Shubopshadangalang

A tag has been placed on The Age of Atlantic, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 17:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've copied my content into this article, and notified Phgao. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's OK, thank for starting it, it was on my list to do anyhow & I just happened to get to it earlier today. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Maxamegalon2000 made a great point, with great research yesterday. I did a little more, stemming from a logical point of view. Rather than copy, paste, read my points on User talk:Gromreaper#Reporting User:Fernwood. Funny enough, it is section 27. Socby19 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on Asia. However, I am afraid I am befuddled by your objection to the phrase "new line-up". The line-up of a band is who is in the band. If that changes, it seems to me, there is a new line-up; and this is how the phrase is used in the music press. Bands generally only change line-up one person at a time. Could you say more about what you feel is wrong with "new line-up"? Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd say that's fair... that is a bit confusing. To me, when you say the band has a new line-up, it implies that it's an entirely different group of people, when in reality, all they did was change one member. It's more the connotation or implication there that I see as problematic, because as you say, it is literally accurate. My concern with this specific article is for people to understand that the band that is now calling itself "Asia Featuring John Payne" is a continuation of the contemporary Asia band, not a "new" band. Most of my changes in the past week have reflected that goal. This is a very confusing idea to people who may not be familiar with the band, and in my mind, one of the purposes of such an article is to concisely communicate such things in a neutral manner, and that's my motivation for that change. My impression was that the phrase "new line-up" communicated that AFJP was an entity created anew, without the history they have as part of Asia. Also, to say "Payne, Govan, and Schellen launced... with a new line-up" is confusing and almost redundant, as 3 of the 4 mentioned are part of the "line-up"; you might as well just say that they added a keyboard player instead, because that's all that means. Perhaps I am alone in this thought process, and that's ok... I don't want to edit-war about it, though I'd be interested to hear some other editors' views on this, as you and I seem to be the only ones editing this point. Perhaps this is a topic for the article's discussion page. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we can return to these subtleties after the current "debate" around the page has died down! Bondegezou (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just an update, AB banned me from editing till the 23rd because he said I was modrago, I was cleared of being modrago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mondrago I ain't going nowhere, I was falsy accused and falely banned. All their charges and reasons are falling apart one by one. I can't edit there. They still refuse to rebut my last comments. AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.60 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (moved comment) My man, AP here, AB banned me for one month for discussing this issue in an adult type manner. I didn't go anywhere near the article, he threw the book at me with a bunch of false chages, did you you see that? All those are debatable and half have already been explained...such as conflict of interests etc..., the sock puppets accusations and the redirects have been explained and were unintentional, but he brought it up anyway, the 3rr rule was over the edit war and those who were editing on the other side could have charge with 3rr, but I didn't go reporting it to anyone. They should have been charged with 3rr not me because the link existed there for a long time, it was removed by them not added spam by me. That was vadalism, not what I did. They're still accusing me of being Mondrago, I am not Mondrago. Some of the charges are accusing me of self promotion, when it is a non profit organisation that has nothing to do with me, it does promote that band as does the other or all official links. I made it clear "This was a classic Wiki edit war over a lnk that was there for a long time and has the relevant content that would not be included in the wiki article such as reviews and interviews... SUCH as is not limited to reviews and interviews (which we have BTW).... our exclusive Vintage ASIA photo gallery is such a thing that would not normally be included in the wiki article, I have the exclusive copyright permission to post those photos. Photos that reflect 1982 and the 2006 -2007 ASIA tours mentioned in the article, that can't be included in the article due to copyright permission of the photos. This is exclusive content that the official site does not carry ", based on that there is no way I can lose this. There was legal issue brought up by but I didn't know about wiki policy, but wiki policy also mentions the retraction of legal stuff and that I have done. You can even read my diplomacy to HU12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hu12 this is a case where an umpire knows he is wrong but doesn't want to change his call. To ban me from the talk page was the last straw. I can't go there anymore even if I signed up for a new account, it says no new users allowed. I need your help to carry the torch for us at this point as I contact the higer of Wiki. Sincerelry4.238.124.171 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC) ASia PReply

AP. Sorry this happened to you, but as far as I can see most of these charges are accurate. I warned you many times about the way you were handling things. I defended you on the "sock puppet" idea, and that you're not "mondrago", although if you encouraged others to make edits on your behalf that may be part of that mess... and i wonder, could someone you know be "mondrago?" (maybe you don't know they are?). As for conflict of interest, that's clearly true. And if you don't see why that's a problem, then you really don't understand how Wikipedia works. I don't know what 3rr is.. can you fill me in? I believe your site is of interest, and i keep fighting for them to view it on its merits alone, but they seem to consider your behavior above all else. Several have claimed the site is "self-published material" which I can see that it appears to be... quite honestly, and to be blunt the website looks incredibly amateurish, and gives the impression of something far beneath the quality of the content you're providing. Also, it would help if the articles on the site were individual articles, so they could be individually linked and used as references. Otherwise, any use of information on the site can only be directed at the home page, and thus has no lasting effect when the home page changes. If you changed the format of the site, possibly hiring out the design, it would be taken more seriously, both here, and elsewhere. As for the battle over the link, I think it's beyond me now. I'll do what I can, but I can't put too much time into it, and I certainly don't want to risk being banned or blocked myself. Keep communicating with the higher-ups on this (and try to be brief and diplomatic when you do). Good luck. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

