User talk:Shadow1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Shadow1/Apr2007. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

How to post on my talk page: If you're making a new section, click the + button at the top of the page and post your message that way. If you're commenting on an existing section, click the [edit] button next to the section title, and use an appropriate amount of colons to indent your message, for readability. Finally, make sure you use ~~~~ to sign your name; just typing your username isn't enough. Taking these steps makes it a lot easier for myself and various bots that deal with my talkpage to edit it. Also, please note that in almost all cases, I will reply to your message here, to make things easier for other editors to read.

Archives /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Jan2007 /Feb2007 /Mar2007

Contents 1 Futuristic Sex Robotz: Speedy Deletion 2 No bot problem 3 Toolserveraccount 4 Christine Guldbrandsen fan 5 Shadowbot reversal diff 6 Shadowbot3: Thank you 7 What happened to Werdnabot? 8 Shadowbot! 9 Regarding Donald Kerr 10 Sorry to Say... 11 Adding 2 relative websites 12 Batu Lintang camp 13 Spam Blacklist 14 Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007. 15 Shawn Michaels 16 Blake Lewis 17 Talk:Rule of Rose 18 Please fix 19 Please remove Save OU Sports from list of spammers 20 Follow up to your response and repeated request to remove us from list of spammers 21 Imani Hakim 22 Purevolume.com

[edit] Futuristic Sex Robotz: Speedy Deletion

What do you mean when you say the page "has a long history of deletions." Does that mean edits?

Spira12 17:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it means that the page has been deleted a lot before. See the page log for examples. Shadow1 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No bot problem

Got a message on my talk page about your bot reverting something...but whatever it was, I fixed it and there's no problem. I tried to link something about six times and failed because I'm an idiot (occasionally). =)

[edit] Toolserveraccount

Hello Shadow1,
please send your real-name, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.

[edit] Christine Guldbrandsen fan

Hallo Shadow1...

My name is Leifang12 and I have made a Freewebs site about a Norwegian singer named Christine Guldbrandsen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Guldbrandsen And I wanted to put my site up here because people would see my site and maybe give her more fans! I think this is a good way to help Christine Guldbrandsen further in her career when we "fans" can discuss our opinions about her. http://www.freewebs.com/christine-guldbrandsen-fan ... It would help a lot because there are so many people on wikipedia. I can’t see why it's a problem to have my site on the article with Christine Guldbrandsen. There is not anything with Spam on it. At least I have been on 5 different computers and there never got a Spam thing up on my screen.

I hope I will be able to have my freewebs site online here.

Leifang12

[edit] Shadowbot reversal diff

Please see diff. I am a Recent Pages Patroller who reversed an edit.

I do not appreciate receiving a Spam message on my talkpage when I am doing a reversal that was reversed by your Bot. Please correct. Ronbo76 00:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Undo text to Shadowbot's reversion detector. Thanks for pointing this out! Shadow1 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowbot3: Thank you

Thanks for running Shadowbot3 since Werndabot went down. I appreciate it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad I can help. Shadow1 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to Werdnabot?

I heard Werdna was quitting, but he still kept his bot running? I didn't see a link to the FAQ on this. But the whole archiving bots are sorta one of the most important and famous things in Wikipedia. SakotGrimshine 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what happened. Werdna essentially said that Werdnabot was gone unless someone wanted to fix it, so I took on its archiving job under the User:Shadowbot3 account. I'm beginning to think that I'm the maintainer now, though. Shadow1 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowbot!

Your bot messed me up! I was trying to insert a picture, but it screwed up the page. I might request something to other monitors... =6 Meldshal42 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot is programmed to remove Imageshack links, because they don't render properly in MediaWiki. And what do you mean by "request something to other monitors"? Shadow1 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IT WASN'T AN IMAGESHACK LINK! Oh MY God! I meant I might tell someone that your bot is A-N-N-O-Y-I-N-G! Is that hard to understand? Look, I'm sorry, that I'm unworthy of your presence. I'll leave now. Meldshal42 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In your phrasing, yes, it is hard to understand. Shadow1 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Donald Kerr

Your article, "Donald Kerr", has not been recently updated. Therefore, I suggested it be deleted from Wikipedia.

I'm sorry about the above sign. I messed up. Meldshal42 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to Say...

