User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 8

Wikibreak

Looks like its time for me to take a step back and find a soft beach somewhere; I apologize if you're trying to contact me - please use one of the above instant messenger or email contacts. Hopefully the editor that has harassed me for months placing false accusations in every venue possible will now feel pride at the damage he's managed to cause; now that I've looked, I'm certainly not the first person he's done this to. Its incredibly disheartening to see that if you scream loud enough, it doesn't matter that you don't have a single diff to support you - I expected some people would fall for that, but some Wikipedians I respected have made comments that show me they haven't bothered to look for the truth either. So before I completely lose any faith in the project, somebody hand me a mimosa. Shell ^babelfish 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a mimosa ...

...but a dandelion - as a symbol for how detachment can be the seed for new growth. I hope you'll find personal strength in your vacation. — Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Would this classify as a personal attack on a public board?

Edit in question. I.e. calling a constructive edit 'WP:POINT' violation, and inventing a fictional ArbCom criticism (not only no diff has been provided, but I am 100% sure there was no ArbCom proceeding which called any of my past actions 'tag trolling', especially as I was never ever a part of any ArbCom proceeding...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't believe your memory is that weak. I refer to this exchange, of course. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Cursory analysis of the diff's shows that 1) Fred never called this 'tag trolling', only 'bad editing practice' 2) if you fail to spot the difference between edit Fred criticized ([1]), and this, well, I what can I say...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't say much because my jocular edit was meant to highlight the pointlessness of your habitual abuse of citation needed tags, and you know its context too well. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you're using an RfC to try to resolve these issues. I think the points made by JzG and Elaragirl are particularly important. I've left a note for Ghirlandajo asking him to help cool-down the situation by avoiding those types of comments and hopefully avoiding comments on your actions at all. I hope you'll agree to do the same for him; I think if you're both able to edit without the other commenting everywhere you go, it will be incredibly helpful. Shell ^babelfish 01:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, half of what I ask (per recent dicussion about solution on talk of RfC) is that he avoids comments like this in the future. Unfortunatly, so far it appears that Ghirla's favoured solution is a demand for me to be desysoped :/ - so I am unsure if we can find a solution that will satisfy both sides...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good first step to answer the questions JzG has asked on the talk page of the RfC. Maybe with the help of the community, a creative solution can be found. Best of luck and happy holidays! Shell ^babelfish 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I already took quite a few steps and addressed such issues on the talk page (as I pointed out to JzG in my comment), I believe I'll wait before I repeat those answers (if they need being repeated and/or clarified) to see Ghirlandajo responce. Certainly I hope that with community's help we can find a solution - but as they say, we 'need two to tango'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Answered the latest outburst of anti-Ghirlandism here and here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point above (or here) better than I ever could.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that you use Wikipedia for "proving your points". I advise you to consult WP:POINT and to stop treating it as a battleground in the future. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Waves a white flag. Seriously guys, this exchange is very good example of exactly what needs to stop. Surely there must be things you can do that will not cause you to interact. I think the RfC shows that people think you both need to take a breather from each other until you can work together without this tension. This kind of dialog is very unhealthy. Shell ^babelfish 10:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus! Stop! Stop! Stop!!!! How long do you going to lead this anti-Ghirlandajo crusade? If you do not respect your opponent, people who commented on your RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, at least respect neutral participants such as Shell Kinney, who probably have much more urgent work, when to read your, yet another, accusation. Sorry Kinney for using your talk page, but some contributors do not understand that such type of behavior becoming really annoying and acquiring disruptive behavior shape. M.K. 19:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but characterizing this as a crusade or accusing someone of a lack of respect is really doing nothing to help the situation. Both editors have some issues they need to resolve here; this is certainly not one sided. Please try not to aggravate the situation any further. Shell ^babelfish 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your implicit personal attack

I notice you spammed my user page with excerpts from some template that was created some time in the past by persons with no knowledge of the controversy I address.

Let's break it down. First, you impose your "suggestion" which is a thinly veiled threat of attack and escalation, under the guise of asking me "could I suggest...". Had you waited for a reply, I would have replied "no" and you could have saved yourself the effort of pasting spam on a user page where it will have not even a slight chance of persuading me to revise my well considered understanding of matters at hand.

