User talk:Shadowjams/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

SVT: The "Iowa Census Vandal"

Hi. I've found what I currently believe is an anonymous IP editor (173.31.144.162 (talk · contribs)) who has persistently and subtly vandalized over 20 articles, all regarding cities or counties in Iowa. The pattern that is emerging is that this editor changes demographic information, subtly adjusting various percentages of White, Black, Asian, and other ethnic groups. I've written more about it on my talk page and would appreciate any feedback on the situation which you'd care to give. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. The SVT project hasn't had a lot of activity lately, but I think it can develop into, at the least, a jump-off point for systems to address this kind of thing. I'm personally working on some scripts that can assist in some of these tasks, and I know a lot of people watchlist or otherwise find ways to monitor IPs that have a history of this.

I think a long-term factual vandal noticeboard is a good long-term solution, but that doesn't exist yet. I've reported some of these to WP:ANI, although I've been a little disappointed at the lack of prompt response there. If you can find the editor in a short-term spree, post it to WP:AIV with a detailed description of what's going on. If it's more low-intensity, but ongoing, then ANI is the best we've got right now. If you do that, make sure to provide detailed diffs and provide some evidence that the changes are wrong (link to the original source). We don't want to make mistakes.

The easiest short term solution is to watch these problem IPs, and undo their edits as they happen. If they go on for too long (more than 1 month) or they're too voluminous, then it's time to report them.

As for that specific one, I'll take a look, but at a glance you look to be exactly on point. Keep up the good work. Shadowjams (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Shadowjams. I appreciate the feedback. So far, I've identified two named accounts and two anonymous IPs, all of which I believe are the same person, editing over a period of several months. I just identified a third IP which had a spate of vandalizing to (mostly) Iowa-related articles back in February, but suspect it was a different person, which I find kinda interesting; just what is it about Iowa towns that's drawing this kind of attention, I wonder.

While I'm working on all of this, I'm still pondering what sort of mechanisms we might be able to put in place to catch this kind of stuff. So far, I'm afraid I haven't come up with much, but I'll continue to mull it over. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk)

I've focused on specific tactics, largely by trying to automate tedious tasks. So I've been working on (and not yet released, although I plan to) scripts that look for specific types of factual changes and flag them, and also scripts that can be used to efficiently monitor a large group of users and their recent edits (sort of like a watchlist for others). It's possible the two can be linked together too, to further automate that process. It all involves human judgment, but it takes the tedious part out of it.

Any long term solution requires leveraging the community and sub communities into awareness and into recognizing problems. Thank you for your help. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Subtle Vandalism Taskforce

I noticed you mentioned this at ANI. I wonder if this users track record will be valid input for you? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. My initial goal was to focus on changes and introduced errors, so removal isn't that. But you bring up a broader point about what is essentially a gap between short-term vandalism (that AIV handles) and long term issues that are good at ANI. I don't know much about that Mundilfari issue, so I won't comment on those edits specifically, but there are often cases of clear vandalism that are too seldom to be at AIV, but a waste of time at ANI (because they're so obvious). Shadowjams (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we treat this user as an example of a behaviour, not as a specific. Indeed we should not discuss him per se, but use his long term actions in a depersonalised manner. What we have here is a user who takes a particular route through as many articles as, presumably, satisfy a search criterion such as "Popular Culture", and then removes those sections from articles staying below the radar, and ignoring consensus. Interestingly, the edits might be considered valid if consensus is generated for them or with substantive edit summaries, or if other editors were not trying and failing to engage the editor in consensus building

So we have a vandal or vandal-like behaviour that covers articles watched generally by different editor sub-communities, and the vandalism escapes notice unless one or more individuals look at contributions records. And this is where the term subtle attracted me. It is either subtle or very clever indeed.

I hope I'm making some kind of sense to you here Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, makes sense. That's an interesting point you make, about hopping between communities, something I hadn't considered. The irony in a lot of what I've seen is how long some editors can stay inside just one community and yet evade detection. Maybe some types of pages aren't watchlisted as much as others. Shadowjams (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In many ways what we suffer from is that the enterprise as a whole is too large for committed enthusiasts to grapple with. We also can be shy of making accusations of vandalism within communities known to us. For example, you and I know each other slightly now. We have conversed. So you would be wary of accusing me of vandalism and I would be wary of accusing you. But we could each vandalise in a community that we share in careful ways and not avoid detection, but avoid accusation.

Many articles are almost unwatched. I've just created an article about E E Speight. I am likely to be the only watcher for the next several weeks until someone else adds to it and joins (with luck) the watching community. If I am on vacation for a couple of weeks it will drop off my radar.

How on earth do we detect vandalism, any vandalism come to that, in that circumstance? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. There's been a lot of success handling the more traditional vandalism. Cluebot, Huggle, recent changes, abuse filter... all work towards that goal exceptionally well. I think that's made people complacent about the more subtle forms.

One solution is to leverage the pages that are watched. So I've seen a lot of sports page vandalism that goes unnoticed. Often little pieces are fixed, but nobody goes to the sports project page and says "There's a lot of stats changing going on... anybody else seen that?" That kind of response needs to happen more, so that patterns across a community get noticed by that community.

Obviously there are structural issues: the community's huge as a whole. Some technical solutions involve automating the tedium of going through edit histories looking for patterns. I've worked on looking for date and other changes, and I've also been working on a script to track multiple users' edits over a long period, so problematic editors can be monitored easily. It would be nice to semi-automate some of the reference finding functions as well, but that is a difficult task. Shadowjams (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Now Cluebot et al are great in their role but unsuited to the subtle vandal who sticks to a pattern. They detect extraordinary edits and these edits are ordinary. Cluebot would never touch this stuff because it appears to be a real, normal edit because the vandal does nothing "silly". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What un-sourced material?

I am not adding any un-sourced material.74.194.176.82 (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You're adding, with no source, and no edit summary. Shadowjams (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding what with no source?74.194.176.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

My First Contribution - Ron Fimrite Biography

In reference to the following wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Fimrite

Thank you for the advice in your welcome letter, and for your corrections to my first attempt at contributing to a Wikipedia biography. I read the pages you recommended and found them very helpful. It has been a learning experience, and I hope my additions to the Ron Fimrite biography were useful and informative. I appreciate any guidance you have to offer. I will try using the preview page more, or even the sandbox next time to avoid so many changes on the actual article. I kept thinking I had my editing right, but found more things wrong after saving my changes.

Deafdeb (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You've had some minor formatting issues, and I hope the welcome template helped, but you seem to have your heart in the right place. I hope you continue to contribute. Thank you for your help. Shadowjams (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How to upload pictures? on Wikipedia?

MomirS (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have some great photos of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I want them to be uploaded. May you help me with it, please?

See Wikipedia:Upload. Shadowjams (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for reverting my talk page James'ööders 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamesooders has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken the giver's talk page with {{subst:MunchChicken}}!!

