but an argument against - states of the US have merged their right. The UN does not monitor Virginia and whether the federal government respects its right to independance. You continue to link to the article WP:MADEUP, which has nothing to do with the discussion and refer to "apartheid" and "judge made law", which are equally irrelevant. When one removes your inaccurate statements, there is nothing left. Going forward, you should stick to the discussion. TFD (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, no sources, more WP:personal attack. But I have a source. In Talk:United States, archive 43, TFD said 8:15 pm, 10 January 2013, "I hope the people of Puerto Rico choose either statehood or independence, so we can stop this silly discussion." That's as much as saying you are for one or the other. I make no misrepresentation on this or any other point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
That is how you expand the amount of text devoted to the discussion. I have already provided extensive sourcing. You then ignore it and repeat the same or similar arguments. You have not even mentioned which claims you disagree with. Now you are attaching significance to an ironic comment I made. How does it say I am for one solution or another, and what significance does it have to your argument? TFD (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Both of you are amply demonstrating why I made the comment I did above... you guys are veering off into tangential, almost irrelevant, discussions and never getting at the real issue. TFD: are you actually arguing that Puerto Rico is not part of the United States? Virginia, are you actually arguing that definitions pulled out of court decisions, or versions of international law define the topic?
I honestly don't have a dog in this fight... so please take my comments for what they are. This discussion is going nowhere fast. If you want real resolution, back away from these insane arguments on minutiae. I can't imagine any other outside editor finds them compelling, on either side. Isn't, and this is the most important part, the goal here to make the best article for the reader possible? And if that means saying the U.S. is ..... and/or encompasses ... , isn't that ideal? I mean no offense here, and please take this within the spirit of which this entire discussion has been... but I think on this issue you guys are losing sight of the real issue, and getting entrenched.
It's not helpful, it's not going anywhere, and it's not relevant to the situation. The legal arguments make me cringe. It's missing the point. Let's talk about how best to make this helpful to the reader, and if there are places where a simple explanation wouldn't make it clear, let's talk about those. Maybe there are some real actual discrete disagreements here (aside from the overarching one), but if there are, they're entirely lost to everyone, and I've taken the time to read a lot of these discussions. If there are, can't we at least boil down some disagreements so we can identify the core argument? But can we please stop going around in circles? Shadowjams (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that the United States is defined by domestic and international law. Secondary sources that define the U.S. base their conclusions legislation, judgments, treaties and other legal sources. What sources should we use? TFD (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) The modern Supreme Court (as cited, quoted and linked) says the Congress can define the political extent of the U.S. 2) The primary source referenced by the Court is the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) in force. 3) The secondary source I used to interpret the INA was the State Department “Foreign Affarirs Manual” (FAM) (online unclassified, 1985) acquisistion of u.s. nationality Four are unequivocally a part of the U.S. "nation". "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.” p.5. and several other sources as directly quoted, cited and linked. “Exclude territories” editors insist on quoting historical citations from a century ago in FAM as "inconsistent" with the current in force, dismissing the law in effect governing U.S. territories since 1985 because it was not always so.
  • 1) All five U.S. organized territories are incorporated today, as the U.S. officially tells immigrants who would become U.S. citizens in Welcome ... a guide p.77, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the [five organized] territories”, and several other sources as directly quoted, cited and linked. “Exclude territories” editors answer a “pamphlet” for wannabe citizens is of no account. Citizenship is not recognized in international law as is common law nationality of the soil in their view. Citizenship is merely a statutory grant which may be withdrawn “at any time” as in the British Virgin Islands by Parliament. 2) But in U.S. constitutional practice, the Supreme Court has held citizenship “irrevocable” (cited, quoted, linked) and may not be compromised by Congress, and indeed the modern Court expands constitutional protections to territorial citizens beyond congressional organic acts. "Exclude" editors refuse to admit any U.S. history by statute or jurisprudence over the last fifty years, since 1962.
  • Incorporated Territories in U.S. constitutional practice since 1805 do not have all the constitutional privileges and protections of states, although all five incorporated by congress today enjoy more that four previous territories of the twentieth century made states, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii. For the modern territories, see GAO’s 1998 “U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution” , “’Fundamental’ Constitutional rights apply to all territories’, pp. 23. “Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and CNMI (N. Marianas) have internal self-government under locally-adopted constitutions.” For the 20th century less-equal citizens in territories that became states, and “separate and unequal” overseas territories, see Levinson and Sparrow’s anthology, and several others as directly quoted, cited and linked. "Exclude territories" editors object without alternative sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You ignored my question whether the issue is a legal question or something else. Also, are your conclusions based on mainstream interpretations or are they personal opinion? TFD (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Part 1 answer to TFD query 01:28/06:28. For the U.S., the Supreme Court has ruled the extent of the country is a political question to be decided by Congress. This was stated a century ago in "Insular Cases" of judge-made fiat for temporary governance of alien peoples without republican traditions or English language. (See Lawson and Sloane reference suggested by TFD as cited, directly quoted and linked by me in earlier discussion).
_ _ In the modern era, Congress speaks comprehensively on the extent of U.S. territory in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), as amended. The Court has ruled to extend constitutional protections to citizens in territories beyond congressional organic acts; the constitution does not follow the flag, it follows citizenship in the modern era, as it has for U.S. incorporated territories since 1805, as cited, quoted and linked in previous discussion. Constitution status of territories is also assessed in the GAO report linked in my last response, interpreting congressional organic acts together with judicial rulings currently then in force. Rights and privileges of incorporated territories have consistently expanded since 1952 to a level which is already described as constitutionally "equivalent to [incorporated] states" (Lawson and Sloane).
_ _ You asked earlier, how Iraq is not a U.S. incorporated territory by my reasoning, I will now answer, 1) they did not request incorporation in referendum as the Puerto Ricans to be a commonwealth and agree to the constitution under congressional organic law, 2) Iraqis were not U.S. citizens of the soil during occupation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Part 2 answer to TFD query 01:28/06:28. My conclusions are based on mainstream interpretations from secondary sources, not my own, including 1) the U.S.G. interpretation of itself as found in secondary sources published by the GAO and the State Department, and 2) the modern U.S. interpretation by scholars published in law journals at Boston College and University of Pennsylvania, Federal Lawyer, and academic publication of constitutional historians and political scientists.
_ _ The U.S. is not an outlaw state by mainstream interpretation. That recognizes U.S. territories as a part of the U.S. and concede its right to describe itself by its own constitutional practice. From the Reisman-McDougal-Sloane reference suggested by TFD and cited, directly quoted and linked by me in previous discussion, p.120 notes Puerto Rican referenda November 1993 and December 1998 “failed to provide a consensus to change the status quo [U.S. commonwealth]." Receiving 2-4% each time then, and again in 2012, "independence" is a contemporary wp:fringe.
_ _ The Reisman piece continues, most of the world appears “to view [Puerto Rico's] situation as ‘acceptable’, or to view whatever problems may exist there as essentially benign.” The concluding point is the general response in the U.N. -- elites and majority -- see U.S.-PR commonwealth as “adequate under contemporary law". “Only a small minority appears to view the relationship as unlawful per se.” That view would be wp:fringe, unlike the mainstream interpretations cited by scholarly sources suggested by TFD which do not re-echo 1911, but speak to the contemporary. Wikipedia should not be used to right great wrongs suffered a century ago.
_ _ Lest there be any misunderstanding, they most certainly did harm and I protest against the "separate and unequal" measures of the past as unjust. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, regretfully it appears that my plea above is not going to make any difference. As a matter of practicality, I think I agree with Virginia Historian mostly in terms of the scope of the term "United States." TFD seems to have some obsession with citizenship as a defining characteristic of national definitions, which is obviously incorrect. But all of that is really besides the point... almost none of that is relevant to this, at least given how much you guys have delved into this. Virginian historian... you need to find a way to be more concise on wikipedia. The vast majority of what you write is irrelevant, and your indentation style is atypical to say the least. If only superficial, it turns people off, makes them not want to engage.
More to the point, a doctrinal obsession with legal arguments void of their context, on what is essentially a cultural issue (and also, I can cherry pick you definitions out of the U.S. Code all day... they've already been listed... both are right... depending on the context) is missing the whole point.
But I've already said most of this. Anyway, if this continues I have zero expectation you two will come to a compromise, and I certainly don't think any compromise that comes out of that discussion as it is now is worth applying to any other articles. I'm frankly disappointed at what could have been a reasonable discussion and conclusion. I don't want to sound defeatist, but rather to have this be a wakeup call of sorts. I tend to flirt in and out of content disputes like this, so I'm often coming into things as an outsider, although I usually find topics that I have some tangential knowledge of. My meager suggestion is to step back and look at this topic as though you'd just stumbled upon it, and wonder what it means. Ask a spouse, coworker, or friend what their first impression is. That can often be very telling. Best of luck. Shadowjams (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I asked what sources, if not legal sources, we should use. BTW, I have never said that citizenship is a "defining characteristic of national definitions". TheVirginiaHistorian argued that by extending citizenship to four of the territories they became incorporated. My position has always been that the extention of citizenship does not extend the boundaries of the nation. How did you conclude I was obsessed with this argument? TFD (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If I misunderstood your argument I'm sorry. The central idea is that citizenship doesn't have much to do with the definition of national statehood. More specifically, any one legal touchstone for the scope of a national border is probably going to miss the bigger picture. Just as if one were to look at the tax code and conclude that because it treats the territories differently than the states + dc, that's conclusive. Same goes for citizenship. Even things like sovereignty bring up issues... the U.S. and Canada have a piece of rock in the north Atlantic they're still not resolved about. All of those things can be talked about at length, but at the end of the day the simple question, "what is the U.S." is answered in the big context of all of that, not by getting into SCOTUS caselaw from the early 20th century. It's the focus on these, ultimately minor details that bothers me, and I think is part of the problem with the discussion right now. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Historical overview with fewer minor details. In U.S. constitutional practice for territories acquired after the Treaty of Paris 1783, the “legacy of the Northwest Territories” applied uniformly, although inordinately (unjustly) delayed in the case of Spanish-speaking Arizona and New Mexico. That legacy was NOT extended to the territorial empire acquired in the 1890s from Spain, Germany and Denmark, until a) the onset of the Cold War competition over the meaning of ‘democracy’, and b) the scrutiny of the United Nations advocating for colonial peoples.
Congress of the 1930s had begun extending the New Deal economic assistance to territories as a part of the U.S. In the 1950s, after the death of former U.S. Philippine governor, president, chief justice Howard Taft, congress began belatedly to extend political freedoms and local governance modeled after the “legacy of the Northwest Territories”. Fundamental change in American political outlook requires 30-40 years of persistent majorities to effect change; by the 1960s the U.S. territories began to look like the historically incorporated territory preparing for statehood.
”Incorporation” in the U.S. constitutional practice is not merely ‘citizenship’ alone conferred by governing state fiat as was done at Puerto Rico about WWI. Incorporation of territories over the last half-century is a mutual interplay between congress and local populations in their legislature, convention and referendum. The “legacy of the Northwest Territories involves allegiance to the constitution and supremacy of congress, republican three-branch government, submitting to an Article III federal district court, electing a territorial Member of Congress, which N. Marianas did not agree to do until 1985.
Today the U.S. federal republic includes 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories. Its possessions include an additional nine uninhabited places. Its jurisdiction extends variably to extra-territorial embassies, military bases, and cemeteries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not present 100 year cases in support of my position, but rather presented current secondary sources that explain the boundaries of the U.S. under domestic and international law. For example, "Study of W. Michael Reisman, Myers S. McDougal Professor of International Law, Yale Law School and Robert D. Sloane, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law", U.S. Congress, 2006, pp. 120, 136, 149ff.[15] According to that report, it is settled domestic law that the territories of the United States can only become part of the U.S. if Congress incorporates them through legislation. It also says that is the position of the executive and congress, and international law, accepted by the United Nations. For example, "under international law, the United Nations views Puerto Rico as "distinct." The accomodation reached in 1953 [between the U.S. and Puerto Rio] stressed Puerto Rico's national entity separate and distinct from the United States." That situtation differs from the North American rock that is disputed territory. I also presented the same writers' article in the Boston Law Review.[16] The CIA factbook, the Puerto Rico website and other tertiary websites also confirm the separate status.
Citizenship does not determine whether a territory is part of the U.S. Again, that was the TheVirginiaHistorian's argument. My only observation was that under the U.S. constititution, persons born in and under the jurisdiction of the U.S. are citizens, while persons born in territories are only citizens if legislation provides for it. Obviously other provisions of the constitution do not extend into unicorporated territories, except through legislation.
The sources I provided did however say that current law is based on the 200 year old constitution, the 100 year old insular cases and 50 year old treaties. Does that make them invalid and if so what type of sources should one use?
OTOH, TheVirginiaHistorian argues above that the although the current territories were not part of the U.S. before the Cold War that successive expansion of their autonomy has incorporated them into the U.S. I do not find that argument compelling, and would expect secondary sources that supported it. But again, I would appreciate any guidance if I am on the wrong track.
TFD (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