Secondly, you refer to "mundane editorial disagreements". That's interesting. Did you know that fewer accidents occur at workplaces where workers are trained in safety pratices? That's all good, but that fact is no more relevant to matters at hand than is your rambling pre-packaged speculation about "mundane editorial disagreements" -- a situation with which I am not involved and that would have no bearing on the matters about which you found a need to address me. The matter about which I submitted comments (in response to Wikipedia's aggressive solicitation of comments to every article in its archives I might point out) relates to situations in which Wikipedia fanatics libel their critics by claiming the work of their critics outside of Wikipedia comprises abuse. Mr. Brandt has cause to subpoena Wikimedia Foundation to force production of IP information for Majorly, who libelously refers to Brandt's Web sites as abusive, so that Mr. Brandt could, if he so chose, seek legal relief against such libelous publications.

Thirdly, you demonstrated the futility of your second point (solicit feedback and ask questions) by ignoring the feedback I offered in the context of the discussion about which you found cause to attempt to educate me in elementary editorial relationships. It is a curriculum I long ago mastered but which has no relevance to a cult environment such as Wikipedia where editorial disputes are more often and most decisively resolved by building administrative alliances and gaming the conflict resolution system. If the feedback I offered in response to others' solicitations were attended to, I would be more inclined to solicit feedback from others. You further compromised your assertion that the best approach is to solicit feedback and ask questions when you refused to solicit feedback or to ask questions of me before you sounded off with your condescending message to me.

My point is, whoever you are, that condescending to me with kindergarten rules about getting along in no way informs my choice of the best course of action when an unruly crowd such as that hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation and directed by Wikipedia's secret administrators makes it their purpose to libel anyone who dares criticize their misguided assault on intellectual discipline.

Finally, I notice from reading the top of your user page that you refer to another with whom you've initiated some sort of conflict as a "cretin". Advice to whoever claims to be Shell Jareth Kinney: don't open your mouth to advise me about manners when your mouth is already full with the crap you are spewing at others. Marakopa 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)(UTC)

Several editors have tried to help you understand how the Wikipedia community works and what our standards are for behavior. Instead of taking their helpful comments to heart, you've now attacked each one in turn. You obviously already knew about our policies and procedures, so I assume you felt there was a reason for returning under a new account - I hope you use this as a chance to start over and try to find a way to work with others this time. Shell ^babelfish 07:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy question for Average frustrated chump

Hi, I have a question relating to the Average frustrated chump page (I'm asking you because I have seen you moderate seduction community article-related disputes fairly). Centrx tagged the page as only relying on primary sources, because the main source for the article is The Game. He argues that The Game is not an indepedent third-party publication, because Strauss is affiliated with the community. I argue that The Game is an independent third-party publication in the most literal sense, because the publisher of The Game is a reputable publishing house that presumably uses fact-checking. The problem here is that WP:V seems to be ambiguous: it is unclear whether the author and the publisher have to be third parties to the phenomenon described in an article, or just the publisher. I lean towards the second interpretation, because the affiliations of the author are irrelevant as long as the facts are checked (and we have no reason to believe that the author didn't check Strauss' definition of "Average Frustrated Chump," because his definition is so similar to the one used on major seduction websites). If you are able to shed some light on this, perhaps you could post it either on Talk:Average frustrated chump, or on my talk. Thanks! --SecondSight 08:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded on the article talk page. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting side comment you could make is that you could take the view Neil is not directly involved in the community, but is merely a reporter. But to effectively report on anything it is helpful to immerse yourself in the subject material, that is after all what Neil himself claims is the reason he originally become involved (but then he went very deep down the rabbit hole... and become more than merely a reporter). Mathmo ^Talk 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

XMAS gift

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much; my Award subpage is a little bit unorganized :) I'll have to try that when I get a moment. Shell ^babelfish 00:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Salad'o'meter™ put barnstars here (no thumb or direction) n00b involved been around veteran seen it all older than the Cabal itself

Curly horse

You removed a copyvio tag from the article Curly horse, claiming in the edit summary that permission had been recevied. Can you document this on the talk page, please? RJFJR 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

All fixed up :) Shell ^babelfish 00:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

As mentioned before and considering that all previous attempts of resolution have failed, I am bringing the case of my unjust block by you to the ArbCom. I am not watching this page (just in case), so, if you feel the need to reply out of ArbCom, do it in my own talk page.