Fictional history of Spider-Man

Following three attempts at having this page deleted, a number of editors collaborated on bringing this multiply-tagged article up to policy and guideline standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Comments were solicited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite since May 26, and a final draft, created over a month of editorial input, was completed and put up for final comment at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement on June 25. On June 30, this consensus version, which confirms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), will replace the current page Fictional history of Spider-Man. As you have contributed to that page, we wanted to alert you to the opportunity for final comments. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What Vandalism are you referring to??

What I wrote about the piano wire is the truth, if you check several history books this is a fact,the truth is not vandalism,if you as a admin think that I vandalize a page for telling the truth. you need to be replaced. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC).

It's quite clear: [1] Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

my goal was not to vandalize, my goal was to tell the truth about what happend during hitlers terror,people needs to hear this info for future generations to know about, and Piano wire was a method of execution, if you find that to be vandalism by telling the truth, that'ä your problem, not mine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC).

That has no relevance in the Piano Wire article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, thank you, I will keep that in mind in future edits, my goal was not to vandalize but I apologize for what happend. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC).

Alan Thilak Karate School

You're probably right about A7, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. I was going to recommend PRODding the article, but I see you've already brought it to AfD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of the previous AfD and recent creation, I'd rather not waste another 7 days waiting for it to be deprodded and then have to nominate it then. Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the List of waterfalls by height Article

• Regarding the edit of List of waterfalls by height, please see User talk:111.251.196.21, Thank you. 111.251.196.21 12:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Accession (again)

I could be wrong, as I don't really understand regex, but re [2] I think it's missing a letter?

You entered:

                      find="\b(A|a)sc+es+[io]{2}n\b" replace="$1ccession"
                                       |
                                   ----|
    It's missing a letter 's' here

Shouldn't it actually be:

                      find="\b(A|a)sc+ess+[io]{2}n\b" replace="$1ccession"

Am I wrong? -- œ^™ 10:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The + sign means the previous group should repeat 1 to an infinite number of times. In this example the previous group is just the letter s. So there has to be an s, but if someone puts in 2, it will catch that as well. You could do the same thing with a group (contained within parenthesis), but as those get more complicated they drain more processing power, so they're avoided in the typo fixes. As far as I know, using the + (* does the same thing except it allows 0 to infinite matches of the previous group) on a single letter does not create any substantial slowdown. Shadowjams (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

Please explain your cryptic comment about removing information. I have spent the last half an hour carefully restructuring the article and it is highly insulting for you to summarily restore the mess that was there before. What information is missing sir? 86.45.148.108 (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Nothing cryptic about it, it's a standard warning template. I used it because the edit that showed up on my screen from you was to remove about 8 paragraphs of information. Looking at the full history, it appears you have been working on revising the page so I've undone my edit. This is a known limitation of Huggle, so this happens from time to time, and for that I'm sorry. One thing that will help guard against these sorts of issues is to use an edit summary, which you haven't done at all. That would be useful because it could give people like me a clue that your edits are thought out, and part of an improvement campaign.

Ultimately it would probably be best if you had an account, because then we could exclude your edits altogether and understand them as productive without these sorts of worry. But if you edit as an IP and without edit summaries, massive deletions will occasionally draw these sorts of warnings. It's nothing personal, just a structural issues. I hope I've explained enough, and that you understand it's not personal. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A statistically significant number of IPs use the phrase "Please explain" to begin their comments...Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A good recovery, top marks. Until the diff engine is fixed, great care needs to be taken in revising apparent blanking; the version before I edited was 55,332 bytes, my last version 55,370 bytes. So be careful where you revert, even silent IPs make constructive contributions to controversial content, and just occasionally, it's an administrator logged out watching the watchers. 86.45.148.108 (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, right. Well, it's not the diff engine, but huggle, but also the API. I appreciate your humor, and no hard feelings. Just a little word though: if you're a logged out admin you should know better than to attack someone for an error you're aware of, and if you're a logged out admin why are you refashioning Mein Kampf without any explanation and then hassling me? Come on, I'm not new. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on the huggle issue, I've done some API programming myself, and it's a pain in the ass to deal with multi-diffs, largely because it requires knowing a time or diff # that you want to reference to. The diff engine's really pretty good, but the API doesn't have an easy way to say "show me everything from X but before Y"... so you have to get the history for the article and then pull that out of it. Huggle really ought to be pulling down the sum of consecutive edits, not the most recent diff but that's hard to do with the API. I don't think the increased load would be a significant issue, given how few huggle users there are, but it would avoid this exact sort of issue. Shadowjams (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

False Revert

Just a heads up that you may have accidentally reverted a revision that was not vandalism on the Baard Owe page. Diff here: [3]. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Stickee (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You're probably right, since his birthday is today. I thought the whole point of those templates was to not have to bother with this kind of silliness though. Shadowjams (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the Manzar Page

It does not meets notability guidelines of wikipedia. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.202.210 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a nomination process for deleting articles that you should follow at WP:AFD if you're interested in nominating an article for deletion. You cannot just blank the page though. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Level 2 warning on User talk:Jkinlay

Hi, I just thought I'd mention that I feel that the user was making a good attempt to contribute by attempting to copy the syntax I was using on the citation templates, but since I assume he'd never used the template before, he didn't do it quite right. Since level templates are "no assumption of faith", I felt that a level 1 template would have been more appropriate here; I reverted his last edit and suggested that he look at the cite template documentation, but I should have left him a level 1 test edit notice or explained that he should test it in the sandbox before introducing it into an article, so that's more my fault than his. Just my opinion here really. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point, although I think my warning was for the gallery insertion and massive white space addition, not for the later infobox. In either case, that's a bit of a problem account and I think you've handled it well. Shadowjams (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Very slow

Huggle is going very slow at my computer. Pending Changes is necessary but has made Wikipedia slower. I hope they'll optimize the code to make it faster. Anna Lincoln 08:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen PC bleed over too much, but I have had serious slow-downs in relation to pending changes pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Elections Articles

I am responding to some random post you made about my Articles. If you go to the 2008-2000 Presidential Elections in Florida thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

You will see a box at the bottom that says "State Results of the presidential Election, 2000". Take a look inside, and what do you see, you see State Results from each year. It is the same from 1992-2008. If there is articles for states from each year, then anyone has a right to continue it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerbeamer (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting

You obviously know little about me, I would quite happily delete thousands of our articles about non notable American academics and businesspeople, low league footballers, football seasons, lists of fictional characters, TV episodes, Pokemon,YouTube personalities and bloggers. I regularly nominate articles for deletion and have currently voted delete opn severla articles that Jezwells as nominated. Yes I want wikipedia to be as comprehensive as possible but if you think I am an extreme inclusionist you're full of BS. I'd love to have a cleanout of wikipedia as much as anybody but blindly deleting every article which may need a source or two without assessing it is a clumsy idea. Before commenting about me in future do your homework.Whatever you may think about stubs I've created in the past you'll see that I am very much a traditional encyclopedist in terms of content and am strongly against including a lot of topics we currently have articles for. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

