Thought you would be interested, since you tried to deleted some his this users poor referenced un-notable articles.--Vic49 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I was curious if I could get some input on ways to ensure my article is wikipedia ready before I try to summit it again, I'm obviously not intending to do anything malice in the process of writing it, Im a journalism student and this is a final project for me, I choose a local band that has had a significant amount of press as well as good music. I've done some editing to the article you previous saw, remove direct quotes that I obtained in an interview, as well as removed sources that were less creditable than others. Shorten it a bit.. Any suggestions? --BRose9121:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IShadowed. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Blow off, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirect to Wiktionary. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er... okay. Didn't know these were allowed, certainly never read anything about them on the CSD guidelines or the like. Fair enough. --IShadowed07:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion
For your information, I have > 1000 edits. I don't need to read how to write my first article. What you need to do is read the edit summary of my new article Op47 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but edit count can mean very little indeed. I'm very sorry that you feel frustrated, but please avoid making personal attacks. Sometimes all of us need to review how to create and maintain articles, it's just a part of being a good editor--and there's no shame in that, either. I nominated the article under A10, copy of already existing article, because it is. The list already exists in the shows' main article. If you would like to change that, please remove the list from that article, add a {{main}} tag to the section in question, and proceed with your page creation. These steps will help avoid confusion between you and new page patrollers. --IShadowed17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! First, thanks for taking a look at the article The Fergies. I did some extra verification and research, and I really don't think there are any issues regarding the band's notability or the references' verifiability (lots of possessiveness there :D). Please feel free to refer to the article's talk page if you'd like more details about why I don't think there are such issues. I have removed the "multiple issues" tag for now. Eagerly waiting to hear what you think. Thanks again for helping a semi-newbie like me!
Abody97 (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the notability tag is fine, as they've been featured on numerous notable talk shows and such. However, I am a little concerned about the use of YouTube as a reference. This is much more appropriate in the External Links section (I see you've also linked it there). --IShadowed19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well I guess that might be a bit "out-of-place", that's a good point. What do you suggest as an alternative referencing of the YouTube view count? Thanks again :) Abody97 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly think there's a need to list the YouTube view count unless it's particularly necessary or significant to the article. I say this as view counts can change--fast--and aren't really an indication of notability anyway. --IShadowed20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was not vandalism. A google search would've shown you that. Please retract your comments on the user's talk page.--v/r - TP23:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did do a google search, but I don't really consider Urban Dictionary to be a reliable source. The only other option is incidental news coverage of a silly little definition... I thought we had Wiktionary for a reason. --IShadowed00:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what's on Urban Dictionary can be construed as vandalism. Easily. That being said, I did strike the message left on the user's talk page. --IShadowed01:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this stub and its history. My first thought was to send it AfD, but I read the sources and found that it didn't accurately describe what they said, so I rewrote it. However, I have been unable to find the scientific sources backing up the online sources. I searched Pubmed and Google Scholar, finding nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if there is no scientific basis for choreplay.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James Holmes
Please keep my article the was it is. PLEASE. All of my other pages were deleted and I don't want this one to be deleted as well. Maybe someone can add onto it and put more information. Please. I want something to be proud of on Wikipedia. I will further expand the article if you keep it. Heymister14 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)heymister14[reply]
Hey there! Please don't be discouraged, we really appreciate your edits. Unfortunately, I have to tag your article for deletion under A10, duplicate of already existing article, as James Holmes is only notable for a crime on which we already have a page discussing the incident and the individual in question. Please check out the requested articles page and consider choosing one of those to create. --IShadowed00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ad homs have no relevance to actual points made...please refrain
The only reason you did that was because you're on the other side of the issue. You want it merged, hence you'll ignore the actual points I made, but snoop on my page, to look for things to use (supposedly in your mind) against me. That have nothing to do with the other article or the points made. I did not violate 3RR, by the way. What you did was extremely weasel-ish and disrespectful. And a logical fallacy. Even if you were right about what went on in my talk page, which you weren't anyway. (You think the other editor was not "emotional" or "biased" in his views? You'll see it how you want to see it because you're not on my side of this other issue. Which is childish and unprofessional.) It doesn't matter though, because that's totally irrelevant to the subject, and a non sequitar. If you agreed with me on the issue, you'd not have snooped and trolled on my page, to try to ad hom, and ignore the specific points made about an unrelated matter. Yet you chose to put a link to my talk page as a response to my points about "if the perp gets an article so should the victims" emotional argument. Evading it altogether, and just trying to disrespect me, as if that somehow makes your point. Do it again, I only remove it again. Because you're in WP violation, and in fact "pushing" things. I never disrespected you, yet you disrespected me, and ad hommed, out of spite. Simply because you did not like my section. Not cool, and not necessary. So please refrain. Thank you. Jots and graphs (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained why I added the diffs to the talk page--your own comments at your talk page refute your points on the merge proposal. They're entirely relevant. Also, edit summaries like this only further demonstrate your lack of understanding for civil discussion. Have fun "reporting" me for raising concerns with your statements. IShadowed(talk)14:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, the only tag I added to your article was {{notability}}. This just concerns over whether or not the individual in question passes WP:GNG, so more references may be required to substantiate claims within the article (sources from national or international press, as local coverage usually does not suffice). IShadowed(talk)23:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. Muronen was the head designer at a low-volume heavy vehicle producer in Finland. His inventions and design work are known locally. I don't know if it is enough for notability (apart from Finland). --Gwafton (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What did he do???