Note: I have waited some weeks while you were taking that Wikibreak. The request for arbitration was ready in Dec 6th (when the RfC seemed exausted), yet you took vacation that same day. --Sugaar 08:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was away so much over the holidays and unable to participate. I understand that the arbitration was rejected and hope this is the last we'll have to see of these concerns. Best of luck. Shell ^babelfish 03:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Intervention on Project We Discussed

Shell, I sent you an email and really need your help re: the D'Onofrio page. Please contact me privately? Thanks. TrishGow 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding American Rare Breed Association

I've withdrawn my nomination. I'd suggest replicating that list to the article itself to prevent an AfD further down the line and to improve the article itself. My apologies for the mis-nomination of something that appears to be a notable topic. Cheers, Lankybugger 03:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I honestly had no idea the article itself was so pitiful! Unfortunately I start a vacation tomorrow so I won't be able to really fix up the article until around the middle of next week, but I will try to get a bit more up there now and point the Dog Breed Project at it. Unlike the AKC, the ARBA doesn't get much press and doesn't televise events, so without being into dog breeding or showing, most people wouldn't have any idea what the organization is - between that, the poor article and the difficulty of finding any online sources, I can't blame you at all for nominating it for deletion. Keep up the good work :) Shell ^babelfish 04:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing pages.

I'n not going to rat you out to an administrator or some similar cowardly action, but I'm just asking you respectfully, to just cut it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.136.197 (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Request for Mediation on Design Methods

I am writing you because you were very helpful early in the development of design methods. It seems as if a user called "Ronz" is an a crusade against this subject and has threatened to break it up or delete it all together. If you go to design methods/talk or to user:design methods/talk or to Ronz's talk page you can see the threaded discussion. We seem to be at an impasse and we need mediation. Thanks in advance for your help (Design Methods 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Per your request, please see my offer of mediation at Talk:Design_methods#Suggestion:_Mediation. Shell ^babelfish 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this will be fine, if perhaps a bit premature. As much as I understand the situation, this appears to be a WP:OWN issue, where the primary editors involved do not understand wiki policy and guidelines. This is the first time I've encountered such a situation, and I'm not sure how to proceed in a way that won't escalate what I already see as a very defensive and adversarial situation. I'm certainly not out to delete the article, but since (from my perspective) he doesn't really understand the problems of the article or what is normally done to resolve such problems, any suggestion is going to be threatening to him. I welcome your help. --Ronz 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be making good progress. Eventually we're going to need to address the original research problems. It doesn't have to be right away, but I certainly don't want to strain the situation by initiating it, nor doing it myself. --Ronz 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we could use your help right away. It's not just WP:OR, it's WP:V too that I think we're disconnecting on. See the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure this is going to work. Can you look at what's going on again? He clearly hasn't read the guidelines still. He's making the very same mistakes that I was cleaning up after back in October. I don't have the time to work with someone that won't take some responsibility for learning at least enough about Wikipedia to understand problems presented about his article over a year ago in an AfD. This is a really nasty case of WP:OWN. How's he going to react when the original research is removed and the article trimmed down to something encyclopedic, possibly broken up into sub-articles? Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm not looking forward to explaining yet again about WP:EL. --Ronz 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see our comments on the talk page concerning his comments and suggestions. We are both sorry and disappointed at the current discourse. We have been and continue to be responsive to any and all reasonable comments or suggestions. This article has been thoroughly read, re-read over and over by various individuals. This is not a case of WP:OWN as we have been open to changes. We have read the WP:EL and have endeavored to keep to Is it accessible to the reader?, Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?, Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? - all of our links fulfill this criteria. In the end, we are not trying to make things difficult, just trying to add an important topic to Wikipedia. If you can bring your reasonable and helpful approach to our current situation, it would be greatly appreciated. (Design Methods 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

COI? I just realized on Feb 2, the date I added the references for discussion, that the 1997 workshop I attended was on design methods. I don't think there's any problem, though it would have been better to disclose it immediately. At the time, I still wasn't sure what the subject of the article really was. Now I think it's mainly just a homage to Jones. --Ronz 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. Was this the CHI 1997 conference? The design methods entry is not a homage to John Chris Jones, but recognizing his role along with other participants in the 1963 conference and the developments in tranforming the practice of design and the influence of business and technology until now. (Design Methods 17:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Yes the workshop at the 1997 CHI conference. As for "homage", you may be attempting to do something different, but from my perspective that's what the article is currently. --Ronz 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We do weave Jones through the article, but bring in many others that have contributed to this topic. This article is an overview of events that led to the creation of design methods and what has happened since then to now. I suggest that we leave comments on each other's talk pages, rather than here. (Design Methods 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Question Salvation Army article

Hello Shell, perhaps you remember me who once tried to fix some parts of the article "Salvation Army". To be honest, I am a bit sad about how it has developed. We once tried to make it more international but it has now again too much just history of the Salvation Army in the US. I am not sure what to do. If we would write so much of the history of every country, we would have a complete book.... I did also see, that almost all links were taken away. I have tried to contact the one who did it. But got no answer. I would be interested in your opinion. Perhaps I am wrong but some of the links weren't that bad. Also the one of the private museum (history). regards HAMUBA 13:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Real social dynamics was deleted out of process

