User talk:Janus Shadowsong

"And so it begins." -Kosh

Hello
Why do you insist on keeping Dawkins' irrelevant quote on the postmodern literature page?--Dreww 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Howdy. Well, it's a criticism, in a section titled "Criticism".  But if you can make a case that it is irrelevant, I'm open to persuasion.  I just don't like to see whole blocks of text removed without a good reason for removing it.  --Janus Shadowsong | talk 18:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WATCH
A particularly vile kind of villain:

66.168.44.43 66.159.181.175 24.247.218.250 216.220.18.138 69.119.204.66 208.49.141.13 Emg0493 HimMan

Gettysburg edits
Howdy!

I salute your zeal in working to keep some very good articles (the Gettysburg articles) pristine, but I would like to comment on the changes I tried to make that you reverted.

1)Concerning Gen. Schimmelfennig, I realize he was already linked, but that particular paragraph finally had something interesting to say about him, and that was the only time while reading the article that I felt any interest in reading more about him, and experienced what I considered to be a typical user's annoyance in having to scroll back up to hunt for the linked version of his name. I understand that it is silly to link every instance of any name, but in this case I would argue that this link fits into this particular paragraph considering its content.

2)Concerning the header about Longsteet's delay during the Second Day, I felt it deserves its own heading because it was more than just troop movement, it was a notable development of the battle. It remains notable to me, even as familiar as I am with the battle, that Longsteet's attack didn't happen until 4 in the afternoon.

3)Finally, concerning the red link for Charles E. Hazlett, I thought it was a general rule of thumb to remove red links. But I am still fairly new to editing Wikipedia, and not totally familiar with the policies, so I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for your time. --Steve

--Janus Shadowsong | talk 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Howdy. I process many many dozens of edits per day, so I often do things quickly. More than 95% of the time, reverts I do aren't questioned, so I tend to barrel ahead (particularly in those cases when it's an anonymous user). I'm happy to discuss or negotiate with interested parties, however.


 * 1. OK, but remove the second link to him and the style is not to include the rank in the link.


 * 2. I don't feel really strongly about this one, although I am sensitive to Lost Causers blaming JL for GB, so I wouldn't have made that choice to highlight him. The style is use lowercase on words after the first.


 * 3. No, the RoT is that redlinks encourage people to write new articles. We try not to go overboard, but almost all prominent people of the ACW get linked in our articles.


 * Happy editing. Hal Jespersen 01:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a couple of comments from a slightly different POV.


 * On #1 - while it's true that repeat links are discouraged, the WP:Manual of Style does, in fact, explicitly support the common-sense practice of adding another link when a term recurs in part of an article at some distance from the first occurence of the term.


 * On #3 - My sense of the "redlink" issue is that they are indeed discouraged, unless there's good reason to think that an article will actually get written at some point. This may well be the case with ACW figures; I'm sure Hal Jespersen would be a better judge of that than me, as I haven't really done any editing in that field (other than abolition-related articles). But, generally speaking, it comes down to "use your judgement". If there's no real likelihood of an article being written, then by all means, remove the links.
 * Cgingold 14:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

World's Smallest Political Quiz userbox
You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.

Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page.  Λυδ α cιτγ  07:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism
Hi there! I just read your, um, I believe the word is vehement, essay on vandalism. So... how do you really feel? ;)

In all seriousness, it's great to see someone getting so involved in combatting vandalism after such a short time as a registered editor. Something tells me you were already all-too-aware of this unpleasant feature of Wikipedia from reading it before you ever started editing...

I suppose I should thank anon. user -- and serial vandal -- 216.11.82.109 for leading me to your user page. This doofus had vandalized Charles Sumner (which is on my watchlist). After I reverted his handiwork and posted a vandalism notice on his talk page, I checked out his "contributions" (ironic term!) and quickly saw that -- among other things -- he had done a series of edits to David Goodman Croly, which you had already reverted, thankfully. But I also noticed that you hadn't posted anything on his talk page about it. Which is why I'm writing you this note...