“If Congress incorporates them through legislation.” That is done by organic law establishing republican government, and the population accepting U.S. citizenship, the constitution and congressional supremacy. FTD claims since some organic acts have not incorporated territories, none can ever do so; mistakenly, as they can assign three stages: a) direct federal administration in the modern era by Interior, NASA, and Army, b) unincorporated appointed governance (none in the last 50 years), and c) incorporated territory with republican government and possible citizenship.
Puerto Rico’s identity is distinct and separate from that of the United States as is every incorporated state. Lawson and Sparrow’s scholarly observation, backed up by secondary GAO constitutional status report for the territories. The five organized territories today are locally autonomous and constitutionally equivalent to incorporated states. But U.S.G. has NEVER granted territories before admission ALL the constitutional rights and privileges of states. This modern U.S. territorial status is found acceptable in the U.N. majority for the Puerto Rican case according to the Reisman-McDougal-Sloane article; only a small minority find it internationally unlawful. That is supported in the Lawson and Sloane article, modern PR in 2005 meets the three international criteria of “self-determination”. FTD concludes that a modern federal system cannot be a union; mistakenly. INA statute has Samoa the last outlying territory as of 1985, the other major four are a part of the modern U.S.
Unincorporated territories have been administered by appointed governors without resident citizens. The “legacy of the Northwest Territories” is citizenship, republican government, populace acceptance of the Constitution and rule by congress, federal courts and representation in congress. That legacy of incorporated territory is met by Congress in Puerto Rico INCREASINGLY since 1952, in Lawson and Sloane to incorporated state equivalence 2005, and confirmed in 2007 then on appeal by federal courts “upheld” on Puerto Rican incorporation equivalent to a state constitutionally and “upheld” as a state at law (only federal reimbursement formula remanded).
No direct quote says modern U.S. territories are “separate from” the U.S., or that their citizens are second-class as were their populations in 100-year old case law of tertiary references, that requires editor synthesis. At CIA Factbook under “U.S. Government” all listings are alike, incorporated states and territories, congress and president, confusing places with governors and places with mayors, listing the branches Article II, I, III. Hardly scholarly for U.S., but it has useful weekly international data updates. The right track is GAO constitutional status of territories (constitutionally equivalent to states), State interpretation of INA statute (incorporation of territories into the nation), Levinson and Sparrow (historical perspective of territorial incorporation), Lawson and Sloane (international law of achieved population self-determination and equivalence to incorporated states). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi Shadowjams! I've noticed you around, and I think you would be a very strong candidate for adminship. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't run before. Would you be interested doing an RfA? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 05:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am, and I'm not sure I can convey my sincerity in ascii, but I'm really deeply flattered that you would suggest this. The bulk of what I do is vandalism patrol and basic awb work, with the occasional flirtation with project issues like the US issue above. I also regularly edit the reference desk. With the exception of the reference desk, which is a close, although sometimes rambunctious community of good editors, there's not a lot of recognition that comes from this kind of work.
So that you noticed anything I did, I'm really flattered.
As far as adminship goes, I have to decline right now. I've been very busy professionally lately, with some stress that comes with it; that means I've made edits where I'm not proud of my tone. it also means that I'm busy, and will be for the near future. Wikipedia has been a nice distraction during much of this.
I also say this because I have been and remain impressed with the admins that regularly review AIV. They are few, but the ones that are there are really good, and they have a good practical understanding of how vandalism works, and I think they trust the regular patrollers whose names they recognize at AIV. I tend to edit at random hours anyway, so I have an idea of the cross section of admins that patrol it. If any of them were to edit less we might have problems, but in my experience we've been really lucky as it is now.
So, maybe in the future adminship is something I might care about, but I can't right now. But thank you so much for your message, it certainly has lightened my week. If you have any future comments for me, good or bad, please do not hesitate at all to let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I think more people notice your work around the project that you might think - personally, I have been familiar with your username for a good long while now. I can't say I'm not disappointed that you don't want to run now, but I quite understand your decision. RfA and adminship can indeed be stressful, and if you wouldn't feel comfortable with that stress then holding off on adminship might be the best move. (Having said that, though, I find the amount of stress depends a great deal on what you do as an admin, rather than just having the bit.) If you ever feel like running in the future, just ask and I'll get the ball rolling. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 23:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Lightning page revisions

