User talk:Shadowjams/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"Baklava" page

I'm going to RV the marine pages that seem to have been vandalized as often as necessary. But if you'd like to make changes to those, I'd be more than happy to assist you. Please provide some description, however scant, and I'll try to fix it. But please don't continue to add nonsense to those articles. ~~If you do that your squadron will be blocked from editing.~~ Shadowjams (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Squadron? Wow you really don't have a clue yet you are so boldly 'fixing vandalism'. Feel free to discuss any changes YOU would like to make on the article talk page where it belongs rather than blindly reverting other peoples changes. I have notified you of your edit warring and am proceeding in good faith and formally ask you to cease and desist from making your uninformed site corrections until consensus is achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowfury13 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Baklav page

Could you stop undoing my contribution to the page? If you have any comments please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are my mistake. I should have recognized what it was when you posted here. My only comment though is that my initial RV was correct. You appear to have been toying with the gallery template, and I warned for an editing test. From the initial diff that seemed appropriate. My mistake was in not recognizing your productive changes after that. Of course, all you did was undo the previous edits, adding back in the gallery "example" template, all the while not providing a description. That's why I continued to undo those edits. Given my experience, I should have recognized what you were doing. But it wouldn't hurt for you to help me out. Provide an edit summary, don't add back in the gallery template. Your explanation wasn't added until the very end of that cycle. Shadowjams (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's Daughter

Can you explain why you reverted my edition to Nobody's Daughter? The article needs to be cleaned up, which I was trying to do. The list of 'other tracks' is a list of tracks that Courtney Love mentioned over a five year period that haven't made it to the final tracklist. In other words, a list of songs that aren't on the album.81.99.112.52 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC).

Because you blanked out two separate sections. Notwithstanding that, you did provide an explanation, some of which was lost in the multiple diffs, but I should have noticed it. Accordingly, I've removed the note. Shadowjams (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir...

...for the swift revert on my User page. Although I looked at the diff and now I'm freaking out that my user page is inadvertently exposi...erm...suggesting that I am a member of the Illuminati. I should look into that I guess. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The irony is that more vandalism now will lead to semi-protection, and less vandalism later. Although then they tend to attack your talk page, so that's kind of a separate issue. In any event, no thanks needed. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I just got EC'd on the above with the below. I just made my own fate I guess. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that warrants an LOL. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Epic LOL?! Shadowjams (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Disturbed is epic!

im sorry but deleting my perfectly good comment on Disturbed and saying it was unconstructive is a pitiful attempt at ruining my attempt at saying Disturbed is epic as i will continue to add 'THEIR EPIC!!!' to the subheading history as long as i dont get bored of doing so, that and jam is made of fruit not shadows dumbass... HATER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motdeadly2 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I mostly object to the grammar. It's "They're epic." Shadowjams (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

so there good then HATER JUST CAUSE U DONT LIKE THEM!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motdeadly2 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He kinda has you on the jam thing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Jams is plural, like a verb. Again, issues with grammar.

Lot of interest in my random name lately... Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

At least you have an explanation for yours. I'm waiting for someone to ask me what a "ginseng bomb" is. Maybe someone will release an energy drink under that name before I get pressed to remember how I came up with it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I always figured you were squatting on the Trademark claim. Shadowjams (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

^^^ Winner. Hahahaha. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC

ok... how did me saying disturbed is epic turn into tea bagging a copyright claim or sumthing...

Not sure what that means. Don't worry though, this isn't about you. Let me throw a welcome template on your page. Maybe you could add something to the Disturbed article. It's obviously a topic you have an interest in, so maybe you can add something to it, and similar artists. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

well yea i tried to do that but u deleted it saying it wasnt constructive let me add a comment 2 it and i will... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motdeadly2 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. The repeating comments have been removed for a while now. I'm just suggesting you edit productively. You obviously read wikipedia at some point, why else would you know to add to it. Just saying, you have an account now, so if you start making good contributions, people notice and people appreciate it. Anyway, I won't bother you if you don't add massive amounts of nonsense to articles, and you don't seem to have since my last revert. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed. That's all. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow

