User talk:Shell Kinney

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 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) T-table deletion Hi, I noticed you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-table on 1-Aug based on its duplication of content with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-distribution#Table_of_selected_values. However, from that article the out-link to the now-deleted table states that it was the Two-tailed version, rather than the one-tailed one still alive. Is it possible to restore that page? Thanks. dmcg026 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Actually it was deleted because it was a proposed deletion that had expired; the deletion reason was placed by another editor User:G716. However, since it does appear that there is a difference between the two (one-sided vs. two sided) and since proposed deletion is only for uncontested articles (and you're contesting ;) ) I'll go ahead and undelete the article. Shell babelfish 03:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the quick work.dmcg026 (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Then again, maybe a bit more AGF is all that's needed here Re: [1] --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment? Unless you mean that perhaps it would have been better to approach Elonka and make a polite request instead of the approach you chose? Yes, a little bit of AGF would be nice. Shell babelfish 22:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Was there something in my approach that could be improved? I'm sure of it. Same goes for yours. Me first: Yes, mimicking Eloka's reply didn't de-escalate the situation, but it's her escalation of these situations that's the problem here. I returned and stated exactly what I think is proper for the situation and did so in a polite manner. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC) I guess I'm still having a hard time following what it is you're getting at. I don't like to make assumptions, especially in online interactions (where clues like body language and tone are absent) so I'm really unsure how to respond. I also don't want you to feel I'm being deliberately obtuse or ignoring you, so I'm left in quite a pickle. I'll give it a stab, but please let me know if I'm totally off base about anything. I can guess from both of your messages here that you feel there was something improper about me asking you and Quackguru to consider that you may be letting past interactions colour your current responses to situations. And just to note, I just pointed out that your delivery and Quackguru's suggestion of an indef block were a bit over the top, not withstanding an apparent misunderstanding of the policy you both quoted. You're certainly not required to take my advice, I just hate to see the same destructive pattern keep occurring. Someone rushes in with guns blazing, the other side response by getting defensive or attacking back and the situation simply continues to escalate. You also seem to keep pointing to Elonka as the genesis of this pattern, but to do so means throwing good faith out the window, especially in this case. If it had been me, I would have made the post about SA differently; I think it would have been possible to make the same point without including the diffs. However, I don't believe that she made the post for malicious reasons or to "out" someone (who was already "out" by our standards) and I believe she genuinely felt that this information was important to the discussion and I also believe that her assessment was correct. I'm not at all convinced that SA is making these reports in order to regain his privacy; giving these issues such a high profile does nothing but get his information out for more people to see and I'm not going to believe that SA suddenly became too stupid to know that - he's a very bright person. So, we can pretend that big bad Elonka is the reason there is tension in these situations or we can be honest and admit that the tensions existed long before Elonka's involvement (how many ArbCom cases now?). In short, my advice is to take a break and take stock. Again, this is guessing, but you appear to be rather upset and frustrated over things happening on wiki and its causing you to make choices that, in the long run, really aren't going to do much for you, your reputation and your ability to work with other editors here. Shell babelfish 03:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) QuackGuru and SA should both have been banned from Wikipedia long ago. Don't confuse their disruptions with me. You haven't a clue how I'm feeling. AGF, take a break, take stock. I don't think she meant it as harassment either, nor did I say anything that indicated so. "I'm not at all convinced that SA is making these reports in order to regain his privacy" Neither am I, but I will still respect his privacy. "in the long run, really aren't going to do much for you, your reputation and your ability to work with other editors here." Maybe a bit more AGF is all that's needed here. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Maybe I'm just being paranoid.... ...but paint me suspicious: Mister Alcohol (talk · contribs) 92.16.12.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 92.22.185.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) THEN WHO WASNT PHONE? (talk · contribs) THEN WHOSE WAS PHONE?? (talk · contribs) Your thoughts? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC) I'd say 92.22.185.146 is pretty clearly responsible for both THEN WHO WASNT PHONE? and THEN WHOSE WAS PHONE?? but I'm not sure its associated with the other accounts. 92.16.12.245 claims to be a "friend" of Mister Alcohol and is clearly advocating for him in multiple areas; it would be good if he'd create an account instead of using that odd signature. It's rather unlikely that he's new here since he clearly understands the use of templates and linking to the user space - if it continues, it might be worth a checkuser of Mister Alcohol to make sure he isn't having a bit of fun. Shell babelfish 17:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your input! When I logged in tonight and found that 92.16.12.245 had jumped into the Quincy Jones debate for the first time just to shut it down, had tried to falsify his ISP, and almost comically tried to assert he's in Boston on his and my talk pages, plus the fact that Snigbrook seems to think he's a sock of The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb; were all more than enough to make me put in a suspected sock report — Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mister Alcohol. That's the first time I've done that using Twinkle, boy does that script make things easier! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Good catch - thanks for the update :) Shell babelfish 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Merge with Virgin Mobile or delete? i'm putting this on your page so you'll see it and respond in helio's discussion page instead of making arbitrary reversions. It's been suggested that this article be deleted than that it be merged with virgin mobile. I'd like to second the suggestion that it be merged. Unfortunately, Shell Kinney repeatedly shuts down any dissent or discussion. Perhaps she'd like to explain why in the discussion section instead of her current dictatorial route. I think merging it with virgin mobile's is a good idea. helio had zero impact on the wireless market and this article has served, primarily, as a marketing front for the defunct company. What are the precious references worth keeping here that cannot be included in virgin mobile's? there's links to some phones that are unreferenced, already up for deletion, and just serve as marketing. 