Hi IShadowed, just looking for clarification. New User:Ebdavids who has just got his first article up with a little help from me seems to have made a mistake with his second effort. He got a CSD warning from you after trying to "send" the article to me for review. It seems to me that he may have accidentally created an article in main space, or perhaps in my Userspace, with the title Sandbox? Is that right? (If it is I wouldn't be surprised if it happens a lot). I would just like to know, as this section heading says, "What did he do???" - So that I can explain to him, or you could tell him yourself. Regards, David_FLXD(Talk)Review me03:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was named "Wikipedia Sandbox" and included only the name of some person, so I tagged for deletion as a test page. Thanks! IShadowed(talk)07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IShadowed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by -- Trevj (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]
Good work on cleaning citations/copyediting Amanda Spratt. I tend to overcite to avoid plagiarism problems and notability and it can make the writing a bit poor at times. : / Anyway, good work fixing. :)
Hi, I was told you were the one to talk to regarding users who are PR people getting paid to edit.
I believe Barte (talk) to be a PR that gets paid to rewrite pages according to his clients' wishes. I ran into him when I noticed he almost completely rewrote Shiva Ayyadurai's wiki a little over a month ago, and instead of being a broad overview the page was fairly vitriolic and focused entirely on the email controversy.
So, I looked up his user account and he referenced a paper he had written. He works for a PR firm in California, and his contributions seem to go in waves of creating/rewriting entire pages which tend to end up in glowing terms or, as in Shiva's case, with a strong negative slant.
Let me know if you need more info or if there's another official channel I should go through! I'm fairly new to wikipedia and mostly just do edits about law... Arttechlaw (talk • contribs) 10:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure who told you I would be the person to talk to (I'm not -- as I'm not an admin, I'm not equipped with the necessary tools to deal with this sort of situation). You may want to file at the conflict of interest noticeboard, though, where those who are equipped to handle these cases can help you. IShadowed(talk)19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi iShadowed & Arttechlaw. I rewrote Shiva Ayyadurai's article of my own initiative, consulting with on one, paid by no one, because what was there constituted original research. As I mentioned on the talk page, I did my best to cover both sides of the controversy and put in many references to notable source, and removed nothing from any other section. If Arttechlaw believes the article is now too lopsided, he/she can do the same. But if you don't believe me, do report it: I stand by the work and the lack of COI. Barte (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While provocation doesn't excuse behavior, and "dick" was not the kindest word Ishadowed could have used there, might I suggest that it's a bit of an overreach for you to chastise someone for removing your rather significant and wide-reaching personal attack, no matter what words they used to do it? Now would probably be a good time for you to apologise for that screed, rather than be annoyed that she removed it with an edit summary that didn't feature fluffy happy bunnies. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.
JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...
the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account
The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valeri Liukin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1988 Olympic Games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Felder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Griffiths (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Just a head's up, I have declined the speedy deletion tags you placed on this article, because the claim to the the best-selling popcorn in the UK is, in my view, a strong claim of significance. The article was excessively promotional, and I have resolved this by trimming it down and rewriting it to suit our style. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this article is not eligible for BLPPROD (as it had references) and cannot be PRODded (as it was previously deleted by this method) - please take to WP:AFD. Regards, GiantSnowman18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey IShadowed; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danny Wylde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
On 3 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Danny Wylde, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that porn star Danny Wylde and his girlfriend contributed a film of themselves having sex to a website that aims to provide more realistic representations of sex than are found in hardcore pornography? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Danny Wylde. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Loomspicker (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you and Cluebot NG may have gotten caught in an edit conflict at Kyle Korver. When the bot reverted edits by IP 76.238.234.12.[1] you followed with an edit in the same minute and probably inadvertently reverted back to the vandalized version of the page.[2]. So I have reverted the mixup to lead to the current revision of the page. Just thought I should drop you a note. Vycl1994 (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Hello, IShadowed. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, IShadowed. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, IShadowed. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In the Seattle area?
We are resumingSeattle monthly meetupsonTuesday, May 17, 2022, 5:45pm to 7:45pm at the Distant Worlds Coffeehouse. For the address and to RSVP, please clickhere.
Hello IShadowed! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk17:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the Seattle area? We are resuming Seattle monthly meetups on Tuesday, March 21, 2022, 5:45pm to 7:45pm at the Distant Worlds Coffeehouse as they have resumed their normal operating hours at their new location. For the address and to RSVP, please click here.
04:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.
When: Saturday, June 17, 10am–3pm & Sunday, June 18, noon–5pm Where: University Branch of the Seattle Public Library (SPL) Who: Everyone is welcome. What to bring: A laptop and power cord
Tuesday March 19 2024 6pm – 8pm (PDT), March monthly meetup, Little Oddfellows Café—new location!!!
Since our previous meeting place, Distant Worlds Café, now closes at 6:30pm, we will meet this month at Little Oddfellows café inside of Elliott Bay Book Company in Capitol Hill.
Thanks for your contributions to Jeremiah Davis (long jumper). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hello, IShadowed. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jeremiah Davis (long jumper), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Saturday afternoon, January 11, from 1:00–4:30pm PT at the Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Branch Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102)
