User talk:DavidShankBone/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi, I added the Jewfro addition, and I was wondering why you took it off. Do tell.

Because "The Jewfro has even become popular among white non-Jews. This causes them to be misidentified as Jewish, regardless of their cultural background" is an unsourced, random addition that I don't believe is true. A "Jewfro" or "Hair nest" is not so identified with Jews that non-Jews are mistaken based on this sole criterion. If I'm wrong, cite a credible source. --DavidShankBone 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Al Franken

Hi-

I'm in a rush, it looks like I made a mistake on Al Franken page. All I meant was uncited and unnecessary was this sentence:

"The decision was not unexpected as Franken privately told prominent Minnesota Democrats about his candidacy."

Other edits were just meant to improve flow. If I screwed something up, sorry. I'll look into it later tonight!

-Pete 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, on review I don't think I did anything wrong, but I think your reversion - that undid other edits besides the sentence in question - was hasty. I don't see the point in back-and-forth reversions, so for now I'm leaving your sentence in. I hope you'll respond to my comment on the Talk:Al Franken page as to why you feel so strongly that the sentence adds to the article. -Pete 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House of Leaves

I too watch the [[House of Leaves]] article and have appreciated your efforts in the past. However, as per your latest edit (Reverting the removal of the bit about Thief: Deadly Shadows), I have reverted it as per discussion on the talk page. The source being referenced no longer works and the blogger who said it was the inspiration was not a game designer (Once again, all this is on the Talk page). However, if you disagree with this, after viewing the discussion, feel free to re-re-revert, noting your reasons why on the Talk page. Cheers. --Scorpios 21:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi nice edits

Hi there I like the organization you did of Philip Johnson's page photos. If you have any photos of his NYC buildings, please put 'em up! Best Smokychimp

[edit] reply

Hi, Absolutely no need to apologize, I have been so busy, and it was such a minor fray that worked out well enough in the end . . . I wish more of my debates here turned out so agreeably to both parties. I did not follow the NAMBLA thing too closely, after having said what I thought needed to be said. I do not even know how things turned out. It seems like such a simple thing, they were closer to the mainstream once, they are quite out of the mainstream now, but it is hard to argue that the fringe, even the lunatic fringe as I really consider them to be, is not part of the whole. Is there a consensus forming? Haiduc 03:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey -- why'd you remove The Ice Storm from the Ashbery biblio? Nightspore 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)nightspore

[edit] 1974

My reason for removing the 'oath of office' thing, is because at the moment Nixon resigned Ford became President. The line 'takes the oath' gives the erroneous impression (to a unfamilliar reader), that the US Presidency was vacant from the moment the resignation to effect 'til Ford was sworn in. Saying Ford took the oath, isn't needed, eitherway. GoodDay 22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How about 'takes oath, upon become 38th President' instead of 'and becomes the 38th President'? GoodDay 22:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Ford became President at the precise moment Nixon's resignation took effect (Noon EST- August 9th, 1974). If what you say is correct? Then every 4 years the USA has a Presidential vacancy from 15-30 minutes (example- Bush didn't take his 2005 oath of office, at precisely Noon EST, but still he continued as President). Believe me, this debate is nearly as old as the American Republic itself. See following articles - oath of office taken after assumption of office John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Zachary Taylor, Chester A. Arthur, Calvin Coolidge. GoodDay 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a better example: Nixon's resignation speech of August 8th - 'Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency, effective at noon tommorow. Vice President Ford, will be sworn in as President, in this office, at that hour. Nixon's speech clearly states, Ford's presidency begins, when his (Nixon) resignation takes effect. GoodDay 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Make that excerpts from his 'resignation' speech. GoodDay 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, according to that, the oath of office begins the Presidential term (and makes the 'person' President). Sooo, if a President-elect is in a coma (thus can't take the oath), the Presidency remains vacant? Or the Vice President-elect would have to become President (take the pres.oath). Yet this scenerio would contradict the 20th Amendment (wich states a VP-elect, can only become President, if the Pres-elect dies before the Inauguration). I suspect, scholars have been debating these possibilities for years. PS- I'm not disputing you, rather I'm pointing out the contradictions in the American Constitution. GoodDay 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
See my answer at my own page, I accidently posted there. Don't know how to transfer it to your page. GoodDay 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Suggest we move this discussion to talk:1974, as the Nixon/Ford situation brought about the topic. Plus it would be easier for us to read each others posts, rather then going back-and-forth. See my answer there. GoodDay 01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a lot of fussing (over those few minutes). I'm glad, you've debated with me, about the Nixon-Ford transition entry at 1974. It shows we both want accuracy. GoodDay 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Kapranos

Sorry about my angry sounding revert, I didn't mean it to come out like that. Perhaps we should wait for Alex to respond himself on the talk page. He's edited the article himself twice already it seems. But yes, apologies. I really don't have much of a clue about Mr Kapranos myself so should just leave it to those that do. Jellypuzzle | Talk 14:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter

[edit] Favour?