While I believe we disagree over deletion related issues, I'm sorry that my comment was as blunt as it was and out of place. I've stricken that part out of respect for your immense contributions. Shadowjams (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. For the record I would liike every article to be at least GA standard and I would actually prefer it if we removed all of the crap from wikipedia and made it purely an encyclopedia. But there is only so much time I have on here, It is often the choice of developing one article to GA and beyond or spreading my efforts across articles with stubs/minor expansions. Often I am stuck as what to do as the task si always so tremendous. Yes I think the BLP issue is very important should be eliminated asap but we are all volunteers so threaten with deletion tags unless you add a source NOW seems a bit mean to me and potentially damaging if we lose content which may be decent but may only need a minutes work finding citations. Anyway in current development with Nvvchar is 11 province articles of Vietnam which will be due to appear in a giant DYK see User:Nvvchar/Vietnam Province 11 (1-11). If I didn't care about quality or important articles I wouldn't be taking to time to develop them with Nvvchar who I love writing richly sourced informative articles with... I similarly care about quality in articles like Chamba, Himachal Pradesh and Kathmandu which I expanded amongst others but I haven't time to do the same with every other place article on here. Genuinely I'd nuke several thousand biographies of marginally notable people on here and fictional/sport cruft asap and filter it down to purely encyclopedic subjects if I had the choice but I guess we have to respect some people's (odd) idea of what an encyclopedia should include. Not sure how you got the impression I am an extreme inclusionist, I guess I am for traditional encyclopedic subjects like real world places, historical events, monuments etc as I want us to be as comprehensive as possible (rather than collecting any old junk). Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm now happy with the way Jezhotwells is treating articles. He is now taking the time to assess articles properly and either reference them or AFD the ones which are not verifiable/of dubious notability. I've actually endorsed most of his recent AFDs as they show he has clearly tried to prove notability first but can't which I thought was barnstar worthy. Its a much better way of dealing with the problem than slapping delete prods and firing off warnings to hundreds of editors. That was my concern, I'm glad he is now dealing with the situation well. Regards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find my very unscientific statistical survey of article types interesting. Sports articles make up about 10% of the encyclopedia by my estimation, of that half of those are football (soccer) articles.

I think my opinion about your deletion approaches are in reference to a few of the AfDs that we've disagreed about, this was a recent one that stuck in my mind. But again, my tone was off and I didn't need to even bring up my thoughts on the matter, so I'm sorry for how I did that. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well I must admit I find a lot of the international relations articles overkill. One does often wonder WHY we need an article on Eritrean-North Korean relations or something. Often the links may be significant between countries but often it does appear that the article is an excuse to exaggerate relations between nations when they often really have nothing in common. Generally I think real world content about international relations is likely to be notable, there are certainly a lot of bi-lateral relations articles which are definately valid and contain valuable information. But I agree that often it seems such articles are created for the sake of it, much like some of the countries at olympics we have sub stubs on even if only one or two competitors knocked out in first round. P.S. that's interesting seeing the percentages. I read somewhere that a good encyclopedia should be 30% geography I think... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dutch language

You reverted an edit that was quite correct and productive IMO. What was wrong with it? CodeCat (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a close call and if I encountered it another time I might not have undone it, but the problem is the lack of explanation. Obstruent is a more specific, slightly different in meaning, category of consonant. I don't know much about the topic, but I thought the change was odd without any explanation. Those sorts of meaningful changes to these specific articles are hard to distinguish between good changes and malicious ones. If you think that edit was correct, please undo my edit. Shadowjams (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well in this case it was quite correct. Only obstruents are devoiced in Dutch, not all consonants (which would include l, r, m, n etc.). And there is also a difference between a consonant and a letter that represents a consonant. CodeCat (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

HELP

Hello shadowjams , Thank you for your welcome message

Iam not sure , if you will get this message or Iam doing this in the right way

How did you know that i edited ? A re you a moderator or a regular user of wiki

Is my activities publicly visible

Tnank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiwiki (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) All contributions by all editors are publicly visible; you can see yours here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The exceptions are disruptive articles or revisions deleted by administrators, which are only viewable by other administrators, and revisions removed by "oversight" to be invisible even to admins. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Re: Derek Shiel article. You wrote: The website clearly specifies 2009. Why did you change it to 2000? The website stated that Derek Shiel performed in 2009 in an event called Futurism. However, the article refers to the period during which he was the Artist in Residence at Estorick. This was during 2000. Consequently, the wrong reference was in place. Charlesarb (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

arthur episode dates

I`m the one who is fixing the airdates. The dates and summaries and all that stuff are on the 'general ref' section of the articles. I don`t understand why you would assume I`m introducing incorrect dates when you haven`t even checked the ref links?Angiex3-2 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Because those dates have been in place for a while, and you're doing so without any explanation or any source. Why not just say how you know the particular date. You can't have possibly remembered them all. So just reference the website. Your entire history here appears to be almost entirely related to this topic, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure someone so versed could at least explain why the change. If someone changed it from the correct date to an incorrect one, please let me know. I'd be more than happy to review that editor's contributions and make sure they didn't make any other date changes that were incorrect.

I have 0 problem with your recent edits so long as you can demonstrate a cursory explanation for them. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

They haven`t been placed for a while, they were placed 2 days ago by this guy. Explaining the reasoning behind these date fixes seemed redundant after the first 20 similar vandals by (assuming) the same guy. The ref links are on the page anyway, but I guess I see your point. I`ll try to explain my reverts next time.Angiex3-2 (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am committed to trying to figure out how best to stop this sort of sneaky vandalism. It's a very hard issue, as our discussion has demonstrated. I'm sorry if I affronted you too aggressively. Any kind of feedback like this can help.

I think one of the best solutions is if everyone who watched an article like that who saw a vandalism date change added a warning to the vandal, or maybe noted the editor. Too many dedicated editors simply remove the issue from the article they're watching without noticing the same editor made a dozen or more of the same changes.

Thank you for your input. I'm curious if you have more thoughts on the issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted^^ This can be a very frustrating issue as much as it is difficult. And just to add to the issue, the person making these vandals is using a proxy (i`m assuming), so he just keeps coming back after getting banned and continues his act. It`s been going on for months now, and we`ve yet to come up with a permanent solution.Angiex3-2 (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we spend a lot of time dealing with that, and others (not me) are good at tracking down socks and similar edits. I am a little curious about the June notice on your talk page about the incorrect dates, but I think the fact you haven't removed it also suggests an honest editor with an honest issue of fact (I have one above too).

If you have ideas about how to reach other editors like yourself, that is, aware editors who edit a select range of articles, and watch them, but who aren't daily wikipedia editors, I would appreciate any input. I think we need a better reporting system for these kinds of subtle errors. Obviously in the end it requires finding sources, but if we can cut down the number of chaff to sort through, that's a start. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don`t know a lot in the field of reporting systems, so maybe the IRC discussion rooms could be better help. I`ve basically given up trying to stop these vandals because of their anonymity, but if someone can find a better method to prevent the sneaky vandalism, I`d be willing to follow.

