User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thank you 2 Austin downtown image 3 Wikiproject Shark 4 El Gringo 5 Removal of photo of Max Kenworthy 6 Helper tools - dropdown 7 Signpost updated for September 11th. 8 Personal attacks 9 WP:NPOV policy 10 Your suggestions on my talkpage... 11 My wiki page and SA 12 If you're coming here over the block 13 Deletion of image talk of I9 images 14 Article deletion closure 15 Chandrabhan Prasad 16 Signpost updated for September 18th. 17 September Esperanza Newsletter 18 Signpost updated for September 25th. 19 Rq'd help 20 Request for Arbitration involvement 21 Signpost updated for October 2nd. 22 Dispute resolution 23 Joomla! edits 24 Personal Attacks (Byrgenwulf/Anville) 25 Salmon1 26 Juice Plus 27 Page deleted without any information 28 Signpost updated for October 9th. 29 Your removal of my complaint 30 Reply 31 Amanda Carpenter 32 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 33 RfB With A Smile :) 34 Free Hugs Campaign 35 User:Ernham 36 RE: Unblock of User:Enkil 37 Juice Plus Overhaul 38 Controversial block 39 Signpost updated for October 16th. 40 Dear Shell 41 One Question 42 Warn an admin on personal attack? 43 Could you give a look to discussion at John Mercer Brooke? 44 Misha Sedgwick 45 Longer than preferable ? 46 Could you give a look to discussion at John Mercer Brooke? 47 RPJ 48 My what? 49 WP:PAIN report - request opinion 50 last warning 51 People lists 52 Use of WP:Dick 53 My report on WP:PAIN 54 Velupillai Prabhakaran page 55 Desperately Need help on blanking and POV editing of Tamilnet by User:snowolfd4 56 Velupillai Prabhakaran verifiabilty issue 57 Grover Cleveland, Glen S., and a few others 58 Thanks! 59 Signpost updated for October 23rd. 60 centrum99 (talk · contribs)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for catching the actions done on my talkpage by another user. I've posted a request for help on Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Harassment, and then he followed me there, made a reply, and committed the actions (vandalism?) you reverted. thank you for the assistance. ThuranX 15:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. If you continue to have difficulties with that user, I'd suggest reporting them at WP:PAIN or drop me a line (if I'm not online, the noticeboard may be faster). Shell ^babelfish 15:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The right to vanish is not the same as the right to delete all of your contributions. It most especially is not the right to fraudulenty place speedy tags on other user's pages. Shell ^babelfish 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Shell, please keep in contact regarding this situation with this user. He has threatened legal actions against me, and from what you've said ont eh admin baords, possibly you too. Thank you. ThuranX 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the concern is that his account was the same as his business name, so now Google shows that archive of yours when you search for his business. You might consider just deleting the page now that he's indef blocked; if you find you need it at a later time, any admin can restore it. The best way to get a bully to go away is to ignore them. Shell ^babelfish 01:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea in some ways, however, that's what he wants, and I'm loathe to give in to terroristic behaviors and threats of legal sanctions. Further, it's my understanding that removing entire talk page sections like that is against wikipedia's policy, as is major removal of material from wikipedia. If this sort of deletion is allowed, what page can I find the procedure on? thank you again for all your help. ThuranX 01:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable, I believe. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Typically talk page messages are archived and its usually considered bad form to archive recent warning messages or on-going discussions. In this case, we have to use our common sense; there were no warnings and since the user has left, there's no chance the conversation will resume. Since he's left, the conversation won't be needed for anything and if anything ever came up, an administrator could undelete it.

I can see why you might feel that you're giving in to his demands, but really, is the page doing you any good? Is it worth continued harassment? If you'd rather put up with him, you're welcome to keep it. Personally, I'd probably find it better to have it over with. Shell ^babelfish 05:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well ironically, I would have done so, but since he just initiated a lawsuit against me, and then contacted me via three separate emails, my lawyer has advised me to hold all pages intact with their edit histories readily accessible and verifiable for the police. This guy is insane. I have no idea why he thinks he can sue me for this, but he's now characterizing my comments as slanderous. He's tracked down all my personal information, and acts in such a threatening manner that I'm meeting with my lawyer to discuss restraining orders and a criminal investigation. You might have time yet to avoid this guy's insanity, but I'm afraid he's going to physically come after me, and I'm taking action to protect myself and my family now. The more he keeps this up, the more people will find about him when googling. ThuranX 21:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear that. I was under the impression he just wanted them removed :( At this point you're both telling me completely different stories. Since I have no way of knowing who's telling the truth, I'd prefer if both of you left me out of any further issues you decide to have. Shell ^babelfish 11:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austin downtown image

You removed the image Image:Austin_downtown.jpg from the Austin, Texas article here due to image licensing concern.[1] However, that image appears to be reasonably licensed as {{GFDL-self}}. Can you clarify your intention or reason? thanks -- Bovineone 18:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The image I removed was Image:Austin-downtown.jpg which was licensed as for non-commercial or educational use only. The image has since been deleted. Shell ^babelfish 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Confusingly similar filenames. In any case, I restored the original one (with an underscore), which does not have that restrictive license. Thanks. --Bovineone 22:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, it took me a minute too - I thought I might have removed the wrong one. I'm glad there's another one that works out for the article :) Shell ^babelfish 02:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Shark

Hi,

You closed this as an A7. Huh? I don't get it -- it isn't just that this CSD applies to articles only: I don't know what you mean to say here. Sharks aren't notable? Sure they are... I'm confused. I haven't reverted the closure; I just want a sensible explanation for it. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Crud, that was supposed to be G7 :( My fault. Shell ^babelfish 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh... Okay... Sorry :) I should have guessed that! Xoloz 20:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Gringo

Hi - what was the result for El Gringo re his alleged personal attacks? Gsd2000 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As the statements that were on WP:PAIN for days said, there seemed to be serious incivility on the parts of many editors. Since this appears to be more of a content dispute than serious personal attacks, I suggest that you try dispute resolution to resolve the difficulties. Shell ^babelfish 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that you are not upholding the principles of WP. Please see the "outside view" here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/El Gringo. Gsd2000 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're already using dispute resolution, can I ask why you would bring this report? We block for preventative, not punative reasons. You're headed the right direction since using dispute resolution will either help change the editors behavior or eventually lead to firmer sanctions than are possible with the noticeboard. Shell ^babelfish 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in regard to that RfC - it would be helpful to have are few older examples as well to show a pattern of this behavior. Shell ^babelfish 21:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i moved some of your comments on the RfC to the talk page, looks like the sections got a little bit messed-up.EricR 23:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of photo of Max Kenworthy

Hi,

You removed the photo of Max Kenworthy. I created the page, am a friend and associate of Max and he provided me with the photo. I stated as much in the description and picked whatever license seemed most appropriate - what more can I do to prevent the photo from being removed? Please reply via email: matt@deity.co.nz

Thanks, Matt NullPainter 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You uploaded it as permission for Wikipedia to use it. Unfortunately, while this seems to make sense, since Wikipedia has to be free to allow others to disribute its content at will, release to only Wikipedia doesn't actually work out and those images get deleted. Check out WP:TAG which lists all of the acceptable image tags and see if you can find the one that fits closest. I'll go ahead and undelete the image for you in the meantime. Just make sure you tag it and list its source in 7 days, or it'll show up for deletion again. Shell ^babelfish 12:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helper tools - dropdown

BTW, I noticed that in your monobook.js file, you have the SRC for these. I think I accidently posted that for a while as a copy-past mistake in the explaination subpage. I'd remove the lines below "Helper tools - dropdown" where it tries to include (src) a css file, which does not make any sense.Voice-of-All 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That must have been it. Guess that'll teach me to trust you implicitly ;) Thanks for all the great tools. Shell ^babelfish 03:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for September 11th.

Volume 2, Issue 37	11 September 2006	About the Signpost

Carnildo resysopped	Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Thank you for taking the time to look at the Eric Lerner / ScienceApologist incident. I think blocking is both preventative and punative (like being banned from driving). But I appreciate your intervention, and rebuke, and feel that is a good step in the right direction. --Iantresman 11:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your comments and warning, I think you should know that you have thrust yourself into an extremely long-running conflict (that has lasted more than a year) that has nothing to do with actual personal attacks and everything to do with content disputes. I would point out that Ian did not offer any direct evidence that shows I was "personally attacking" Eric Lerner, he just assumes that my edits to the page somehow defame him. I can assure you this is not the case. I at no time personally attacked Eric Lerner, but I have myself been the recipient of numerous attacks by User:Elerner. If you'd like, I'll show you the evidence, but I'm not interested in getting into a long-winded battle of evidence. Basically, I like to give editors infinite second-chances and always hope for the best. This said, I will not refrain from editting this particular page because what I am including on the page is better text and prose from an editorial, neutrality, and verifiable standpoint. Despite offering over and over again, the substantive issues I edit about are actively ignored by certain users who ally themselves with User:Elerner who has a hand in writing a version of an article that marginalized criticism while heaping praise upon his work. What's more, User:Elerner refuses to engage me in discussion of the substantive claims he continues to remove. This is a problem with WP:AUTO, as others have pointed out, and I in no way am "attacking" this person by trying to get the article to conform more closely to the reality of the marginalization of this particular character in the astronomical community. We already have an Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elerner about this and related issues.

I also encourage you to look at the talk-histories and the histories of other pages between myself and User:Iantresman. For example, you'll note in his request to the NPA board, Ian asked for me to be "banned" from all science-related articles. This is pure vexatious litigation. He doesn't want me to edit articles regarding subjects he holds dear because subjects he holds dear tend to be marginalized by the scientific community and I usually write about such marginalization in relevant articles. Ian has attempted for the last few years to get me railroaded off of Wikipedia. He has thus far been unsuccessful. --ScienceApologist 12:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Shell, I am very sorry to drag you into all this. As you can see, ScienceApologist disagrees.[2] I refer to my comments and evidence presented earlier. I do not dispute that I have had a long history with ScienceApologist. --Iantresman 13:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that your evidence does not rise to the standards outlined in WP:NPA but rather seems to be more about the age-old content disputes that have plagued articles wherever we cross paths. This is totally the wrong avenue for pursuing a resolution, in my opinion. If User:Shell Kinney would like to attempt a type of mediation at Talk:Eric Lerner where we substantively discuss the edits I have outlined and made to the article, that would be fine by me, but I'm not sure that this particular Wikipedian has the time or inclination for such an effort. After all, the last time something like this was attempted we pretty much exhausted all involved. Hope does spring eternal, though. --ScienceApologist 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that the evidence does not meet the standards of WP:NPA, however, I thought it was clear the message I left you was not about personal attacks. Iantresman may have been reporting it in the wrong arena, but it did get someone's attention. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that the diffs provided constitute a "content dispute" - they clearly show a pattern of removing favourable information from an article, even when its sourced - your talk page discssions unfortunately bear this out as well. Its also troubling that not only did you attempt to marginalize the subject in that manner, but went so far as to remove a favorable mention only to replace it with a dubious negative statement. It is clear that there is some kind of bias at work here and the types of edits shown in the diffs are highly discouraged. If the subject is so highly charged for you that you cannot follow Wikipedia policies when editing the article, you should voluntarily abstain - since you chose to continue the behavior you were counselled against, I've imposed a 24 hour block on your account. Please consider another method to resolve your concerns with the article. Pushing your POV, discarding reliable sources in favor of blogs and removal of favorable sourced information is not tolerated. Shell ^babelfish 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Is FeloniousMonk saying that ScienceApologist's edits are now OK because I am supposed to be a "pseudoscience POV pusher"? Is this a personal attack, or just an attempt to discredit me?
• And what is a "pseudoscience POV pusher"? Is Eric Lerner a pseudoscienfic subject? Is merely describing pseudoscientific subjects "POV pushing"; not according to its description.
• And now FeloniousMonk is warning me about using "WP processes to gain advantage" This is incredible... I complain that someone has removed positive (verifiable) information on someone in an article, and I'm doing wrong! --Iantresman 19:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its clear from the talk page that the consensus is Eric Lerner's theories should not be called pseudoscience. However, this is obviously a long, drawn out content dispute where both you and ScienceApologist have been in the wrong. I believe ScienceApologist's recent reverts are an attempt to push a mainstream POV and lack verifiability, however, your daily reverting isn't the way to handle it either. I still think dispute resolution is going to be most helpful - you need other opinions to form a consensus on the problem areas. Shell ^babelfish 19:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would like the full story, you can read Talk:Plasma cosmology and the archives. Eric Lerner is certainly a controversial person in astrophysics and cosmology and his theories are not widely known or entertained. While it is certainly true that SA was making edits that make the biography more negative, I think it is also true that various editors, including Eric and Ian, have been trying to edit the article to make Eric look like a mainstream scientist, which he certainly is not. The whole Visiting Astronomer kerfuffle has me a bit perplexed, but there certainly doesn't seem to be anything worthy of a block here. –Joke 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not about the negativity per se - it makes perfect sense to have mainstream scientific thought represented as the majority POV. First, he was trying to force in a crap source; the article has 7 reputable criticisms so there's wiggle room to wait for a good source on that 8th. Second, he's using his own knowledge and a log book listing to change the wording - he may be right, but we're not supposed to use original research. Finally, he's edit warring - wholesale reverting every single day; dispute resolution exists for a reason - if this guy is a junk scientist SA should have no trouble getting other editors over there to help form a favorable consensus. Everyone's so caught up in trying to tell me Eric Lerner is wrong they're completely glossing over the fact that SA is running slipshod over some pretty important policies -- good intentions, bad execution. If it wasn't block worthy, then it wasn't - however, I was completely prepared to block Iantresman as well to stop the year long blanket reverting. Shell ^babelfish 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[dit conflict]Would you care to explain what you meant on AN/I when you said that "Just because something is verifiable does not mean that we must include it" is an "incivil edit summaries"? It's a basic statement on fact, and a necessary, given that Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. How does that amount to incivility?

You said "I think its clear from the talk page that the consensus is Eric Lerner's theories should not be called pseudoscience" - so are you blocking to enforce your own POV on the issue? This strikes me as extremely disturbing. I find it very disturbing that you would block a solid editor for editing from a mainstream science POV. While NPOV requires that we present all sides fairly, it also says that we cannot give undue weight to fringe theories. Are you seriously saying that you blocked SA for editing in accordance with policy?!! I find your attitude shocking and worthy of de-adminning. Guettarda 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't going to bother reading what I wrote before you comment, I'm not sure how to help you. I said "in addition to incivil edit summaries" not that "Just because something is verifiable..." was incivil or an edit summary (it was neither and I did link to it).

Read the talk page, several editors decided to take pseudoscience out of the article - they could be wrong, but that's what conclusion they came to. I've got no position on it either way, haven't ever been involved in the dispute and don't have a POV on the issue. If anything, I lean towards supporting SA's work to keep crap from making itself presentable just by being on Wikipedia. Read the comment directly above yours - I blocked for constant edit warring and ignoring some pretty damn important policies not because I think either side is right or wrong. Shell ^babelfish 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Having looked over the issue, I must agree with Guettarda's assement. While SA may have been blunt, that is irrelevant, as bluntness is hardly the same as a personal attack -- that was the original issue, no?

At one point, you note that your edit summary reason for blocking SA was sloppy -- actually, the sloppiness was in blocking him at all. From what I can see, you had zero justification for what you did. Don't you think it would be better to admit that you "screwed the pooch" on the block and apologise? Otherwise, Guettarda's call for your desysoping is something I would have to support as a failure to admit having made a mistake erodes the confidence editors place in Admins, thus harming Wikipedia itself. •Jim62sch• 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• "If you aren't going to bother reading what I wrote before you comment, I'm not sure how to help you." - I find your attitude very unhelpful. Having listed incivility as an issue with SA, you of all people shouldn't start out with insults.
• "I've got no position on it either way, haven't ever been involved in the dispute and don't have a POV on the issue" - No, that isn't true. You made it very clear that you have taken one side in the dispute, and you have blocked SA in clear violation of policy. Neither party would win an award for his actions, but your stated reason for blocking was for editing in support of the mainstream view. Your abuse of your admin privileges is shocking. Your insistence that you somehow have the right to block other editors for opposing the POV which you admited to supporting is totally unacceptable. Please undo your actions. Guettarda 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason I say I don't know how to help is because you're arguing things I have not said and did not do. I do not support the minority POV and have said in multiple places that I support the goal of correctly presenting the mainstream POV in scientific articles. I do not support violating WP:V, WP:OR or edit warring. I don't believe you've read any of my explanations about the block - its about letting the desire to have a mainstream view better presented in an article cause policy violations. If the science is crap, it shouldn't be difficult to present that and stay within Wikipedia policy. Shell ^babelfish 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your denial, you did say that "'Just because something is verifiable does not mean that we must include it" was an "incivil edit summary" (when it was neither incivil nor an edit summary). Like most of your arguments on this issue, your conclusion was faulty and was based on false information. Why you would block on such grounds, I don't know. I initially assumed good faith and figured that you were either mistaken or duped, but your follow-up comments suggest malice. Given the fact that you stated that you subscribe to one POV in the article, your motivation appears pretty transparent. This is a major transgression. You cannot block to further a content dispute! You need to be clear on that issue. Your actions are clearly de-sysop-able.

You have clearly tipped your hand on the issue. You accused SA of "systematically defam[ing] and decredit[ing] the subject" and said "its clear from the talk page that the consensus is Eric Lerner's theories should not be called pseudoscience". In addition, you called SA's point about Lerner violating WP:AUTO a "straw man argument". Obviously you have made up your mind about the issue - calling policy a "straw man", while blocking SA to protect your favoured view of an article. This is unacceptable.

You go on to say about SA "[h]e pushes a mainstream POV and actively seeks to discredit those he considers fringe", implying that there is something wrong with presenting the mainstream scientific opinion. Again, you use SA's application of policy to block him. Coupled with your support for fringe views, this shows that you are anything but an dispassionate observer.

You replied to me "I do not support violating WP:V, WP:OR or edit warring". Of course, you weren't accused to not supporting WP:V or WP:OR, but rather of ignoring WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV and of violating the blocking policy.. Great argument there. Guettarda 02:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try reading this one more time. The sentance reads "in addition to incivil edit summaries there were gems like..." - see the "in addition to" as in "on top of" or "other than" or "plus" edit summaries, there were... Logically, if there is something and incivil edit summaries, the something cannot be equal edit summaries - or have I completely lost my grasp of the English language?

You are the only person who is claiming I subscribe to a POV on the article, despite all evidence to the contrary and frankly, its complete bullshit. You are selectively taking statements I've made out of context in order to attack me further. SA is attempting to discredit the theories - its a goal he stated himself, its a goal brought up by multiple users on the RfC, hell, its part of the WP:NPOV policy on giving mainstream thought more weight - so again, goal=good, method=bad. Trying reading the damn page of the article - even SA said that pseudoscience shouldn't be in this article because its about a guy - others have argued they see no support for the term - if you see the discussion differently, then say so, but don't pretend you can take that single statement out of context and force a view on me. If my "favored view" of the article was not SAs version, why didn't I revert him after blocking? Why did I later revert back to SAs version when Eric Lerner tried to use this issue to revert yet again? I did not say WP:AUTO was a straw-man, I said claiming he was in the right because he didn't commit personal attacks was - its a non sequiter. If I say "don't hit your brother, its not right" and my son says "but I didn't get any dessert" its the same thing. Perhaps he misunderstood my note and was only replying to Iantreman's improper report.

Again, there's nothing wrong with weighting the article properly, but its possible to be nice and follow policy while doing so. Please show me any instance where I've supported a fringe view. In fact, show me any time I've even edited an article about a fringe view before or leave off accusing me of it.

Correct, that's what I said. Again you're either deliberately misunderstanding or not reading what I'm writing. SA violated WP:V, WP:OR and edit warred. Period. Since this started, even under protection one of his claims has been removed since it lacks any source. He admits his dispute with "visiting astrologer" is based on his own knowledge and cannot find a reference to support it - that's the heart and soul of original research.

Frankly I'm pretty disgusted that instead of saying - hey, that probably wasn't worth a block and moving on, I have people like you spewing bullshit and calling for my head. If you feel a block wasn't warranted, fine, but pretending that SA was blameless just because he's Doing the Right Thing {TM) is silly. Shell ^babelfish 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you feel a block wasn't warranted, fine, but pretending that SA was blameless just because he's Doing the Right Thing {TM) is silly" - you see, that's the whole problem. I never said that SA was "blameless". That's totally irrelevant. The block wasn't warranted. Sure, people are entitled to make mistakes. But defending the indefensible, as you are doing, makes the idea that you made a mistake more and more tenuous.

You have repeatedly, even here, defended fringe science. I provided quotes. You also are defending process over encyclopaedia quality. The term "visiting scientist" has very specific meaning. If someone claimed to be a Professor at Harvard, based on having professed an idea at Harvard, it would be removed from their article immediately. Why? Because everyone knows what the terms mean. Yes, one could wikilawyer and argue that it violated WP:NOR and WP:V. But the person who would be acting improperly would be the person wikilawyering. And you not only chose to wikilawyer, you chose to wikilawyer and block. And then claim that you were correct to do so. Anyone who has such a warped view of policy and what the project is supposed to do should not be an admin. If you refuse to figure out policy before you block, then you shouldn't have the power to block. Simple enough.

"You are the only person who is claiming I subscribe to a POV on the article, despite all evidence to the contrary and frankly, its complete bullshit" - nope. You have strongly argued for your POV on the issue. I quoted your own words above. Are you trying to deny

"The sentance reads "in addition to incivil edit summaries there were gems like..."" - no, that's false. The sentance reads "He's continued to edit war insisting on these changes and talk page discussion hasn't done much to help - in addition to incivil edit summaries, gems like..." He is doing X and Y, in addition to incivil edit summaries, such as..." THAT is what the sentance says. You may have meant something else, but that's what it means in the only language I speak. So please, lay off the gratuitous insults. You do recall something called WP:CIVIL, right? You should not engage in attacking language.

"If my "favored view" of the article was not SAs version, why didn't I revert him after blocking?" - dear God, would you even consider such a thing? I rather doubt it. Doing something like that would probably lead to arbcomm restrictions. Obviously, since you block people for using straw man arguments, that was serious and not a straw man, right?

"Frankly I'm pretty disgusted that instead of saying - hey, that probably wasn't worth a block and moving on, I have people like you spewing bullshit and calling for my head"> To begin with, yes, you should have admitted you were wrong and unblocked SA. Instead you argued about why you were right - and in so doing, indicated that you opposed SA on the basis of content. You also have defended your right to block in favour of your preferred POV. I may have missed it, but as far as I can tell you refuse to say that you will refrain from blocking on grounds like these in the future. You still insist that your block was correct. That is very worrying. An examination of the block log shows a lot of questionable blocks and at least one other block which appears to violate the blocking policy. And yet all you do is insist on defending the indefensible, while attacking everyone else because they don't simply let you sweep your transgressions under the carpet. Wow. Actually trying to hold you accountable for your misbehaviour is "bullshit". Lovely attitude. Guettarda 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You know what I find most amusing? Editors make good faith edits, are disagreed with and reverted and life moves on. Admins make good faith blocks and suddenly there's assumptions of bad faith, bias, pushing POV and other random character and administrative ability attacks. Perhaps my first comment should have been a more clear "Ok, consensus is that the issue isn't block worthy so I've no problem with someone reverting the block but I don't agree that there isn't a problem with his current editing tactics." Its the difference between "These edits weren't disruptive enough to warrant a block" which I have no problem agreeing with and "These edits weren't at all disruptive" which I cannot agree with. Shell ^babelfish 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV policy

Shelly,

Please make sure you are completely familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. — Dunc|☺ 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I am and even re-reading them, I'm pretty damn positive his edits are incredibly biased. The sad thing is, I completely agree that we shouldn't be elevating quacks of any field (even if the consensus on the talk page is that its not pseudoscience), but for god's sake, surely we can do better than a random comment by a random person on a blog for refuting the material? This isn't about who's right, who's wrong or how the article should be worded - its about systematic reverting and horribly mangling WP:V because we're so much more interested in discrediting someone than doing it right. Its not the aim that's off, its the method. Am I the only one that sees if the theory is that much crap, there's got to be a reliable source somewhere that calls it batshit insane and lo, the problem is solved. People are making this out to be everything but what it is - ScienceApologist deciding the rules can take a flying fuck because he's "right". Shell ^babelfish 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that if the criticism with a crap source is removed, it leaves a mere 7 different criticisms from reputable physicists in the article? Its hardly going to bankrupt the mainstream view. Shell ^babelfish 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Shell, I'm just a regular editor, no admin bells and whistles, but I'm going to be very blunt (and if you feel like blocking me afterward, knock yourself out): your attitude does not in any way, shape or manner help Wiki, in fact, in this particular issue your attitude sucks. You are behaving in the stereotypical arrogrant "rogue admin" manner that has so many up in arms re admins -- these people need no more fuel to stoke their fires, why provde it to them? Is it really that difficult for you to say "sorry, I may have made a mistake"? It's time for us to move on, but your dogged determination to defend the indefensible, and your grasping for excuses why you blocked SA is simply unacceptable. •Jim62sch• 09:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps the fact that I said, hey - if someone disagrees with the block, go ahead and unblock and left it at that should be a clue to everyone. I'm not defending the block, if others think it wasn't block worthy, that's fine. What I have a problem with is people saying that he wasn't violating WP:V or WP:OR. Whether or not that was block worthy is a completely seperate issue. Shell ^babelfish 09:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your suggestions on my talkpage...

...were all appreciated. Your change in tone is also noted and I really do appreciate it as well. I wish you would have made these suggestions at Talk:Eric Lerner yesterday instead of resorting to blocking me today. It would have gone a long way to diffusing this conflict. The three suggestions you made are all excellent, but the second one is shortsighted: the credentials of the person making the statement are given in the text! Repeating the credentials in the reference hardly makes sense. It would be bad form according to WP:CITE. Unfortunately the last suggestion may be a bit impractical as most of the other editors at plasma cosmology have already been by the Eric Lerner article. --ScienceApologist 23:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I will also note that you seem to have a problem with assuming good faith, in that you are implicitly assuming that I am out to violate policy. If you actually had a look at my history you should be aware that I understand policy at Wikipedia very well. I'm a bit concerned that you think your first impression must necessarily be correct as you were outlining above. Please reconsider carefully. --ScienceApologist 23:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My wiki page and SA

I have asked repeatedly that my page be again protected in the same version that it was protected. The slander that SA continually reintroduces is that I was not a Visiting Astronomer, when I have stated elsewhere, accurately, that I was. This labels me a liar in the eyes of anyone who belvies SA's version of my wiki entry.He is also wholesale reverting changes without any justification for them. The version that was protected had equal numbers of comments for and against my book and ,I believe, considerably more wordage against. So it was hardly unbalanced. But SA makes a career of slandering scientists that he dislikes. I don't see how this is in accord with wiki policy.

Thanks for your efforts on SA. I don't think you should have been overrulled.

Regards, Eric Lerner Elerner 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Elerner: Please see The Wrong Version - we do NOT protect articles in "versions" by request.

We're not here for your ends, we're not here for Shell's ends, and we're not here for SA's ends, and we're not here for my ends. If you have an axe to grind, take it elsewhere. The question to ask is, does it help the encylopedia? and blocking someone who is a highly valued editor for vague and incorrect reasons does not. No big, we'll move past it. But don't presume to know policy better than a dozen administrators. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you're coming here over the block

I'm going to try to put everything in one place so we don't keep rehashing the same misconceptions over and over.

• I'm not defending the block. Other administrators said its not block worthy, that's fine. Block reversed, no fuss.
• The only and I mean only thing I disagree with is the people who're claiming I blocked over personal attacks, blocked because of my own POV or that its ok to ignore rules like WP:V and WP:OR in favor of WP:NPOV, especially on a bio of a living person.

So, if you're coming here to tell me I blocked because of some kind of bias or that the editor in question wasn't breaking policy - don't bother. If you can say - yep, bending the rules a bit but I don't think it was block worthy, thank you.

Shell ^babelfish 09:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of image talk of I9 images

• 2006-09-13T19:11:34 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image talk:Nyc-un-building.jpg" (g8, talk page of deleted article/image)
• 2006-09-13T19:10:43 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Nyc-un-building.jpg" (i9, redundant image - copy exists on Commons)

I wouldn't delete the image talk - to the casual reader it appears that the image still exists (albeit with the "This is a image from the Wikimedia Commons" message), and most people won't grasp the technical wizardry involved. Unless and until we can make image talk for Commons images load the corresponding image talk page from Commons, I don't think it'd be a good idea to toss out the talk pages for these as well. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree, but in that particular case, the talk page was a rambling comment on the mafia as it relates to New York. :) Shell ^babelfish 11:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review your block of AOluwaytoyin. See my comments on the Personal attack intervention noticeboard. I would suggest that you did not review the case carefully enough and the block imposed was much too severe in the circumstances.--142.161.185.28 03:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article deletion closure

Hi, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Warhammer 40,000 universe you closed it with the comment Keep. Subject notable, sufficient verifiable information to merit seperate article. WP:NOT does not apply as information presented is much more than simply plot summary.. Can you tell me how you managed to come to this decision? It appears from the consensus on the page that more people believed it should have been deleted/merged back into its relevant articles. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chandrabhan Prasad

Hello Shell. Just a note that I undeleted this. Someone blanked the page and put it up for speedy. I guess I've probably done a delete like that sometime too...Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ack! Thank you so much for catching that :( Shell ^babelfish 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for September 18th.

Volume 2, Issue 38	18 September 2006	About the Signpost

"Citizendium" project aims to rival Wikipedia	Report from the Simple English Wikipedia
News and notes	In the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! What's New? September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly! Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] Signpost updated for September 25th.

Volume 2, Issue 39	25 September 2006	About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election	Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns	Report from the Dutch Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rq'd help

If you remeber, about a month ago User:Holywarrior (now User:Ikonoblast) was blocked (by you) for putting bogus warnings on my user page. He has placed unwarranted tags on USer:Hkelkar's page here, here, here, and here. He gave me a bogus warning here. He also accused me of being a sock [3] , [4] (I have grown impatient with TROLL's that accuse me of being socks, I would place NPA4). Please see the sock case against me.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I had given chance to Shell to proove that earlier warnings were Bogus which he failed to do.As far as Hkelkar is concerned he deserves not only warning but a permaban surely baka too deserves the same. Ikon |no-blast 08:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Really Hkelkar has never been blocked for anything. And I havent been blocked after Shell's block. Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration involvement

Please note that I have started a Request for Arbitration: Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism in which I have included you as an "Involved party", and may wish to comment. --Iantresman 18:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 2nd.

Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

Hi. Your recommendation on WP:PAIN concerning dispute resolution are excellent and I am taking it to heart.I have been on irc today and have used that and AMA to resolve disputes on Cheema and Tipu Sultan. Third parties have intervened and I am doing my level best to cooperate with these good faith mediators.However, I fear that one of the editors from the other side of the debate (actually a jihad of sorts) User:Mujeerkhan has been trying to engage in a witch hunt and has attempted to recruit a coterie of Muslim Guild editors to ty to "get [me] banned" (his own words) per this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#Attacks

I have responded with what I feel are comments on the content of such edits and the pbvious bias and somewhat inarticulate intimidation tactics of this user. If you feel that they (either his edits or mine) are not proper then please let me know and I will remunerate accordingly. Bear in mind that I have always followed canonical wikipedia policies of WP:RS and [{WP:V]] regarding my disputes which, I feel, are the result of bad faith edits (bogus references, POV trash etc.) by (IMHO) partisan hacks. I would like to notify you in advance and let you know that any advice that you have to offer will be taken to heart by myself.

A Summary of the issues at hand are present on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/September_2006/Hkelkar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martinp23/Desk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CheNuevara#Regarding_our_irc_discussion_concerning_Cheema

I just wanted to let you know what's going on in case the situation turns ugly.

Hkelkar 09:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joomla! edits

Sorry, I am a newbie but I was not experimenting with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla%21

I was only editing it as it contents false asertions: Joomla! does not have blogs, forums, calendars, and language internationalization. Those features are available as extensions (Third Part Developer Extensions, such jd-wordpress, simple machine forums, gigcalendar or joomfish)and are not part of the application.

Anyway, thanks for letting me know. The next time I will post an edit or open a discussion. See you.

Ibnhafsun 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks (Byrgenwulf/Anville)

Hello. Regarding the personal attacks against me and DrL by Byrgenwulf and Anville, you wrote "reports by Asmodeus, larger content dispute already in dispute resolution". However, DrL and I are not involved in any form of dispute resolution with Byrgenwulf or Anville. These users have reacted to my requests and warnings with sheer contempt and noncompliance, giving no indication that they will respect any agreement reached in the Hillman case. Thus, there is no reason to believe that a resolution of the Hillman dispute will automatically resolve disputes involving them. After all, the main issue in the Hillman case is disclosure of personal information; Byrgenwulf is not only guilty of disclosing personal information, but of insult, prevarication, and intentional disruption of the very negotiations you cite. I'll grant that if the Hillman case leads to a general ruling, it would be binding on Byrgenwulf and Anville as well. But isn't that a lot to expect from negotiations intended to defuse the (Hillman) situation before such a general ruling becomes necessary? Tying the Byrgenwulf and Anville cases to the Hillman case would force DrL and I to resist any resolution applying to the Hillman case alone, thus aiding Byrgenwulf's disruptive agenda. Can you explain your reasoning in a bit more detail? Thanks, Asmodeus 05:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What you're reporting are not clear cut cases of personal attacks, but a much larger issue that is not covered by the scope of WP:PAIN. The case is in dispute resolution since an RFC was brought against you by Byrgenwulf and Anville. I suggest you participate in the RfC. I would also like to note that I do not consider the Byrgenwulf's page an attack page - the ArbCom has ruled before that documentation of ongoing dispute is an acceptable use of user space. Shell ^babelfish 14:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you deny that the page contains personal slurs which violate WP:CIV? We're not talking about mere documentation here. As the victim of these slurs, I object to being classified as somebody who needs to defend himself against idiotic trumped-up procedures initiated by the attacker to cover his ass. Are you sure that your ruling is justified under these circumstances? Asmodeus 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If the RfC is "trumped-up" just calmly state your side of the story and back it up with diffs - editors who respond to RfCs will see through attempts by either side to inflate or distort the issue. It doesn't matter which party started the RfC, its still a healthy part of the dispute resolution process and can help resolve the problems you're experiencing. Shell ^babelfish 17:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it's worth mentioning also that WP:NPA is not WP:CIV. the WP:PAIN page deals only with personal attacks, not issues of civility. --Crimsone 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes...well, with all due respect, the page about which I have complained contains a good deal more than simple "documentation of a dispute", and therefore remains a personal attack. (In fact, it is merely the latest installment in a series of attacks by its author; please see my remarks in this RfC.) If it were mere "documentation", then it would not contain personal slurs, falsehoods, and pejorative speculations regarding the motives and mental states of its targets. Now, it may well be that personal attacks are fine here at Wikipedia as long as a little "documentation" is thrown in for good measure; however, I strongly doubt that, because that kind of material has no proper place in an encyclopedia. The attacker has already used your opinion as a justification for refusing to cooperate with one of those he has been stalking; that's unfortunate. But if this wasn't your intention, and you really want to be of help, could you at least direct me to the specific ArbCom ruling(s) that (in your opinion) justify or condone the sort of vitriolic, mendacious "documentation" in which User Byrgenwulf has indulged? Thanks, Asmodeus 21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Though it has long been accepted practice to allow the creation of user subpages detailing disputes currently in some process of resolution, the ArbCom specifically ruled on it in August of this year. Perhaps if you could be more specific about which passages you feel contain personal attacks? The entire page certainly doesn't qualify. Shell ^babelfish 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! The ArbCom ruling you cite reads as follows:

"It is acceptable to make a subpage to keep notes which document another user's behavior. Care should be taken to keep a factual record which avoids personal attacks on your own part."

In other words, a user can track another user's edits and make note of any discernable patterns without committing personal attacks of his own.

Clearly, the ruling contains no license to wander into motivations, mental states, and character attributes at the expense of other aspects of WP. Byrgenwulf's entire screed wanders into these areas, none of which are covered by the notion of "documentation of behavior". What Byrgenwulf is "documenting" are mainly his suspicions, negative inferences, and other departures from the assumption of good faith. If he were to remove his negative insinuations and other subjective tangents, the page would shrink to a tiny fraction of its current size.

By all means, if Byrgenwulf feels a need to follow the behavior of another user, compile a neutrally-worded report, and let other users draw their own conclusions, fine. But this is clearly not what he is doing. Here are a few salient examples:

[The personal attacks that were quoted here by administrative request have been removed in order to prevent further public access.]

I think you get the picture. Most of Byrgenwulf's screed has nothing to do with the calm, neutral, objective tracking of behavior. It's all about negative judgments, unkind opinions, and other subjective tripe. I simply can't imagine how anyone could think that this sort of nonsense contributes or in any way conduces to an atmosphere of collegiality and cooperation here at Wikipedia.

Thanks again for your help. Asmodeus 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already requested that he review the page and remove any opinionated statements since, as you said, the ruling allows factual representations and clearly states that anything resembling personal attacks should be avoided. I am awaiting a response. Shell ^babelfish 00:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I should also note that Wikipedia has a hard, fast policy called WP:LIVING. I quote: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." Christopher Langan falls under the protection of this policy, not just in his bio, but on other pages of Wikipedia as well...after all, members of the public can get to Wikipedia's user pages just as easily as they can get to biographical articles. Byrgenwulf will therefore need to get rid of any hostile remarks, unproven allegations, or derogatory quotations about Mr. Langan, who is prominently targeted in the attack. Asmodeus 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the section as follows: [5]. Byrgenwulf 07:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Shell, but Byrgenwulf's changes won't be sufficient to address my concerns. In fact, the changes themselves are unacceptable, for much the same reasons given above. Furthermore, I don't want this page left where it can be accessed - as User Anville's disruptive links to past versions of it have shown, it really needs to be removed. (As nearly as I can determine, WP is quite clear on this matter, and giving this user the option to insincerely tweak and putter around with his own venomous diatribe only seems to be encouraging further abuse.) Thanks, Asmodeus 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salmon1

I'm not sure what is going on, but User talk:Marika Herskovic has been moved to Salmon1 - and you seem to be involved. Why is a user talk page moved to an article? I spent a lot of time last night reverting her talk page blanking. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eek. She's apparently not following the directions she's received from several people on how to change her username. She's concerned about having things connected to her real name, which is why I blanked the page for the time being. There's absolutely no reason that the page should have been moved into article space :( Shell ^babelfish 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

She already did that yesterday, and I got the page speedy deleted. Once more she has removed all the talk page info, and she continues to sign herself with Protector which is another user name. She seems to have a history of confusion and obfuscation. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be more lack of understanding than intentional malice. I'll try one last time to get through to her about how to change her name to protect her identity. If that doesn't work, I'll protect the page from moves until she desists. Shell ^babelfish 14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shell, I'm one of the "several people" that's been trying to patiently help this user for a while now. She's established a new user name, Salmon1, and I think she got confused with the move issue. If I understand things right, she wants to archive the talk page from her old account on her new page. To help with this, I helped create the archive sub-page User_talk:Salmon1/Herskovic_archive, but I did this before I realized that you were also involved. It was my intention to explain that the way to archive it there would be to 1) move the talk page to the new archive link, thereby also moving the history; 2) then, on the old talk page, where the redirect was created by the move, revert to the last edit, thereby reestablishing the old talk page for historical purposes. Is this an acceptable practice? Thanks! Akradecki 15:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be absolutely fantastic. I wasn't aware she'd already created a new username :) Thanks for the assist! Shell ^babelfish 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done and thanks! Akradecki 16:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juice Plus

I understand your frustration with the articles problems, but please do not call the insertion of links vandalism. This could be construed as a personal attack and will likely escalate the hostility. I've tried to explain to the editor why they do not need multiple links to the same site and warned them that they are in danger of violating the three revert rule - please note that you're close to violating it yourself. If discussions with this editor haven't been working, please try using other forms of dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first warning that was given was in regard to vandalism involved the editor's removal of a link. As near as I can tell, the unwarranted removal of content/links qualifies as vandalism. Is that interpretation incorrect? The contributor Julia Havey replaced the http address for a link with a commercial spam link on October 7 and again on October 8. According to Wikipedia guidlelines, this does qualify as vandalism, and the editor was given the appropriate vandalism warning. The next warning that was given was for the insertion of spam/commerical links that were already listed on the page (i.e. Juice Plus coporate page), which seems appropriate to Wikipedia policy. In addition, since this contributor sells the product in question, their repeated vandalism and insertion of spam links should be closely scrutinized. This is also not the first time that this editor has been warned for wanton spamming and vandalism, so it cannot be argued that they are unaware of Wikipedia's policies. Lastly, as I understand it, the 3R rule does not apply to reverts of vandalism or spamming. I look forward to your opinions and clarification on this matter. Rhode Island Red 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to your most recent revert [6] in which you removed the duplicate links, but the edit summary was "rv vandalism"; given the editor's history I don't think thats far from the truth, but I didn't want to see you set yourself up for a legitimate complaint. Its stretching it a bit to call these spam links - the link she's inserting is already contained in the external links section. We certainly don't need more than one copy of the link and I've left notes on her talk page about it; hopefully she'll understand, but given the long ranting emails I've received from her, I doubt it :( Its possible that others might see what you're doing as reverting simple vandalism, but just in case, I wanted to make sure you were aware. Shell ^babelfish 19:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and efforts to mediate. I agree with your general assessment.Rhode Island Red 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page deleted without any information

Hi, according to the deletion log, you deleted the page "United States military nuclear incident terminology" with the edit summary "a5, transwikied to another project". Deleting this page left several broken links (see What links here. I am trying to find out why it was deleted (I can't find a discussion at WP:AFD) where it was moved to, and what to change the links to, if anything. Was the material on this page decided not to be encyclopedic or notable? If that wasn't the reason, then we should probably at least disperse the content to elsewhere on Wikipedia. Shouldn't this action have been discussed, or at least explained somewhere? -- Renesis (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the page was a list of definitions and not an encylopedia article, each definition was moved to Wiktionary - when this was completed, the article was deleted. If you believe that the article should still exist at Wikipedia, please explain and request discussion at Deletion Review. Shell ^babelfish 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 9th.

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of my complaint

I am being harassed by a Wikipedian and you removed my request for help (at PAIN). You asked me to resolve this in an RfC that my harasser opened on another user. This does not make sense. Please help me and tell me how I can get this obsessed stalker off my back. --DrL 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The page you consider harassment is based on long standing tradition and an ArbCom ruling - its is acceptable to keep evidence in cases of ongoing disputes. I have asked Byrgenwulf to review one section I felt deviated from fact and more into opinion, which contravenes the above mentioned ruling. If you can explain what specific problems you have with the page, I would be happy to address them, but there is no call for simply deleting the entire page. Since the incident is not a series of personal attacks for which a person has been properly warned, it cannot be dealt with on WP:PAIN.

Since Byrgenwulf opened the RfC, you are quite welcome to comment on his behavior as it relates to the situation in that same RfC. If you would prefer, you can open a seperate RfC to discuss any of his behavior that you feel is inappropriate. It would be a good idea to refrain from personal attacks yourself when requesting relief from them - calling someone an obsessed stalker without showing any evidence doesn't lead much credibility to your claim. Shell ^babelfish 22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your sage advice, Shell. I do appreciate your guidance. --DrL 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Re: your message to me "Your edits to Star of Bethlehem and User talk:Kauffner "

(Begin message) Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Shell babelfish 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (end of message)

• I am giving you a copy of my reply. There was absolutely no personal attack upon Kauffner and any attempts to characterize my postings as such cannot be supported by reading the posts. I have included (below) my message to Konstable as he severely warned Kauffner earlier that any more editorial hi-jacking would not be tolerated. I simply reminded Kauffner of his recurring issue. This will only take 2 minutes to read and it encompasses the entireity of the problem including taking exclusive credit for writing the Star of Bethlehem article on his personal page and then reverting changes (additions, reinserting deleted text) to his postings. Thank you.

• RE: Some concerns I have

Hello Konstable - Once you issued a stern warning to member/User Kauffner [[7]] about edits that amounted to vandalism. On his talk page he (as of yesterday, they have since been buried under inconsequential self-alterations to his page) takes credit for writing the Star of Bethelehem article and then reverted my attempts to edit his posts. He failed to make use of the discussions page and has been acting very militant. I reminded him of your warning and he then incorrectly accused me of pretending to pose as an editor. I have tried to resolve this matter in a civil way. The jist of the matter is immediately below. My apologies for troubling you with this matter but it seems that you are already familiar with the tactics involved. John Charles Webb 02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) The indented notes are my reply to his posting on my talk page. On his page [[8]] line #58 changed and buried since yesterday he takes credit for authoring The Star of Bethlehem main article(?). His response to edits was to revert the text. It's OK if it is I who am wrong in this instance but I do not believe that I am.

(Kauffner's message, my replies are indented) I would appreciate it if you could address certain concerns that I have: Please stop editing anonymously in such a way as to pretend that you are more than one user, or to pretend that you are an administrator. (No one is fooled.)

• Note: I used my IP identifier which is linked to my registered name to avoid issues with Google searches because I use my real full name. The intention was not to pretend because clicking on the IP address identifies the poster if the poster is a registered member.

Please stop threatening me (with blocking, copyright law, filing reports, etc.) on my talk page and elsewhere. Your "heart and soul" copyright doctrine is completely bogus. The law is that you cannot copyright an idea, only its expression.

• Note: I was reminding you of a 'promise that [[9]] made to you (by Konstable) because of previous admonitions regarding your editing practices.
• re; copyright infringement - I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia's 'fair use' policy. To recount the conclusions of a published author's work is thought to diminish the market value of a published work. The text (my opinion) duplicating Molner's research (as written in his book) goes beyond Fair Use and (again an opinion) diminishes the salability of his book because it provides some essential information. I am no fan of his conclusions but I do respect his financial stake.

Please stop trying to use the Star of Bethlehem article as an advertising vehicle for your Web site.

• Note: My site is not a commercial site. The work is new research and not subject (rightly so) for any extended inclusion (other than what is there presently) in the main article. The astrology reference and link is a matter that took place over (I think) a year ago. You (it seems), without discussion, simple deleted the reference and (it seems) altered the linking text. You have been notified earlier (see above on this page) about failing to use the discussion page to discuss your 'reasons' for deletions. The work is offered for free and is unique in all of The Star of Bethlehem cosmology because it provides an actual verifiable chart for the star.

I look forward to resolving these concerns with you in an amicable manner in the near future.Kauffner 12:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Yes, I enjoy amicable manners. My only concern is that the reference to the astrology stuff (as discussed and identified above) not be, off-handedly, deleted. The work has been reviewed by virtually thousands of people (worldwide) and has earned a nomination for a Templeton Prize in Religion.
• Additional Note: I agree with your motivations (presumably?) that The Star of Bethlehem article was a wreck and needed an overhaul. It had three main problems: 1) bethlehemstar.net (a seeming commercial site giving presentations) using unreferenced content and based upon Martin's (academically unaccepted) claiming that a transcription error in the 1400's changed Herod's death from 4 BC to 1 BC. 2) Martin's work of trying to alter the date of Herod's death to fit his (opinion) planetary configuration of 1 BC and 3) extensive use of Molner's work (I know this person) including a FAQ that seems to be a commercial and an attempt to sell his book (and is based upon very bad astrology).
• There is an additional issue regarding astrology generally (as taboo in religious circles) despite that fact that a star announcing 'a birth' is an astrological item and a general avoidance of looking at ancient astrology because it (astrology) and astronomy were the principal 'sciences' at the time of the birth of Christ. Astronomers, generally have usurped the Star stuff and ridicule ancient astrology because planetarium Christmas shows make a great deal of money and any discussion of 'astrology' (they think) alienates people from attending the shows on religious grounds.
• So, I am at peace with this stuff, however, without good reason to delete them, I believe that the astrological references should remain in the main article.
• From my point-of-view you took credit for authoring the Star of Bethlehem article and 'reverted' any attempt to alter your writing. You have since 'tempered' your earlier published comments [[10]] and this [[11]] line #58 which provoked a negative reaction, especially in light of your reverting pages that edited your postings. John Charles Webb 02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)John Charles Webb 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Carpenter

Why are you blocking even attempts on the discussion page to question the notability of the subject of this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.203.117 (talk • contribs)

Please see my response on the talk page of the article. Shell ^babelfish 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfB With A Smile :)

[edit] Free Hugs Campaign

Would you take a look at the notes on Talk:Free Hugs Campaign and consider undeleting your speedy of this article? I saw the Google cache and think there's some salvageable material there, though it definitely needed better sourcing, and would rather have the old edits in place for GFDL purposes. Feel free to respond here or on the article talk page, thanks. -- nae'blis 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's definately enough assertation of notability to reverse the speedy; its back. Shell ^babelfish 15:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the quick response! *goes off to work on it* -- nae'blis 17:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ernham

Hi, thanks for your time. However I'm a bit confused as to my next step. I know you suggested dispute resolution, however what method? Request an advocate? Wikipedia:Requests for comment? I have already used Wikipedia:Third opinion for a specific dispute and I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but been referred to Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Any avenue seems to be a method of raising a specific dispute, however while I have specific disputes with this user my concern is the user's attitude in general. I have been called a vandal many many times by this user, been told I have "a problem with reality and do not understand English, logic, and/or reality. ", been called a "wiki-stalker" twice, told to "find a new hobby" and told that constructive edits were only made to "mes[s] up the wiki". I'm not thin-skinned, I've taken abuse before, but this takes it to a whole new level. This user has persistently ignored requests to stop personal attacks but is continuing to get away with them. Mark83 19:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your'e absolutely correct, he's definately gone over the line with personal attacks. Since he has been more than fully warned, you're welcome to drop a quick note on my talk page if he starts up again after the block is over. Unforunately, the WP:PAIN is really only for stopping attacks in progress, much like the vandal noticeboard is for vandals in progress; its not really designed for long term cases like these. In the meantime, I'd suggest starting a Request for Comment on his behavior - if this doesn't stop his incivility, you can file a request to the ArbCom, who may put the editor on personal attack parole or something similar. Shell ^babelfish 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mark83 20:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a Request for Comment (RfC/Ernham). As the editor who closed the WP:PAIN I wondered if you'd like to comment as you agreed his personal attacks were a concern. Thank you. Mark83 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Unblock of User:Enkil

As of now, I'm taking no stand as to whether Enkil should be blocked or unblocked; since you talked about the unblock on my talk page, please see his reply on User talk:King of Hearts#Unblock of User:Enkil (I'm assuming you know more about it; otherwise, ask Cyde). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juice Plus Overhaul

Shel, the new version of the JP page is up. I think it's a much better, more NPOV page than what it was before all this started. Much more Wiki-looking too. As you may be gathering by now, it has been quite a challenge protecting the page from blatant vandalism and in reconciling some of the extreme positions. I will probably tinker a bit over the next few days but I will probably tread lightly and see how things look as the dust settles. I look foward to your comments. Rhode Island Red 01:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you did some fantastic work. The article is much more concise and yet covers a wealth of information; as you said, its written in a much more neutral fashion. Its always difficult to work with articles when people who have an interest in the subject get involved - its often difficult to reach a compromise and still follow Wikipedia policies. Thanks for sticking with it and keeping a civil head! :) Shell ^babelfish 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial block

The Requests for arbitration on "Pseudoscience" has started on the Evidence page. It is suggested on the Workshop page that the block on ScienceApologist was "unilateral". I was under the impression from the following block discussion that you did "did talk to other administrators about the issue", and so it wasn't unilateral. If that is the case, could you clarify the statement. --Iantresman 09:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Shell :- ) I saw your comment on the workshop page. I need to clarify a few points. I'm going to clarify the first point on your talk page and the rest by email. I recused from working as an arbitration clerk for this particular RFAr per policy because I had a conflict of interest. Recusal does not disallow a clerk from giving evidence or editing workshop pages like any other user. Since I am the only clerk that regularly opens and closes cases, I usually do not offer proposals on workshop pages where I'm not recused to avoid confusion about my role. It is okay for anyone including non-recused or recused clerks to edit workshop pages. Sorry for any confusion about this matter. If you have questions about my role, contact me on my talk page or by email. Look for an email from me today about the rest. My Adelphia mail is not working now so it may be a few hours before it arrives. Take care, FloNight 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I was unaware that area was for anyone, involved or not to make suggestions. I've struck out the comment. Shell ^babelfish 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 16th.

Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Shell

Hello Shell :) How are you? Thank you for your massage and im sorry If I gave you any wrong impressions or offended you in any way with uploaded images. I already responded to Miss FloNight, here [12]. But you are free to do anything which you think is right. You may ban me and delete my images. Its fine with me. Thank you again and all the best :) BTW I love Dogs too. Please join Photography club for animals [13] I contribute my work there sometimes. Cheers. Luis. Ldingley 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shell, Can you please explain who claimed to own my work and of which photographs do you say that I copied from tripod and geocities? I assure you that my intentions are not to steal other people’s work and claim otherwise. I never copied any work from geocities or tripod. I own many photo materials since 1992 and I only contributed since I joined Wikipedia. Most of my photographs and the ones which I purchased were available for sale and presentation at Getty. As my agent at Getty claims, some people copied my images and I can’t track who did what to them. Again, most of the images I claim to be mine are mine and some are purchased. Now I am willing to fax you my paper work to conform this. As for the photo which I uploaded today. The work is by Dr Andrew Andersen, long time friend, who gave me permission long time ago to publish his maps not only in Wikipedia. I can send you his email too. Than I will do the following, due to the fact that it really concerns you and to conform again that my intentions are good. I’ll stop contributing and uploading any photographs from my collection or from other sources. I will forward those rare photos to Mr Jimbo Walse and I will ask him to upload them and properly tag them, because as I see im not really qualified in tagging. I’m sorry for that. Actually some images which you deleted were also under my name and I could have sold them and made profit (I tried that before but many people on Wikipedia complained that I was only profiting from photos instead of sharing them with the public, Mr Walse belives that photos should be available to public and i agree). So for now on im stopping uploading images. I already gave contact information to the other user which was involved in this too and I gave her contact information for my agent at Getty. Im sorry to have troubled you . Wishing you all the best. Thanks again. Luis Ldingley 22:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One example is Image:Georgian kidssvanetia.jpg and Image:Georgian kids.jpg. The first image you claimed the source as trekearth.com and the second identical image you claimed was from your personal collection. The image, in fact, comes from http://svanetitour.tripod.com/ and has been on the web since 2005 at that location. Some of the other images I deleted came from news agencies, which you also claimed as being "in your collection". Third, that particular map may have been copied from a book (I'll have more details as soon as I verify my source is correct) and does not appear to have any connection with a Dr. Andrew Anderson. I'm sure I'll find more examples as I continue to review your contributions. Shell ^babelfish 22:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow hehe thanks for showing me that web site, its by Akaki Jobava, i a,lready contacted him. BTW on this photo [14] its me in the middle. Due to the reason that you are responding in unfriendly and in insulting manner (unsigned comments on my user page, calling me a rat and having inappropriate tone) I will cease any communication with you until you start leaving massages of good gesture, even if i am a monster. Im really disappointed in your ability to address the issue, even if person is guilty of doing something wrong. It does not excuse to for insultive posts, especially when you are Administrator and should give an example to others for good will. Im not going to go on with trying to prove myself that there was no harm intended and i was ready to meet all your requests and questions regarding anything i do here. However, you have maintained a hard stance with un-friendly approach, with is unfair and inhumane. Go one with your investigation but please leave me alone. Your action caused a great amount of stress which actually nobody deserves. Ldingley 01:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So now your claim is that you were friends with the copyright owner of the above referenced photograph of children? Can you explain why you attributed it to the wrong photographer in one upload and in another failed to attribute anyone and claimed you owned the copyright? I have sent an email back to Mr. Jobava in the hopes that he can straighten this out one way or the other about that particular image and one other of his that you also uploaded. Please take some time to review our image upload procedures and image tagging policies. It is very important when you release work already published on the internet or elsewhere that you provide a clear statement of license to permissions at wikimedia dot org - we appreciate the addition of new images, but still have to take complaints of copyright violation very seriously.

Another important Wikipedia policy is to try to avoid personal attacks and being incivil to others. The edit summary "I smell a rat" is a euphemism - it means that something about the situation seems odd or doesn't sound right - this was not me calling you a rat. Also, I did not intentionally leave an unsigned note on your talk page, as you can see, I copied the note 3 places since you are carrying on the discourse in multiple locations. Unfortunately when I copied it here, I missed the last line which included the tildes for my signature. Please try to assume good faith of others - don't presume malice of editors where there is none. Shell ^babelfish 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've spoken with Mr. Jobava who adamently denies knowing you or having given you any kind of permission to use the photographs you uploaded from his websites. I hope that you'll be more careful in the future to avoid uploading copyrighted images; further violations on your part may result in blocks. Shell ^babelfish 08:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Question

It seems that you deleted pending open reports from the PAIN boards without an explanation. I am wondering if PAIN is not the proper forum for a user who consistently accuses others of bad faith edits and being government agents, what other recourse is there? This is the diff I am referring to, specifically as it pertains to User:RPJ.Ramsquire 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That was my fault - unanswered reports should still be under the New Reports section and I didn't notice that it didn't have a resolution. I've reviewed the issue and more recent comments by User:RPJ - given his history and previous four blocks over the same issue, I've blocked the account for a week. I'm not sure if you've opened an RfC on his behavior or not, but you might want to consider it as a quick step on the way to ArbCom since he doesn't seem to be interested in changing his behavior. Shell ^babelfish 21:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, for the response. If it continues after this week, I will open the RfC. Ramsquire 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warn an admin on personal attack?

Hello, what is the point of warning an administrator on personal attack? I made that clear in report itself. I wonder if your revert was necessary. Kundan After Sundown 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the header of the noticeboard you used to report the personal attack. The noticeboard is designed to stop on-going personal attacks, not to punish an editor for a single personal attack. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you give a look to discussion at John Mercer Brooke?

I'm getting this passive aggressive stuff from User:MAURY. If you look at his talk history, you can see some of why I'm feeling red flags. I just want to improve the article, and don't really care too much what this user likes or doesn't, but I want to be sure I'm acting correctly here. Could you look and offer some suggestions/feedback/critique on my admin coaching page? Thanks! BusterD 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misha Sedgwick

Thankyou for bringing some sanity to the ever changing Misha Sedgwick article. Your last edit is how I believe the article should read. It is important to make it quite clear that Misha Sedgwick is not related to Edie Sedgwick, without reading like a gossip column which is unbefitting for an encyclopedia. De Forest

[edit] Longer than preferable ?

" This page is 51 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."

MAURY 11:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)--

That happens a lot with my page. I try to archive when conversations are over, which is the generally accepted method of handling talk pages, as opposed to your blanking any comments left by others. Shell ^babelfish 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you give a look to discussion at John Mercer Brooke?

I'm getting this passive aggressive stuff from User:MAURY. If you look at his talk history, you can see some of why I'm feeling red flags. I just want to improve the article, and don't really care too much what this user likes or doesn't, but I want to be sure I'm acting correctly here. Could you look and offer some suggestions/feedback/critique on my admin coaching page? Thanks! BusterD 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I told BusterD under "discussion" on the John Mercer Brooke article that I wrote that I am now finished with it and he can edit it. He started with me in his passive agressive mode while I was replying "respectfully" and "kind regards" in all sincerity. He started editing the article I was writing but took it in directions I wasn't planning - two people working on that one article at the same time is nonsense. Any editor should wait until the first writer has completed the article before jumping in and altering it and worse, including sources I never used. Now, BusterD started a "stub" back around June as I recall when looking back at the article. It is now October. He could have written the entire article in his own direction easily before I arrived there and did 1/2 the work the first day and the other 1/2 the next day thereby completing the article. He sees red flags? I can believe that and he shows me that. But I just keep on calmly working until I have completed what I started whereas he awaits the arrival of someone he can edit -- and before the article is completed as I openly (and mistakenly) wrote that I would be back to complete that article. That article is completed and I told BusterD in no uncertain terms that s/he can go ahead and edit that article now.

MAURY 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)--

Maury, I think you are seriously misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. Many people have come here to your talk page and tried to help you out, but you keep deleting the suggestions they make. Editors can edit any article at any time - there is absolutely no policy that expects other editors to "wait" for you to finish the article; in fact, our policy WP:OWN specifically states otherwise. There are no "editor points" gained by writing or editing articles. Buster was not being confrontational and was incredibly patient in trying to work with you - you refused to work with him or read any of the policy he suggested. Editors are more than welcome at any time to add sources to an article - they absolutely do not have to be sources that you used, although you definately should have listed your sources as well per the WP:V policy. Articles will change greatly over time - if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, you should not submit your work to Wikipedia - what Buster was doing is exactly what is allowed by Wikipedia.

Its also very important to not that Wikipedia has a clear policy against personal attacks which you can read at WP:NPA. Phrases like "so-called editor" and things like claiming he was argumentative could be taken as a personal attack and can lead to you being blocked from editing.

I strongly suggest you take a break and read Wikipedia policies that everyone's pointing out to you. You'll have a much better experience here if you know the rules you're supposed to play by. Shell ^babelfish 04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate any feedback/advice as to my next course. I've not gone ahead and fixed the article (as was my instinct), and am not sure how best to diffuse any hard feelings. I appreciate your fixing my admin coaching page, but I see lots of anger directed toward me that I just can't bring myself to own. Normally I might have taken this conflict up with a regular wikimentor (in ACW or Bio workgroups) but I asked for help from you because I was interested in understanding the conflict from an admin's view (and you have a earned reputation for kindness--I feared this might get delicate). From my point of view I believe I kept the discussion to behaviors (and demonstrated patterns of such), not personalities. I'm genuinely saddened that my interest in learning about adminship might cause any user reason for suspicion, and that's not just malarky. I'm not sure an apology or comment to the offended user would have any positive effect. That being said, the work is pretty unfinished, someone will fix it, and I stand by my actions and my words. BusterD 19:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Now MAURY is apparently blanking those pages via ip login. BusterD 11:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPJ

Just a quick note that RPJ is requesting an unblock here citing unfair block. Let me know your thoughts :) Glen 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick overview: RPJ edits articles with government conspiracies in them. He edit wars, focuses almost completely on other editors instead of discussing actual article content and has harassed two editors in the past by following them around the Wiki, venue-shopping to get soem kind of sanction against them and attacking them everywhere they went, including a lot of random posts to his own talk page ranting about others. This is his fifth block over the same issue - one of the examples I gave wasn't the best in the world for clear personal attacks, but those three were out of only the last five edits of his. A quick glance at his contributions will show many, many more personal attacks - its gotten so silly that when an anon edit removed a link from one of "his" articles, he not only attacked the anon but then went on to try to pin the anon actions on another editor he was having a (different) disagreement with. More than one person has suggested a community ban at this point, but I asked the involved editors to at least try an RfC first and see if that gets through to him. Any more details/diffs needed, just let me know. Shell ^babelfish 04:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My what?

My disruption of AFD? What the hell are you talking about? I don't care about the rest, but that's absurd. Show me where I've disrupted it. Derex 66.229.188.247 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There are appropriate ways to deal with other editors you feel are disrupting AfDs, for instance WP:SPAM covers the internal spamming. RfC can be used if you feel people are starting AfDs to make a point. However, changing the name of an AfD and attacking the users involved in it are not acceptable methods. Also, please do not edit anonymously to circumvent your block - this may lead to the block being lengthed. Shell ^babelfish 08:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. Several conservative editors have watchlisted this, and use it as a virtual noticeboard for AFD's of interest to them (several of which I have voted to delete, btw). I somehow think that just about any other AFD articles which persons of political persuasion X don't like noticeboard would be speedied. .... Several editors on AFD have complimented my name change on the Yellowcake article. Not one has complained. That was not disruptive; it was good editing. Good editing does not magically turn into disruption just because an AFD tag gets slapped up. Derex 06:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like there's some dispute resolution needed. Shell ^babelfish 13:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, though in practice I'm more inclined simply to wash my hands of this bunch and let them run amuck. However, I thought you mind find Morton's edit to the Spam guidelines interesting, since it was in direct response to your administrative comments to me about his activities. [15] He did something very similar a few days ago for another policy.[16] I am guilty of losing my temper. I am not guilty of systematically subverting process, which is what made me lose my temper. Nevertheless, I will have a long cup of tea. Regards, Derex 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PAIN report - request opinion

Hi Shell.

Looking at the Tonycdp report at WP:PAIN, I have to be honest and say that any real personal attacks seem to have passed me by. It's a lengthy one (what happened to brief? lol), and has no diffs (hence my requesting some), but the reporting user does sem to be somewhat distressed. Iwouldn't like to remove it myself just in case there is something I have missed and it turns out to be a little more than plain incivility and a personal dispute. That said, I havn't noticed any justification for it being there also. Is there any chance you could take a look? --Crimsone 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking into that one myself. It looks like more of a content dispute gone haywire; I'm not seeing any clear personal attacks. They all probably could have been a bit nicer, but that tends to happen with heated disputes. It can't hurt to ask for diffs and see what happens. Shell ^babelfish 14:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shell - I certainly agree with that. :) I see Durova is now taking a look also. I'll let Durova know now. --Crimsone 15:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit; It appears that Durova has dealt with it as best as possible and moved it to open. :) Crimsone 15:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last warning

dear shell; to my surprise i have received my one and only warning,which you tagged as last..I have never vandalized any page nor have done any wrong edits until now. The only thing i may have done is being sarcastic at times, and i know i shouldnt have done it..And i dont think i deserved the last warning tag for that ?? IF you re-read the talk you would realize that name-calling was started by the other person,well he called me kid,immature several times, and yet he seemed to got away from any warning..Could you please tell me why is that ?? I have an enormous respect for wikipedia and want to contribute to it..I think the article of prabhakaran and others related to LTTE needed some work to be done, and i'm trying my best here.

I feel some biased towards LTTE and its leader here..Neither prabhakaran nor LTTE is tagged as "terrorist" here, even though they fit the dictionary definition.Okay,i admit these terms are "loaded terms" ,But why then, wikipedia has an article for "State terrorism in Sri Lanka" ?? Isnt this a "loaded term too" ?? For every government action they have used the word massacre even though that definiton doesnt fit in some occasions,and some may have been occured accidently(like ariel bombing of schools).But for LTTE actions,which are clearly "massacres"(iam working on that right now,will start editing as soon as i get sources), editors have carefully refrain using the word "terrorism"..Dont you smell there is something wrong here ??

after reading the talk, i found one usage of the word stupid,and it was by the user--Sharz,and it seemed to be directed at me and my resources.I kindly ask him to prove his claims and havent heard from him since.So,shell, why should i be warned ???

thanking you --Iwazaki 15:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

---

dear shell, iam still waiting for your reply.I think i have clearly explained you my side of the story,and i strongly believe that my actions did not desereve a warning mark..Please correct your accusation of calling people stupid,as i've never ever called any of them in such a way..It will be appropriate if you warn Sharzwho actually used the word "stupid". I sincerely hope that the truth will prevail at the end. --Iwazaki 00:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You may perhaps not have used the word, but youu have implied it. Shell has given you a warning in line with wiki policy. I have created a list of some of your comments that constitute a personal attack on Wikipedia on your talk page, along with some advice on how to avoid administrator or user intervention in the future. --Crimsone 10:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People lists

Per your recent comments on Derex's talk page about lists of people to watch out for etc. I would like you to take a look at User talk:RyanFreisling's talk page where under "notes", they keep a list of users they have had disputes with and disparaging dif's. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 16:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite so clear an issue. He doesn't label it people he's watching and the ArbCom has ruled that keeping lists and diffs is acceptable in case dispute resolution is needed in the future. The reason Derex's list was removed was because the header was inappropriate. Shell ^babelfish 13:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell, I am grateful for your objectivity and dispassion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The list could easily be hidden and is a passive from of a personal attack.--Scribner 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We are each responsible for our words. I don't see the need to hide anything here, and it is not a personal attack. I am sorry if you are disturbed by it, but your behavior (calling me names, wiping warnings, expanding the dispute to uninvolved parties) has been inappropriate, and I have noted it in case it continues to escalate. No offense is intended. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your "notes" against users posted in public view are a passive attack against the user. And the notes obviously fuel hostilities and are a show of bad faith.--Scribner 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We clearly disagree as to the nature, purpose and result of taking notes of comments (that themselves were originally made in public view). Your attacks, however, have been far from passive. Please desist. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, my talk page is not the place for this. Has anyone considered dispute resolution? Have a smoke, take a bubblebath, get a cup of tea - do something to de-escalate the situation and then come back when you're ready to find a solution to your differences. Shell ^babelfish 18:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry for the inconvenience. I'm not a part of the original dispute so I have little interest in pushing for resolution, I want merely to be left alone by this user. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ryan, I wasn't trying to lump you in with the group - I'm somewhat unclear as to why you got drug into this; you might want to look over the harassment policy in case you continue to have these sorts of problems. It appears there's some underlying content dispute Scribner is involved in which he should consider trying to resolve through the proper channels. Shell ^babelfish 18:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of WP:Dick

Derex violated your ban and continued to attack editors. This is a previously banned user, correct? Please enforce policy, don't legislate from the bench. Thanks.--Scribner 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? First, blocking is different than banning and second, admins as judges? I'm completely confused by this. Shell ^babelfish 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Scribner made a personal attack against me referring to me as Derex's WP:DICK buddy. Note that I was uninvolved in that dispute and I have never interacted with Scribner before his attack. Clearly emotions are running high for individuals in that dispute and from my perspective, I can only recommend that all parties involved in that dispute try to 'have a cup of tea' (leaving me out of it, as I wish) and try to focus on the encyclopedia content, rather than escalating (and expanding) attacks against other contributors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a partisan war involving political forums, wiki-stalking, hit-lists and handing out WP:Dick tags. Removing the hit-lists might be a good place to start a corrective action. Thanks.--Scribner 18:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, there is no precendent for removing user lists and diffs that do not contain personal attacks. It would be a good idea for you to take a step back and calm down since you're now attacking the very people you're asking for help. Dispute resolution would be a good option since this problem seems to be more wide-spread. Shell ^babelfish 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My report on WP:PAIN

I want to ask how is this a content dispute? All I asked on the Islamophobia talk page is for someone to take a look at whether a certain section in another article violated POV and OR policies, and I get accused of having a "dawah agenda" and that I'm "whining" about how I think it is unfair that my agenda is threatened...? To me, that sounds like a personal attack. And then he continues to blast me on my talk page and on the WP:PAIN about my supposed agenda to call people to Islam; I'm not here for a religious mission. Also he had made a prior comment referring to Muslim editors as "dawah editors", which I ignored. 2nd time around seems too much to ignore.

BTW the content dispute is on another talk page for an article not related to the aforementioned.

If what I reported is not a personal attack, thus my warnings and reporting were futile, then how do I deal with editors who do not debate the content but just accuse me of proselytizing, whitewashing, having a missionary agenda, etc.? What I do with such an editor who follows me around [17] [18] [19]? Thanks --Inahet 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That first diff you provide is a personal attack, unfortunately, the others don't seem to meet the criteria of the personal attack policy. The rest of the diffs you provided, while not in the nicest language seem to be about the subject of an article or about concerns with your editing and they cite Wikipedia policy. Please try using dispute resolution if you feel that the editor is following you around and to resolve the underlying problem. Shell ^babelfish 08:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not calling you any names Inahet, and I am not making any personal attacks. What I am trying to do is to pursue you to end your biased editing, and start recognizing that there is a difference between your very strong and personal Islamic religious point of view, and the neutral point of view that Wikipedia articles should be written according to. Sometimes I might have used a bit of strong language when pointing these things out, and I should properly be careful about that. However, I think you should also recognize that some of your latest edits has really been over-the-top and extremely biased. I could point to several edits, but fact is that even when you edit the article of some singer-songwriter, then apparently you feel that you have to add things like Islamic honorifics (in this case "PBUH"): [20]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk • contribs) 08:12, October 22, 2006

Please be careful not to accuse other editors of whining or having agendas - this probably qualifies under our personal attack policy. If you're concerned about bias in another editor's work, dispute resolution talks about the options you have for engaging the wider Wikipedia community, for example getting a third opinion works well when two editors disagree on a particular point.Shell ^babelfish 08:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and follow me, I'm going to follow you as well as I see that you're offensively biased against Muslim and I don't trust any of your edits to be accurate. As for the diff for Sami Yusuf, I'm not the one who originally added the PBUH, all I did was revert blanking of an article which is vandalism and some misnformation, so I reverted to an earlier version. PBUH was returned with the rest of the article. Go ahead and follow me on articles and talk pages (your arguments are just accusatory and you fail to make logical points) so I don't think you will last long here anyway. --Inahet 12:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are heavely biased, and no, I am not going anywhere eventhough you want me to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk • contribs) 08:12, October 22, 2006

Your edits are heavily biased, and it seems you target Muslim related articles only, so I'm the one with an agenda? Also, I'm sorry to disappoint you, I don't edit Islam-related material as much as I would love to and as mush as you think, I might start now just to make you happy. --Inahet 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your latest removal of referenced material that didn't suit your strong pro-Islam point of view says it all....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk • contribs)

Of course now that you have vowed to wikistalk me, I might as well check your edits for biases and for other violations. Also calling Islamophobia a "ridiculous concept" and Islam a " totalitarian ideology" shows your extreme anti-Islam bias clearly, and I know that you will and you have pushed your POV into articles. Well, now that I know, I just can't let that happen. --Inahet 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't "vowed" to anything. It's you that is following me around. Anyway, it's true that I won't let you violate Wikipedia's policies to advance your bias, but as Shell Kinney mentioned, there are several and more formal ways that can be done if the problem continue to exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk • contribs)

Great, now you're in denial, these are your own words taken from this page "What I am trying to do is to pursue you to end your biased editing." And you have followed me as show by the provided diffs, if you're going to continue with this, I will seek other means to end this wikistalking. And you have gone to far, by denying that you said you will follow me or "pursue me" (if you're so meticulous). --Inahet 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys? You do realize this is my talk page you're spewing all over? Stop arguing and get back to editing or try dispute resolution but please don't make this poor page any longer than it already gets. Shell ^babelfish 08:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velupillai Prabhakaran page

Hi Shell, Pls go through this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Velupillai_Prabhakaran&diff=82998537&oldid=82954817

Here Iwazaki has framed up two entire sections of his own, literally without any citation at all. The citations he has pointed to refer to a newspaper article which he has read sometime ago and is not a piece of evidence which can be verified by everybody who would be reading that article. It is something like 'I-saw-that-in-news-once' kind of a link. A strong msg needs to be sent out to Iwazaki who is violating almost every single policy of Wikipedia, Civility, NPOV, Verifiability, etc...I kindly request you to step in and take some action to avoid blanking-out vandalism and reverting to uncited versions of the article which transitively refers to Vandalism. Pls go through my posts here to justify removal of the sections and how he has responded here

The user has also been issued a final warning for Civility but continues his spree of personal attacks and diplomatic vandalism. Check this Iwazaki Talk page

This seems to be going on for almost a month inspite of several friendly suggestions and also Admin warnings. Kindly help. Thanks Sudharsansn 13:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please use dispute resolution to resolve the differences of opinion on the article content. References do not have to be online - it is perfectly acceptable to use newspaper articles that are not available through the web. Shell ^babelfish 14:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear shell, i'm highly confused..I have spent countless hours reading printed materials and news-papers, to do some edits..All are reliable and true, and most probably carry more weight than the online articles(i must say this after having seen many).And the user-sudharshan has deleted my edits twice!! by accussing me for using "non on-line" sources !!

And he may delete it again,with the same accusation,and what am i going to do ?? This is clearly vandelism. --Iwazaki 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, its not vandalism, at least not as Wikipedia defines it. You're correct - there is no requirement that sources be available online. I would suggest using some of the ideas on the dispute resolution page to involve outside editors in helping to reach consensus. Shell ^babelfish 12:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear shell,

as i expected , he had removed my part completely again...for the 3rd time..His excuse, is baseless,as my sources can be reached by anyone who are interested in.I gave The date of a newspaper from which i quote, it has a online edition but needed to be a member of it..Also,i gave 2 books written by prominant writers,one indian and one srilankan, and gave ISBN and Publisher too..But somehow, he still think "anyone can't reach this sources"..Shell,this is highly annoying.I have seen many articles here, have plenty of printed materials as sources,such as the one William Shakespeare,which doesnt even give ISBNs..there are plenty more.

I strongly believe that he has intentionally vandalised that page..Please take an action against him.

--Iwazaki 13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please work out the problems on the talk page of the article instead of constantly warring over the article. Please use the dispute resolution methods several people have pointed you to in order to get other editors involved in resolving the dispute. Shell ^babelfish 13:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desperately Need help on blanking and POV editing of Tamilnet by User:snowolfd4

I have been making some edits to Tamilnet which have been repeatedly reverted with POV and propaganda from the ministry of Defence, Sri Lanka without any qualifications of the text by user User:Snowolfd4. I have added a list of justifications for my changes. But this user has never bothered to answer them and gone ahead given very terse statements for his reverts. This is pretty much vandalism. I have in turn added citations from a reputable source, namely a journal article on Tamilnet.com by Whitaker, Mark P. "Tamilnet.com: Some Reflections on Popular Anthropology, Nationalism, and the Internet" Anthropological Quarterly - Volume 77, Number 3, Summer 2004, pp. 469-498 George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research. He has reverted my citations claiming in effect that this peer-reviewed scholarly journal article is the following:

According to Official WP policy Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

He has claimed pretty much all the sources, including the journal article not to be a reliable source, with very very dubious edit summaries. I desperately need administrator intervention on this. This is getting to be very frustrating when a user claims that a peer-reviewed scholarly journal article is an unreliable source and then goes ahead and blanks legitimate cited contents. He has already been blocked for edit warring and has a history of POV pushing and blanking. Elalan 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but administrator intervention can't do much for content disputes. I would suggest watching to make sure he doesn't break the three revert rule and reporting him if he does and trying some form of dispute resolution. Perhaps if you listed the concerns you have on the talk page and discussed it until the two of you came to an agreement? Or if its just the two of you, sometimes a third opinion can be very helpful. If you're concerned this is more of a larger pattern of behavior (and you'll need to have the diffs to show that) you might want to open a user-based WP:RFC. I hope that helps! Shell ^babelfish 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velupillai Prabhakaran verifiabilty issue

However, the citation needs to give the paper, date, title of the article and author. Offline sources are most welcome.

How do we know if there was even an article like that in the newspaper? How is it verifiable? Shell, your suggestions required on this!! What about the Dixit's book, even that is not verifiable!!

This violates the very claim of verifiability. Pls help Sudharsansn 13:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This does not violate verifiability because another editor can check to see whether or not the newspaper published the article and what the content of the article is. There verifiablity policy does not require that the source be immediately available. If you feel there is a reason that the source is not reliable or that its being quoted incorrectly, you're welcome to bring that up, but sources are not disqualified simply because you do not have the book or newspaper immediately available. Many local libraries have the ability to look up newspaper publications either through their online subscriptions or other publications. You are responsible for doing the research as well. Shell ^babelfish 14:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shell, I really don't understand. I am fine with offline print material, but is should be something that is common. For example, 'The Bible' or a 'Das Kapital' or 'Gita', but how does this make sense at all. He has framed up two sections on baseless evidence. For all we know, I wonder if such an article was even printed, and considering I am in India, I can never, ever verify it. Not just me, but no one can verify his claims about such an article being printed in the newspaper. Leave alone the content to be verified, how is anyone to verify if such an article was printed at all?? What would stop anyone from cooking up another story in favor of Prabhakaran, from a supposed article which calls him as the 'God of Tamils in Eelam'? I am just not able to see logic in not just this context, but having sources which cannot be verified at all. This cannot be referred to WP:DR either, because even there it cannot be verified as to whether he is quoting it exactly from the article, misquoting it, misconstruing it in his favor, or if such an article exists.

The references he gives can be verified. You might try finding someone in that area who can look up the articles for you; Wikipedia:Portals are often good ways to find editors in a particular location. Please assume good faith of other editors - do you have any basis to believe that the information he's citing is incorrect? I have books from 1920 I've used as references and while they're not widely available, I've never had anyone question whether or not information from them is verifiable. You're going to have to find a better way to work this out. Shell ^babelfish 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Pls tell me, what mode of advice would you follow if someone cooks up a similar story, which lies on the very assumption, that an article like that was printed. Would it be allowed to stay and then let people do their own research. I have honestly read an article which says that he is revered as a 'God' in Tamil Eelam, can I just go and post it without any plausible citations?? Kindly advice, Thanks Sudharsansn 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume perfectly good faith, which is why I am actually asking him to send me and other editors a scanned version of the article or atleast suggest other ways of verifying it. Sudharsansn 17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As for your example, if an newspaper article said someone was a god, it could be added to the article like:

The Sunday Times claims that John is revered as a god in the Atlantian culture [information on reference]

Someone might come along and point out that this is a minority view not supported elsewhere and thus shouldn't be included via our WP:NPOV policy. However, this doesn't make the statement unverifiable.

I've suggested a number of different methods to verify the article and a number of different methods on Wikipedia to resolve your differences. Shell ^babelfish 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand, I will anyway follow up on that. I am just trying to understand the verifiability clause. As per your suggestion, this definitely is a minority view point which is not even googleable, not a single shred of evidence of having reported so, apart from the only article which he is referring to, which effectively makes it only a POV edit. I have checked multiple pages of Google's results and I don't see it anywhere! What would you suggest in such a situation? I am only making attempts to understand the verifiability thing which, inspite of it's clarity in paper appears ambiguous in it's implementation Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read WP:DR it talks about ways to engage the larger Wikipedia community to help resolve content concerns. If you and others agree that the edit doesn't conform to the WP:NPOV policy, you might wish to bring that up in discussions with the other user. Shell ^babelfish 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, I just found out the transcript of the whole interview. It has been verified and the section however needs some fine-tuning to prevent misquoting whatever has been told. Thanks for your help. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grover Cleveland, Glen S., and a few others

Shell,

Thanks for your note. Though I will do my best to keep my cool, these particular admins are well-known for their sarcasm and for what I personally consider vandalism. (They call it "editing," "for the good of Wiki", etc.) Do me a favor: keep an eye out on the Perosi and Ciampa articles. Those are the two they the above-mentioned editors continually tinker with, for their personal delight and no other reason. GiovaneScuola2006 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're experiencing problems while editing, you might want to look into some of the dispute resolution processes to engage outside editors. I have both of the articles on my watchlist now as well. Shell ^babelfish 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks ever so much Shell for your message earlier today. It really brightened my day :)

On that subject, you might be abale to tell from my latest response tha I got a little cheesed off with it all earlier with the advice to use the dispute resolution process going unheared it seems. With that in mind, I spent about 30 - 45 minutes writing what was essentially a 1100 word essay on what I can see and advice on what the editors involved shoud do. If you feel so inclined, please feel free to comment on it to indicate agreement or disagreement. No obligation to do so of course, but I felt that you may potentially be interested to know of it's existance if you didn't already. --Crimsone 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw that and was duly impressed. I was seriously considering whether or not it could be reworded to make it into a more general essay since it explained things so well. Unforunately I'm fairly certain the the involved editors are simply going to ignore that like they have everything else and continue on to other people's talk pages (as they were continuing to do yesterday). I don't believe there is any real interest in resolving the dispute; each is trying to have their case validated or the other side sanctioned. If your post doesn't get their attention, I don't believe anything will. Shell ^babelfish 11:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A day is often a short time on wikipedia in a certain context, andso perhaps it's too soon to say, but work on the disputed article has actuallly been quite productive/constructive today :). I must confess that I had some doubts before writing that essay, and it remains to be seen whether they are valid, but as much as you were duly impressed (an accord which I take as being quite some compliment, coming from yourself! thanks!), I too have been duly impressed by the conduct of the dispute today - I certainly hoppe things continue this way :)

As for the essay itself, GFDL aside for a moment, you would be more than welcome to make it into a more general essay :) If it helps someone else or explains something well, then all to the good really. In licensing terms, a history merge may be required for GFDL compliance, but "they'll never know what they aren't told" :p lol. Seriously - if you think you can do it you have my blessing (having written it for one purpose, I might find it a little difficult to do myself anyway, so it would need somebody else such as yourself). --Crimsone 20:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 23rd.

Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] centrum99 (talk · contribs)

Please note that this user, while blocked, is getting around that block by editing under his ip, 82.100.61.114 (talk · contribs). I also informed Gwernol about this and placed a notice on the NPA board. --Strothra 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

just letting you know that as soon as he gets back online he begins making derogatory comments again. [21] [22]. I've attempted to persuade this editor on several occasions to stop creating articles and learn about how wiki works first - he seems to only want to threaten the creation of new articles without even learning why his old ones violated NOR. --Strothra 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)