Quit reversing my edits and get off the computer. jeez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.176.50 (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Every one of your edits from this IP have been vandalism. [1] [2] [3] [4] are all either venomously derogatory slurs, or factual inaccuracies, not to mention the three edits you've made to my talk page, and now again to BIOS. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? God. 74.218.176.50 (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. - Zhang He (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Seems like a small community tonight. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

University of Stellenbosch Residence halls - JOOL

Hi,

Pls could you explain the reason for the reversal of my edit under the JOOL subsection. JOOL (in caps) not lower case (Jool) as it was in the article, is an abbreviation for the afrikaans phrase: Jou Onbaatsutige Opoffering vir Liefdadigheid. It's usage on Stellenbosch campus must appear in uppercase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I reversed your change of "Jool" to "JOOL" because, as well as your removal of an establishment date, largely because you've removed (Est. 1973) from a lot of articles without any explanation, a trend you continued on the article I RVed. I see now you provided an explanation on the particular article you're complaining about. Your IP has a long history of problematic edits. I don't think those were you now, upon reviewing, but my single revert of your edits is largely due to a combination of those factors. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes being made to WYZO to WKZO-FM Gone Why??

i was in the process of updating information for WYZO and now they are gone. even the link to prove the change.

I know what you're referring to. It looks to me like you redid the entire page to cover a different station. If the station's call letters changed then you should create a new page with the new station info, put in something to the original article about how it went offline, and it changed call letters, but the way you did it you changed the entire article into a new article, all the while it had the old name and a lot of the old information. All of the changes are still available. Shadowjams (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you just did a find replace on the entire article too, since you changed the name of the webbrowser it linked to too. Shadowjams (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There already is an article for WKZO. Here's what I'll do. I'll add back in what you talked about with the format change, as well as indicate some other format change notes in the WYZO article. If you want to add new information, add it to the WKZO article, since that refers to the current, new station. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the old WYZO is now covered at WNWN-FM. I never thought I'd learn so much about Michigan radio. Shadowjams (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding honorific

ALL members of the United States Congress are entitled to the honorific prefix "The honorable". Anyone who claims otherwise is either misinformed or has a partisan intent. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source to indicate that? Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And stop undoing all of these edits until the issue's resolved. If you are able to demonstrate that's correct, they'll go on all of the articles, others will help you. But you need to have that discussion first. If you RV again I'll start a thread at the WP:ANI to discuss the issue. Shadowjams (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't live in the United States, but EVERY Member of Congress is entitled to the honorific prefix "The Honorable". 24.3.220.206 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do live in the U.S., although that's irrelevant. And no, I've never heard "the honorable" to refer to members of congress. It does refer to judges. Our article on it, The_Honorable#United_States, indicates that informal Department of State usage may use the term for members of congress, but that has no cite, it's not official, and it's certainly not normal parlance.

In any case none of that matters. You need to seek some discussion before massively edit warring, a line you've long ago crossed. Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!

Thanks for your imput on United States Senate elections, 1804, Shadowjams. I am currently working on creating articles -- stubs, at least -- for the United States Senate elections prior to ratification of the 17th amendment. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor of Earth (talk • contribs) 05:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Darnall Hall

I reverted the AfD close and re-closed it as merge to the new article. Black Kite 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone Hall

I'm in the process of completing a new article, Housing at the University of Chicago, and I've integrated most of the material, either that was a merge or that was a keep, into the primary one. This is the only article of the group (Blackstone Hall) that was deleted. Would you provide me with a copy of the page so I can integrate it into the Housing article? Let me know which method is the best way (I don't have email turned on), or if you would like to do it. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it as a redirect. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

University Housing pages

Yea, I tried to get people involved by rattling of some of the schools that that had articles affected. The issue I had, and still have, was Namiba's turning of these articles into redirects without AfDs or any sort of discussion, so I don't think looking for AfDs will help. I just had to go through the user's contributions around mid-March:

