User talk:Shadowjams

Welcome!

Please start new threads at the bottom of the page.

The Autumn Offering Edit

Ok, I'm sorry that I have to resort to this, but please stop reverting my edits to The Autumn Offering page. I'm actually trying to get RID of the previous vandalism that was put on the page, where it states how the bassist did a wrestling career, which is totally false. Please grow a brain and stop reverting my edits, because I'm actually trying to do something GOOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.132.170 (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I only undid one of your edits, and my message was that you were removing content without explanation. That's still true. An edit summary would make these things clearer in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Okay, sorry, I'll stop doing that. Thanks for the heads up.

99.235.160.143 (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wannarexia

Hi.

I'm not sure why you believe my reversion on wannarexia is vandalism. I was merely undoing an earlier edit that broke a lot of formatting, and introduced some unsourced assertions.

—Nailbiter (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a second look. Shadowjams (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's how that page looks to me. Your changes aren't exactly manual of style as per the lead, and I think the previous lead is preferable. That said, you're right, it's not vandalism, and insofar as my warning suggested that, I'm sorry. The reason for my thinking that was that the page history, and the edit you "reverted" was a few versions back, in addition to not being standard form. There seems to be a slow-burning edit dispute between you and Not4a4number, although that seems to be a SPA (maybe dual). In any case, I'll let you handle it, but you might want to include all the bolded words at the beginning, and admittedly, every suffix of the word doesn't need to be included either. Good luck. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Manzanar

Careful about the 3RR on this. I'll watch for the next couple. –droll [chat] 07:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Shadowjams (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Read 3RR. I'm not sure if it applies or not. –droll [chat] 07:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're not understanding me. I've never edited Manzanar. Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, guys. I needed a chuckle. The best exchange I've seen all week.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I saw Mount Mazama and somehow thought Manzanar. Its getting late. –droll [chat] 07:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's fine. Thanks for your message. 3RR doesn't apply in cases of vandalism. In this instance, the one I've RVed twice now (another editor did an additional one) has replaced the mountain's name with the cake. I think that's a pretty easy case of vandalism, but I do appreciate the vigilance. I don't mind the oversight. Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Why, wasn't that nice. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I try. Figured you weren't into blanking your own page from a new account these days. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. What I don't get ... even yet, on wp, is why so many here are intent upon being unhelpful rather than the opposite. Thanks for showing me that your kind are still out there.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. We try. It has been, and can be, incredibly important. Appreciate your help too. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indian rock

Please refer article Indian Rock. I have edited and effected some minor changes. Killerdove 07:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerdove (talk • contribs)

Another article I've never seen before. Shadowjams (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Shane Long

In you message, you told me that "For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English." Shane Long is a famous British person, therefore I will use British English. No-one in America is going to read this article, but it will attract a lot of attention from people in England and Ireland, where they use the word 'football'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.76.54 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I provided a helpful message, and changed nothing. In fact, your recent dispute with the other editors on that page are more at issue, but it seems that one's resolved. Please only take my message as a reminder that there are a lot of different variations of language here, and we hope to accommodate all of them. Shadowjams (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing

This afd in which you participated is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you do that?

I added a section to iso-elastic and you deleted it within five seconds. There is no way you could have even read it in that time. Clearly you have set up some sort of robot to delete new users. You suck, and I will file a complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.224.51 (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Given your other recent edits, I'm not sympathetic. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not ask for sympathy. I asked for fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.224.51 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the edit you reference above. I still think it qualifies as vandalism given the context of your other edits. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to quit being disruptive, and be helpful, we'd all welcome that. Sleep on it, wake up, and then try and either do some of what I'm doing (undoing vandalism) or perhaps add some of your personal knowledge to an article. I have no doubt that we all have much to contribute. And I understand the impulse to have fun, but please respect our efforts, and if you do, we'd massively appreciate your help. All regards. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What an asshole...I'd encourage others to look at the edit in question and share whether they think it is 'vandalism'.

Ok. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] and then [4]. That provides the context for my one revert: [5]. Shadowjams (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Protegese Bullfighting

Can you explain to me why you don't want that in a table?174.3.107.176 (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine. Sorry for the trouble. Edit summaries help clear up these confusions. Shadowjams (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they don't. What clears up vandalism, because you are reverting changes to a worse state, is looking at the edits.174.3.107.176 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Ok. Shadowjams (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Boyd and the Remembralls?

