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) The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010 News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media Features and admins: The best of the week Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010 News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more Admin stats: RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging Sister projects: Strategic Planning update WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation Features and admins: The best of the week Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Deleted Article Michael Oliver (referee) Hi, you deleted the article about a football referee Michael Oliver due to his lack of notability which was probably spot on at the time. However, this guy has now been promoted to the Select Group Referees who referee games in the Premier League and thus liable to become a higher profile person. 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.) Seedybob (talk) 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. Shell babelfish 08:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The Signpost: 16 August 2010 News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR Features and admins: The best of the week Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Race and Intelligence Case 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 this mediation where Ludwigs2 was mediator, which was closed earlier today. The consensus conclusion of the mediation was to rename the article Israel and the apartheid analogy 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. EdChem (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2010 (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. 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. Shell babelfish 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. EdChem (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Clarification request Since you were the drafter of this topic ban, could you please clarify whether edits like this (notice the quote) and this breach the letter or the spirit of the ban? The same question was recently asked by the restricted person himself, although after the edits. Offliner (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC) If you have a concern that someone is violating a topic ban, arbitration enforcement 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 :( Shell babelfish 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". Offliner (talk) 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.[1][2][3] But many people were looking for a clarification, but no one asked, so I did. Offliner (talk) 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. Shell babelfish 11:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)