Hi, could you take a look at the closing of the AFD on the Real social dynamics article? I left comments on the talk page to explain why I consider the deletion to be out of process. Can the article be restored with the new sources, or does it have to go to Deletion Review? Thanks. --SecondSight 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Boyracer

I just noticed you deleted the Boyracer article. I'm not sure why you deemed them not notable - if you had Googled the name you would have seen that this is not the case. At time of message, they'd had 63,412 plays on Last.fm, and the band essentially run the 555 Recordings label. 85.210.4.58 07:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that unsigned comment was me. RichardJohn 07:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the band meets the notability requirements outlined at WP:MUSIC, you may wish to request a review of the deletion on WP:DR. If you have some very clear references that prove the band meets those requirements, I'll be happy to undelete the article myself. At the time the article was deleted, and in every incarnation of the article, none of the information provided gave any indication that the band passed Wikipedia's basic requirements for articles. Unfortunately, plays on Last.fm and google hits are not the criteria Wikipedia uses. If you have any difficulty with the process, let me know and I'll be happy to help. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Request For Input on Juice Plus Discussion

Hi Shel: You proved yourself to be a capable mediator previously on the Juice Plus page. Julia Havey is acting up again. Could sure use your input and sane voice of reason again. I trust your judgement. Please have a look at the Juice Plus discussion page if you get a chance. Thanks Rhode Island Red 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference reinserted in Juice Plus article

Hi,

I realise that references are not required to be online, but this is a blind reference to an online article, so no point is served on it being there. I raised this issue on the talk page, indicating that I would delete it; another editor said that it was offline and that he would try to find an alternative source. Since an alternative source would require a new citation anyway, I see no reason for keeping the old (blind) link. If you have no objections, and if no alternative source has been discovered by then, I'll delete it again in 24 hours. OK? TraceyR 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Linda Strawberry

Keep a close watch on this article again. Check the history and the talk page. This person is persistent. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Eek. I'll make sure to put that on the hot list for a bit. Thanks for the heads up. Shell ^babelfish 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Budapest Sun

Not sure what the problem was with the Budapest Sun article. What's out there right now should be sourced to the newspapers own page. False information is a rather scurrilous charge to make. Admittedly when I first started editing I did a much poorer job with sourcing that I do now and cannot find the original sourcing I used for the article.Montco 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Budapest's Sun website doesn't support most of the ownership information that was contained in the article. As far as the comment about false information goes, one of the people mentioned in the article mailed OTRS complaining that the information in the article was false and providing sources which back up their claim (See [2] for instance). One of Wikipedia's key policies is verifiability - you must provide a source which verifies any information you add to an article. Any information which does not have a source may be removed from an article immediately, especially in the case where such information is potentially harmful, concerns a living person or is the subject of a complaint. It is up to the editor who wishes to insert the information to provide proper sources. Please do not reinsert the text without first providing adequate sources - if you can direct me to the exact page on the website that supports the ownership claims, I'll be happy to fix the article back up and explicitly add that reference.. Shell ^babelfish 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK What's the problem? I used that same source in the version that you just deleted.

Deleted information "The Budapest Sun was established in 1993 by American journalist Jim Michaels. Much of the staff had come over from the recently collapsed Budapest Post. It is now owned by Associated Newspapers, a member of the Daily Mail general Trust."

This is the same page you are quoting showing that the Budapest Sun was founded by Jim Michaels and staffed by reporters from the Budapest Post and that it is owned by Associated Newspapers. [3]

Here is a page from the Daily Mail General Trust showing that Associated Newspapers is a subsidiary. [4]

So what's the problem. Montco 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the American journalist claims that the Jim Michaels referenced on that page isn't him. I replaced that information and just removed the "American journalist" part for now. I also added a reference directly to the correct page in case of further questions. Also, please note that the text I originally removed also contained a claim about Mr. Michael's finances that are in no way supported by that web page. Thanks for the help. Shell ^babelfish 06:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shell, this is re the Geoffrey Giuliano entry--I made some additions yesterday which you reverted. I think it was a poor edit and could be improved. I just made rather lengthy comments about the rationale behind the edit in the Discussion section of that entry. Could you please review those and give me your opinion on them? It is not a big point, but I did feel that the entry was relevant for the reasons that I detail there there. Thanks for your help! Lennonsghost 15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Lennon's Ghost

