User talk:Shell Kinney

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

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)

James Crotty page

Jaredt, I don't know why you have deleted James Crotty page. What is your reasoning and supporting arguments. As far as I know there was little discussion by you and others in the discussion page. I would suggest that you restore it and we work to perfect the article rather than deleting it. There were many useful articles for Wikipedia users on economy and free. I will wait explanation from you. Ramil --71.195.182.195 06:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh Shepherd Dog RfC Question

MilesD. posted a request for me to contact him confidentially about advocacy/mediation. I have not yet gotten the email back from him. However, I would guess that his concern is the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article and the user conduct RfC against one of its editors. I have endorsed the RfC because I agree that her conduct has been very troubling. I have two questions. First, are you the primary author of the RfC? Second, if so, it states that there were requests made for mediation. I can see that Tina M. Barber was notified via her talk page that mediation had been requested. I did not find the actual request for mediation either on the RfM page or on the MedCabal page. What I would like to know is which mediation forum mediation was requested in, and whether Tina M. Barber responded to or agreed to the mediation. Whether and how she responded is of course relevant to what should be done next. Robert McClenon 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, would it be accurate to state that the mediation accomplished nothing because Tina M. Barber was inflexible about article content and was claiming article ownership? I see two possible ways to go from here. The first would be one more go-around on article content. It appears that her registry has issues about the dogs that are registered with other registries are authentic Shilohs. The best approach would be to describe that controversy neutrally by stating both POVs as POV. I will try suggesting that on the article talk page. However, I am not optimistic. The fact that she did not respond to the RfC is not a good sign. The second approach would be to conclude that lesser methods of dispute resolution have failed due to her lack of cooperation. If necessary, I am willing to act as advocate to write a concise Request for Arbitration. Robert McClenon 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hello Jareth it's again me :-) Could you please tell me what I can do, to help people rather create an special article about the Salvation Army in the US than to add just everything to the main article? What could be done? I have seen that for Western Territory (USA) an article was started. Can now parts of the main article be transfered to this? Or how should this be done? regards HAMUBA 10:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC) ps sorry for again bothering you

Hi Jareth, thanks for your prompt answer. I've done so and after leaving a message on the discussion pages I hope everybody will accept. thanks again :-) HAMUBA 17:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jareth, the people did not accept and did move everything back to the international article. :-( - HAMUBA 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jareth , I had a small addtion to the Shiloh Shepherd page that appears to have been removed, I would like to know what I did wrong and why it was removed so I don't do it again. Saginaw 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Overzealous deletion

It has just come to my attention that you deleted RIAA equalization. According to the log, it was for a copyvio. However, earlier versions of this article were perfectly valid, and many people worked to make this a decent article. As its original creator, I'm particularly peeved. Later versions may have included copyvio information, but earlier ones most certainly did not. The correct action would have been to revert to an earlier version, or ask someone to review the article. As it is, the entire back history and text of the article has now gone, meaning that it now has to be recreated from scratch, which is a substantial amount of work. Please refrain from deleting stuff in this manner in the future, it is unhelpful. Where a suspected copyvio has taken place, please flag that on the article's talk page so that those who have an interest in tending the article have a chance to do something about it. What you have done here amounts to little better than vandalism. Graham 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Duh. It's a word-for-word copy because THAT article got its text from Wikipedia! You may like to check that you haven't inadvertently made the same mistake on all the other articles you have deleted. Many sites use text from Wikipedia, so just doing a search for the same text is bound to find matches. As far as this one goes, I know for a fact that it's not a copyvio, I wrote that text myself straight off the top of my head. Unfortunately, without the history, there's no way to go back and check any of it. As far as being listed since Jan 4 is concerned, I didn't notice it until now (and only because it got recreated), so the process is faulty if this sort of thing is allowed to happen, when in fact the article was actually perfectly legitimate. The point of deletion is to get rid of bad or "illegal" articles, so if a good one gets binned, the process needs revising. Graham 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this straightened out. I apologise for jumping to (false) conclusions. Graham 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh Shepherd Dog Arbitration