Hi. I was wondering if I could ask you a favour? We're using Image:Joey Ramone Place NYC streetsign.jpg on something like fifteen different Wikimedia projects, but the photographer has changed their Flickr license option to "All rights reserved". Technically, they can't revoke a license, but, well, it is a picture of a street sign... I was wondering if you would be willing to take a similar photograph the next time you were in that area? I know the subject isn't particularly interesting... Thanks for considering it. Jkelly 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How convenient, thanks. The easiest thing would be to just overwrite the Commons image, so we don't have touch each page by hand to make the switch, but instead just delete the previous file. Does that work for you? Jkelly 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Enh, I reconsidered. I've uploaded the image to Commons and am making the changes by hand. People sometimes get annoyed about having images changed without a real edit. Jkelly 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, done. Jkelly 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also done. Jkelly 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Really nice shots. Great work... that reminds me, I meant to mention this when you first brought it up. Wikinews can apparantly provide accreditation to photographers. I should warn you that I know nothing about this process, and have no idea if there already is one in the City, but I do know that one can apply for it on the basis of photography for Commons without doing reporting for them. I wish I had more information, but you might want to look into it. Jkelly 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schmoozing

Good job! They're a bit out of focus, though--low lighting, I suppose? Nice catch, and of course you're with Wikipedia! I once got an exclusive, when I was just a teenager, I ought to upload some of the pictures, if I still have them. God, paparazzi stink. KP Botany 02:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. For celebrity shots you always wind up having to sacrifice something, getting speed on manually focusing, rather than using automatic focus, and metering off of faces, hand holding at 1/4 second for posed shots, bracketing your exposures, shooting faster film, and shooting lots of film can all help. Also, it won't work for publicity meets, but for press conferences you can usually just tell the celebrity, "Hey, I'm an amateur, do you mind standing still for a couple of shots?" Then send them a copy of your best one in a thank you card. Still, better an out-of-focus usable original than something off the web. Keep it up, your photos enhance Wikipedia. KP Botany 21:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Photographs

WoW! You lucky son-of-a-gun! Those photos are excellent. Your are truly the greatest photographer that I know and I'm not just saying that because you're my friend. That's why I hate it when people who do not understand your work critize you. That said, please allow me to award you the extremely rare "No.1 Medal"

I award you, DavidShankBone, the very rare "No.1" Medal for your hard work and the excellent photographs which you have uploaded in Wikipedia- well done! Tony the Marine 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I award you, DavidShankBone, the very rare "No.1" Medal for your hard work and the excellent photographs which you have uploaded in Wikipedia- well done! Tony the Marine 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I also want you to know that you have been inducted to my "Wall of Honor" (smile). Take care. Tony the Marine 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Photographer's Barnstar
For your selfless contributions to Wikipedia, which have improved the visual content of so many articles. On behalf of the Wikipedia community, you have my gratitude. Jeffpw 06:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wall of Honor

David, your welcome. The thing is that I believe that Barnstars are great and can really encourage editors, but the community should have a system to honor and give recognition to great contributors and editors such as yourself, because these are the people that we must keep here.

That's why I have decided to honor the editors that I know and whom I consider great Wikipedians with my own Wall of Honor.

Yep! I'll be taking in the East coast on April, Baltimore, Newark, New York, Cooperstown and Boston. I'm going to make it a point to meet you. Then, on May the PR government has invited me to the island. Tony the Marine 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of directors in film articles

