User talk:Shadowjams/Archive 8

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

Jean-Charles de Castelbajac

Hello (Jean-Charles de Castelbajac)

I'm working on Jean-Charles de Castelbajac communication office. i corrected the page but you reversed it. There was many mistakes such as his nationality. Now, many website are using bad info. Can you rereverse it please. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.255.115.233 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • This was your edit from back in June. It removed a lot of content, replaced it almost entirely with what looks like a timeline, and changed data, without explanation. If you need to fix incorrect information you may do so but provide a source when you do so and an explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at Ginsengbomb's talk page.
Message added 07:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No action?

Please tell me why wasn't any action taken on my report here - M4nag3r(-)rC[Reply] 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not an administrator so short of warning someone or referring it elsewhere, I can't do anything directly. In fact, I don't often look at the Edit Warring noticeboard. You probably saw my posts there because I commented on another conflict. There's often a backlog at that board. You may try to find an administrator that you've interacted with in the past. WP:ANI is another place people will post these sorts of questions. Shadowjams (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your email

I am rather busy now, but will reply as soon as I can. It may be a couple of days. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just something that I was curious about, no hurry. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have finally done this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dramarama

Hi,

I know I made a big revision on the Dramarama page. Everything I wrote was factual (mostly first-person) information. I can back my sources with band members if you want validation.

The information regarding Robbie Fields is mostly false and needs to be corrected.

thank you Pat Pierson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcprupert (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Comcastic

Shadowjams,

So it appears you're Bearcat under a different name. You say, "Comcastic has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive..."


Notice how many times my entry has been vandalized, even by you.

Obviously you have a bias. The term was placed on Wikipedia by Joelvanatta and I added correct, constructive detail in it's description.

If you are not Bearcat, then why did you write this statement regarding Bearcat's action?


Notice Bearcat broke Wikipedia's Admin rule number 1:

"Administrators are users trusted with access to certain tools. They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and

NEVER to use them to gain advantage in a dispute."


Interesting at the top of this page, you suggest others to "be nice." Maybe, follow your own advice.

-WriterThanYou (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The only action from this account has been to reformat the Comcastic page to an inane NPOV statement. Here's the list: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Now you're posting accusation on the pages of those who undid your disruptive edits. Shadowjams (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Email

I replied. NW (Talk) 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for the response. Shadowjams (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk

Hello ,Shadowjam this is re pictures I loaded on my pc -they are not in a folder yet but my Sd card is now showing "No image "can i recover these images to my SD card ? Alan Wright . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.151.47 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer at the Reference desk. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Shadowjam I'm using Windows 7 Premium ,If i insert the card into my PC I can see the files of the pictures but cant recover them to my SD card ,I dont know what I did wrong but I appreciate the help . Alan Wright . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.151.47 (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you reask this question at the Reference desk because I think you'll get a quicker answer that way. You never answered some of the questions we had there, so I'm not sure what new I can tell you. In short, don't write to the card; there are ways to recover deleted files, although in your case it's not clear if they're even deleted yet, or what's going on. Most advice is to use an undelete program for windows, or boot into a Linux Live Disc and use those tools to recover the files and copy them out. Shadowjams (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, how can I do to accept my articles? Should I put the sources? ... Please, tell me what to do.

Excuse me.

Alexxander3000 (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to, but yes, generally sources are helpful. Shadowjams (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nico Santucci

We are having a hard time determining the potential problem with the article and perhaps indicate changes required? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.251.70 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Shadowjams (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Shadowjams, thanks for the support vote as well as the discussions you held in my RfA. Went a long way in getting the RfA to pass. My sincere thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no illusions that my !vote carries that much of an influence; but occasionally we get lucky. You'll be an excellent admin. Please don't disappoint. Thank you for the acknowledgment. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Your discussions did; where you brought out a valid point about admins following what is appropriate rather than sticking to the rule book... Noted your reply. Thanks again. Won't disappoint :) Sincerely. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You'll do an amazing job, there's no question about that. Look forward to seeing you around. Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190fordhouse

Hey Shadowjams, I wanted to know if I'm missing anything at that SPI. I've given my opinion that I can't connect the dots between accounts, but thought you might have some other insight into what ties the accounts together. Aside from gnomish unsourced music edits I can't find anything else that would indicate they are the same person. I'd appreciate if you had any other hints, thanks. -- Atama頭 22:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)



I see now, after reading your analysis, that I could have been a lot clearer. That's my fault, so I'm sorry if the following explanation is long but I want to be thorough. So I'm clear, there may be no connection between the two accounts I named and the obvious sock IPs and accounts. I listed some of the correlations I found below and would like another opinion on this. All in all I can easily count over 3,000 edits from these accounts and ranges, so if there is a problem, they represent a serious assault on the reliability and accuracy of information in music articles. I'd be very happy if all of these dates turn out to be correct. At the very least the named editor (the one that's still active) needs to provide sources or at least explanations for the factual changes. That issue, plus the findings below are what prompted my SPI report.

Comparing just the fordhouse and the Miguelg account I wouldn't necessarily see the connection, but looking at the whole of the edits from the IPs and accounts named, and then these newly discovered names, it raised my suspicion. There are distinct differences: the IPs at quesition almost exclusively make the date changes, while the Miguelg account, more than some of the others, makes other small changes to genre, artist credits, nicknames, or similar things. They're all small though, and I haven't come across any in my investigating that are sourced or ever use an edit summary. There are no talk page edits.

The edits in question have a pattern. They almost all involve changing, or in some cases adding, specific dates to music articles, none of which are verifiable. Some of those are verifibly wrong, but most aren't easily available or otherwise widely published. Most of the music articles are hip-hop or modern R&B artists, although there's some cross-over with older mid-90s R&B. From what I've seen, almost all of the known IPs locate to the Houston, Texas area. There are also some linked edits to schools around the area. They're typically editing in the afternoon til about midnight, Texas time. The date changes appear to be the vast majority of the edits. I don't think the fordhouse account was the first, but probably one of a few accounts created on a number of ranges. Most of those were created around the same timeframe with the first of these accounts and kinds of edits starting around April 2008. You can see some of the main ranges by taking a quick glance at the SPI history.

  • For the IPs, the geographical overlap (MuZemike's response is a little cryptic, suggesting perhaps the same geographical area, which is the one constant in all of the IPs)
  • The close frequency of edits, some of which are consecutive in the history
  • Lack of talk page or edit summaries
  • No substantive edits other than small tweaks
For a few specific examples take a look at the wiki stalk when you put in all of the SPI names. The Miguelg account has 109 hits in common with the group. Here are some specific examples:

I stumbled on most of these IP ranges and the Miguelg account just by looking through the history of the same articles and finding similar edits. I was astounded, after finding a few of the similar Miguelg edits to find so many similar edits in character: Special:Contributions/Miguelg. A few examples from the most recent 50 edits: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] (both time and date changes) [36] (same).

As for the Limmerine account, I asked because it had edited in close proximity as some of the the known IPs and had a similar and singular focus, all on the same sort of articles. In addition the registration dates are in the same time periods. Finally, those edits by themselves seem problematic, as they're unexplained, and the only scenario I could see of them being correct is if someone sat down with a box of CDs and put in times, which strikes me as an odd editing pattern. Also, there are some strange, changes (Look at this one, it adds 5:19 to the album time, but only 2:58 seconds to a track time). There is cross-over with these kinds of edits and Miguelg's edits too.

If there wasn't the SPI history, I'd leave a note about explaining edits, using edit summaries, and providing sources. But given the broader history, I'm concerned, particularly given the persistence of the edits. The IPs listed in the SPI, some in the ranges, go back as far as some of them discussed here.

At the least it begs a question, and that correlated with all of the other, similar in nature edits, made me curious. That account doesn't edit anymore but it makes me wonder if we should be looking for album-time changes as well (in addition to the date changes). The Miguelg account doesn't seem to ever by reinforcing the 190fordhouse edits, but there is something serendipitous about some of these patterns. At the very least, someone needs to spot check some of these for accuracy (I've tried on a few from the IPs and found them to be inaccurate, but most are very difficult to verify) or require that Miguelg do so in the future.