99% of these references are the generic wikipedia month/date/year links. everything else is just marketing. a link to helio's website, and helio's marketing "magazine" which is no longer maintained. Shell, why is this article so valuable? So far there's 2 who support the merge or delete suggestion and only you care to keep it. Since you're in the minority make a convincing case. You have to remember, wikipedia is governed by community consensus. You, so far, being the sole holder of your opinion flies in the face of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.229.6 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC) I've responded over on the Helio talk page. Shell babelfish 02:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC) i've responded in kind on helio's talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.229.6 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Hello, Shell Kinney. You have new messages at NYScholar's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. --NYScholar (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC) "Actually I was referring to the times you vandalized the article, edit warred with other users and generally made a nuisance of yourself on this article and others related to Helio" this appears to be a baseless personal attack to me. would you care to translate it differently? like i said, remove your personality and personal opinion from the subject and address it professionally and objectively or forward it to someone who can.76.213.229.6 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC) See the specific diffs I'm referring to below; pointing out your past (mis)behavior on the same article isn't an attack. As far as "forward it to someone who can" I've been clear in what other options you have for deletion and you're welcome to use those. Shell babelfish 03:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Welcome Thanks for the welcome!Trendy Sammy (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Your behaviour issues Shell Kinney has a behaviour issue with regard to Elonka and this needs to stop. Shell Kinney is being unhelpful with regard to a new situation. The past behaviour and the current behaviour should stop. You have made misleading statements in the past. please don't repeat making misleading comments or I will report you to ANI next. QuackGuru 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC) [2] [3] The admin log page of the chiropractic article is on my watchlist. You have failed to WP:AGF. This is further evidence you are not objective. QuackGuru 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC) You claimed there was baiting which was a violation of WP:AGF. QuackGuru 04:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Hrm? I thanked a user for remaining calm and civil in disputes, including not responding to baiting. Since I made no mention of anything or anyone I felt was baiting I'm not sure how that's a lack of good faith? Who was I assuming bad faith of? Unless you're suggesting that no baiting happens on Wikipedia? Shell babelfish 04:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Who are you accusing of baiting on the talk page? QuackGuru 05:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I wasn't, I was simply complimenting an editor for his continued patience and civility in a protracted dispute. Shell babelfish 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC) You wrote in part: (and doubly your ability to politely ignore the baiting that happens on your talk page). You did use the word baiting and that is an accusation against another editor. Now, please explain what was the baiting that you saw. Also explain what was the protracted dispute and which article are you referring to the dispute. Please provide differences. That would be helpful. QuackGuru 05:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry QuackGuru, unless you have a specific complaint here, there's nothing I can do to help. I'm sure you are well aware of the protracted dispute at Chiropractic and other pseudoscience areas that Levine participates in. I would suggest given your defensiveness over a rather routine barnstar and what was meant to be encouragement for handling things well, you may want to take a hard look at what your intentions are here. Shell babelfish 05:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Disagree I disagree with adding the name because of the past and current behaviour issues. Me thinks Shell Kinney is not objective. QuackGuru 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC) An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. See WP:UNINVOLVED. QuackGuru 21:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC) I've tried dealing with this on your talk, but you seem to be deleting each of my comments. For transparencies sake, I'll copy those here: If you have some concerns over our past interactions, I would be happy to discuss these issues with you in the proper format. Inserting these issues into unrelated discussions on other people's talk page is not the proper format. I would also suggest that continuing to insinuate that I have lied in multiple forums is highly incivil and if it continues may require me to request sanctions against your account. If there is a way we can work this out in a civil manner, please let me know. Shell babelfish 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not certain why you've dropped into referring to me in the third person as this makes your comments very off-putting. Again, you are claiming that I have lied and misrepresented facts, which I specifically asked you not to do just a moment ago. If you do not feel there is a way to resolve these issues civilly then I do invite you to post your concerns where you see fit and get some outside input on the situation. Shell babelfish 21:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC) This is starting to feel a bit like harassment. You drop by an unrelated thread to complain, delete my messages from your talk, refer to me in the third-person and you're now monitoring my contributions. If there's something you would like to discuss or work out, I have offered to do so. If you do not wish to do so, please find something more appropriate to do here. Shell babelfish 21:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Again, if you'd like to discuss something, lets do that. If you would like to substantiate your claims that I've lied, misrepresented information or am involved or "non-neutral", then we can deal with those incidents productively. If you are only interested in making base accusations, I'm going to have to ask again that you stop. Shell babelfish 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC) QuackGuru, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this to you before or not, but please note that if this is a matter involving the discretionary sanctions connected with the Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page, that the relevant definition of "uninvolved admin" is not the usual definition, but a particular definition on the arbitration page; I've put a link to it from the section heading "Uninvolved admins" on the admin log page. You have to scroll down a bit to get to the definition, which is under a sort-of mini-section heading which I'm not sure one can link to directly, "Uninvolved administrators". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Helio vandal Shell if you'd like a glaring example of of a gross misrepresentation you needn't look far. just look at your vandalism accusation you made against me and square it with Wikipedia's vandalism policy. both are currently in helio's discussion page. hopefully you, yourself, can find a more appropriate use of your time here.76.213.229.6 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC) All one needs to do is look at the history of the article in question to see that I'm not the one making misrepresentations. For example this edit and other unproductive attempts to spin the article such as this edit. Shell babelfish 02:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC) the first one isn't mine, young grasshopper, and the second one does not qualify as vandalism. again read the policies you cite. they are very clear.76.213.229.6 (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Shell, While I appreciate you nominating the page I've modified the deletion/redirection proposal as your wording/framing of the issue was rather manipulative and grossly mischaracterized my argument. None of the keep/deletes addressed the actual reason that was rooted in policy, not opinion. So i reset it. Hopefully you'll take the oppertunity to put your keep in there and state why it should be kept within that framework as its been something I've been asking you to do for some days now. Sgeine (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I've gone back through to review your talk page history. As I thought, you had been banned from editing anything relating to Helio due to prior misbehavior. Since you have intentionally edited while logged out to avoid these sanctions, your account has been indefinitely blocked. Shell babelfish 20:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Kimm Hi Shell Kinney. Just wanted to let you know that I've added a few references to this article, which might address your concerns at the AfD. Cheers, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the update and the work finding the sources! Shell babelfish 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC) St. Edward's College, East Gosford hey can you please put this article up so it's semi protected from unregistered vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Edward%27s_College,_East_Gosford cheers. Pilgrim18 (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I noticed that there have been a couple of bad edits by IPs lately, but it doesn't appear to rise to the level of needing semi-protection at this point. Usually, protection is only necessary when an article is under rather consistent attack. Since I rarely do protection though, you're welcome to ask over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks. Shell babelfish 11:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Inside Track Please be more careful about reverting. 82.31.164.211 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC) No - your edits were completely inappropriate, malformatted and showed a great deal of bias on the subject. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Thanks. Shell babelfish 10:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC) I know Wikipedia's policies quite well thank you. Unfortunately you do not appear to know anything about Inside Track, who are bankrupt and discredited. I suggest you read some more about the subject before proceeding, and also look more closely at what actually happened to the article (ridiculous PR whitewash) over its history. 82.31.164.211 (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC) In that case you'll be aware that uncited paragraphs especially with phrases like "the company was doomed" and material based on your own research aren't the way to handle an article. There's no reason to let a whitewash stand, but that doesn't mean tossing out other standard policies to lambaste the company is the correct solution either. Shell babelfish 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC) The company was doomed: they have gone bust, the UK property market is in a very well documented crash, these are both facts. I'm not sure what you mean about my own research, the former 'history' section was almost totally uncited, and written by a company representative, grossly point of view, for instance you'd expect a phrase such as 'elephant amongst pygmies', attributed to The Times, to be citeable. It is not. What I have written (and in the case of 'Criticism' taken from an old version of the article) is actually cited. It is clearly inappropriate that this article about a company that I cannot find any positive article about, contained ridiculous language such as "Moore has a history of 'reinventing the business model' in favour of the consumer." 82.31.164.211 (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I agree completely that self-righteous puffery has no place in the article and I do appreciate you taking the time to at least get it more on track. My concern was several paragraphs without any kind of reference, but if you're using an older version of the article that was written that way and these issues are well known in the media, then I'm sure it'll sort itself out. Shell babelfish 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Please add some tags as you think needed, I will try to cite it.82.31.164.211 (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Page blanking by author Hi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, it is worth looking first at the page history, because quite often the author has blanked his own page, as was the case with Tribal logic just now. In those cases the best thing is to tag it {{db-author}}. It can be confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate and blanks it, if his page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Yep, usually - my fault for seeing someone else in the history and not realizing that this was the same account that started the article. I'll go do that deletion ;) Shell babelfish 11:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Ah...it's ok Stuff like that is bound to happen Wysprgr2005 (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Britt Lapthorne Hey, sorry for the hasty edit, but I did offer an explanation in the discussion page, I don't see how her dissapearance qualifies for MWWS as it was documented in Australia and Croatia. In Australia, as far as I know having lived here for 23 years, there is no MWWS, all people who go missing, from Australian born to European tourists to Aborigine people are reported and covered with no bias shown. Please feel free to discuss this with me =) Thanks, 58.107.179.146 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Not a problem - can't be expected to make the edit and write on the talk page at the same time. Thanks for the explanation, I've gone ahead and reinstated your removal of the incident. Shell babelfish 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks muchly =) BTW, why is my user page littered with vandalism edits etc? How do I avoid this?58.107.179.146 (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)