Mistatement of fact

Assault charge to Mike Del Grande was not dismissed at the November 15, 2006 hearing. As a matter of fact, he will have to go to court on the same charge on February 27,2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justice456 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Please stop reverting the neutropenia page to a form that contains inaccuracies, misspellings, and promotions of fraudulent research

Hi, I appreciate your efforts to prevent vandalism and personal diatribes. However, the neutropenia page had been edited by someone from the University of Washington who is providing misleading information. Most of the work on apoptosis in this disorder was retracted (and the appropriate references in the journals Blood and Experimental Hematology were cited). The Blood paper contained grossly "PhostoShopped" data and was retracted by the editors before it was withdrawn by Drs. Dale and Aprikyan. There were similar problems with the entry in the subheading on myelokathexis, as well as a misspelling of the word "hyperproliferation" (as "hiperproliferation") and an incorrect translation of the Greek "kathexis". Please take a look at the Blood and Experimental Hematology retractions before reverting the page to include this information. Thank you.

Your review of the biography of the musician Ilaiyaraaja

Dear Shell: Late last year, you provided useful comments for the FA candidate Ilaiyaraaja (see here). The article has been brushed up considerably since, and I was wondering if you could give it a once-over sometime (if it isn't too much trouble) and perhaps comment in its talk page about your perception of its condition and its potential for an FA re-nomination. Cheers, AppleJuggler 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    03:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gospel News

Hi Shell, I have been in contact as well with the editors of the magazine Gospel News and my fear is that with the article remaining in its current form that it will just be added to again in the negative way that it has been in the past, hence my adding the deletion proposal. Any views? --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the article is sufficiently notable and doesn't meet one of our other criteria for deletion, I've found the best way to handle these types of problems is to insist (like we should for all articles) on high quality sources being provided for any added material. It can be a rather thankless job to police the article for a bit and it make take quite some time to explain Wikipedia policies to the majority of interested editors - it often helps to engage other more seasoned editors to assist. However, if you feel that the article meets one of the deletion criteria, you might want to nominate it for deletion. Shell ^babelfish 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had already nominated for deletion (check the history) but a user removed the notice... I also got an email from one of the magazine editors requesting that the article was removed (hence the AfD notice and beginnings of deletion discussion in the talk page) --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 07:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The deletion process is actually very specific - please take a look at WP:AFD for information on how to start the discussion in a place the community can review it. If you have any questions about how to get that started or need assistance with it, please let me know. After placing the notice on the article that it is being considered for deletion, you are free to revert anyone who tries to remove the tag before the seven day period is up. Shell ^babelfish 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian Lynch

Good catch on that vandalsim. That article is on my watch list and the vandalism was there for several days. Don't know how I missed it. --Oakshade 08:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:MetaQuotes - permission for text

I noticed your addition of a permission of use on this article. It has twice been deleted for spam and not copyvio. The remaining talk page seems fairly unnecessary in this case. Let me know what you think. RichMac (Talk) 16:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand why the article was deleted and have advised the company representative of the reasons why the article is being deleted. I've asked them not to repost the material again in its current form, pointed them at WP:CORP and the guidelines on conflicts of interest. However, they still wish to release the material from their website under the GFDL on the off chance that someone will write an article about them in the future. I don't think the notice causes much harm and it certainly doesn't allow anyone to bypass the criteria for deleting advertising. Shell ^babelfish 02:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Images on Bruce Hornsby

I noticed that you added image tags w/ ticket numbers from OTRS to 3 of the 4 images on the Bruce Hornsby article. Since I uploaded the images, I know that permission was granted for all four. I'm sure it was just an accident, but could you add the image tag w/ ticket to [Image:BruceCentralPark.jpg] too...you could just cut and paste it off of one of the other images ([Image:BruuuceHead.jpg] for instance). I know that the permissions confirmation sent to OTRS was for all four images at once, so the tag and ticket number should be the same for all. (I'd add it myself, but I wasn't sure if that was permitted). Many thanks!!! Snidleysnide 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! I could have sworn I added that to all four images. Great photos by the way :) Shell ^babelfish 03:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Neuro-Cognitive Psychology