If I can provide any more information just ask. I've already done more work than I intended tracking this stuff down, so I'd hope others can help too. Thanks for looking into it with me. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

pig

Its corrected.Triplespy (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Harry Reid

Do more research the edit made is true. Although I am sure you are a liberal agenda loving socialist please do not discredit the information i have uncovered about your beloved Senate Majority Leader. Thank you.

You posted what is almost surely libelous content. If it's not, you've got yourself a damn fine convention you ought to be havin right now, instead of pestering me. If I'm right, instead, maybe you should quit making false factual claims. You're aware that's not legally acceptable, right? Shadowjams (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Legally acceptable? Last time I checked all Wiki's were PUBLICLY-edited domains which do not fall under any form of law. so kiss my ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.113.41 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, there are laws that apply to you regardless of what Wikipedia says. I don't think any of that interests you though. Your edits speak for themselves. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Well please enlighten me on those laws Oh-Mighty-One seeings how it falls under public domain and not publication an argument for defamation would not apply.

But regardless I am done fighting with this. The facts I presented were published in The Huffington Post AND Newsweek but whatever, guess the liberal media wins again but its days are numbered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.113.41 (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Geek culture references from the Geek and Gamer Girls Song

http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 09:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC) @Shadowjams - I would ask what you are basing this opinion on. Though at a glance "Geek and Gamer Girls Song" is an amusing parody, it is also an important statement regarding geek culture, a subculture that has spent many decades disenfranchised and mistreated, but which is now gaining greater acceptance as mainstream interest group. It is my contention that this video is an important work, if only due to the sheer level of detail involved to represent the many and varied aspects of geek culture. This is a video that will be remembered, dissected, and the lists that you are indicating should be deleted will only be replicated elsewhere. If you look at it and only see pretty girls you are doing it a disservice.

I would also cite the Wikipedia entry, Objects from The Lost Room, which is similar in nature. Geek culture relishes minutia, to ignore that is contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for as a reference resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernDragon (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

http://twitter.com/NorthernDragon 10:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC) This work meets the criteria for musicians and ensembles based on criterias 1 and 7:

  • #1: The work has been covered in a variety of media and as been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
  • #7: Is a prominent representation of a notable style (geek rock). More importantly it is one of the first geek “girl group” productions to see wide release, making it a seminal work of an emerging style.

As of yet you have failed to provide any indication of why this is an insufficent entry beyond amount of works produced. Please do so or withdraw your complaint. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernDragon (talk • contribs) 10:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

National Peroxide

Hi friend, I saw that you added speedy del tag to National Peroxide, I m still updating it, but about its notability, its the India's largest manufacturer of Hydrogen Peroxide, which make its notable than others, I have added few reference, please verify and if possible please remove it. Thanks(Leave a talkback) KuwarOnline Talk 06:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're the creator, so removing the CSD isn't exactly proper. That said, you've done a nice job expanding it along with sources, so I don't have any objection. Shadowjams (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you have wrong impression, please let me correct it see history I havent removed CSD tag, I m aware of I cannot as I m a creator of page. It been removed by another editor. Anyways I updated article with reference. Thanks :) KuwarOnline Talk 08:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I see now. Sorry for the mistake. Shadowjams (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tomhubbard's page introductions

You threatened to have my editing privileges revoked for introducing inappropriate pages. I will point out that the two new pages I created, self-licking ice cream cone and Jed Brandt, have since been resurrected by other users and seem to be thriving as legitimate pages. The other one is Certified Valuation Analyst, which is most certainly a valid title and certification. It may not be as well known as something like a CPA, but it has a similar certification process. I don't care enough about it to resurrect it, but I don't think introducing it makes me bad WikiPedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhubbard (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I left a template message on your page over a year ago. The CVA article has been deleted because it was overly promotional Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Valuation Analyst. I don't remember the particular circumstances of the warning now. If you've done good editing since then nobody will hold the old messages against you. Shadowjams (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to threaten me with blocking my editing privileges, then at least tell me specifically which edits you think are bad. Tom Hubbard (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

you're fast

I'm not here to vandalize. Somebody made a joke that 100,000,000,000 years from now Jersey would still suck, and I said "it says so on Wikipedia," and sent it to them.

You will see no more from me ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.51.9 (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not answering for Shadowjams, but the edit you made had obviously no place on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it's a game between you and your friends, this is a serious place. You must refrain from using such behavior in the future. Thank you.  CET   †  11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

John G. Althouse Middle School

Thanks for your report about John G. Althouse Middle School at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I have blocked the IP you reported and semi-protected the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the editor you mention who has made about 20 edits in over two years, I have looked at their editing history, and it seems to be a constructive editor. Some of their edits have been reverting vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope it's a contentiousness editor from the same area. I too am not going to bother digging into it unless there's evidence of more disruptive problems. Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

New page patrol

Hi Shad. NPP is an extremenly important but thankless task. Please remember to mark pages as patrolled after you have tagged them to save duplication of effeort by other patrollers. Cheers; --Kudpung (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I almost always do. Which ones didn't get patrolled? It may be an issue with Twinkle. Shadowjams (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

When is a Wikibreak not a Wikibreak?

I see that I posted a response to your note on my talk page back on September 1st saying I was on a "Wikibreak," and subsequently added a "Short Wikibreak" template to my User page. At one point is this no longer a break? We have guidelines for just about every possible situation on this glorious encyclopedia, and I am shocked, saddened, and outraged to see that we have no such policy for Wikibreaks. I propose the immediate instatement of WfD -- Wikibreaks for Discussion -- so I can nominate my own break for a WfD and engage in heated debate about my own Wikifuture. What say you? Are you with me on my crusade? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when you do so I can !vote the opposite way. Shadowjams (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Come to think of it I actually remember someone making a fuss about something similar, and they weren't joking. Shadowjams (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Central Carroll High Info. Legit

I see where you deleted almost all of the article I wrote on "Central Carroll High School" because of possible Cut and Paste issues. I wrote the entire article myself. In fact, I am a graduate of Central Carroll High and am writing a book about the school. Feel free to contact the Principal, Mr. Shawn Tobin, for verification. This is my first article for Wikipedia; what a bummer to have most of it deleted because of false accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbrettbarnes (talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's not a copy paste then you're free to restore it, which you've done. That's not a problem, so long as it's explained. The text has some hallmarks of copy-paste, such as fixed-width lines and some strange paragraph formatting. It could use a cleanup there, and with some of the tone, which sounds a little bit like a school website. I'll help you improve the article. Please don't take routine edits like this personal. There are thousands of new articles every day and few people to patrol them all. Sometimes we're forced to rely on patterns we see, and sometimes those are incorrect. Shadowjams (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You shudder now

Boo! Anna Lincoln 15:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Tengo miedo. Shadowjams (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Factual changes

My edits were not vandalism. It said "opposing a combination of Prussia, Poland, Sweden, and Russia" while he actually supported such a combination. So please consider it and if possible, edit it. If you do it again...then. Calthrina450 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to add 2 things: a source, and an explanation. Your assertion that it's correct is simply not enough. You also changed a year there. Shadowjams (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
And you've done the same thing yet again on Catherine II of Russia, moving the date of her death up by 11 days. You need to explain what you're doing when you make factual changes like this. Shadowjams (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I anticipate your explanation is going to be that the changes have to do with the Gregorian and Julian calendar differences. However our date templates typically use the Gregorian calendar, not the old style. Now, I don't know for sure which one is correct, but this only underlines the vast problem of your edits when they don't have any explanation and are, in the first case I noticed, outright reversing what was there before. Shadowjams (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lauren Boquette

Hi. Last December you PRODded this for "No indication of notability other than Primary sources," and it was deleted. Its subject Lauren1605 (talk · contribs) (not the original author) has now asked about it on my talk page, so I have restored it as a contested PROD, explained the situation to him, told him that you may wish to AfD it, pointed him to WP:BLP/H and WP:BESTCOI, and suggested he should add independent references to the article talk page and see whether someone else is willing to update the article. Perhaps you might consider giving him a hand, and at least give him some time before taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Subtle Vandalism Taskforce

Psst! Uncle G (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the head's up. If I have time I might poke around the SPI too. I suppose this sort of thing is inevitable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Horley (2nd nomination)

I know the non-admin closures are being discussed elsewhere, but - if you sincerely wish this article to be deleted - I might recommend that you add a proper deletion rationale in addition to the question about the NAC. The flaw in the NAC does not speak to the notability of the subject or the quality of the existing and potential sources available. This may apply to other AFDs you've nominated in reaction to this situation, but YMMV. Just an FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Renominations

I am very close to blocking you for disruption. Please read WP:POINT. If you believe a close is wrong in substance, then discuss it with the closer, and if there's no agreement take it to deletion review and ask for it to be overturned to delete, stating your reasons for believing the closer to have erred as to consensus. If you believe the debate missed something, then perhaps renominate stating what the previous debate has missed, and why the article should be deleted.

