User talk:ShinyHubCaps

Welcome from Spinboy

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:Oden.PNG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Oden.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Oden.PNG is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Oden.PNG itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Redd

Hi, could you please direct me to the guideline in Wikipedia which states you don't need to cite as you claim in the summary of this edit and this edit?

It seems to me that you think that because you see the lax application of the rules in practice, you believe they somehow need little or no adherance and therefore do not need to be followed. Instead of chastising people for doing the right thing, go and read the citation and verifiability guidelines and think again. Bye. --Downwards 12:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha isn't this guy awful? I'm trying to picture what he looks like, not a pretty sight I imagine. I've tried being reasonable, but as you can tell from the 100+ comments on his page that doesn't work so I decided to kick it up a notch and really let him have it. Somebody's gotta let him know, if I had the free time he does i'd revert everything he did and leave more condescending remarks back at him but unfortunately I have a life in the real world. KatoABJV 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for reverting talk page

Hi, the reason why I continually removed the message of the troll on your talk page is because it was not worth you nor I replying to and therefore didn't deem it suitable for your talk page (see WP:No personal attacks). I am trying not to drawn you in to a personal attack caused by a disruptive individual. He is grandstanding; please ignore it, as I currently am. (But if you want to have it on your talk page, I can't stop you.) Thanks :) ... --Downwards 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry about that, I just saw that it kept saying I had new messages so I reverted to the oldest thing I could remember. Even when you undid edits, I think it said I had new messages. I appreciate both of you for continuing your efforts to keep Wikipedia in order. I would love to make some allies here, but what I don't appreciate is when people go overboard with reverts and "undoing" edits without giving reasons, and the personal wars that breed from such. Downwards, if you check this again (as I don't want to write it on your page for the chance of it being lost in the shuffle), I want to start over and compromise with you on the citations dispute. KatoABJV mentioned that you are so deep into the letter of Wikipedian law that you miss part of the spirit, in which anyone can make edits. For the two or three people in the Michael Redd article making edits and having them inexplicably vanish at your hand, I took that personally as that has happened countless times to me as done by others. I would like to compromise, and that may include taking down the citations in the infobox and leaving them in the Trivia. We can talk about this.

I believe the way I talked to you was rude and condescending, and for that, I apologize. It is very frustrating to get across a point when the other will not listen. And I am sorry for the personal attacks as, like everything, you have a relevant Wikipedia article on the matter. You are very good at citations, but I still believe I was right (an ironic example of being both right and wrong in the same moment: right in theory and thought, wrong in action); I want to compromise on this issue, and I wish to resolve the dispute between us. At the same time, it seems the other users have backed down in their back-and-forth on the Michael Redd page, so I suppose it worked out. Please respond to work out an agreement, and hopefully we can clean up the talk pages just like we were all trying to do with our respective articles. ShinyHubCaps 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yeah, that's cool. I think potentially dubious info such as nicknames need to be cited, ideally, whereas nationality is almost never in dispute, hence you are right in saying not all "facts" should be cited. But you must anticipate when you insert information that the reader(s) deserves supporting evidence (i.e. what's to prevent editors from putting in obscure info such as made-up nicknames?) this is what I was trying to uphold. Thanks for understanding. --Downwards 01:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that seems to be a fair explanation, and that is why I thought that removing the citations and re-inserting the info into the trivia section would be ideal. Somebody had already done that, so I thought that citations might not be necessary in the info box. Essentially, information would not be questioned by those who read the whole article, since the information would still exist in the Trivia section (a just-as-adequate place for it, plus the inclusion of citations), and the info box could act as more of an overview of the article. People access the whole article, and I believe that the info box could just be an overview, with the "further reading," such as longer phrasing and citations, could all reside elsewhere in the article.

Having said that, would it be all right if I remove the citations? Keep in mind that they will still be there, just not in the info box. And I will certainly keep in mind your warning of "dubious info" for future edits. ShinyHubCaps 21:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clearing it up. Although what is the purpose of removing citations? In keeping in line with the Wikipedia policy about "verifiability being the threshold", it would be prudent to allow the references to be seen. Having citations absent from Infoboxes is a recipe for disaster - it allows for potentially erroneous information leeking into not just Michael Redd's article, but countless others. For example, what is to stop editors inserting obscure, arbitrary nicknames that they have conjured up thenselves, or equally worse, "heard on TV"? It gets turned into somewhat of a practice in anecdotal documentation, which is what should be avoided.

Also there is no policy sanctioning the obviating of citations from Infoboxes, in fact, I've seen it on a number of articles, e.g. Pashtun people. Also your recent edit on Michael Redd removed the primary "jockbio" reference, which in turn adversely affected the other "jockbio" citation it was relying upon. Please compare the "References" section on your edit with its prior revision. Thanks.. --Downwards 02:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very smart Wikipedian, sir Downwards, and I apologize for mismanaging the reference link. Having said that, you also used a bad link the first 1025 times you reverted, because the reference on "Red-Hot Redd" did not mention it anywhere on the page. We all make mistakes, and for that, I am sorry.

