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). Shellbabelfish11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it wasn't determined, someone just thought it was a copyvio and provided no supporting evidence. Since they also said useless, I was more inclined to hold off on the deletion. Shell babelfish15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a short question on two AfDs you recently processed. I am well aware that the outcome of one AfD should not be used to determine the outcome of a similar AfD, but your reasoning for declaring no concensus on Space: Glory through Conquest seems to should have, at the very least, resulted in no concensus for TDZK. I do not plan on submitting a deletion review regarding this, but I am curious as to why one went one way and the other went another way. Thanks. - Malykyn22:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just about notability concerns, people made a strong case that it didn't meet our guidleines, however, another concern was more important. Verifiability is one of our principle policies - since the site had no outside references for the information presented in the article, it failed that policy. There's a lot of games out there that sit on the bubble - for instance, Shilla or Thardferr - they both have thousands of very dedicated fans, numerous fan sites and have won website awards at some time in the past, but when you really think about it thousands in terms of the actual number of people using the web isn't even a drop in the bucket. It does seem like our guidelines WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE could use some tweaking to deal with online games and how to establish their notability. Maybe you could suggest some changes? Shell babelfish15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do intend to do just that at some point; it worries me to see so many webgames fail AfDs for NN, especially when neither WP:WEB nor WP:SOFTWARE can accurately determine their notability, as they are both guidelines for items fundamentally different than a webgame. Thank you for the clarification, though. The article most definitely had verifiability problems; hopefully, at a point when the game is notable enough, there will be sufficient third-party information to allow for verification, too. - Malykyn01:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I get the impression Tonycdp was trying to provoke a response. Unfortunately for him I know how to keep cool. Arbitration procedures are quite stressful and usually bring out the worst out of some people. Thanks again, E Asterionu talking to me?18:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, it does get very nasty at times. Just keep that cool head and let people know if the attacking starts up again. Shell babelfish18:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just checking now with the next batch of potential trainees if they still want admin coaching. It might be good to try and do some time zone matching, but it might not always be possible as I usually try and assign people as quickly as possible (so not always much choice). Sometimes though I do a bigger batch, and in cases like that it would be useful. No harm adding to your entry on the coaching list your time zone :) Meeting up on IRC (or similar) can be very helpful, but if it isn't possible to do that, I just use a user subpage to keep discussion together (or you could use email) so doesn't matter if there is a time delay between messages. Thanks again for helping out! Petros47121:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my talk page. I would, of course, like to "clean up" my talk page. Please reply to my query about the block, and then I can delete these material pertaining to it (I hope), if you don't mind my doing so after reading my replies to you. The long comment is just there temporarily so that you can read it. [. . . .] Thanks. Sorry for the inconvenience. After you read this, I hope that you will delete it. Thanks again. --NYScholar 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [I have deleted an inadvertent mistaken assumption made earlier in this comment.] Please note that I did request that you delete this comment after you read it. The issue regarding the "short block" was apparently resolved within an hour. Since you replied with guidance about how to "archive: a talk page, I took your advice and did so. You can find our discussion now in Archive 1, along with my explanation of the mistaken statement removed here (ellipsis). Please remove this comment now if you can (added bold print to my previous request too). Thanks again. --NYScholar 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)]
I'm sorry, but I do not archive ongoing discussions from my talk page. Its considered rather rude. I see you have chosen not only to archive every communication you've received, but also selectively remove those complaining about your behavior. I had hoped that with a little time you would be willing to learn about Wikipedia, but this doesn't appear to be the case. I've directly quoted section and paragraph of copyright law dealing with fair use; I've thoroughly detailed why I feel the image meets that criteria. So far, all you've done is tell me I'm wrong and I should look at updated law - when asked to provide proof the law had been updated, you claimed that is was updated in July 2006, which turned out to be patently false. You've made no argument against any of the points I made - continually stating you're right and we must get permission certainly isn't going to get you anywhere. Since you are uninterested in further discussion, I would suggest you take no action against any further images. Doing so will likely result in a permenant ban from Wikipedia. Shell babelfish23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on your page too, but this was completely my fault. The silly script I used malfunctioned and I didn't catch it :( Thanks for finding them! Shell babelfish23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you happen to be using the normal AfD script? It requires doing it manually I believe, but I'm not sure. I'd be interested to learn which one you're using. Thanks. —Xyrael / 09:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
smacks forhead* I was using one I was working on coding and completely forgot I switched over to Voice of All's monobook. Argh! Shell babelfish20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of a Page - User Page for Project BSE
Why did u delete the user page and discussion page for PRoject BSE
I was wondering why you deleted an image I posted. I have permission. It is from a Church's Website. I spoke with the pastor (head person) of the church about posting it and he approved it. The picture was sutton_jerry.jpg. I mentioned this in my upload summary. I attempted to IM you using AIM. Thank you for your time.