To me sock puppet meant to make believe you are different people, there is no rule that I have to edit from the same PC, I think Modrago read I was battling here at wiki from the forum and came here on his own, when I found that out I deleted the thread. I don't know who that is. As far as how the site looks, well, I put it this way, it's your opinion I'm not offended, because I know how much more work it takes to build that, than say the AFJP page, (& others..read between the lines) I can build a site like that in a half hour to be frank, or buy a template with a generic picture in the back like so many official site have. Our slide show & loaded videos bring life to the site. The article on the main page from trump plaza is an official authorized article that management sent me to post, we also have official interviews on some of the members pages like Howe, and Carl etc, those are not self published. All of the Official news on the main page are official press releases sent out by Pilato management, so I don't understand what you mean by self published? The photos in the gallery are exclusive to the club, and authorized for me to post, this illustrates the tours mentioned in the article that can't be included. A lot of those charges referenced profanity and intentional vandalism. Vandalism means to destroy what was there, it was they removed a link that was there for a long time, that is vandalism, especially when it got removed when I rearranged the order of the links. Everyone of the charges are Bogus, half already explained, and the others are reaching. The only one that was valid was the legal issue, which wiki says can be retracted, and that I did. 3RR, I think I'm saying is right, is the warning(s) I got during the edit war, to stop undoing the previous edit, they could have got the same, but it was they that removed and vandalized a link that was there for a long time, but I didn't go look for an admimistrator to take my side and give them the warnings, this is what I should have done the moment my link was removed, hind sight is 20/20, I know. The legal issue is really not against US legislation, just really a gesture by wiki to try to free them from law suits, if you read on it explains if you must take legal action they understand it can't be stopped. Also, I went to the 3rd party opinion thread and they deleted it, not allowing another opinion, tell me that isn't a violation? Sincerely...AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.4 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

AP, all sounds reasonable, but if you present it in such run-on sentences like this to administrators, you'll have a hard to being heard out. I suggest taking the list of charges posted on the Asia discussion page, and going point by point with refuting those charges. as for "sock puppet" i don't think they were using a metaphor there, that's a specific WP policy term. and as for the website, it's not me claiming it's "self-published", I know it's not. But you must see how amateurish it looks, and how it could give that impression. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If amateur is putting creativity into a website then we are proud of that, each item over 80, on the main page was placed there by hand. No I may not have website like the official Tiger Woods site, who in this ASIA family does????? That would cost about 7 thousand dollars. I had many people write and tell me they love the site saying it is much better than a "Place Template Here" "pick color & add text below. You defended AFJP site being there and so did I, and it wasn't me criticizing the looks of that place, so that isn't the issue. I could cerate a site like that in 1-2 hours tops. As far a me going there to defend myself, I think you know I did a good job of fighting out of my corner, but I can't anymore because they limited all editing of the discussion page to grand-fathered users of wiki, so I can't even create an account. He charges me with a bunch of BS, and then cuts me off from defending myself. You think this isn't going to come back at them? You know who was right to begin with, even if I wasn't an angel in all my responses, I will be victorious in the end. 4.238.124.192 (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)APReply

Ok, all I'm saying about the look of your site is that it looks like something that would be "self-published" and that's likely why they thought that. But honestly, I think the site would be better off in a blog-type setup like the AFJP site. It does look really generic, I agree, but I think there's a balance to be found there. Although the hosting on the AFJP site is very slow, besides that the site is easy to navigate, and very importantly - individual articles, such as press releases, are individually linkable. I can point a reference to [[1]], but I can't point a reference to a press release listed on your site because it's part of the main page. The ability to do this would increase your traffic and make the site far more usable. Wordpress is very easy to install on your server, and it's free, and very customizable. As for your continued efforts for the site - I really don't think there's anything else that can be done on the Asia page's discussion area. You need to take that up within the administrator areas of Wikipedia, and even though it looks like the lock has been lifted, there's nothing else you can say there, as everyone is clearly against you as a user. I've tried to argue the principle of adding the link on its own merits, as I think is valid, and I think you should argue above all from that perspective, since that's what you're seeking to begin with. Whether you're right or wrong, wasting time defending yourself in that forum only sounds, well... "defensive". The link itself has validity, and only those who are objective and unbiased can effectively argue that validity. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

How is the font that much different than John Wetton official site? Never mind, not the issue, the concensus for the duration of this debate was to restore the links, they had a late rally which seemed to tie the conncensus at best. We have Bondezgodu, & Barek, has taken our side after he seen the facts and they ignored the wiki external links policy of relevant content. I have just responed on the talk page.4.238.124.228 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)APReply

(moved added text by ASIA FAN CLUB from top) What happened? It says in the external links page to discuss it on the page, but they restricted talk there to certain users. I was banned until today for sockpuppet, and I was not modrago, it was proven I wasn't.