Hello, I see you had interest in this page recently, so I wanted to invite you to take part in the major overhaul I have been working on. Thanks for your interest. Borealdreams (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


I have closed his questions and started a thread on talk. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Sotonvliverpool

User talk:Sotonvliverpool, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Sotonvliverpool and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Sotonvliverpool during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Liverpoolvmancity

User talk:Liverpoolvmancity, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Liverpoolvmancity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Liverpoolvmancity during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

General of the Armies

Just letting you know that I undid your Huggle edit on General_of_the_Armies, as it's quite clear by the comments in the article, including right next to the date, and discussion on the talk pages that the date should stay 1976, not 1776. Search4Lancer (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Taiwanese Opera


I noticed your revision to my edit in the Taiwanese opera page. I made that edit according to information on the corresponding Chinese page. Also, I grew up in Taiwan, so I am familiar with things related to that place. (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Script AfD???

Would you care to explain why you added this (malformed) AfD on The Script? Given the band's almost obvious notability, that would be a very speedy keep. Dl2000 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Chill out, gees... this is related to the relentless vandalism that's going on at Glen Power, which I nomed for AfD. I think it was changed into a redirect at some point when Twinkle grabbed the page, or whatever. Shadowjams (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
To add, that Glen Power page is a new page, that was correctly redirected. I nominated it, during the course of which someone reverted it and Twinkle nominated the redirect page, yet created the Glen Power afd page... all kinds of fun stuff with non-atomic database changes. In retrospect, it's probably better to just protect the Glen Power page, which is what I updated. Shadowjams (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Explain please

Manual of style says to the lead in sentence should be an accurate description of the subject. It does not preclude descriptive adjectives modifying the main subject. You are supposed to catch the busy reader with relevant and important facts in the first sentence for they may decide to move on in a few seconds. Alatari (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You're both wildly in violation of 3RR. That's my only concern there. Shadowjams (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? I stopped at 3 reverts and tried to engage with her several times and she ignored me at each turn. I operated in good faith and she is JUST now responding to me. There are other warnings to her on her talk page about edit warring. Alatari (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Should I remove my last attempt at a compromise edit? Alatari (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in Shadowjams but based, on what Alatari is claiming above, you seem to be doing the same thing to the WP:Lead at So God Made a Farmer. The first time round you removed material from the lead using the edit summary "this doesn't belong in the lead, it's addressed below" and now you've added stuff to the lead that (1) does not appear in the body of the article and (2) seems to be a blog from CNN, so its hardly a WP:RS. Its not a problem, such I can revert it (or you can correct it beforehand). However, what is more worrying to me is that you seem to be using Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring against other editors. I'd prefer not to get involved in Administrators' noticeboard, but it seems appear that you could be "gaming" the system. I'm quite happy to explain the requirements of WP:Lead if you are having problems understanding them. Pyrotec (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I made that Farmer change weeks ago, and I added back something quite different, with a cite (and last I checked CNN is approaching a reliable source). That's quite different than 2 established editors undoing eachother 3-4 times within less than 24 hours, a clear 3RR violation. How you thought to draw parallels between these two is astounding. I'm not even an editor on the page that I warned Alatari and the other editor about (except to undo one of the at issue changes while they discussed it). It's not an article I've substantively edited. I was just doing huggle patrolling and noticed something that needed attention. I didn't edit it before, I haven't since. Shadowjams (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Jhangvi dialect

Sir But as per refrences includud in the article it is not Saraiki but it is Punjabi . Read the full article. PPPPMLN (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Rio Linda High School

Dude, I go to RLHS. I know his name. Stop changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Adorable edit. Shadowjams (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Structure alignment

It is totally fine that you deleted the external links in my edit. However, why did you delete the whole paragraph I added into the Structure alignment page? This paragraph is only a neural introduction of a new method to the problem of structure alignment. Can I recover this paragraph without including the external links? 15:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Jinboxu (talk)

Because I only saw your last diff here [17] that added the external link. There's been a lot of spam this morning; which I realize yours was not now, however the ELs shouldn't generally be in the text like that, and it's already linked. As you can see I restored to that version so it should be good now. Shadowjams (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pino Rose