If you want to ban non-admins from closing certain types of AFDs, then suggest a new policy - or suggest that the essay WP:NAC should become policy, and get a consensus for that policy change. I will oppose it on the basis of WP:BURO - but if you can get a consensus otherwise, fair enough. What you did was try to enforce an essay, while violating key policies/guidelines (WP:POINT, WP:NOT and WP:BITE - we do not wish to discourage keen people from trying their hand at things, that's what a wiki is all about.

As I say, you may disagree with me and I'm happy to discuss that in the appropriate forum, but please don't abuse AFD to debate new policy ideas.--Scott Mac 18:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Please let me know if you decide to go to DRV. I think that you have valid concerns. Racepacket (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I won't take any more action on these articles myself because I didn't realize they'd generate the controversy they did, but I think that someone needs to walk these out. Shadowjams (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. I think you'll find many people who agree with you if you take it to DRV. This would be the correct way to go. In my opinion, forcing you to take this to DRV instead of just relisting it at AfD (which is almost certainly what the result of the DRV will be) is more of a violation of WP:BURO. SnottyWong verbalize 21:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted a reply at WP:AN. Short version is this:

  • The first closures were inappropriate (you have it backwards about the "essay"... by policy there's no allowance for NAC's... the essay merely suggests it's appropriate in some limited circumstances)
  • These articles should all run the full time period, and be closed appropriately after there's sufficient input
  • I had no idea that renominating (which I did as opposed to reopening) these articles would be controversial, and I'm amazed how many people are confused about the DRV process
  • Although I think that renominating those articles was the correct approach, I'll refrain from any new actions regarding those NACs. I hope someone else will take whatever convoluted action is necessary to actually have a discussion on these articles.

Finally, I'm personally offended at your threat here, the least of all because I don't think your opinion has any sound basis in policy. Shadowjams (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, you really have a poor understanding of policy. The idea that there has to be a policy to allow people to do things of a wiki is patently absurd. If there were rules precluding non-admins closing, they'd fit to ignore where the close was good. But as it happens there are no such rules. If a close is poor, it goes to DRV. If you think the article should be deleted, by all means consider renomination, but give a deletion reason. "The closer lacked some certain status" has absolutely no basis in policy - or common sense. Indeed it violates the policy that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. It's that simple.--Scott Mac 00:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
How ironic that the only policy you cite is WP:BURO, and yet because of your actions an article will be renominated, reclosed, brought to deletion review, and then likely nominated again. You've created more work for all of us, and your reclosures are an order of magnitude more pointey than anything I did. I don't see you actually seeing eye to eye with me on this point, but you might consider why an essay like WP:NAC is necessary at all, if non admins could arbitrarily close deletion arguments prematurely and on a basis that is void of any consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You are utterly missing the point. I am not chastising you for using the wrong forum, that as you say would be rules-mongering. I am chastising you because you re-nominated a bunch of articles mainly on a petty (and wrong-headed) technically of "the person who closed this had the wrong status". In most of your renominations it didn't even appear that that you wanted the article deleted, you just wanted to slap a non-admin, and enforce some unenforceable essay. If you believe a close is wrong, in substance, (and has resulted in the wrong result), by all means challenge it. But in only one of your several nominations did you give any indication that was your thoughts. (In such cases DRV is the right venue, although, as you say, the technicalities of the venue matters less.) My point however is that the technically of the status of the closer matters not at all. Non-admins can do anything an admin can do, except press a delete button.--Scott Mac 10:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well Scott, I appreciate your last comment even though I don't concur with all of your conclusions. As I'm sure you know, I'm not new, and I know your name, and I never associated you with heavy handed action. You clearly have an opinion on this issue, but I was surprised at your threat to me on an issue in which you seem to be involved ideologically. I think there's ample grounds for policy disagreement between our positions; the AN thread speaks to that. I don't think your interpretation of some of the policy is wrong; but I don't think mine is either. That said, I appreciate voices of restraint in response to bold action. I backed off of those actions when I heard complaints. I'm a little annoyed that you went from an early policy responder at that thread, to threatening me, without anything in between. That's why I find your brusque threat at the beginning of this so obnoxious, and uncharacteristic.
I'm certainly open to discussing these policy issues abstractly. But I need to let you know that you've left a distinct impression on me that I have managed to avoid for quite some time. I've been an active member for almost two years, and time before that off and on as an IP. I have dedicated considerable time to anti-vandalism patrol, to policy discussions, and to creating content. That I'm treated like a stranger by you over a minor issue at worst, or an issue I'm right about at best, is insulting. I'm sure that was never your intent; you were pursuing your opinion, which I respect. But I want you to understand my perspective, and why I'm offended by this whole exchange. Shadowjams (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you were offended, but your actions merited strong challenge. If a message like that can offend you, think how someone feels being told, "you're only an non-admin, so your actions don't count". You say you have a different interpretation of policy? What policy? What policy says that a non-admin is inferior, or isn't allowed to do things he technically can do? There simply is no such policy. If you want there to be, then propose that - and we can have a perfectly civil discussion about whether it is a good idea or not, and can (if necessary) amicably disagree. Until then, don't thump non-admins with a non-existent policy.--Scott Mac 12:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Just read your reply on Tofut' page. DRV is the correct forum for re-discussing the AFD, not re-nomination. This is the standard process and the one everyone is advised to follow; thing is, if you'd done that as advised in the first place then there probably would have been the discussion you wanted... --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is at least partially an almanac

Hello Shadowjams,

You stated in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one new age albums of 2010 (U.S.) that "Wikipedia is not an almanac". I request that you re-read WP:FIVEPILLARS which begins by saying, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Where have you found the statement that "Wikipedia is not an almanac" in any policy or guideline? Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry for the article (Manchester United F.C. 7–1 Blackburn Rovers F.C.), but I feel that the article is worth staying bcuz, one of the players scored a join-scoring record for a PL game, but thank you for the heads up and such.

About the patrol, not sure what it means but ill read about it now.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing I may have been mistaking about the patrol issue. It appears you have auto-patroller rights. I'm sorry if I misunderstood that you had intentionally patrolled the article. I still don't think the article's particularly notable, but I'm sorry for being wrong about the patrol issue. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It's ok, no hard feeling.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your guidance on the freres des homme article. I will work on it more. Cheers. Mythcass (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Top Racehorses In History

Hello Shadowjams. Thank your for tagging this article. Based on the number of articles that his editor has created that have been deleted (see talk page here User talk:Zenyattathegreat) and other inaccuracies that this person has added to various articles I suspect that this is a vanity list. I noted my concerns here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing#Problematic edits. I am not asking you to do anything further but as I am trying to finish my editing for the night and get to sleep I did want to make you aware of the situation. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

for the love of god.

reinstate the Stone Mecca wikipedia page. or please give me a less bullshit filled explaination as to why you would delete something that had barely been started and had yet to be completed. jesus.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka (talk • contribs) 04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. An admin deleted it. I don't remember the particulars, but it was under A7 criteria. If you like I'm sure the admin will userfy the page for you and allow you to improve it to the point that it meets the criteria.
Next time you have an issue on wiki, you will have better results if you don't throw around terms like "bullshit filled explaination [sic]." Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
id love to, my swearing and incorrect spelling are not to be taken personally. but lately, doing basic work on wiki is a pain in the ass. maybe you should shoot a note to someone on a talk page and ask whats being done or something before you start getting delete happy; it would be nice to have a chance to finish building the page first before you throw it in any category. there was a reason that last article you nominated was declined. calm down.

thanks. -E 20:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the feeling. I've been feeling that doing basic work is a pain lately too, and my fall off in editing reflects that.
I'm perfectly calm dude. Shadowjams (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Grace Clement

Hello Shadowjams, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Grace Clement, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Non-notable fictional character, but doesn't really meet A1. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I saw that someone had prodded it at the same time and I'm satisfied with that. Shadowjams (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Uri Rosenwaks

Hello Shadowjams. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Uri Rosenwaks, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Winning awards is an assertion of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 22:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shadowjams

Not sure if this is the correct way to contact you, however re: this message received from you-

"Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Little Red Riding Hood has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)"

I can assure you that no one at this address would dream of vandalizing Wikipedia. It absolutely was not us.

