User talk:Shell Kinney

Archives: Archive 1 (June 2005 - December 2005), Archive 2 (December 2005 - March 2006)

I hereby award Jareth a barnstar for her extensive work fixing bracket problems listed at the Wiki Syntax Project.
Nickj (t) 02:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Article

Oh my, I am terribly sorry, I see the box that you are talking about now. I thought you had deleted the top box. I agree the new one is terrible, and you should go ahead and remove it again. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jareth thanks for your post on my usertalk page. It would be great if you could help out with the royal line boxes. Thanks for your offer, and it would be a good learning opportunity for me. James5555 07:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of advice

Jareth, thank you for your words of advice regarding dispute resolution. It's true that I need to pursue those avenues further. As I imagine you're aware of now User:Rgulerdem's edits happen to have an impact on many editors who've previously tried to work out given issues with him in altering such edits. His block log is nearly all of the proof that one needs to see this is the case.
Thanks again,
Netscott 04:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Jareth, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Hey, what's wrong with my user page?-) Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your admin style

Jareth: Putting in blocks for 30 days is out-of-line with other admins. Look at the illustrous Gustafson: he only blocks for 24 hours. You really should pay more attention to what you fellow admins are doing and try to fit in better. I encourage you to discuss the matter with Mr. Gus. and see if you cannot come to more consistent behavior for yourself and your fellow admins, so that you may all more evenly punish anyone who actually follows your "be bold" advice. -- 71.141.13.128 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't mention what block you were referring to, its difficult for me to comment on the particular situation. However, in general I block for that length of time after the account has been blocked repeatedly for the same actions and shows little interest in Wikipedia other than the problem edits. You're welcome to discuss the block with other admins if you feel it was unwarranted, or leave me a bit more information so I can research the block. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Shell Kinney: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego talk 01:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikification on monobook.js file

Hello, Jareth. Could you please modify this page so that it does not show up in Category:Articles that need to be wikified. Thanks, Kjkolb 08:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Jareth. If you don't know already, Brossow fixed the code at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Quick wikify, so you can update it instead of removing it. Thanks, Kjkolb 14:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Voice of San Diego

There isn't any real point in restoring it; all are blank/copyvio Sceptre ^(Talk) 13:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

==Welcome to VandalProof== Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just questions from a new guy

Hey, Jareth... yeah you get the questions because you responded to my IAV re: Brandubh Blathmac. 1) What's an RfAR? and 2) as an Admin, what's the best way to address this particular type of... well, not vandalism (and some of his editing is useful), but, hate issues, I guess? CMacMillan 17:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2

Barnstar Brigade The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date: "Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. 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 un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated." Stress Alerts The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them. Information Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!

The last AC meeting (full log) The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly. A plea from the editor... The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

cleaning out copyvios

Hi Jareth, i've been cleaning out the copyvio backlog at Copyright problems and have a question. When i finish a day, do i simply remove it? the advice for admins says something about adding it the log after you remove it from WP:CP, but everything already seems to be at the log, and no one seems to have added anything there, according to the history. So as i'm new at this i figured i'd ask you and make sure i'm going about this correctly, even though it appears all i have to do is remove the entry from CP. cheers --He:ah? 05:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A Download Is Now Available

I just wanted to let you know that a download of VandalProof has recently been made available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question about Image:Greenvale.jpg

Hi Jareth, you have removed the copyvio notice on Image:Greenvale.jpg, and restored the previous copyright tag. I just wanted to ask you about your reasoning (I am the one who tagged the image as copyvio in the first place). The image is now tagged as "fair use as image of copyrighted software". However, this does not look correct to me (and did not look correct when I originally tagged this image as copyvio). The main problem is that the article is not used to illustrate Google Earth, but only to illustrate the Greenvale, Victoria article — as such, the current fair use rationale does not apply. Moreover, I don't think the image can ever be used to illustrate Google Earth (since it does not show anything else than the photo, in particular we can not see the software's interface, etc): it looks like it has been uploaded only because it is a picture of Greenvale, and I don't think any of the fair use rationale can be used. Schutz 14:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am quite impressed by the fact that you checked if the image could potentially be PD. I was thinking that some of these images could be PD (US government maybe), but did not think that this information would be easy to find. Anyway, I'll tell the uploader that the image got deleted. Cheers, Schutz 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you for your comments, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Hello Shell Kinney. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think your recent comment is slightly wide of the mark. Monicasdude's comment about a foolheaded nomination was directed at the nominator Montco who did not claim to be a newbie (and isn't). The comments in the AfD about being a new editor were from JLJQuinn (talk · contribs), who was the author of the nominated article and indeed a newbie. (the discussion is not "properly" indented to show this) So while "foolheaded" was certainly an uncivil thing to say to Montco, it was not directed at a newbie. You might want to revise your comment. Thatcher131 11:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Chat

Hi Jareth, would you like to come on IRC or MSN (if you have the time) to discuss something (regarding some issues)? Please come asap but before 1500 (UTC) as I go to bed after that. Cheers. --Terence Ong 08:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 11:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop posting lies about me

Your track record for posting false statements and rallying your buddies to support your attacks is conspicuous. User:Montco is an experienced editor, not a newbie. He (or she) made transparently false allegations in an AfD discussion, sorting his way through hundreds of Google links to pull out a reference to an unauthorized, not-at-all-relevant link on a spam page while denying the existence of several dozen pages which clearly documented the article whose accuracy he or she challenged. The peculiar fervor that editors like User:Montco have shown for attempting to cleanse Wikipedia of subjects relating to African-American matters and, more broadly, subjects and individuals which fall outside common Anglo-American and western European circles is reprehensible, but somehow you're more interested in censoring criticism of that behavior. You want to roll around in a pigpen, fine, but keep your accumulation of mud to yourself; you're far to eager to sling it. Monicasdude 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)