Darya Pino specifically requested on her blog that her followers change her Wikipedia entry to Darya Pino Rose following her wedding which occured yesterday 4/1/13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source. It is April Fool's day. Shadowjams (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Both of their twitter AND instagram feeds have promoted 4/1/13 as their wedding for months now. They have posted pictures of the wedding in Hawaii. Guests like alex albrecht have posted about the wedding including pictures. They are still talking about the wedding on 4/2/13. Darya Pino book has her new last name on Darya Pino Rose has changed her last name on all her social media but stated in her blog on summertomato that she will leave the Wikipedia changes to "you" (the readers.) it's the real deal.
Then cite it. Should be super easier than you posting what you just did here. Shadowjams (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to warning

I was actually trying to ask a question on the Entertainment Reference Desk when suddenly, I started having technical difficulties with my computer. The problems have been taken care of and everything is back to normal. (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Comment: Proposal for rewording WP:NSONG

Hi, an RfC has begun which proposes rewording WP:NSONG. As you participated in a related discussion, I invite you to join the RfC conversation. Regards,  Gong show 04:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


I just wanted to point out that your attempt at humor is not appreciated. Talk pages are solely for the purpose of discussing the article, not other editors' conduct, which belongs on their talk pages. I have no problem with your calling my attention to that on my talk page, but I do have a problem with it being on the article talk page. An appropriate comment on the article talk page, though, would have been "I think we have covered this enough already." It is never appropriate to direct such comments at specific editors, such as, you have said enough already. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks. I am funny, but I made the comment not purely to be funny. If you want to get into it, you're arguing for a completely untenable position and you've had that explained to you ad naseum. You started a second section (that was merged into this one) after this one didn't go your way the first time around. It's becoming annoying, if not disruptive and I think it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of our policies. My, again, hilariously funny comment is entirely appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Separate issues. It was insulting enough to add it to the middle of the lead, at the end of the last sentence. Then to put it into the first sentence as well was just too much. This is an encyclopedia, not yellow journalism. We often get suggestions that no articles be written about current events until at least a month later, when we are better able to sort out the details in a more encyclopedic manner. Apteva (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
As you know I never edited the article on that point (I've actually barely edited it at all), but I don't see why you think it's insulting to call the Boston Marathon bombings terrorism. Everybody else is. Shadowjams (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It is all in the difference of what someone is writing for. If you are writing for a newspaper, your motivation is different, and you want to sensationalize everything as much as you can solely to sell more papers. This is an encyclopedia, and we adopt what we call an encyclopedic style - a pretty dry form of writing that shies away from sensationalism and buzz words like terrorism. There have been countless comments about that article and that talk page about us violating our policies. Apteva (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Undoing of my edit at Naming law in Sweden

Hello, can you please elaborate on why you undid my undoing of an anonymous user's unsourced edit here? I thought the edit I undid looked like vandalism, and it was done by a user with a history of disruptive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Håkon (talkcontribs) 09:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I restored your edit and removed the warning. I assumed the article had reverted to the renamed name (I don't know the details but I had heard about the issue), but after looking at the history it appears that you restored the long-standing version of the page. The edit that changed it was here. Forgive the inconvenience. Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Comment: Erasing of TOCA disambiguation entry without comment

could you elaborate on why you have erased the TOCA disambiguation entry "international consulting firm" on 10:46, 17 April 2010 without any comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I don't know what you're referring to. I didn't make an edit at that time. You also didn't edit from this IP before so I can't see your edit either. Shadowjams (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • 19:05, April 17, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+270)‎ . . Talk:Boston Marathon bombings ‎ (→‎Should the Chinese victim's name NOT be disclosed?: comment)
  • 18:22, April 17, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+146)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eagleburas ‎ (→‎17 April 2013: adding one)
  • 07:35, April 17, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-24)‎ . . m Talk:Boston Marathon bombings ‎ (redundant)
  • 07:32, April 17, 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+624)‎ . . User talk:Bgwhite ‎ (→‎AWB users removal: more)

A barnstar for you!

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks a lot for your lightning fast corrections on the citations. This was my first article ever and it was such a surprise to come back to work on it and see it fixed! I was "wowed"! This is what makes it 'worth it'. Pineapples100 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, but I can't take too much credit, AWB does the hard work. Shadowjams (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Detroit Tigers season

What does this mean? "This is a disaster of I don't know what... nothing ANI ready here, if the participants could even begin to articulate it that might be a start." Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#

These types of comments don't help. "Begin to articulate" is your personal opinion and words that don't resolve disputes. Too many people on here attacking, instead of building up, helping and being appreciative. Editors come for cooperation, not "high and mighty" type comments. The person who reverted my edits ("Tom Cat") is wrong, and the "excuses" or "rules" given do not apply to this issue. Clearly no one did any research. Total waste of time... For the record, four agree with me. That's more of a consensus than just him wanting the article his way. Next time, please give constructive input that helps people do better, with actual "verbs" (action words) instead of frustrating editors even more. I clearly know who to avoid on here. "Tom Cat" used profanity and now the people who are supposed to assist, make rude/sassy comments such as yours. I've seen this on here for years. What gives? Major disappointment, I can see why "newbies" (which I'm not) and IPs get so angry. No consequences for bad behavior, and then an editor calls someone else out and they try to shut you up with warnings and blocks. (Abusive language and not being professional should not be "a way of life" on here... this was handled in "bad taste" and gives a "negative first impression".) Ugh! P.S. At least I compromised and cooperated. I was diplomatic. That's more than I can say for others involved in this matter. That's all I have to say, I've moved on... (biting tongue)

For my records:

User talk:RedSoxFan274#2013 Detroit Tigers

User talk:TCN7JM#RE: Please read WP:OWN

User talk: get frustrated

User talk:TomCat4680

[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You're free to reopen a discussion, as is anyone else, but I wasn't the first to find that discussion going nowhere and there are some things best dealt with other places than ANI. I did however slightly expand on the close explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I could care less. Everyone involved handled the situation poorly. I'd rather avoid that "Tom Cat", and reopening it or reporting him/her would mean he/she would communicate with me again, and that person is abusive in tone, language and actions. So no thanks! Bye... (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia is written by people who have no knowledge of islam. I proved a point that wikipedia can be fabricated to the way i wish or any one wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Omar Todd the "celebrity" and "politician"

I am disputing the validity of Omar Todd the "celebrity". One phone call to Sea Shepherd disproves his purported involvement as a Technical Director as the role simply does not exist. He does volunteer social media, that's it. If every Sea Shepherd volunteer was to have a Wikipedia page there'd be literally 400,000 of them. Furthermore, the Wikileaks party has so far denied he is a Founder or Founding Member, which is pretty obvious considering Julian Assange is the founder - who doesn't know that at face value? Omar Todd is not worthy of a Wikipedia account and it is quite obvious he created this page for himself. Please help me to uphold the Wikipedia principals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IgotBeefwithThis (talkcontribs) 07:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't just blank the page though. If there are accuracy issues then remove incorrect information and fix it, and if you don't believe it's notable then you should nominate it for deletion. See WP:AFD. Shadowjams (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I support the proposed deletion of this article and can see that someone (neither you nor I) has added a proposed deletion tag. Someone will review this tag in the next seven days and make a decision. So far, none of the information seems solidly verified. He works for Sea Shepherd; so what? Are we supposed to have an article for all the staff? Why not add an article for the assistant to the assistant of the Oregon coordinator? Anyone else notice that information about this guy going to jail is oddly left out of the article? Also --- numerous sites pop up after a quick google search where this guy is crowd funding for unspecified projects using the Sea Shepherd tag, but the money isn't going toward Sea Shepherd. He is also referenced as a "success story" on a social media building website that sells Twitter followers for thousands of dollars saying how they made him "look famous." I don't think this guy checks out whatsoever. Seems like a self-post. Everything online about him seems like self-posting, except for these ambiguous links where his name is listed out of any context with no photographs or external links to verify it's him are provided. In short: this guy is out to create a profile for himself and this article is bogus. --DrunkenFairies (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Who are you and why are you telling me this? (I have a hunch you're associated with IgotBeefwithThis and I'm curious the connection with the OP of the article....) Are you the same person as who previously posted here? That article has other than me and bearcat, apparently all brand new accounts editing it. Not a great sign. Not sure (assuming you're not IgotBeefwithThis... which I think is a distinct possibility) why you're posting here. We have a Deletion process that handles all of this without diatribes like the two above. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not making any sense