I don't know. I have no control over that. Talk shouldn't be restricted to certain users. If you're blocked, you should state your case to people who have the power to change something. Also, I don't care. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now after today I got banned until October by KnowledgeOfSelf because of my comments there today... what did I state...the truth! Good job gettng the my space link back up. One more to go!66.19.201.49 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)APReply

Ok. Just don't make the mistake of thinking I'm on your "team" - I'm just making edits that I think are reasonable, and trying to encourage appropriate discussion before those changes take place. If your fan club site is going to be reinstated, it's going to take some convincing of administrators who are clearly against you. That's a battle I'm not willing to fight.

Can you show me some kind of documentation of exactly why you were banned? No one should be banned just for making comments on a talk page (that aren't slanderous or profane) - that's ridiculous. If you really were banned for that, I'll willingly fight THAT battle just on principle alone. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, here is the post that got me banned, he deleted this than banned until October. They don't want people to see I was falsely banned & accused. This post was removed "They may look for a crazy reason to ban me again, lock this page again, or will ignore the issue I raised. We are waiting for a resonse HU12, why is JP's official myspace page valid in JP's wiki page, but ASIA's official my space page not valid on ASIA's wiki page, please respond. I was charged with a bunch of false charges that I responded to, "officially" falsely accused of being modrago/sockpuppet, so I was falsely banned, my link falsely banned & blacklisted with NO clear wiki policy evidence as to why it was banned & blacklisted, falsely accused of self promotion when we are an official non profit organization, falsely accused of COL, COL is Citing oneself, Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, (the ASIA Fan club does not promote the private or commercial interests of the editor) & it is not promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Falsely accused of SPAM. I was readding a long time link that has no wiki policy justification as to why it was removed, I did not adding anything. Bondegezou broke down the wiki extenal links policy and stated the "except" clause as to why the asia fan club was rightfully listed, the same way hu12 used the "except" clause as to why the official JP myspace page should be listed on JP's wiki page. I am here talking about the facts in an adult type manner, please respond. I remind you all that locking this page for 2 months does not count or qualify this issue as an old or beaten to death one, comments were banned, or limited to grandfathered users, & IP's were banned from commenting on this issue, so this issue was suspended untill all bans were lifted.70.188.184.84 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)AP" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.201.195 (talk) That was it, he banned me for reason of trolling. I took the issue to those who banned me & my site and asked them questions in an adult manner, a month or so ago I asked that anthony appleyard for his opinion it because my request for a 3rd party opinion was also removed.Reply

Who "banned" you? Was it Hu12? Were you banned from editing articles, or just blocked from the Asia article? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good morning, no it was " KnowledgeOfSelf " that banned me. It appears that he did not want people to see the report that I was wrongly baned for 2 months for being modrago, as you see the report link on your page (above), the official investigation confirmed I was not modrago, and I never pretended to be anyone else, there is no rule one can't use different PC during the day, so I never sock puppeted, but I was banned for 2 months for that reason. My main IP is 70.188.184.84, that is the one banned from everything, not just the ASIA page, that is why I'm writing you from a different PC. The report says trolling. But commmon sense will tell you that it was yeaterdays deleted post I quoted above that caused the ban. If it was trolliing why not just ban me and leave the post? So he didn't want people to see that post, so he deleted the post, & knowing he couldn't ban me on that, he looked for any reason he can, reason stated "TROLLING". That anthonyappleyard post I made was on March 8, asking him to give his opinion, then yesterday I politely asked hu12 & compwhiz in a repectable manner why if no my space links are allowed, is there one on JP's wiki page, you can go there and see thats all I asked, for them to please go to the ASIA talk page and explain their reasoning.

Even if any of those are trolling which they are clearly not, why didn't I get a warning, and why was that post deleted? Evidence shows it was the post that was deleted that he did not want people to see, this is why it's off the ASIA talk page and I was banned right after that post. Thank you!66.217.145.56 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC) APReply

They just banned me because they said I added spam links? Did I miss something, 66.19.204.206 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)APReply

I don't know, but you've got such a stigma attached to you now, in the eyes of the administrators (right or wrong) that it's probably just as well that you stay out of the discussions. There appears to be a larger issue here of judging content vs. punishing users by blocking their requested content. That's something I'm working on trying to get answers about. Long story short - just shut up for a while. And I mean that in as nice a way as possible :) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The correct place to leave a message for a user is on their User talk page, not their User page. As such, your message for Nakon should go on User talk:Nakon, not on User:Nakon. TML (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

ah, thanks. i guess i clicked the wrong tab... the page was blank so i thought it was the right one. thanks for the tip.

  Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. As far as I know I've always done this. I supposed after my 8000th post, I must have missed one. Care to point out which post you're referring to? - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

here and here. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

And you have not made 8000 posts. Only 363. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fixed both. As for the number of posts referenced, see hyperbole. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

So if you have 8000 edits, then I must have.....1,000,000 :). CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it helps you to keep score, sure. :) - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could the AFJP site be used as a citation, supporting content the Asia_(band)#Asia_Featuring_John_Payne section? Since it is a "real" official site of John Payne, I would not be opposed to its use as a citation supporting that sections data. Thoughts?--Hu12 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It could, but again, the article currently reads as though there are two simultaneous lineups of the band, so I stand by my view that it should be listed along with the other "official" website in the external links. BUT, if you make edits to make AFJP more of a "footnote" in the article, as long as it makes the situation clear to avoid confusion, and make this link edit in consistency with that, I won't "edit war" with you over it. In fact, I think that would make sense. -- Shubopshadangalang (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, now that this split-discography idea has come to light, I don't think I can support separating it. The bands themselves are being revisionist with their history, and I think that's all the more reason this article should remain accurate and clarify the situation. Shubopshadangalang (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Per your comment at User_talk:E#Belcourt_Theatre_article_deletion, the article has been restored (not by me) to User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/BT, if you're interested. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've restored the page, with references. Hopefully it won't be deleted this time (especially without explanation or discussion) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm working on Hungarian Wikipedia to make Yes to a featured article (maybe my English is bad). Can you tell me, who made the artwork of Magnification? I didn't find it on the Internet. Thank you. Diaby ^talk 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I do happen to know this! it was done mostly by a computer animator named Bob Cesca. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your answer! Diaby ^talk 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The charts should only contain performances hindering on public voting. All pre-LIVE performances (aka initial Audition, Hollywood week, etc.) should not be including, because it throws off the balance of the chart in comparison to the other contestants. I included his Bohemian Rhapsody performance (which in my opinion was one of the finest this season, don't get me wrong) in the section above the chart and we could expand on the specific comments of it and how it was raved up the wazoo, he got an instant pass, etc. But the chart looks more structured without the excess.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that's your view of it, and if there's a consensus among editors then of course I'll go along with that. But as I said before on the talk page, if that's the intention of the chart, then you need to change the chart title or description so it's clear that you're limiting the information within. It's simply not accurate for a chart titled "American Idol performances" to leave out certain performances based on unexplained criteria. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I gave the chart a better description. But the fact is that Michael's audition and subsequent Hollywood audition were only AUDITIONS. They are not performances on the same level as the ones he sang live or pre-taped (first two weeks of the Top 24 were done a few days prior to airing). He sang those songs months before the show even began and they edited out the majority of his performance (as they did with most of the auditions). That's what the charts should reflect--the ones where they actually had impact on his chances. But I don't mind compromising a bit. Your chart specification was a fine idea =).--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 03:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Auditions or not, they were certainly "performances" on "American Idol". --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

"He fathers a daughter in the episode". Really? I have just watched it again, and saw nobody resembling a wife, partner or concubine, let alone any hint of sexual intercourse. and even if he had, she grew up bloody quickly. --Rodhullandemu 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, then watch it again and/or rethink how you're defining "father" as a verb... he explains that within the first couple minutes. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for reverting your changes to Mother's Day and Father's Day, but there is lot of evidence that this is the preferred spelling on english, independently of whether it makes sense or not, see the links at Talk:Mother's_Day#Mother.27s_Day_or_Mothers_Day.3F. I suppose that there might be some country where the other spelling is preferred, and we can report that on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No need to apologize :) but please see my response to that forum. I still stand by the idea that it's an error, whether commonly used or not. Perhaps in the end I'll be overruled here, but I must make an attempt to correct this while I believe it to be in error. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Aside for my admiration for your ability to think things through and apply sound logic in general, I liked what you said here[2] regarding Winters as VP before he was President. It's completely speculative, but I like it as an explanation of how someone who wasn't yet President was flying around in Air Force One. That was sticking out like a sore thumb to me! Kudos for keeping your thoughts out-of-the-box. ;) Mael-Num (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. There's really no way to know, and I think it's ridiculous how several editors are posturing over this, and using speculation to defend against what they themselves call speculation. Anyway, the VP probably wouldn't be flying in AF1, but in a time of crisis, who knows? The President himself may be hiding in a bunker in Utah. There could be any number of reasons that he would be representing the country. Maybe his official capacity is as Speaker of the House or something, but if he's trying to throw his weight around, and he's recently been elected, of course he would throw the "President-elect" title around. Again, obviously we need to stick to the facts, but I think it's possible to narrow down the year with a bit more research, and to demonstrate it with reliable sources so that it's unquestionable, like the bit about the time of year (that you originally pointed out... I hadn't considered that before, myself... I'm just championing your idea because I think it's valid... certainly don't want to take "credit" for that by any means). Thanks. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please do not suggest that you are being ganged up on. You simply hold a minority (and wrong) opinion. Suggesting that others are acting maliciously is a personal attack and incivil. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 06:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I didn't mean that to have that kind of connotation. I simply meant it as a synonym for "outnumbered". I apologize if you were offended, or if this phrase has an implied intent in other contexts. Also, it's worth noting, that comment was posted on another user's talk page, and was not intended as part of the discussion proper. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 07:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's also worth pointing out that the user whose talk page the "ganged up" comment was placed, was the original editor who introduced the whole "President-elect" argument in the first place. I jumped in later to defend the notion, and at this point at which I was being "frighteningly outnumbered" (which I don't see, from my perspective, as being different than "ganged up on") I made an attempt to suggest that this editor chime in on the discussion once again. I don't see that as being the least bit unreasonable. I do find it a bit peculiar, though that you were so closely monitoring another user's talk page, and a discussion which did not directly involve you to begin with ;) Also, I reject your comment that I'm "wrong" in the argument, especially as this is MY talk page. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 08:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Talkpages are public record. I have yours and his talkpage on my watchlist, and automatically see such changes. Your comments on talkpages are not private, and I am perfectly entitled to interact with them or with any discussion I so choose.
• "I reject your comment that I'm "wrong" in the argument, especially as this is MY talk page." What does your last clause mean? Do you mean, if you were on my talkpage you would accept that you're wrong? Go ahead! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 08:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ha. You really need me to explain that one too? Ok. All I'm saying is: "Don't think I'm going to stand for a pointless jab at me on my own talk page. I'll be diplomatic on article talk pages, but not necessarily so here." Thanks for the obvious explanation of what talkpages are for, though. (I don't see why being condescending accomplishes anything.) I never said they were "private." Just pointing out that it's not really relevant. And I reserve the right to find something peculiar if I, well... find it peculiar. Anyway, you clearly misunderstood what I meant by "ganged up" and I've already pretty much concceded to let the "president-elect" thing go, so, go away. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Comments such as "on my own talkpage" and "I'll be diplomatic on article talk pages, but not necessarily so here" show that you clearly don't understand that you don't own your talkpage. You are expected to behave here as you would elsewhere. Showing different standards of behaviour on what you consider your own territory is fine, as long as considering it your own is correct. In this case, it is not. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 08:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're wrong. I understand it. In this one isolated context, I just don't care. Now, please go find someone else towards whom to be unnecessarily snide and condescending. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 08:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry, I never thought that you were intentionally choosing to break the rules. Silly of me! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 09:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