I see that you have filed an arbitration on the Shiloh article. You listed me as an editor that you are filing against yet did not post on my talk page. In the links of those say you have notified, you have Windsong, but you have not listed her. So my question, is the arbitration against me or not?ShenandoahShilohs 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hoppers crossing cricket club

I was wondering if you heard back from them or not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation of your withdrawal from Shiloh Shepherd discussion

I'm afraid that I'm no longer going to be able to condense everyone's suggestions and continue assisting in developing a history for the article. To everyone that has sent in suggestions or corrections since I posted these drafts, I apologize; please still make the changes, especially those that fixed my errors. I know many of you preferred using private email and other avenues for discussion because of the tense environment here, but it leaves me little room to defend myself since I agreed to keep those private. I have recently been accused of taking ownership of the article, plotting in private forums and intentionally causing problems; since I don't want to cause any further issues, I will be removing myself from the situation. I really enjoyed working with you and I couldn't tell you how impressed I am with the many of you who took the time to learn about things here and help work on the article despite the problems. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC [[1]]S Scott 08:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User 165.138.28.195

This is to inform you that this user vandalised the Bob Dylan page at 19:34, as you issued a last warning, I thought you should be aware of this. Best wishes,Lion King 19:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Lion King 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Do you still require help with mediation in this case? --Fasten 10:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4

Greetings. You deleted a lot of content from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4, saying "please delete the entry when you finish something". But as I understand it, the items should be left as a record of why they were deleted. When you finish a day, simply remove it from Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but don't delete the listing. (All of the items for that day have been dealt with already, by the way.) Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not clearcut. The page actually says "Remove it from the listing on WP:CP." But the listings weren't on WP:CP anymore; they were on a subpage that was no longer included. By removing Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4 from the CP page, the listing was removed, so there's no need to delete it.

But now that I think of it, it's all in the history anyway, so I don't guess it matters much one way or the other. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing my user page

Why did you delete a template I had on my user page? I just restored it after someone else deleted it! — Nicholas (reply) @ 01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by 'T1'. It's just a funny box, I'm sure it's not going to 'inflame' anyone :) — Nicholas (reply) @ 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for confirmation emails

We at N3P.org have not received the requests related to Business process interoperability, Information silo and Neutral Third Party. We want you to verify that inclusion in Wikipedia does not violate any copyrights. Please send the emails at your earliest convenience. Thanks. - Norm

N3P has added the GFDL to its copyright and we've notified Wikipedia. I appreciate your help. Norm

Apparent Copyright Infringement of Troitsky Bridge Building Competition

Yeah, Hi. People keep putting this copyright thing on the page that I created. What are the steps I need to take to show you that I am indeed the author of the content as I am the webmaster of the site that it's coming from http://csce.eca.concordia.ca/ ? I am also the Vice-President of Internal Affairs for that particular student association. I have sufficient authority to use what is on essentially my web-site. I appreciate your concern about copyright violations, but this is indeed content that we at the association have created. Kurt C. Feb 28, 2006.

You know it would be a heck of a lot easier if you then sent an e-mail to the address listed on the website. It should be csce@eca.concordia.ca And I can respond quickly to it to settle matter. Kurt C. Mar. 1, 2006.

Ok, so I sent it back. Let me know if it's alright. Kurt C. Mar. 1, 2006.