I notice you removed the speedy tag as a result of permission being confirmed for using the text. I had changed the tag from {{db-copyvio}} to {{db-spam}}, because even if they have given permission to post it, it's still solely on Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising their program. It falls under the criterion G11 because it "would require a substantial rewrite to become encyclopedic". I feel the db-spam tag still applies, but should I take it to AfD instead? Leebo ^T/C 14:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought it was still the G11 tag. Please feel free to replace the spam tag - I did advise the copyright holder that the article may still be deleted for that reason. Shell ^babelfish 15:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. I will do that. Leebo ^T/C 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hello. Do you remember me? You were the admin looking into the problems about White people page. If you have time, can you comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM. It has been proposed that I should be banned for one year from Wikipedia and I just think that's not fair. You have dealt with me for sometime and I think you may provide some input about my behaviour. But it's been a long time since then and it's ok if you dont want to deal with another mess. Lukas19 05:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but Arbitration cases look at the behavior of both sides. Many people have tried to explain that while you may have been treated poorly by some editors, your behavior is also not always at its best. Since I have little to no involvement outside a single incident, there's very little I can add to the current case. Shell ^babelfish 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Lukas19 12:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User pages

Damn nice user pages! --Otheus 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Shell ^babelfish 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

MDS International

Are you reverting this back according to a primary source? I have checked the revision and the current one is accurate accouding to secondary press sources. Please do not add advertisements to Wikipedia. WizardOfWor 09:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm reverting back to a non-controversial stub. Please provide any current source which contradicts the company's home page for basic facts and we can discuss changing it, but blindly reverting to whichever version you prefer isn't going to get you anywhere. The version you originally had a hand in was nothing more than a large jumble of original research gleaned from all primary sources, so honestly, its a bit late to take that tack. Shell ^babelfish 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not taking a tack! I have requested that you not facilitate the violation of a court order that you can read. You are facilitating this. I have escalated this in Wikipedia as well. Your refusal to talk about this is inexcusable and certainly not in good faith. WizardOfWor 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia reader call us or mail to us to know all about WiZardOfWor and all the team around, mail to mds@mds.fr and you can receive documentations to make your own opinion Page of Lies about MDSinternational MDSi, Worldwave Hypercable etc.. and build by Wizardofwor alias Harold Kirpatrick are deleted by Jean-Claude Ducasse CTO of MDSi Gerant of Worldwave a brand Owned by MMDS Hypercable jcd@mds.fr)

Placed on my talk page by jeanclauduc. 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

2007-03-28T22:44:40 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs) m (each section of the article is appropriately referenced, please do not restore POV commentary not supported by sources - use the talk page to discuss disputes, thanks) this is your comment about restoring,WizardOfWor 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have read all of the court filings related to the case. None of these filings or orders have any effect whatsoever on Wikipedia or how Wikipedia works. Regardless of how you may feel about the subject outside of Wikipedia, this does not change the fact that Wikipedia's policy is to write articles without bias from a neutral point of view and require that we not use own own knowledge but only write material already published by reliable sources. You should also be made aware that legal threats such as you come close to by accusing me of facilitating contempt are strictly forbidden and may result in someone blocking your account indefinately. I have said a number of times that I am more than happy to discuss any issues you might have and assist you in any way possible, however, claiming your edits to be permissible based on a court case doesn't leave much room for discussion. Please let me know if there's anything further I can do to help. Shell ^babelfish 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is why these warnings only apply to me. I have counted 7 legal threats from jeanclauduc. I have yet to see anything other than a 1st level warning. He posted a personal attack on my talk page. Nothing done about that.You do not discuss. You revert and tell me. You did not respond to other user who noticed your impartiality. This is not a discussion, you are informing me and you hold the power. However, when company are cheated on the basis of information you insist, without a discussion, on restoring prior to the conversation you will share some of the blame. I begin to agree with the other poster. You are turning a valuable resource into a useless blog.

I edited his attack on my talk page and you warn me. I insist that you recuse yourself from this issue. you are not partial. WizardOfWor 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can point me to the diffs where the other editor made legal threats, I will be happy to warn him as well. Please note that you are also more than welcome to warn other editors of policy violations; we ask that you do so nicely, but any community member has that ability. If legal threats continue, you may ask to have the offending editor blocked by either posting to my talk page or the administrator's noticeboard. You might also consider that since my involvement started due to an email to WP:OTRS there are also communications off-wiki which you have not been privy to where the editor has been warned about his behavior.

Please understand that you are reverting changes made per Wikipedia policy. I have explained the applicable policies in detail and offered to explain further should you have any questions. This is not a case of a difference in punctuation where the changes can stay until we reach an agreement. If you have any reliable sources (please note this specifically does not include primary sources like court documents) which show the information currently on the page should be changed, I would be more than happy to allow updates made based on those references to stand. Unfortunately, changes made based on your own personal knowledge are specifically disallowed per WP:OR and may not be used in any Wikipedia articles.