I want to bring this to your attention out of concern that should there be a repeat offence from whomever DID do this it might lead to us being blocked.

I found it puzzling that the message is dated April 2010, as I only just noticed it. Possibly since I wasn't expecting a personal message, it escaped my notice, but as we refer to Wiki pretty often, I can't imagine that the notification has been there all this time.

I've created an account especially to address this.

Thanks for your time and attention,

VesnavellaVesnavella (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you received a standard vandalism warning or something similar. However you apparently created an account to leave me this message. If I could see your original IP or account then I could try and determine the meaning of the message, but that information's not available to me.
You can see the contributions of a particular IP [37] by using this link and entering the IP.
IP addresses will sometimes change. Perhaps someone who had your IP address almost a year ago has changed, which would explain the message. If that's the case then you can continue editing and reading without any problem. Shadowjams (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that reassurance. I didn't post the actual IP address as I wasn't sure if that was the same as publishing sensitive information. If so that would have compounded the problem, if problem there was. I can share it with you if you really need me to.

Meanwhile, I checked back into my records, and around the date of the vandalism is when we switched to Telstra, so all I can think is that someone else had it prior to that, and had nothing better to do than mess up that page for a giggle. It isn't something that this IP address will be repeating.

Thanks againVesnavella (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite likely that's what it is. I wouldn't be concerned. Happy editing! Shadowjams (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

1

Hi Shadowjams, I just edited the page of Rolling Stone (the Ugandan newspaper), due to the death of David Kato. You mentioned the edit was unconstructive. However, I disagree. Kato was one of the people who's actions led to Rolling Stone being ordered by a judge to cease publishing photo's of homosexuals; and his death is quite possibly related to Rolling Stone's 'hitlist'. Perhaps the way it was said needs to be edited, but the link between the article and the violence against him, as gay rights activist, is very clear. There are also other links related to violence against gays on Rolling Stone's page, so I do not see how this can be unconstructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.91.47 (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I simply undid your edit that removed sourced information without explanation. You've done this a few times. Please provide a reference or use the edit summary. Shadowjams (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know I did not remove sourced material, I added it - the was previously no mention of Kato's death. I've been a bit messy about it, having to go back several times to correct typos, but the link to the BBC is one I made. I didn't remove anything that was previously there. What you have removed, is a sourced extension of the article I made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.91.47 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. I made a mistake in my explanation above. I think the diff I was originally reacting to was the "hitlist" line. In any case it's been revised since. Sorry for the erroneous explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Captain_Q

Why on earth would you associate Captian Q with kimchi or soju? It doesn't share any flavor with fermented cabbage and chili paste or with losly filtered grain alcohol. It's a smooth rum that is easily drinkable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethegeek (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're apparently referring to an edit I made almost a year ago where I cleaned up a nonsensical new article about a foreign (to me) grain alcohol. I'd suggest you read the diff. Shadowjams (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

George Watsky AfD

Hello, You commented that five of six cites mentioned were from "today". Were you confusing retrieval date with publication date? Two were published in 2006, one in 2008 and two in 2011. The 2006 article in the San Francisco Chronicle is by Chip Johnson, a widely respected reporter, and goes into quite a bit of detail, quoting one of Watsky's poems at length. Please take another look at the sources. I'm not quacking and this is not a case of BLP1E. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I struck my comment. Shadowjams (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for reverting the IP's vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Sorry, but I do not understand why I was warned about vandalism on Nigger (1964 book). I reverted someone else's vandalism. Kiwi128 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a misclick. Surprised you even saw it since I undid it within a few seconds. Keep up the good work. Shadowjams (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Kiwi128 (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Please can you tell me why my page Recruitment Research has been deleted twice now?? I've been told it has no consequence, and that it is advertising. Can you please tell me why? Recruitment Research is a type of recruitment. It is not one company, there are many recruitment research companies across the globe!! If it falls under the title of advertising, then so should Recruitment, Executive Search and anyother form of recruitment business...which IS on Wikipedia?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamsinKelly (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the COI policy and stop recreating virtually the same page over and over. Shadowjams (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Death songs

I saw that you had given warnings to an IP over inserting that Chuck Schuldiner was the songwriter responsible for tunes recorded by his band Death. I would note that the authoritative source for this information is the BMI database (located here) and that all songs from Scream Bloody Gore are registered legally as being written by Schuldiner alone. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember a lot of insertions related to that but I can't find the particular IP at the moment. If I remember right they were added without source and added rather aggressively to a number of articles; I may have assumed they were just people adding their friends to articles. In any case thank you for the message. Shadowjams (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nishant Malkani

Hi Shadowjams,

I have altered the tags on Nishant Singh Malkani - nothing drastic - and added a loose link to an External section. I'm still not sure of the subject's notability. I saw the article in the new creation special page and thought, like others I suspect, that there might be something in it eventually, and didn't want to bite a newbie. I see that your speed delete was declined because he appeared to have had acted in something. But if you take out the trivia, and what the article's creator says he didn't achieve, there's virtually nothing there, especially when I see that "he starred in Sasural Genda Phool", and find out from the non-link that he's not mentioned at all. He did act in Miley Jab Hum Tum. But a bigger problem is the only slightly paraphrased copy vio from tellygossip.blogspot.com. Acabashi (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration, and investigation. I share your conclusion about notability. I'm content to wait some time to see if there are references, etc., but I obviously share the same concerns that you do. Thank you again for paying attention to this sort of thing. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As an aside too, I've noticed the occasional criticism on your talk page related to CSD tagging. In the broader context, that comes with the territory, and considering false alarms, honest mistakes, and other standard errors, your record inspires my confidence in your judgment. Keep up the good work. Shadowjams (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

you sent me a message saying i edited a page with unfactual information... i apologize because i knowningly did this as an experiment. I am doing a project for a class at the university of Oshkosh on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.233.31.100 (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. You're very close to being blocked. Intentional factual errors are extremely disruptive and dealt with swiftly. If a school official suggested you deface Wikipedia with false information, then please let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

money laundering

Shadowjams:

You reverted my edits on money laundering. The article, as you note, is a mess, both in organization and content. It is inaccurate, contains irrelevant material and is internally contradictory. Organizationally, it is all over the place. It is going to require a significant re-write, including adding citations, to do so. My plan was to start by deleting the irrelevant and inaccurate, beef up the citations, and focus on the US part of it first. While I would love to be more circumspect in the editing, I don't think that is possible. What I deleted was unsourced and inaccurate and contributed anonymously. I took care not to delete sections, such as the ones on UK and Bangladesh, which reflected the contributions of people who devoted some time to it and had sourced their contributions.

While I am new to wiki, I am a US lawyer and have had long dealings in the money laundering area. I decided to contribute to wiki because my children use it for their homework and I thought I would repay the favor in an area I know something about. The changes I am making are accurate, sourced and sorely needed, as right now the page is pretty much useless. I am going to continue to work on the page. If there are specific deletions you disagree with (and you have the basis to do so), by all means go ahead and contribute to it. I will work on the formatting, if that is a problem, although frankly I was working more on the content first.

I was a bit taken aback by having my contributions, which took some time, rolled back by a click of a mouse. I would recommend to you an article I just read, Newbies and patrollers: "Every now and then a nun or a tourist wanders in front of the rifle sights" found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-28/News_and_notes.

