Jump to content

User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Qurayza talk page

Is it just me, or does the Qurayza talk page have an orange notice that says

On date this article was reduced to a simplified, "bare bones" version so that it may be completely rewritten to ensure it meets the policies of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Standard Wikipedia policies will apply to its rewriting—which will eventually be open to all editors—and will be strictly enforced. The article has been placed under a level of semi-protection temporarily during the rebuilding of this article.

Any insertion of material directly from pre-protection revisions of the article will be removed, as will any material added to the article that is not properly sourced. The associated talk page(s) were also cleared on the same date.

Administrators may not override this policy without approval from someone from the Office. No editor may remove this notice.

What does this mean? I haven't seen anything of its like on wikipedia before. Is there a policy in relation to this?Bless sins (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. When you reset your indents, you used a template {{reset}} that put that orange notice in. Hope that helps. Shell babelfish 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh... thanks. I though it was regarding the article itself.Bless sins (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

? Thanks for your efforts, Shell. I am hopeful this time. Str1977 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was to naive in my hope. Can you also comment on both versions? Str1977 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Shell, now it seems the tables have turned completely: I have posted a version that included all major views on the chosing of Sad as arbitrator and now it is BS that wants to remove scholars and harmonise the accounts. Could you weigh in please? Str1977 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:edit-warring

Shell, am I the only one forbidden from edit-warring? Isn't Str1977 just as guilty as me? Secondly, I was removing the links to [answering-islam.org]. Maybe you should take a look at that website for yourself and see the type of content is posts. Some would even consider it as hate material towards Islam. 03:24, 13 June 2008 Bless sins (talk)

As far as I can tell, Str1977 stopped edit warring when I asked him to and has since been trying to work out a compromise. Secondly, yes, I know what that link is, however, as it has been said numerous times on the talk page, we are not using it as a source, just as a convenience link to see another source online. Unless you have a compelling reason not to link to the source, edit warring to try to take it out isn't appropriate. Try discussing. Shell babelfish 03:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree. In the past couple of days, Str1977 reverted me here, here, here, and here. Infact, every revert of mine is followed by a revert of Str1977. As the article currently stands, it is Str1977's version, all my changes have been compromised.Bless sins (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is an even more recent example: I made several edits trying to work with Str1977's version, and not re-inserting my version. Str1977 responded by reverting every single one of my edits,[1], a blanket revert in other words. And not only that, Shell, Str1977 re-introduced some minor errors (with regards to grammar and punctuation).
Shell you said "[reversion] should only be used in cases of vandalism or other things that need to be removed immediately like BLP violations." Were my edits that Str1977 reverted vandalism or BLP?
I think it should be clear now, that I'm not the only person edit-warring.Bless sins (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
And I will talk with him about it, but that still does not make what you're doing right. Please stop edit warring, period. Shell babelfish 07:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Shell, for the advice. I did not revert BS lightly but when he is simply removing longstanding links (Muir was there before and now suddenly the link is removed - the link is not to a-i in general but to one chapter in Muir's book), or when he is, as in his last edit, presenting an opinion (one of three main views) as fact and pushing his preferred opinion into the first spot (instead of Watt, the highly respected scholar and author of the Banu Kurayza article in the renowned EoI).
If my version contains grammar mistake, please correct them or tell me about it. It certainly is not riddled with such. Str1977 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC section

The "RfC arbitrator" section is quite large, and is continuously growing. I have twice tried to make breaks in the section for easy navigation. On both occasions, I've been reverted [2][3] without explanation. The second time I created a break, I asked Str1977 to not revert me, but he neither responded to my request, nor abided by it. This isn't the first time Str1977 has reverted me on the talk page.Bless sins (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned this and his article revert today on the talk page. I have also notified Str1977 of the applicable arbitration case which can lead to restrictions if the disruption continues. Shell babelfish 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Qurayza and Palestine

Shell, doesn't that arbitration case only apply to Israel/Palestine articles? If so, I'm not quite sure I understand the relevance of "Banu Qurayza" to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Can you explain?Bless sins (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'll take a moment to look at the case here, it was decided that the area of conflict should apply broadly to "the entire range of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict" which I believe Banu Qurayza and the Battle of the Trench would both fall in to. Shell babelfish 01:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BS on this. Just because this about a group of Jews in conflict with Muslims doesn't make it a Palestine-Israel article.
Furthermore, I don't think how this whole posting helps in any way. Is this supposed to be a veiled threat.
I consider my revert of BS completely justified, even necessary. After all he conciously included something as fact that is not even an undisputed opinion. While I know where he got the idea that Watt says this (which still doesn't make it undisputed), I have no clue where he got the idea that "we" had agreed about this. Nonetheless, he claimed so in his edit summary.
In reaction, you posted this notice on my and his talk page. I must say that I consider this sort of suggesting equivalence uncalled for and unhelpful (as comfortable as it might be for you).
Str1977 (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
And I wonder how it is possibly that I and BS can be retroactively be inserted into an ArbCom case neither of us had any part in. Where can I raise my concerns about the apropriateness of the action? Str1977 (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"I agree with BS on this." I never objected to being added. But I was quite surprised by it. In anyway, the notice says that I (and Str1977) may be blocked for making disruptive edits. We should not be making disruptive edits anyways, regardless of whether we are warned.Bless sins (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
BS, it was I that voiced agreement with you. That is: with what you wrote above. That doesn't mean that you do or must agree with me.
I do indeed object to being added to such a blacklist.
Disruptive edits we ought not to make. But we do not need a blacklist for this. And the problem is of course edits that are not disruptive are apparently seen as such. Str1977 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't wish to pursue this any further. But if there's any information or changes, Shell, I'd like it if you could notify me.Bless sins (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to dispute your inclusion (and btw, the case specifically allows editors to be added to restrictions as needed, even those not part of the case) you may want to bring it up on the WP:AE noticeboard. However, if, as you say, disruptive editing is not a problem, then there should be little room for concern. Shell babelfish 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I'm familiar with the Banu Qurayza incident and have, indeed, written a great deal about it elsewhere. It is an historical event of importance to religious history, but isn't relevant to the Palestine-Israel conflict. If ArbComm intended to include articles like that, it was certainly painting with a broad brush, and should have been far more specific in their intention. It's true that those who want to fight about this stuff will use whatever ammunition they can find to toss at the other side, and certainly people can take sectarian affiliations from battles in one area and drag them into another, but that's ordinary POV editing. There is, though, this connection: those who believe that "those people" are always going to be doing something bad will drag up whatever examples they can from history, and the topic of Banu Qurayza, a deep tragedy, is fodder for both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict: on the Israeli side, it's an example of "Arab brutality." And on the Arab side, it's an example of "Jewish perfidy." In a word, a belief that Banu Qurayza bears significantly on the Arab-Israeli dispute could be racist in origin. It shows that "they" can't be trusted. For these people, the actual history doesn't matter, only what further excuse they can derive for continued hatred and justification for continued violence. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I've read this several times and I cannot figure out what it is you meant to say here. It seems to me that you're trying to imply that by notifying editors of possible restrictions based on the fact that this article loosely falls into the scope of Arab/Israel conflicts that I am somehow being racist or promoting racial tensions. I'm sure that's not what you meant though, so if you'd like to reword your thoughts or explain them in a different manner, I'll be happy to try again. Thanks. Shell babelfish 06:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems you are trying to read too much into it. The "racism" comment was not only not intended to refer to you, I was quite surprised to see you take it that way, even with as much puzzlement as you expressed. There is only one relevance of the incident of Banu Qurayza to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The BQ incident is used, by both sides, in pursuit of a racist agenda. I.e., they will claim that the present conflict exists because "They hate us and want to kill us," or "They are untrustworthy and will betray us and want to kill us," and, supposedly, the BQ history proves it. Because this incident is used by both sides, it may be appropriate to mention it in the AIC article, along with other references to history.
But there is no continuous connection; the application of BQ to polemic on both sides is modern, and doesn't really belong in the BQ article (except possibly as a note that the incident is used in modern polemic.) and, for this reason, there should be no attempt to invoke the ArbComm decision -- unless someone is aggressively trying to make the connection. We have the history of BQ entirely from Muslim sources, so, not surprisingly, those sources don't include the modern take on this incident, which is coming almost entirely from those who attempt to reinterpret the intention of the Muslim historians to make them say what they didn't intend, or to "reveal" in some way, the "truth" underneath what they claim is obvious contradiction. I've found a lot of scholarship from modern authors that is essentially revisionist and that does not represent any kind of consensus among historians. An example would be the claim that BQ wouldn't have chosen whom they supposedly chose because he supposedly hated them. But he had been their agent for a long time and they would have expected him to act honorably, tribal pride was involved. The whole incident is largely a matter of tribal intrigue, something that would be understood quite well by the early sources on which the whole history is based. To project modern ideas of what these persons would expect is anachronistic and fails to appreciate the tribal culture of the time, which was so strong that there were apparently BQ members who chose to die rather than separate themselves from the rest of the tribe.
I have no opinion that you have edited in any inappropriate way, for I haven't reviewed the article and what is reported in it in sufficient detail to even have an opinion. Thanks for asking for clarification, it would have been terrible to simply rest with an impression that you had been accused of racism. --Abd (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This wasn't a criticism of you, beyond a suggestion that your opinion that the Arbitration applied. To explain this
So you're saying you randomly happened upon this dispute, agree that its polemic to the sides that were the focus of the ArbCom case but believe that this somehow shouldn't fall under that case? That still doesn't make much sense to me, so I guess we'll just have to agree to have different opinions on the matter. Shell babelfish 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration and Banu Qurayza

How can you explain this? Beit Or 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I ddin't read the section above. Maybe you should actually read what Arab-Israeli conflict is all about? Beit Or 13:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to make things clear, do you think 1066 Granada massacre is also covered by the same arbitration? If so, why? And if not, why not? Beit Or 21:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you aren't one of the parties that was warned, can I ask what your interest is in this case? I believe that the arbitration left a great deal of latitude for what types of articles fell under its jurisdiction and its an attempt, in general, to relieve tensions at some of these more controversial articles. The working group that was formed out of the same arbitration has produced a number of good ideas at resolving disputes in this area and these types of restrictions are becoming more generally accepted when there are continued problems with disruptive editing and personal attacks surrounding a dispute. As for the article you specifically asked about, I am unfamiliar with its topic and therefore would not be able to give a thoughtful answer on its status. Shell babelfish 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The 1066 Granada massacre has, like Banu Qurayza has no bearing on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Following Beit Or's suggestion, I looked at the article, which leads with: "The Arab-Israeli conflict (Arabic: الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي‎ Aṣ-Ṣirāʿ al-ʿArabī al-'Isrā'īlī, Hebrew: הסכסוך הישראלי ערבי‎) spans roughly one century of political tensions and open hostilities." One century. Highly political. And the other situations aren't mentioned in the article as precursors, nor should they be, there is no continuous connection. They were almost 1000 (1066 Granada massacre) or more than 1400 years (Banu Qurayza) ago. Next we would include the articles on Ishmael and Isaac or Cain and Abel?
Please note that the case says "The entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted" - I believe that limiting the articles affected only to the exact text included in the article you mention would be "narrowly" interpreting the ruling. I'm not sure if you saw the suggestion above, but if you feel my understand of the scope of the case is incorrect, bringing it up at WP:AE or the new ethnic/cultural conflict noticeboard would invite further review. However, since you and others have show up to apparently defend the participant's behavior, I'm not sure what the concern is here -- if there is no disruptive behavior, then no restrictions will be necessary. Shell babelfish 06:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware that I defending any particular user. I did not review any allegedly problematic edits. I just commented on the idea that the BQ article would fall within the ArbComm case, that it is, even under a quite broad interpretation, a related article. Unless, as I noted in my edit summary, we want to include Isaac and Ishmael. Would you think so? --Abd (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2008

Posted here. Beit Or 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've posted an overview there as well. Shell babelfish 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good that this is sorted out now. Str1977 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Darren_yates

I guess we bumped into each other. I sent the user a message saying that the account was too similar to an existing account. There is already a user Darrenyates. I've just started creating account, and perhaps I'm not understanding the quidelines, but the existing account is only 2 months old. I suspect that this user had just fogotten their password. Now they are probably going to be very confused. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The other account, while only 2 months old, never made an edit past creating the initial account, which happens more often than you might think. I just checked the system though, you didn't close it as similar, you deferred the request - unless you're sending emails not using the system? In any case, if the person gets confused a quick note should clear it up. Shell babelfish 08:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In reading the guidelines, I don't see any mention of not making edits. Some users create accounts to set preferences before they become contributors, don't they? I suspect many people forget their passwords and don't have e-mail enabled. I did send an e-mail not using the system, because I thought the stock message was inadequate. That was probably a big mistake on my part. I don't understand how two or more people can create accounts at the same time without duplicating their efforts. When you "zoom" do you keep others from working on the account? It takes time to check everything! You seem to have done this a bit. How do you keep from bumping into others? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what guideline you're referring to, so I can't comment specifically on it. As far as I know, general practice is that if the similar account has no edits for a certain period of time to go ahead and create the account - people vary in how long they feel an account needs to go without editing. If an account has ever edited, I usually make sure its been at least a year since their last edit - if an account has never edited, I tend to be more lenient. Some people may sign up just to set preferences, if they later become editors and they have an account name similar to one that was created later, I'm sure something can be worked out.
Unfortunately at this time there is no way to lock a request or even make notes on it, so other people who work there as well have no way of knowing if you're sending emails outside the system, or even if you have the particular record open. Zooming in on a request actually doesn't lock the request or even notifying others that you're looking at the request. It does take time to look over everything, which is one of the reasons I stay in the iRC channel for the tool - I can see when other people are answering requests and try not to bump in to them. In fact, when I noticed you had marked the request after I had marked it done, I stopped working on the accounts for the time being.
Anyways, hope that helps and let me know if you have any other questions. Shell babelfish 09:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This is the documention I was referring to. It seems that there should be a way to "claim" the request, it would make it much easier for several people to work together. I'm not an IRC person, so I don't quite understand how that would help. I had the same reaction that you did. I saw that you were there and I stopped working for a while! Not the most efficient of systems. Thanks for your help. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Shell Kinney,

Would you please explain your comment made at 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC) on the Banu Qurayza talk page. Which links were broken? The discussion is about what happened during the siege here [4]. Per WP:LEAD, the article should summarize the contents of each section of the article. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You said you didn't understand Str1977's comment and I said that he appeared to be saying several things, one of which was that you broke some references when you made the change. The entire point of my message however was the threatening to revert is not a productive way to deal with a dispute, you need to work out your differences on the talk page, especially in cases where someone is mentioning that you had spelling or grammar errors or in this case, broke references. Shell babelfish 09:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In this edit [5], four references are mentioned for "The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while the women and children were enslaved." which is excessive. I can not find any broken references in my edition to the intro. Can you please help me?
The reason that I said I would revert was that Str did not respond to the argument that the lead should summarize the main points mentioned in the article and being able to stand independently on its own. He just said that details are excessive and acted based on it. This was, in my view, a very personal opinion. He did not revert me because of references being deleted or broken. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll probably have to ask Str1977 what he thought was broken - I can only see one reference on the article that appears broken and it looks like it comes much later, though its possible that it was in the lead and so now the second reference to it is broken?
That still doesn't make reverting acceptable - you need to wait and talk to others involved on the article. If it turns out the agreement is that Str1977 is wrong or you end up with a consensus for your version, then you put it back - not before the discussion happens because you don't think the other person is correct. That doesn't mean that him reverting your changes was right either, and I'm trying to make sure that everyone stops using that tactic instead of working things out. Shell babelfish 11:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS templates

Hi, Shell - I noticed you placed the OTRS permission for Image:SWA 737 MDW.jpg. I had a favor to ask - on image pages, would you mind using {{PermissionOTRS}} instead of {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}? The latter template does not transfer correctly to Commons and requires hand-tweaking when the image is copied there - if the Commons uploader is not paying attention, the OTRS details get dropped entirely in the transfer. I'm not sure why we have these redundant templates, but {{PermissionOTRS}} transfers over with no problems. Thanks! Kelly hi! 03:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I probably place a lot of those ;) so thanks for letting me know that was a problem. Maybe it would be helpful to mark the older template as depreciated? Or do you think it would be better in the long run to find someone with template savvy and re-engineer the older one so that it transfers more readily? I imagine there are quite a few images hanging around with {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}} on them and I wonder if there may be other OTRS volunteers who don't know about {{PermissionOTRS}} either. Shell babelfish 03:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Several months ago I had made an attempt to deprecate {{ConfirmationOTRS}} and {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}} in favor of {{PermissionOTRS}}, but I'm afraid the effort wasn't well received by some of the OTRS volunteers so I gave it up. It may be time to consolidate everything into a single template, however - now that David Gothberg has done a lot of outstanding work with his various "box" metatemplates, it's now pretty easy for a template to change its appearance based on the namespace it appears in. Kelly hi! 03:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your block

Firstly, I believe the conflict referred to was "the Troubles" (1969-98), not the Irish War for Independence (1916-23). Secondly, why was I unable to edit my user page during the block?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your user page or your user talk page? I don't see anything in the protection logs about either one though. Shell babelfish 19:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


My user page.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't come up in a long time, but if I recall correctly, you can only edit your user talk when blocked. Shell babelfish 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


OK. And the first point?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

More than one editor felt that you were attempting to skirt around the restrictions and expanding your behavior to include something nominally outside the Troubles to further the general dispute. Shell babelfish 20:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


The general dispute being...? And "nominally" outside the Troubles? Half a century isn't enough? That more than one editor believes something doesn't make it so.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your commentary on the WP:AE thread about the St. Christopher SPA's. The usual small handful of folks who watch the page haven't been around recently, and I just noticed the same old material being pushed by perhaps the quackingest bunch of socks ever. One would think the ArbCom case would make handling such an event straightforward, but this is Wikipedia, after all. Anyhow, thanks for your comments. MastCell Talk 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

fair use text

Hi. I saw your comment on Elonka's talk page. Having not seen you before, I took a look at your userpage. You've got a quotation on it from a Douglas Adams book. Quotations of copyrighted text must be used under fair use, and WP:NFCC prohibits the use of fair use material outside of the main article namespace. Just a heads up. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

While fair-use images have historically been prohibited from user space, I don't believe there is any community precedent nor foundation mandate which supports your statement. If you can point me at any discussion that says otherwise, I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks. Shell babelfish 21:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we can really have some leniency there, as long as it's not overused. Remember that we often quote people on articles, and that the foundation even hosts Wikiquote. -- lucasbfr talk 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

my editor was deleted

i want to know the details why my editor was deleted,thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevst (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the notes left on your talk page User talk:Nevst for details about why your edits were removed. Shell babelfish 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS 2008062710019753

Hi Shell Kinney, can i ask what is/where can i find "OTRS 2008062710019753".. cus i would like to question this edit. Andrew Simmons has wrestled in various European countries and the cystic fibrosis he suffers from has resulted in him taking breaks away from his career on several occasions. Anyway, i just wanted to read up on this OTRS. Thanxs in advance. --- Paulley (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:OTRS is only accessible to people with permission. Two things about the statement though, one would be, is there a reference for it? There wasn't one about it in the article when I removed the sentence. The second would be, is this notable enough to need inclusion in the article given that its a rather personal fact? I'm not sure that reporting someone's medical conditions is the way to go unless there's something notable about them (Michael J. Fox's in relation to his fund-raising for example.) Shell babelfish 15:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
That's ok, i was just checking because i have never heard of the OTRS thing before. Yea i understand about the reference part, though i think if i do come across a valid reference for it depicting his many departures from his career due to the condition i would be inclined to mention it within the article. However until one comes up, i agree with the decision to remove it. --- Paulley (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon

Nice reversion. good work. Elan26 (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Copy-vio

Hello. You removed the copy-vio by User:70.68.179.142 on Talk:Race and intelligence. He has now copied the same text onto the talk page of User:futurebird, since archived. In the interim I noticed the IP seemed to have been identified as a possible sockpuppet account of a banned user. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dictator of Ultimate Awesomenesss

Yes there is. There's also WP:BEANS. Sorry, I'm more used to the people who hang out on WP:ANK. If I had posted that there, they would have laughed, not actually created the page :-) Either way, I got a chuckle when I clicked on the link and saw Deskana's deletion reason :D J.delanoygabsadds 11:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Special barnstar award

The Special Barnstar
Even though I have no idea who you are, I'd like to give you this barnstar for a very colorful and eye-catching header; much better than mine.