I hope this helps explain things a bit. Shell ^babelfish 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the information left there is from www.mds.fr by YOUR OWN admission. This is a primary source. Show me anywhere in the links where LMDS is mentioned, Where sales to telecom carriers are mentioned. This is all from the primary source website www.mds.fr. Where is "triple Play" mentioned. Where is /M/D/S mentioned in the press. All of this is advertisement. The courst order makes it clear that MVDDS is NOT an advertised product of this company.

More than this, Jeancluduc claims I am Kirkpatrick from MDS America who is the person quoted as giving the information about MDSInternational in the secondary sources. Does this not alone give you PAUSE?

I don't believe

let's see, you have no problem finding my implied "threats" but you need my help to find this threat and the others as well Jeancluaduc. The number of messages that I have received regarding biased Adminis are staggering and I appreciate the sentiment as well but this doesn't stop these ADMINs from ruining Wikipedia's reputation. Any one in this industry sees what is happening here. I HAVE done WAY TOO MUCH effort to keep others from being swindled by this article and ADMIN. Why do I need to prove to you what is obvious from the history? BUT from jeancluduc to Fang Ali note on 25 March, long before my warning for an IMPLIED threat wrote:

IF YOU DO NOT REMOVE ALL OF THIS PAGES IN WIKIPEDIA OUR COMPANY MDSinternational SUE YOURSELF AND YOUR BOY FRIEND KIRPATRICK

User talk:Jeanclauduc From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Contents [hide] 1 MDS International/ 2 Your edit to MDS International 3 MDS International 4 Vandalism

Let us all see what the reaction is. I was blocked by this admin for far less!!! Every single entry confirms your bias.That you do not recuse yourself now speaks volumes!

Of course this is ignoring that this is, by jeancladuc's own admission, a WP:COI that you KEEP REVERTING. However I will keep pushing this until it reaches the upper management of WIkipedia. 72.19.4.235 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that he was already warned for the legal threat he made? I'm not sure what else you would like me to do then. I did not block you for the implied threat and had no intention of doing so, I just wanted to make sure you were aware that Wikipedia had a policy against legal threats so you didn't run into a problem with it later on.

Honestly, I am trying to help here. I've tried to help make you aware of Wikipedia policies and discuss with you at length how they apply to your particular situation and the ongoing editing differences at several articles you are involved in. Instead of accepting the assistance you're getting, you continue pointing the finger elsewhere. Please take a moment to step back and let the processes work - please note the discussion on the MDS International talk page about the article deletion. Shell ^babelfish 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shuang Yang

Greetings. If you feel the copyright permission is valid then you have my blessing. When I saw that the copy was almost word for word from a promotional website (and that the article had been speedy deleted many times before) I assumed it was simple spam. One thing that struck me was our article claimed Shuang Yang was a form of T'ai Chi Ch'uan where the source websites didn't, which also made me suspect a spammer in our midst, but would perhaps rule out WP:COI. Cheers. --Fire Star 火星 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Wikihalo

In the process of bringing Wikihalo back to life, I'm checking for "illegally" awarded Wikihalos. A wikihalo can be awarded only by a discussion at its page, not by a single user. However, it seems that many users haven't understood this, and have awarded wikihalos without a proper nomination and so on.

I've discovered that you're displaying a wikihalo, but I haven't found the discussion related to it. Only five people have received a wikihalo (and one of 'em dubiously), and you aren't listed as one of 'em.

So, I'm very sorry, but unless you provide the link to the discussion, I have to ask you to remove the award from your userpage and/or any other page on which you are displaying it.

If you could point me to the diff with it was awarded to you, I can try to discover what's behind it ;-)

Thank you for your cooperation and happy editing,

Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 12:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the image in question was put on my talk page by Theflyingfudge back in May of 2006. I've changed it, with his message over to an appropriate barnstar. Thanks for pointing that out! Shell ^babelfish 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ernham is back

Hi. I notice you've been involved in blocking User:Ernham before. He's just come back from his ban, and is already at it again, removing sourced references etc. he doesn't like with no attempt to discuss. I'm immensely frustrated at wasting time reverting him, and hope not to get sucked into another edit war. I'd appreciate your help in keeping an eye on him, especially his 'contribution' to Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua genocide. Thank you :) Greenman 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him at [5] and commented on a report of his against another user at [6]. It would be much appreciated if you could add your comments if you get a chance. Thank you :) Greenman 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC for User Conduct of User:Badmonkey