Thanks.

wiki33139 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki33139 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. On a second look, I agree that undoing the bulk of those edits was too drastic. It looks like you've fixed most of what I undid, as well as added the context to much of it. I'm sorry if I threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I too am an American lawyer although I've never worked on this particular topic. I will do my best to help you with cleaning up the article. Thanks again for the reply and for your work on the topic. Shadowjams (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

great! Look for a new section on US money laundering shortly. Lots of room for improvement there.

--Wiki33139 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia User Who Has Been Warned Repeatedly About Vandalism Is Still Doing It

Comment - This user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.33.79.34

Has been vandalising Wikipedia articles for some time and has been warned repeatedly about it. By multiple editors (including yourself) and they are STILL doing it.

They recently vandalised this article about comedian Gina Yashere as you can see in the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Yashere

How many times will this person be warned about multiple cases of vandalism on multiple articles before they are stopped/blocked? Please look into this, thanks!12.196.37.227 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

- Comment - This user is now sending me messages on my talk page bragging about vandalising Gina Yashere's page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12.196.37.227&redirect=no

How much is Wikipedia going to put up with from this troll before they are blocked?12.196.37.227 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the other user you contacted did some investigation into the IPs. As he noted they're two separate IPs, although one appears to be a large IP pool so it's not surprising that they'd be related. In any case both IPs are not particularly active, although the former is a little puzzling based on who it appears to be registered to. It's possible that it's a public terminal. If there continues to be incorrect factual errors introduced then you should report it at WP:AIV. This particular case is not all that egregious.
Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, while it's quite easy to quickly get someone to block an IP that's vandalizing in a short time-period, it's much harder when the IP does their vandalism over the course of weeks or months, and tougher still when they change IPs. For those complex cases there's no perfect forum. WP:SPI can take too long to review and often has a huge backlog, and is by its culture cautious about its remedies, while WP:AIV is focused on easy-decision short-term vandals. WP:ANI can be a good forum for these kinds of reports, but you have to do your homework first and hope that someone is inclined to pay attention to the case.
Luckily this particular issue doesn't seem out of hand. But for future issues like this, use the User Contribution tools, including the Geolocate features that are linked below, as well as looking at the edits themselves, to get some idea about the pattern of edits you're dealing with. With experience this kind of detective work becomes easier. Shadowjams (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Carl Johnson

You recently reverted my edit on Carl Johnson's bio from the GTA san andreas page, you asked for a reference but truth is there is no reference for the original content i edited which was the age of the person, I even stated in the talk that this information is never disclosed in the game at all ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Styps (talk • contribs) 02:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Then how can you discern 1 year of difference? Shadowjams (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

need some help merging pages

Shadowjams:

I would like some help merging Anti-money laundering into money laundering. anti-money laundering is in pretty bad shape, not alot of citations, etc., and not much would be lost. What is the best way to go about this? Thanks.

--Wiki33139 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree with you that the secondary page doesn't add much. I've added a merge template to it. These don't get a lot of attention but it's a good first step. Let's give the merge template a week or two, see if there's any response (in other words, if people are updating the article) and if not then perhaps a merge is appropriate. Essentially that means putting info from that article into the new one and turning the old one into a redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw, thanks for the help. --Wiki33139 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at both pages and no one has raised any issues with the merger. Don't think I know how to do it myself. Nothing really unique in the anti-money laundering section, except for a thinly sourced section on canadian money laundering laws. I haven't looked at it and it may be outdated. Can you help?

Wiki33139 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I am so sorry about the mishap Shadowjams I did not mean to which you may think sounds unrealistic but I handle a large amount of nominations at the same time (while also working on other items) and I am use to re-organizing the nominations to help make the information easier to access for governing admins. It turns out that I have made some small errors of this sort in 3 out of the 10 plus nominations I have done recently and I apologize. In the future I will be more careful and try to do less at one time. Aaaccc (talk), 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So long as you do that I see no other problem. Shadowjams (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Windows hosts file

Thanks for your help on my question. I finally resolved it, if you're curious. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. My hunch is it's #2, as I can't see how the other two would affect it. Kind of an esoteric problem. Glad I could help in whatever small way. Shadowjams (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New page patrolling: alkaloids

Hey Shadowjams, since you've already commented on Slaframine, could you please take a look at 3-Alkylpyridinium? I'm guessing they're part of the same class project. Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

They haven't fixed any of the offending problems in Slaframine as of yet, or responded. I imagine the other account will be the same. The textbook that the first article was from isn't cited in the second but I wouldn't doubt you're right. Maybe you could take a look at that one. I'll try and remember to get back to this one... it may require slashing major portions out... I'm not sure I have the time or inclination to rewrite the entire article, I'd prefer it if the OP do it right. Are there any other indications that this is a class project? If so, perhaps the instructor needs to inform the students about the boundaries of plagiarism. Shadowjams (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I will correct that and will upload again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unienv (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I again uploaded the file. If someone would like to comment on it, I would be happy to make changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unienv (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thuban

In regards to the article Thuban (Document Management Software), please check http://www.vivatia.com/ most of the information was obtained from that website. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdocs (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

G12 taggings

Please be aware that US government works are in the public doman (see Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works) and as such copying it is not a copyright problem, although of course it should be properly attributed. As it's not a copyright problem they are not valid G12 taggings. Dpmuk (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This was not a simple drive by tagging. Please see the creator's talk page for my detailed notes to them. In addition, it is unclear if the particular source is a government source to qualify for public domain status. At times work is done elsewhere and hosted on a government page. Simply having a .gov address is not enough to assume works are always public domain.
Finally, those pages are wholesale copied from the respective pages, irregardless of copyright issues, a point I noted to the creator. I hope you addressed those issues in a substantial way if/when you removed the tags. Shadowjams (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I've been away for the second part of the long weekend (in the UK) and although I read your note my phone would not allow me to reply.
I was not accusing you of drive by taggings and I apologise if you already knew about US government works but I thought it best to inform you in case you didn't as many editors are unaware of copyright issues. From what you say above I believe even you think that they could be in the public domain and so then, in my opinion, unsuitable for G12 as they are not "Unambiguous copyright infringement". Instead tagging with {{subst:copyvio}} so they are listed at WP:CP seems more appropiate.
In this particular case I feel reasonable certainly they are government works given that there's no indication of them not being so, either directly in the form of copyright notices, or more indriectly in the docuement itself. If you disagree with me I am more than happy for you to add the copyvio tag so this can be reviewed by someone more experienced in copyright than me.
Finally when I removed the tags I added appropiate attribution templates so we are now thing from an attribution point of view and the articles can be subject to the normal editoral process. I don't feel I know enough about the subjects to decide whether we should ahve an article on them. Again I am more than happy for you to follow the normal deletion processes (whichever you feel is appropiate) if you think they do not. Dpmuk (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple afds

You may want to use {{la}} next time you propose multiple afds. Just put article links after a statement, which is something like "I also propose the following for similar reasons." This is to avoid, what seem to me as, spamming the afd page. Moray An Par (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Spamming is an interesting word to use... I'd use it instead for the pages that are created en masse like this. My "spamming" is a nomination of 11 pages... hardly unusual. I've mass nominated pages before as well (usually when they're over a dozen) and I inevitably get people complaining about that too. Shadowjams (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yerevan

On discussion page wrote explanations of the editings, but user Kevorkmail continues to create vandalism on page of Yerevan. He has been already repeatedly blocked because of this reason, after an unblocking, he has again started to do editing war стртьи Yerevan. Block him please. ArmOvak (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea bout the underlying dispute, but I noticed you two have been edit warring on that article for about a month now. You need to discuss this with him/her and if that's not adequate, bring the issue to the admin noticeboard or if the case is more clear-cut, the 3RR noticeboard. But you can't just keep continually reverting eachother. Shadowjams (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This gentleman (ArmOvak) is always insisting to force his own ideas and bringing information from nowhere and accusin me in vandalism instead of accusing himself. My contributions are always based on reliable sources and not on unofficial references.--Kevorkmail (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Regex question

Hi Shadowjams, thanks for the offer. Fortunately the responses I got answered my question well and I've not got AWB doing the first part of what I wanted. Happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 12:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about an Undone Revision

Greetings, Shadowjams. I noticed your reversal of my edit in the article about the Massachusetts Body of Liberties. Perhaps I should have used a citation for my claim, because I think it is correct.