--Xizes(talk) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just realized I'd forgotten to say thank you :) I can't really take any credit though; I'm using icons hosted on Wikimedia Commons for my header. Shell babelfish 05:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Block length discrepancy

I notice that the Blackeagles account is blocked for one year, but its page is tagged as if it is blocked indefinitely. —SlamDiego←T 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh. Thanks, I fixed that. Shell babelfish 05:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:T-Mobile Team Time Trial.jpg

Although this was on PUI for two weeks, I don't think there was any consensus there - two people commentated, the nominator and me, and significant points were raised all around. Why was this a deletion? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I left some notes on the PUI page itself about why I leaned towards deletion on this one. Its a great shot, but I'm not completely convinced it can't be adequately replaced(albeit it won't be as spectacular) with a free shot. As you said, both sides had valid points and it would be helpful if others had commented since I'm competent, but admittedly not an expert when it comes to copyright. I'd have no problem having it undeleted for further comment - wasn't there some kind of fair use review set up? Maybe it would get more comments there than it got at PUI? Although, everyone seemed to be passing on closing it, so it looked like we had a few people who really weren't sure on this one either. In any case, if I can help by undeleting it or starting a discussion elsewhere to help clear it up, just let me know. Shell babelfish 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a wider discussion, because I think this falls into a genuinely tricky area of fair use - where there's information being conveyed by the quality of the photograph that can't readily be conveyed via a free image. i.e. cases where a free image might theoretically do acceptably, but won't do as well - that our fair use guidelines are hesitant on, and that we could use a real discussion of. If there's really a consensus towards "fair use even if it can't be as good," I'll accept that consensus. But I suspect it's a tricky issue that could use a real debate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a larger discussion would be very helpful; as it stands right now, the guidelines are written in a way that seems to prohibit this sort of use, even though I believe technically, the legal fair-use exceptions may well still apply. I've gone ahead and undeleted the image, since it would be just a bit difficult to have further commentary with the suspect missing ;) Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Shell babelfish 15:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where best to have that discussion, so please, propose a forum as well. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I was really hoping you'd have an idea, because I haven't the faintest clue myself where to round up people for this one. I'm not sure any of the image deletion areas are sufficiently populated - is there more traffic over at the Media Copyright questions page, or maybe even one of the main NFCC pages? I'm really at a loss for where to find editors who'd be sufficiently interested (and knowledgeable) to comment. Shell babelfish 15:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Shell, if the guidelines and policy indicate this isn't fair use - then Q.E.D. we can't use it (that would seem to be the point of policy and guidelines). If the quality of the image is the thing that makes its use attractive than by the principles of fair use - we can't use it - since we are taking from the "heart of the piece".
If Phil doesn't like the policy, then he should contest the policy. As it stands the image should be deleted.
If either Phil or you thinks the matter deserves further discussion then raise it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. In my opinion this is (and has always been) an open and shut case. Megapixie (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Well Phil disagrees and I'm also not so sure its an easy case. Your interpretation is that the photo is reproducible, Phil doesn't believe it is; I'm sure you can see that we were discussing where to get more opinions since the only people who commented at WP:PUI were you, the nominator and Phil - not really a good sampling, imho. If you think NFC is the best place to have this discussion, I'd have no objections - as I noted in the undelete, its temporary in order to allow further discussion to happen and Phil has already agreed that if the consensus is that his reasoning does not meet Wikipedia policy then he will accede to the consensus. I'll go ahead and start the discussion over there; if anyone wants to mention it elsewhere to help pull more people in, please feel free. Shell babelfish 19:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Phil appears to have gotten to listing it before I did :) Thanks, Phil. Shell babelfish 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mar Diop

I decline to be the one to revert. However, I would have no problem with someone else doing so. DS (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • <Dragonfly6-7> "The school is highly controversial, with the BBC labelling it a diploma mill, and some American states denying its graduates the right to practice; however, other American states accept the school as legitimate."
  • <Dragonfly6-7> and we put that in the lead, at the end of the paragraph.
  • <Dragonfly6-7> Sound fair?
  • <bstone> i guess so
  • <bstone> saying "details are somewhat obscure" is bad bad bad
  • <Dragonfly6-7> just a minute
  • <Dragonfly6-7> okay
  • <Dragonfly6-7> let's see
  • <Dragonfly6-7> current form:
  • <Dragonfly6-7> Details are somewhat obscure but it appears to be a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) which is a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal.
  • <Dragonfly6-7> The school lacks accreditation in the UK and achieved prominence when BBC coverage highlighted the school as an example of a loophole allowing essentially unregulated medical schools to operate in the UK.[1] This led to an investigation by the General Medical Council,[2] resulting in the withdrawal of registration of at least one doctor, and the publication of a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St. Christopher.[3] The GMC website was subsequently amended to include a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St Christopher by name as unacceptable.[4][5][6]
  • <Dragonfly6-7> A UK credit reference agency lists two companies with this name as being in liquidation
  • <Dragonfly6-7> I suggests:
  • <bstone> it doesn't appear to be, it is
  • <Dragonfly6-7> just a minute
  • <bstone> IMED has confirmed this with the school
  • <Dragonfly6-7> just a minute, please
  • <Dragonfly6-7> I'm first showing you the initial form
  • <Dragonfly6-7> The school is registered with IMED as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal.
  • <Dragonfly6-7> how's that?
  • <Dragonfly6-7> for the opening
  • <bstone> the school has done no registration at all
  • <bstone> IMED has confirmed the MoH has given the school a legal charter to operate
  • <Dragonfly6-7> The school is listed by IMED as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal.
  • <Dragonfly6-7> whose MoH? Senegal's?
  • <bstone> yes
  • <Dragonfly6-7> The school is listed by IMED as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal; the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate.
  • <bstone> i guess that's ok
  • <Dragonfly6-7> St Christopher's lacks accreditation in England, and has been identified by the BBC as a diploma mill.
  • <Dragonfly6-7> This led to an investigation by the General Medical Council,[2] resulting in the withdrawal of registration of at least one doctor, and the publication of a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St. Christopher.[3] The GMC website was subsequently amended to include a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St Christopher by name as unacceptable.
  • <bstone> yeah good
  • <Dragonfly6-7> Several American states have denied MISSING WORD to practice
  • <Dragonfly6-7> to graduates of St Christopher's; however, other states have explicitly allowed it.
  • <bstone> medical licenses
  • <Dragonfly6-7> thank you
  • <Dragonfly6-7> couldn't think of the word
  • <bstone> sure
  • <Dragonfly6-7> this seems fine?
  • <bstone> yes
  • <Dragonfly6-7> achieved prominence when BBC coverage highlighted the school as an example of a loophole allowing essentially unregulated medical schools to operate in the UK.
  • <Dragonfly6-7> the original wording
  • <Dragonfly6-7> are you okay with that?
  • <bstone> yeah
  • <Dragonfly6-7> Several American states have denied medical licenses to graduates of St. Christopher; however, other states have explicitly allowed it.
  • <Dragonfly6-7> this doesn't *quite* feel right
  • <Dragonfly6-7> from a grammatical point of view
  • <bstone> i agree
  • Dragonfly6-7> but factually, you're okay with it?
  • <bstone> just say they are unable to received licensed in certain us states
  • <bstone> which is just a few
  • <bstone> others are fine with it
  • <Dragonfly6-7> Graduates of St Christopher are ineligible for medical licenses in some US states, but not in others.
  • <Dragonfly6-7> good?
  • <bstone> leave out others
  • <bstone> and link those states which ban them

JZGBSTONE

A) That's a separate log; I haggled with them both on Thursday, and haggled with JZG on Friday while BStone was offline until tonight (shomer shabbas). B) BStone's a guy. C) I saw complaints being made about BStone on this topic, and decided that perhaps I could help settle things to everyone's satisfaction by coming at it with a fresh eye. So I approached him on IRC, not the other way around. D) I'm not touching this mess again, not even to revert. DS (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, given DS's comment D) above, could you please revert it yourself? I don't want to start an AN/I thread about this, but if neither of you two is willing to revert, I don't see any other choice. Nsk92 (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd say lets give it a while - the article isn't going to implode regardless of what condition its in ;) I may be wrong, but I think DragonflySixtyseven is a bit taken aback because he was just trying to help out and thought everyone was okay with the changes. Even if he decides not to revert, there's no reason discussion can't continue on the talk page until a consensus is reached. If that consensus means the information ultimately gets removed, then we can easily do that when the page can be unprotected. Shell babelfish 04:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate the fact that DS67 was only trying to help. However the situation where the current version (which goes against the majority of the RfC commenters and which has been effected via such an improper process) is allowed to stand for any prolonged period of time is unacceptable. Sorry, but if the situation is not sorted out by tomorrow morning, I'll have to take this to AN/I and ask for a previously uninvolved admin to restore the pre-DS67 version. Nsk92 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm sure editor's who wanted to see the IMED information in the article were just as unhappy when it happened to get protected without that information and has been stuck that way for a while. No matter what version a protected article is in, its usually completely unacceptable to some editors and it can be really frustrating for everyone involved when the disputed information gets changed even after the protection. If its taken to ANI, I don't doubt that the edit will get reverted, but we'll still be at square one on resolving the issues and DragonflySixtyseven may well get raked over the coals even though he really doesn't deserve it. Still, there's nothing wrong with you wanting to take it to ANI either, since even though the edits were well intentioned, they broke protection policy. I guess I just tend to be too patient for my own good sometimes :) Shell babelfish 05:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Shell. Since still nothing happened, I have just posted a notice at WP:AN/I asking that a previously uninvolved admin revert DS's changes. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ur catz, and a cry for halp

Ah tryded to visit themz, but ah cood not!

Sorry, I'm at a bit of a loss about how to deal with the user, Ward3001, whose incident-noticeboard thread (about me) you responded to, and I was hoping I could come to you for at least (not to take up too much of your time, if you're busy) some guidance on which specific noticeboards I could go to, as the problems with conduct that I referred to in that comment he pointed out in the report have really become an issue (that it seems like other users have dealt with before).

While I honestly believe that I've made attempts both at collaboration and to consider simply ignoring the matter (considering, again for the record, the embarrassingly trivial nature of the disputed issue), he's gone from, based on this first edit ([6], "poorly sourced" despite four sources for one sentence) dismissively reverting and warning me without discussion, to, most recently, assumed-bad-faith warning me ([7]), dismissing hours of attempts at discussion ([8], some other users' comments also "read and dismissed" there, [9], and [10]), and filing that baseless complaint on the incident noticeboard. In short, I really believe that that one instance of misguided incident-reporting, along with those other incidents I refered to and many others that I haven't (I have a whole case laid out in my head, if that could help in a resolution), reflects a combination of a general lack of understanding about specific rules under specific policies and, more importantly, a general unwillingness to work with or consider the opinions of others.

Oh, and while I was obsessing about the wording of this comment (sorry for the late-night rambling-ness), Google Images gave me a glimpse of your felines; I can now go to sleep with happier thoughts. Thanks for your time. Wikimancer *\( ' ' ^) 09:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like the majority of this started because the two of you interpret Wikipedia policies in a different manner; trust me, that happens a lot around here - policies can't possibly be written to cover every last situation so a lot of using common sense is in order. I believe that Ward3001 believes in good faith that the sources you have provided don't rise to the level necessary for a biography, while you believe, also in good faith, that you've been careful with sourcing and don't suggest anything not clearly held in reliable sources. The thing is, either one or both of you could actually be correct here, the community has always been a little wishy-washy dealing with any kind of blogs and celebrity gossip in general.
It can be very frustrating when you have another editor in a dispute and you feel they aren't really listening to other parts of the discussion. I think asking for an RfC is an excellent way to go - usually the best thing to do in these cases is to bring in other editors who can help develop a consensus. If after the RfC has run its course for a while a consensus emerges, and someone still ignores that consensus, then usually it can be dealt with by posting a short note on ANI or to an administrator familiar with the situation giving diffs to the RfC and then diffs of the person continuing to revert.
Anyways, I hope that helps out some and I'm glad the kittehs helped - I desperately need to update that site. If you have any other thoughts or questions about the situation, or other ones that come up, you're always welcome to drop by and ask. Shell babelfish 00:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Julia Havey and Rhode Island Red

    • Shell, I couldn't find a posting anywhere that RIR was admonished for attacking me. To accuse me of "a history of COI" and more of insult, the sock puppet comment, could you point me to it. As long as his behavior towards me goes unchecked, I have no choice but to respond.** Julia Havey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.249.152 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rant? Going to scream perhaps, but not a rant. I have a right to address his attack on me. Why is it that all the rules seem to protect this editor, allow him to say whatever he wants, it isn't "fact" it's his chosen interpretation of fact and reliance on 2nd/3rd party sites which take a negative view of the product and NEVER allowing interpretation that is positive. I have met w/ researchers, spoken w/ topnotch doctors who support this products and it's claims. I am frustrated because FACT isn't allowed, at all, unless it can be somehow skewed negatively. It is amazing how WIKI protects RIR. I am entitled to state my opinion, I took all "attack" language out of it. Obvious support of RIR's actions, obvious. Julia Havey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.249.152 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I would love nothing more than to try to contribute and improve the article, but my hands are tied, which is why I posted something on a talk page of an editor who seems fair, I put my name, I didn't hide it and RIR bashes me and her for it.

One question that may be more productive though, Wiki has an article on me and there are many updates/things out of date or not accurate any longer. How can I update it without violating wiki rules? Julia Havey 70.130.249.152 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

helio

according to you these types of sections in articles shouldn't exist.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator#Fall_of_Netscape —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgeine (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


what are you talking about "poorly sourced" I made three statements. feel free to point specifically which one is poorly sourced.

1. Helio failed their PCI Scan. I included the actual PCI scan. you can't source better then including the actual failed PCI scan nor can you say that source material is somehow 'unrelated' to the statement being made. i'm assuming you didn't even bother looking at it so i'll summarise it for you. it included who did the scan, who they scanned, every single IP they scanned, every single problem they found with each IP, and the steps helio needed to take to resolve those problems.

2. I said Helio suffered a massive security breech that required notification of all their customers. I included the actual letter they sent to all their customers notifying them of the breech as well as the relevent state law forcing them to do so. did you bother looking at the letter or the law? The letter (on helio letterhead) said "we are writing to you because of a recent compromise in security. Helio has discovered that restricted data containing certain personal information was accessed through illegal means. We regret to inform you that your name is among those....bla bla bla. Here is the california law i cited. But let me paraphrase it for you. any business that stores personal data and is compromised is required by law to notify those affected without delay

"1798.82. (a) Any person or business that conducts business in California, and that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information, shall disclose any breach of the security of the system following discovery or notification of the breach in the security of the data to any resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The disclosure shall be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement, as provided in subdivision (c), or any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system."

3. i said they chose to lie to the auditors instead of resolving the problems. I was there, I quit the day that happened and i sourced a snippet of the conversation involved. I couldn't include all of it because helio's in the midst of a class action lawsuit for this very reason. further its obvious they chose not to resolve the problems by the resulting breech.

4. like I said, i worked there, I am the source. I know what the numbers were for all those devices and they were poor to say the least but that's not the section i care about. The section i care about you've reverted without stating any actual problem with it as it was absolutely sourced 100% perfectly and relevently.

did you actually read any of the supporting documentation?

you have never stated with any specicifity what the actual problems are. In your response you're talking about things totally unrelated to the entire text you reverted. if you have a problem with a specific item remove it. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater here? lastly (as you can read over and over in the discussion section on that page) helio's wikipedia entry has never read like an encyclopedia, its always read like a piece of marketing schlop. I'd appreciate it if you'd put back my thoroughly sourced section on their security breach and remove the ability for anonymous edits. lastly, those other edits you referenced being "done by me on other IP's". that's simply not true. the only person editing from multiple IP's is the helio employee.