Troubling developments regarding Netaji, Holywarrior, and Bakaman
I noticed that both Netaji and Holywarrior have been blocked. While I'll talk about Netaji later (and do not necesarily contest the block, just that a week is too harsh, given that most of edits have not been so bad), I am troubled by Holywarrior's constant defiance to admin authority. Here, in the diff I provide, he has stated that he will ignore admin warnings and continue to vandalize the articles. I believe that his sentence should be extended for threatening vandalism so that he may have some more time to cool off and contribute meaningfully to wikipedia. Please let me know what you think.
Holywarrior has made some sort of accusation against me for intervening (in his talk page). I wish to point out that I do not mean any personal malice against any user involved. I observed these arguments, blocks etc going on in articles I was interested in and simply would like to volunteer as a neutral third party and let everybody involved know of what's going on, and have made edits to that effect. If you wish for me to "butt out" then I will gladly do so and wish all parties well.Densagueo12:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone involved in this ridiculous edit and personal attack war is at the end of their rope. Multiple admins have admonished them that community patience is wearing thin and if the situation continues, bans may be in order. If Holywarrior really does continue his behavior, as he threatens, he'll shortly find himself blocked again. Shell babelfish21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi even though the block period has expired you may like to explain something here.I don't mind being blocked again , which is now equally ridiculous. HW 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you are having Off time there ; maybe our time zone does not match.I want to wait for your Reply and choose not to edit anything from now,till cleared (which I think I haven't ).Sorry for edits I have made . HW 08:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the directory link I posted?
I submitted a link earlier to the chocolate fountain page and it was removed. You referenced your own policy to justify its removal, when that very same policy states that links that may be used occasionally include: "A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories."
Aybarbara23:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how its appropriate to link to a directory listing for US Chocolate Fountain Rental companies? What is that supposed to add to the article? Shell babelfish23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The chocolate fountain is used by many as a substitute for a wedding cake. Many people rent one. The directory is a ad-free index of many rental companies around the country. The one link currently in the article is to a UK based company that offers rentals. I don't think it is the best resource.
A week or two ago I also posted links to more relevant sources of information, including a page of top dipping suggestions and a frequently asked questions page but those were also deleted. Aybarbara23:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then it would be a good idea to look at the wedding cake article and notice the types of links provided. Also, those links you posted earlier were to an ebay store of all things :( Shell babelfish00:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were content pages in an eBay store. They provided a lot more information on the subject of chocolate fountains and dipping items. Aybarbara00:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the proper thing to do (as per the WP:EL guidelines) is to add said information to the article to improve it, not link to a commercial site. Shell babelfish00:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the policy: "in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." Aybarbara00:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That weird box happens any time there's spaces in front of your paragraph, just take out the spaces and you're good. My user page is a bit complex - tables within tables, but if you give me an idea what you want, I'd be happy to help. For the userboxes, check out Wikipedia:Userboxes. Shell babelfish23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you for real? Come on, now. I have been contributing a little bit here and there over the years and didn't even get how your user accounts worked. I have learned so much from Wikipedia over the years I wanted to participate in the community. How lame is it that when new people actually try to contribute to the community they get told to "suck it"? I realize I'm a nobody in the world of Wikipedia, but I'm disappointed. I hope those comments were not written by Shell. Aybarbara23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this is just at a glance. This is the sixth seperate time you've been blocked for edit wars and incivility. I'm sorry, I'm just not sure what else can be done to explain that these behaviors simply aren't tolerated. Please discuss instead of reverting, and use dispute resolution to resolve editing disputes. Shell babelfish05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diff 8 was in a discussion of whether author Kancha Ilaiah was a reputable authority on hinduism, it was't even aimed at another editor, and was a response to a CAPS lock rant. Diff 2 was a response to JFD saying I was holding the leash to the gremlin (he used Subhash_bose as the example of my gremlin)[9]. 