My point was that '''everyone''' in America is of African descent; Williams' achievement was very specifically in being successful as a black person, not in being a coy euphemism. [[Special:Contributions/213.78.235.176|213.78.235.176]] ([[User talk:213.78.235.176|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 13:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
My point was that '''everyone''' in America is of African descent; Williams' achievement was very specifically in being successful as a black person, not in being a coy euphemism. [[Special:Contributions/213.78.235.176|213.78.235.176]] ([[User talk:213.78.235.176|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 13:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Would be nice if everyone looked at it that way, but most don't think far back enough in history to get the reference. In any case, the majority of sources refer to the achievement in that manner, so Wikipedia follows suit. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 14:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
:Would be nice if everyone looked at it that way, but most don't think far back enough in history to get the reference. In any case, the majority of sources refer to the achievement in that manner, so Wikipedia follows suit. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 14:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
== AE request concerning Pmanderson ==
I had meant to get back to this AE request, but it slipped my mind. As you have now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=310888377&oldid=310883204 closed it], I'm leaving a note here instead. As I said at the AE request, I'm commenting as an editor here, not an arbitrator (I'm recused on matters relating to this case). My question concerns the other editors whose restrictions were lifted by that arbitration motion. There were sixteen editors whose restrictions were lifted, of which eight had topic bans relating to the editing of MOS pages ("style and editing guidelines"). I mentioned two of them by name in my comments at the arbitration request, one of whom I had intended to file a separate arbitration enforcement request about (he later struck the comments I mentioned, but in the past I've seen action taken even after people have struck their comments). My question is whether you considered the actions of other editors or were just considering Pmanderson's actions? My other question is if there are concerns about the actions of other editors whose restrictions were recently relaxed, should AE requests be done separately, or all together? If the latter question is better asked at some talk page where other admins who deal with AE requests can see it, which page is now used for those sort of discussions? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
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). Shellbabelfish 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dana Ullman
Hello. As you know, an admin (KillerChi...) was outed as an admin who has a STRONG POV on the content subject (homeopathy) and therefore not a good "non-involved" admin to be working on the ANI. I welcome you...but I (and anyone who wishes to participate in the Talk or articles pages related to homeopathy) would benefit from knowing what serious "crime" I committed during the short period in July that I participated on wikipedia. Please be specific...and please also consider the several good RS, V, NPOV references that I provided (and for which some editors here have stonewalled). The various wiki editors who accused me of high crimes are all editors who believe that homeopathy is a complete fraud and now even an admin who posed to be neutral has now been shown to be non-neutral. I previously called for a non-involved admin, and you seem to fit the bill. However, because you have not commented at all, it would be beneficial for all involved to have your analysis of "the problem." I would also like your opinion on what can or should be done with admins who pose as non-involved editors but who are found to have strong POV on the content subject. DanaUllmanTalk 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concern over whether or not KillerChihuahua was a neutral admin was why I offered to close the community discussion. I do not agree that her comment means she has a "STRONG POV" nor do I believe that her reading of the situation was incorrect or biased, however since she participated in the discussion, letting someone else close it was a good idea. After reading the thread, I came to the conclusion that there was strong support for a ban and that while not everyone could agree on what form that ban would take, the general consensus was to attempt a topic ban rather than block you from the site entirely.
Regarding the "crime", as you call it, I believe that was thoroughly discussed both in the related arbitration case and in the thread I referenced when notifying you of the decision. I can see by that discussion that you do not agree your behavior was problematic; clearly a large number of editors disagree as did the Arbitration Committee when it banned you. If you would like to review specific instances, you might want to check the diffs provided in that thread which discussed continued advocacy on your part, misrepresentation of sources, misrepresenting the statements of others, misleading other editors regarding the nature of a discussion, and other actions that clearly cause misperceptions or obfuscate aspects of consensus discussions.