I gave you my IM feel free to talk to me there or click on my "talk" link as going back and finding your page is rather inconvenient.

Sgeine (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


i want this in there and there's no reason it shouldn't be. 100% factual and better references and documentation cited then most of wikipedia. further, what they did to their customers was wrong and their customers should know the act was willful. i've added you on yahoo, feel free to IM me when you're around. also i've been asking that the ability to edit this page anonymously be removed. further, in the discussion of the page you'll see an enormous amount of complaining that helio's page is a corporate mouthpiece. it is, and the fact that 90% of the edits and additions are done by helio IP's/employees is a testament to that. wikipedia was never meant to be a free marketing tool

Sgeine (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but "I want this in there" isn't a valid reason for poorly sourced or un-sourced information and personal opinion to be used in an article on Wikipedia. Everyone who edits the article is expected to follow basic Wikipedia rules; you need to be able to write from a neutral point of view with all material you add being referenced to a reliable source. A large portion of the text you wrote was not contained in the sources you gave and it was not written in a factual and encyclopedic manner. For instance, you added things like "due to lack of interest" to certain products without providing any source that made that claim. If you can find reliable secondary sources which have covered all of information you wish to include and try writing in a very dry factual tone and your information is much more likely to stay in an article. Please stop reverting the information back into the article without fixing the problems and consider rewriting the information with better references if you'd like to add things back in. Shell babelfish 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious?

I noticed that the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winifred Whitfield was blanked by your userid. I don't question that it was right to do so, I'm just curious why it was right to do so... can you explain?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we said a lot of nasty things about the guy that wrote the article. I can't tell you my opinion of whether or not the things said were all true ;) but, needless to say, the contents of the discussion could be rather embarrassing for him. Shell babelfish 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess I missed the tail end of the discussion. --Paul McDonald (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're curious about the additional discussion, it is still available in the history since I only blanked it but didn't delete earlier revisions. Shell babelfish 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Silver State Helicopters

Hi there, I just wanted to say thanks for your clean-up work on this article - it looks good and was overdue! - Ahunt (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that :) Shell babelfish 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sure that if you do something people disagree with (especially as an admin) that you get complaints, so it only seems fair that when you do good work you should get credit. Now if only the rest of the planet worked like that! - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you f your message, however these revisions were not libelous, rather they are quite accurate, it was written with the help of many who know him personally and much of it i can proove, i havent built any websites about it or anything like that. he made up of this stuff about himself, i would challenge him to show proof for what he wrote about himself, including the title he gives himself "sayyid". He is NOT sayyid, he does not have this lineage and can not proove this or most of what he wrote about himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemhaNahk12 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i should ask what exactly do you want verified and how would you like me to verify it? A former student of his is in the process of building a website which could help confirm many of the changes I have made, I can share the link once he has added some real content. If you would accept this as evidence I could fax police reports and affadavits from former students of his, family members of his, and others who have dealt with him. I understand that wikipedia information must be verifiable, but then why should the original author not be asked to verify their information while I am, simply because I am critical of this figure. I would challenge the original author of this article to proove what they wrote as well, they are unable to as most of it was a fabrication, including both his name (his legal name IS Ahmed Khan, not Amiruddin) and the title "sayyid", this title only goes to people who have paternal lineage back to the Prophet Muhammad and there are organizations which can verify the validity of this lineage, Ahmed has been unable to provide a paternal lineage, thus he can NOT claim the title "sayyid". Please refer to this the video on youtube explaining this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9d0N3cwYA At the very least the "controversy" section should be left in-tact. He is a very controvercial figure and I would argue that everything in there are both valid and common criticisms of him. You may have noticed that I did not change any information which was accurate, such as media appearances and islamic leaders whom his family has met, I only corrected false and misleading information, and cleaned the article up some, such as removing dead links etc. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, Ahmed is a complete fraud, he's a "nobody" who tries to put himself forward and I don't believe that he even deserves a wikipedia article, however since he wants to have one I believe that it should at least be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemhaNahk12 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

well thank you, I agree with your reasoning and I like your idea to turn the article into a "stub". take care —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemhaNahk12 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

*giggle*

One can hardly be told off for that one word. Timeshift (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor whom you "giggled" at had just made a rather egregious personal attack. Please chalk this up to "yeah, I shouldn't have done that" rather than trying to defend yourself. It wasn't funny. Shell babelfish 22:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not defending anything, all I said was giggle. Timeshift (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Honestly Timeshift, if you can't understand why that was inappropriate, I'm not sure what I can do to explain things to you, but its unlikely that things will go well for you if you can't learn to work within Wikipedia's community norms. Shell babelfish 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to reply - I do disagree though with your interpretation of the arbcom ruling, so I'll be asking for a clarification at the arbcom clarification noticeboard.

PS -An observation - If an editor expresses reservations about an administrator on the arb enforce board, it might be better for associates of that administrator not to close that editor's request - because it could leave the associate administrator vulnerable to criticism about neutrality and reflect badly on the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.28.200 (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

--Scott Free (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott, you can disagree all you want - the Committee was clear that regular community consensus should be allowed to develop the article. If that ended up at the version you liked, so be it - but it didn't. You need to respect that consensus. And honestly, if administrators stopped working in areas where an editor complained about them, we'd quickly have no administrators able to work anywhere. Shell babelfish 15:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

need to be adopted

i need help with articles, please help me out

{{adoptme|20080728033115}}


--Daisy404 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation case

You might as well close it. The debate's ended with that most unsatisfying of outcomes- keep through lack of consensus. Reyk YO! 05:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I'll close that today. Shell babelfish 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Gray Davis Bio Edit

RE: Your deletion of my paragraph in Davis' "Early Life" section. The linked "blog entry" you claimed was insufficient to support such "wild" descriptions of Gray Davis's grandfather, contains this linked info....IMO, a throughly documented "blog entry" contained numerous, reloable sources supporting everything in the deleted paragraph:

(Gray Davis's bio is extremely long, yet this well documented material appeared nowhere elses until I documented it, in several locations on the internet, beginning on July 20, 2008. I can find no mention that William Rhodes Davis is Gray's grandfather, but, quite obviously, in his uncle Currie Boyd Davis's 1947 NY Times marriage announcement, and in the court filing, both displayed and linked on this page, it is indeed, fact!)


The blog itself is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source regardless of how correct you might think it is. Since you admit that you are the one trying to spread this across the internet, that makes this information even less reliable and something that we generally call original research. If you continue to re-insert the information, you will be blocked from editing. Shell babelfish 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Robert L. Hymers, Jr.

Hi. Regarding the sourcing of that story, I actually had extensive quotations from a piece in the Los Angeles Times that discussed Hymers' physical abuse of his congregation, and his common use of a racial slur. The first person who came in to adjudicate the dispute, and stubbed the entry, took those passages out as a precaution in case I had not been accurate in quoting them, but the passages are contained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scooge/Robert_L._Hymers (yes--I actually paid to pull a couple of stories out of the L.A.Times Archives for the RLH entry)

Hymers is also mentioned in Ronald M. Enroth's book, "Churches That Abuse," which I have on order, and should be able to provide quotations from soon. (Enroth also wrote two articles entitled "Churches on the Fringe." One of these is available online, but it is a watered-down version that does not "name names." The original version ran in Eternity magazine, which is unfortunately defunct and therefore not available online, but it does discuss Hymers' church by name.)

I also have access to transcripts from local television broadcasts that interviewed Hymers during some of the more public controversies he was in the middle of ([1] encouraging people to pray for the death of a pro-choice Supreme Court Justice, which earned him the nickname "the Death-Prayer Pastor," and [2] his public demonstrations against The Last Temptation of Christ, which led him to use anti-Semitic language publicly, and led to a break in his organization's ties with Jews for Jesus).

So Hymers has certainly sought publicity very aggressively in the past. Obviously, my largest concern is that people know that there have been very mainstream allegations of abusiveness in his churches, and I'm willing to be very up-front about that bias--in fact, that is the reason that I requested that more seasoned (and more objective) Wiki-Editors come in to adjudicate this matter; I did not want to get into an edit war with Hymers' associates. (It's a difficult matter--I'm one of maybe 2-5 former church members who are willing to speak out publicly, because Hymers has a habit of threatening lawsuits anytime he is publicly criticized.)

Hope this helps. Scooge (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor and put the citations "inline" - in other words, put the citations directly after the statement in the article that they support. That makes things much easier to verify and if there are complaints about the accuracy, we can point people to the correct source that contains that information. Thanks! Shell babelfish 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope it's okay to respond here; I'm still relatively new. I will go do that, though it might take me a few times to get it right. For some reason I'm a slow Wiki-Learner.Scooge (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell - this is a cc of my discussion posting under R. L. Hymers, Jr.

Scooge -

I urge you to read the Wikipedia policies for biographies of living persons, policy on biographies of living people. It will become obvious once you read it.

The initial hit piece you wrote, before both articles were merged, clearly violated Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. That is the reason those statements were taken out by Xymmax, the Wikipedia editor. In my view, this was apparent when you sought help from Wikipedia after my edits were made. Wikipedia states, “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.” Furthermore, Wikipedia policy states, “It needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.”

The policy on BLP states that “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdl4082 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent comment

When closing this AE notice, perhaps you did not see the questions I asked. I would respectfully ask that you respond, assume good faith, and refrain from a dismissive tone. I ask these questions in an attempt to understand the way WP policy is enforced so that I may be a better editor. Is it really NOT a personal attack to repeatedly label someone 'obsessive'? And after the target of this characterization has taken issue with it, to taunt by saying 'obsess much'? You said Things you dislike or disagree with aren't necessarily egregious personal attacks. -- well I certainly agree with that - who could not? However, I don't see how insulting namecalling directed at another editor could be construed as something I simply disagree with or dislike. Which is why I ask the rhetorical question, would it be a personal attack for me to label an editor as obsessive? I'm sorry if I unintentionally conveyed the impression that it was not a rhetorical question, but some sort of threat that I would engage in the behavior that I am condemning. To me, insults and namecalling are about the clearest examples of personal attacks you could find. But it seems you disagree with me. Could you please explain where I've gone off track here? Dlabtot (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone obsessive isn't entirely civil and I'm sure there are much better ways you could get across the idea that someone spends a lot of time devoted to a single article or topic. On the other side of the coin, there are many worse things that people have been called on Wikipedia. Its unlikely calling someone obsessive, even repeatedly would end up in a block, though its likely that you would be reminded by more than one editor to approach things in a more civil manner. Unfortunately, with the particular editor in question, its unlikely that any further discussion, warnings or even short blocks are going to resolve the problem.
There was already a productive discussion going on over similar issues where the attacks, in my opinion, rose to the level of being particularly offensive. Closing the report was by no means an attempt to belittle the discomfort you felt during the situation, however, in and of itself the infraction you noted was unlikely to garner support for any sanctions and may also have fragmented discussions on how to handle the problem as a whole. I hope you feel comfortable commenting in the other report if you have any additional thoughts to add or suggestions the type of sanctions that might help resolve these issues. Shell babelfish 04:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, thank you for taking the time to respond, and especially for acknowledging my discomfort. Having this bogus sockpuppet case sitting there for weeks as a venue for SA to attack me was, indeed, extremely uncomfortable. I mean, I tried not to look at it, I knew it would be dismissed and no defense was necessary... so I tried not to respond, but I'm only human, how much baiting am I supposed to take? As for being comfortable commenting in the other report - I already made one comment and that should probably be where I should leave it. I think SA actions speak for themselves, and no comment from me is really necessary although why it's been allowed to go on this far is incomprehensible to me. Frankly, I don't get it, it's not just SA, in general I don't understand why enforcement of policies is not a lot stricter than it is. Anyway, thanks again for responding. Dlabtot (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems I couldn't help from commenting again, after all. Dlabtot (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Once More, Bob Hymers

Shell, it's turning into an edit war again. Copied from Hymers' talk page:

I'm not sure that the situation can be helped. One of the people involved here is either (1) a bright colleague of Hymers' who has been with him for decades, or [at this point, more probably] (2) Hymers himself, using this man's account. Either way, there is a huge and persistent attempt to turn this entry into a puff piece that rewrites history (and integrates stylistic errors, redundancies, and the like therein, time after time).

The other is a survivor of the Hymers cult who was raped in it at the age of 14, publicly embarrassed for her "sinfulness" in having been so victimized, and still counts herself lucky to have escaped after losing only two years of her life to this man's evil "church." (Others lost many years, educational opportunities, career choices--and there are hundreds of them.)

No one involved here is close to operating without bias. We are at an impasse. Scooge (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything that can be done to adjudicate would be very helpful, here.Scooge (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I added a tremendous amount of positive material to the Hymers article--stuff that should also be a matter of record. Let's see if that rounds things out a bit. Anyway, I appreciate the intervention.Scooge (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Euro Alliance of Payment Schemes

Hi. This article was listed at WP:CP, and while looking at it, I kind of wondered about the notability. I know almost nothing about banking on my own continent, much less another, but I did some poking around and what I've found leads me to suspect that the article may merit wider review before deletion. There were a number of sources in German that were, alas, lost to me. Anyway, I'm back to the CP board, but wanted to let you know why I'd challenged the PROD there. Hopefully the next CP will be in my area! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and all the great cleanup you did. I'm not an expert in accounting either, so its possible that I wasn't even searching for the right kinds of things when I tried to find more sources for the article. I've got no objections to removing the prod; thanks for double-checking. Shell babelfish 22:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LOLcats

Rock :-) Shot info (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I luvs dem :) And hey, just so you know, I'm not trying to dismiss your points even though we disagree. I'm just concerned first because I'm seeing some of the same editors who tend to pop in on unrelated threads Elonka is involved in and make disparaging comments; many of them hold grudges from actions taken against them, some even before she was an administrator and a few have been warned for harassing her before. I'm concerned that some of those editors may be piling on to take shots at Elonka, knowing that even without any substantial proof, accusations can still follow a person around Wikipedia. This may not matter in the long run though, because there is some good discussion happening as well.
Second, and more about the point we were discussing, I'm really not trying to say that someone who's under sanction suddenly doesn't matter, but I really haven't seen diffs or anything concrete yet that would bear out what's being said. There are a number of blanket statements being thrown around, for example: Elonka is "unresponsive to feedback". It would be very helpful to the discussion, if editors who wish to make a point about unresponsiveness could give some diffs or more specific examples so that other people reviewing the RfC can evaluate it more effectively. In this particular case, I don't believe the blanket statement that she is unresponsive is true (I know I've given her feedback and I know of a number of examples where she's solicited feedback and made changes in response), so the only way to look into things further would be to have more information about specific cases where she didn't respond to feedback.
The only editor's comments I can evaluate right now in regards to communication (because he gave some diffs) is ChrisO's and having reviewed the diffs he supplied and the diffs Elonka supplied, I see ChrisO discussing the sanctions and even agreeing to them, right up until they were enforced against him. He may have good reason for concerns about the sanctions, but waiting to bring them up until he was affected a second time probably wasn't the best way to handle things. I'm especially surprised, if he had concerns, that he didn't approach the subject after the first time the sanctions were applied to him. So I have to ask - why now? and why a conduct RfC? If he had concerns that POV pushers and other problematic editors would abuse these types of sanctions, is a user conduct RfC really an appropriate way to handle those concerns? And finally, if that's really what this RfC is supposed to be about then why did he admit he broke the sanctions he agreed to, disagree with sanctions being applied to him and only then finally bring up his concerns? I guess I'd feel better if there was a bit more discussion about his concerns with the sanctions in general instead of a single comment and straight to RfC; it doesn't really look like he gave her the opportunity to respond.
But regardless of how the RfC started, its good to see some discussion about how to better balance managing content vs. managing the editing environment. Editors that do one or the other shouldn't have to be at odds with each other; its just too bad that it took this kind of dramah to get that discussion going. Shell babelfish 09:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The only crime with an RfC is if the editor in question learns nothing. Will that happen? Unfortunately the answer seems to be "Yes, I've learned nothing" :-( Shot info (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've learned something at least ;) Shell babelfish 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeing some of the same editors who tend to pop in on unrelated join threads Elonka is involved in and make disparaging critical comments; many of them hold grudges from have concerns about actions taken against them and have presumably hence become particularly aware of further examples they see as problematic.
Fixed? Since you don't name names it's hard to say. As I posted to the talk page of the RFC, I'm seeing the same editor who tends to join disputes Elonka is involved in and deflect criticism. I don't think there's any difficulty in demonstrating examples of Elonka being unresponsive to certain feedback, for instance, the suggestion that she has a tendency to speak as if from a position of authority in forums where that is inappropriate, with this leading to further confusion, conflict and dissonance, has been separately made by Hammersoft, Slrubenstien and myself, to my knowledge. One always has to choose who to listen to when one attracts some attention, perhaps it's easier to listen to people who are not openly critical, such as yourself. That can lead to feedback that may be of value being ignored, however; perhaps that is what is happening here. It feels somewhat rude to me to discuss an absent third party on a user page, so I will wrap it up. [Though I have general concerns myself, i didn't post to the RFC because of what seems to me (depite protestations to the contrary) its narrow focus—not much terribly wrong in Elonka's actions per the agreement (its merits are a separate issue), and therefore not worth risking the "more heat than light" issues posting as an IP can raise, as well as the frustrating "grudge" dismissiveness.] 86.44.26.230 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

About SMEs, 0RR and reverts

Yes, while I agree that we're probably a long way from being able to implement SMEs at Wikipedia (it's something to shoot for, though), my immediate concern, as several examples were given in the RfC, are that a a blanket implementation of 0RR (for example) may at times get in the way of getting a properly balanced, neutral content (as I'm sure you know that NPOV isn't to treat all viewpoints as if they had the same validity, but to treat them commensurately with their weight "in the real world" -- which is far trickier). What I was suggesting was to have a community-wide discussion on the current special editing restrictions that seem to be cropping up, namely to see how they may clash with Wikipedia's core policies, and ways in which we can avoid having this clash and still implement them when necessary. I firmly believe that most of the trouble Elonka got herself into probably comes from the even application of these rules, whose impact on core policies was probably not properly gauged prior to their application. What I'm suggesting is for the community to go back to the drawing board, discuss these rules, see how they can best be applied (are there necessary exceptions, for example?) derive a consensus and implement it. This would avoid this unpleasant feeling of being experimented upon that some editors have, and would go a long way towards reinstating the feeling that the community has the final say on its destinies (by shaping the new rules applying to it).