How is saying "I hate British people and Yankees" the same as saying "I hate Stalin"? Good luck with that. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You apparently have seized on the point. You went off and complained at ANI about somebody's user page [27] as a "Wikipedia isn't a hate site nor a soapbox." You calling the line "I hate British people for everything they've done to my American, Scottish and Irish ancestors. I also hate Yankees for crushing a [[Confederate States of America|legitimate sovereign Southern nation]]" hate speech is absurd. Trolling, perhaps, soapboxing, yes. You're probably right to object to it, but drop the wounded posture. Apparently anything short of a warm smile is incivility. Shadowjams (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the pleasant response. I'm always curious how minds like yours work. So tell me, exactly what is it I'm supposed to be "wounded" about here? Is it your understanding that people who report user page violations are "wounded" in some way? That's an interesting theory. To be honest, my cat scratched me by accident as I was playing with him prior to the ANI report, so perhaps you are right. Should we have a warning at the top of the noticeboard saying "don't play with cats as they interfere with reporting"? And yes, my response was just as absurd as your allegation. I report user pages all of the time, whether it's because the user expressed hatred of Sri Lankans or Sufis, it doesn't matter, they still get reported. There's no "wounding" involved at all here. Please have your perceptual filters checked for maintenance as they are responsible for reading comprehension malfunctions on your end. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
As for your failure to understand my comparison, you've demonstrated why two functionally identical statements elicit such different responses from you: because you agree with one and you don't agree with the other. This is a poor measure on which to edit someone's user page, and then cry to ANI about it when they object. Shadowjams (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's quite possibly the most absurd thing I've ever read. Your statements are not indentical in any way. If and when a user expresses hatred of an entire people, an entire nation, for some perceived slight by an individual in the distant past, such hatred is not functionally equivalent nor similar to hatred expressed for an individual with a proven track record of atrocities. In any case, neither statement has elicited any response from me, so you must have me confused with one of your friends. I don't edit or report people based on my personal beliefs or my emotions. Again, your perceptual filters are malfunctioning. Please have them looked at by a competent authority. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
lol Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I saw. Thank you for filing that too. I think this only scratches the surface. There seems to be a lot of socking going on. Shadowjams (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, the most recent removal by SPECIFICO at Gun control should be reverted. He calls the info on the date and number of weapons seized "synth" but it is clearly not. I need to leave for awhile but I'll be back later tonight. ROG5728 (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm too involved at this point and I don't want to even hint at an edit war. I think the small, but concerted effort by a few editors to undermine what seems like really basic stuff is too coincidental... the revelation that one of them is obviously socking heightens the issue. Shadowjams (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
All that said, I undid some of User:SPECIFICO here because it was removing cited information with a spurious explanation. I left the other part of his edit intact. Shadowjams (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


I disagree totally with your removing of my Administration section of Northampton. It is crucial in its trying to be a better article. A section like this is also featured in many other GA articles. I will redo it. (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't intend to remove any additions... I'm looking back through that... I probably acted on an outdated diff. The only explanation I can think of though is that I saw this and saw the big minus block, and didn't scroll down enough to see it added back (actually it was because the line spacing changed it shows up like that). Either way, it's a rookie mistake on my part. Sorry about that. Almost all of what I screwed up you fixed, except for one thing, which I fixed just now. Shadowjams (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

trolltasking question?

this is the first time in all my firefox years that this happened to me. it's not my problem if u saw it somewhere else once. this was a temporary problem that mozzila fixed. Ben-Natan (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry if my assumption was wrong. You removed the question anyway so I guess it's a moot point. Shadowjams (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

you may may have something useful to say on this

Hi, Shadowjams, because of what you wrote here, I think you may may have something useful to say here. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for linking me. I'm reading what you wrote now. Shadowjams (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I commented there. Shadowjams (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

English grammar

To Shadowjams. Re your reversion of my edit, (Undid revision 554520954 by Stapletongrey (talk) grammar) (undo), on Primer (film),

you prefer:

as their understanding of how the machines work evolves

and I prefer:

as their understanding evolves of how the machines work

You have cited 'grammar' as the reason for your preference, but have not explained any further. My explanation for my preference is that if you separate the relevant noun (understanding) from the relevant verb (evolves) by several intervening words including another verb, grammar is not improved, and sense is reduced or lost.

Stapletongrey (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

(Butting in because I reverted a similar edit): I also prefer the former phrase. "Their understanding of how the machines work" could easily be taken as a single phrase in this case (the word understanding cannot stand alone here). Stapletongrey, are you a native speaker of English, and if so, which variety? Graham87 14:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
(To Graham87): I am indeed a native speaker (and writer) of English in England. The question was how to clearly express the evolution of their understanding of the workings of the time machines. The first version fails for the reasons I gave, and additionally for the likely misreading of the evolution being related to the workings of the machines rather than the understanding. But see my new reply to Shadowjams below for better solutions. Stapletongrey (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I was afraid you might ask me about this because I don't necessarily know the exact technical terms to describe what struck me as wrong about it, but let me try. So if I misuse some terms here that's why. First off the evolves in the middle phrasing sounds awkward, which is the red-flag to me. The "of how the machines work" is a second clause, it probably needs to be setoff with a comma. Doing so would make it technically correct, but breaks up the clause unnecessarily. That phrasing sounds very unnatural to a native speaker.
Here's the sentence for full context: Abe and Aaron start using the time machines to make money in the stock market, but as their understanding of how the machines work evolves, they become more adventurous with their trips. vs Abe and Aaron start using the time machines to make money in the stock market, but as their understanding evolves of how the machines work, they become more adventurous with their trips.
Overall I would prefer this wording: Abe and Aaron start using the time machines to make money in the stock market, but as their of the machines evolve, they become more adventurous with their trips. The "understanding [of how they work]" part is implied and it makes the sentence flow much better. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that my change, while not problem-free, was an improvement on what was there, but I agree that a restructuring would eliminate both problems. In your suggestion (immediately above) for such a restructuring, I think you made an error of haste: "but as their of the machines evolve". I suppose you didn't mean to leave in the words "their of" ? Nevertheless, I think something important would be lost in this particular restructuring. I think the evolution of Abe and Aaron's understanding is key to their increasing adventurousness, rather than to any technical development in the machines. How about this: "Abe and Aaron start using the time machines to make money in the stock market, and as they develop their understanding of how the machines work, they become more adventurous with their trips" ? I'm also thinking that developing rather than evolving their understanding suggests a more appropriately active scientific engagement in the processes that Abe and Aaron are working with. Stapletongrey (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-listed thread