Now, as for the matter at hand: You are correct in saying that there is no rule against citations in the info box. However, I believe in uniformity for these articles. It is like the U.S. states: The info box for Alabama is the same for Wyoming, and everything in between. I believe that nicknames are NOT dubious information. However, if you believe that they are, then a reference link should be available, and I believe that the problem was solved in adding it to the Trivia section. At a glance, the trivia section contains numerous references, making it really the place for new references to exist.

I am afraid that as of now, we are more at a stand-off than actually caring about the good of the article. You could easily cite every sentence, or even every word if you wanted to, with non-facts maybe citing the dictionary definition. Citations are great when used correctly. However, while you clearly understand the rules for them, you almost avoid the point of them. They are meant to direct you to the resolution of fact, and constantly undoing or reverting one's edits may give an individual the wrong idea about Wikipedia and discourage their return visit. Now a nickname is not as standard as date of birth, draft position, or nationality, and that is why the reference still exists. I am just trying to clean it up and make it look presentable.

Also, I never meant that it is fact "because I heard it on TV." However, it was fact before it was said on TV, then I heard it, then I verified it and added it, with those being possibly reversed in order. The fact is that these are facts, and not necessarily of the encyclopedic kind, but they add to the article and to the persona of the individual involved. And if the reason for your revert was one against my affecting the link, then by all means, help fix the link without reverting content. Any help is fully appreciated. I do not mean to sound stingy, and I do appreciate help when the user's heart is in the right place. I believe that this is a fair resolution for the issue, and if you disagree, please contact me on my talk page before making your edits. ShinyHubCaps 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you accusing me of vandalism?

How is this vandalism? What specific guidelines were breached by me in that instance? Do you even understand what vandalism is?

And why are you re-instating uncited material?--Downwards (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily vandalism (although negotiable, see below), but I knew it would get your attention.

1.) You need to post reasons for your edits, especially if you are reverting the edits made by others. Anyone can change Wikipedia; you do not own Wikipedia or the means by which it operates. If you undo somebody's work, you must say why.

2.) We have discussed the nickname citations before on your talk page and resolved that it should remain the way it is, without citations. I was very hospitable, and we did hammer out a conclusion. About a week later, however, you went ahead and changed it again, claiming that a citation was "blocked up," despite the fact that the citation you reverted to had nothing to do with the point it was supposed to validate.

3.) The article was locked because of this edit war. It was lifted presuming that you had relented, and then you came back anyway. Didn't you notice that it was locked at one point?

4.) Every time I undo your edits with those useless, clutterful links, I tell you to check the discussion page. Have you ever, even once, checked there? I have my rationale listed in point form, so anyone can understand. That fact that you ask "And why are you re-instating uncited material," tells me that out of the million times I have directed you to the discussion page, you have never checked it.

5.) I do know what vandalism is, and I believe that reversing useful information is vandalism. In your last edit, you undid two interesting items from the Trivia section. If I went and undid all of the work that you did in any given page, that would be vandalism because I would be tearing down established material and, if I were like you, I wouldn't give a reason.

I will post this again in your talk page so you might see it. Sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. It does not need a citation for the reasons I have stated in the discussion page, and a moderator has agreed with me in this instance although not in all instances, so it is not a general rule. As I have mentioned before, the spirit of Wikipedia is more important than the letter because, in theory, you could cite every sentence and maybe every word in an article, but nobody expects you to because of the vague "debatable" guideline. Everything is potentially dubious and debatable, so do we cite everything? I think I explained it better in the discussion page... please consult. ShinyHubCaps (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see

Downwards was blocked for 6 months —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoABJV (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oden.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oden.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Name is Earl

Hi. The List of My Name Is Earl episodes was just moved to its own article as was Earl's list but it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl's list. The problem, of course, is that it needs WP:Reliable sources. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Name_Is_Earl&oldid=213245807 This is how the article looked just before I removed the sections from the main article. As you can see, the sub-articles on episodes and Earl's list already existed at this time and this main article looked pretty horrible. I simply removed the sections from the main article and added the links to the sub-articles to a new See also section. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undefeated in NBA Finals

If you have a source, then please feel free to restore your edit to include the Chicago Bulls. While all the teams you listed have a perfect record, the tendency of this article would be to isolate the team with the most wins from that list (if you'd rather retain all members of the list, you should probably bring it up on the talk page to reach a consensus). Realize also that the list that you (and your source) provided is incomplete. The defunct Baltimore Bullets (original) (not to be confused with the current Washington Wizards organization, which also once were known as the Baltimore Bullets) is also 1-0 in Finals appearances. At the time, the league was known as the BAA, but all BAA records are recognized by the NBA since they're the same league (just a name change following the NBL merger). The omission of this team led me to believe that you had conducted WP:OR, but apparently, your source was just careless in its compilation. — Myasuda (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]