Misplaced Pages

User talk:Shell Kinney: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:07, 25 August 2010 editVecrumba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 editsm →Race and intelligence et al.: better, done← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:55, 18 November 2023 edit undoDonner60 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers236,100 edits not around since Sept 2011 
(934 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{not around|3=23 September 2011}}
{{User:Shell Kinney/talkheader}} {{User:Shell Kinney/talkheader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 14 |counter = 16
|algo = old(240h) |algo = old(240h)
|archive = User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== pass-out teh baked goodies ==
== Deleted Article ] ==


<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
Hi, you deleted the article about a football referee ] due to his lack of ] which was probably spot on at the time. However, this guy has now been promoted to the ] who referee games in the Premier League and thus liable to become a higher profile person.


] (]) has given you a ]! Cookies promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <br />
You will notice from the Select Group article that he is the only one who doesn't have an article. I suspect the very first controversial decision he makes would result in a lot of totally biased vitriol being written about him as a new article so it may be worth restoring the deleted one as a starting point. (I don't know if I've raised the query in the right way, so apologies if I haven't approached this request in the right manner.)
] (]) 08:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
:So sorry I missed this message earlier. I wasn't sure if by your message you think that he's more notable now and that references would be available to create a proper article? If that's the case, I'd have no problem undeleting it so it can be updated/expanded. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{tls|Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{tls|munch}}!
== ''The Signpost'': 16 August 2010 ==

{{clear}}
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
| 1 = 2010-08-16
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 33
| 3 = 2010-08-09
| 4 = 2010-08-23
}}}}
</div> </div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 09:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0064 -->


== Is your revert possibly overbroad? ==
== Race and Intelligence Case ==


{{Talkback|Geofferybard}}
Hi Shell... I noticed your recent votes on the R&I ArbCom case, and in particular your comments on Ludwigs2's views of the mediation. A couple of days ago I noticed mediation where Ludwigs2 was mediator, which was closed earlier today. The consensus conclusion of the mediation was to rename the article ] to ''Israel and Apartheid''. I took no part in the mediation or the article, having only come across it by accident. Ludwigs2's comments on the R&I PD talk page had made me wonder about judgment, and seeing this mediation and it's (in my opinion) potentially provocative conclusion made me wonder further. Consequently, I thought it worthwhile to provide you with a pointer to this other mediation case for your information, and in case it assisted you in your deliberations. I will post a note to Ludwigs2, advising that I have made this post, in the interests of transparency. ] (]) 06:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
]June 2011 (UTC)
:Having mediated a similar case before, I actually see a lot of good things that Ludwigs2 did there. He's tried to get everyone involved and reminded people along the way that the outcome isn't binding. There are times when a mediator has to say "well enough". The issue under discussion is so politically charged that you're very unlikely to get complete agreement no matter how much effort is put in. When arguments start to be repeated and things start to turn personal, it's often better to close a mediation - a mediation that ends with editors at each other's throats is often worse than no mediation at all.<p>That said, I'd be surprised if the decisions made during the mediation stand up outside of it; as I said, it simply too politically charged a subject for any reasoned discussion to prevail. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
::OK, thanks for your thoughts and perspective. I guess I was looking at the consensus conclusion and thinking that trying to implement it would be somewhere between provocative and explosive. Of course, the politically charge nature of the issue is not Ludwigs2's fault. ] (]) 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


== Questions about a deleted turquoise serpent ==
== Clarification request ==


It seems that an inexperienced editor is trying to ask you a question at ]. ] (]) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Since you were the drafter of topic ban, could you please clarify whether edits like (notice the quote) and breach the letter or the spirit of the ban? The same question was recently by the restricted person himself, although after the edits. ] (]) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
:If you have a concern that someone is violating a topic ban, ] is the appropriate venue, however I believe something was said during the proposed decision phase that historical articles hadn't been at issue before and weren't likely to be an issue. It would be terribly disappointing if the participants from that case started disputing with each other elsewhere :( ] <sup>]</sup> 08:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
]
::But was the topic ban meant to cover pre-1917 Russia or not? The wording is unclear. Personally, I interpret it as a topic ban from all articles related to Russia, since Russia is one of the "former Soviet republics". ] (]) 08:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not going to take this to WP:AE, since I have no desire to play a part in the latest round of the ridiculous battleground initiated by Colchicum. But many people were looking for a clarification, but no one asked, so I did. ] (]) 09:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
:::No, it wasn't. The dispute was about the Soviet Union era and later. And honestly, if you want to drop the issue then perhaps you should stop watching what these folks are doing and commenting on it? Continuing to bring things up isn't disengaging. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
== JanDeFietser ==