I'm not sure if anyone may have pointed this essay out to you before, but WP:TIGERS might be a good read. A particularly pertinent point is As a normal writer, strong views are a great help. But as a Wikipedia editor, they impose a special burden: because you are obligated to be fair to all sides, you must be especially careful that your views don't distort the article. - I would add that distorting discussions is also problematic. Because of your strong feelings about homeopathy, you may not realize when your passion crosses the line into disruption, so its especially important that you listen to the feedback you're receiving from other editors. If I can help you with understanding the feedback you're receiving or reviewing any specific situations, I would be happy to do that.
As far as dealing with administrators who you feel have crossed the line to "involved", standard dispute resolution procedures can be used. Typically it starts with discussing your concerns with the admin; if the discussion doesn't resolve your concerns, you can open a request for comment about your concerns to get additional feedback from the community. If the community does not agree that the admin is involved, you've reached the end of the line and will need to find a way to work with them. If the community agrees that the admin is involved, they should recuse themselves from adminstration functions in that area or article. If the admin does not recuse or continues to be problematic after a community discussion that agreed they were involved, arbitration is the last step. These are basically the same steps you would use for any instance in which you have concerns over an editor's behavior.
Hopefully that has helped answer all of your questions - feel free to ask for clarifications or additional questions if you have any other concerns. Shellbabelfish 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I was "outed"? Dang. That's too funny, especially since my only claim was "I am reasonably uninvolved" (emphasis added). Anyway, I came by to thank you for stepping in and handling this; as I noted on ANI you were a better choice than I. I wasn't overjoyed about being the one to offer to handle it, but at the time no one else was offering. I'm glad someone with no involvement whatsoever was available and willing to step in. Muchas gracias, that was a real headache. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; I know how those discussions can get lost in the shuffle after they go on for a while. I'm glad I noticed before another three day discussion started about your close :D Shellbabelfish 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, you seem quite lovely and quite fair as an admin and meditator, though in this case, I am still confused. I asked you for what "crime" I committed since I have been back (because I am not being blocked for my previous work...but for my involvement since my return). I couldn't help but notice that you didn't refer to any "crime" I committed (I say "crime" because a topic ban is a serious penalty, and it might be good for other editors at the homeopathy article to know what does and does not work. I asked this same question to KillerChihuahua directly at her talk page, but she didn't answer. Because you have made the new decision on my case, it would seem reasonable for me to ask you to answer this. I am glad that you brought up TIGERS because I feel that my Talk contributions sought "fairness" and not one-sidedness. I did the academic thing of bringing up references to the Lancet and to the Cochrane Reports (it is a tad ironic that ALL of the Cochrane Reports that have had "negative" results to homeopathy are actively referenced in the article, and yet, the TWO Cochrane Reports that have had positive results to homeopathy are not discussed OR referenced (the 2nd report was from a 2009 review on the homeopathic treatment of people experiencing side effects from conventional cancer treatment). It is not a mistake that those wiki editors who are one-sided (against homeopathy) have stonewalled and blocked inclusion of these references. I sought to begin with the influenza reference and soon discuss the other one.
I cannot help but sense that you made your decision based on what antagonists to me have said rather than go to the Talk page itself to see what I actually wrote...and how several other editors need to know about TIGERS. I cannot help but sense that these editors feel great that they have successfully topic banned me even though they have shown much one-sidedness.
And yes, I do feel that KillerChichuahua was "outed." Although she asserted herself as one to be "reasonably uninvolved," it is clear by her statement from August 9th (as noted in the ANI) that she has a extremely strong point of view on this subject! Although KillerChichuahua may do great work on wikipedia on various subjects and mediations, it seems apparent that she has seriously erred here...and I feel that the final result of your decision got warped in the process. Fairness is important...and I do not feel that I have been treated with that fairness.
So, yes, I do want to bring this issue to the ArbCom and would like some instruction on how to do so.