I would like to point you to the section "Capitall Laws" at http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.htm . What is the proper way to cite a section of a source when that section does not have a direct URL?

Also, if I should be discussing this with you somewhere else, please let me know. I'm not familiar with writing on talk pages. Thanks. RealityBase (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're referencing now. I guess it's been a while since I looked at the original. However both a number of liberties and the capital crimes are annotated with references to the bible or generic religious references. So instead of changing that sentence and removing, perhaps you could add your additional information.
As a general rule we should be relying on 3rd party sources, not the original text, to draw conclusions. However I think this is the case where the statement made is obvious from the source, so that's not entirely necessary here. Shadowjams (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Strength

I had wondered what I had done since you last opposed to merit an "upgrade" in your opposition, but I see you've removed the "strong", so thanks for that bit of encouragement, at least! No hard feelings on the oppose, I understand different people have different standards for these things. Best, 28bytes (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came across as an upgrade. It's not meant to be. Really it's just an opposition to a relatively short tenure. I guess because your passage seems inevitable I may have come across stronger only to make a point. It's certainly not based on anything distinct I've seen you do that concerns me in that way. I guess I'd like to see more discretion in RfA, and I don't like the way it's headed generally. I'm sorry if that bled over into my opposition to you. I apologize for the "strong" too as that was a mistake. I may take another look at what I wrote given your comment has me thinking about if my stance yesterday is really the best. Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologize, tenure is a quite reasonable grounds on which to oppose someone, in my opinion. As I say, we all have different standards; my pet peeve is unreferenced article creations, so I tend to oppose when I see that; length of service is no less legitimate. Granted, I think I've been around long enough to have gained a solid understanding of how things work, but I recognize that I'm not in a position to be objective about that. 28bytes (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Denaby United

Hi there, can I ask what was wrong with my edits to Denaby United as you appear to have reverted them? AL1983 (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sheldon Lee Glashow

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haeretica Pravitas/Archive. --93.141.44.72 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the catch. Shadowjams (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ODE

Hello

The correction I made was very minor and obvious, adding a ' symbol to signify a derivative. The equation as it was phrased originally had no derivatives and so is not an ODE, obviously a ' was needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cheshire Cat (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Explain your edits, and provide a reference if necessary. You repeatedly made slightly different edits to a long-standing mathematical formula. That needs at least some explanation. I said this in previous messages. Editors and those who patrol can't be experts in every topic this encyclopedia covers, which is why it's important for you to explain what you're doing, especially after the first or second time you're asked to do so. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

English

I have only reverted U.S. English to U.K. English on pages that pertain to either A) The United Kingdom, B) The European Union (Which has British English as one of it's official 23 languages) or C) European nations in general.

Since the United Kingdom is the largest English-speaking nation in Europe (and since all European nations function with British English as their default style of English) it is only fitting that British English be used in articles pertaining to either Britain, the European Union or Europe in general.

In future, I think you should think more carefully about what you "correct", and look to your own rules a little more often.

Kind regards,

DeJaVu921 (talk) --DeJaVu921 (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be spamming this on a few people's pages. I don't know exactly which page I warned you about because you don't appear to be using the same account. In any case, I probably didn't undo any edit unless it was clearly erroneous. I often warn people though about gratuitous changes. We have a very extensive policy on this subject. Shadowjams (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Thanks for the deletion request; you beat me to it! The page was indeed mistake. I've filed one properly here. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I saw that right after I messaged you. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin Football

At the moment, I'm just looking to fill in the stats. As nearly every major college football team has these records in wikipedia, it'd be necessary to nominate probably at least a thousand pages for deletion. Eventually I hope to add more information to these pages such as recruits, drafts, season summaries and analyses. For now, I'm just doing the mind-numbing work and I feel it would be unfair to delete these pages at this stage. Should you find that this information is unnecessary then it would be necessary to nominate teams such as Alabama, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma and more. Kallman1 (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Buffalo Grove, Illinois

Sorry for the so-called "disruptive editing" on the Buffalo Grove, Illinois page. It's great to know that the experiences and opinions of all Wikipedia users are not given equal weight. I'd wager that most teens and young adults in Buffalo Grove would have found that my edits increased the accuracy of the entry, but hey, what do I know? I've just lived here my whole life. Cheers. 24.12.159.251 (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC) SPHB24.12.159.251 (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The "experiences and opinions" of Wikipedia users are given equal weight: none. Find a verifiable, reliable source for your claims and you'll have no problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
He's talking about the edit where he added "where life goes to die". You're correct, that edit is not given any weight. Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a complaint

Dear shadowjams, i have a complaint about how you removed my post on the striped skunks. It was a true fact as was said by Snapple facts, and you removed it anyways. I have made false facts before but this one was true. You made me very unhappy when you did this, and i implore you to change it back before i continue to change things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.96.70 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If you keep adding nonsense it's likely the blocking admin will make it longer than your last two. Shadowjams (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Myron McCormick

Dear Shadowjams,

You recently reverted my edit of the date of birth of Myron McCormick from 1907 to 1908 in the biography box on the right side of his page. While his date of birth is listed as 1908 in two places on the page and his age at death is listed, correctly, as 54 at the bottom of the page, the box on the right side states that he was 55 when he died. I'm sure we can both agree that 1962-1908 equals 54 years.

At the top of the page it states that the article lacks inline citations and in your comment on my edit you stated that I needed to back up my edit with an appropriate reference. I submit to you that I used the same source as the other two places on the page that listed his birth year as 1908. If there is not a proper reference backing up this information, then I think it would be appropriate to remove his date of birth altogether. I have seen it listed as both 1907 and 1908 in different places. I merely made the change to maintain consistency because, as the article currently stands, it is arithmetically wrong.

Thanks.

Hanerau (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed it back because I see it's consistent now and it also agrees with the IMDB entry. It would be nice though if there were an external reference (imdb isn't considered particularly reliable for dates I think). As for the date/age arithmetic, that's handled in the templates automatically, so long as the date is right. When you make date edits like that though it's good to provide an edit summary if you can't provide a reference. For example, if you'd said "making dates consistent" then I'd probably have skipped over it. There's a lot of date vandalism and date changing out there so it's important that it's given an explanation. Helps sort out the helpful edits from those that are not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

Krzysztof Soszynski is considered Polish, look on his page if you dont believe me, theres my source

Use references and please be more specific about which pages you're referring to. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Antivandalism work and administrative powers

I have recently dealt with a couple of your vandalism reports, and doing so prompted me to think of the considerable contribution you make to the fight against vandalism. Would you be willing to consider becoming an administrator? That way you could zap vandals directly, instead of leaving a report for someone else to follow up, which has two disadvantages: (1) it leaves the vandal at large until an admin gets round to the case, allowing vandalism to continue, and (2) an admin has to spend time checking the history of the vandal, which you may have already seen enough of, so that work is duplicated. I understand that somewhat over a year ago you declined an invitation to undergo an RfA, but I thought you might be willing to reconsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you again. It's been a while, mostly because I've scaled back my own editing in recent months. I'm very flattered by your suggestion. It means quite a bit coming from you. Being an admin would make handling these sorts of vandalism issues much simpler, and would be a benefit. But I remember someone, maybe it was you, once talking about the trouble that comes with running. I'll be the first to acknowledge that I've had a fair share of curt, occasionally wrong, comments about policy things. Whether it's deletion discussions or RfAs, I've been outspoken, and on rare occasion I've been less civil than I should have been. Out of almost 65,000 edits I guess that's to be expected. But that, combined with my outspokenness in some discussions, in particular my annoyance at the nitpicking of CSD criteria (inclusionism masquerading as policy), I suspect there's a small but vocal group that would oppose an RfA of mine. That said, I've made a concerted effort to be slower when responding to discussions I disagree with.
I've also slowed down on my rate of editing in recent months. While I still try to do antivandalism work regularly (as well as AWB work), I am not as frequent an editor as I once was. In time, maybe this is something that would be a good fit for me. But for now, I have to decline. I want to reiterate though how flattered I am that you would suggest this. It means a lot coming from anyone, but especially you. Feel free to suggest it anytime!
On a wonkish note, what I'd really like to see is a fractured adminship system... where editors run for more limited adminship roles (a deletion admin, an antivandalism admin, a CSD admin... etc.), or better yet, an adminship with term limits and re-elections. That would go a long way towards fixing what I think is a flawed, if not broken adminship system. The vast majority of admins are exemplary, but the process we use to choose them has issues.
Again, thank you. I'm sure I'll see you around. Shadowjams (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
There are certainly serious problems with the RfA process, and there is a small minority of admins who I think shouldn't be admins. However, I'm not convinced that the reforms you suggest would be, on balance, helpful. It would increase the complexity and the amount of procedure and bureaucracy, and might well further discourage people from standing. I am not sure what the answer to the problems is, nor even whether there is an answer, but I think fragmenting the admin role is not it, and limited terms with re-elections would put a lot of people off. I, for example, found my RfA rather stressful, but regard a moderate amount of stress over a few days a price that I don't regret paying. I really don't think, though, that I would be willing to submit myself to the experience repeatedly at regular intervals, and my guess is that a hell of a lot more admins would drop out too if faced with that. There is a danger that the result would be not only a severe drop in the number of admins, but also that most of the ones that were left would be those who love confrontational situations, which is exactly what we don't want in administrators, in my opinion. As I say, I'm not sure if there is a better system, or if so what it is, but I really don't think that is it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your tireless and largely thankless efforts in reverting vandalism. Keep it up. Yunshui (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:72.244.167.226