And which rules exactly am I breaking by apologizing for my ambiguous phrasing, choosing to disagree with your comment that I am "wrong" by saying that I "reject" it, and appealing to a fellow editor for participation? Is my statement that I choose to take a less diplomatic approach in reference to my own talkpage the "Shubopshadangalang" talkpage breaking some kind of rule? At worst, I guess you're saying that I'm being uncivil, but I could easily make the case that you're doing the same, with your condescending attitude and continually pestering me (after I've not only conceded the core argument, but also apologized for the "ganged up" comment even though I had no ill intent) and such case you're only fanning the flames. Other than that, I don't have any problem being inconsistent in my general approach (such as being less "diplomatic") within the realm of different contexts. When I'm trying to convince large numbers of people of my point of view, I will be much more diplomatic than when I'm fending off criticisms of me on my talk page. I understand what you're saying, and that's all I'm saying. Let's please leave it at that. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

There was a bit of heated discussion this morning, and I've been strongly advised to step away from that article, at least for the time being. Rest assured, I'll still be around, but don't be surprised (or discouraged) if I don't participate in the discussion, at least until emotions have simmered down.

For what it's worth, I think the MOS is a slam-dunk with respect to the President-elect issue. Editors have seen the statements as to Winters' title and seen fit to leave it as such. This site also recognizes that Winters is President-elect (and that is a BBC-owned site, it should pass muster). The only thing left now is the 2008, and I think the answer there might be in other episodes, or perhaps in Torchwood. I'll take my time off to watch some episodes (yay!) and see if I can come up with something that will satisfy all parties.

At the very least, the timeline guys might want to use it.

Best wishes,

Mael-Num (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I haven't followed it much today other than to read what you posted earlier and make a general comment. The site you mentioned doesn't actually seem to be BBC-owned (?) though that is a good resource for that. I doubt that Treasury & 359 would consider accepting anything but official Doctor Who materials or a quote from the producers or writers, though. I hope your having been "advised" to step away wasn't simply because of your persistence. You made some very strong arguments (especially the MOS bit!!), and brought new information to light, that to any reasonable person would see as worth considering. As far as I'm concerned, together, we made the case clearly and successfully for every point except for the uncertainty caused by the inconsistent references to his title. To me, it's clear and obvious that foreign journalists and aliens are less accurate of one's title than the man himself. But as pointed out, I don't have a resource or precedent that enables that to be an absolute truth when faced with three other editors who take an opposite stance, so it's a simple matter of consensus. I hope that some others who see it reasonably from our point of view and chime in, but in the meantime that consensus is enough to squash the whole discussion. And, yeah, I hope the "Chronology" folks can find it of use. Thanks —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 21:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm...might not be BBC owned then. Even so, it might be admissible as it does look to have some sort of editorial oversight, it's not just some random fella's blog. I'll ask around on WP:RSN.