Too optimiitic? Idealist? Maybe yes. But worth a shot, I'm convinced of that.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka RfC comment

" You have done so now for quite some time, but there was a period of time that you appeared to follow Elonka around and inject yourself negatively into situations you had no prior experience with just to oppose her."

That is absolutely and completely false. Please back up that accusation or back down. -- Ned Scott 08:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to drag this out further - for just a brief overview of what I'm referring to, there's the behavior on her RfA's (including opposing one before it was live), such as indicated here, the run through you did on her family and other related articles (referenced here). Or specifically in reference to you popping up in areas you've had no interaction with to dig at her, how about this post for example? Or on your RfC over stalking a different editor, your habit of keeping tabs on Elonka was mentioned by yet other editors. I don't have time at the moment to dig through ANI and show the number of times you've popped in there, but there's quite a few examples to be had across those noticeboards as well.
I personally think it was completely unnecessary for this history to be brought up in the first place, but since it was, denying it isn't helpful either. I'm really not aware of what happened with the Arb case and what dispute happened between you and Elonka, but I am aware that while you're generally calm and reasoned, you tend to display a bit of bias when dealing with issues that involve Elonka in any way. That doesn't make you a bad person, a horrible editor or any less respected when giving opinions, its just a sign that when it comes to Elonka, you unconsciously pre-weight one side of the scale. I don't think that should mean much to the RfC and I'm really distressed at all this picking sides, outing people and general school-yard behavior from some of the responders on the RfC (not meaning to refer to you here). The more I've read and talked a bit with editors who have concerns about 0RR, the more I'm understanding their point of view and the problems that they are concerned about. I know I don't have all the answers either, but I think we're much more likely to find some solutions by discussing the actual problems; this craziness is just opening wounds and polarizing editors who should be working together :( . Shell babelfish 09:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
First off, I have never stalked another Wikipedian. WhiteCat made the accusation, but it was well established that it was baseless (check that same RfC, it's all there). Elonka made the accusation too, and if you want I can give you the link to the old arbcom evidence where she goes into detail. Again, baseless. The only time I even got close was when we were both edit warring over naming conventions, which led to our arbcom case.
Your first diff is of someone complaining that I restored someone else's message on Elonka's RfA, which I was rightly a participant of at the time. I've already clarified this in the comment you replied to, and again, I was not being unreasonable, disruptive, or anything that Elonka accused me of. I would have done the same thing, which I have done, for anyone else, regardless of who's RfA it was. Take a look at some of my recent contribs to WP:AN and WP:ANI. Just about all of them for the last week or so are sticking up for banned editors who are unable to be there and stick up for themselves.
Your second diff is her baseless accusations she also tried to pull in the arb case. If you took the time to actually look at her cited diffs you'll see only family article that I showed up on was her mother's page to restore an edit that Jimbo Wales himself did. That sure as hell isn't disruptive. (Now that I think about it, there was an AfD on that same article for her mother, shortly after I edited it.) You didn't link to it, but I did show up on two other articles related to her (which I came to after seeing a link on her talk page). One article was to merge a list of names, something Elonka herself suggested on the talk page, and the other was to fix a formatting error on some headings. That's not stalking, that's just being obsessive compulsive about editing, and wanting to fix something as you read it.
Your third diff was my comment to an arbcom case, which isn't surprising since I have the request page on my watch list, and will comment on cases.
And finally, the only tabs I've ever kept on Elonka was her RfAs. I do the same for just about every editor I comment on in an RfA, which is to watchlist the next consecutive number, if the current one didn't pass. You've even got Durova defending me in that last link. Also, your first and fourth link are to the same exact situation.
It is very rare that you'll see me commenting on Elonka at all. When I do it's in a general area, such as ANI (or RFARB). Even in this ChrisO situation, I really tried hard to not come off as threatening, or taking any sides. So I will not stand for the accusation that I stalked or harassed her.
I am calling Elonka's honesty into question, because it's been well documented that she exaggerates the truth when she goes into war mode (or rather, when she is backed into a corner). It's a dark side of her, and it does exist. If you ever get the time, take a deeper look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions.
Despite that flaw that she has, I consider it simply just one of those things. We all have our own problems, and none of us are perfect. It was this behavior that lead me to oppose her past RfAs, but it has been her over-all behavior as an administrator that has lead me to defend her when the mob started to ask for an admin recall. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A Random Theory

I notice the article A Random Theory was deleted, does its talkpage go eventually? (I was about to assess the article from there.)Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be my mistake - I missed that talk page when deleting the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Shell babelfish 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick thought

You wrote:

Except in obvious cases (BLP springs to mind), administrators are not arbitrators of content, nor do I believe that Arb rulings are meant to be used in such a manner. What administrators can, and should do, is enforce civil editing and cooperation and allow regular community consensus processes to determine content. If this community process is not working, then we need to open a dialog on what is failing and why - not attempt to set up Administrators as content judges.

I have a real hard time with the insinuation that content is "easy to judge" at BLP pages but "hard to judge" in cases of fringe theories. This is essentially the problems many editors have with Elonka and a lot of similar-minded editors who are not familiar enough with the subject material to make any meaningful contributions to editorial discussions about articles but instead legislate behavior in a way that appeals to the lowest common denominator of WP:BITE, WP:FORGIVE, and WP:CON. The problem is that we have concerted groups of editors who are dedicated to promoting snake oil on Wikipedia and no acknowledgement that this is a problem outside of an increasingly diminishing cadre of volunteer editors who are trying to root out the errors, soapboxing, and outright lies. If an administrator isn't allowed to have a WP:CLUE, then the administrator should just butt out. Ultimately editorial decisions must be made and leaving them up to the wisdom of the mob is harmful to the encyclopedia as a meaningful reference work.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not all content at biographies is easy to judge; I was specifically referring to junk like "he molested a kid" with no source given. Some things are more subtle and needs some discussion first, such as the recent disputes at John Edwards - how and whether the tabloid claims should be mentioned was a serious debate, there was even a poll over how much weight to give the item. Once consensus is reached on these types of items, then yes, its easy to see when people are going against that consensus, but not all material is as easy as "yes that should be in" or "no it shouldn't" at first glance. Personally my gut instinct would have been not to include the tabloid claims at all, but consensus eventually decided otherwise.
That's a bit different though than having a clue and not wandering in with a blindfold. I think that there is a place for civility enforcement when that is a problem, but you have a good point in that content enforcement needs to work hand in hand with this approach. If civility enforcement or other editing restrictions start causing content problems, then the restrictions in place need changing. I've been saying for quite some time that POV pushers (whether its fringe, political or whatnot) are a serious problem - there are more kooks willing to sit on articles and wear people out then there are contributors with unlimited amounts of patience dealing with them. If you have an editor or editors who consistently edit against consensus, I consider that to be disruptive and something that should be triggering restrictions. Shell babelfish 06:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

I received this " You appear to have been around a while, so I'm sure you know that edits, like the one you left on User talk:Shot info are inappropriate. If you can't say something nice, please keep your opinions of other editors to yourself. Better yet, try focusing editing and deal with problems from a content perspective"

But find nothing on his/her talk page by me at all. Please explain. JimZDP (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't find it because it was removed; I would be referring to this edit. Shell babelfish 06:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

When a person is yammering on with irrelevent knowledge, and doing so in a condescending manner it's not a personal attack to call them pedantic and pompous. It's an observation. JimZDP (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that sort of behavior just isn't accepted here. Please don't make comments of that sort on Wikipedia. If you need to engage someone about their behavior, you need to find a civil way to approach them. Shell babelfish 06:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. R.L. Hymers

Hello Shell,

I am an attorney and have been asked by Dr. R.L. Hymers to contact you regarding an ongoing dispute concerning his living biography page on Wikipedia. I know you are familiar with the dispute. I think this matter will have to proceed to arbitration and I am troubled by much of the unsourced and unsupported content posted by the user "Scooge". Given your background, I think we can both agree that some of the content borders on libel. I would like to speak with you about the procedure for arbitration; you can e-mail me at my personal account, which is <redacted>. I would appreicate you contacting me there as I am not well versed on communicating through Wikipedia.

Thanks, Jeremy Osher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyosher (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Dear Shell: Below is the discussion board posting Scooge sent to me, and below that is that my answer to her).

Scooge Acts Like a Human Being

I'm totally amenable to taking out *Churches that Abuse* [too vague a reference] but I do feel strongly that some mention appear somewhere of the Vitamin C edict and Enroth's "Churches on the Fringe" article from Eternity Magazine. It needn't be prominent.

I've seen "The King James Only Debate," but I tend to frequent Roman Catholic-dominated bookstores these days, so that might explain the discrepancy. Perhaps they are less well-versed (pun not intended).

I really liked the idea of integrating the controversies into either Hymers' bio, or the history of the churches he's led, so that the media attention flows more organically from the history of these groups themselves. Even before you came on board, Kyu, there was still a lot of media attention--both for Maranatha Chapel and for ODCC.

Carl, BTW, says you are whip-smart.Scooge (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Shell - this is a cc of the discussion board posting I sent to Scooge.

Dear Scooge:

Thank you for writing a reasonable post. I think the Vitamin C should be kept out. It was only for the leadership of the church in the first place (stewards and helpers), and it was only done in the interest of keeping them from having a series of colds and flu during a particularly bad flu season. It should have been just said verbally, "hey, you kids, take Vitamin C!" It was a short of period of time when this was done, not something even worthy of note. If it hadn't been written down, no one would have thought about it. Don't you agree that Vitamin C is a good thing to take when you are threatened with a cold? That does not seem very strange to me that Dr. Hymers told these leaders to take Vitamin C.

I do not think that Enroth's article from Eternity Magazine should be cited for two reasons. First, because he backed off these accusations after he was contacted by our attorney, John Warwick Montgomery, then head of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law and a noted evangelical attorney. Second, because the magazine itself is no longer in existence this would be a quotation from a now defunct magazine about a subject that Enroth backed away from himself later. I don't think that a "shadowy" article from a defunct magazine is worthy of mention.

The point, regarding the demonstrations, is that they were mostly focused on the 1986 demonstration against abortion and the 1988 demonstration against "The Last Temptation of Christ." There has been virtually no secular media attention since 1988. That's why I feel that media attention is not the central thing in Dr. Hymers' 50 years of ministry. It reflects a relatively small part of his overall ministry. The fact that his sermons go out worlwide in nine languages is of far greater impact and importance, as are his books.

I hope this is the end of our debate. I wish you well. Live in peace!

CC: Jeremy Osher, Attorney at Law Kdl4082 (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag team

Hello Shell. You suggested on WP:AN/I recently that I was a member of a "tag team". Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say or you were repeating what somebody else had told you off-wiki without checking it for yourself. Do you not realise that making such unsupported suggestions constitutes an extremely offensive and highly uncivil personal attack? Please take a little time to explain the basis of your accusations, if that was indeed what you were trying to say. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I could take offense to the fact that you've suggested I'm hiding things off-wiki, being led around by the nose or don't have the sense to do my own leg-work and simply parrot things other people tell me - that's a grand number of assumptions all squeeze into one weighted question. I'm genuinely surprised though, especially given that we've had this conversation more than once before, that you're still claiming its a horrid personal attack to accuse people of working together on a cooperative project. I understand that others may have used poor language in expressing their concerns to you, for example, calling any group on Wikipedia a "lynch mob" is clearly inappropriate, but I think if you'll take a look at my comments again without coloring them with the same brush, you might see them differently.
There's nothing wrong with working together on Wikipedia or forming supportive or cohesive groups. The problems generally occur when a group develops a siege mentality and begins to see any editor disagreeing with them as an attacker. For example, just for commenting on that ANI thread, my integrity and honesty have been attacked multiple times - in fact, I was even labeled a "fringe supporter" and remarks were made about my level of intelligence. So what is of concern there is not editors working together, but editors who allow or even encourage each other to treat other editors poorly if they're "on the other side".
However, none of this has anything to do with my request that you try to remain civil, even in heated discussions, so instead of deflecting, please take the suggestion on board and find more constructive means to express your concerns in the future. Shell babelfish 02:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you remember making these comments on WP:AN/I on July 21?

Randrake, Slrubenstein, Mathsci - can I ask why it is we keep seeing the three of you show up in places together and the threads quickly degenerate into snippy comments and personal attacks? "derail wikipedia policies" "integrity of Wikipedia depends on this" "wasting the time of good faith editors" -- c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that? You guys need to take a breather and try to come at your editing on race related articles in a much more calm and civil fashion. If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary. Several people suggested actions here, such as requesting protection and community discussion forums - is there any reason not to try that? Why do all of the threads started by this group end up looking like they're out to get another editor? If an editor is that much trouble, there's pretty standard methods of dealing with it through user RfCs and ArbCom; roasting them over ANI isn't really a preferred method (though sometimes tasty).

Elonka said similar things on Moreschi's talk page, except she made a more explicit reference to a tag team. Here you seemed unconcerned in finding out what was going on (Elonka's decision to act and edit on Zero g's behalf, a week after an uncontentious merge decision had been made on a forked article, created as a result of my addition of two book reviews to Richard Lynn). Your sweeping generalisations do seem to indicate that you had already formed some kind of strong opinion, possibly as a result of off-wiki conversations. But I am not part of a team, even on WP:AN/I. In fact on WP:AN/I I have appeared to discuss User:Muntuwandi's sockpuppetry (he was blocked indefinitely) and also made some remarks about the use of Johanna Nichols' book as a source, during which User:Log in, log out harangued me on my talk page - he turned out to be indefinitely banned User:M.V.E.i. The attempt to add unsourced libelous material to the biography of Michael Atiyah (principally by User:Bharatveer) has mostly been handled off-wiki with administrators, including at a late stage Alison. Most of my mainspace edits involve some kind of scholarship, as at the moment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Futher comment. One of the original disruptive characteristics in Elonka's original definition of tag team in Wikipedia:Tag team closely matches your first sentence above. Did you discuss this with Elonka at any stage? These points have now been struck from the essay. FYI, Shell, I rarely make reports at WP:AN/I. The only one so far was about the "polite troll" User:MoritzB who was indefinitely blocked by MastCell. One of the first comments I made was here about User:Fourdee, permabanned minutes later by Jimbo. Please could you try in future to be more careful when making sweeping generalisations, particularly when they fall so wide of the mark? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that either I'm guilty simply by association or that because you're so focused on Elonka's use of the "tag team" analogy that you've decided my comments on civility must have been meant to say the same thing? Maybe since you're unfamiliar with AN/I, you don't realize that it is fairly common place for someone to drop by and comment on varying aspects of the post and those comments may not be what you wanted to hear especially in the case where the editor(s) doing the reporting are displaying some issues themselves.
Contrary to your claims, my remarks were not generalized, in fact, I pointed to specific comments made during that particular thread that I found to be over the top and incivil. My experience with you and Slrubenstein in particular has been almost completely confined to responding to reports of edit warring and personal attacks that other editors have made against you; I believe having reviewed contributions further, that it was unfair of me to lump Ramdrake in as well since he seems to remain civil even when dealing with difficult situations.
So frankly, none of this required me to be prodded by someone on or off wiki. Your own recent actions bear out my point - you recently managed to call another editor "intellectually dishonest", "hysterical" and "stupid" all in one feel swoop [11] or as another example, called another's edits "childish" [12]. I understand that Wikipedia can become incredibly frustrating, especially in the second example where an editor was clearly making inappropriate edits, all I've suggested is that you persevere and try to avoid making things personal. You do incredible work on articles and if you can avoid becoming incivil when pressed, I think you'll find it much easier to point out the editors who truly are a problem. Shell babelfish 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I have had nothing to do with the tag team essay; I was not involved in the working group that produced it. Shell babelfish 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You deleted a lot of images that I spent a lot of time locating and posting to Wikipedia. They were images in the public domain, mostly from the Florida Photographic Collection that's owned by the State of Florida. I had them properly tagged.

Is there any way to get them back? You wasted many hours of my effort and I'm not going to go and locate them again and re-post them. What you did has basically discouraged me from ever putting that kind of work into Wikipedia contributions ever again. If the images can be recovered from a history log then I'll add as many copyright badges as I possibly can to prevent somebody like you from deleting them yet again. If not then they're just lost, and what you did to those articles was vandalism.

When I first discovered that the images had been deleted, I thought that it was due to a malfunctioning bot. It really sucks that I spend all of that effort and it's gone now due to a malfunctioning HUMAN.

Sobesurfski (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me an idea what images you are referring to? In the case of images from the Florida Photographic Collection, I attempted to locate the images in the database and add license tags whenever possible. The only case in which I would have deleted them would be images whose copyright status was unclear, or the image could not be located. If you have any specific cases you need to have looked at, please let me know and I'll be happy to check why the image was deleted. Its probably also important to note that the vast majority of images from the Florida Photographic Collection were only tagged with the FPC tag and not an additional license tag - the FPC tag is only appropriate to indicate the source of the image, since the copyright status of images in the collection varies widely. Shell babelfish 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And Yet More on Bob Hymers

Hi, Shell. There's more on the Hymers talk page. I'm taking your suggestion and reading up on neutral point of view, conflict of interest, etc. It's very important if I ask for adjudication that I accept direction from those like you who are being of service in this way. So I'm going to at least take a break, and perhaps recuse myself entirely (though I am ambivalent about that, give that Kyu is as partisan in one direction as I am in the other).

My only concerns would be:

(1) if Hymers is calling an attorney in, is that a threat in and of itself?