I think you added your message twice in error; hence I removed one of them. Calabe1992 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hello Shadowjams! I hope you accept this brownie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Gosling

Hello. I checked the actor's biography on IMDB and Yahoo!Movies, and both stated he was born on 12 November. You may have mistakenly reverted the edit by this user (200.127.172.9) as vandalism. Shuipzv3 (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

IMDB, and Yahoo Movies, from which that is probably drawn, are considered unreliable sources. More importantly, the previous date has been the used date for months prior, if I remember correctly, and the IP changed it without source or explanation. Changes to factual issues need to be explained at least. Shadowjams (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, that is something to think about. What about this [38] and this [39]? A few websites are saying the same thing. Shuipzv3 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the history again, I'm not sure if there was similar vandalism in the past (I tend to pick a random past point and see what the changed info was then to verify) or if I was just confused about which page... in any case it was a recent change so you're correct. That said, it's important IPs explain their changes for this reason. You and I both could have corrected a few dozen other vandalism edits in the time we've dealt with this one unfortunately. Thanks for catching the inaccuracy. Shadowjams (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I would always like it too if the IPs understand the importance of summarising their edits. I'll watch over the page for a while haha. Shuipzv3 (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my Bot req

hai, i made a req and i never withdrew my application, could u plz check once again for me.--Jenakarthik (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Health crisis

Concept Health crisis Epidemic
Source disease, disaster, war, Food, Drug, etc only disease
Transmission yes / not yes (infectious disease)
Prevention Medical, Politic, Social, Ecologic, Military, Economic, etc Medical (only)
Diagnosis Medical, Economic, Politic, Social, Ecologic, etc Medical (only)
Treatment Medical + Social + Economic + Politic, etc medical treatment (mainly)
List List of disasters, List of epidemics, Food safety scandals, List of medicine contamination incidents, etc List of epidemics

Friendly:Raimundo Pastor (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Holly

Hola, Ilex es un genero, genus y holly es una especie, son cosas distintas. por favor, rectificalo Ilex is a plant genus, Holly is 1 species, please fix it.Kevachaché (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry perdone usted, no estoy acostumbrado a la wikipedia en ingles, ya que es un idioma que solo se leer y se me escapa el sentido de algunas palabras. He usado primero el nombre en latín, ya que en las distintas wikipedias es el que se usa primero, pero veo que estaba en un error y que en esta wikipedia no va primero el nombre tecnico ( el internacional)
Sorry, I used few the English Wikipedia because it is a language that only read and escapes me the meaning of some words. I first used the name in Latin, since in various wikis it is used first, but I see that i was wrong and that this is not correcto en la wikipedia en ingles: technical name first (international)
That's fine. As I wrote on your talk page, I restored almost all of the edits you'd done. The naming convention guidelines are here and they should be the guiding principle for all of these discussions. If, however, the Holly related articles have been mistaken, the Talk:Holly page would be the place to begin that discussion.
Thanks for taking the time to respond and sorry if the styles between the different wikipedias leads to subtle differences that surprise new users. What it appeared to me and others was that you were blanking the page, or maybe making duplicate pages. After digging deeper I now understand what you were trying to do. Shadowjams (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

186.204.6.250

you can control what I write in wikipedia, but can not stop me from writing what I think about you in blogs on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.6.250 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced biographical content? -ALLOCKE|talk 23:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

hah Shadowjams (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No longer orphan

There are now eight pages linking to the article J. Jill Robinson so it is no longer an orphan. Bwark (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have since added many more links to J. Jill Robinson. So, can we get rid of that notice about the article being an orphan? Bwark (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, go for it. That just gets added automatically when using WP:AWB. I patrolled about 50 pages that way yesterday so I don't remember this specific page. Shadowjams (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Weeds characters

So, I commented your AfD. What say you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Weeds_Characters:_Hodes,_James,_and_Wilson_Families#Weeds_Characters:_Hodes.2C_James.2C_and_Wilson_Families--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a little while. I'm persuaded by examples I found like List of The Wire characters, so I may revisit my original conclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Judicial Activism

why did you remove my link about judicial activism, but leaves a link that promotes Pakistani lawyers? You read all 200 pages of text? You are behaving like the "master of truth". I think you should talk a little about your school curriculum. Then people could judge whether you are the best people to teach about judicial activism or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.0.133 (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you willing to engage in an actual discussion now, instead of first edit warring over the article, then making vandalizing statements about me, and then threatening to write things elsewhere on the internet a bout me (what that would be is beyond my imagination)? If that's the case then we can discuss the link. Begin by describing how your link, that you've been adding over multiple editor's reverts, meets the criteria listed at WP:ELNO. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You start saying, Who is? What do you work? What is your education level? Because I do not have time to waste on someone who is called "shadowjam." Wait for my new site: www.wikipedia_asshole.com ...
It appears you're not interested in a constructive dialogue about this topic. This has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with you readding a link over and over again after multiple editors removed it because it doesn't meet basic criteria. You haven't even begun to discuss the merits of any of this. Calling me an asshole is not productive. Nobody here is out to get you or against your cause, whatever it may be. But we do have standards and rules. You need to play within those bounds. Shadowjams (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Shadow, I suggest you exercise WP:OWNTALK and simply delete the nonsense above. --S. Rich (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed some other posts, but it's the closest we've come to actually discussing the subject so it's useful for that purpose. Shadowjams (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of Footer

Hello. I created the footer because it is quite relevant in developmental economics, and I had no idea that I had to write an article on the same. I will work on it, but I need a couple of days. Is it possible? Tejal Johri (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Partial Theories of Development? I'm not sure what it looked like at deletion but if i remember right it was just an external link. Yeah, if you want to develop a page use your user space and do so, by all means. But don't put it in the mainspace unless there's actual, relevant content. Shadowjams (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Licenses

I'm sorry. My only defense is that I was in a hurry as I was intending to make some point about a license agreement in which both parties sign the agreement, as opposed to a license that's sort of a contract of adhesion. I will go and strike my response, of course. The way to fix this on the RD is to get people to supply references for every claim they make. It really does eliminate mistakes, as well as stop hurried posts, and help the querent research further. Previous proposals to require references have failed (for good reasons unfortunately). Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In retrospect I think I overreacted. I'm sorry for that. I read a number of posts that seemed inaccurate to me that evening and it's part of a growing problem with the RD. But I should have thought about my note before leaving it. The RD's had a better culture for accuracy than most internet forums so I don't want to lose that, but I should have stated it less fervently. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your perl one-liners and fora

I think you mean "echo" instead of "cat".