Inappropriate comments regarding Shiloh arbitration

Your most recent comments regarding the Shiloh arbitration are extraordinarily inappropriate, and you should retract them expeditiously. I removed an unlicensed image from the article. User:MilesD. had uploaded the image with a GFDL release. Since the uploader was not the copyright owner or the copyright owner's representative, the GFDL release was invalid. There was, therefore, no valid claim of use for the image in the article. So I removed it from the article, leaving the appropriate note on the image's talk page. This is a clear-cut case; the image was not suitable for a "fair use" claim. The subsequent comments by various editors make it clear that the uploader believed that physical ownership of the photograph in question entailed ownership of the copyright/reproduction rights; this is, of course, utterly incorrect. There was no need for you to inflame this already out-of-control dispute with irresponsible, personally directed comments like those. Monicasdude 03:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you should reread the statements from the involved parties. User:MilesD. claimed to be the owner of the copyright in the photo based on physical ownership, and that claim was incorrect; the uploader at no time claimed to be acting as anyone's agent. There was, therefore, no valid justification for including the photo in the article. No other photo was uploaded with the same tag/justification for use. Images like this one [2] are validly tagged for use. I reviewed the other images after noticing the problem with the image I removed from the article. All the others were validly tagged. I think you should consider your own motivations in leaping to an inappropriate conclusion. Monicasdude 04:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being overly exacting, but I think that either the copyright owner should place the GFDL tag on the image page, or that the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} tag should be used, as with the other images. I don't believe it's appropriate for anyone other than the copyright owner to perform the initial GFDL release. Monicasdude 05:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Image Sir Harley

I changed the tag to one that correctly states the GFDL release; you mentioned on the RfAR though that you released for all use, which might be a different template. Let me know if you want that changed. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Never mind, you already got it :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I figured it out, but a lot of good it does now. Yet again Barber does the attacking and we get punished. What a great systemShenandoahShilohs 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Re :Image:HcCollageKidsWeb4 03.jpg

Hi, sorry about that, it's just that those free use licenses require an explicit statement from the copyright holder confirming that they do in fact release all rights to an image. The copyright free use tag is depreciated in favour of the more verbose {{No rights reserved}} tag since a lot of people misunderstood the full implications of the minimalistic "free for any purpose" tag. That's not why I changed it though, the reason I changed it to fair use was because it just said we had permission to use it (permission to use is not enough to consider it a free image, it must allow commercial re-use, modification etc also). If the copyright holder does indeed allow free unrestricted use of the image for any purpose by anyone then please put the {{No rights reserved}} tag on it along with some kind of "proof" explaining that all rights to the image have indeed been released. Idealy follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission#When permission is confirmed, but even something like "this is copyrighted by so-and-so, they have agreed to allow anyone to use it freely for any purpose" would be better than "we have permission to use", because it can be confused with {{permission}} wich as you can see is not ideal. --Sherool (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

recover deleted article...

How do I get a copy of the text and discussion from a deleted article?

The article was listed for deletion on Feb. 26th. It is called "COEBA" It was apparently deleted today.

I would like to get a copy of the article contents as it was when it was deleted and the article discussion tab/page contents.

Thanks! --Ben 17:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Only sysops can see deleted content; I'll put it in your userspace -- see your talk page, thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Ben 18:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• If you are still there... Can you restore the text from the discussion page and exclude the "whois" info. I am looking to copy out some text I wrote back in November. It was about 5 to 10 paragraphs I think.

--Ben 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK... so I copied all the article and text out. How do I delete my talk page. I never had one before this so I don't guess I need to keep this one now. (Thanks again) --Ben 18:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean User:Strbenjr/COEBA? If so, I can delete that for you. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes Ma'am, Thank you for your time! --Ben 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Logo

Template:Logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Esprit15d 19:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing the background of a page

Huzzah, that worked! Thanks! Now I just have to experiment with placement and such, and which colors I like.  :) I don't use any stylesheets, by the way. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Financing

Hi Jareth. When you create an article from an WP:AFC submission, remember to credit the original submitter in your edit summary to satisfy the GFDL. At this point, it's probably OK just to make a note about the original author in a subsequent edit summary. Then again, if this submission is anything like the one that came in the day before, then the submitter didn't write any of it, and just pasted-together a few paragraphs from different U.S. gov't reports (which I don't think are copyrighted), and there isn't really much credit to be had by anybody. ×Meegs 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On WP:AFC, the section is called "Fulfilling requests", and is located right below "Recently created articles". The layout of the page is definitely oriented towards the submitters, but we're still working on it, so if you have any suggestions ... ×Meegs 16:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Jareth. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 22:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)