I'd suggest that if the interested editors of the article aren't sure that the image belongs there, it is best to defer to their judgement. That said, I also predict that if those articles were to go up for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates full of unfree images, someone will note that the article is full of unfree images, and suddenly having a freely licensed image of the director will seem like a blessing. So don't be surprised if they wind up in the article one day in spite of some people's lack of immediate enthusiasm. Jkelly 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is totally fine to have your name in the filename. There's lots of precedent for this, and why this bugs people I will never understand. Even if it was purely self-promotion, why on Earth would that be bad? Tag the duplicate files at Commons with {{duplicate}} and they will be deleted. Jkelly 02:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of precedence for including the name of the photographer. I got permission from a professional photographer to upload some of his pictures to Wikipedia a while ago, he gave permission, and I included his professional name in the file names. He liked it so much that he eventually uploaded a couple of other critical pictures to Wikipedia. People have this feeling that anyone and everyone is a photographer soley for the want of a camera. It's not true. Include your name in your pictures. KP Botany 04:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You might also include your name in the image's metadata as well as steg the image. None of that affects the image's usability, though I don't think either is searchable by Google (presently). Rklawton 04:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your photos on the web

I know this topic is of interest to you: [1]. Rklawton 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your user photo

Just wanted to say that it's a nice photo. Psicorps 09:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for the compliment! Always welcome :-) Dave --DavidShankBone 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, nice to see a handsome face with talent around here. --Psicorps 13:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rican Government

Hi David, what happened goes like this: I wrote the articles about Capts. Humbert Roque Versace and Manuel Rivera. When I realized that their names were not inscribed in Puerto Rico's monument to fallen heroes, I started a movement to convince the government that their names belonged their. The result was that I received the following e-mail:

"President McClintock (President of the PR Senate) has referred your suggestion to me so that we can initiate the research process that precedes inclusion in the Memorial during our Memorial Day 2007 annual event honoring our heroes.

We'll keep you updated and, if included, could use your help in getting close family addresses so that President McClintock can invite them, as well as you, to the unveiling ceremony.

Thanks for your assistance and everything you do to keep the world informed about Puerto Rico in Wikipedia."

Director Freddy Garcia.

Pretty cool, huh! Tony the Marine 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NY Times Lede comment

Just wanted to say, as a fellow editor....very well said! (And, um....very nice picture of you on here.) Take care. NickBurns 20:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Vowell is great, and "Partly Cloudy Patriot" is her best work. I saw her at a speaking engagement a few weeks back, and she's even more entertaining in person. NickBurns 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Waters

While I'm delighted you have taken a picture of John Waters please stop putting the image willy nilly on the Multiple Maniacs page.

To be frank, I think you have put that photo on sufficient pages when it only really should be on Waters' own article. Its placement on the MM page is poor and there is absolutely no need for a picture of the director or writer of movies on individual movie pages in any case - please see the plethora of other movies which singularly and correctly fail to have their writers or directors featured visually. StuartDouglas 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fighting no battles - it's a poor quality image badly dumped on the page and makes no useful contribution to the article. Anyone who wants to see what Waters looks like (seems a little unlikely but, to be fair,perhaps less so for a director like Waters) can click on the link to Waters own article where the image is also but this time rightly visible. To be honest, the image is not required on any page but Waters' own but MM happens to be the one I was adding an infobox too. StuartDouglas 20:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I made a comment on the talk page for MM and at Stuart's talk page. I happen to agree with you on this, but as I mentioned to Stuart this is probably something that will need to be pushed through to seek consensus and/or more outside comment. Otherwise, it could be an ugly revert war : ( NickBurns 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick (and indeed David) I'm more than happy to open the question up to comments and certianly have no wish to get into a war about it - I deleted the image when I put in an infobox with a screenshot and, tbh, it never crossed my mind that the Waters image was anything than a quick placeholder. If there's a consensus that a picture of the director should be on every article related to him (including, bizarrely, Edith Massey's page, where there is an image of Waters but not of Massey) then I'll obviously accept that - although if that is the case, (and to be clear, this is in absolutely no way meant to be a personal dig) a slightly less fan-shot and more professional image would be preferable. In the meantime I'll remove it again since - every other consideration aside - your habit of simply dumping it on the page regarless of the text it appears to illustrate is ugly and renders it even less appropriate.

As to your mention of our relative number of edits and their usefulness on my Talk Page, well I make no claims to the "usefulness" or otherwise of my edits since almost all of my 600 or so edits have been adding infoboxes, fixing dead and salted links and correcting spelling - whilst at least thirty of yours have been posting the same image all over the place :) StuartDouglas 16:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have about a 1000+ photos on this site. The photo is found underneath the info-box. --DavidShankBone 16:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have requested comments on the talk page as I find your attitude one which is unlikely to lead to consensus otherwise. StuartDouglas 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Handling editing disputes at Tara Subkoff

Following up on your complaint at WP:AN/I, I have blocked Chris77xyz for 24 hours for incivility, personal attacks, and legal threats. I have also asked for other admins to investigate and comment.