Hello Shadowjams. I re-listed a thread where you had commented and I did hope to hear your opinion on the internal comment overall. Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Moore tornado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kansas City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at 2001:db8's talk page.
Message added 12:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "User talk:2001:db8/BOLDTITLE, User talk:2001:db8#WP:MOSBOLD, Talk:Boston Marathon_bombings#MOS:BOLDTITLE, Talk:2013_Moore_tornado#Consistency". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


I've reopened the discussion at WT:LEAD#MOS:BOLDTITLE and its application to specific situations as suggested at DR/N. Your participation there would be appreciated. Thanks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

Mop.png You are a remarkably exemplar editor.
You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you are qualified!
You personify an Administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!
My76Strat (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm flattered but it's not something I'm persuing at the moment. Shadowjams (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I definitely understand. Part of the reason for this is to let the person know they are recognized. The flattery if you will. I remain selective of the editors I send it to. I don't know if you ever use any of Scotywong's tools. but the User:Scottywong/Admin scoring tool results places you very high. I thought that was very cool.--My76Strat (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I was not aware of that tool... that's fascinating now... you opened up a can of worms... I'm running this on everyone! In seriousness, I appreciate that a lot. I have been outspoken in some cases (which I've tempered over time; for instance my views on AfD and CSD have softend a lot from my early days), but still I do occasionally make comments where I regret the tone afterwards. Thanks again. Shadowjams (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes we had some eye opening fun with that tool. It does take a little while to parse all the variables especially when there are more and more contributions, it may even appear stuck, but it's likely not. That is why he keeps the list regularly updated. It was interesting at first because it would produce a score for admins too. I see that ability has been disabled! But that does go beyond its intended scope. Cheers.--My76Strat (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at 2001:db8's talk page.
Message added 05:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to look at edits on IQ reference chart

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, however my only edit to the article was to revert some vandalism. I don't have any opinion on the current issue. Shadowjams (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


Hey just wishing to know why you delete my modification on Maurice Herzog. My modification are backed by a recent article of The Economist published today and available online (stairway to heaven, 29th of May 2013). I was just adding statistics details to this page, saying that is exploit was all the more remarkable given these new statistics and you deleted everything. ...

Hey just wishing to know why you delete my modification on Maurice Herzog. My modification are backed by a recent article of The Economist published today and available online (stairway to heaven, 29th of May 2013). I was just adding statistics details to this page, saying that is exploit was all the more remarkable given these new statistics and you deleted everything. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Theory Theory

Hi. I don't understand your decision to delete the Theory Theory page. I made some small updates to the page, which required further work. If my contribution was not constructive, how did you know to redirect the page to 'folk psychology'? There was no mention of it until I included one. Theory Theory is an important part of the Theory of Mind (ToM) debate in cognitive science, and it goes beyond folk psychology. The Theory Theory page is just as important as the simulation theory of empathy page.

I give my apologies if what i'm writing/wrote violates some laws of Wikipedia editing, I was simply adding more information on a topic which I am currently academically engaged. The Theory Theory page required (a lot of) work, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit of yours I rolled back. Not this. There are probably some concerns with your edits to the latter, and the redirects need to be reconciled, but our only interaction was with you blanking a page. Shadowjams (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't 'blank a page'. My final edit was to add a section on the debate between theory theory and simulation theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You're changing ips now..., the history shows clearly, as I linked above, someone from your [previous] IP did exactly that. Shadowjams (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Stu Klitenic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 04:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're telling me, or the dozen or so other people that you pasted this same message to, many of whom never edited the article. I have no idea why you think it's relevant to any of us. Shadowjams (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited for discussion


As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in the follow-up discussion to a Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking before leaping

I have replied to your comment at my talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

gun control DR

There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control

That's been closed, which is probably for the best. Shadowjams (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ack! Aneurysm undo

Ack! I put a lot of work into increasing the readability of this article! (reorders, rewords, spacings, tagging). Is it possible instead of rolling back every change I made (especially the reorders) you can alter the article in a more targeted way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LT910001 (talkcontribs) 08:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • As an addendum, if you read the changes you will notice I have preserved the informative content, presenting the same information in a more concise manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LT910001 (talkcontribs) 08:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You removed a lot of content in there, and at ever turn I saw you added hedging words to what is generally understood as basic medical knowledge. Maybe I made a mistake.... I'll take another look at it tomorrow, but after looking through it tonight I'm not so sure they were good changes. Shadowjams (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to defend these changes, and hopefully convince you to rollback the edit:
  • I'm a relatively new editor to wiki (about 240 edits) mostly on medical articles
  • I tend to edit medical articles that are very verbose, unsourced, or have a lot of jargon that a layperson might have trouble understanding.

Specifically on the article

  • I think you'll find that the existing article had a lot of hedging and verbosity.
  • The article already contains a tag to removed unsourced information
  • Concatenated a lot about the copper section (as stated by the tag that gives a lot of weight to that), checked to ensure that there is still references on the copper deficiency article.
  • Added tags to indicate unsourced statements
  • Altered the introduction to make it a big more general
  • Moved things around to an appropriate section.

Lastly, it's very hard to make edits to articles with complete rollbacks. I think my edits contributed quality to the article and removed some of the fat in terms of verbose language. Wikipedia says you should be 'bold!' with edits. At any rate, this certainly isn't vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LT910001 (talkcontribs) 08:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I never called your edit vandalism. But I think you increased the hedging factor. The aneurysm article was/is in bad shape for a long time. I haven't done that much to it directly either. I'll take a look at it again soon though. If you want oto undo what I did go ahead, but please at least take my comments into account; i'll do the same. Shadowjams (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I've undone your undo. This was a good faith edit aimed at improving the quality of the article, I'll take what you've said into account and have a look at the language I used. If there are any changes you think need to be made let me know or make them yourself, but please don't rollback my entire edits. I mention vandalism because of Wikipedia's rollback policy. Enjoy your daily snooze. LT90001 (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I never rolled you back either. Shadowjams (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, is that not the same as undoing someone? I didn't know they were different. At any rate, overnight I've updated the article with citations and changed the language, hopefully to your satisfaction. Kind Regards LT90001 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
As a follow up, I've left almost all of your changes in place, I just tuned up some of the grammar for consistency, changed some tenses, added a few subject headings in. That article could always use some more expansion. Shadowjams (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, great! The article is a more structured and concise now, with any luck that will encourage further editing by other users. LT90001 (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding discussion?

You've reverted my edits by deleting multiple links while using WP:JUSTAPOLICY in the comments. You're 2nd revert of the same content added nothing to the discussion about why you are thinking it "violates" MOS DAB, as if MOS DAB was more than a guide. Your comments stated " You need to review the BRD cycle. This is part of your broader edits too... take to talk." I had already opened a discussion in talk by that time and you didn't respond. It appears that you are avoiding discussion with your 2nd revert, and you said nothing more about my "broader edits."

You started the "discussion" and then reverted 1 minute later, so I'm not exactly sure that satisfies the discuss portion. Either way I'll address the issue on the talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Mentioned your deletion at ref desk talk. My only complaint is such deletions are supposed to be mentioned at talk. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Your Revert

Your charming attitude in the edit summary aside, edits like this are the pinnacle of why we don't slavishly attend to AWB style guides in certain instances. And this is coming from someone who's done easily done a large proportion of AWB edits. But your edit is all but incomprehensible to anyone experienced on Wikipedia, let alone a new editor.