1 block was for a throwaway account Holywarrior dug up, and another by (aeropagitica) was found to be one where I was not at fault [10] (though I didnt AGF at that point).BakamanBakatalk00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have an answer for everything. I'm not interested in arguing over the issue - you've been blocked multiple times for the same issues and the disputes you're having over Indian related articles keep popping up on administrator noticeboards. Just try to play nice by discussing instead of reverting, working for consensus and using the dispute resolution process when talking isn't working. Shell babelfish00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the RfC and MedCab count? The RfC against me failed (dismissed as harrassment) and the MedCab was used by editors to call me nice things like "paid agent" and "fascist" etc.BakamanBakatalk00:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those sound like things that other people initiated though. Have you considered using the dispute resolution process yourself to help resolve some of the issues you're encountering? Shell babelfish01:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. You're welcome to ask for mediation or put up an article RfC to help achieve consensus over editing disputes. If editing and policy problems keep happening with one editor, you can file a user RfC on their conduct, ask for mediation and if that doesn't resolve it, eventually file a case for ArbCom. There's lots of options when talking with someone isn't working. Just be civil about it and don't let them draw you in and cause problems for yourself. Shell babelfish01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I noticed that you deleted the image HarajukuT.jpg off of the Stereotypes of Asians article due to improper licensing. The photograph of a T-shirt was taken by an amateur with the purpose of selling the shirt on E-bay, and she gave me permission to use her image with no specified restrictions. Is this image acceptable on Wikipedia? I wasn't sure what to put as licensure from the drop down list though. Could you please give me a clue? Thanks. --Drenched06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the fast response, Shell. Yes I did make the photograph myself. I'll just reload it again under the GFDL license. I didn’t realise the one I had given it was not allowed on Wikipedia. (I thought it would have been, since that was an option). Cheers again, --Coolmark1820:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why was the will hoge picture deleted? I obtained permission from the photographer months ago & had no problems. the photo was removed & replaced with one of Will Farrell so the same pic was reloaded under a new title on 09/02 & is now gone. Please explain.
Is there anything to be done about thhis [[11]]? He seems to have it in his head that I' m part of some rival of his and I'm out to get him. In reality, his articles are all not notable (save for one that actually was worth a keep vote) and he takes it personally when an AfD occurs and attacks people and their contributions in retaliation. What's really frustrating is he edits other's commentso n his own talk page to make himself appear innocent. I don't think he's aware that everything written is on file. While I want to assume good faith, I'm doubting this one will come around, even with some good community intervention. Any reply is appreciated. Regards, Shazbot85Talk05:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's been blocked for the continuation on his talk page after the warning. I have to suggest that it doesn't appear Blake is swayed by your arguments, so it might be best to refrain from discussion with him. Feel free to drop me a line if you experience further issues. Shell babelfish11:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i must have inadvertantly listed it to be used as wikipedia only. it is to be freely used per the owner, which was listed when i uploaded it. the instructions on how to list a photo should be more clear. please reinstate photo.
~~leblanc74~~
The photo has been restored and tagged, however, please note that you will need to forward the email you received for permission to permissions at wikimedia dot org in order for the photo to remain. You might try reading our image use policy which has detail instructions on how images are used on Wikipedia.
Personal attack resolution
WikiThanks Just a little thankyou for being the one to answer the report and allow me to once more edit wiki without fear of being attcked. After so much distress, it meant a lot Crimsone16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. Its never fun to edit which such a hostile environment dragging you down. Just remember, that the better your edits are, the more you improve the encyclopedia by removing spam and vandalism, the more idiots you'll attract. So I guess this means you're doing the right thing :) Shellbabelfish22:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re:JB196
Hi there. I appreciate the comment and I am trying to keep as cool a head as possible, but its not fair to say I have been enaging in personal attacks or that I have not remained civil. I guess a case could be made for WP:POINT but as far as the other two, I have been wholly respectful to everybody I've dealt with over these last few days, although I was not always treated with the same respect. You have no right to accuse me of "harassing" a user when no such harassment exists, ESPECIALLY when another moderator (Extraordinary Machine) has backed up that the method I supposedly used to make said personal attack is actually an entirely allowed action here oN Wikipedia. As a moderator, you should know better than to make negative comments about other user's integrity when they are not warranted. What is your position on bullet's attack of myself by bullet? Why did you delete my comment on the Personal Attack Intervention board without commenting on it??JB19600:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the various warnings about policy infractions on your talk page, you seem to be having difficulty editing in the Wikipedia spirit. When people point out these actions, you seem to go on the attack for instance [12], [13]. You have horribly cluttered a poor article with citation templates without first checking the link provided and the articles of the wrestlers themselves. You consistantly edit war over your changes to articles and seem to display problems with ownership. Even after editors counselled you to leave off you campaign against bulletproof on your 3RR reports, you went venue shopping and brought it to personal attacks. You even went so far as to edit war on another user's talk page including accusing him of vandalism and deleting other people's comments from said page [14]. You were cautioned of your behavior on your 3RR block appeal. Also, please see the comments made by multiple administrators here about your edit warring.