That said, I have to also note that your behaviour has been less than stellar during this conflict. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; for cases like this it can often be worthwhile to seek outside opinions through a request for comment.

Please avoid, in the future, using automated tools to rollback or undo edits when you're involved in a conflict over article content ([2] and [3], among others). Using such automated tools for non-vandalism edits can be seen as a very aggressive (and rude) act—it says, 'This edit is so terrible that I don't even need to leave an edit summary, because it was made in bad faith and it's obvious how harmful it was.' I note that the rollbacks you made also lost some grammar and format fixes that Chris77xyz had made to the article.

If you do decide to rollback a good faith contribution by another editor (an edit can be made in good faith but still not be in the best interests of an article) then you need to follow up on the article's (or the editor's) talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay

Yeah, I'm surprised at how big this has gotten. I think the key component is that many people took comments of his - particularly about theology - at his word based on his "credentials" that may have not flown otherwise. I found Essjay to be very smart and bright (and when I saw his picture...um, I thought he was kinda cute). But I understand WHY people are angry. It does seem foolish to have such a hue and cry when people haven't had to register thus far with personal information. This has also touched on an anti-Jimmy Wales contingent that exists, unfortunately....and he did seem to initially want to waive this all off. NickBurns 19:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

His picture is at this link: http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Essjay&printable=yes - it's been posted or seen at a few other places, too. Your weekend photo subject looks like a story in itself!NickBurns 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have an astonishingly wide range in my "likes". Jimmy Wales fits in there too (I'm only mildly ashamed to admit). This seems to be a killer Monday because of the time changeover. NickBurns 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay looks a bit too well fed to me. Don't worry, David--your title as sexiest Wikipedian seems safe for the time being. Can't decide if I like you better with hair or a shaved head. Was awake all night trying to decide. :-) Jeffpw 08:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd vote for David in that contest! ; ) NickBurns 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Blushing, eh? Hmmm....I remember when I still had a capacity for shame and could blush. LOL. (kidding!) I'm glad you're taking it in the spirit intended. I'll bite my tongue on saying anything that would REALLY make a grown man blush ; ) NickBurns 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, drag queens would win a contest of wits every time! Though I can fend for myself pretty well. I tend to channel that into mean letters to the editor. NickBurns 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Friendster: I was about to say no, but I remembered I signed up ages ago. So I'm here: www.friendster.com/3836320 - I'm more commonly found on LiveJournal. NickBurns 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David P

I hadn't considered that the user might be David Pierre, you may be right. Note also his quick deletion of site critical of frankenlies on the Al Franken page. What concerns me more, though, is that all of his "contributions" appear to be controversial in nature. It appears that he is using Wikipedia as a forum for POV pushing to the exclusion of any productive activity.

By the way, thanks for pointing out that photo of Wyden at the Strand a while back - it's a good one, and I like having non-publicity shots for elected officials. -Pete 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

You have been named as a party in a potential case brought forward by User:D323P. Please add your view to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_.28Al_Franken.29. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A follow-up: RfAr filing was rejected 0-5. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] guidelines vs policy.

just wanted to let you know, both WP:SPAM and WP:COI are "guidelines" not policy, and as such aren't binding. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be followed, by all means they should, and I perfectly agree with you that the owner of frankenlies.com editing information about his own subject is a definite conflict of interest. However, it's still a guideline, and as such doesn't have the force of policy. Just wanted to let you know. Also, may want to look at WP:A if you haven't yet, it's the policy that used to be split into WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. There's now a section on WP:A that defines what is a reliable source: you'd probably have some luck arguing there that frankenlies isn't a reliable source per that. Cheers. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

D323P has just posted his proposed version of a criticism section to the talk page. I've commented on it and made some cuts, and some suggestions. Would you mind commenting on the proposed changes, or offering a criticism section of your own creation? Thank you. Oh, also I responded to your other section. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor

Why on earth do people think Trevor has been so blessed? Maybe my experience is just skewed, but I thought he was just average when I saw that pic. All I can say is that the Dutch already claim the record as tallest people in the world...maybe everything else is proportional. :-) LOL! Jeffpw 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Party Time?

