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) Sathya Sai Baba article Sathya Sai Baba is a living person, who lives in a small city called "Puttaparthi", in South India, state of Andhra Pradesh. Thousands of people gather everyday to see him, in a place called Sai Kulwant Hall, inside a complex called "Prasanthi Nilayam", where Sai Baba's residence is located. This people believe he is a saint. On the other hand, there is a group of people who believes he is a criminal. So, we have two radically opposite points-of-view. The article in Wikipedia is being used by the group with the "anti-Baba" point-of-view to do theirs propaganda. This group is engaged in a strong effort to avoid the article to be a truly representative of NPOV. Currently, the article suffers from: - lack of NPOV - offends Basic Human Dignity - suffers from Information Supression Link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba In the brief description of the case, above, I myself have assumed a neutral point-of-view. Below, a link to my first comment about the article. There, I write with my own POV feelings, but using NPOV arguments, so neutral editors could follow and, with common sense, agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F But, after that, I found many unpleasant things: - trying to edit results in "removal of large-scale vandalism", and the edit vanishes from the history; (thus, the history itself is biased) - there is an editor, "White adept", acting as policeman to maintain biased, not-NPOV status quo; - there is another user, "Andries", faking a positive POV; (thus, you are mislead) - their combined actions drive anybody who arrives to read all negative-POV references; - also, they managed a pack of ready-made arguments that classifies the huge amount of positive-POV references as "not reliable"; - making, in this way, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore or improve the article's quality. This article constitutes a very serious issue for Wikipedia itself. Millions of people around the world support Sai Baba's efforts (six million, in the negative-POV estimate; from 50 to 100 millions, in the positive-POV estimate). The current article is an offense not only to Sai Baba himself, but also to all of them. Thank you. (Shell Kinney, I have also warned Ryan Postlethwaite, with no reply until now, and Sunray, who is currently too busy but kindly took a brief look and gently replied. I hope you can, at least, be aware of how urgent this issue is, and if possible give some support.) Robi Domingo Page Hello, I don't mean to be a hassle but I'm wondering if it is possible for you to help me with my problem. You deleted the Robi Domingo article on the grounds that he has no notable achievement/importance stated on his previous page. I have tried creating a new page for him, this time with the complete references and stuff...but I can't seem to be able to use the name Robi Domingo...instead, I accidentaly created a page under the name Robi domingo. So now, related pages citing his name as Robi Domingo wouldn't redirect to the page I created because his lastname is not capitalized on the page that I created. I really don't know how to fix this problem because I just recently created an account so I'm really confused about the numerous rules and stuff...so I really hope you can help me with my problem. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowan Rosethorne (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Should be all fixed now - to change an article title, you have to "Move" the article to the correct name. I moved Robi domingo to Robi Domingo - this also automatically creates a redirect so that anyone going to the uncapitalized version will be directed to the new location. Hope that helps! Shell babelfish 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks so much! You are Godsent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowan Rosethorne (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) WP:RFAR I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Nothing like opening it up for a bigger pile on. Way to go. Shell babelfish 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I am an unblocked sock puppet of Skoojal I just want to remind you, Shell, that it is YOUR FAULT that Frederick Crews had to come crawling to OTRS to get those quotations about homosexuality removed from the article about him. He'd never have had to do that if you'd removed them before then. See my remarks on Cailil's talk page. The Fire or the Sun? (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC) No matter how many times you claim that your actions were someone else's fault, its doubtful that you'll be fooling anyone. Since you have your own website, feel free to go write whatever you want there. Shell babelfish 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Your protection of Samaria; and looking to the future Hi Shell. I wonder if you might be persuaded not to intervene in the future with your admin tools in content disputes involving Jayjg. I am not confident of your objectivity and good judgment where he is concerned. Sincerely, --G-Dett (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Do you have any kind of evidence for that rather extreme claim? Do you disagree that there was a lengthy slow moving edit war on the article I protected? Does it occur to you that since you tend to engage Jayjg on quite a number of articles, you might not be entirely objective here? Shell babelfish 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry for the delay Shell; I didn't notice you'd responded here. As someone whose editing consists primarily of the light-but-Sisyphian task of minimizing outright propaganda in Middle-East-related articles, I necessarily come into conflict with Jayjg, an experience that I would have thought made me more, not less, knowledgeable about his strategies of disruption. But as a party to a content dispute, no of course I'm not "objective." I just wonder whether it wouldn't be a good idea for you to avoid using your admin tools in content disputes involving Jayjg. It is just a suggestion, casual not formal, which you are of course free to dismiss or consider as you choose.--G-Dett (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC) That was why I asked what you felt was improper about that particular situation that led you to make the comment. First, you've made the assumption that Jayjg is the one who alerted me to the problem and then second, that protecting an article being edit warred over was somehow inappropriate. I can understand the first due to your conflict with Jayjg (which is pretty evident when you use phrases like "his strategies of disruption"), but I'm not certain I understand the second. Since you both don't appear to have tried anything other than reverting with notes on the talk page, a bit of dispute resolution might be an easy fix for dialing the article back down to semi. Shell babelfish 05:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Assistance requested Shell: I am having trouble again with respect to another user. Please see Art and Politics, and its associated talk page, Talk:Art and Politics. (Just realized that "Art and Politics" should probably be renamed "Art and politics" as per WP:MOS.) [Updated: I renamed it Art and politics. --NYScholar (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)] (cont.) An editor created Art and Politics and then added it as an EL to the article "Art, Truth and Politics", the Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter (a group of articles which I have worked on since about 2006). [See editing history.] After I saw the link added, I tried to improve the article at that link (beg. last week mostly). The current citation format is entirely proper, consistent, and within Wikipedia's own style guidelines for citations. It is consistent with editing policy: WP:V and uses a "Works cited". The creator of the article had a mixed up set of notes which numbered twice and a mixture of MLA and APA format.Diffs. I simplified it by using one consistent format and then another editor came in and added citation templates. I added a "Style Sheet" (as is recommended in Wikipedia) to make clear what the prevailing citation format was before the inconsistencies created by the addition of templates. Incivility has recently been directed against me by another editor (J.: whom I encountered in editing Harold Pinter after the subject's death [after 24 Dec. 2008] and who started a "mediation" regarding me); yesterday this user accused me of so-called "vandalism" (not true)Diffs. (an inadvertent error not "vandalism"--Diffs.); and since then has engaged in more recent personal attacks in the talk page,Diffs. which are unwarranted and clearly violate Wikipedia's guidelines for civility, etiquette, and talk pages. The editor's placement of unnecessary template(s) is not good for the Wikipedia project, in my view. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [corr. --NYScholar (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)][Added some "diffs." throughout for yr convenience. Will be logging out after this. --NYScholar (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)] Ok, looks to me like a pretty simple difference of opinion gone bad. Maybe if you tried to discussion the citation format on the talk page the two of you could work out something that you could both live with? In the meantime, I've reminded the other editor that he's expected to remain civil. Shell babelfish 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Mind reading You read my mind: here :) Perhaps you could comment at RfArb clarification (hopefully that one will end up soon, too, it is kind of annoying to see this issue spawning heads like a hydra...)? Thank you for the comments so far, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Hah - already found that actually; I happened to notice your last bit after I closed the section and went to see why on earth it would have been brought to ArbCom. Silliness. Although, to avoid future dramahs, you might want to consider just leaving an informed note next time and letting someone else close - silly, but sometimes less painful in the end. Shell babelfish 20:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Yes, but I don't like bullies :(. Somebody has to stand up to them... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)