Hey, Shadow1. I just discovered when I traveled to their page that SakotGrimshine has been (gulp) H-A-C-K-E-D! Pretty Sad... Right? Meldshal42 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about what that's supposed to signify. Perhaps you could elaborate (on both of the sections you've posted to my talkpage)? Shadow1 (talk)

What if I don't feel like it. Nevermind my stupid work. You and all the great wikipedians just stand thinking, "Oh, I've been on Wikipedia longer than you, so that makes me better. THAT'S RUDE IF YOU DON'T KNOW! Oh and if you're so high and mighty, how come you didn't realize I had three. Can't you count oh great one?! Meldshal42 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would choose your words carefully. Some users aren't so lenient towards incivility and you may find yourself temporarily blocked. Shadow1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding 2 relative websites

Dear Shadow1

I tried to add two links to relative, and of high value of information websites, to this page [1]. The first website has contents in English which is very important for the English speaking visitors of that page. The second website has more information about the city than all the other websites together. I am not affiliated with any of the above websites, but I really want my city to offer its best resources in order to describe its beauty to full extend. Both websites appeared on the external links list for many months and I wonder why know are excluded from it. Suddenly became spam? Don’t misunderstand me, but I see to the list of websites that there are not only commercial websites, but also websites that have a very small amount of information and they are not our best of ambassadors to the Internet medium.

Thank your for your valuable time. I am at your disposal for any more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.124.179 (talk • contribs).

Hi Shadow, I reverted this user removal on sight, and saw afterwards that he was removing his own message. Since I don't want to mess even more with your talk page, I put it at the bottom and leave his message alone. Sorry about that ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batu Lintang camp

Shadowbot has not only removed a link I put in, but a whole load of text editing, images etc too that I've been working on today. I'm not that familiar with reverting so could you put it back to how it was immediately before Shadowbot got involved and I'll manually remove the imageshack link that it didn't like. Ignore the edit I made after Shadowbot - that's when I first noticed something was wrong and before I realised just how much Shadowbot had screwed up the article. Thanks. I don't know how to link to his revert so you'll have to look here [2] - he was only involved once. Jasper33 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you fix it please! I see you've posted on this page since I made my complaint - I'd be really grateful if you could clear up your bots mess. Thanks. Jasper33 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lucasbfr has sorted out the mess. Jasper33 10:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, you can find a link to Shadowbot's edit (click the "last" link next to its edit), then click "Undo" to revert its changes. Shadow1 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Blacklist

The folks at ANI directed me to you. It seems that this site needs to be added to the spam blacklist. The pertinent info can be seen at ANI. thanks. -- Pastordavid 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Added to Shadowbot's blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Pastordavid 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn Michaels

Hi,

I made some edits to this page, and was providing very good, external links for this article, to enhance it so it is at the very best standard. Here is the link. I firmly believe it is a good link. Can you please not revert my edits again.

Many thanks

Please don't. I'm trying to make good edits only for them to be reverting. What have I done wrong apart from try and make an article better. Davnel03 09:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are reallly annoying me, WHAT THE HELL HAVE I DONE WRONG????????? Davnel03 09:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, calm down. Obsessedwithwrestling is on the blacklist because of someone (not you) spamming that link (and the case is quite severe). That means that, at this moment, that link can not be added. You can refer to the article, but do not use the external link. Wait for the moment, make a note here or on shadowbots userpage (as you did), and then add the link when shadowbot does not revert the link anymore. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blake Lewis

I want to add a myspace blog link from the blakergirls blog because it is an interview that they conducted with Blake Lewis, and I thought it had useful tidbits reguarding Blake. However, Wikipedia won't let me add it because the link is blocked by spam. Is there a way I can add it? Va girl2468 23:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Rule of Rose

Hi. I noticed that a few weeks ago you were involved in a dispute over a link to a fansite at Rule of Rose. Well it is still going on, and while it does appear that there are support votes to include the link (I gave weak support), things just aren't calming down at all. Could you maybe re-visit the discussion? Thanks. Not a dog 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

nevermind. I was bold and just added it myself. Not a dog 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please fix

Hi. Thanks for catching a poor choice of citation (one url). Could you please take a look at this edit and restore the other things you're removing? Thanks in advance. -Susanlesch 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done an attempt at fixing. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, looks good. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 07:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove Save OU Sports from list of spammers

Dear Shadow1,

(This message was also sent to Dirk and Threses, also Wikpedia administrators. The issue we are dealing with is one people who have apparently reported me as a spammer want to cover up. We are airing the consequences of a major legal issue involving U.S. Universities, Title IX of the U.S. Civil Rights Law. Those who want to keep us quiet about its effects on American university sports have a very strong POV on this issue that they conceal by promoting U.S. university "revenue" sports (football and basketball) at the expense of Olympic and other sports that do not generate the kind of money these "lesser sports" do. Please read below to see what we have to say. Also, please remove www.saveousports.org from the list of spammers on your site. In preventing us from posting our links, you are depriving people of important information about Title IX and other current information they should be able to read.)