I think that's awesome - wish we could marry here in the U.S., but my countrymen like to deny people of their rights. What will you two do for "party time"? --DavidShankBone 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there good looking... thanks for your message. Yes it really is dreadful that in this day and age, two people cannot get married regardless of their gender. It makes me proper mad to think that there are still our people who are being denied rights afforded to others purely by accident of their birth. As for the party, not sure what we'll do, probably literally have a party and invite our family and friends. Should be good! --Psicorps 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Buchanan

Damn it, David! You show me things like that, and then I have to go have my say. I get all "Julia Sugarbaker" on people like that. NickBurns 23:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So Sugarbakered were you that you edited out half the page when you said your piece! I fixed it for you, hon! Jeffpw 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The world's gone to hell since Dixie Carter went off the airwaves - coincidence? I think not. --David Shankbone 23:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: WikiNews hello

Hi David,

as you requested, I removed your request. Best of luck and hope some day we can use some of your wonderful pictures for WikiNews anyway, and hope that you don't have too many hard feelings.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toot own horn

My article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot just passed GA status! Woo-hoo! Now I'm waiting on Evan Wolfson... --David Shankbone 16:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations handsome.. will go take a look! x --Psicorps 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, hon! I've looked at them both and they are excellent pieces. Are you planning on submitting them to FA????? Jeffpw 09:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] franken page

I redacted out the section that basically amounted to accusations that D323P wasn't being collegial. Given the progress of the mediation thus far- we have 1 section perfectly ready for inclusion, another section or two that are approved but awaiting bibliographical citations and cite web template formatting- we've made a lot of progress. Let's continue to work on improving the article, and let's focus on content, not contributors, and we'll get through this thing ok? (Please make any responses on my talk page, as I have 3000+ articles on my watch list and cannot always remember to check them all.) ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Israeli Ambassador

God, I'm such a sucker for Schadenfreude! Thanks for pointing that out to me! And let me know if you submit that article for FA. I'll throw my support your way. Jeffpw 13:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My ugly mug

Thanks for your indirect compliment, would love to see some more photos of you sometime so I can compliment you too! --Psicorps 22:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not cool

1. Posting anonymous "blogspot.com" links on articles is against WP guidelines.

2. Telling someone how to edit their own talk page is not cool either.

3. Telling someone they're "spamming" when they're not is not cool either. Again, I was NOT the first person to post Frankenlies.com on Wikipedia. It was there most of the time for well over a year until you deleted it. Not cool, man.

Editors at Wikipedia are encouraged to assume good faith and assume a [[collaborative_writing|collaborative attitude]. Here is the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Maybe it will help you out.

Maybe after reviewing the tutorial, you will have a better grasp of how Wikipedia operates. D323P 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You would be wise not to tell experienced editors, especially ones with a long history of substantive edits, with articles that have reached Good Article status, what policy means and what they should/should not do. It just makes you look foolish and inexperienced. --David Shankbone 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something to consider

Sockpuppetry at the Buchanan page. I have been wondering about this. Jeffpw 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Disregard. Somebody very objective just told me I was being paranoid. Jeffpw 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming this "concern" was because Ivo actually had the temerity to agree with me in the discussion. :) I don't even understand what a sockpuppet really IS, so I guess it would have been rather hard for me to have one.K. Scott Bailey 23:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Nader

Hi DavidShankBone,

Agree with your assessment on Talk page re: 'millionaire'. Invite you to help with the ongoing edit war re: The Atlantic Monthly. Pastordavid proposed an interesting compromise. Editors who supported the compromise, or the ref removal, had problems with another User, who claims to have left. Still having the same problem. Would be great to get the issue resolved. Thanks. Telogen 19:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tompkins Park Police Riot

Hi, I finally had a few minutes to read that article. It's very good - congrats on GA status! I didn't know about that event, but having lived in Little Beirut through a few different police commissioners, I've seen similar stuff out here. Fortunately nothing recent. By the way,I like your Street Sleepers series too, and the commentary that goes along with it. Of course, somebody should point out to you that NYC is not the only place with homeless people or residents that feel sympathy toward them ;) Keep up the good work, and don't let that DP wingnut get you down. -Pete 15:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention - before you get too worked up over the GA status…you're not in the best company j/k ;) -Pete 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your note

I've never felt like my objective was anything other than the improvement of James Buchanan. However, for awhile in the discussion, I felt like I was under siege by people who felt like they knew what my motivations were, and I responded angrily far too often. I appreciate your nice note, and thanks for stopping by my talk page. I don't really know what a "Barnstar" is, but I'm sure I'll appreciate that as well, once the time comes! :) K. Scott Bailey 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photography

Just excellent. I especially appreciate seeing a photo of Frank McCourt. Jkelly 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I owe you a pint. Jkelly 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
I award DavidShankBone the Commons Ambassador Barnstar for his truly exceptional efforts in creating freely licensed photographs of professional quality, and modelling the DIY spirit for Wikimedians on multiple projects. Jkelly 17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I second this barnstar. Brilliant work, David. — coelacan — 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jkelly 20:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to see you bail out of Talk:James Buchanan

I feel like I've made some good faith attempts to compromise, rewording Bambino's proposal, and removing the Loewen references (Have you read his book? It's VERY non-neutral.) in order to avoid WP:REDFLAG and undue weight. It seemed that at first you agreed that my proposal was an improvement, and were ready to support it. The people on the other side of the discussion refuse to compromise, which leads me to believe that it is THEM and not me with the "agenda." I have no problem including the speculation, and have offered to work with them on improving the stand-alone article, in which the speculation could be expanded upon. They're simply not interested, unless they get Loewen in, and are allowed to include a sentence that implies that there's some evidence, however slim, that Buchanan had a sexual relationship with King, which there is absolutely none. While I can see including the speculation, I can not compromise on issues that I feel greatly harm the article's quality. I almost became discouraged with the continual attacks earlier, but I'm making a last-ditch attempt at compromise. If we lose all the people (like you) that are willing to work toward compromise, where will that leave the article?K. Scott Bailey 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I had two deal breakers in the discussion: 1) Loewen, for obvious reasons; and 2) Implying that there's some evidence to support the speculation in the final sentence, when there's none there. Do you understand why these are deal breakers for me? What I can not understand (and perhaps you can help me to) is why there are a couple of editors for which INCLUSION of Loewen seems to be their deal-breaker. Do you have any idea why that could be?K. Scott Bailey 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Dirty Sanchez

Thanks. God, I didn't think someone would notice that fast...--Orthologist 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your photography

I just perused some of your work, and it's quite amazing! With all the noise that's been happening in pages that we've both been associated with, I just wanted to make sure to let you know that I think that your photographic work is awesome! And if you ever DO "fail out of law school", you will CERTAINLY have a fallback career ... :) K. Scott Bailey 17:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Buried Hatchets

Just thought you might be interested to know that Jeffpw and I have buried the hatchet, so-to-speak. While that certainly doesn't mean that I agree with him on Loewen and all that, at least we can move forward assuming the best about each other's motives.K. Scott Bailey 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

agreed. 100%. Jeffpw 19:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Barnstar

I appreciate the barnstar you've given me. I was wondering if it's acceptable to cut and paste the code, and place it on my main page? Is that considered bad form or anything? Thanks again!K. Scott Bailey 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks again. I appreciate both the Barnstar, and the calming influence you've been on the Buchanan page.K. Scott Bailey 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
  • Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cut down on the reverting?

i don't know why you think you are an expert on afros, but that photo you keep reverting to is not an afro. any black person could tell you that. also, remember that reverts are not to be used to change good-faith edits. please keep your future comments to the article talk page.

[edit] Tell me all about it

Tell me about your history with the user. He's currently on a 24-hr block for 3RR, so maybe some work can get done. It's best to be aware of the person's patter so as to anticipate problems in the future. Thanks for your comments on the Nancy Reagan Discussion page. Btw, awesome pic of Angela Bassett - she stole the show in one of my secret shame films, Strange Days. The gal looks super-hot in a chauffeur's outfit. :D Arcayne 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You have an email address? I wanted to have you give JL a howdy, but I don't want my name in the WP list. And any purposeful intention to revert good material is egregious, my friend. You run into that sort of issue again, please let me know.Arcayne 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You do me the great honor, sir, by even offering to allow me to choose. I like 8, because its a natural smile in an outdoor environment. I also like 7 because he's reading to kids, which I find particularly awesome. I would submit that picture 8 could be the lead, and picture 7 could be in the Music career section, as it specifically addresses his children's books. What do you think? I will make an edit with my proposals, and then revert it, so if you like it, you can revert my revert (lol) and if you don't, there's no harm, no foul. That sound groovy? Arcayne 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niddhogg

Will you be my friend?

I've written you a short poem.

With haste Niddhogg, To the healing spring of Jutenheim. Nay hath actually a spitpool. I'm not even f**king joking. So lay waste to the roots of the world tree, Lay waste to the shadows of Midgard

Thankyou for reading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.57.126 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDavidShankBone_Archive_4_e4ff.html"