User talk:Shadowjams/Archive 9

Flipnote

I could change it a bit to make List of Popular Flipnote Creators more encyclopedic. I am knowledgeable in that subject. I even participate in Flipnote Hatena. But, how do you make a article encyclopedic? Greenble (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that subject matter, at least a list of popular creators, is notable. To demonstrate it is, however, you'd need to find some independent reliable source talking about the list of these creators, and provide that. I don't think that probably exists, but if it does please present it in the discussion. Some things are better left for other Wikis. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia... not an almanac. Shadowjams (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your right. A wiki like "Flipnote Artist Wiki" is better suited for something like this. But I want to make some kind of contribution. What kind of subjects is Wikipedia lacking? Greenble (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent question... one I actually have often too. There are lots of places to start, most (I'd say 99%) of the work to be done is in existing articles. The Community portal is a good place to start, more specifically the Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask section is a good place to go to when you're bored or not sure what to work on. There it lists pages that have maintenance templates on them. For example, you can find articles that have some issues, perhaps they're written badly, or are missing sources, or need some fixing.

Another thing to work on is to pick a subject you know a lot about (you said you were knowledgeable about Flipnote Studio) and improve that article, either by adding to it, fixing errors you see in it, or adding sources to it.

If you are interested in creating new articles then try to find subjects that have been covered by outside sources. I like to write biographies on recently deceased people if they've had long notable careers. Sometimes I'm surprised when they don't already have articles. I also have created articles on some geographical features, like mountains and lakes. Some of those I did early on were probably too small or inconsequential to be covered by Wikipedia. I personally asked for some of those to be deleted (after I learned more about Wikipedia policies) and expanded others.

Finally, you might like to get involved in a Wikipedia Project. For example, WP:FILMS is the Films project where people who are into movies work together on common tasks. There's a list of some here WP:PORTCUT. If you have questions you can ask me. Shadowjams (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I should edit Flipnote Studio because it feels a bit lacking. I should join the Anime and Manga Project! Would articles about characters of popular Anime (like Hetalia: Axis Powers and Sgt. Frog) be notable? Greenble (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with those characters. It looks like some of those have articles already. The people in those projects would probably be good people to ask. Good luck and happy editing. Shadowjams (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I just added List of Popular Flipnote Creators to my sandbox, so the original can be deleted. Greenble (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Confused

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE UNDOING MY EDITS!!! Watch Bas Rutten's fight with Ryushi Yanagisawa, he wins via Read Naked Choke. Back then they didn't name all of the different chokes so it went down as "Choke." Giving it its presently proper name should be allowed. If you don't watch MMA, don't "fix" the things I do.

PS: The Bas Rutten Neck Crank is its official name because that particular submission does not have one. The people over at Sherdog don't like naming moves after fighters so they called it a body crunch. That's a name they gave it. I believe it should have the founder's given name not some generic site. If it looks too large, then just call it "The Bas Rutten." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloody Freak (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused on your message to me... You said what I edited on Kyle Kingsbury's page was not constructive? I just changed what someone else put from "controversial decision" back to "Unanimous decision." Saying the decision is controversial is just an opinion, the decision was unanimous and should stay that way. How is my edit not constructive? I've been cleaning up many fighter' records, I'm giving my time, trying to be constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloody Freak (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

3/5 Compromise

It looks like my move request worked. Thanks for your offer to help! 01:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Final Warning?

I did one vandalizing edit. And I wasn't supposed to hit the save button. And I also removed it straight afterwards anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamcad01 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I am using huggle and reacted to this edit. Not sure what else to say. I saw some other vandalism on that page too. It'd probably be better if you explained what you were doing, and also if you didn't constantly blank your talk page. Those would inspire more confidence. But if in fact you just made an error removing it, then no worries. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I constantly blank my talk page because I'm allowed to. Sheesh. Jamcad01 (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also although on one particular page he ISN'T Edit Warring he is on plenty of others yet never get's reported for it. Or he always gets other editors to do his work for him to avoid being blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamcad01 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well blanking it serves a dual purpose because you've been warned about edit warring on other occasions. The one I warned you about here is only the most recent. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean Wisdom 89 not Mr Vernon. Also he starts all the edit warring in the first place anyway. (Jamcad01 (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

In fact the whole point of his blanking the talk page is to evade getting blocked *again* for edit warring. See [1] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think huggle remembers it but it's short lived. I think I'll pay attention to this and if it continues I'll respond appropriately. Shadowjams (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What? Am I not allowed freedom of my own talk page? Both of you Fuck off. Seriously. Jamcad01 (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I never undid your permitted, but as I told you, unwise, blanking of your talk page. Yet you continue to edit war and mass change genres on pages. Your above message to me is not productive either. Shadowjams (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really give a fat shit. Fuck off and leave me alone. Jamcad01 (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You keep proving my points for me. I'd prefer you not comment on my talk page anymore, particularly if you're going to use the tone you're using above. Please don't continue to edit war about genre types. You're not demonstrating a very constructive editing demeanor. Please don't continue like this. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For crying out loud I did two edits on Stone Cold Crazy. I've stopped doing that so don't make a big deal out of it. I apologize for my language but sometimes you act like a complete Dictator Jamcad01 (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What?

Can you enlighten me as to what exactly this means? Seriously, I think you may have me confused with someone else. I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever interacting with you in the past, much less noting your opinion on RfA...and I'm not sure how that's relevant in the first place. And how is my "quip" (which it wasn't) "curiously strange"? I was just pointing out that people tend to be offended when you call something they've said "ridiculous". It shouldn't take a genius to realize that, and I assume you wouldn't appreciate such comments yourself. Swarm ^X 18:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I made myself pretty clear in my response. I've seen you talk about civility in RfA before in ways I disagree with. Ironically I find your criticism of me just as biting as my eyerolling at the long, convoluted, and... perhaps ridiculous... hypothetical question that has been asked previously it seems. I guess we could get into a broader discussion of why "gotcha" style questions asking candidates to recite policy, or law-exam style hypotheticals like this add little to the RfA process, but I don't think you and I see the RfA process the same. I said that in my original comment.
As per your civility comment, you latched onto my choice of the word "ridiculous" and turned it into a mountain. This kind of thing is just silly. Shadowjams (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)