(2) For Hymers' attorney to suggest that the pastor of a church/supervisor of a group of churches can call one of his church elders/subordinate pastors--a man clearly under his authority, and half his age--a "kike" and that this only amounted to "kids horsing around," is disingenuous in the extreme. Even if the pastor in question called Hymers a "goy." A proportionate response to that might be "yid" or even "heeb." But "kike"? That's pejorative in a way "goy" is not. Heck--it's pejorative in a way that "shiksa" is not. (I've certainly been called a "skiksa" a number of times, and that's no compliment. But I have never, ever called anyone a "kike.") This was a power-play on Hymers' part--a way of demonstrating to himself that those under his authority would accept physical and verbal abuse from him without protest.

(3) The issue regarding Vitamin C had nothing to do with whether or not it's a good idea for people to take Vitamin C. The issue is that the way Hymers proclaimed and enforced the edict shows the degree of control he exerted over the lives of those in his church. There are much worse examples--ones that make this one pale in comparison--but this one is well-documented and well-sourced, and therefore the one I felt ought to appear in the article, for the sake of balance.

Again--I have left entire paragraphs full of flowery language alone. My conduct has not been perfect, but neither has the other sides'.

(4) I am slightly concerned that I've been accused of violating neutral point of view as much as I have, when Kyu has introduced not just press-release-style language about Hymers, but on several occasions has used prose that purported to speak from inside Hymers' head--essentially using Hymers POV while maintaining the third person grammatically (e.g., "Hymers became concerned when he saw over a million abortions performed in the U.S. per year"; "Hymers said something he hadn't intended to say"; "Hymers prefers to call it Ruckmanism"; etc.).

All that said, I deeply appreciate the patience and the fairness that both you and Xymmax have put into this situation. I know it can't have been easy, and I appreciate your forbearance.Scooge (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Shell. Just a few more little clarifications:

1) Hymers is within his right to speak with an attorney over many things and just the fact that someone might do so is not what Wikipedia calls a "legal threat", however, if someone (account or IP address) were to indicate that they were taking legal action against an editor or Wikipedia itself then the account or IP address would be blocked from editing Wikipedia until such time as they indicated that the legal business had been concluded or that they were withdrawing the threat of legal action. In other words, while saying someone is consulting an attorney verges on being inappropriate and will likely get someone counseled about the no legal threats policy, its not quite to the level of requiring a block (unless its repetitive or used to try to discourage other editors from participating).

I wasn't requesting a block, only indicating factors that could have affected MY OWN frame of mind when I wrote the thing *I* wrote that sounded like a threat. And I really did mean it like: "If the final product is too biased in one direction, one of the other survivors (like, some of the guys who lost a decade or better to what they call "the cult"), might become more active again, so the other side shouldn't overplay their hand, if negative publicity is what they are concerned about." A couple of the guys have told me that they HOPE Hymers actually sues them, because then they could give depositions, and get even more of this documented.

So, just a clarification. 'Nuff there.

2) What someone's attorney says or what we think really isn't the focus here; what Wikipedia articles do is report what was said by other reliable media. So, for example, if a reliable source states that Hymers use of certain words or tactics is a power play on his part, we can record that in the article and cite the source. On the flip said, if the source only says that he used an offensive word, we can't draw our own conclusions about it being a power play, so we would only put in what the source said (see WP:OR for a discussion of not using what Wikipedia calls "original research"). And again, if someone else suggests that the incident was "just horsing around", we don't put that in the article or change what is in the article unless they can provide a source which backs up their claims.

Again: I was only trying to point out why I felt that Hymers' attorney was being a bit clumsy in covering up what was, in my opinion, OVERTLY inappropriate and controlling behavior from the head of a church organization. I do not want my "power play" language used in the article, but I feel strongly that that incident--and the physical abuse mentioned in the L.A. Times article--should not be kept out of the final article.

I agree that any negative material should be stated as clinically as possible, letting the reader draw his/her own conclusions.

3) I'm not aware of the vitamin C issue, so could you point me again at the source for that? If its a notable incident, we should be reporting what the source has to say about the subject, being careful not to include things that the source doesn't say about the subject.

I'll send you the text of the Eternity magazine article. One awkward thing about this whole article is that a lot of the press coverage of Hymers was from the 1970s and 1980s, and that makes it hard to find online. (Not to mention documenting his television coverage from the 1980s, when his conduct was most outrageous--he had a habit of walking off the set in the middle of an interview--very dramatic.) Is there an address to which I could send you actual clippings from the material that is not available online? Here's my address (please copy and delete): <redacted for privacy>). It's just so awkward when I have material from mainstream sources, but I only have 'em on paper.

4) I know it may seem like things are unbalanced at this point because Wikipedia editors tend to be a bit more watchful about negative information in biographies of living people, but Kyu has also been advised of the conflict of interest guidelines and asked to refrain from editing the article. I'm sure there are still a number of things that need fixing in the article, such as the sentences you pointed out that may be giving information not really contained in the sources - my changes certainly didn't fix everything, but I hope they were a start on the way to a better article. Lets see if we can't use the talk page of the article to discuss what points still need improving and how best to handle them.

You're a paragon of patience; I want to be just like you when I grow up!  ;) Scooge (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just realized something

My thread title "sigh" on Abd's talk page could have been interpreted as disatisfaction with your unblock decline. It's actually just the title of the thread I was originally planning to use hours ago when I was going to unblock him. It had nothing to do with your decision, which I understand, even if I don't quite agree. --barneca (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I hadn't even thought about it that way - so no worries, I didn't take it as a comment on my unblock decline. Like I said, I don't think its clear cut and I wouldn't object if someone else felt an unblock was a better idea - given the pages and pages I had to wade through to get an idea what's gone on over the past few days, I completely understand why you'd be sighing at this point :) Shell babelfish 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for spending some time at Terren Peizer‎. There hadn't been an edit war for a couple days after I unprotected the page, but evidently, the day I left town is the day they chose to start again. And good call with the sockpuppet case. I'm just out of my element dealing with BLP issues. You've really been a big help. Okiefromokla questions? 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you were doing just fine over there. There's no harm in trying to unlock articles, unfortunately this time the problem hadn't quite gone away yet. There's several other editors who are helping keep an eye out now, so hopefully we'll get any further problems resolved rather quickly. Shell babelfish 00:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I see you've seen the recent user to chime in on the article's talk page. How would you feel about throwing him (User:BeltKingIn) into the related sockpuppet case? Okiefromokla questions? 03:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, nevermind. I see you've already tried. Okiefromokla questions? 03:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Since he just came back and called me a "crybaby" which Ani4mate did earlier, I've just blocked him as a sock. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Shell babelfish 03:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Good. I would have been satisfied if the blocking rationale had been incivility and BLP violations. From now on, if the arguments and wording lend suspect to further sockpuppetry by this person, I'll just block any new account there on sight. Okiefromokla questions? 03:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling: "travelling" is correct spelling in much of the English-speaking world.

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect other forms of English in Wikipedia articles.

The guidelines are simple. For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Thank you. --Srleffler (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I wasn't trying to change anything from British-English or vice versa, I'm only going after actual spelling mistakes. I'll add this to my list so it doesn't get caught again. Its kind of disappointing that you'd just toss a template on my talk page and assume that was my intent. :( Shell babelfish 03:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Blip Festival

Hello and good evening! I noticed you raised some questions about the Blip Festival's notability. I added some articles from prominent news sources to the references section, I hope that clears up any issues. I've attended some of the past festivals, and I will say they're pretty notable, at least in New York, around the time they're happening. --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic

What happened in this edit [13] of yours? Your edit summary was "Reverted 1 edit by 203.177.92.101 identified as vandalism to last revision by Phatom87. (TW)", but you did not revert to the last revision by Phatom87 [14]; instead, you ended up deleting much of the page. I don't use Twinkle so I don't know if it's a problem with that software, but if it's a problem with Twinkle, you should report the bug to the tool coder. If it's not a problem with Twinkle, try to be more careful (no big deal, though, everybody makes mistakes once in a while when editing quickly). —Lowellian (reply) 05:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, that's definitely a Twinkle issue - I must have missed it because I had the ip page pop up for a warning. Thanks for catching that and letting me know! Shell babelfish 05:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edits on Ian Drew page

I acted in good faith when posting Ian Drew's birth name. I posted in the discussion section to show that Ian himself is editing his own page. As for sourcing, I went to college with Ian and know his birth name. Shouldn't we resolve this via the discussion page? ----wunderboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.214.251 (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Todd bentley

Hi Shell, the current version is WP:UNDUE and I suggest that if you compare and contrast, my version is more in keeping with our BLP policies. Obviously I don't want to edit war about such matters so a second view would be helpful (since you've been following this). --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely - since the account was violating BLP and edit warring after having been warned several times, I've blocked it for 24 hours. I also reverted his changes - even though the blog traces back to another website as its source, neither of those is reliable or mainstream and as I said on the talk, I don't see any reason that this passes the bar for inclusion. Shell babelfish 12:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Bentley Drinking Allegations

If the TACF is not an acceptable source it is the same type of organisation legally as Fresh Fire Ministries. Therefore if the TACF link is not going to be allowed, all the statements attributed to Fresh Fire and the endtimesprohetic blog should also be removed. Comprende? What is the official dispute resolution policy on Wikipedia? Dg32 (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Em.. you wouldn't happened to be the editor that was just blocked? Before you answer, bear in mind that we can check IPs if sock puppetry is suspected. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you Shell Kinney? Who is "we"? You and "Shell Kinney"? Dg32 (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This account has been blocked - please do not create accounts to bypass your block. You are welcome to return in 24 hours with your original account and edit within Wikipedia policy. Shell babelfish 13:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:SignOfTheTimes ... Unblock?

I have been in discussion, and the user has promised to stop reverting, and seek proper dispute resolution in the future. I am looking for your blessing to unblock. What say you? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this message was left a while ago, I've just gone ahead and unblocked him myself. Thanks for the heads up! Shell babelfish 03:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1790 Cincinnati

Why did you change the 1790 Cincinnati page back to their former name of Cincinnati Excite. Yes, you are right there is a children's team of the same name, which connected to the team I believe. But the Cincinnati Excite are now the 1790 Cincinnati. I can show you many websites that say this as true (for the new league they just joined PASL's website: http://www.arenaleague.com or this message board: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=697364&page=2 scroll all the way down) and more. Plus the team has started work on it's new website: http://www.1790cincinnati.org/. So now do you believe me?--Cincydude55 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

I see that on your user page you say "I'm also available for informal help resolving disputes on request."

You may have noticed that theNew antisemitism article, which you locked because of an edit war, is in a confrontational mode. I have no idea if other editors are interested in an outside view, but I would be interested in finding a way to resolve the disputes there. But someone is needed who is outside the real-world argument over the New Left and antisemitism. It would be good if the level of discussion among the article editors could be improved, I would appreciate hearing your views on the problems there. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's a good discussion already going about where best to put the image and what caption to use - I hope you feel comfortable participating there. Maybe if everyone can point out where they think the image should go, you can come to an agreement about where to put it. Shell babelfish 09:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I made an implicitly disparaging remark about your protection of this page, that I've since struck and retracted. Sorry about that.--G-Dett (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, wrong version and all that every time :) Shell babelfish 09:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My own main concern with the editing situation is WP:CIVILITY. Using incivility as an editing tactic often does tend to drive away many editors. I am happy that some editors, who had been absent, have returned to the article.

My other concern, particularly related to content, is reliable sources; but, since conversation is now returned to the disputed image (which does not particularly concern me), I may leave that till later.

Just a short explanation. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand. Wikipedia would be a much more pleasant place to work if everyone could remain civil all the time, but unfortunately, that really only happens in the movies. Even the best of people get frustrated and short after having dealt with controversial topics for a long time, especially since they are frequently faced with vandalism and random people who stop by just to push a POV. The longer a dispute goes on, the more likely editors are going to be tired of dealing with the issue and incivility is usually one of the first signs that editors are getting worn out (or even burned out maybe?).
As far as issues of reliable sources and weight, those are the types of concerns that come up frequently when dealing with topics of this type. My only advice is to clearly state your concerns, provide sources or diffs anytime you can and be ready to find compromises. Shell babelfish 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism ?

Dear Shell,I noticed that you have marked my contributions to the "Horror Punk" page as vandalism. It was definately not my intention to effect the page with any false, misleading or mischievious intent. Merely add to the page with which I thought to be some relevant information and still wish to do so. If you do believe there seems to be some discrepancy or misplacement of information, could you please relay your opinion to me on my Talk page. I do not wish to be considered a vandal, so I would be most grateful if this could be rectified by yourself. Thankyou. Dr.warhol (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Shell babelfish 09:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take this OTRS ticket.

The sender's very unhappy about my replies to VRTS ticket # 2008080510016114. Another person's approach may help. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-29t12:11z

I'll give it a stab, but for what its worth, I thought that was an excellent reply and follow-up. Shell babelfish 12:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Problematic Edit on R.L. Hymers Entry

Shell, another of Hymers' colleagues has come by and edited his article--it's only a one-word edit, but it's repetitive and ungrammatical. I'd like to see it reverted, but I don't think I should do it, lest another edit war break out. Do you have time to give it a peek, or shall I check in with X, who has also been helping adjudicate disputes on the article from time to time?Scooge (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


perineum

Edit Warring -- Hi, I have been actively trying to learn Wikipedia, and also actively trying to engage David Shankbone in a discussion about these images. He has his talk page locked where I cannot comment on it to him, but I have been using the article's discussion page to make my views known, and request some discussion about it. He has not reciprocated yet, and I therefore don't think it is necessary to block me. Please read the article, its discussion page, and note his behavior and his comments. He usually comes in after someone else has taken the images out and simply reverts without discussion. I recently registered to try and get some feedback about and received none. I will be looking at further mediation if this continues. I am trying to get other eyes to look, and get everyone talking about it, instead of simply reverting it. But I have not been successful so far. Please help me out. Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Now registered (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My talk page has been locked to unregistered users and newly (3 days, I think?) registered user for a long time because I have a stalker. I also have over 4,000 articles on my watch list that I have had a hand in editing or illustrating. Waiting a few days for me to answer your coarse talk shouldn't come as a surprise. I'm happy to discuss the images with you and others. But forcibly removing material you don't like simply because you have not received the response you demand is not the way to go. It's not how we do things here. It's far more civil and relaxed. The photos have been there for a year; a few more days is not going to cause the Rapture. --David Shankbone 02:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I registered last week, so I am not sure about the three day thing there. I have hardly been coarse; I think you're confusing me with someone else. I've been patient and tried to be reasonable, and this is the most you've responded. Likewise, forcibly adding material because you don't find it objectionable is not the way to go. As for my "demands", I have tried to get this on the article's discussion page so we can talk about it, and I am still learning a lot. Please move your next responses to the article's discussion page, and let's see what we can determine is the best course of action. The photos may have been there a year, but they also have been reverted an awful lot over that year (I examined the history). Thanks,Now registered (Hope I signed this right)

  • When you make a change to an article and are reverted by another editor, its not appropriate to continuing making the same change. If you continue reverting, you will end up blocked. I understand that you feel your change is reasonable and better for the article, however, at this time you have at least two editors who do not feel that way and a long history of these images having been included in the article. At least one person has responded on the talk page; its likely that you would have gotten more response had you put the section at the bottom of the page (that's the convention on Wikipedia) and had you not made the comment personal. When editing on Wikipedia, you're expected to remain polite and civil when dealing with others - making disparaging comments about an editor and even accusing them of having sockpuppets is a bad way to get started. Shell babelfish 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but do you now see the wisdom behind WP:AGF? First, last week I was extraordinarily busy at my job, since I was leaving Thursday through Monday for Labor Day weekend, where I did absolutely no Wiki-editing or blogging (my blog said that). The material is not "forcibly added" there is consensus for it; this is why you see four or five different editors well-known in the community that you refer to as my "sockpuppets". So, I've been out of town, I've been trying to catch up, I wasn't paying attention to a talk page, and you assumed all of it had something to do with my thinking you aren't important enough to address. Yet here I am now, addressing you thoughtfully as multiple admins are warning you that you will be blocked for your behavior. I can tell you, a person who doesn't recognize when they are wrong in their behavior never makes it here. I will be happy to discuss it with you, but let's give it a few days rest, with the article in tact, and reapproach the issue and perhaps open it for consensus. You may win! But not if you go on like this. --David Shankbone 03:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that, and I know my inexperience hurts, as I've pointed out. However, I am not the only editor that disagrees with the images, so it isn't exactly a two against one thing. Several people have tried to roll back the images in the past only to have Shankbone revert them with no substantial comment from what I can tell. I have asked for further mediation, and asked for further help as well. Any more advice would be greatly appreciated, and I appreciate your advice. now_registered (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to removing content that has been discussed and agreed upon, "drive-by vandalism" in the form of ripping of content because WP:IDONTLIKEIT will win you no support. When you are an WP:SPA, it immediately casts suspicion that you aren't exactly here to advance an encyclopedia, but to advance an agenda, which could violated the important policy of WP:NPOV. You are proposing a hot button change, on page that over the year has been discussed by long-standing editors. You can be Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but like him, you have to learn how the regulars do things (and why). Right now, Ur doin it wrong. This site has evolved to be far more bureaucratic than you may think. Learning how to work within the bureaucracy, without coming across as agenda-driven, is going to be integral to you winning an argument against the photos. --David Shankbone 03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I will learn enough to know how to handle these situations in the future. I don't think that anything that I wrote appears to be agenda driven. You haven't been as helpful to me as I think an experienced editor should be to a new editor. I'm still asking for some good faith here, and that you please assume good faith on my part instead of using your experience here to chide me repeatedly which feels a lot like WP:BITE. I have noted several times in my edits and in the discussion page that I believe we should work towards making the article better, and I certainly don't feel I have vandalized the article. I felt that you simply reverting my good faith edits was you pushing your own agenda and violated the policy of WP:NPOV. I looked through the discussion page and saw nothing that looked like a consensus agreement on keeping those images; I checked the edit history and it seems to have a long standing argument between you, and a couple of others, against just as many voices who, like me, feel the images aren't scientific and don't improve such a short article that already has multiple, good labeled illustrations. I've submitted a request for third-party mediation, and I hope that can get us talking in the right place about the article, the article's discussion page, and focus on talk about the article, not about you, me, or anything else, just the article and the best direction for it. Thanks, -- now_registered (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption request

I am having difficulties again on Wikipedia; I was adopted by User:Ecoleetage from July 15, 2008 to August 5, 2008, and on September 5, 2008, an AN/I was filed about me by User:Orderinchaos, which has led to further problems. I posted a template on my current talk page indicating that I request to be adopted. I recognize your user name in the list of potential Adopters as an administrator involved in blocking me in the past relating to my concerns about potential copyright violations in images, which were subsequently removed from Wikipedia. I wonder if you might be able to look at the AN/I and my request on my current talk page and the contexts of my past adoption in archive pages 21 and 22 of my talk page and let me know whether or not you might consider adopting me. I could use your guidance and possible mentorship if I am going to continue contributing my time and energy to editing Wikipedia so that I can navigate these at times very unfriendly waters. Thank you for considering my request. --NYScholar (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

good faith edits on ian drew

I'm not sure why you're removing my good faith edits on ian drew's page. Good faith edits are allowed by wikipedia policy and not everything requires a source (most of wikipedia is unsourced).