So those are most of the other pages Namiba blanked. Whether any of them got merged, I can't tell, but I don't see that in Namiba's contributions. Best of luck fixing this huge mess!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 00:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try! Any help would be appreciated too. Typically what I'm doing is creating the Housing articles, then merging in what I can. Then, if I have time, adding more in from the school websites. The Chicago one is in pretty good shape, but the Georgetown one still needs info on all of the upperclassmen dorms. At least though this way others can get started with a unified framework. Shadowjams (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nathan Barley

Why are you CONTINUALLY reverting my changes to Chris Morris-themed pages? I'm trying to add perfectly valid links to the Chris Morris fansite, and to primary sources, yet you keep reverting them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookdandbombd (talk • contribs) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your IP was warned to 4, then you created this account and it's similarly been warned. Those links don't meet the WP:EL guidelines for one, but more to the point you've replaced a valid reference to the Guardian that was supporting a sentence with what appears to be a fansite forum, and you've done so over and over. Shadowjams (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article takes info from the link I'm trying to edit in! It's a primary source, therefore people can hear the information for themselves, rather than reading a second-hand version. Why not help a new user make my links WP:EL compliant, rather than just reverting and dishing out warnings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookdandbombd (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's actually part of the problem. We don't like primary sources on wikipedia for a number of reasons. Instead we like to rely on third-party sources, like the Guardian article. For some more info see WP:RS.

Because it appears you've made these edits in good faith. I'll remove those template warnings. My suggestion is to add a link to the fan page to the External links section of the article. That's certainly within guidelines. But definitely leave the guardian article. There's almost never a good reason to remove a reference, unless it's wrong, duplicative, or broken. Instead, add extra ones. Shadowjams (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Am trying to add links in good faith, as you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookdandbombd (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for bringing the issue to me. Shadowjams (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the reversion on my user page. I was trying to figure out what the three of them were up to that I forgot to check anything else. something lame from CBW 09:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The poor spelling of "fucking" gave it away. Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed deletion to Athens Hotel

I posted something on its talk page saying that it should be speedy deleted per A10 rather than proposed. Do you agree with my decision? Post here. Minima c (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. I don't mind if you do. It's probably not exactly the same, in theory there could be a hotel by that name, but it wouldn't be a loss to lose it and I think most would probably be fine with an A10 on it. Shadowjams (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Abdullah Ocalan why?

I have edited Abdullah Ocalan page four times and keeps say i vandilse but i'm listing my refernces and I have added pics and more information please do not revert it back anymore. i'm listing my refences and addeding more information. Thank You! (TVLoverboy (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC))TVLoverboy (talk)

As I've explained in the edit summary, as well as in the warnings on your page, because you've removed vast amounts of content from it without ever explaining, not even in an edit summary, why. You can't make unilateral changes of that magnitude without at the least explaining why you're doing it. It's even worse when you continue to do it when not only I have noticed the problem, but you've managed to attract the attention of ClueBot.

It's also extremely hard to discern what changes you've made because you've changed some of the templates, and added others. I have no problem with you adding to the page, or even removing some of the sections if appropriate, but you need to explain what you're doing, and not keep doing the same thing over and over when there are warning messages people have given to you.

Here's what I suggest for future edits to that page. Do things in chunks, in single edits. So, if you want to add the infobox, add it in a single edit and say in the edit summary "adding infobox". Then if you want to remove a section for some reason, remove it, and put in the edit summary the reason you're removing it, or changing things in it. But we simply can't have people removing thousands of words from the page.

Your edits have taken a page from 25,000 or so characters, to about 12,000 characters. Cutting an article in half without explanation or some other obvious reason for it, multiple times after being warned, is simply an unmanageable way to manage an encyclopedia. Shadowjams (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Brezzo