Even of those that are experienced, it adds nothing, except a slavish devotion to using a template to remove plurals from the piped link and instead stick them on the end of the link instead. That change was only widely accepted imo because AWB implemented them. This is one of those examples where it destroys the readability of the code by all but the most robotic reader.

So, don't keep going on reverting edits you made, or making more like this without discussion. The BRD cycle relies on you being bold in making a change, someone reverting it, and then you discussing... not you reverting an explained complaint with no new response, on the talk or in your edit summary, which is heavy on emotion and lacking on fact. Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

While we're at it, could you point me to the MOS guide that indicates converting Xs to the ascii symbol presumably for multiplication.... as you did here and in one before it. It should go without saying that putting in strange characters that look indistinguishable makes it impossible to search for things, might screw up a host of other scripts and search patterns, and has almost no useful effect, other than, again, a slavish devotion to some standard (that I have yet to see). If you want to find something interesting, try searching for "×" as opposed to "x", right now Wikipedia's search function is returning a "backend error" for me when it's searched.
I don't have any problem with your gnomeish edits as a whole, but I do have issue with some of your more aggressive ones (when it's all you're changing) and they break other things, whether that's searching, reader understanding, or something else, and for 0 reader advantage. The MOS is here to make it easier for readers. Shadowjams (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The above added to provide full context Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your point of bringing up AWB. What does AutoWikiBrowser have to do with anything? I don't use it, and if you're referring to a supposed standard associated with it, you've lost me. I don't study Wikipedia style guides. I go by what I've seen in years past. The only reason I changed the Entertainment Weekly link italics to brackets on the Brick (film) page is because I dislike the look of seeing the "'s" italicised when it's not part of the publication's title and if it could be helped, would not be italicised. So I use the brackets to avoid accidentally using the bold markup to differentiate the italics and apostrophe.

That's one thing. To then go looking at my contributions and find something else to take me up on, as you did with my edits to Wentworth Miller, is something else. I understand curiosity, but to then seek out something else you feel I've done wrong is deliberately looking to start another problem. The reason for my edit on that was not "slavish" devotion to a standard, but rather because I feel the "x"s don't represent the letter, but rather the symbol, so why not have the × symbol instead? Exactly why would one want to search the symbol anyway? I don't understand the significance of pointing out its inability to be searched. Is someone going to attempt to search "1x07" or even "1×07" (for example) in hopes of that being included on his article because of an episode of a series he appeared in? I have my doubts.

Also, to accuse me of having attitude when you blatantly came across as condescending and called my edits "gnomeish" (which, besides mythical implications I don't care to understand, I can only think to mean insignificant or irrelevant) is a bit rich. Maybe lay off the accusations and stop making a mountain out of a molehill. Ss112 10:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I added our previous discussion above, because I like to keep them in one place, and it also provides some context given your response. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


Edit summary. Maybe you should consider handing back your Civility Barnstar. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol. How is it Jack I suspect your problem with me has little to do with my use of the word "moron". That's hardly the roughest I've ever been with some ref desk regulars who like to drift off topic and nosedive into whatever topic they'd prefer to discuss. I'm certainly not immune from that, but a little friendly, or occasionally not friendly, ribbing on the topic doesn't seem to me to be such an issue. I'm more amused you care so much. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, we are not amused. :)
If not the "moron" thing, what do you suppose the real issue is? I'd welcome whatever enlightenment you can shed. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You tell me. My name certainly isn't new to you, why did this comment in particular strike you? Shadowjams (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess it's because I take the civility guidelines seriously (I do so in RL too) and I don't recall ever seeing you use that sort of language before. I imagine our circles intersect only occasionally, but that has nothing to do with it. I would have taken notice regardless of whether you were Jimmy Wales or a total newby making your first edit. We are all encouraged to reserve our criticisms to edits and not to engage in name calling towards editors. Worth thinking about.
The rider to this is that, in RL one can say something that is technically rude but if it's accompanied by a smile or a twinkle in the eye it's taken as a form of humour, as long as it isn't overdone. Here, we don't have the smiles or twinkles to guide us, and we have to resort to smileys and the like, because without them we're often groping in the dark, and major misinterpretations and unintended consequences are given fuel. A smiley may have been all that stood between a frown and a grin from yours truly. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That's fine Jack. I appreciate your response a lot. I've had my off the cuff moments where I've overemphasized things, and as you're aware, the ref desk is a weird mix of [mostly] smart people who have differing approaches to some of the questions that come in. My comments aren't entirely in jest, but I expect people who are familiar with eachother to take that ebb and flow naturally. I think there's a definite mix of people that recognize how the RD works, but they're rare, relative to the larger Wikipedia audience. I take your criticism in this stride. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
And thank you for the graciousness and maturity of your response. More power to you. Go well. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ref desk

The troll who tried to edit-war with you about that one ref desk question went to the ref desk talk page to complain about it, and it got restored again. If you've got the patience and the stomach for it today, feel free to go to the talk page and join the brouhaha. I think you were right to delete it, but I'm a nobody. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I restored the page- and not to spill debate from there over to here- but it wasn't restored because the user complained. The actual reason is related to an on going discussion on the talk page that is looking for ways to mitigate the constant bickering over over-hatting/deleting/etc at the desk.. At any rate, if it is of interest to you, please join the discussion:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a moot point at this point, but thank you Bugs for your comment. I think it seemed quite clear to me to be a troll, common to some others we've seen recently. Didn't seem like a controversial undo (especially when the OP is the one who restored it) but once someone else reverts it I'm not going to edit war. Anyway, it's been 2 days so I'm not going to bother with it now. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw you withdrew your comment, so I withdrew my statement at AN/I as well. Thanks for doing that. Your edit summary earlier suggests that you consider our policy against peronal attacks childish, but it is policy, and to my mind, it's a very helpful one. Calling people we disagree with retarded morons, as you did, makes Wikipedia a nastier place for all of us. Anyway, thanks again for removing the comment and all best for the future, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Assist (ice hockey)

This is from a while ago (about seven months), but I don't understand your summary of when you reverted my edit of the Assist (ice hockey) page. You wrote:

"that is not proper grammar, you duplicate the exact same line in one instance, and only one of those is even remotely plausible"

I can see how what I wrote possibly is not correct wording, but what do you mean by I "duplicate the exact same line" and "only one of them is plausible"? I'm completely confused by this summary. Could you re-explain it to me? Jdjd021 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Moral support

Hi, Shadowjams. Regarding this comment, are you perhaps confusing the candidate (Ginsuloft) with the editor SQL? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Not sure how I made such a glaring mistake! Shadowjams (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Clogging the bye-pass

Yes, I think it was a good ides to get rid of that dangerous bit of advice. Herbals can do a lot, but not that much. If those things really worked, the UK Health Service would be using them instead of expensive operations. (I won't comment about US hospitals and finance...) Peridon (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Spam from compromised email account

Unfortunately, it seems that the email account which I have been using to send Wikipedia emails has been compromised, and spam emails purporting to come from this address have been sent to a number of email addresses, apparently including an email address of yours. Some of the attempts to send spam emails have been blocked by my mail service provider, some haven't, so I don't know whether the emails aimed at you were delivered or not. I have changed the password on the account, and I shall take other steps to try to prevent continuation of the problem, including switching to using a different account from now on. I trust you will accept my apologies for this, and if you get any more dubious emails apparently from me, please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your complaint on my talk page