About the June edit, Checker Fred was noting me of a discussion on this page and it was resolved before I saw the notice.Angiex3-2 (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IRC is good, but it's pretty inside and transient. Good if it works, but it's a relationship game and that doesn't scale well. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD exists

neutral notification. Collect (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hei

You are silly? Waht I vandalized? 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.211.61 (talk)

How many times would I need to change birth dates, add useless sources, and make other statements, after being warned, without an explanation or source, on a romanian wiki before I was blocked? A few? We're silly savages here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you confused me with someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.214.155 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Never spoke to anyone at that IP, but I'll assume you're the same as the above. This edit is a problem. Shadowjams (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake, was with not intention.

Why did you said that edit was vandalized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.226.187 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your ANI comment

I've recfatored your comment slightly in the interest of readability. I hope you don't mind. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Shadowjams (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nov 20

Thanks for your comment. I was reverting a previous bad entry but was usurped by Xqbot and didn't notice that I was resinstating the vandalism. If you check my contribs you will see that I am a regular DOY monitor and there was no malice on my part. KenDenier (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry it even showed up on your account, because I don't remember your name coming up as one I meant to revert. Sorry for the cross-fire. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking request

Please may you block, or at least issue a final warning to User:208.71.184.41 Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggydude (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator so I can't issue blocks. Those edits were clearly a problem, but the IP hadn't been issued sufficient warnings and hasn't vandalized since. If there are additional vandalism edits from there though, you should report them to AIV. Shadowjams (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

xiu xiu

hello. you keep reverting what i edit, saying that one reference contradicts what i corrected. so i added references--THREE references--that correctly stated when the band first started. 2002. There is ONE reference linked there that says 2000, but that is wrong. it is possible that in this democratic and egalitarian internet world that a reference can be wrong. that is why i provided three more that say otherwise. i wish you would check the other ones that i linked to, before putting up the wrong fact again. and how do i know for sure that my references are correct? because i'm IN the freaking band. thanks. oh and another thing--it's not "inconstructive" to delete irrelevant information. having more and more useless information, facts that are exaggerated or distorted is not constructive. for a long time i've been trying to clean up this page, and make it actually relevant and correct so i don't keep getting stupid questions at interviews, but have been unable to. if you can give me any tips on how i should change incorrect information, besides providing correct references, which i did, that'd be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.196.118 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What concerned me is that the article's had that statement since 2006, and it's sourced. Take a look at this old revision. Of the three sources you added, 2 sort of say 2002 and 1 says 2000. The xlr8r cite says six years (written in 2008), but the south coast today article says "nearly 8 years" and it was written in 2008. The Seoul today article suggests 2002, without saying it's the creation date.

I was working with the idea that the 2002 date referred to the first release, not the creation. I won't undo more changes of yours on that article, but as for tips on changing incorrect information, cites are good and edit summaries are especially helpful. In fact, any kind of edit that changes some factual information should have some sort of explanation. That way when people are patrolling recent changes they can understand the change, instead of just staring at a changed date. You'd be surprised how often that sort of thing goes on: people changing small bits of information to introduce errors.

If others undo your changes, you can discuss it on the talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you note for "The Adam Carolla Show" page move

Thanks for helping to clean up my "copy-and-paste move" mess on the page(s) for The Adam Carolla Show. I haven't done any heavy editing in a while. It was laziness, yes, but I didn't realize I had the capability to move pages myself. Another WP learning experience! Thank you, good sir. :) --ManfrenjenStJohn (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The only remaining issue is the secondary page of The Adam Carolla Show (terrestrial radio)/version 2 that was created because of the history there. Of course, unless you changed something in that first edit, I don't think that history's important. The only editors are you, me, and searchbot (and then Anthony Appleyard when he did the moves), so I don't think there's any copyright concerns that necessitate keeping that page. But I suppose it's not hurting much (except maybe the possibility of side vandalism and confusion if people find it). If you want you can give it a {{db-g7}} or {{db-g6}}. Everything else looks in order. Shadowjams (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

making header for an IP that won't follow directions

Arriva Buses Wales Article:

It was stated that Arriva announced that the entire fleet was now 100% low floor, which it isn't and so I changed the article to tell the truth: "eighteen step-entrance buses are still operated".

Rowan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.109.90 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Provide a source. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. You can't have 100% except for... 100% is 100% and are you saying that someone can't follow directions or that I can't follow directions? Maybe you could help me out then? Sources shouldn't matter anyway because information should be correct not incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.109.90 (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, have you ever had a ride on a Volvo B10B Wright Reknown? It's a step entrance bus. Why the hell is it in a "low-floor" section and why haven't you provided any pictures of an example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.109.90 (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on that source. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you're not getting it. You've been a real idiot and you're pissing me off. I have to go now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.109.90 (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No source, no explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

proper use of BLP prod

Cristian Bălgrădean was an inappropriate BLP prod. He was asserted to be a member of a highest level national football team. Such things are trivial to verify--in this case google news alone led to dozens of refs. It is unconstructive to prod them instead of verifying---it just throws the work on other people; there are enough truly unsourceable new BLPs to delete--and BLP prod is also useful for the difficulty ones, as nobody can find them at the first pass. fwiw, I've personally deleted over 10,000 articles as an admin, including all the truly unsourceable BLP prods I can find. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the BLPProd means what it says, and the article was created after the date, was unsourced, and was about a living individual. In light of the concerns that animated the whole BLPProd in the first place, its use now has been watered down to obsolescence anyway; the one source requirement doesn't begin to address the underlying concern that created the whole push; there is a team of editors that quickly spring in to either provide the one nominal source, or to asses that a link to the person's facebook page or own website is a sufficient source. So I disagree with you that proding unsourced BLPs is inappropriate, in black-letter or in spirit. To the contrary, if its had any success it's been in forcing evaluation of these articles instead of letting them languish behind claims that Wikipedia's never finished. There is no additional requirement that imposes someone else's judgment call about the difficulty of finding a link. I do quite a bit of work on New Page patrol, often cleaning up formatting on new articles, tagging as appropriate, and cleaning up page moves and naming conventions. That work dwarfs the rather small deletions I make. The person who threw work was the person that created the article in the first place; it had to be fixed either way. I moved on and fixed something else. Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

hey there

Hey Shadowjams,

I was editing Kyle Muir's page, adding his independent work (little known cult following) citing links to his comedy works: http://smokingoutthewindow.blogspot.com/

and http://www.youtube.com/user/cottoncabin, respectively. Legitimate links and legitimate, albeit obscure comedian here in Canada.

Thanks,

Ron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.67.145 (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Well, incorporate those links perhaps a little more encyclopedicly than saying "Muir also has these hot comedy sites I found, David Blane yo", and no issues. Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, sorry about the misunderstanding bro, I was excited after seeing his show. Bear with me, I am not computer literate by any means -- how's this?