He had a level 4 tag applied, and as best as I can tell, no levels were skipped (though some were for issues other than direct vandalism). I think he ought to get a temporary block, like 31 hours, just to get his attention. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but it was from last September. I agree completely with your instincts, but I'm just referring to the realities of AIV, and the occasion that a common IP gets recycled to a new editor (of course this is a user account so that changes some things). I'm not faulting you, just wanting to give you a bit of a heads up. Shadowjams (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

maragaret moran

why have i been warned and my edit removed. it was legitimate. and what do u mean by test 92.24.60.204 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I undid that edit because the diff I saw had you adding a carrot but removing a reference. I might have normally ignored that, but earlier tonight I had a set of IPs removing content adding carrots in the same place, that became quite disruptive. A strange coincidence. Now that I've seen the full context of your four unexplained edits to the article, it appears that your edits, while a little off in terms of formatting (nothing in the edit I made said "warn", only the edit summary), are legitimate. I've removed the one revert and explanation message. I'll replace it with a welcome template. In the future, remember to provide an edit summary. Shadowjams (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AntiMasonry article

In the antiMasonry article I pointed out that the extreme right-wing and conspiracy theorists opposed Masonry and cited as examples Pat Robertson, David Icke, Alex Jones, and Glenn Beck. Robertson, Icke, and Jones have been very clear that they are antiMasonic, Robertson wrote a book attacking Masonry called The New World Order, Icke wrote multiple books attacking Masonry, and Beck I think has criticized it before. So why was that edit considered vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.130.244 (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care about right or left wing conspiracies. I'm very unmoved by either. Glad we have that cleared up. I think that if you're going to make interesting contributions, at least source them. Going out on a limb here, but perhaps you could respond to actual discussions people engage you with. If you want to make mainstream contributions then I'm all ears. If you have a theory that the general media is uninterseted in, but is ultimately correct, then I might be quite willing to help you in my personal capacity, but in my wikipedia capacity, I am not. We are an encyclopedia, no more, no less.

All we're requiring here is that you post sources, and reasons. We like those. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all let me clarify that I'm not a conspiracy theorist. You seem to be implying that I am. And I did cite sources, I mentioned Robertson's book The New World Order in which a very large portion is dedicated to attacking Masonry. All of Icke's are obsessed with attacking the Jews and the Masons, one of them is The Biggest Secret. I provided Robertson's book as a source and I think I provided Icke's book. Now obviously there theories are false. My point is that they are examples of antiMasonry so they can be mentioned in the article. The Robertson reference at the very least wasn't vandalism since I did source it.--198.51.130.244 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Let me repeat again that I don't agree with Robertson's and Icke's theories. My point was to illustrate that the far right opposes Masonry and believes in conspiracy theories. I don't agree with the far right. I don't like Robertson or Icke. It was an article about antiMasonic movements though. That's why I mentioned them. --198.51.130.244 (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't at all imply that you were a conspiracy theorist, or advancing those claims. I was referring to some of the previous language in this discussion, not your contributions. Let me make a general guideline on any controversial article: 1) sources are persuasive, 2) explanations are helpful. If you do both of those things then most controversial edits will be discussed on the talk page with other editors who are interested in those articles.

Thank you for engaging me in this discussion. I think that this issue is controversial on its own, so I hope you'll engage the others involved in those articles, so that editors may reach consensus. That's really the overriding concern I have here. I really don't have a particular outcome in mind on this article. Shadowjams (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton

You beat me to the revert! I thought it was more important to wield the banhammer first though. That IP is clearly not here to improve Wikipedia so I've granted it a two week break from editing. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. There are some other similar edits from the same range within the last week, it's clearly not the first time they've unproductively edited. You handle the bans, and I'll hit the rollbacks. Shadowjams (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Page patrol numbers

Where are you pulling down the page patrol numbers (or are you anymore)? X!'s edit counter used to have them, even after the opt-in, but over the last few days I've noticed they've disappeared. Wondered if you knew anymore about this. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

it seems X!'s counter got hit by some controversy where a single user claimed that the month counters and additional statistics were a privacy infringement, and X! subsequently had to remove them until he added an opt-in system for displaying them. In my own opinion it is quite silly, as this is information that can be accessed, downloaded and data-mined by anyone. Since X!'s edit counter doesn't handle "Most edited pages" for editors having more then 45.000 edits, i switched to wikichecker, a quite usefull external site. Add your username, set it to "All" edits and wait a couple of min. It will result in quite an impressive analysis with a lot of other statistics. Other sections of the site such as the editwar section are quite worthwhile as well. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I've used that one too, although I didn't know if they had patrol counts. I find the privacy complaint absurd as well, without going in depth on the privacy policy itself, it seems like a huge stretch to say that aggregating otherwise available data would somehow breach the privacy policy. In any case, thanks for the heads up. Good luck with the RfA too. I'm frankly stunned at some of the opposes. Shadowjams (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Muay Thai