Also I don't think your admonishment against using the reference desk as a forum was entirely correct. Any free Q&A system will technically constitute a forum. If you do not like political topics, that is your decision, but Wikipedia covers political topics extensively, and the motivations for or against aspects of law is are legitimate subjects of questions on the Humanities Reference Desk, which has always included both politics and law within its scope. 67.6.175.132 (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well those examples were reading from a file... if the text to translate was entered on the command line then echo'd work better. That's a good catch. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked him

The IP you warned has been blocked, and deserved it. Moriori (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Annie Wilson (90210 character) Fixed!

I have add more links to the main page and related articles to do with the show. I also removed the orphan tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

the reason of 3RR notice?

Hi Shadowjams, you left a 3RR notice on my talk page. I would like to know the reason of it. Today I only did one revert on the page of Timeline of Korean history and did not violent 3RR rule according to its definition. Also, the reason I undid the page is to invite the editors to the discussion page. Please let me know why I receive this message. Thanks. EJcarter (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This IP has been undoing your edits left and right, and you've been undoing them back (collectively we have: Gojoseon, History of Korea, Four Commanderies of Han, maybe others) and yet you haven't left a single message on their talk page or even in your edit summaries. You need to either treat them as vandalism if they are, or engage the editor, or at least give a reason. You may not technically be in violation of 3RR at the moment on any particular article, but i kept seeing your back and forth undoing come up in Huggle and this isn't being dealt with properly from my view. You need to engage the editor, unless it's vandalism in which case you need to warn them appropriately, or indicate it in some way. Shadowjams (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
First, your advice is helpful and kind. You are right that I should leave some message on their talk page. But I did leave reasons and invite that ip in my edit summaries(I never leave my edit summaries blank) and open several discussion sections in the talk page. Considering vandalism, Shadowjams, I may ask for your help. Since the his edits are vandalism, what should I do to inform them? leave a warning on their talk page? Is there a standard format of this warning I should use? If they continue to revert, where should I report their behavior? Thanks. EJcarter (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There is a list of standard messages at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Most come in five levels, and all must be substituted. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose64, I left a warning on the ip's talk page. EJcarter (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Hello Shadowjams. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however, regarding MARKO BOZIC, that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3) and articles created through the Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10 - 15 minutes for more content to be added, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), pure vandalism (G3), and copyright violations (G12) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. 

→Στc. 21:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Americans and their flag

Your attack is sad. It's a real example of what bothered me about about your post in the first place. We don't have to restrict ourselves to precisely the question asked on the Ref Desks. Many questions require elaboration, clarification and expansion. I'm not anti-American or anything like that. I love the place. The reason I paid attention to the question was because it described a situation seemingly so different from where I live. I truly felt it worth mentioning. To be told that it wasn't was a bit of a shock. OK, you say your comment wasn't directed at me. I apologise for misunderstanding, but it sure read that way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)````

You weren't the first person to meander into a different question than what was asked, so no, nothing was directed at you. Characterizing it as an attack is bizarre. It doesn't appear to me though that this will change your mind, so I'll leave it at that. Shadowjams (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dos Hogares

Thanks for reverting the edits made by that user in the Dos Hogares article. I provided a reliable source (Novelas Y Series is an Univision site after all) saying that it'll air at midnight after Para volver a amar. I told him to refrain from removing valid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum Star (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency

Hi,

The entry on EPI is for informatinal purposes as is the link to the website I inserted. The website linked to is an informational/educational resourse for the guardians of dogs with EPI and contains numerous citable articles and information on further non-commercial resources. It is not 'a platform for advertising or promotion'. It is a non-commercial website for informational purposes only. From my understanding it complies with the guidelines on the following counts:

"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

and

"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic (sic) understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked

thanks, I'd appreciate its reinstatement in the furtherance of knowledge of this debilitating condition.

Mr.Clicky (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Mr.Clicky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Clicky (talk • contribs)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Shadowjams! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Contracts

Hi Shadowjams,

Yes, I'm really into this subject of contracts as copyrightable or not copyrightable. Mr.98 linked to a nice little essay about it, though the author sort of brushed off the suggestion they aren't copyrightable. Thanks for any other references you can dig up! Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to look into it this weekend more and I'll let you know what i find. Shadowjams (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Patrol

Hi Shadowjams, I'm not quite sure why the edit I made to Teetotalism - this edit - was marked by you as a nuisance one? I was undoing somebody else's nuisance edit!

Regards, damadm00 Damadm00 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

the mistake was corrected not long after i made it, and I recently warned the offending IP. Sorry for the mistake, which sometimes happens with RC Patrolling. I've removed the erroneous warning. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

re Emamectin

Extended content

What is not constructive in the edit? I resolved it to the transcluded doi descriptor, which added the PMID information and keeps the info shared and bot-maintained. 70.137.153.47 (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you blind? the ref is shared/transcluded, so I removed duplicate info. Look at the article. It is more precise and now also contains the reference PMID, which is important for lookup. The doi points to the shared reference in wiki. This is maintained! 70.137.153.47 (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't you read your messages? 70.137.153.47 (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at this Template:Cite_doi/10.1086.2F651706 it contains:

{{Cite journal | last1 = Cohen | first1 = S. H. | last2 = Gerding | first2 = D. N. | last3 = Johnson | first3 = S. | last4 = Kelly | first4 = C. P. | last5 = Loo | first5 = V. G. | last6 = McDonald | first6 = L. C. | last7 = Pepin | first7 = J. | last8 = Wilcox | first8 = M. H. | author9 = Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America | doi = 10.1086/651706 | title = Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults: 2010 Update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) | journal = Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology | volume = 31 | issue = 5 | pages = 431–455 | year = 2010 | pmid = 20307191 | pmc = }}<noinclude>{{template doc|Template:cite_doi/subpage}}</noinclude>

if I now insert {{cite doi | 10.1086.2F651706}} it expands to this:

Cohen, S. H.; Gerding, D. N.; Johnson, S.; Kelly, C. P.; Loo, V. G.; McDonald, L.  C.; Pepin, J.; Wilcox, M. H.; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; Infectious Diseases Society of America (2010). "Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults: 2010 Update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)". Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 31 (5): 431–455. doi:10.1086/651706. PMID 20307191. {{cite journal}}: no-break space character in |first6= at position 4 (help)

then this resolves to the complete citation. Several articles using the same reference share only one copy of the citation. This centralized copy is also bot-maintained. The advantage is that everybody citing it gets a complete and updated citation and it also saves space and makes it easier for bots. So no info was removed in my edits. In fact info was added, as the centralized copy already had the correct PMID information. 70.137.153.47 (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya ok, sorry I made a mistake in huggle patrolling when you did a rather esoteric template change. Use edit summaries in the future so that I don't think you're just messing up templates, which is pretty common btw. This wall of text is a bit disorienting so I'm collapsing it. Shadowjams (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you have seen what I have been doing. It was perfectly sound and good work, I moved the citation to a shared transcluded bot maintained template and reworked the article, fixing up citations where needed (getting pmid, doi etc from database, adding isbn, issn etc. etc.) Look at it now and before, it looks much better now. (the whole long series of 70.137.x.x edits, its my variable IP) Also resolved patent data and related references. But in fact I used an edit summary for the edit you reverted: it said "cite doi" thats what it was "cite" to transcluded "doi" template. (replacing the inline template, which disappeared then, as you saw) It seems as if Huggle sometimes gives wrong indications or swallows edit summaries such that you think an idiot vandal is at work and you cannot see what is really going on. Has happened before. But you have to read your messages. This is kind of a "subroutine call" in the markup, with the usual benefits (sharing, elimination of duplicates, centralized maintainance) Cheers. (I know the idiot vandals are a pain) 70.137.128.233 (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

help me solve my page

Can you help me solve my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangulf (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alex Sandunga

Hi, I've declined the CSD-A7 on this article as the claims that he had a three month tour of Finland is an assertion of notability that, if backed up by non-trivial references from reliable sources, would satisfy WP:MUS criterion #4. PROD or AFD would probably be more suitable for this article. Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Hogan (band)

Hi Shadowjams. Just to let you know, rather than speedy-deleting this article as you suggested, I added sources to it instead. If it is to be deleted, I would suggest it would have to go by AfD, not speedy. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see you added some sources. When I nom'd it it had no assertion of notability and the only links were the band's website. Thanks for the update. Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadowjams/Archive_8&oldid=1143299346"