The person removing my changes has not attempted to resolve the good faith edits or dispute my claim. So since they are not following wikipedia policy, why are you removing my changes?

---wunderboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.214.251 (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at NYScholar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for updating the adopt-a-user template on my talk page. I look forward to learning from you! I posted the fact that you adopted me and that you changed the template at the AN/I. I don't know what the procedure is re: "closure" there. Perhaps you and other administrators can decide how to deal with it. I'm lucky that you are willing to adopt me. Thank you again! --NYScholar (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at NYScholar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some follow up comments

Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at NYScholar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Shell: These are some thoughts that your questions led me to. I have had general and specific lingering concerns and ongoing misgivings about the whole AN/I situation. I apologize for length; you don't have to read them if you don't have time, but I am going on the record with my impressions and perceptions and lingering concerns about the whole AN/I process [in Wikipedia], which I think is at least somewhat dysfunctional. Thanks if you have time; if not, I understand. Due to the unresolved nature of the comments that remain posted there forever in archived state, I have posted my impressions, which will also be automatically archived in a couple of days. --NYScholar (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Shell: The Discussion top template in the AN/I was corrupted by an External link it seems; temporarily have corrected the format: 237169612; you may want to ask closing admin to see if that's okay or if s/he wants to tinker w/ it some more; I moved the diffs. from w/in the template curved brackets to outside, just so people can see it until closing admin. can fix it as wishes. Hope no one really minds. I used date I recalled from prev. diffs. I saw; may be appox. but it's better than my current UTC to use. --NYScholar (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No more can be done

Unfortunately, no more can be done. Martin reverted my edits and has not responded to my point that he is making an original research synthesis on the talk page. Perhaps you can talk to him about inserting poorly vetted syntheses? Can you imagine if we said under the movie For All Mankind a link to ufology simply because Edgar Mitchell is a proponent of ufology? Martin is making undercover POV-edits and no one is noticing. Please help! ScienceApologist (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in discussion. So often administrators do not do this and it makes editing really difficult. You are one of the better ones and I appreciate it. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that as far as I know I have not reverted ScienceApologist since I promised his now-retired mentor Anthony that I would not (nor before that for many weeks per a restriction on both of us). What he refers to above as a revert was my filling his SYNTH, and DUBIOUS, tags with sources from the New York Times etc. [15] ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving problem?

Shell: Something wacky seems to be going on in the archiving of my current talk page; new archive pages are being added before the earlier ones are filled up, and the Sept. 5 AN/I closing admin.'s comments appeared archived initially and not in my current talk page; I almost missed seeing them entirely, except that the existence of 2 new archive pages (24 and 25) showed up via my watch list referring to 23 as being "full", which it is not. Also, the admin. is requesting that I edit an already-archived AN/I, when the instructions of the archiving boxes say that others should not edit them. I did alert you and Gara (?--name from memory now was may be wrong typing of it) that I fixed the coding in the Sept. 5 closing message template that s/he placed so that it would show up; I haven't been back to check it since then; I'll look for the version s/he refers to if/when I have time. Please help if you can to straighten out/fix this archiving bot situation or please ask for others who can to assist with the technical problem. Thanks so much! --NYScholar (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NYS block

HI just blocked NYS for 48 hours I had asked him to edit his out is accusation from the ANI discussion that an editor was inhumane. His response was to reitterate it and then launch into further attacks, both on his talk page and mine. Gnangarra 00:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NYS needs to stop the PA including the rants about OIC and remove the ones already written, if you choose to unblock I wont argue the point. Gnangarra 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Two key points in his resposne one was "that NYS made no PA" and that NYS was "setting the record straight with the comment" that to me is a reitteration, the response then went on to complain about OIC initial posting to ANI you had already asked NYS to stop that but they continue on. NPA block is meant to better help WP by giving others the opportunity to work in a non hostile environment. Gnangarra 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering why you advised NYS to delete comments from their page. I had left a comment supporting unblock while acknowledging the problems thinking it would help the case. Is NYS just too overwhelmed to effectively deal with the situation anymore? --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think I've just changed my mind about supporting the unblock. NYS seemed to take great offense at the fact that I posed a question here and left a lengthy series of reasons why what I did was wrong (and could potentially lead to getting blocked myself) with links to various Wiki Policies and to other places on the NYS talk page. It seemed a bit excessive for what was, in my mind, a helpful gesture. I won't quote anything here as NYS has, in the past, been upset by any words being taken out of context but feel free to read them yourself. I was hoping to help smooth the way but I think I may just sit this one out. --FilmFan69 (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at NYScholar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shell: I am unblocked currently, as it appears that the block expired. I made a couple of corrections to citations that had been changed while I was blocked [and a bit of "clean up" here and there]. They are relatively minor changes [or edits/comments]. I'm afraid that I have become quite exhausted by this experience. I may take some time out of Wikipedia. If you do not see me here, it just means that I am taking a breather. If you have further advice to post in my talk page, please do post it there. But, as I say, I am taking a break for a while. I have too many things that I have to get done that were interrupted during this process, and I have to turn back to working on them and also to getting some R&R. Thanks again. I'm not sure if "talkback" template is exactly the right one to post in this situation, but it is possible that you may not have seen some of my responses to you in various parts of the current talk page. I look foward to the archiving bot taking over and working correctly. Thank you for the help with that too.

  • (cont.) I look forward to seeing your list; I just hope that it does not overwhelm or depress me. You might want to visit the RfA concerning my past adopter/mentor, to see the full context of my remarks there; they are way down on the list in the 60s I think some where. He had far more support than opposition, but the hostility in the opposition just led to the withdrawal of the RfA.
  • (cont.) I do need a more-experienced mentor, because, as I said to him and to you, I am apparently quite a challenge! I do not like to leave "loose ends" that might come back to bite me in the future; that is why I have gone "on the record" on my current talk page and why I do not want any comments made about me in the previous matters to be deleted from archived administrative pages. Let it all hang out. :)
  • (cont.) Sorry for being as wordy as I have been/am. Aside from this post, will renew striving to be more concise on all other Wikipedia pages. Really. (I guess I like to talk. :lol) --NYScholar (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (cont.) I will try to be more "quiet" in the future. --NYScholar (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC) [updated first post above in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)]
Shell: I am sorry to bother you re: this; but there is a real problem now that I have encountered coincidentally today: see Wikipedia:Public domain (talk page) and related Czesława Kwoka images under review and Talk:Czesława Kwoka.
(cont.) As a responsible reader and editor of Wikipedia, I really feel that this matter originating from the unresolved licenses/status of the 2 images in the article has escalated to involve that "content guideline" in Wikipedia, which is now coming up in Google searches for "images of Nazi regime U.S. copyright law". This problem has grown beyond me as a single editor. As I understand it, content guidelines are not supposed to be changed to support a position in an editing war pertaining to such content; in this case WP:IUP and Wikipedia:Public domain are involved via the differences of points of view about including 2 to 3 specific images in Wikipedia/Wikipedia Commons. I really do not want to get involved in this matter any further; I am passing it off to you and other administrators to look at the editing of Wikipedia:Public domain and to see if it conforms with WP:POL, WP:LOP. Thanks very much.
(cont.) I am logging back out of Wikipedia. If I hadn't come across the Wapedia link while not logged into Wikipedia, I would not have noticed this problem. But I did. Thanks if you can help. --NYScholar (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice on Reliable Source

Can you please advise me if the following is a "Reliable Source" for citation:

Human Nature Review: Human Nature Review is a significant source of analysis and commentary for readers at leading universities and research institutes in over one hundred and sixty countries and is one of the most popular sites on the whole world wide web. http://human-nature.com/

The articles I have in mind are the following: http://human-nature.com/esterson/synopsis.html http://human-nature.com/esterson/esterson3.html

The first is a synopsis of an academic journal article of mine that an editor of Human Nature Review invited me to submit. The second is a related article. Esterson (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

DontDateHimGirl.com

This page has been flagged for its neutrality since 2007. It's gotten cleaned up a lot since people adding erroneous information and trying to purposefully cast the site in a negative light. On the site, if you log on to it, you will see that at the bottom of each posting, there is a button where men can automatically post a rebuttal. It goes up instantly once it's typed. That is automatic in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.141.51 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Shell babelfish 17:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate lawsuit information

The suit was not "settled privately". If you read the documents carefully, you will see that it was dismissed by both parties and the dismissal was granted by the judge. "Settled privately" implies that there was no dismissal, when in fact, there was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.141.51 (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Club 1840

Porque foi apagado o artigo do Club 1840? Tem lá o site da empresa e numa pesquisa no google facilmente o encontra referencias(estou a escrever em portugues porque no profile diz que fala português). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.78.58 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

O artigo parece ter sido eliminado porque reuniu um dos Speedy deletion criteria da Wikipedia. Isso pode ser porque ele era extremamente curto ou porque não fornecer informações sobre por que o seu tema foi notável o suficiente para a inclusão em uma enciclopédia. Se você pode fornecer fontes que iria verificar se o sujeito satisfaz os notability requirements, em seguida, o artigo pode ser desfeita. Shell babelfish 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Litigation Section of Dontdatehimgirl.com

This case was settled between the two parties. The court merely approved the settlement petition. It is misleading to imply that the case was dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.203.235 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is someone who keeps putting erroneous information about the lawsuit. There is an order of dismissal from the judge in the reference documents. It is not misleading to write that the case was dismissed when there was an order dismissing it. There is documented proof of a dismissal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.141.51 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly misleading to imply that the case was dismissed without a settlement. I recommend adding that the terms of the settlement are not publicly disclosed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.203.235 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comics Guaranty LLC

Thanks for protecting the page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And nice wiki-themed lolcats. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection for DontDateHimGirl.com?

Hello Shell. Two IPs are edit-warring on this article. The article was quiet prior to September 11, so I'm guessing that two weeks of semi-protection might be enough to calm the uproar. Would you support that? EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that at all - they've both had multiple warnings and show no sign of heading for the talk page. While I'd rather not protect myself since I've edited the article before and tried to come up with some compromise wordings that they could accept, I would wholly support semi-protection for a bit. Shell babelfish 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please notice that all of my changes after Shell's intervention were to revert the language back to Shell's proposals. I think the article is accurate now. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.203.235 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alec Cizak

Remove any page from your database that has my name on it for ANY reason. Do it ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.199.111 (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

For help

Hello! The administor VS asked me to note to other Admins. It happened that I found you and I invite you help to solve the dispute/problem about the article Gaogouli County if you are interested and have time. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=240660700. Thanks! -Dicting (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanet

Hi! I see you are supporting User:Hamletpride and wonder if you help me out. I see that he already seems to have fallen foul with another editor re Thanet, and I am finding a problem about the same thing. He merged an article on the Isle of Thanet with one called Thanet, which was ostensibly originally one of the District of that name. Two editors disagreed with the merge before he did it (as I do most strongly) since they are not compatible - not all of Thanet District is the island; and of course District Councils came into being in 1974, whereas the island is a geographical feature. I have written to Hamletpride and am awaiting his reply; but I do feel that he might wait a bit before taking plunges such as this which take hours of putting right, when he is as yet a novice. I hope you don't mind me mentioning this to you. Peter Shearan (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, that's what I'm here for. I've tried to take a look into what's going on and I'm having a rough time getting a handle on it. I saw your notes on Hamletpride's talk page, but when I went to look for their responses or edits on the issue, it still shows that Hamletpride stopped editing in May. I know we recently had watchlist items go all wonky, so is it possible that recent edits aren't showing up on contrib lists? Could you point me at where the issue is happening at the moment? Thanks for the help. Shell babelfish 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation help

There is a nasty edit war at Battle of Opis. I believe the parties, Dbachmann (talk · contribs), ChrisO (talk · contribs), Khoikhoi (talk · contribs), and others, could be coaxed into mediation. Would you be willing to help make that happen? Jehochman Talk 14:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Christian distribution.png

I have created the image and released it under a Commons license, the original map is available at Wikimedia Commons file, but the guy copies the map and says he has created the map entirely himself, plus the original one is available, there is no need for another one. Tangomaan (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Undelete image

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Adrienne_Bailon_from_the_Cheetah_Girls_free.jpg

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a copy vio, although of course I can't see it. I think it's an image that a fan took and put on flickr with a CC-By license. It may have had a different image uploaded over it. Anyways, can you look into this? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Took me a little while to track this down, but after a bit I found that the original image that this was cropped from Image:CheetahGirlsfree.jpg turned out to be copyrighted by Wire Image and was deleted back in March after a complaint by the copyright holder; looks like the original editor who uploaded the file has had a lot of image problems like that. The cropped versions like the one you mention weren't caught until just recently and that's why Image:Adrienne_Bailon_from_the_Cheetah_Girls_free.jpg ended up being deleted. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 20:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. That explains it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Maryville University Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Maryville University Logo.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) 06:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

world stock exchange

Hey there. I was looking through the history of this page and noted that you protected it right after a user, which continually deleted adds to the page to make it more neutral, preformed another deletion. You corrected this edit once before, but then seem to have given in before you protected it. I'd advise unediting the final edit before protecting it, as you locked it immediately after a poor edit. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieatsoup (talk • contribs) 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)
Hey there Shell Kinney! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

Then again, maybe a bit more AGF is all that's needed here

Re: [16] --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment? Unless you mean that perhaps it would have been better to approach Elonka and make a polite request instead of the approach you chose? Yes, a little bit of AGF would be nice. Shell babelfish 22:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Was there something in my approach that could be improved? I'm sure of it. Same goes for yours. Me first:
Yes, mimicking Eloka's reply didn't de-escalate the situation, but it's her escalation of these situations that's the problem here. I returned and stated exactly what I think is proper for the situation and did so in a polite manner. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm still having a hard time following what it is you're getting at. I don't like to make assumptions, especially in online interactions (where clues like body language and tone are absent) so I'm really unsure how to respond. I also don't want you to feel I'm being deliberately obtuse or ignoring you, so I'm left in quite a pickle. I'll give it a stab, but please let me know if I'm totally off base about anything.
I can guess from both of your messages here that you feel there was something improper about me asking you and Quackguru to consider that you may be letting past interactions colour your current responses to situations. And just to note, I just pointed out that your delivery and Quackguru's suggestion of an indef block were a bit over the top, not withstanding an apparent misunderstanding of the policy you both quoted. You're certainly not required to take my advice, I just hate to see the same destructive pattern keep occurring. Someone rushes in with guns blazing, the other side response by getting defensive or attacking back and the situation simply continues to escalate.
You also seem to keep pointing to Elonka as the genesis of this pattern, but to do so means throwing good faith out the window, especially in this case. If it had been me, I would have made the post about SA differently; I think it would have been possible to make the same point without including the diffs. However, I don't believe that she made the post for malicious reasons or to "out" someone (who was already "out" by our standards) and I believe she genuinely felt that this information was important to the discussion and I also believe that her assessment was correct. I'm not at all convinced that SA is making these reports in order to regain his privacy; giving these issues such a high profile does nothing but get his information out for more people to see and I'm not going to believe that SA suddenly became too stupid to know that - he's a very bright person. So, we can pretend that big bad Elonka is the reason there is tension in these situations or we can be honest and admit that the tensions existed long before Elonka's involvement (how many ArbCom cases now?).
In short, my advice is to take a break and take stock. Again, this is guessing, but you appear to be rather upset and frustrated over things happening on wiki and its causing you to make choices that, in the long run, really aren't going to do much for you, your reputation and your ability to work with other editors here. Shell babelfish 03:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
QuackGuru and SA should both have been banned from Wikipedia long ago. Don't confuse their disruptions with me.
You haven't a clue how I'm feeling. AGF, take a break, take stock.
I don't think she meant it as harassment either, nor did I say anything that indicated so.
"I'm not at all convinced that SA is making these reports in order to regain his privacy" Neither am I, but I will still respect his privacy.
"in the long run, really aren't going to do much for you, your reputation and your ability to work with other editors here." Maybe a bit more AGF is all that's needed here. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being paranoid....