Mael-Num (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You might be misunderstanding the term "rules" in the English Grammar article in your change comment on Father's Day — read further to see the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar (that article refers mainly to descriptive grammar, where the rules describe observed phenomena rather than prescribing how people should speak or write). David (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

What you say makes sense, and I can understand perhaps replacing the word "rules" with something else. However, this goes beyond "normal practice" ... there are actually "rules" if you will for the usage of the language that determine what is proper for "normal practice." I suppose I could accept something along the lines of "guidelines" instead of "rules." —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with "guidelines" for now — thanks for finding a compromise. You're right that there are often guidelines for English written and spoken usage, but there's no one single set that's canonical (I can write my own, and you can write your own, and they're just as legitimate as anyone else's), and common usage varies by year, location, social group, context, and many other variables. English writers didn't used to use an apostrophe for the possessive at all, for example. David (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Da shiz. We be jammin' now. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 00:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:300px-Companions2008.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

ok, do it. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image you edited 300px-Companions2008.jpg is not the image originally in the <imagemap>, which was this one at a resolution of 500px 800px [3] — you apparently clicked through to the intermediate resolution image and not the full resolution image, the imagemap needs to be recalculated for your lower resolution version, or re-do your image based upon the full resolution image. QED —

WurmWoode^T 07:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that would explain it. I had no idea there was another option. Thanks —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted your edit in the River Song article. I understand your misconception about what people are talking about when the refer to 'in-universe writing", but it means something other than what you seem to think it does. The pertinent manual of style pertaining to this is covered in WP:WAF, specifically the section on in-universe perspectives versus writing using a real world, objective perspective. I decided that in addition to editing it out, to come here an point out the error; everyone makes mistakes, which is why erasers are included in every pencil made. :) You've got a lot of heart, and that counts for a bunch. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

And, in the future, if you find you disagree with my edits, talk to me about it, and try to avoid making a case in the edit summary; its perceived as dismissive when contrasted to actual discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added a bit more. Don't you think that's enough? I've got real-world perspective from the producer and author (including his intent) as well as a third-party source. Other than that, I can't imagine that anything else outside of explaining the character's role in the fictional story would be anything but excessive and irrelevant. Also, as for the edit summary - I'm not sure we have the same understanding of what "edit summary" means if you don't think that's the place to summarize/explain an edit ;) Thanks for kind words ("a lot of heart" etc.). I wouldn't be this big of a geek if I didn't care ;) —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 06:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll avoid removing the tag awaiting your response. If you still think this doesn't solve the problem, I'd very much appreciate suggestions as to further additions or changes. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 06:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

(ec) I think that anything that takes us "out of the Doctor Who universe" is a step in the right direction. Try to read it as someone who knows nothing about the world, because if it isn't approachable, they are as likely to read it as you would an in-depth and passionate discussion of the fluid dynamics involved in flooding across different soil types in southeast asia. I could spend hours boring you into gray hair about it, but if I make the topic approachable, you can get it. You don't have to be an expert by the time I get done, but you will have a rough understanding, which is precisely what we are aiming for in the article.

If you are concerned that it seems like a dumbing down of the episode, you need to set that idea aside. We are not here to write articles for Whovians; we are here to write them for the Common Man - as is Wikipedia's Mission. That bears repeating: we do not write for he fans, and some fans writing here will continually find only disappointment for failing to remember that Some will become Whovians if they are allowed to gently learn about the topic, while others couldn't care less, and some just hate every Doctor since Pertwee or Baker. The latter two groups you cannot do anything about, and will only find heartbreak in trying. The first group is who you should be aiming for at all times. Write as an observer, not an involved party, and you will have the right idea. Look at some of the articles for the Lost series - they are, for the most part, magnificently written.

As for edit summaries, the are used to explain an edit - until you are reverted. At that point, you have to assume your edit summary did not make an impact, and you need to ask the other editor or take to discussion your issues. Edit summaries after reverts only lead to frustration (remember how you felt when I reverted you?) and eventual edit-warring for the stubborn or stupid (often the same thing in WP).

If you have questions, ask. If I don't know the answer, I will find someone who does. We are all here to help one another learn and get better. Only ass-clowns do it for other reasons.