Seeing as you do feel so strongly about dealing with vandals and vandalism, you really ought to consider taking the time (maybe 30 seconds) to finish the job -- by posting a warning notice on the miscreant's talk page after you've reverted the vandalism. IMO, it's nearly as important as taking care of the article itself. I'm not even an official member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit (I may get around to signing up one of these days), but I've gradually been taking that step more often; I'm probably up to about 80-90% of the cases I deal with, at this point. There is a wide range of warning templates available, depending on how serious, prior history, etc. (I think they're at WP:Templates, probably elsewhere, too.)

Btw, after my chance encounter with David Goodman Croly, I wound up giving the article a minor overhaul. Hadn't even heard of the gentleman before! (though I knew of his son Herbert, co-founder of the New Republic magazine)

P.S. - I'm adding a comment re "Gettysburg edits" (above).

Regards, Cgingold 13:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fast action....
Thanks for taking action on this artilce Sokyrko Yevgen Khalidkhoso 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering
Is there a reason you reverted my edits on Gregor Mendel? Boomshacka 09:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The reason was because the baptism date is irrelevant, and the additional information you added was unsourced.  Please feel free to re-add that information about the University of Vienna, but please cite a reference for it.  Best regards.  --Janus Shadowsong | talk 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Undone revisions to CFTR (AM)
Question ... why did you undo the addition of past employees to the Past and Current Employees section on the CFTR (AM) article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.114.255.83 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Further to the re-undone edit to the Past and Current employees section of the CFTR (AM) article... You removed the addition of past employees to the article, labelling it "irrelevant clutter added by an ip with vandal history". My contention with this is that the existing list of "past and current employees" is entirely current employees. Some of the journalists who've worked at this station since its launch are among the most accomplished and respected broadcasters in Toronto radio history. Some others began their career at 680 News and moved on to noteworthy careers elsewhere. If past employees are not to be listed under "past and current employees", the heading should be changed. To consider Toronto broadcast legends such as Dick Smythe, Evelyn Macko, Larry Silver and others "irrelevant clutter" belittles their contribution to the station described in the article. If they are irrelevant, then so is, for example, John Landecker, cited in the History portion of the article. As for the IP with the vandal history -- I can't speak to any previous edits made from this IP, as it's a shared pool. This is the first edit I've made on Wikipedia.

Many thanks for your consideration.


 * Hi there. My deepest apologies if I have pegged you inappropriately as a vandal.  I recommend creating your own account before you make any more edits.  That way, your history is your own, and not sullied by the villainy of others.  As far as the edits in question, I still believe a long list of past employees is an example of clutter, not information.  It is one thing to mention notable  present and past employees, but I believe you list goes too far.  You are right that the heading "past and current employees" is misleading, and I think it ought to be changed to "Notable past and current employees."  I have stressed the word "notable" twice now, so I guess I've made my point.  I hope you continue to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, and do not let my hyper-vigilance when it comes to anonymous edits turn you off.  --Janus Shadowsong (talk)/ (contribs) 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for...
...reverting the vandal edit on my page (or was it an edit?) - I must be doing something right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paxse (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Dammit. And I always sign my comments - sorry. Paxse 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

J.R. Richard
Just to let you know, I undid your edit and I added a Underconstruction tag to the article. I just started working on the article yesterday, and the first thing I did was expand and rewrite the introduction so it conforms to WP:LEAD. Hopefully, I can bring this to GA-standards within a few weeks. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)  20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Howdy! I am very happy you are taking the time to expand the article on one of my favorite pitchers.  I understand you are going to add more to the article, but as I wrote in my edit summary, I believe the intro is just too long.  The essense of who he was, a dominating pitcher cut down at the height of his career, is lost in details that belong in the body of the article, not the intro.  Things like where he was born, sports he played in high school, dates he was drafted and debuted, a listing of pitching categories he excelled in, an attempted comeback in the minors, release date, and the fact he founded a church and became a minister, while important to the article, are mere clutter to the intro.  Anyway.  That's my 2 cents.  :)  Happy editing!  --Janus Shadowsong (talk)/ (contribs) 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always been a fan of J.R. Richard as well. Anyway, the reason for the lengthy introduction is so that it meets WP:LEAD. Leads are supposed to overview the entire article and should be able to "stand up" on their own. After seeing the FAC comments I received for Samuel Adams (which I might add, became an FA just recently), I saw that I had to cover his entire life, not just the notable parts, in the lead. Anyway, by the time I am done with my thorough expansion, I should hopefully get this article to around ~30-40KB in length, which means it will be almost 4x the current length. Thanks, and any help with the article is appreciated. =) Nishkid64 (talk)  22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Undos
It would be nice if you could explain your undo's of my revisions. The facts are now incorrect.
 * Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.  --Janus Shadowsong  |  contribs  18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Response
I ppreciate your work combatting vandalism, please keep it up!