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
* {{user-full|JanDeFietser}}
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>
* ]
* ]
* ]
I am still of the belief that there is a simple and quiet way out of this, which I've been trying to keep from escalating to involve several other editors in a big row. I'd appreciate it if you or another arbitrator could take a look and see whether you can handle this off-wiki, privately. There's some sort of external dispute, here, in addition to the Dutch Misplaced Pages dispute, which the arbitration committee off-wiki is probably best placed to handle. I expect that JanDeFietser would also like this handled out of the public view of the other disputants, and (given the timing of the user page content relative to the AN/I discussion earlier this year, and xyr edits in the months since) I don't think that xe is intentionally trying to bring this into the English Misplaced Pages, and would be happy to find some route for xem to be able to go back to productive editing. I really hoped that this could have been handled without fuss, blocks, and palaver in just . But I think that we can still come back from the brink here, if arbitrators are willing to talk to JanDeFietser. ] (]) 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
== Reminder ==


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
Quackguru, for the past month you have been reverting every edit to the article with very little discussion. Please remember that you are required to discuss concerns rather than revert or your topic ban will be reinstated. Shell babelfish 11:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
:I have been commenting a lot on the .


<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
{{cite web|url=http://www.chiroaccess.com/Articles/Death-by-Chiropractic-Another-Misbegotten-Review.aspx?id=0000190|author=Rosner, Anthony L.|title=Death by Chiropractic: Another Misbegotten Review|date=July 27, 2010|publisher=ChiroACCESS|accesddate=2010-08-22}}


== Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago ==
Please remember this reference is unreliable and does not belong in the chiropractic page.
{{User QAIbox

| title = Awesome
A 2010 systematic review found there is no good evidence to assume that chiropractic neck manipulation is effective for any medical condition.<ref name=Ernst-death/>
| image = Cscr-featured.svg

| image_upright = 0.35
Without explanation for the second time an editor removed the , added duplicate material about risk-benefit that is in another section, and added an unreliable source from ChiroACCESS. This is ].
| bold = ]

}}
The word is unsourced and failed verification and is original research. I this on the discussion page. There are too many problems to list with the recent controversial edits. The other editors are not going to change there minds. ] (]) 21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
--] (]) 06:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

:Just to be a bit more clear, it really doesn't matter that you think you're right and they're wrong. You now have several people disputing your edits to the article and have continued to revert any changes they make while your only comment on the talk page has been to tell them they're wrong. That's not a discussion. Remember, instead of continuing to revert, you need to actually talk to these other editors and try to resolve the problem. Failing that, use ] to engage other editors and form a good consensus. You cannot continue to ] to edit the article even though you think they're wrong. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::In your point of you it is irrelevant what editors do to an article like adding . I think if editors like yourself tried to focus more on article content and what edits improved the article it would be better for the article if that is your goal. I think the can be added to Misplaced Pages's spam list. I think an admin could tell the editor who added the spam to the article to stop adding it or remove it. After all the goal is to improve the article. Do you think the reference is or unreliable? I think this is a relevant question if improving the article is the goal. ] (]) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Unreliable references and spam are two very, very different things. The question is not what I think, but have you discussed this with other editors and what do they think? Does everyone agree that this reference shouldn't be used? Does everyone agree the reference is spam? If so, then there's no worries. If not, then you need to be discussing the issue rather than simply reverting based on your own views. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 23 August 2010 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
| 1 = 2010-08-23
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 34
| 3 = 2010-08-16
| 4 = 2010-08-30
}}}}
</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0065 -->

== Request for help in ending the battleground ==

My plan after returning to editing was to disengage from the battleground. I tried to focus entirely on creating new content , but immediately after I returned, Colchicum first attacked me and then decided to launch the latest round of the battleground . Biophys then followed and attacked me as well. I'm trying refrain from replying and defending myself, since I believe doing that is exactly what keeps the battleground alive.

What I ''did'' try to do was to make peace with one of my former content opponents: . I believe that mutually agreeing not to make accusations against each other is the '''only''' voluntary way to end this battleground.

Biophys rejected the offer, and in fact used my peace offer against me, to attack me further. He did this by twisting my words:
:"I just would like to notice that Offliner came to my talk page to suggest that we are in a state of war"

I offer peace — and Biophys uses the opportunity to claim that I am, in fact, ''declaring war''. Biophys did something similar during the ] arbitration when he tried to twist Ellol's words, claiming that Ellol had presented threats using criminal slang.

Colchicum also rejected my peace offer outright.

So I think it is clear from these replies that the general athmosphere is too combatitive for any voluntary restrictions and promises to work. Therefore, I believe the only way is to impose a draconian general interaction ban. It should prohibit editors from making accusations and filing noticeboard reports against each other. It should, however, leave room for constructive collaboration on articles.

I suggest the following text: " are prohibited from making any kind of accusations or filing noticeboard reports against each other."

"Accusations" should be broadly defined. The editors should include all editors from the EEML and from the recent Russavia-Biophys arbcase, as well as me and Colchicum.