I agree with your reason for deletion of The Parselmouths. I believe another non-notable wizard rock band Oliver Boyd and the Remembralls is also non-notable. What do you think? Alex Douglas (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I waffled quite a bit on that AfD, and did it procedurally because someone else had prodded it and I thought the removal of the prod was inappropriate. I'm certainly no expert on wizard rock bands (what a strange area of expertise). I will try and take a look if I can. Shadowjams (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell?

How is it nonconstructive? I updated the page with the latest info. The other person vandalized it by putting a link to their own vid.74.234.21.245 (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Be more specific. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Are you people actually doing your job reverting back to edits with vandalizing in it? Check the link he used and check teh vids I updated you find they are more accurate. Do I a unregistered user really have to be on only one actually trying to do good to the article?74.234.21.245 (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean heres what he replace the charlie vid with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8b3mA8h_3Y. Irts all in the history. Learn to use it before reverting.74.234.21.245 (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're linking to every video apparently, but those links don't work because you've wikilinked them, rather than direct linked them. In any case, direct linking them isn't really within the WP:MOS guidelines. Even if they're notable for that page (something I'm not raising) it doesn't mean every one of them needs a google-boosting link from wikipedia. We have specific policies on that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never added any links only put them back up whenever someone put a link directing to one of their own.THat page has always been like that, I find your reason for reverting back into its vandalized form very lacking. No ownder wikipedia is look at as shit. If you want to unlink them then do through the edit button its there for a reason. At least look at what your turning the page into before you press undo.74.234.21.245 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Infact my edit lowered the number of external links.74.234.21.245 (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the guideline that's fine. I'd happily comment there if you make a compelling argument. But I'm just enforcing the pre-made policies, and despite your pejorative comments, I'm somewhat familiar with them. If you'd explained your edits, we probably wouldn't have this issue.

To provide some context, there's an absurd amount of raw spam and nonsense edits that affect wikipedia daily. I look at every edit, there's no question about that. If I made a mistake it's either my fault or a confluence of the difference-engine or my software. Those are all my faults, and I apologize for them (as you can see in my archives) when appropriate. If you want to further discuss the edits you made, I'd be happy to. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats bs, that section was always done that way, now after all this time it against the rules? Just because your some so-called vandalism buster doesn't mean, I'm gonna kiss up to every revert you do just because you link to to some policy your problem haven't read or follow yourself. You know what even though I'm the only one updating the vid info and keep the placing correct, fuck it, have your way with the article.Good luck updating it, oh wait you don't have to worry you have idiots who replaces links with their own vids so that they can get vids to do it for you, great plan.I'll just note you as a corrupt user. Good day sir and no I won't be reading anything you have to say after this post.74.234.21.245 (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the matter with you?

Can you please look at my edits first before you revert and say its vandalism!!! Another user just vandalized that page by removing some contents of the infobox and I have reverted it! Using too much Wikipedia suppose that's why. 90.192.141.31 (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See another person you've victimized. You need to be reported.74.234.21.245 (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

90.192 creating massive formatting issues, through improperly formatted redirect templates, again, without explanation. 74.234... if you have a legitimate concern, then you'd serve yourself much better by telling me, and not trying to piggyback on my other complaints. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh shush, piggyback? My complaint alone is enough for wiki to get rid of your ass. Good day, last post. Bitch.74.234.21.245 (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mate you seriously got an issue, I was reverting that 'massive formatting issue' you fool, just go and compare my edits and seems like know you reverted my constructive edits to an un-constructive one and then changed back to what I edited with, think before you edit, Wikipedia needs users with a brain! 90.192.141.31 (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mind WP:CIV please, and that goes for all 3 of you. Shadow, can you please tell me what the "Vandalism" is in 90.192.141.31 edits? Frankly, i can spot nothing, and certainly nothing worth templating for. Besides, templates should ONLY be used for clear vandalism, and i can see no clear vandalism neither in either users edits. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I made a mistake on 90.192's format changes to that page, which I mistook for sneaky redirects; a novice error of course. The third and fourth 24 hour edits, those are to Whitechapel seem legitimate, but it was the edits to London Borough of Tower Hamlets that caught my eye as strange. I undid them once, mistakenly misinterpreting the redirect template for a full redirect. Ultimately all of those issues stem to a single IP's solo edit, an issue that could have been easily resolved had I, or another editor noticed it. Insofar as I didn't, that's my mistake. Shadowjams (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

hey, stop

hey, stop and discuss. Don't start prods. Happy to discuss here or at my Talk page. --doncram (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I was actually about to leave you a message, I maybe should have done that before going down the list. Sorry about that. I haven't touched the DAB pages that have at least one blue-link entry, but I'm only concerned about the pre-emptive national register dab pages prior to the actual page itself. The dab pages aren't really disambiguation pages when there's no direct link to the article. Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I have been creating a lot of disambiguation pages, many of them having primary red-links. This is valid per wp:MOSDAB and per recent clarifying discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. The entries on these dabs, although they have a red-link, have a properly supporting bluelink that links to another article showing the place. I do know what i am doing.