To be clear with you and others, I am quite jealous of a lot of wiki editors who have much time to do work here. I actually have very limited time to do so. THAT is why I cannot edit other articles...I simply don't have the time. I prefer to edit articles on subjects about which I am already knowledgeable. My academic background and writing history has taught me to be intellectually rigorous...and the fact that so many of my writings have been published in peer-review journals and in respected other sources is evidence of this. Sadly, however, some editors here who have a different POV than mine seek to mute those with a different POV. DanaUllmanTalk 04:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dana, now that you have been topic banned, you can devote the free time you had available to edit in homeopathy to devote to something else. Of course you can continue with trying to overcome the restrictions, but why bother? Why not devote your energy to proving to Shell (and all those other editors over at ANI) that you are a Wikipedian rather than a something else? Of course you don't have to, but it just means you have the restrictions. Your call really. Shot info (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing as I said. Spend a few months, even if its 5 minutes a week, and shove their own words back into their mouth at the end of it all. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 14:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dana, I wrote an entire paragraph above that referenced the "crimes" that you asked about. When looking at those, I did look at the diffs and evaluate them, though in a community discussion closing with the consensus doesn't actually require me to do so. I found that I agreed with many of the claims; there were times where you clearly misrepresented a source despite 5 or more editors disagreeing and providing specific reasons why your summary was incorrect. There are times that you misrepresented an earlier discussion, for instance claiming consensus agreed with you, when even a quick look at the actual discussion shows that no other editors agreed with your position at all. Certainly some of this can be honest disagreement over the content of sources or misremembering earlier discussions - however, when it becomes a pattern, when many editors are letting you know you made a mistake and you continue anyways, then it crosses into disruptive. I believe the core problem here is that when consensus disagrees with you, you continue on as if nothing had happened - this is completely contrary to how editing works at Wikipedia and a huge time-sink for other editors who, like yourself, don't have unlimited time to spend on Wikipedia.
Content disagreements happen. In a contested area like homeopathy, I'm sure they happen more frequently. Part of editing at Wikipedia means learning to pick your battles and work productively with others. When everyone else disagrees with your viewpoint on a subject, no matter how right you may be, you need to drop the issue and move on. Wikipedia isn't designed as a platform to right the wrongs you see with how homeopathy is treated; your energy in that regard would be better spent on supporting research and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will never be on the front-line of changing anything - our policies prohibit anything but a representation of what other sources already say.
Since KillerChihuahua didn't close the discussion, there's really no reason to continue this argument. I performed my own evaluation of both the community discussion and the evidence given and came to mostly the same conclusions. Perhaps instead of assuming the worst, you could consider that perhaps this is an indication that her closing statements were fair rather than mine being biased. However, if you wish to take this back to the Arbitration Committee for review, you can request an amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Shellbabelfish 14:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In due respect, I am not assuming the worse as you have suggested. I am just asking for fair treatment. I have to admit to not being clear on which sources you think I misrepresented. If you are referring to the discussion of the "withdrawn" article from the Cochrane Report, you do need to know that there IS some uncertainty as to its meaning, and in any case, it does not take away the fact that there are four large studies, all conducted by independent researchers, have showed efficacy of treatment. Further, your assertions that any of my statements about consensus were "without" any support are incorrect, and the fact that I did not engage in ANY edit warring shows that my work was not "disruptive."
Ultimately do you really think that it is fair that the homeopathy article totally ignored the two Cochrane Reports that just happened to have slightly positive statements about homeopathy, while at the same time, it references sevearl others from them that are all negative? In the discussion on replication of research, there IS evidence that this exists, and yet, the article relies upon a 1995 (!) article that suggests that it doesn't exist.
And I realize, as you note, that you do not need to evaluate any diffs to close the discussion. However, if one strives for accuracy and fairness, a certain due diligence is reasonable. Because the homeopathy article has so many anti-homeopathy editors who have created a body of information that has inaccuracies and strong POV, I seek more balance...and I am not looking for 50/50 "balance" (I simply want reference to and discussion of notable, verifiable information from reliable sources). It makes sense to give reference to RS meta-analyses and reviews of research, and this information should not be ignore just because it gives slightly positive results for homeopathy.