...but paint me suspicious:

Your thoughts? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say 92.22.185.146 is pretty clearly responsible for both THEN WHO WASNT PHONE? and THEN WHOSE WAS PHONE?? but I'm not sure its associated with the other accounts. 92.16.12.245 claims to be a "friend" of Mister Alcohol and is clearly advocating for him in multiple areas; it would be good if he'd create an account instead of using that odd signature. It's rather unlikely that he's new here since he clearly understands the use of templates and linking to the user space - if it continues, it might be worth a checkuser of Mister Alcohol to make sure he isn't having a bit of fun. Shell babelfish 17:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! When I logged in tonight and found that 92.16.12.245 had jumped into the Quincy Jones debate for the first time just to shut it down, had tried to falsify his ISP, and almost comically tried to assert he's in Boston on his and my talk pages, plus the fact that Snigbrook seems to think he's a sock of The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb; were all more than enough to make me put in a suspected sock report — Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mister Alcohol. That's the first time I've done that using Twinkle, boy does that script make things easier! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Good catch - thanks for the update :) Shell babelfish 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

T-table deletion

Hi, I noticed you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-table on 1-Aug based on its duplication of content with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-distribution#Table_of_selected_values. However, from that article the out-link to the now-deleted table states that it was the Two-tailed version, rather than the one-tailed one still alive. Is it possible to restore that page? Thanks. dmcg026 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was deleted because it was a proposed deletion that had expired; the deletion reason was placed by another editor User:G716. However, since it does appear that there is a difference between the two (one-sided vs. two sided) and since proposed deletion is only for uncontested articles (and you're contesting ;) ) I'll go ahead and undelete the article. Shell babelfish 03:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick work.dmcg026 (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Virgin Mobile or delete?

i'm putting this on your page so you'll see it and respond in helio's discussion page instead of making arbitrary reversions.

It's been suggested that this article be deleted than that it be merged with virgin mobile. I'd like to second the suggestion that it be merged. Unfortunately, Shell Kinney repeatedly shuts down any dissent or discussion. Perhaps she'd like to explain why in the discussion section instead of her current dictatorial route. I think merging it with virgin mobile's is a good idea. helio had zero impact on the wireless market and this article has served, primarily, as a marketing front for the defunct company. What are the precious references worth keeping here that cannot be included in virgin mobile's? there's links to some phones that are unreferenced, already up for deletion, and just serve as marketing. 99% of these references are the generic wikipedia month/date/year links. everything else is just marketing. a link to helio's website, and helio's marketing "magazine" which is no longer maintained. Shell, why is this article so valuable? So far there's 2 who support the merge or delete suggestion and only you care to keep it. Since you're in the minority make a convincing case. You have to remember, wikipedia is governed by community consensus. You, so far, being the sole holder of your opinion flies in the face of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.229.6 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've responded over on the Helio talk page. Shell babelfish 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
i've responded in kind on helio's talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.229.6 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at NYScholar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--NYScholar (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Actually I was referring to the times you vandalized the article, edit warred with other users and generally made a nuisance of yourself on this article and others related to Helio" this appears to be a baseless personal attack to me. would you care to translate it differently? like i said, remove your personality and personal opinion from the subject and address it professionally and objectively or forward it to someone who can.76.213.229.6 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
See the specific diffs I'm referring to below; pointing out your past (mis)behavior on the same article isn't an attack. As far as "forward it to someone who can" I've been clear in what other options you have for deletion and you're welcome to use those. Shell babelfish 03:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome!Trendy Sammy (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

I disagree with adding the name because of the past and current behaviour issues. Me thinks Shell Kinney is not objective. QuackGuru 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. See WP:UNINVOLVED. QuackGuru 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried dealing with this on your talk, but you seem to be deleting each of my comments. For transparencies sake, I'll copy those here:


If you have some concerns over our past interactions, I would be happy to discuss these issues with you in the proper format. Inserting these issues into unrelated discussions on other people's talk page is not the proper format. I would also suggest that continuing to insinuate that I have lied in multiple forums is highly incivil and if it continues may require me to request sanctions against your account. If there is a way we can work this out in a civil manner, please let me know. Shell babelfish 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain why you've dropped into referring to me in the third person as this makes your comments very off-putting. Again, you are claiming that I have lied and misrepresented facts, which I specifically asked you not to do just a moment ago. If you do not feel there is a way to resolve these issues civilly then I do invite you to post your concerns where you see fit and get some outside input on the situation. Shell babelfish 21:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This is starting to feel a bit like harassment. You drop by an unrelated thread to complain, delete my messages from your talk, refer to me in the third-person and you're now monitoring my contributions. If there's something you would like to discuss or work out, I have offered to do so. If you do not wish to do so, please find something more appropriate to do here. Shell babelfish 21:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you'd like to discuss something, lets do that. If you would like to substantiate your claims that I've lied, misrepresented information or am involved or "non-neutral", then we can deal with those incidents productively. If you are only interested in making base accusations, I'm going to have to ask again that you stop. Shell babelfish 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this to you before or not, but please note that if this is a matter involving the discretionary sanctions connected with the Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page, that the relevant definition of "uninvolved admin" is not the usual definition, but a particular definition on the arbitration page; I've put a link to it from the section heading "Uninvolved admins" on the admin log page. You have to scroll down a bit to get to the definition, which is under a sort-of mini-section heading which I'm not sure one can link to directly, "Uninvolved administrators". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Kimm

Hi Shell Kinney. Just wanted to let you know that I've added a few references to this article, which might address your concerns at the AfD. Cheers, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and the work finding the sources! Shell babelfish 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour issues

Shell Kinney has a behaviour issue with regard to Elonka and this needs to stop. Shell Kinney is being unhelpful with regard to a new situation. The past behaviour and the current behaviour should stop. You have made misleading statements in the past. please don't repeat making misleading comments or I will report you to ANI next. QuackGuru 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[17] [18] The admin log page of the chiropractic article is on my watchlist. You have failed to WP:AGF. This is further evidence you are not objective. QuackGuru 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You claimed there was baiting which was a violation of WP:AGF. QuackGuru 04:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hrm? I thanked a user for remaining calm and civil in disputes, including not responding to baiting. Since I made no mention of anything or anyone I felt was baiting I'm not sure how that's a lack of good faith? Who was I assuming bad faith of? Unless you're suggesting that no baiting happens on Wikipedia? Shell babelfish 04:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Who are you accusing of baiting on the talk page? QuackGuru 05:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't, I was simply complimenting an editor for his continued patience and civility in a protracted dispute. Shell babelfish 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You wrote in part: (and doubly your ability to politely ignore the baiting that happens on your talk page). You did use the word baiting and that is an accusation against another editor. Now, please explain what was the baiting that you saw. Also explain what was the protracted dispute and which article are you referring to the dispute. Please provide differences. That would be helpful. QuackGuru 05:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry QuackGuru, unless you have a specific complaint here, there's nothing I can do to help. I'm sure you are well aware of the protracted dispute at Chiropractic and other pseudoscience areas that Levine participates in. I would suggest given your defensiveness over a rather routine barnstar and what was meant to be encouragement for handling things well, you may want to take a hard look at what your intentions are here. Shell babelfish 05:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

St. Edward's College, East Gosford

hey can you please put this article up so it's semi protected from unregistered vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Edward%27s_College,_East_Gosford

cheers. Pilgrim18 (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there have been a couple of bad edits by IPs lately, but it doesn't appear to rise to the level of needing semi-protection at this point. Usually, protection is only necessary when an article is under rather consistent attack. Since I rarely do protection though, you're welcome to ask over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks. Shell babelfish 11:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Inside Track

Please be more careful about reverting. 82.31.164.211 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No - your edits were completely inappropriate, malformatted and showed a great deal of bias on the subject. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Thanks. Shell babelfish 10:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia's policies quite well thank you. Unfortunately you do not appear to know anything about Inside Track, who are bankrupt and discredited. I suggest you read some more about the subject before proceeding, and also look more closely at what actually happened to the article (ridiculous PR whitewash) over its history. 82.31.164.211 (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
In that case you'll be aware that uncited paragraphs especially with phrases like "the company was doomed" and material based on your own research aren't the way to handle an article. There's no reason to let a whitewash stand, but that doesn't mean tossing out other standard policies to lambaste the company is the correct solution either. Shell babelfish 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The company was doomed: they have gone bust, the UK property market is in a very well documented crash, these are both facts. I'm not sure what you mean about my own research, the former 'history' section was almost totally uncited, and written by a company representative, grossly point of view, for instance you'd expect a phrase such as 'elephant amongst pygmies', attributed to The Times, to be citeable. It is not. What I have written (and in the case of 'Criticism' taken from an old version of the article) is actually cited. It is clearly inappropriate that this article about a company that I cannot find any positive article about, contained ridiculous language such as "Moore has a history of 'reinventing the business model' in favour of the consumer." 82.31.164.211 (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I agree completely that self-righteous puffery has no place in the article and I do appreciate you taking the time to at least get it more on track. My concern was several paragraphs without any kind of reference, but if you're using an older version of the article that was written that way and these issues are well known in the media, then I'm sure it'll sort itself out. Shell babelfish 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


Please add some [citation needed] tags as you think needed, I will try to cite it.82.31.164.211 (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking by author

Hi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, it is worth looking first at the page history, because quite often the author has blanked his own page, as was the case with Tribal logic just now. In those cases the best thing is to tag it {{db-author}}. It can be confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate and blanks it, if his page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, usually - my fault for seeing someone else in the history and not realizing that this was the same account that started the article. I'll go do that deletion ;) Shell babelfish 11:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah...it's ok

Stuff like that is bound to happen Wysprgr2005 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Britt Lapthorne

Hey, sorry for the hasty edit, but I did offer an explanation in the discussion page, I don't see how her dissapearance qualifies for MWWS as it was documented in Australia and Croatia. In Australia, as far as I know having lived here for 23 years, there is no MWWS, all people who go missing, from Australian born to European tourists to Aborigine people are reported and covered with no bias shown. Please feel free to discuss this with me =) Thanks, 58.107.179.146 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - can't be expected to make the edit and write on the talk page at the same time. Thanks for the explanation, I've gone ahead and reinstated your removal of the incident. Shell babelfish 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks muchly =) BTW, why is my user page littered with vandalism edits etc? How do I avoid this?58.107.179.146 (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of that stuff is likely not intended for you specifically, but for someone else using the same IP address (lots of times ISPs have a pool of addresses that you can get). The easiest way to avoid seeing those kind of misdirected messages is to sign up for an account; having an account also gives you the option of setting some preferences and having a "watchlist" of articles you'd like to keep an eye on. You can create an account at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Userlogin if you'd like. Shell babelfish 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I love people some times... lol Sionus (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of my comments...

Shell;

I have made several contributions to Wikipedia...but because they do not agree with you narrow point of view, you have decided to delete them.

I understand that you may need some help in your efforts. Let me remove some information which I disagree with as well.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.142.66 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Americantaxpayer

Hi, I noticed that you just unblocked this user. I wondered if you had looked at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Americantaxpayer? This sockpuppet activity is a bit worrisome to me and I was relieved when the user was blocked. Not sure if you had seen the case or not, but I figured that I would bring it to your attention, as it seems pretty blatant to me. --Terrillja (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I ran a CU on that case. Please close as you see fit. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Terrillja, I completely understand your concern - that coupled with the persistent recreation and complete lack of response on the talk page was why I initially blocked the account indefinitely. However, after that block, Americantaxpayer and I had some good discussion over email; I think everything we saw as a problem is probably due to being new and completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia. I've moved the article in question to his user space and made sure he was aware of the policies that he was running afoul of. I will keep a close eye on the account for a bit and make sure that it is going to contribute and not cause any further issues. If you see anything else funny that I might have missed, please feel free to drop me a note and I'll be happy to deal with it or reblock. Shell babelfish 00:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How did you add the "Online" status?

Hi. I saw your usertalk page and wondered how you added the "status" icon on the top of your page. Did you add it to the monospace template? Prowikipedians (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sort of - I use a script to make changing it easy User:Misza13/Scripts#statusChanger. You can do the same thing manually too by setting up a page in your userspace that has your status in it and then transcluding that where ever you want your status to appear. Shell babelfish 07:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Shell

Sorry Shell, up to my old tricks again Editing my pages without logging in. (90.195.110.189 (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)) Soon will be BlackpoolKickboxer2008

Ah, sorry about that then - I'll take the warning off the IP page :) Shell babelfish 08:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Dont worry Shell, you only need to check my userpage to see I am very forgetful of loggiong in here. (BlackpoolKickboxer2008 (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

Alan Jackson (broadcaster)

Hi Shell, that user did go to the talk page and provided a source for the name. Perhaps the article needs a redirect to Allan Jackson (broadcaster). RainbowOfLight Talk 08:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea from looking at all the sources on that page, its hard to tell which is the correct spelling. Maybe a better source would clear up which is the right one and we can figure out which spelling should be the article and which should be the redirect :) Shell babelfish 09:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OMG!!!!

Actual UP YOURS! Deleting my additions like that, in regards to Silvery. You know nothing about that band! I do! It's morons like you who spoil all our fun round here. Get a life babe. Underthethumb (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Aoso0ck‎

I suggest you check Aoso0ck‎ (talk · contribs)'s talk page history. NJGW (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone blocked him right before I got to it. Thanks for the heads up. Shell babelfish 06:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had originally posted to TimVickers talk page because he was trying to 'coach' Aoso0ck or something, but I think I missed Tim by a few minutes for the night. As long as a few Admins know what's up, there's more of a chance for quick action once he comes back (and given the past history he will). NJGW (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please help me complete this form and submit? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aoso0ck Thanks. Is there anything else I can do to help? Jwri7474 (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted on AIV after he started wikistalking you, and now he's blocked for a week. He'll be back though, so watch the articles. NJGW (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If he returns and goes right back to the same thing, I'd support a really long vacation - maybe a year or even indef. He's not exactly vandalising, but he's coming very close with unexplained blanking, source removal and other unhelpful changes. Since he's blanking his talk page, he's clearly seeing the warnings and doesn't seem to feel the need to communicate. Maybe Tim will be able to talk with him and explain how he can make the updates and changes while still working within Wikipedia's policies. If not, an indef block would mean he either talks to some folks here to get acclimated or doesn't get to edit further. Shell babelfish 06:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Coordination

I'll have to coordinate a little better with you in the future...sorry about that! I thought your time-frame was more appropriate than mine after reading through the history. Dreadstar † 06:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, clearly the account was being enough of a problem that he caught more than one person's attention. Either way the disruption's over and if they come back and do the same thing again, we'll know better ;) Thanks for catching him so quickly. Shell babelfish 06:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wallamoose

I read through that talk page and I don't think the block is reasonable. I don't know the proper procedure for posting the information to the page you suggested. But I looked at that users contributions, and they appeared to have made a lot of good contributions. It seems excessive to block someone's talk page claiming they are "disrupting" by stating their opinion. (JoeTimko (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

I personally disagree that the user wasn't disruptive and I'm a bit concerned that your account was created one day after the indefinite block of Wallamoose; hopefully that's just a coincidence. If you have concerns about the block, you may want to start by talking with the blocking administrator. Beyond that, you can ask for a review on the administrator's noticeboard. Shell babelfish 07:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I guess I will just get attacked, as your response seems to suggest. So I guess I will leave it alone. (JoeTimko (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

About the IP you blocked tonight

218.186.12.11‎ (talk · contribs) is just tonight's IP for Yasis (talk · contribs). They've been quite active since being indef blocked, mostly to come in and undo my last 5-10 edits every other night. If you do happen to see this clown again, please be sure to check their full contribs for the day so that reverts don't get too complicated. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah that's really nice - I'll try to keep that range in mind and do more checking if I run into another one undoing your contribs. Shell babelfish 09:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for defending my talkpage from the 4chan morons, it hasnt gone unnoticed. The reason I dont want my talk page protected is because of moral principals. Looks like they got bored.....for now. Thanks again !   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Always happy to help. Thanks for the barnstar :) Shell babelfish 10:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at Promethean's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmerdale

Please stop reverting my edit. You are doing so claiming I am adding poorly or unsourced biographical information, but the guidelines you link to are for LIVING PEOPLE. The article is about FICTIONAL CHARACTERS - therefore those particular guidelines do not apply. I am sure you were acting in good faith, but now I have made you aware of your error please do not revert the edit again. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Just an FYI, if you use edit summaries and give sources for your edits, its much less likely to be mistaken for a problematic edit. Shell babelfish 12:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

T.D. Unit

Hi, Shell Kinney! I see you've deleted the page T.D. Unit four or five times within a few minutes. Why don't you create-protect it? Is there some policy against this? Just curious :) Chamal talk 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to give the guy a chance to figure out that articles like that aren't what Wikipedia is for. If he does it again, the account gets a block - then if it shows back up I'll definitely nuke the title :) No policy really, that's just personal preference. Shell babelfish 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clearing that out. Chamal talk 13:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You were right, I ended up having to protect it :) Shell babelfish 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Abhinav Bindra

I want to know on what basis are you changing the fact that Abhinav Bindra is a Punjabi.

Your edits are being reverted because you are directly contradicting a source given in the article [19]. If you believe this information is incorrect, you'll need to present sources that agree with you. If you continue to change the sourced fact you will be blocked from editing. Shell babelfish 13:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Killian Brennan

Sorry about that. --86.41.89.113 (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


TNA World Title

You seem to have warned me for "vandalism" on the TNA World Heavyweight Championship page?! Did you actually read the discussion page, or check the page history? Please do not be so hasty next time :) 41.245.185.54 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered on your talk and removed the misdirected warning. Thanks for fixing the article back. Shell babelfish 13:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Abhinav Bindra

You have warned me about "vandalism" on Abhina Bindra's page. If you think I am deliberately being mischievous or maliciously damaging the informative page, its wrong. I am a Sikh. And I think it is hurtful and untrue for users to construe Abhinav Bindra as a Sikh without full knowledge of the religion. Sikhs have a attire of wearing a turban and not cutting their hair ( so a moustache and a beard and covering the hair on the head with a Turban is a basic identity of a Sikh appearance). When you let us Sikhs not change this in the profile its a vandalism to our Religion and you are publishing wrong information on Wikipedia. And being an Admin of Wiki I am sure you understand how wrong that is.


Now Punjabi are people who believe in the Sikh religion but also are partially Hindus(cut their hair, idol worshipping and other differences). Therefore Abhinav Bindra is a Punjabi.

I urge you to look up Sikhs and the religion Sikhism on Google and then find out about Abhinav Bindra or just look at his picture to see whether I am right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.115.40 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however, on Wikipedia we rely on the information published by other reliable sources for our articles. While you may be correct, unless you have a source that supports you view, it cannot be included in the article - in fact, Wikipedia even has a term for things you "know" that aren't in a source - you may wish to read the policy on Original Research. Again, please do not continue to change the information in the article since it correctly reports what the reference material states. Shell babelfish 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your repeated deletion of the T.D.