To answer your question: the problem with IP vandals is that one cannot be sure if the vandal acting now is the same actual person as the one who vandalized an hour, a day, or a month before. This is especially problematic with shared IPs--in the same day many different people may edit. With this in mind, it's hard for us admins to jump and block an IP if it's not clear that the current editor has received sufficient warning. (In cases of IPs with long abuse histories, though, we can be more likely to do so.) Blocking is meant to be preventative, not punitive.

In the case of, two vandal edits were made today (16:05 & 16:15) and today's talk page warning was given at 16:38. So, no vandalism occured after the most recent warning. This IP only has 1 block in its history, which (for me) isn't enough to justify preventative blocking...I did leave the notice on WP:AIV in case the vandal acted again, though.

Hopefully this answered your question... &mdash; Scientizzle 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right about the date--I missed that. I ended up blocking for 48 hours as the IP was most likely the same person (having vandlized Andrew Johnson in a similar manner 24 hours apart).


 * As for talk pages full of warnings...I hear ya. There are many issues that makes things more difficult for us working WP:AIV:
 * Many vandalism reverters don't give warnings at all (making it more difficult to justify blocks)
 * Many don't add new "final warnings" if old ones are on the page even though it's feasible that the vandal is a completely new and unwarned editor
 * Many AIV reports include "vandalism after final warning" when they're not, in fact--the final warnings are often days old, sometimes they're not even level 3 or 4 warnings, occasionally the warnings are inappropriately strong for more test-like edits...
 * The most annoying: Bug ID 9213. A several week old software bug currently prevents effective communication with IPs and there are several examples of IPs that were blocked and never received their warnings. Generally, most people are just testing and stop with a stern warning, but not so if they don't get it...


 * I'm more of a hard-liner against vandals than many admins, actually. But a lot of good contributions come from IPs, so we do have to be judicious. In the future, please add any appropriate warnings, even if you think it's absurd to keep piling on level 3s & 4s--it makes the blocks much easier to justify and quicker to happen. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

INFP External Links removal
Hi. I removed the external links in that article because they were all spam, didn't fit the requirements for external links and didn't add anything to the article beyond what it already contained. I did so on all the MBTI pages because they were simply linkfarms for internet personality test sites with copious advertising. Let me know if you would like to discuss it further. --Chuck Sirloin 00:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns on the link removal, and I agree that it is possible that one or more of the links may be able to squeeze through on the EL criteria you listed. It may make sense for add an external link or two that expands the article, but I don't think that any of the ones that were there fit the bill.  I would be glad to discuss specific examples on the talk page (probably best at the parent talk page).  As an example, on the parent page, I left some links that I feel did fit the EL criteria, such as the link to the MBTI owners.  I think that, while there may be legitimate MBTI type pages out there, a majority of pages on the web are either chat forums, online tests or ad supported sites, not purely educational ones. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.  --Chuck Sirloin 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From "stubborn Serbian":) Hi Janus. Thanx for Ur constant effort to revert me from Wikipedia:) And for Ur kindness in process, of course.But let's not fool ourselves-you're not deserve to call yourself social-libertian or whatever.The way you're changing pages when they're not following offical US policy of "good and bad boys" (cowboys and indians,eh?;)) telling me much more by itself than you suppose. Spelling? Poor english? NPOW? Goodwill? C'mon man.We're not all born in Texas,we're not all cousins of Big Brother's family Bush and whole world never can be the same as USA,whatever U or anybody over there thinking.And here,in my tribe,when our bonfire was extinguished by warlord,we also have dynamic IP's...Sincerelly,only sandbox that I can deliver to U is this:

www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ss-n-12.htm

So many happy days and pleasant nights from this hell mountains here,my friend,see ya once again...