As for the tag removal, i don;t think we are there just yet. Maybe don't worry about the tag,a nd just keep making the sections more real world referencing than in-universe, "insider" perspective writing. Someone else will eventually remove it when the article is clean enough. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've uploaded File:375px-Companions.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You've uploaded File:375px-Companions2008.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You've uploaded File:Companions2008.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I replied to a post you made at Talk:Album. The situation needs further examination. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article Speak Up has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability - is not inherited from its renowned design industry professionals.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tagishsimon (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd love to contribute to the article to improve it. But without much lead time to do so, it's already been deleted, and unjustifiably in my view. If you'll restore it, I'll gladly make additions to it to establish notability. —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 17:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, the use of album covers in the way you're attempting isn't supported by policy and guideline. All of these albums have their own articles, where images of the album covers already exist. We don't need to replicate the images onto the band's main article. Very few band articles even have album covers on them, and the occasions where they do it is usually due to strong secondary source notability of the album cover relative to the band's history. Populating this article with 25 album covers with the majority of them just saying what the cover is, is not supported. This directly fails WP:NFCC #3a minimal use considerations and WP:NFCC #8 significance considerations. Lastly, whether a usage qualifies as fair usage or not is really besides the point. Our policies are a superset of fair use law. The usage you're wanting to do is very likely legal under fair use law. It;'s not, however, acceptable under our non-free content policy. I've re-removed the images. Please do not restore them, in the very least until you find secondary sources relating to the album's cover regarding the band's history, significance, etc. Otherwise, this is pure decoration and unneeded as the album covers, as noted, appear on their album articles. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're mistaken about the origin of this– I simply reverted a change that removed them; it was not I who added them. Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Yesoteric, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yesoteric. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on River Song (Doctor Who). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've made a few isolated edits on the page in the past couple of days, and have engaged in a reasonable discussion about a larger issue. That's hardly an "edit war." Please save your warnings for those actually edit-warring. Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You made three reverts on that page in the past 24 hours -- one more is blockable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

What I'm doing is hardly an "edit war," and, honestly, I don't like being threatened for counteracting ridiculous edits, just because they occur in particular quantities during one day. I guess I'll stop doing my part to keep that article accurate for a while, then. Anyway, didn't the 3RR used to be about reverting the same edit in repetition? Surely that was the "spirit of the law." —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nope -- as far back as November 2008, it just states "3 reverts", not 3 reverts of the same material. The spirit of the law is to work out disputes on the talk page, not in the article text.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Interesting (re: 3rr). Anyway, I've been particularly vigilant with this article throughout its history, and I've been more active on the discussion page of this article than just about anyone, and I've been discussing a larger issue around one of those edits for the past two days. The removals and reverts I've made recently are 3 entirely separate pieces of information in the article. So, warning heard and heeded, but I really think your energies are better focused on stopping actual "editor pissing contests" which this isn't ;) Thanks for policing, but all is under control here (and sorry for overreacting before). —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You might want to take a look at my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Edit warring and breaking 3RR: not always the same thing! Seems you've come a cropper from this template the same way I did. U-Mos (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thing is you seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to achieve by altering the prose text on River at Companion (Doctor Who). The idea was, like with the Third Doctor's UNIT friends, to state that she's sometimes considered a companion without asserting that she definitely is. You've changed it to read that she IS a companion, which makes the whole section redundant. If she's in the Eleventh Doctor table, anything else can be expressed through footnotes as with other characters. (Incidentally, the bottom paragraph doesn't read correctly since your edits but I am unable to change as I'm not 100% on what your intended meaning is.)

The problem is, asserting that she's definitely a companion for series 6 presents difficulties. The source only calls her a "companion", it doesn't specify any particular episodes and it's hard to use that to say she's a companion in series 6 but not 5 or 4. But conversely, I don't think anyone considers it correct to call her a companion of the Tenth Doctor. If she's in the table, it means she has to be added to Template:Eleventhdoctorcompanions and the articles for specific episodes, and despite the slight narrative change I mentioned on the project page I don't feel there's really enough to distinguish between series 6 and her previous appearances. That's why I feel that we should leave her off the companions list until she travels with the Doctor properly (for want of a better term). U-Mos (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I think I understand your intent a little better now. But my problem here is that "led her to be occasionally named as" is vague and passive at best, Original Research at worst. As you said, the source simply calls her a companion of the Eleventh Doctor… but that's the source we have, and so that's all the info we have to use in the article. All other detail as for what episodes that applies to is secondary to that, and would need to be sourced wherever possible. I know the chart is set up to do that, and that is tricky with this character being so unusual. But removing the solidly sourced info and instead stating it the way you did to me is not the solution, hence my revisions. As for the bottom paragraph, I simply tried to rephrase it so that it read more definitively… it was your sentence originally, so I'm not sure what to say about the intended meaning beyond that. Waiting until she travels with the doctor more, etc., in order to ascertain details - maybe I'm missing something in what you're suggesting - but to me that just sounds like editing based on Original Research. Oh, and thanks for catching that Time Of Angels thing… Impossible Astronaut would be right. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have no problem with losing the word occassionally, though I stuggled with that bit as we actually only have one source so I couldn't exactly say "some sources". The source we have is not definitive, and we cannot use it to say she is a companion. What we can do is use it to say that some consider her a companion. As for waiting for her to fulfil a more definite companion role in the series, I don't see how that can be OR. If a character travels with the Doctor between stories they are undisputably a companion in those episodes; it is only with clear and definite sources (such as those provided for the Tenth Doctor's many one-time companions) that others are listed. So waiting for River to be an undisputable companion is hardly OR. And I do think that's the right way to handle it. She is a companion, and can be sourced as such, but is not in any episodes broadcast yet (and might not even be played by Alex Kingston when she is).