Muir also has a bit of a cult following for his side projects:

http://www.youtube.com/user/cottoncabin

http://smokingoutthewindow.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.67.145 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll put your links into an external links section at the end. Maybe in the next few days you can try and put them in as references, if appropriate. I'll remove the warning too. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Shadowjams,

Sincere apologies for the kerfuffle, not technilogical at all over here!? I just think Muir's external comedy links deserve mentioning, especially after tonight's performance. Have a listen, how to describe?

Thanks,

RG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.67.145 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I understand the instinct, thanks for commenting here and discussing. Hope you'll come back and edit again. Shadowjams (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

IP

hey there...sorry to blank this but im not sure how to flag any one down...requesting HELP on reverting from this vandal 24.218.178.242...multiple pages need reverting!!!! i been tryin to flag sany one down...i even blanked 2 pages to try to get help on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.3.2 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem? How did you single out me (not a problem, but I'm curious how you found me)? You would probably best be served by bringing this issue to the administrator notice board. Shadowjams (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

recent changes...looking for some one who was reverting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.3.2 (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be adding the same domain to a lot of radio articles. That might be problematic, but do you have any other background that would be helpful? Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

yeah...i clicked that link and it set off my avg...not nice...it's an automatic download when you click it...thank god for avg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.3.2 (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. I'll create an ANI note, and add your discussion here to that. I'll add the link to that discussion here in a few minutes. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

k thanks for helping. ummm one more thing....i need to revert some of my own edits...i blanked some one elses page to get attention...lol...sorry bout that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.3.2 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reported the issue to ANI. You should undo those edits. I wouldn't suggest being disruptive, even to prove a point. Particularly given the fact your IP has had a past history. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've rolled back all of those edits and reported the remainder to ANI. If those edits are illegitimate the domain will be blacklisted. Thank you for your help. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

hey, no prop...i like to help...and..hey now...i saw your comment...lol you have nothing to worry about me. this is aol...funky ip servers...im in az and my ip is cali...its not 63. my ip according to whats my ip and myspace tracker (profilesnitch) is 207.200.116.8...to learn who i am... http://www.myspace.com/holy_bible_ministries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.3.2 (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

now, it could be that my avg reconized that link as malware due to the link doing anm automatic dl. if it is not malware that would be cool. but i do know or at least it was policy not to have links that were auto dl. you are right on one respect about me. years ago i was an rc patroller.63.3.3.2 (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you would, please add something like this to the ANI discussion. The IP you referred to posted a long message there. I have no issue with being cautious, but your perspective is relevant there, as are future messages. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

done. 63.3.3.2 (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

ADCC Page.

Ive been making correction on the ADCC Submission Grappling Championships page.

Every correction ive made is correct, and im wondering WHY youve undone my corrections? Im not very versed on wiki use, or id cite my sources. If you are curious of my sources, by all means i can show you, and you can make the correct edits with citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.21.109 (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've restored your edits and removed the warnings. Thank you for your note. My only suggestion is to use edit summaries. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Im an avid grappler, and the ADCC is one of my obsessions. I own a majority of the events, and have been working on keeping it correct, and unbiased. There was a piece of info about Brock Lesnar entering ADCC 2011 that supposedly was made by his coahc, but i removed it since it was revealed by his coach through his personal Facebook page that he never made that statement.

Also, i created and have been editing Murilo Bustamante's wiki page. But ive noticed that it was put up for a nomination to be checked for its neutrality. It says "This section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (July 2010)"

I dont know what i should do to address this? Everything stated is true, and has been checked by the subject himself, as i train Brazilian Jiu Jitsu under Him.

Any advice would be great, and also if i could obtain the ability to display photos? I have several pages i could help with photos that i personally own of subjects.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.21.109 (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to upload photos you should create an account. Then you can do that. Accounts have other benefits, namely you can establish an edit history so editors grow to trust your edits, and give you the benefit of the doubt. A lot of the wiki system revolves around a trust but verify mentality, and a good edit history simplifies that process.

If you want I can drop a welcome menu at your IP talk page, which is actually a really good way to learn some easy edit stuff. Frankly the whole wiki community is hard to pierce, but if you do, I think you'll find it welcoming. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure that would be great. I will be sure to create an account. It is probably for the best, especially since i want to continue to create and add to pages.

Thank you for all your help. Its greatly appreciated. --71.105.21.109 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your help. This is my account name. Thanks for the info on my IP talk page.

Take care.

--HalfGuardMike (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Chery QQ

Hello Shadowjams, I honestly don't know how much the Chery QQ costs in the Philippines, but US$700 seems unlikely. $7,500 seems more reasonable, but I honestly don't have a clue. Maybe the user who provided the change can give a reference?  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. You're probably right. I looked into the IPs edits a little more, there are a few other edits that are a little unclear [4], a lot of portal box removal, but no other red flags. I've rolled back my edit and put a CN tag on there. Thanks for catching that for me. I'll see if I can find a source for a price. Shadowjams (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the conversion factor from PHP to USD is more accurate for 349,000 to $7,500 than 49,000 to $750. Shadowjams (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[5] That was the problematic edit, with a talk page of warnings. Coincidentally I was the last person to warn them too. Thanks again. Shadowjams (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice sleuthing!  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NatDemUK's ban discussion

Hi Shadowjams, you might want to take another look at the ban discussion for NatDemUK. Another user (AnmaFinotera) has posted additional evidence of disruptive editing by NatDemUK in addition to the evidence I presented; AnmaFinotera's post documents instances where NatDemUK has made death threats and used IP socks to edit-war (one such IP sock was blocked for three months for this behavior). Stonemason89 (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to sit this one out. I don't know enough about the underlying editor and issues and I don't really have the time right now to figure out how I'd feel about that editor. My point I think was echoed by most other wikipedians, which is to say that while I may vehemently disagree with someone's opinions, my personal ethics require that those opinions, however despicable, be spoken and struck down only by reason, not by force. As much as I'm disappointed that the editor's ideas still have currency, I'm much more thrilled that more than a few wikipedians agreed with my approach. If someone like this violates rules to make their point, I'm all for a block, but no matter how right I think that I am, I don't want to silence someone who honestly disagrees with me, even if they're wrong. That's why we have specific rules that center on disruption, but not ideology. I fully support that approach. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Weather radar

Hi,

I've seen that you have made some editing in this article. There is one I don't think should be done : radar wavelengths are universally given in centimeters. Nobody talk about 4 inches wavelength but 10 cm. Even the US National Weather Service use metric units in its publications as in this one. WeatherUnderground use it too in this one. These two papers done by Airforce and NOAA researchers are naturally done in metric too : History of Operational Use of Weather Radar by U. S. Weather Services. Part I: The Pre-NEXRAD Era., History of Operational Use of Weather Radar by U. S. Weather Services. Part II : Development of Operational Doppler Weather Radars . Althought this is not critical, I think you should revert to metric units only. Pierre cb (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I actually wasn't all that conscious about those particular edits, because this is part of my general suite of edits to do conversions using the convert template. I guess this is a special case example. I have no doubt that scientific discourse would use the metric measures. I guess the question is if the standard measures would be useful to a reader. I can go either way on this. I'm fine if you undo my edit (or I can roll it back myself), but if you would give me your honest opinion if you think the inches measures are distracting. They may be... like I said, I can see it both ways. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As per the examples, wavelength in centimenters are like a person's name in an historical article : Giuseppe Bertini is not translated to Joseph Bertini. The first instance of the equivalent in inches might be left for a non familiar reader with metric units, however other occurences should be left only in metric as I see it. Pierre cb (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Q8 at my RfA