I believe that you may not be aware of the intense controversy in the United States surrounding a federal law - the Civil Rights Act, of which "Title Nine" or "Title IX" as it is often called, is a major section. Title IX has been used contrary to its original intent by university athletic directors to cut "minor" sports programs so they can use the money they save to fund their favorite "revenue" sports - sports that bring in revenue through ticket sales - sports like football and basketball.

Our issue with Ohio University is that it used Title IX as political cover to cut sports so it could have more money for its football and basketball programs.

This is not as much a point of view as it is a major trend affecting all United States universities - Olympic sports like track and field and also swimming and diving are being cut just so uniquely American sports like American football can have more money.

This unhealthy trend is contrary to the law. If you want independent confirmation that this is a major legal controversy in the US, then check out Title IX on Wikpedia and also on Google.

Wikpedia is used by high school seniors and their families during the process by which they choose a university to attend. Wikpedia's Ohio University web page was undoubtedly used by freshmen now attending Ohio University to select the school. Those same graduating high school seniors also had other university options. If the kind of information we have attempted to make available on Ohio University had been available to them, they would not have chosen that school and would now be attending a university where they could continue their athletic careers uninterrupted.

To give you some more perspective on how important this information is, unlike most European public universities where tuition is free, students at US universities must pay full tuition in addition to their living expenses. (I know as I lived in Europe for many years.) Selecting a university to attend is a MAJOR financial decision for any middle-class family since attendance is expensive. Keeping our information off this site deprives prospective students from learning information that may be decisive in their choice of a school. Indeed, in deleting our information and preventing them from knowing this you are cooperating with those people who wish to conceal this major controversy from prospective students and is a disservice to them.

The section on Ohio University Athletics dominates the page on the school. This is disproportionate to what the school has to offer. It appears that the page is managed mostly by Ohio University's Athletic Department, which, like most athletic departments at US universities, is more concerned with athletic honors than about helping student athletes graduate. Graduation success rates among the "revenue" sports at US universities are far below those of the minor sports or of the student bodies in general. The page promotes athletics, apparently at the expense of other information about the school. Shouldn't it be reduced to be proportionate to its importance to the school?

We are new to Wikpedia and will do our best to comply with its rules. We do not wish to abuse this privilege. However, in the interests of fairness, equal time, proportionality, and perspective, if we must limit our contributions to this particular page, shouldn't the athletic section be reduced to something proportionate to its own importance at Ohio University?

If you go to Ohio University's official website, http://www.ohio.edu/ you will see that Ohio University athletics is a relatively minor part of the university and does not deserve the prominence you allow it on the Wikpedia web page. Indeed, what you allow is essentially propaganda and the Athletic Department's POV on its own importance (very inflated) in the whole of the university.

If we are to be prevented from providing what we consider is very important information on Ohio University, then we ask you to reduce the size of the section on Ohio Athletics to something proportionate to its importance and stop allowing the Ohio University Athletic Department -- and its most active supporters - usually prominent business people who benefit financially from their association with university athletics (see the OU athletic web page section on Bobcat Boosters for independent confirmation - car dealers and other businesses) from using your service as a recruiting and propaganda tool for its own interests.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Save OU Sports

I can't find any information about this alleged controversy on Google. Wikipedia is not a place "to get the word out," it's a place to represent verifiable information in an unbiased manner. Your link is not being removed as some sort of cover-up, it's being removed because it falls under our conflict of interest and neutral point-of-view policies. Have you discussed your edits at all on the relevant talk pages to determine whether other editors want the link there? Shadow1 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up to your response and repeated request to remove us from list of spammers

Thanks again for responding. For your reference, here are the first few links that appear when using Google first typing in "Title IX," and then "Ohio University:"

http://www.ohiou.edu/ohiotoday/fall_winter98/features/title9.htm

http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/articles/2007/03/29/opinion/18498.html

http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/14500.asp http://www.timedfinals.com/05042007/complaint-filed-against-ohio-university-with-office-of-civil-rights/ Those immediately above report legal action with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights involving Ohio University and Title IX. If this legal action is successful, it is being described as a possible "benchmark" legal action that could open up a wide range of law suits against U.S. Universities over the use of Title IX as justification for cutting sports programs for reasons that are, in reality, budget reasons.

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1175417229173270.xml&coll=2

http://www.wcpn.org/news/2007/01-03/0327titleIX.html Television news report on Ohio University's Title IX action

This information is all easily verified by visiting the links above. They are reports by news organizations on how the legal issue is unfolding.

Regarding the edits we proposed - we have posted our proposed edits on the Ohio University discussion page for comment and editing if interested parties choose to do so. We are trying to comply with Wikipedia policies and hope we are succeeding.

