User talk:Shadowjams: Difference between revisions
Shadowjams (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:Thank you. Looks great. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams#top|talk]]) 08:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC) |
:Thank you. Looks great. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams#top|talk]]) 08:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
Why would you re edit Tony Deniro? It is a fake page you dumb fuck |
|||
⚫ | |||
I've removed this report from [[WP:AIV]], as I don't feel comfortable blocking without more evidence that the edits are actually vandalism. Did you do those spot checks you mentioned? If you can show the edits are false, then I'll have no problem applying a fairly lengthy block, as this type of editing is particularly disruptive. [[User:Peter/s|Peter]] 13:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |
I've removed this report from [[WP:AIV]], as I don't feel comfortable blocking without more evidence that the edits are actually vandalism. Did you do those spot checks you mentioned? If you can show the edits are false, then I'll have no problem applying a fairly lengthy block, as this type of editing is particularly disruptive. [[User:Peter/s|Peter]] 13:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:07, 20 June 2010
Please start new threads at the bottom of the page. Be nice. Please tell me what page or edits you're referring to, if appropriate. Thank you. |
Current time is Monday 2024-12-02 3:14 am UTC |
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
As you have previously requested, I'm letting you know that I've now completed a nomination for James. If you think there is anything you need to add in a co-nomination, maybe suggest it on User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA and we can see what the best format is. Peter 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Looks great. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Why would you re edit Tony Deniro? It is a fake page you dumb fuck
41.191.235.34 (talk · contribs) =
I've removed this report from WP:AIV, as I don't feel comfortable blocking without more evidence that the edits are actually vandalism. Did you do those spot checks you mentioned? If you can show the edits are false, then I'll have no problem applying a fairly lengthy block, as this type of editing is particularly disruptive. Peter 13:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm highly suspicious but you're right. I'll review those when I have more time. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Grand Prix
Hello dummy the Spanish flag and the German flag and the British Flags are not the flags for Europe they are the flags for Britain Span and Germany, you Wally Europe flag is the flag for Europe.--Somali123 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is barely comprehensible. All I know is you're changing the "country" section from Germany to Europe. Europe is, at the time, a continent, not a country. You also seem to be allergic to edit summaries, which are useful when you're placing "Europe" in the field that is for nation-states. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
it only changes it to the right flag which some user decided they were going to change on every article I am simply doing what someone else did who is wrong. You have to correct things that are wrong.--Somali123 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Look, you're changing it to the EU flag, of which some European countries are not... but I have 0 interest of getting into those issues. You need to go to the appropriate talk page, or Grand Prix project page, and get a consensus, then use an edit summary, and comprehensible language, and explain why you're changing a "country" field to a non country. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- You cant warn me about an Edit war when you are the other editor so I now warn you about being in an edit war with me.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Somali123 (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I haven't undone you since our discussion, but you keep undoing all of my edits after we've had the above discussion. How about you use an edit summary and seek some consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Good call. I was trying to dissect those date issues until I saw your fix. That article's been constantly vandalized for at least the last 2 months. Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- It could certainly use some more references as it is currently hard to verify most statements in the article. But at the very least the birth date change issue should be solved for now, as i found a reference for it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's great. The birthdate vandalism on Indian articles is pervasive, but I'm often reluctant to undo it because I have no context. This one seemed like a clear example, and you cleared up not only the issue on the vandalism edits but the underlying factual issue. Most of these Indian film articles have massive referencing issues, it's incredibly impressive you were able to verify what you have. Thank you again. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Unsigned comment added by 98.215.85.137
Shadowjams, you changed what i wrote about Indiana being an imposter state. It most certainly is an imposter to Illinois, and also Larry Bird did in fact live in Indiana. Jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.85.137 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I hope Shadowjams doesn't mind me interrupting on their talk page but I just wanted to say that I too would also have reverted this edit. You've removed content without explaining why, and the sentence saying "Larry Bird also known as Fairy Turd" (something like that!) looks very suspect, it's almost looking as an attack on someone as it is looking like name calling --5 albert square (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
08:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
And again...
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Huggle use
This bizarre revert led to an angry email from someone connected with the school, and rightly so. Please be more careful with your use of Huggle in the future.
Regards,
Daniel (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Point taken. Not sure why I did that. It was a while back so I don't remember specifically. I didn't read that bottom section closely enough, which was a hint as to the problem. I was patrolling from the back of the queue (the 3 minute difference between edits) and so I only saw the second diff. That second one isn't as obvious as the first, although there is a clue in that bottom comment. I probably saw the removal of the reference template and lack of explanation. Sorry for the trouble. I've removed the warning to the IP and added warnings to the 2 accounts that made those changes, which are SPAs that each have one edit. Shadowjams (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Resolved Template
Hey There....I don't think there is an actual rule on this, but a general thing we do, but I think the {{resolved}} template goes on the top of the section in question under the header so it is more visible. Again, I don't think there is a rule, but wanted to let you know. Take Care and Have a Good Day...NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. There's a lot of unspoken (or maybe just buried) rules at ANI that I think are pretty silly, but I guess good to know. Between the done, resolved, and all the other similar green checkmark templates, who knows. Thanks for the heads up. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, not a problem :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
08:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see the article talk page before reverting again. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- And then consider rescinding the warnings you left the newbie. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like a brand new editor created a page, it had a speedy tag placed on it. An IP removed it without explanation. It was undone, since most IPs that swoop in on new pages only to remove CSD tags are actually the page creators logged out.
- That's the general case. In your case though, your first edit was to remove a CSD template (this was about less than 10 hours ago) from another similar article, 10.5:Apocalypse. You then made a couple of COI warning templates (your 3rd and 4th edits), all within 5 minutes of your first edit.
- So, I don't believe for a second you're a newbie... and in fact that history makes me all the more suspicious about your CSD removals. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think "newbie" referred to this guy. Nonetheless, it looks weird. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I nommed it because the whole thing looks weird. Could use some more eyes on the other linked articles too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Wow, you're just so wrong on so many levels. An explanation for removal of the CSD tag was left on the article talk page, which the edit summary clearly stated. My first edit was to redirect a new article to the previously existing one, hardly an incorrect edit. Finally, who said I was a newbie? IP does not equal vandal 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think "newbie" referred to this guy. Nonetheless, it looks weird. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- There's a discussion at the AfD page. I copied that comment here.
- Actually Hqb tagged it for speedy (because it was a virtual copy), and then the above IP removed that speedy... after that the creator continued to mess with it, at some point flagging huggle (mostly because it removed 3 paragraphs of sourced info), which I undid. I did that two more times until investigating further, leading us to where we are. I never actually touched the article until after the 69 ip removed the CSD tag from another editor, and XLinkBot was triggered by the editor's removal. Just for context on the above IP's comments.
Unsigned contribution by 12.73.20.87 (talk)
Thank god for the thought police!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.20.87 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, adding "you win, jack ass" 2x times to a private enterprises website is the epitome of freedom. Anyone who fixes that is a facist. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)