Hello, Shadowjams. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joe_Decker#Questions_for_the_candidate.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your question (#8) on my RfA! Please let me know if I need to elaborate on anything. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Data

Hi Shadowjams,

You messaged me, 24.23.55.199, about citing a reliable source on this edit to Religion in Hong Kong. However, as you were certainly unaware, the source is already cited. Whatever user originally cited the data entered the wrong data. You will see on this page, which is cited as the first reference on Religion in Hong Kong, that it specifically mentions "43 percent" rather than "70 percent" as shown in the Wikipedia article. I will change it back to 43 percent. Hopefully, this clarifies things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.55.199 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the fix, and explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing all of the naming issues with the articles created by Pat.moriarty92. I think I've finished cleaning up all of the implausible redirects and fixed up all of the links. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I left a message at their talk page about it too. Strange since those articles are good, but they were all misnamed. Shadowjams (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a copy/paste problem. I believe what happened is that the problem first started at Wishin' and Hopin' (Grey's Anatomy). The Infobox that was used didn't have the space. The subsequent articles were created chronologically with a copy/paste to start and I suspect that Pat didn't notice the missing space and it just kind of cascaded from there. We caught up with the article creation at the penultimate episode of season 3, so hopefully the error won't continue to be propagated. That's just my guess, though. =) I left them a follow-up note, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI... I discovered that the episodes summaries from all of the articles that Pat created were copied from various sources. New articles have been created since the spacing issue, so at least that problem has been resolved. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did notice a warning about that after our initial interaction with Pat. I kind of assumed it was maybe a sentence that tagged it, but is it more serious than that? I suppose that would explain the rapid creation of coherent articles, although I honestly thought they were legitimate. Shadowjams (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

edit war

The other person involved in the edit war is clearly a provocateur. You should stop him! --151.16.75.72 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WOW, I mean, I just thought you were removing templates for no good reason, but your answer fixes that.... I mean, I figured he was some diplomat readding a template, instead I guess he's "clearly" a provacateur... which we all know is about 3 steps above communist.... well, thanks for clearing that up. DONE Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:

I'm a sysop and bureaucrat on it.wiki, and often people I block on it.wiki try to write to me on my en.wiki's talkpage (it's Italian, not Spanish), actually I don't think ip should be warned since he shows to perfectly know what is wrong with his edits (i.e. or i.e. 2), it's quite self-spam and I'm sending a lot of stalks on #wikipedia-en without finding an sysop to block him :| --Vituzzu (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Italian, not Spanish. Well, I've warned him, but on English wiki at least one warning is generally required, particularly for what you're discussing. I've done more to warn the editor than you have, which is a little problematic too. I'd suggest filing a 3RR report for the editor, and acknowledging that the rules here may differ from the wiki you're familiar with. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you like try taking a look at this and this and this, noting that 151.16.72.0/21 claimed himself (on it.wiki) as the subject of the page and both this and this are quite socks: it's not a 3RRR issue but just spam :) anyway thank for your patience. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

He's having a good time above. He's well past 3RR, so he's at AIV now, although it's not very active at this time of day. I'd imagine some action soon, and I support your underlying position. That IP is being disruptive. Thank you for your response here. Let me know if I can help anymore. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll ask Snowolf or you for some infos about how to make a deletion request and ask for a checkuser about Coffetime2 and Ennio Annio (anyway I'll soon block them on it.wiki too) finally I would like to notify to a largest number of sysop the issue and make clear that a block 151.16.72.0/21 could be the only solution (fortunously is not an high-trafic range, I think it's used on wiki by that vandal only).

Dealing with Italian messages often people who writes to me on en.wiki don't know English at all, I would be really glad to don't answer at all (most of are trolls: i.e. Borgolibero is).--Vituzzu (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take a look at WP:ANI, if you weren't already aware of it. Snowolf isn't a checkuser, and I doubt that a CU will respond to something like this. After all it's already an IP, so CU leaves little to gain. Shadowjams (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I know: I'll ask Snowolf for infos. I mean a CU on two users (Coffetime2 and Ennio Annio), furthermore a CU could check (via useragents) if there's some other user in the /21 range in order to know if the range could be blocked without "side effects". --Vituzzu (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just found this, I did a filter for this kind of vandalism ^^ --Vituzzu (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancha_Tattva_(Vaishnavism)?diff=375879946

Image is not removed, but image map is made: image just became clickable. See: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ImageMap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.109.138 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit to List of Pi Beta Phi sisters

Hello, I made an edit to list of Pi Beta Phi sisters. I changed Julia Moore to Julia Compton Moore. I was told it needed to be cited due to the policy of verifiability. I understand the policy. but I do not agree that it should be used in this instance. SImply put: when you follow the link to Julia Moore, you are led to an article about a poet from the 1800's. The Julia Moore article also says nothing about Pi Beta Phi. The List of Pi Beta Phi sisters said "Julia Moore" was a woman who took care of soldiers during the Viet Nam War. Now, when you go to the Julia Moore page, the top offers a suggestion for if someone is looking for the wife of Hal Moore, a Julia Compton Moore. I clicked on this, and found that THIS is the woman who helped soldiers during the Viet Nam War, and was a member of Pi Beta Phi sorority, as it states in her article. I do not think there should be a citation included because the original link was incorrect due to misdirection of the WIkipedia website, which automatically directs anyone looking for any Julia Moore to the page about the poet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.252.200 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ivychina Page

Hi Shadowjams,

I am Felix Wang, the former president of PAPEA which is the host of Ivychina program. Since I graduated from Princeton University, both PAPEA and Ivychina are not continued. Princeton University is requiring me to remove the related stuffs on wikipedia. Please help me delete that page. Thank you!

Best regards,

Felix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix.s.wang (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well Felix, I'm not an admin, so I can't delete pages, and even if I was one, contributions to the encyclopedia are licensed irrevocably, so Wikipedia is under no obligation to remove them. If they don't meet guidelines then they can be removed. See WP:Deletion for more info. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lorin McCraley

Hi Shadowjams. You recently tagged this article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G7, but I don't see any evidence that the author blanked the article or in any other way expressed a wish for it to be deleted. Am I missing something? Favonian (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that you wanted to use G12? The article was a blatant copyright violation of the actor's IMDb biography and has now been speedied as such. Favonian (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't remember that particular one and I can't see it now to refresh my memory. Was it done with Huggle? If it was there's a good chance I hit the wrong reasoning button for it because with Twinkle I'd probably notice the lack of copyright entry field and have changed it. Shadowjams (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not clear what your are asking...