In light of our actions and our promise to do our best to conform to Wikipedia guidelines, we again request that you remove us from the spam bot list.

Thank you, --Save OU Sports 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

It's great that you can cite the information, but is it necessary to use your site to source your statements? You could easily use any of the above web pages to write about the controversy, rather than use your own site, which doesn't seem to be covered by Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. Shadow1 (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. (And I saw your posting on my talk page as well :) ) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We can add lots of links to relevant information from supposedly unbiased news sources and we will probably follow your excellent advice.

However, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. If you go to the Ohio University Wikipedia page, you will find links that Wikipedia allows that clearly point to special interest pages that promote the Athletic Department's position on this issue, a position that is in dispute not only by us but by national representatives of the sports OU cut - the Exec Director of the College Swim Coaches of America and the Women's Sports Council, for example. OU's explanation on its official site, that is linked in Wikipedia, tells only what they want people to know, not what they should know, especially high school seniors contemplating coming to OU. If the current crop of high school seniors need accurate information on colleges, they should be able to find it on Wikipedia. Those contemplating an athletic career at OU won't find the full story on OU's Title IX problems on its current page. The freshmen and women who are now there should have had this information but they are now dealing with what has turned out to be a poor decision for a school where they could pursue their hopes of developing a career in athletics, either playing or coaching once they graduate.

OU's Wikipedia page is also devoted almost 50% to promoting its sports program with links to ways OU sports supporters can contribute money to the program. From what we've been able to determine so far, that violates Wikipedia's guidelines as well. Here is one: Ohio Green & White Club - Athletic Boosters If you go to the Ohio Bobcats page on Wikipedia, one of the links they provide is: "Giving to Ohio Athletics" This takes you right to a page where you can initiate the process to donate to OU athletics.

We think that the Wikipedia administrators should investigate these apparent violations of Wikipedia guidelines about solicitation and promoting commercial interests. Using your same argument above, people can find those links on OU's website if they just go to the main OU site and then lookf for them.

If we are to be reported and held strictly to Wikipedia guidelines (something we are certainly willing to do), then we believe those reporting us who support the athletic department of Ohio University, and that same department which maintains its own page on Wikipedia ought to be held to the same compliance standards. Those links in apparent violation of Wikipedia policy should be removed by administrators.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We're learning and will try to be good Wikipedia participants.

--Save OU Sports 16:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

Please raise your issues on the Ohio State article. Perhaps showing them where you see these problems will let you all figure out an NPOV article. :) Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to consider our info and respond. We may take your advice but we're skeptical about the willingness of those managing the Ohio State article to tackle this issue. When you get into such issues with those most interested in promoting a state or an institution, they are unwilling to allow negative material to appear. We will see what happens with the proposed addition on the Ohio University article first. If we are successful, we may try on the other article.

--Save OU Sports 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

There's no real "managers" of articles per se; all Wikipedia editors are welcome to contribute to any article they choose. Most of them share the same views as I do and will help you to write the article the best way that it can. Again, there's no "conspiracy" on Wikipedia, we're all on the same playing field, and I highly doubt that anyone is doing anything behind the scenes to make OU look good. Shadow1 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We're learning. Appreciate the insights. However, I wouldn't characterize the opposition to our attempted edits as trying to make OU look good as much as attempts to prevent OU's athletic program from looking bad. Our info, which consists mostly of reprinted and linked news reports, spells out the story as it has unfolded and OU does look bad in this case, a sad chapter in the history of a wonderful 200+ year old university. If you have the time, we would appreciate your review of the addition we propose on the Ohio University discussion page (if this is something administrators do) and tell us if it contains any content that would violate Wikipedia rules.

Thanks again, --Save OU Sports 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

My status as an administrator doesn't give my statements any more weight than any other user. But I disgress. What makes your site more informative than any of the more-qualified/authoritative sites on the Internet dealing with this subject? I have to admit, a lot of the content on the website, e.g. the petition and such, isn't making a very strong case for your link's inclusion. Not to mention, this is still a violation of WP:COI. I'm not saying the link is a bad one, but it might be best if you re-examine your motivation for using the link as a source. Shadow1 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imani Hakim

I was trying to fix up the links on Imani Hakim.

Some previous user had a malformed redirection link to a page that looked legit official fan site on freewebs.com

I merely fixed it up to be:

http://www.freewebs.com/imanihakimfans/

I think this ought to be OK, so I reverted the bot. If you really think it's not OK, fell free to remove the link.

Here's the revert link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imani_Hakim&diff=121138148&oldid=121138133

Clemwang 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purevolume.com

Was trying to clean up Kenotia and was given an automated message by your robot account. No intent to spam but was just trying to clean up the links as they did not appear correctly. What is wrong with this site? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 21:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)