Excuse me, but do you have an issue with science? This is starting to get annoying. Every time i put the page up you tare it down and now you have made it 'protected'. I ask you, are you a scientist? Seeing that your on this site, probably not. So i then ask you, what right do you have to delete information that you dont even know to be either false or true? As soon as you can PROVE that what i am uploading is 'vandalism', i will stop, which wont happen because this is not vandalism. Please stop deleting something you probably have no idea about ( no offence intended). By the way, i have a reference. Its a book, and every time i try to find the link for it i come back to find the page missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca20det (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Shell babelfish 14:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Evil Avatar

Hi Shell, I'm curious as to why you rolled back all the recent changes I made to Evil Avatar if only the last edit was objectionable? I was trying to clean the page up some and, in fact, had simply moved the external link in question from the article body to the external links section of the article. Even if this was mistaken, I don't see why it would justify reverting the other edits which included things like fixing the previously broken references on the article and actually removing external links in favor of wiki links. Would appreciate your input, thanks. Commandar (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rolled back to make sure no good edits were lost. Replied further on your talk page. Thanks Shell babelfish 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I'm honestly not sure what the "‎" thing is. It's something I noticed had been introduced at some point that was wrecking the formatting of the infobox and adjusting the comments was the only way I could figure out how to correct this. I'm still fairly new to making anything more than typographical corrections around here. :) I'm slowly but surely trying to clean up the article and add references, but there have been issues with EvilAvatar, who is the owner of the site the article is about, and IHapsMom, who I suspect to be the same person, reverting all changes to the page and ignoring requests to consult other editors before making reversions, so it's been a bit difficult to clean up what's already there, let alone add new information. Thanks again. Commandar (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I don't mean to be a pest, but you were rather helpful earlier and I'm not sure where I should go with this. On that same article from before, there have been a couple of users repeatedly reverting all changes made to it for a couple of weeks now, presumably because they find it distasteful. They've been asked repeatedly to consult with other editors before rolling back changes, but have pretty much ignored it so far. The only thing that seems to have gotten their attention was an edit war and conflict of interest warning on EvilAvatar's talk page. At that point, he stopped posting and IHapsMom started performing the reverts instead.

At this point, I'm kind of at a loss as to what we're supposed to do since these users (assuming it's more than one person) don't appear to be interested in discussing anything whatsoever. I've tried a couple of noticeboards without much luck, and just plain don't know where to go from here. Do you think you could point me in the right direction? Thanks much! Commandar (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lee Zeldin

I'm not quite sure why you reverted a section on this candidate that was lifted word for word from the candidate's website http://www.legaldianabol.com/ (which should have been a flag when it began "As your Congressman I will...") Americasroof (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Because lifting a section from other website is a copyright violation unless they've specifically released the text under an allowable license. Also, its unlikely that text from a candidate's website would be appropriately written in an encyclopedic tone. Shell babelfish 16:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding what I meant You restored the copy violation (which I reverted). I think what happened was an anonymous user deleted the copy violation in a legitimate edit but didn't have a very good rationale in the edit summary and so you reverted it. Anyway, I think everything is o.k. now. Americasroof (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh...completely my fault then. Thank you so much for catching that! Shell babelfish 17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion of Victoria Reggie Kennedy

Back in 2006, there was a discussion that ultimately resulted in the merger of the article on Victoria Reggie Kennedy's article into the Edward Moore Kennedy (Ted Kennedy) article (where not much survived). I've been bold and undeleted her article because Ted has how proposed her as a possible successor to his seat should he die of his current illness. I wasn't sure where the appropriate place was to discuss this undeletion/unmerger. I assume the page itself is the place to "ask" for contributions. Can you help make sure it gets the right reconsideration? KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If things have changed, there's no harm in undeleting the article, especially since its likely to get recreated and this gives it a good start. You might want to try leaving a note somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics if you'd like to attract some more editors to the article. Shell babelfish 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh hai!

Dreadstar † haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk puj with friendly messuj.

I kin giv meh kittehs fud now! Shell babelfish 17:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A question about an edit

Hi Shell, thanks for the note on my talk page! I'm glad to be here! I think I understand the motivation behind the change to the Performance Poetry page, but I did not understand the problem with my two edits to the National Poetry Slam page (which I noticed were reverted). I was just trying to fix and wikify two broken links. Did I make a mistake or neglect to properly document my change? Thanks again for any help and/or advice! I'm still getting my feet wet! Billbillingsworth (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Phil Perry page

I am correcting the page about me, which is manifestly false in many ways. The statements I removed are factually incorrect and in certain cases libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcdhsofficial (talk • contribs) 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  • He has asked advice and I have given him some on his talk page, but it seems a sensitive situation. I have not much BLP experience and I see you have, so your involvement would be helpful. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that you caught me right as I was going offline. It looks like another editor has already cleaned up a great deal of the Philip Perry article and I've asked Gcdhsofficial if they feel all their concerns have been resolved at this time. You did the right thing in explaining things clearly to them and pointing them at the resources they needed to resolve the problem :) Shell babelfish 04:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sourcing Concerns

Hi,all. Just a note to say I, too, am concerned about the Perry page. This is a truly and profoundly distressing situation, if the sources in question on the Philip Perry page are all publishing falsehoods. There is no deeper violation of someone than to publish what is not true. I do not wish to participate in violations of the truth. Since some of these postings from these sources have been mine, I will try to verify them w/ more neutral sources. Perhaps I erred in thinking that Washington Monthly and Mother Jones wish to avoid libel suits and therefore vet their work? How do we determine "reliable" and "non-reliable" sources? Here's the quote from the Gellman book re. the 2000 v.p. search: "Cheney hired lawyers at Latham & Watkins to sift teh thousands of pages thus produced on each of the candidates. The supervising partner was Philip J. Perry, Liz Cheney's husband." (p. 10) This writer is a Pulitzer winner, and a good deal of this book was run in the Washington Post before being collected in this book, so if a Pulitzer writer is lying, then this world is in worse shape than we knew. If the WaPo and the Penguin Press are libeling someone, this is a serious, serious matter and should be made publicly known ASAP. What are the Wikipedia rules on confirmation of sources or deletion based on source reliability? If we can provide a different printed source that contradicts the Gellman source, that would seem to trump the Gellman source? Perhaps if someone could refer me to that source, I can access it. Phoebe13 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Shell, thank you for the barnstar. It was most unexpected, but very welcome (being the first one)!
- idunno271828 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

  • And a belated thank-you from me, too - I feel just the same, particularly as I woke up with a doomy feeling that there was a nasty problem awaiting me, to find that Idunno and you were taking it in hand. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you plz recheck "Philip Perry" page

hello, I'm wondering if you can look over the edits I did on the Philip Perry page today...The stated anguish over this page is really upsetting, especially if all the sources are getting it wrong. I added references for any of the material originally posted by me on that page, with the exception of the material from Washington Monthly. The Gellman book was originally WaPo material, so presumably it's been vetted? I will defer to you guys on that, if you think the source is too tainted to be usable. Also, can you refer me to sourcing rules, etc. How does one decide whether a source is too politically driven, etc., or if there is a list of unacceptable sources. Phoebe13 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh...I also posted something above on this earlier, so see that, too. Phoebe13 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help answer all this; it can be rather confusing when you have disputed sources like this, but we do try to be extra careful on biographies so there's a few things you can do when issues like this come up:
  • When in doubt, remove it. If there's a question about the reliability of the source, accuracy of the source or possible bias it doesn't hurt to take it out of the article while those things are sorted out. If it turns out later there isn't a problem, it can always go back.
  • When a statement is in question(or in general for biographies), look for multiple sources that address the same subject. Sometimes you'll find multiple sources that agree and one that doesn't - we can use good editorial judgment to decide that one may just have gotten it wrong. Sometimes you'll find sources are split on the matter, then it becomes a issue of finding a way to describe both points of view and maybe even attributing the points of view to the sources. Examples of this would be: "The New York Times reported that....while the San Francisco Chronicle said...." or "In a report given to ABC News, John Doe said....".
  • Sometimes reliable sources are going to print something that the subject or other editors are unhappy with. When this happens, take some time to discuss the issue on the talk page and bring other editors in if necessary (for instance, on an RfC). Think about the issue as a whole - is it well referenced from multiple reliable sources? is it notable or is it just a blip on the radar? is there a better way to incorporate it into the over-all flow of the article?
  • If you're worried about a particular source or a particular article in a particular source, look for feedback from other editors. Good places to get feedback are the reliable sources noticeboard, the BLP noticeboard or even the talk page of a Wikiproject related to the article. Getting these additional opinions can either reassure you that you're getting it right, or give you alternative ideas on how to handle the source.
If I missed anything you asked about or if you have any other questions, feel free to drop me a line. Shell babelfish 13:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Helio vandal

Shell if you'd like a glaring example of of a gross misrepresentation you needn't look far. just look at your vandalism accusation you made against me and square it with Wikipedia's vandalism policy. both are currently in helio's discussion page. hopefully you, yourself, can find a more appropriate use of your time here.76.213.229.6 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All one needs to do is look at the history of the article in question to see that I'm not the one making misrepresentations. For example this edit and other unproductive attempts to spin the article such as this edit. Shell babelfish 02:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
the first one isn't mine, young grasshopper, and the second one does not qualify as vandalism. again read the policies you cite. they are very clear.76.213.229.6 (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Shell, While I appreciate you nominating the page I've modified the deletion/redirection proposal as your wording/framing of the issue was rather manipulative and grossly mischaracterized my argument. None of the keep/deletes addressed the actual reason that was rooted in policy, not opinion. So i reset it. Hopefully you'll take the oppertunity to put your keep in there and state why it should be kept within that framework as its been something I've been asking you to do for some days now. Sgeine (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've gone back through to review your talk page history. As I thought, you had been banned from editing anything relating to Helio due to prior misbehavior. Since you have intentionally edited while logged out to avoid these sanctions, your account has been indefinitely blocked. Shell babelfish 20:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Since you have intentionally edited while logged out to avoid these sanctions, your account has been indefinitely blocked." That does not seem to be the case, not when the guy goes out of his way to tell you that the IP is him. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And it's not that I think he hasn't done anything wrong, necessarily, but I think that assumption is making this seem more worse than it is. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ned, I've tried very hard to be open and explain this as much as I can, which is why I've offered to let anyone with appropriate access review the information I had. The block has been reviewed twice and both admins felt there was sufficient reason not to lift it. The gentleman has been made aware that he can speak to ArbCom if he would like further review. There is more to this situation than just what you can see on the wiki.
And honestly, regardless of whether or not he logged out to avoid being caught (and mysteriously used different tactics on the same set of articles, but I'm sure that was just coincidence too), he blatantly violated a topic ban. If he had edited anywhere else in the encyclopedia, I would have been the first to welcome him; that is precisely why I tried to avoid an indef block initially. Unfortunately, he has indicated he will not abide by the ban which leaves us little other choice. Shell babelfish 14:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

T.D. Unit

I know it took me a while, but i finally found the page http://uotna-prfritz.crestall.com/ Now can you please unlock T.D. Unit? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca20det (talk • contribs) 09:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, creating your own webpage isn't sufficient. If you have a reference to a journal or even a newspaper that has published the work, then it would meet the requirements. Shell babelfish 16:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sgeine

He is attempting to defend himself and I'm making progress on calming him down and getting this settled. Protecting his talk page is totally unnecessary, please undo. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He's also started a thread about you at WP:ANI#Posts by IP about shell kinney, where I have given further comment. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Ned, stop drinking the kool-aid - this guy is not telling you the truth. I'm all for giving people chances, helping them learn and edit and trust me, I've tried with Sgeine by not giving him an indef block the first time, countless emails and IMs despite rampant personal attacks and other nasty remarks being shot in my direction the entire time. That's why I didn't immediately block his IP when he came back and still tried more discussion, more explanation. Even after the indef block if he'd have said "my bad, I'll stay out of there" I would have lifted the block, but instead he's played innocent and outright fabricated information and now chat logs. Final warning flag - this guy isn't going to play by our rules. It would be nice if we could find a way to work things out with everyone, but sometimes its just not going to happen. Shell babelfish 11:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologies for my delay in replying. I do not doubt that he is lying to me on some level. However, you never documented a topical ban on-wiki, and have only issued this ban (on your own) through private communication. The only ban you mention on-wiki was one that he did not break. You claim you are not allowed to share his comments made off-wiki, even after he has given you permission to do so. You protect his talk page, his only means of defending himself, because you think he's lying. If he's lying then we'll catch him in that lie, and he'll hang himself. You have no idea what he has told me, and you claim that he has suckered me into believing whatever it is that he's said.
Understand that from my point of view I shouldn't trust you from your word alone just as much as I don't trust Sgeine on his word alone. I don't think you believe you are lying about any of this, but that doesn't mean your conclusions are correct. So you can continue to be offended that I'm stepping on your toes if you wish, but it won't make this issue go away. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but ArbCom precedent has indicated (even recently) that one person being willing to waive their privacy is not sufficient for the release of private communication that could compromise the privacy of other parties. Neither the two admins who reviewed the unblock requests nor the later block review at ANI produced anyone willing to unblock nor anyone other than yourself who disagreed with my assessment of the situation. Shell babelfish 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking for that information, I'm trying to express to you why your actions seem so suspect. I had no intention of pursing this further when I first looked at the unblock request, but I have a standing offer to look into blocks on behalf of those who are blocked. He contacted me to look into it further, and here I am.
It still remains that you failed to log this topical ban on-wiki, and the only thing one has to go by is your own word. All you have are copies of logs and e-mails that you can't share with most editors. Normally that is not enough to give someone an indef blocking, no matter who you are. Versageek was another editor in the ANI thread who said he would not oppose unblocking him "If he stays away from the Helio articles, I don't have a problem with it.. ". Here I am making the request to give him another chance with a documented topical ban, and you refuse. You're quick to block, and you've been seen as having a heavy hand with these things in the past. You protect his talk page, his only way of defending himself to the on-wiki discussion (with open transparency) and then you fault him for using IPs to respond to the discussion. And lets not forget that we have the actual diffs of what he did, logged in and logged out.
All he did this time was nominate the articles for deletion and tagged them to be merged, a newbie edit at worse. I'd even go further and say I agree with him that having individual product articles for Heilo's phones is stupid, and he was correct in his assessment that those (in the least) should be merged. He didn't re-insert any unsourced information, he didn't violate any guideline or policy, and he didn't violate the warning you gave him on his talk page.
In the same way you were wrong about your conclusions with me, I can say it is reasonable to doubt your conclusions about him. He can get past your block at any time and make a new account, so why decline a second chance with a documented topical ban? He's making this request rather than sockpuppeting, and that deserves some credit. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand that your personal bias here may lead you to "suspect" my conclusion; this is why the unblock was reviewed twice and further review was sought at ANI. If you're willing to bet that multiple admins are wrong here, I believe an appeal to ArbCom would be the only review left. Shell babelfish 03:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Why would I be biased in this situation? My original motives for suspecting your concussions were systematic, because someone asked me to review them. If you want to take this to arbcom, then fine, but you know as well as I do that it's very easy for "multiple" admins to be wrong about a block. Admins are not professionals in any sort, and have been known to do the whole drive-by-and-endorse based on assumptions of bad faith. Besides, no one likes to question a likable admin. I'm not taking any pleasure in having to do so myself. I don't plan on pursing this unless Sgeine asks, but your stubbornness here leaves a bad impression. His actions on-wiki don't support your block, and your only logged warnings were about unsourced information that he did not add back in. Any admin wishing to undo your block would be within their full right to do so based on this alone. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel you're unable to trust anyone who's reviewed the block; unfortunately since you do not have the proper level of access there is little I can do to assist you with this particular concern. I don't believe its reasonable to request that I accede to your determination over the judgment of several fellow admins who have reviewed the entirety of the situation. Absent additional information on the incident, I can only suggest that ArbCom would be the most appropriate place if you have continued concerns. Shell babelfish 04:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
One admin is not several. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not go to arbcom, so I make one last plea before I do. Please, give him one more chance. Keep him on one account and with a topical ban that more than one person knows about. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, the ball is out of your court. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor request for help

Shell--Thanks for your previous comments recently. Re: the apparently-still not functioning quite right archive bot.: I believe that I might still need some assistance with it. After waiting for well over 2 days for it to archive a finished exchange automatically, I find that it did not do that, and I manually archived it. Ever since the original malfunctioning way back, it may be that the premature addition of archive page 25 is causing the problems, since 24 is not yet filled up (after manual archiving, it is currently at 51K not 100K). Perhaps archive 25 needs to be deleted entirely (it is blank except for the archive template at top) and then re-recreated automatically by the bot when page 24 fills up automatically or otherwise (manually). A possible test might be to change the parameter temporarily to 51 K to see if 25 starts with Ecoleetage's thread. My replies to him are on his talk page and I don't currently plan to add to the exchange on my talk page, due to testing the archive bot. Also, it might be a good idea for you and I to discuss this in this thread (on your talk page) to allow time (over 2 days) for his thread on my page to archive automatically. Perhaps someone else will see errors in the archive bot template parameters that I'm not seeing. I've checked the template on your page (this one and followed its order, though that differs from the previous order of parameters which is in the template instructions; I'm not sure that order matters, so the problem might be something else). Thanks if you can help or get help w/ correcting the automatic archive bot from someone else. Please reply here and not on my talk page (for reasons given above). --NYScholar (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Shell: Apparently, the automatic archiving bot is still not functioning as intended (to archive material in threads 2 days old w/ 2 or more date stamps; I had to archive manually again. Thanks if you can help with it; the most recent exchanges are in archive page 24, which is not yet full. Archive page 25 is empty except for the template at top; perhaps it needs to be deleted entirely to allow the automatic archiving bot to work? (See request above. Thanks.) --NYScholar (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shell_Kinney/Archive_11&oldid=1151044825"