My apologies. I was reverting some vandalism on the page and accidently reinstated it. If you look, that was clearly not my intention to say such ridiculous things on the Muay Thai page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggalama (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, adding ".then u slap his face hard like a horse. and take his nuts off!!" doesn't sound like a slip of the keyboard, but I believe you. Just be careful in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That pleasant comment in Muay Thai was originally by 70.184.29.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has repeatedly vandalised a whole sequence of articles this week. Little of this had generated warnings at his talk page so I've just added an escalating sequence of warnings there, one per article (not per instance of vandalism). All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note about the warning to the Microsoft HealthVault vandal

It wasn't a test - it was an ad. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 23:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt on that sort of thing, but yeah, looks like you're right. Shadowjams (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP did it again. I've escalated the warnings. Shadowjams (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

templates replaqcemeny

otheruses4 redriects to about. otheruses4 is clusmsy. do you have a bot to do this?174.3.123.220 (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that. Yeah, let me look into it. I may throw a few of those into AWB depending on how many there are and if the redirect works as well. If that's the case, perhaps updating the documentation to indicate this would be good. Shadowjams (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a redirect. I suppose making the conversion makes sense, although there's not a compelling reason to do it en masse. At the least you really need to be putting an edit summary on these. I would suggest you solicit some feedback about mass conversion, or else make it part of a broader cleanup toolkit that you use. The easiest way to do that is with WP:AWB, but you'll need an account and a bit of a track record before you can use it on the live encyclopedia.

Strangely, it seems like your IP range has actually done most of these, as it's hard for me to find current articles to test my expression on. It's not especially complicated, but this regex works: \{\{otheruses4\|(.+?)\}\} replace: {{about|$1}}

Like I said, I don't think these edits are all that critical, but if they can be fixed while other things are being fixed then that works just fine. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is regex?174.3.123.220 (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regular expressions Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gary the gadget guy

Hello Shadowjams. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gary the gadget guy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

CDNIS use of written English

Hi Shadowjams. Thanks for your note. The change from American/Canadian spelling of "Program" to British "Programme" is because the school is using the IB curriculum. IB spell programme this way so CDNIS has also made the transition to spell programme this way. This was the only reason for the update/change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdnis1 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I think that usage is proper and of course I didn't alter it. Just wanted to leave the note so you'd know the background. Thanks for explaining too. Shadowjams (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent Farsi article

Yeah I got that too, on searching the title. But the text did not precisely match the title, so there was doubt, so not a speedy yet. I think we should just delete foreign language articles straight off, but someone thinks they could be moved to the other language wiki. I ahve never seen it happen, only get deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese economy pre 1911

I'm going to remove the quotes to Financial Times and the Economist because they have no base for their facts and the information has no place in this article. It's no true statistical fact and the wiki needs to be credible.

The world bank writes:"For a large part of the last two millennia, China was the world's largest and most advanced economy. Then it missed the Industrial Revolution and stagnated. Only after opening to the outside world in 1979 was China's economic performance again impressive."

That's a different thing, for a large part of the last two millennia.

You had 2 warnings as an IP (if I remember right), then you registered and continued exactly the same edits. The message I left should be enough for you to know that you need to explain why you're removing content and changing articles. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But where should I leave the explanation for the change?

You could start with the article's talk page. If it's something wider then try WP:China for the China project. But to another point, is it that you have some philosophical objection to these statements, or that you think they're inaccurate, or something else? None of us have any idea because you haven't explained why, you've just done. That's not acceptable. You need to communicate, to explain. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)