At this point, I really think this is the only way to end the battleground. ] (]) 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:I'm sorry to hear things are still frustrating in this area. If you'd like to propose the case be amended to include a wide interaction ban, you can certainly do that. I've noticed a few flareups just recently, so you may be right that this isn't going to go away otherwise. In the meantime, you might find it considerably less stressful if you decided to ignore the drama and not let yourself get drawn back into any of the issues that come up. If you find yourself without an idea what to work on, I've got ] sitting on the backburner because I think my writing sounds terrible and could really use some copy editing or suggestions for improvement; it's also a crazy out of the way area which might be a welcome change. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
::Sigh. Well, I am sorry, but I can't leave this, uh, made-up story unanswered. I haven't attacked Offliner after he returned to editing, I asked the Committee to consider putting him on an interaction ban before his siteban was suspended. IMO it was not an attack, it was a perfectly reasonable request given his history. And seeing how he is unable to disengage and how the things deteriorated since he (rather than anybody else) had got unbanned, I am getting increasingly confident that it would be a good idea. I withhold my opinion at to whether it was reasonable for the Committee to unban him at all. However, I stand by my assessment of his post-ban comments on Malik Shabazz and Kotniski as outrageous. That was hardly disengagement from the battleground, quite the opposite. And he can't claim that he was provoked there.
::Concerning "the latest round of the battleground" I have launched (this is at least the third time over the last few days that Offliner repeats this not quite kind and even less accurate mantra: , , – how's that for disengagement?) I believe that reporting violations of Arbcom remedies, which is what I did, doesn't constitute battleground behavior. Correct me if I am wrong. At least ] doesn't claim anything of this sort, in agreement with the common sense. I invite everyone concerned to review my report at ]. I may understand why some people are unhappy about it, but it is not my fault, they shouldn't have repeatedly violated Arbcom remedies in the first place, whereas my report doesn't violate anything. On a side note, Igny's conduct there was indeed appalling.
::Now, concerning the "peace offer", it looks like it was "an offer you couldn't refuse", eh? This is ridiculous. Offliner is free to disengage whenever he wish (until it may be too late), for this he doesn't need an authorization from others. I am not going to sign any special treaties with him, neither do I have to.
::As a finding of fact justifying any sort of general interaction ban his story would be preposterous. Nobody else is to blame that he is unable to disengage. A draconian interaction ban for him may indeed be warranted though, exactly my point. But maybe he is clever enough to withdraw on his own. ] (]) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

== Race and intelligence et al. ==
With the proceedings completed, I would like to offer some observations. I appreciate Coren looking for ways to think outside the box, however, wetting toes in content and enforcing the broadening of editors' content perspectives did not go very far. (Part of the issue is that ultimately even ] is driven by consensus{{mdash}}but another conversation.)
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;WP is about working together constructively. When edit wars ensue, followed by requests for enforcement or arbitration, those are symptoms of the initial breakdown of collegial interaction. From my own experience, it is possible to have raging disagreements on subject matter, but to still conduct discourse collegially and constructively{{mdash}}all that is required is for editors to be nice to each other. The hand-wringing over "civil POV pushers" is, IMHO, overdone. As long as editors stick to sources debate can be had. I have successfully debated sock-puppetting paid POV pushers, and so, for me, the choice is simple: obtain the opposition's sources to insure fair and accurate representation; research and obtain your own reputable sources; form a cogent editorial argument{{mdash}}OR{{mdash}}whine about "POV pushers" not listening to what you're saying.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;It is only when those who fail to achieve dominance of their POV resort to accusations, sock-puppets, et al. that discourse disintegrates. And once that happens, that Humpty Dumpty, while not beyond repair, takes quite the effort to reconstitute. I suggest that ending the disparagement and denigration of editors be made a top priority. ArbCom should ask themselves, why would anyone new come to WP to contribute when they are very likely to be attacked just for showing up?
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; Lastly, escalating sanctions (indefinite topic bans, etc.) are likely only to worsen the situation in the long run, as the opportunity for one to eliminate their opposition outweighs the ban's usefulness as a deterrent in promoting good behavior. Short blocks (WP cold turkey) sooner for poor manners would be much more effective.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; I've left this for you as you are new to the fold as of the last election and aren't afraid to change your mind about things. ("''A straightforward response, the only one so far to specifically talk about changing one's mind. Worth a look at the helm.''"{{mdash}}my thoughts on your answers to my questions during the election process.) ]<small> ►]</small> 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:55, 18 November 2023

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Shell Kinney has not edited Misplaced Pages since 23 September 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

    Talk page     Contact     Email     Adoptees     Archives     Articles     Watching     Awards     Log     Sandbox     Userspace
Talk page Contact Email Adoptees Archives Articles Watching Awards Logs Sandbox Userspace

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
 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 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

pass-out teh baked goodies

Gold Hat (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Is your revert possibly overbroad?

Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at Geofferybard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User_talk:Geofferybard#Mothers_for_Peace:_Throwing_out_the_baby_with_the_bathwater.3F17:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions about a deleted turquoise serpent

It seems that an inexperienced editor is trying to ask you a question at Misplaced Pages talk:Uploading images#Newer version of a photograph. HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Desert Rose (Adenium obesum) pic.jpg

Notice

The file File:Desert Rose (Adenium obesum) pic.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Categories:
User talk:Shell Kinney: Difference between revisions Add topic