An RFC has been opened for User Conduct of User:Badmonkey. Since you have been involved at some point in trying resolve a dispute with this editor I am bringing this to your attension. Note the instructings in the RFC instruct me to leave a note on the talk page of anyone who has tried to resolve this dispute and I am not WP:CANVASSing. I request you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey and act or comment as you deem appropriate. Russeasby 00:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS International edit warring

I've been trying to stop the edit warring in MDS International and noticed you had stepped in earlier during the AfD. I've been trying to steer editors to discussing the dispute and finding sources, but with little effect so far. Suggestions? Maybe article protection? --Ronz 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lukas19

Hi, you have had some dealings with this editor. I'd appreciate your opinion regarding a suspected sockpuppet if you have time. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19. Cheers. Alun 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to MDS International in March

Hello Shell! While trying to research my next comment in the AfD that is now going on for MDS International, I noticed this comment that you made in the edit history, which mentions OTRS 2007032010023302. Are you at liberty to disclose what that was about, or who it was that complained? You could use Wikipedia e-mail if necessary. You are also welcome to give your opinion in the current AfD discussion. The main question now is what to do in the future if the article is kept, and how to address or summarize the past and present legal problems. Since I nominated the article for deletion, I still think that is the simplest route. EdJohnston 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

While I can't disclose any private information, the complaint dealt with the fact that much of the article dealt with a supposed current legal situation without providing any sources. After reviewing the article, I found the complaint had a good deal of merit. Some primary sources (court documents) were cited, while most other links went to the company website. I removed the offending section and tagged the article as needing secondary sources. Due to continued edit warring on the article, I reviewed the remaining sources and information and found that very little of the text was actually contained in the sources given. In fact, sometimes the source completely contradicted the article's text. Further corrections to basic facts were made by the account Jeanclauduc; after those changes, the article agreed with the company's homepage. There has since been almost non-stop edit warring by two accounts with clear agendas. User:Jeanclauduc has self-identified as an employee of MDSI, while User:WizardofWor has self-identified as an employee of MDS America. They have both attempted to push their agendas on this article and one for MDS America. Most of the non-trivial coverage in the US for MDSI occurred in 2003 around one incident and they seem to have little media coverage otherwise. In my opinion, this doesn't meet the spirit of the WP:CORP guidelines. Shell ^babelfish 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS America merge

Hello. In a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination), a merge of the article MDS America into MVDDS dispute has been proposed. You can voice your opinion, if any, on the matter at talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America. Thanks, nadav 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hi, I was wondering if you could be my admin coach. I think I could benefit from the program. My first RFA can be found here. Your status on the status page says that you are fully active and no where does it say you are on a wikibreak (unlike all the other free admins). Thanks. Jhfireboy I'm listening 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to help, but while I'm not really on Wikibreak, I have limited availability until June. If that's still ok for you, please leave me a message with your preferred method of communication (email, IRC, instant messenger, wikipedia sub-page etc.) and any areas you're particularly interested in learning more about. Shell ^babelfish 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Milesago.com

Hello Shell Kinney. Last year, you posted confirmation of permission to use content taken from Milesago.com within the Stewie Speer article. Was that permission specific to that article or does it also apply to Robert Whitaker (photographer)? The latter article has the same situation — Dunks58 posted his own work from the milesago.com site to Wikipedia. It appears that there is no copyright violation, given that the author posted his own work and has given permission to use his work in the past, but I thought it would be prudent to make sure about it. Thanks for your help! --GentlemanGhost 02:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really glad you brought that up; that was a case I apparently forgot about from quite some time ago. The account Dunks made claims to be the owner of the site and sent an email to me from a Mileago address. I requested he send a statement to OTRS and he promised to do so. I add the confirmation tag in good faith -- I have since searched the OTRS system and we never received that email. I've taken the confirmation tag down from Stewie Speer with a note as to why -- unless someone from Milesago.com provides a release to OTRS, its likely that both articles will be deleted as copyright violations. Shell ^babelfish 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked, then! Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 11:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Drag (band)

Hi Shelly, I noticed you deleted the article Drag (band) about 6 months back. I'm creating a new article with that name, though am not sure if the subject matter is the same as before (as I can't access how the page used to look). The article I'm trying to create flls under the WikiProject for Poderfinger (WP:FING). If you protest this, please respond on my talk page. Ciao. --linca^linca 10:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Did a little check up; the article is about the same band, however, the original article didn't give much information outside of Drag being an Australian band. Good work on the article! Shell ^babelfish 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)