Essentially, you're being silly and you can stop or face escalating blocks. You might want to take a really long read over the policies you're citing, since you seem to have difficulty in following them. Shellbabelfish01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JB196 has just filed 2 3rr reports against me for supposedly violating the rule on my OWN talk page. [15]. The other one is for the Vic Grimes article. [16]. Now the truth is that I am not familiar with the subject in that article. The Only thing I was doing is Reverting Vandalism as the definition of vandalism is (From Wikipedia:Vandalism) ...any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia... This was the original version [17]. This was after JB196 reverted [18]. Please note the major decrease of quality for the article. And why did he revert? Because he wasn't credited in the article itself as the "Author". "Then can I start citing myself in articles? I mean I did the research I want authorship rights. No rights? Then I retract all contributions I've made to an article." This falls under WP:VAIN. I truly believe I was reverting vandalism and so do other contributors [19]. I believe this is his way of getting back at me for his recent block (See Here). He has been bringing this issue up to other numerous admins in a crusade to get me blocked. I believe his time would be much rather well spent reflecting upon his previous actions than going from one admin to another in order to complete his vendettas against me. All I was doing is reverting vandalism and for some reason I got caught in this mess. Please help clarify these two. It is he who has not assumed good faith and has personally attacked and harassed me for upholding Wikipedia Policy. -- bulletproof3:1601:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you and, as you noted, his complaints have gone unheard on all the admin noticeboards. I have also left a note on WP:PAIN stating that his claim is baseless. If he continues in this manner, he will be blocked for disruption. In the meantime, find a peaceful boring science article that needs some fixing up :) Shellbabelfish01:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth (as an uninvolved party), I am in complete support of Shells conclusions based on everything I have so far seen in this area - especially the article diffs. Crimsone01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am personally past this thing. But for some reason, ever since he returned from his previous block he has spent most of his time plotting to get me blocked for something I didn't do. [20]. Could you help clear the two 3rr reports against me BTW? I honestly Hope that he can move on and stop plotting revenge against whomever may disagree with him. I'm sorry if I dragged you into this mess too. My apologies .-- bulletproof3:1601:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the WP:3rr rule is explicit. As such, if you have broken it, then it will be dealt with accordingly. If you haven't broken WP:3RR, then you've little to worry about. However, if broken, they may take account of extenuating circumstances. While I shan't really be able to do anything about it personally, I shall at least take a look at the report if that is of any comfort to you. Crimsone01:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually closed the 3RR reports - they were filed, as all these other reports as retaliation for JB196 being blocked for edit warring. The supposed reverts were just bulletproof removing ranting and harassment from his talk page and JB196 putting it back. Shellbabelfish01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had just looked, and was just about to say that :) Given the nature of the edits you were making, I sincerely doubt that 3RR would have held against you anyway had it been checked due to the constructive nature of them. I just won't say something untill I've seen it first. It's a pity you don't show barnstars on your userpage Shell, because I would say that you deserve a few! lol Crimsone01:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome :D I don't bother with barnstars much, but I feel you truly deserve them. I've added them tidily to the page. I hope the formatting is acceptable Crimsone02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know...
Whether you believe me or not, I assure you that the edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APersonal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=74248329&oldid=74246726 was entirely, 110% unintentional on my part. I would never nor have I ever intentionally removed anybody’s comments from any page with the exception of my user page. That being said, I understand you’re thinking that it was unintentional, although it was not. I was simply knee deep in all of that text and was trying to cut and paste that one sentence but instead seem to have cut out the entire paragraph in the process.
Is it OK if I read that reply of mine that has since been reverted due to my removing that entire paragraph? (of course I would not also remove that entire paragraph again…I know to be more careful this time!). I do not see any reason why that reply should not be allowed to be readded.
Also your use of the word “Continue” indicates that I have removed other users’ statements before and that is not true.
I'm glad to hear that wasn't intentional. However, about "continue", you had just removed my comments from your talk page minutes earlier [21] and that's certainly not the only example. The fact that you're asking to continue this disupte really concerns me. Please drop it as you have been asked by many level headed contributors. Shellbabelfish02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the comment from the talk page because I never once made a personal attack on bullet and your comment said I did.
I am not "asking to continue this dispute" by any means. I hope it is over like we all do. I am asking if I can re-state my side of the story before it got reverted - all it involves is two sentences as what bullet stated about me in his post was blatantly untrue.JB19602:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, just stop. We've heard your side of the story on every noticeboard you could get on and your story has been soundly rejected in every incarnation. Shellbabelfish02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am cool with that as long as people stop posting nasty things (such as bullet's last post) and borderline personal attacks about me on those pages, so let's just close the whole debate then.JB19602:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