I'm going to copy all this onto the project page so the discussion can continue there and any other viewpoints can be heard. U-Mos (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with almost all of this. The source is absolutely definitive. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article The Age of Atlantic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable comp

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article The Age of Atlantic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable comp--PROD was denied by adding an unreliable(?) source citation. The only assertion of notability is that it is amongst the first of compilation albums from a subgenre of rock.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Age of Atlantic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Age of Atlantic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You should know better than to edit-war on any article such as Rory Williams but since you did edit-war, I'm hereby formally warning you to stop or you will be blocked. The talkpage is there for a reason, so get a consensus there before further editing in this matter. Regards SoWhy 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the warning, but I haven't violated any policy thus far, and don't intend to. If you look you'll see that the only edits I've made on this article lately are asking for a source for unsourced information by adding a "citation needed" tag, which I've been actively defending in the discussion against another editor who insists sources are not necessary for unsourced information in this particular case. Other than violating rules such as 3RR (again, I don't intend to) are you warning me to stop defending WP policy on this article against those who seek to make special cases to supersede it? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not care why you edit-warred and neither does Wikipedia:Edit warring (to quote: "Don't use edits to fight with other editors [...]"). There is no exception in that policy for the edits you made and violating 3RR is not required to be blocked for edit-warring.

You made the same edit thrice although you clearly noticed that someone was disagreeing with you; neither edit summaries nor edits are a way to resolve this. Your view might be correct or it might be incorrect, again, I do not care. There is a huge discussion at the talk page about it and you should know better than to make such edits instead of participating in said discussion. Please do participate in said discussion instead. Regards SoWhy 16:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I believe you are mistaken if you think I've made edits "instead of" participating in the discussion. I actually started that particular discussion for that very reason, and sought to discuss and defend it rationally multiple times between edits. And I've again asked for other editors to chime in. So far, only DonQuixote has chimed in, and he's been removing the "citation needed" tag without adding either a source or a valid WP policy reason why a source is not needed for information that is otherwise purely an assumption. Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, the point was that you edit-warred instead of solving the problem with discussion. There is no use to explain to me why you think your edit-warring was correct because I will not take a side. I will, however, block anyone I see continuing to do so. If you are willing to stop edit-warring and only discuss it at the talk page, then my job here is done and you have nothing to fear. Regards SoWhy 17:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree with your perception that I didn't try to do that. I did everything possible to remedy it via discussion, and I stand by asking for a source for unsourced material, and insist that another editor reverting those edits is the culprit of the edit war. I have observed the 3RR rule already, and ceased making edits to allow time for other editors to chime in per my request in the discussion. So, respectfully, your job was done here before you started :) And I must assume you've given similar warnings to the editor who reverted my "citation needed" tag repeatedly.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did not say you did not try to do it nor do I think so. But once your edit was reverted, the next two reverts you made were unnecessary and in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia:Edit warring. You added it, it was reverted, so the next step would have been Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, e.g. requesting a third opinion, asking for input at a relevant page like WT:DW or WP:RSN, starting an RFC etc. Since you didn't do so, I had to assume that you think reverting is a valid tool in such conflicts and thus the warning was issued. I issued the same warning to DonQuixote as well and I will block him as well if I see him to edit-war further. Again, if you were not planning to make further reverts, the warning was of course moot but there was no way for me to know that based on your behavior. Regards SoWhy 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Point taken. There's no way you could have known that. I'm a little overly on the defensive today (I think because of the issue over the Rory article). In the future, I'll try to seek editors from outside the article discussion to reach a consensus on the article discussion. Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

My mistake, it appears that Signal Mountain (summit) on the USGS site refers to an actual summit on the ridge [4] rather than the entire ridge. There is also a Signal Point [5]. The town's website seems to think the name comes from the Point. Bms4880 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've noticed the same issue with Monteagle Mountain - it's often true that something is called by a name by locals even if it isn't its official name. WP should mention both, but clarify the difference. Thanks for adding that info! —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Riversong.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's no longer needed. I originally originally added it in 2008 to the article River Song (Doctor Who) which has since been significantly expanded upon and improved, including newer images.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yes (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hiatus. 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) 10:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to <span style="font-size:x-small;color:#336600;">—[[User:Shubopshadangalang|'''Shada Ng''' ]]([[User_talk:Shubopshadangalang|talk ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Shubopshadangalang| contribs]])</span> ASAP.

Reminder - please read original response below. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature.

If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and if that's the case, unfortunately you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

You had me until "ASAP"…  Please refer to this policy. Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)\Reply

Also a note, why don't you want to change your sig to my replacement sig? Sheep (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how to make myself any clearer. But I'll try: I have no interest in complying with anyone who demands that something be changed "ASAP". I don't work for you. Try me again in a couple months and we'll see if I consider your suggestion. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 18:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:BRD and WP:Edit warring. Please stop reverting to your preferred content, and discuss it on the talk page. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy to discuss as needed, though I'm satisfied with the current revision. Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kids See Ghosts (album). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. See above. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, please note that I have made no more than two reversions on the cited article. A third edit was made in response to a demand for sources, which was met with the new edit. Nothing close to "more than three reversions" here. Either way, happy to discuss as needed; please see the article's talk page. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply