User talk:Shell Kinney: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:11, 15 November 2010

Wait - where did my life go?

Welcome to my Talk Page

I am retired, so if you're looking to contact me, please use the box over there --->

Contact info

Send me an email through Wikipedia or
shell.kinneygmail.com
ICQ: 12502641
Gtalk: shell.kinney
Skype: shell.kinney

So long and thanks for all the fish

Thank you for all of the warm wishes and generally nice thoughts sent in my direction. I have retired from all Wikimedia projects and turned in all my extra tools as a security measure (we all appreciate those now, don't we?). For those few of you who were disappointed at not getting a whole ton of gossip out of my explanation for leaving (and didn't think to ask me privately, duh) I can only offer this cartoon as penance. Best of luck to all of you and feel free to keep in touch (see above). Shell ^babelfish 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dylan Flaherty's warning

Dylan wasn't warned for differences of opinion over content. He was warned for repitivly removing sourced material. His explanation for such is because the author is, and I quote, "illiterate, dishonest or incompetently sloppy." He has a history of edit wars, personal attacks, vandalism, conflicts of interest, and having a non neutral point of view. He's had more than enough time and warnings from other users to understand how he is supposed to act. Continuously removing sourced content is vandalism, as is going through my contributions and reverting my edits on other pages as he has started to do. He was warned, and will be warned for a final time if he continues the disruptive edits. If he doesn't cease then, then I will report him and let the admins handle him.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not helpful and may be disruptive, but that's not the same as vandalism. It doesn't matter who is "right", it's still a content dispute and needs to be handled as such. Please try involving other editors to develop a consensus (see WP:DR for ideas) and of course, feel free to report him if he continues edit warring or continues to disrupt despite having a clear consensus. Repeatedly calling someone's edits vandalism, when it's not, has lead to people being blocked. No matter how frustrating a particular situation might be, you have to stick to handling things the right way. Shell ^babelfish 01:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was already held on the talk page and it was agreed to add the article.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of people isn't really a consensus, which is why I suggested dispute resolution. Still, if he continues edit warring rather that using dispute resolution himself, he will end up blocked. Just don't shoot yourself in the foot at the same time by calling it vandalism :) Shell ^babelfish 01:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the insight. As you can assume, it is frustrating dealing with this, as I'm sure he is frustrated as well. It is nice to speak to someone with a level head. About the consensus, only three people have replied so it is difficult to generate more people. I will add this to the already created section on the BOLP Noticeboard and see who replies.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great idea; another option that can help bring in outside editors is a request for comment. Shell ^babelfish 01:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help again. I'll see if anyone turns out at the noticeboard, and if not then I'll use the RFC. I'm also removing Dylan's warning and notifying him of the new discussion.Juggalobrink (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unwelcome soapboxing

Petri Krohn continues his assault. I have been more than patient. However, once my topic ban expires and I can freely discuss Baltic topics, I expect to file an arbitration enforcement request regarding this and other instances of untoward behavior, including his block shopping with false accusations of outing and his transparent subsequent coverup. At least that's after all the holidays... PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a coatrack article?

Hi, during the Climate change case a lot was said about the BLP's being a coatrack article. Well this one seems to fall into the same category as the ones mentioned at the CC case. So you know there is also an article called Weston A. Price Foundation. There is a lot of dispute about this article going on so I need to get an opinion and thought of you. I hope you can help with this. I think it is and that it should be deleted. I am thinking of speedy deletion because there are some editors there that will fight tooth and nail for the article to stay. There is a discussion going on at Ani about it here. Would you please look at the article and make an informed decision about it? Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I am trying to help the editor who is being discussed with good success. I can't say anymore due to privacy issues. Thanks again.[reply]