They are valid dab pages. I know this may be unfamiliar to you, but they are valid. --doncram (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the specific recent discussion/clarification: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#feedback requested on NRHP dab pages. That discussion, still open, would be the appropriate place to discuss this and get further feedback from disambiguation-focussed editors if you wish. --doncram (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not unfamiliar to me. WP:D requires at least one of the links (actually 2) to be a valid link. The ones I proded were all just redlinks to the main entries. In other words, disambiguation pages created preemptively before the article. I don't think those meet guidelines.

Thank you for directing me to the discussion. I'll take a look Shadowjams (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll be unsurprised to find that I disagree with the position you've taken in that argument, and I myself am somewhat surprised that JHunterJ and I agree on it (although disagree, somewhat, elsewhere). I'd be willing to work a compromise on the recent spat of articles I've proded. For example, postponing any decision until there's some resolution on that discussion, or perhaps removing those prods with the presumption that those pages will be created soon. Any similar ideas? Shadowjams (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss there. I have gone ahead and removed the 5 or 6 prods already. I'll pause with my dab article creating for now, will go look at that discussion. --doncram (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I've added a comment to the WP:D page. I watchlist WP:MOSDAB, but not WP:D (til now), so I'm sorry for the rather brusque act of prodding a bunch of your articles all at once. I'm sure that came across in the wrong way, so I'm sorry about that. I wish I had known about your discussion ahead of time. Shadowjams (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

After clarification, the key statement there is JHunterJ's agreement that Morey House, a dab having all red-links (with supporting bluelinks) is fine and good. It was JHunterJ's last statement there: "No change in policy either way. Any entry that has a properly formed supporting blue link is OK in a dab page, NRHP or not. Morey House is fine -- it's not an "all red-links" dab, because each entry has a blue link. That's OK on NRHP dabs and on non-NRHP dabs. So, if you're not proposing to make a dab of red links without blue links, you and I continue to be in agreement. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)".

Haha! well then I guess my disagreement with JHunterJ continues! I say that in jest, because I think those contributions are quite valuable, but I do disagree with some of the more radical stances he's taking in regards to DAB pages, this being one of them. Shadowjams (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is not helpful to PROD a page like this, as I will surely disagree, and then you'd have the option of taking to AFD, where it would surely fail. I'll look now further for wp:D has to say, would help if you could point to specific language you rely upon there, if any. --doncram (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I would have proceeded differently had I known about your previous comments. I do think those pages, notwithstanding your recent comments, are typical prod material though, and I proded them not through NPP directly, but through doing some AWB cleanup, so I didn't realize you were currently working on them either. Shadowjams (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't hate, celebrate!

Why you on my case, dawg? Where da love at? 96.239.184.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC).

Shadowjams (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thank you. You're doing an excellent job yourself! It's a shame that Wikipedia needs so many rollbackers and admin to protect it. This is the sort of thing I'd rather be doing: Shadow Tower Abyss.  Mephistophelian † 05:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You should check this out too Project Reality. Shadowjams (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

my mistake

I was wrong turns out for some reason my browser did not load the table or was taking longer to do so and it appared to me that it had a problem so you are right...i was going to revert it back to your edit untill someone else just re-edited the page... ugh ..but keep up the good work! and sorry about the not so nice people on your page who left not so great messages. You know if anyone leaves very hostile messages on your talk page you can always warn them :-) there's a template for that somewhere... keep up the great work! Evenios (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. I've had some interesting pushback lately, one of which I deserved, although perhaps a little out of proportion. I appreciate the encouragement. Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

how can I do?

I woul;d like to take TVP article to be a TV station, and Telewizja Polska to be a redirect, just like RAI or YLE. And I don't want to move, I don't want talk page and history go there, and this have my favorite revision, and it's most correct, and I want to prevent from 188.47.x.x to revert.--125.25.10.148 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)