Revert on Battle Of Agincourt
Hi- glad to see you're looking after the Battle of Agincourt, always glad to have some help! However I thought the reversion you made was a bit harsh. It looked like a good faith edit to me, to change the battle box to better match the reference. There's a case for removing it (and the edit definitely needed tidying up), but a proper edit comment would have been helpful.

Thanks, merlin --Merlinme 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. I try to add edit comments when it isn't obvious vandalism.  But to me the edit obviously didn't belong, so I pulled the trigger to undo it.  But I will keep your advice in mind so I don't revert without a good explanation when necessary.  --Janus Shadowsong  |  contribs  00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 1455
I have listed Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 for deletion at AfD since I believe that it is not notable as far as aviation incidents go. You are a primary contributor to the article and I thought you might like to know. If there are more reliable sources than just the NTSB incident report that might indicate notability. Eluchil404 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How about reading the guideline?
You said: a single scholar using the phrase "most scholars" does not constitute "most scholars". As it happens in Wikipedia it does. It is called Academic consensus if the single scholar is WP:RS - which in this case is. The guiedline says:
 * The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.

It is used all over Wikipedia. Just read it. I suggest you self-revert to avoid an edit war. The guideline is clear and has been discussed on WP:RSN many, many times. I watch here, so you can reply here. History2007 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * '''Howdy! I am more than happy to self-revert. Please provide screen shots or photocopies of the relevant passages by the reliable sources upon which you are building your case. Also, please feel free to enlighten me as to how my edits changed the paragraph in any substantive way, as I did not remove any citations or contradict any assertions. Janus Shadowsong  |  contribs  18:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Screenshots? Photocopies? That is a new one. You are not new here, so you must know that if you think a source fails verification you need to mark it as failed verification, else must AGF on the other editor. In anycase, you are no longer disputing the policy, but want to know the source. Here is a link, and you can do searches on the topic yourself, but you cannot ask for photocopies in Wikipedia, this is the first I have heard of it in 5 years. In any case, I think WP:RS/AC issue should be resolved now. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually I just noticed that you have done less than 3,000 edits, so you are probably just not familiar with the policies. Please read up on WP:RS, Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * '''I appreciate the link. I will search out the topic further as well. I am not new to Wikipedia, but I am not a hardcore editor either. I usually don't edit unless I see obvious mistakes or vandalism or a tone that is not neutral. Concerning the passage I edited, I did so because phrases like "most modern scholars" and "scholarly consensus" tend to be red flags. I did try to edit it to maintain the intent of the paragraph without a loss of meaning. Janus Shadowsong  |  contribs  22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * '''Concerning your amusement about my request for photocopies, what is the process for challenging sources? Any vandal can create a bogus citation, so how do you ferret them out? Janus Shadowsong  |  contribs  22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If an editor enters a source, all others are supposed to WP:AGF and accept it, else go to the library and read the source. That has led to huge problems in the past, but that is how Wikipedia policies are structured.
 * As for this edit, it is turning to be a storm in a teacup now. There is no huge gap, except that the existence of "scholarly consensus" directly stated by the source needs to be mentioned. That is all. The whole issue is that the source is used per "academic consensus". And I can tell you "for sure, for sure" that "most scholars" or most modern scholars are not red flags, if it is used per WP:RS/AC as here. But editors are not supposed to do personal surveys - maybe that is what you thought. Also see WP:DUE regarding "majority opinion". We should suggest a half way point and we be done with this before we are both get old and gray talking about it. History2007 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * '''Fair 'nuf. In the spirit of AGF I'll let you choose the half-way point and not try to revert it. :)  Janus Shadowsong  |  contribs  23:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, will get to it later. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)