Re: Question

Is there some reason you're creating additional accounts? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Additional accounts? The last username left was taken (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:(Abuse of our Username policy) was created from your computer a few days ago. Wikipedia's policies don't allow users to operate more than one account except in very narrowly defined cases. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to what, CheckUser? The last username left was taken (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , The last username left was taken; I am not a checkuser but, the Checkuser you are addressing here left This link on your talk page to the policy page that explains the use of multiple accounts. Cheers. Mlpearc powwow 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the multiple account policy. However, I was confused about the existence of the account. The last username left was taken (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to technical evidence from checkuser. I'll ask again; why are you creating multiple accounts? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the IP addresses that I edit from are shared between multiple people, it's possible that one of them created it. The last username left was taken (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was created from your computer; not just your IP address. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Checkuser only determines IP addresses, so I don't see how you can assert that it was my computer anyway. The last username left was taken (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting in to technical detail, you're incorrect about what a checkuser check does. If Hersfold says it came from your computer, it did. Shell ^babelfish 12:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, a matching user-agent and XFF as well? All of these were the same? The last username left was taken (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing for what information the site gathers isn't really going to help. Perhaps you could address Hersfold's concern? Shell ^babelfish 13:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More SPI stuff

Hi, Shell. Just a heads-up that you and your checkuser results are being directly addressed on this SPI case page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated the report - the other accounts you mentioned were a different group of socks; the topic area seems to attract a lot of those. Shell ^babelfish 06:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Some explanation for your ill-founded, inaccurate, and highly irreponsible and unprofessional commentary would be helpful. For example, who is this "entire group" you refer to, where have discussions stalled "due to calls for someone's head", and where are you getting this information? Since I'm unaware of any such calls for anyone's head, or pointing of fingers on Wiki, it appears that you are bringing off-Wiki discussions to Wiki, and it would be beneficial for all to be aware of your sources, particularly in light of your highly improper disparaging of FAC reviewers, who are not responsible for the copyvio of an arb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe it's appropriate then that articles with copyright problems make it through the featured article process? And you think the various attacks against that arb were an appropriate way to handle the situation? Shell ^babelfish 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, I am sure you don't think that baiting and suggesting that somebody thinks something preposterous is an appropriate mode of communication. Whether or not Sandy is being perfectly civil, you can be civil to help de-escalate the situation. On the one hand, it is not fair to blast an arbitrator for making a mistake that anybody could make (and many do). On the other hand, it is not fair to lay blame on the featured article reviewers. Can we all please focus on solving the problem at hand: Wikipedia editors need more guidance on what is acceptable writing, and what is unacceptable with regard to paraphrasing, plagiarism and copyright violation. Not everybody has received graduate level training in academic (or encyclopedia) style writing. It is very saddening to see two good faith editors arguing over who's to blame. Blame is an utterly worthless concept. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what I did there. "FAC group" was a very poor choice of words; for someone not following the conversation across many areas of Wikipedia that could easily be misconstrued. I was referring to a small subset of editors who have made voracious, nasty remarks during these discussions and not the general group of people who participate in the FAC area. I sincerely apologize for any implications caused by my shorthand. Shell ^babelfish 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 :So you believe it's appropriate then that articles with copyright problems make it through the featured article process? And you think the various attacks against that arb were an appropriate way to handle the situation? [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]]   <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 :: Shell, I am sure you don't think that baiting and suggesting that somebody thinks something preposterous is an appropriate mode of communication.  Whether or not Sandy is being perfectly civil, you can be civil to help de-escalate the situation.  On the one hand, it is not fair to blast an arbitrator for making a mistake that anybody could make (and many do).  On the other hand, it is not fair to lay blame on the featured article reviewers.  Can we all please focus on solving the problem at hand: Wikipedia editors need more guidance on what is acceptable writing, and what is unacceptable with regard to paraphrasing, plagiarism and copyright violation.  Not everybody has received graduate level training in academic (or encyclopedia) style writing. It is very saddening to see two good faith editors arguing over who's to blame. Blame is an utterly worthless concept. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
+Ah, I see what I did there.  "FAC group" was a very poor choice of words; for someone not following the conversation across many areas of Wikipedia that could easily be misconstrued.  I was referring to a small subset of editors who have made voracious, nasty remarks during these discussions and not the general group of people who participate in the FAC area.  I sincerely apologize for any implications caused by my shorthand. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]]   <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)