You mentioned on my talk page that I "need a chance to respond". It is not exactly clear to what I am being asked to respond. Please ask me directly, because I would like to respond, but cannot respond to generalities. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone else was suggesting you take a break on the second amendment articles and I think you need an opportunity to respond to those issues first and I also think the time suggestion was too long. There was also a discussion on the talk page and WP:RPP. I figured you were away from the computer and didn't want people making decisions without hearing your input first. Shadowjams (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This was in relation to the WP:AN3 report filed by an IP. Obviously you're online now and able to respond. Shadowjams (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding !vote at ANI

Hey Shadowjams - this is regarding your !vote at the ANI discussion titled Misconduct by TK-CP - misusing Twinkle, attacking, not applying good faith. You left a good and fair reason for opposing to revoke TK-CP's use of Twinkle, but after reading your message, it sounds like, at least to me, that you may have misunderstood the situation. You state that "users are entitled to remove talk page comments without any explanation", which is entirely true (and leaves TK-CP with no problem for himself), but the edits of TK-CP's that are under question are not the ones in which he reverted talk page comments without reason, but rather, the ones in which he reverted rather clear non-vandalism comments on his talk page as vandalism, after being warned about not doing it several times. That goes against WP:VAND and WP:AGF, and possibly even WP:NPA, if one considers reverting a non-vandalism edit of an experienced user as vandalism a personal attack. I state those policies and guidelines since you state that there is zero policy reason for this. I just want to make sure that you and the situation are on the same foot (if your !vote is still oppose, great, I understand your reasoning - it just sounded to me that you may have misunderstood the scenario). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I haven't been dealing with the issue on an ongoing basis as you have, so I'm less familiar, but I was just less concerned about the talk-page use than others are. I would be much more concerned about the off talk page use. In either case I think there will be some sanctions and hopefully that remedies the situation. The wiki has to walk a fine line between what needs to be addressed in terms of civility (calling things vandalism that aren't is part of that) and what's going overboard policing the precise term people use to describe problematic edits. Shadowjams (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sam

AS I SAID ON THE THING ITS LIGITAMET AND I WAS GETTING A REFERENCE. I HAVE A PUBLISHED BOOK. MY FANS MIGHT NEED TO WIKI ME. TAKE BACK YOUR SPEEDY DELETION OF 'SAM SNOWDEN' CHEERS, SAM SNOWDEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSnowden (talk • contribs) 09:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I took the liberty of putting your comment at the bottom of my talk page, as typical convention would suggest, not to mention the black bar at the top of my page when you came here to edit it. Since you decided to respond in all caps, I'll assume you're shouting, and very interested in whatever it is you're saying.

The page you created about yourself (presumably) isn't the least bit notable, and a recently released romance novel isn't sufficient either. I'd advise you to look at the links on the talk page message I left you. Shadowjams (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fan club

Oh well. Look like your fan backed himself into a corner with the personal attacks. No problem on the reverts. Triona (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have lots of fans. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2010 (UT

yasir_183

I removed some portions of the article, "district swabi" because there were some informations which were not verifiable. I am looking for true informations, with reliable sources and after that I will compose them again in a correct form. Thank you.

No problem. I reverted because you removed most of the article, but in your subsequent edits you've shifted things around so I think the issue's resolved. Shadowjams (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

HYPOcrite

Medical Food updates were perfectly legitimate. How do you talk about Metagenics at the bottom or let them post their web site. Either remove it or allow other medical food companies the same courtesy. I think you are missing a huge amount of information regarding the therapeutic effects of medical food and the types of products available to the consumer. I feel that your endorsement of Metagenics is a blatant violation of your own policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.155.215 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing anything, nor do I have anything to do with any advertising additions to that [or other] article. The medical food article is about medically provided nutrients used for people in the hospital, often through an IV. It's not about consumer food products. If some other company is advertising then you should remove that, but it doesn't give you the right to add advertising to it. If you want to create a separate article about consumer products then do so, but be aware of our policies on advertising and notability. Shadowjams (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Housing at Brigham Young University

I am thinking I will try to merge the Brigham Young University campus page into the List of buildings and/or the main university page. GreenwoodKL (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that'd be fine. The only concern would be the size of List of Brigham Young University buildings which is big already. I don't mind big articles, but some people might use that as a reason to split it up, creating more headache managing that transition. Something to consider. I think either way is fine. Shadowjams (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Peopleofaustralia

hi um this is regarding you trying to delete my page please don't it's vocalistix it's totally legit and i idle these people so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopleofaustralia (talk • contribs) 08:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Add sources and a hangon tag. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. matt (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism of page James_Cameron

I suspect that the user User_talk:Dashbullder has done vandalism of page James_Cameron in Personal life section. I have done revert 2 times. I dont know of right way to handle this matter, can you pls look into this. -User_talk:Abhishikt -Abhishikt 19:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I looked at the recent history. Dashbuilder had some issues that sparked an ANI discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive596#Dashbuilder. However his/her recent edits to that page don't appear to be vandalism. You should be careful in using the term "vandalism", as there's an increasing trend for people to become dogmatic about its technical misuse. The first edits were disputing the reliability of those sources and looks like a very normal Bold, Revert, Discuss, cycle. I don't see any discussion on the talk page about it, which is what the next step would be. That appears to have been unnecessary too because 2 days later Dashbuilder is leaving the bulk of the statement, but only removing the source he complained about, but while leaving the other. I have no opinion on the accuracy of the edits you two are discussing or whether or not that source is appropriate. If you disagree with its removal though you should discuss it on the talk page. If he reverts it again, don't do the same until there's been at least an attempt at some discussion. I'll leave a note on Dashbuilder's talk page too, suggesting this as well. Let me know if I can help again. Shadowjams (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I'm I'm impressed by your thinking shadowjams --Dashbullder (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're both going about this the right way, and I think that Abhishikt found me because of some vandalism patrolling that I did on that page, and I think I tagged one of his articles for speedy a long time ago, but other than those random paths that've crossed, I don't know much of anything about the issue. If there's continued disagreement about that source, you've got some venues for discussion now. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your responce. As per your suggestion I have started a talk topic on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Cameron#Personal_Life listing all sources and references as why Dashbullder's edits are inaccurate and asked Dashbullder to respond on that. -Abhishikt (talk) -Abhishikt —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Total Armor

To:Shadowjams, みんな空の下, wiooiw

From:Dltl2010

Date:11 August 2010 19:50 (GMT+8)

Re:Total Armor

Total Armor was an arcade game existed in Hong Kong during 2009 and now it is not avaliable anymore. You can find some info of this game on www.game3talk.com (http://www.game3talk.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20043&extra=page%3D1) I write the article as it forms part the history of arcade game, even it is not very popular. Also, please note that this article is still work in process.

