User talk:IShadowed

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]

Ah fair enough. I won't vote at either AfD, though, in compliance with WP:Canvass, but I appreciate the heads-up anyway. --IShadowed 21:38, 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? --BRose91 21:43, 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 Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 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. --IShadowed 07:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. --IShadowed 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IShadowed. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of Fairy Tail episodes (season 3), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is split from another article; content will be removed from existing article shortly. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis cool, see above. Thanks! --IShadowed 18:01, 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). --IShadowed 19:50, 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. --IShadowed 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove it for now, if that's okay with you :) Abody97 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you'd prefer. --IShadowed 21:30, 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 - TP 23:15, 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. --IShadowed 00:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually seen quite a lot of coverage of this. Besides, still doesn't constitute vandalism.--v/r - TP 01:32, 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. --IShadowed 01:36, 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]

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. --IShadowed 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that German submarine U-169 already had references therefore didn't need to be tagged as unreferenced. Brad (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw the external links section. Glad you removed the tag. --IShadowed 17:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hi. Would you specify which ones of the sources used in article Veikko Muronen are not reliable and/or secondary? --Gwafton (talk) 23:01, 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]

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 me} 03:09, 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]

Thank you! I'll explain to him. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 10:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[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. :)

LauraHale (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I responded on the talk page here. Good content! IShadowed (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To recharge you after all your work on Elizabeth Price (gymnast). Great job! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anaheim police shooting and protests, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a fatal shooting on July 22 was the sixth shooting incident in less than a year involving Anaheim, California, police officers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anaheim police shooting and protests. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

K, thanks Shadow! I'll look up the other noticeboard. Arttechlaw (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Price (gymnast), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that artistic gymnast Elizabeth Price, a 2012 Olympics alternate, was not picked for the five-member U.S. team even though she finished fourth at the Olympic Trials? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Price (gymnast). 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.

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that IRC may have a different view on personal attacks, but don't call me a dick on Wikipedia, even in an edit summary. That's a personal attack, in case you didn't know. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 18:27, 6 August 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.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind but I working up a stub for Tachopteryx thoreyi and I discovered you had some work in progress from 2010 so I stole it. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. 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.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

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]

You proposed it earlier than needed,and didnt provide clear reason too.Please remove the tag and comment on my talk page.---zeeyanketu ^discutez 21:24, 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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, GiantSnowman 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article still does not list any sources, only external links. My understanding is that there is a distinction. IShadowed (talk) 01:44, 13 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]