I'm simply adhering to the old adage of "Ask a silly question…" (And I do not believe in "there's no such thing as a stupid question.") I've seen worse and constant responses from many RefDesk regulars. Do you message them every time they post their flippant responses? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your false accusations of spamming and sock puppet accounts re: my edits to Talk:Governorship_of_Ronald_Reagan

This morning, I opened my wikipedia account and read this message you left on my talk page:

"What are you doing at Talk:Governorship of Ronald Reagan? You've spammed the same thing in at least 4 sections to the talk page. Quit it. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, are you editing under multiple accounts? You should see our WP:SOCK policy on that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)"

My response on that page was:

"Check the Wikipedia rules WP:PROVEIT. I did nothing but enforce Wikipedia's longstanding requirement that sources be verifiable. The segments of the article I redacted were "supported" by extremely unverifiable sources, two of which seemed to be books whose titles and ISBN numbers were not given. An author's name and some page numbers without a book title in a usable bibliographic citation format IS NOT a "verifiable source." Neither is a citation referring to an incident occurring 17 years later than the incident the editor says the citation supports.
I am not editing under multiple accounts. You'll be asked to prove that accusation to me and to Wikipedia officials if you repeat it. Neither am I spamming.
One of the prime commamdments of WikiPedia is "assume good faith." I went to great lengths to explain my edits as I made them. It's not my fault you either did not or could not read them, as I stuck to simple declarative sentences in the English language. loupgarous (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)"

Your accusation of "spamming" regarding my comments on edits I made to Governorship_of_Ronald_Reagan are puzzling if I apply the Wikipedia admonition to "assume good faith." I didn't spam. I commented on each and every change I made to the article. I also commented on a prior editor's accusation of "bias" in the article, citing an undocumented comment (by WP:PROVEIT standards) as an example of possible bias which perhaps the previous editor didn't consider.

But I challenge you to say which of my edits to the talk page were spam, going by the only standards I know - Wikipedia guidance to editors. None of them were. The original editor of that page just screwed up, didn't use accepted bibliographic citations in his reflist, and I redacted those parts of the article which were unsupported by acceptable citations. Then, in the talk page, I documented what I did. That's ALL accepted wikipedia usage.

Likewise, I made NO edits outside of my wikipedia account with the user name "loupgarous," attached to the account "vfrickey." I invite ANYONE to read the talk page and see that.

I invite WikiPedia officials to intervene in this at any point they choose to do and determine for themselves who is not "assuming good faith," who is making irresponsible and unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry, who is "spamming," and who is ignorant of wikipedia guidelines on acceptable bibliographic formats and verifiable source material.

I also invite them to the change I made to eliminate a passage alleging Mr. Reagan's use of astrology in the 1960s to determine a propitious time for his inauguration which was "supported" by article referring to alleged astrological consultations made in the 1980s after the assassination attempt on then-President Reagan. THAT citation went beyond sloppy in my opinion to deliberately misleading. The gulf between a mistake made in simple ignorance and that citation yawns way over to a deliberate mis-citation made in hopes no one would notice. I noticed, and I took corrective action.

Don't ever tell me to "quit it" again when all I am doing is my job as a wikipedia editor. And never lie about me using multiple accounts. That's not acceptable wikipedia conduct. loupgarous (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Smith & Wesson .38/44

I have written subject article in response to your request on the WikiProject Firearms page. The .38-44 S&W Special Hi-Speed cartridge was a special high-pressure load for the .38 Special covered briefly within the history section of that article. The name of the load refers to the large Smith & Wesson N-frame revolver designed for the .44 Special cartridge but chambered for the smaller .38 Special cartridge to provide thicker cylinder walls for higher pressure loads. The load was a developmental stage of the longer .357 Magnum cartridge; and became functionally obsolete when the magnum cartridge was released, but persisted until .357 Magnum prices became competitive when demand was satisfied for what was then the most powerful commercially available handgun.Thewellman (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a great new article. Thank you a lot. Shadowjams (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Responded to your removal of tags on defensive gun use article

Responded to your removal of tags in Defensive gun use talk page.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad you're responding to the tag addition now. I responded on the talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. I appreciate your well-considered comment in the RfA. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry it didn't succeed but best of luck in the future, and hopefully a soon next time. Shadowjams (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles

I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi Shadowjams, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird editing that tangentially involves you

Hi Shadowjams, I was researching the user behind a recent AfD nomination of List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. The who nommed it, Sefcik, is a fairly new user. Some things struck me as weird about this, so I poked around a bit, and I noticed that the language he uses in his AfD "These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages." are virtually identical to comments you've left in a few AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel Australia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by GO! for example. So I need you to explain your deceptive editing! Naw, I'm totally kidding! Just busting your chops! Anyhow, I asked an admin to tell me who created the GO article and they indicated that Billy Liakopoulos did. I notice that they've created a ton of articles, including several "List of" articles that you had a hand in AFDing. They were also blocked for removing AfD templates around that same time. Was wondering if you had any thoughts about this user. They have something like 10k edits, so it'd be weird to get into a sockpuppetry case out of the blue with them, but there's obviously something fishy about this new Sefcik operator and I wondered if maybe someone had a beef with you or something. Also, if you can think of any other sockjobs who might be behind this weird editing, I'm all ears. I'm adding your page to my watchlist in case you want to respond here. Take care, and again, I was kidding! Don't ANI me, bro! Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

First I've heard of it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I remember nominating list articles... but I didn't realize it was that long ago. I probably wouldn't nominate any of those as they are now today, or even as they were then. I tended to be more likely to !vote delete back then than I am now. So yeah, to be clear, it's not me. My guess is that someone is just copying the boilerplate phrasing I used back then without much more to it than that.
One other small possibility... there's always been some trouble related to cartoon articles and subtle factual errors. Namely date changes, which is something I've brought up a number of times in the past. If there's any reason for anyone in that area to have beef with me it could be that, but I doubt that's related though. Let me know if you notice anything else fishy. Shadowjams (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Meh, I'm sure it's nothing. I was probably going a little too far down the Columbo rabbit hole. It's quite likely that the language you used has been used by countless other editors. They're 3 year old posts, blah blah. Anyhow, the bad guy in this, the sock operator, got his various accounts blocked, so there's that. Take care! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bethel Assembly of God Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Housing at Georgetown University

Stop screwing around and reverting routine maintenance edits. I suggest you first take the time and read up on the purpose of anchors and visible anchors on pages. They are put there to let other editors know that other articles link to those points. By removing them, you are breaking the wiki. I did leave a comment with the edit. Did you bother reading it? — QuicksilverT @ 13:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Instead of spamming me a long winded response, why don't you take my advice and explain your edit. You offend easily apparently. Shadowjams (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD Pepper (robot)

Hi Shadowjams
Just wondering if you'd like to simply withdraw your nom for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepper (robot) as someone has added more sources and it looks like it passes the bar now.
Cheers — Who R you? Talk 17:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's far from a default keep. Your message is incredibly premature. Even if you disagree with me, I'm disappointed you seek to circumvent the process so early in it. Shadowjams (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)