Lastly, to decide whether an article notable/have to be deleted or not basing on the search results of google is silly. In fact, the info of Total Armor can be found on internet is not much, so I start writing an article on wiki in order to make it more informative.

I always welcome opinions and proposals, but please be constructive. Thanks you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dltl2010 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2006 Ohio State vs. Texas football game

If this game were to be deleted, shouldn't the 2005 Ohio State vs. Texas game be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afm2105 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen that other article, but if it's like this one, then yes. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just seen your comment in response to my joke about the GA status on that article. I think people just copy and paste from other articles and change the data as applicable. I know for example with every article I create, there's no way I'm manually putting this > Template:Infobox martial artist in every time by hand, so I just copy an older article I've created. Sometimes, that ends up with oversights leaving other people's names in a new, unrelated article. Anyway, I'm guessing that was the GA bit, but it didn't half make me laugh. Never seen it before! Paralympiakos (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that's what happens a lot of times too, although with the semi-protect it means they're coming from a page that already had a lot of vandalism, which might be interesting, or might just be a function of the page being high-profile. Shadowjams (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It likely means the page they're templating from is currently protected, but that doesn't really mean anything does it? I could template from a completely random page, that is unrelated to a new article and one I've never edited before. Therefore, it has no relevance, it's just darned amusing, especially with a GA template! All the best anyway! Paralympiakos (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

You have proposed a merger of Matthew Hopkins with Matthew Hopkins in popular culture, but you have not presented your rationale for the proposal at the discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 12:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I completed the merge that someone else didn't properly finish. The rationale's pretty obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it isn't, or else I wouldn't have split the articles yesterday. That it's "obvious" they should be merged is not an argument in favour of a merger. The approach has been used successfully with other articles like Adolf Hitler and the Gunpowder Plot, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You should ask User:Travelbird. I was merely cleaning up his merge template. Shadowjams (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Travelbird didn't say the rationale was obvious, you did. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:CSD

Hiya, I just want to make it clear that I don't have a negative reaction to your post at WT:CSD; people should be paying attention to any unintended consequences of clerking, including any effect it has at RFA. It sounds like you don't want to see clerking focused at CSD, and it's still early but it looks so far like most people think the same, they want clerking to be focused at the relevant noticeboard(s). (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the comment here. I don't think your response is negative. As I said, there's a bureaucratization that worries me, and the times I comment at WT:CSD I feel like I'm swimming upstream. My concern is that as we specialize areas the only people that care to be there (that can overcome the cost of entry) are those with some vested interest and sometimes those interests neglect other considerations, often not even out of true bias but just out of personal focus.

Anyway, broadly your idea probably deserves more consideration than I (and others) initially gave it. I think the clerking terminology is scaring people. Clerking makes a lot of sense at SPI, where a few number of CU's have to quickly asses hard problems. CSD is a lot quicker. On the other hand there is something motivating about a semi-official title like "clerk" that might be more effective than just project volunteers. Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to try to get over to WT:RFA later tonight and talk about this stuff, please join us. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted "non-constructive" edit

Hi! You seem to have reverted one of my last edits: [6] Could you please elaborate on why the addition of Jupiter Cantab (a company obsolote since 1983) to the disambigutaion page Cantab was a "non-constructive" edit? --80.99.216.1 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You want to explain why it was productive at the same time? Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A friend of mine was referring to a computer named Cantab, which I've never heard of before. After some Googling, it turned out to be one produced by Jupiter Cantab. Does this addition violate any guidelines policies or whatever? --80.99.216.1 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I made a mistake with that. It's been readded and I've cleaned up the dab page. When I looked at it I thought it was adding a promotional link. I should have looked into it more carefully. Shadowjams (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa... Slow down

What are you doing? You've made well over 50 edits in the last 40 minutes to sports articles, every time changing the stat date and an initial stat. Are you pulling these out of some source this quickly? You need to explain what you're doing and what the sources are for your changes. Also, use an edit summary please to explain. Shadowjams (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) above copied from user's talk page

Listen man, I'm just updating the stats for these players. Some of them are more than a month out of date. All of these are from ESPN.com. Its not like I'm pulling these figures out of my ass. NBAfan321 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then explain what you're doing when you do it. I see a flurry of changes and no explanation. Since you're going by team (I think?) then copy paste in your source to the edit summary, or even better, the article. Shadowjams (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet the next 51 edits are without any explanation either... Shadowjams (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect of 2011 Coca-Cola 600

I redirected the 2011 Coca-Cola 600 to the 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series article. Wayne Olajuwon (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What Now

I Corrected this page. you have changed it back to its incorrectness.

i know the years and the years are incorrect, that is why i changed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Test60spro (talk • contribs) 09:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be possible based on the off-air dates and the scant IMDB info I can find. However, it's been listed as those dates from the first time they were added here, and while I don't doubt you're correct, you need to explain that in the edit summary. I see even on your change back that you didn't use an edit summary. That's critical when you're changing factual information like this. Also, how are you sure that it's 2004? If you're reading it off a source, put that source in there by using the toolbar and selecting the reference tool. That way others can verify what you're changing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

user Avionics1980 - vandalism

Hello Shadowjams..

I saw the note at the talk page of Avionics1980: [7]

This user is also doing an edit war in articles in the region of Thrace i.e. like Komotini, Xanthi, removing the turkish names of the cities. We had already a discussion in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece#removing_of_names_in_Turkish_in_Greek_cities_of_Thrace_where_the_Turkish_and_Pomak_minority.. and according to WP:NCGN it is normal to cities where the population speaks 2 languages (in these cities Greek and Turkish) both greek and turkish name of the city to be present in the article. The user Avionics1980 does not discuss the issue and makes edit war in these articles.. How we can notify and administrator or what we do about these edit-wars?

I already sent a note to the talk page to this user..

Best regards,

Ggia (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you just completely destroy my page?

Lemme see if I get this perfectly correct-you completely wiped out my entire page specifically dedicated to Pulmonary Valve disorders, I was not nearly done at all, you did not include Pulmonary Valve Regurgitation nor Supra valvular or Sub valvular challenges, and just DELETED the WHOLE thing?! That does it, I am DONE dealing with Wikipedia article writing. You guys are absolutely ridiculous! I spent hours of one day only to find on the very NEXT day ZERO information?! For MONTHS there was no article on it! You could have WAITED...ONE day to let me check my e-mail?! Now I see why people go thru and destroy other wikipedia entries. <shaking his head> I am astonished and disappointed. Unbelievable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambein (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What a strange response. I say that because I went out my way to engage you on your talk page, expanded "your" article, cleaned it up, added sources, and then merged it into a more appropriate title, all the while informing you, actually attempting to engage you, on your talk page. Surely you're not unaware of this which is all clearly explained not only on your talk page but would also be obvious when you were redirected to the new title. Did you even look at the page? You need to reevaluate the way you're going to communicate here because I would have expected most people to have thanked me for cleaning up [8] the article. Shadowjams (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)