You seem to be a reasonable person, but I also notice that you are a busy editor. I cannot help but sense that you rushed your decision to judgment before having an adequate review of the situation and you relied upon editors with whom you have a history of good relations on other subjects, even though you perhaps do not see their strong biases on the subject of homeopathy. DanaUllmanTalk 16:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned above, I did take a thorough look at the discussion but again, you're always welcome to have the decision reviewed. Shellbabelfish 03:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing to note that rather than using his freetime that he used to engage in the homeopathy article (and various editors about homeopathy and/or his banning from that article) to edit elsewhere, he has decided not to edit at all. Which effectively means he has banned himself from Wikipedia in general. Shot info (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Informal request
Shell, you topic banned me from chiropractic about two weeks ago for the following reason:
"Due to persistent edit warring and general disruption of the editing and consensus process, including the use of sock and/or meatpuppets..."
While I have not edit warred in articles related to this topic, your ban was placed under the premise that I was editwarring vicariously through sock or meat puppets. However, in the two recent SPIs (1, 2), I was cleared of these charges both via CheckUser and by behavioral analysis. Unless there is some other way in which you feel that I was generally disrupting the editing and consensus process, I am here to informally request that you lift my topic ban. Thank you. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇssnɔsıp 22:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Levine, I know I explained this far more clearly via email. I did say I was looking in to the possibility that another editor was responsible for the anonymous edit warring, however this does not change the fact that you have reverted repeatedly. Please remember that in my email, I explained that reverting as an editing tool instead of talking things out and reaching compromises was the problem, not the number or frequency of your reverts. Of additional note is the part about disrupting consensus building, wherein you refuse to let dead dogs lie and stop discussion and improvement on an article for months with the same complaints.
The checkuser came back as inconclusive and was unable to check the majority of IPs and accounts given. This is by no means makes you "cleared of these charges" especially since my behavioral analysis was based on far more than the single edit war presented in the SPI.
Your tenacity about having this ban lifted both here and in my email is starting to make me wonder if I didn't do the right thing after all. If you can't live without editing the topic for a couple of weeks, that's not a good sign. I understand that I have not gotten back with you as quickly as you would like, but as I'm sure you're aware, this is not a simple problem. Shellbabelfish 18:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be more explicit and show me where I have reverted repeated in this topic area in - say - the last 5 months? If you can just provide the diffs, that would be sufficient. Further, can you do the same with the "refuse to let dead dogs lie" charge. I am only asking for the evidence of the wrong-doing for which I am being reprimanded. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇssnɔsıp 18:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the mystery IP (I assume TheDoctorIsIn - or perhaps one of the thousands of chiropractors/chiropractic students in the Los Angeles area) claimed that the text given wasn't in the source. At least that's what I took the edit summary of "Undocumented claim" to roughly mean. You reverted, so I read the source to see if it met WP:V. I felt it didn't and thus removed the unsourced text. I was heavily involved on the discussion page at that time and was apparently the only editor there with access to the full-text. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇssnɔsıp 19:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst E (2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". J Pain Symptom Manage. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. PMID18280103. Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today. You don't need access to the full text to determine the text is sourced. The abstract verified the claim. You are lying the text is not sourced. When Levine2112 pretends the text is unsourced why is he allowed to return to the article in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the discussion page over and over again: The abstract is in conflict with the actual article. Sometimes abstracts are not written by the author of the article and can be in error. I quoted the full-text for you, so please stop with the WP:IDHT. Describing my actions as "lying" is not only wrong, it is highly uncivil. Please consider refactoring. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇssnɔsıp 20:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to stop this immediately. Not only is my talk page not an appropriate venue to continue your argument, since you are topic banned from the subject, continuing could lead to further sanctions. Shellbabelfish 03:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Levine, in response specifically to your questions about when you have edit warred or been disruptive, I've copied a bit of the list below that I used when determining sanctions. It is my opinion that on this particular topic area (or perhaps its when interacting with QuackGuru), you've been unable to take a step back and use proper dispute resolution processes; instead, your first response is to revert things you don't agree with and continue reverting them. For example (and not including any of the various IPs that also show up quickly to revert to your version who's ownership could not be determined):
Repeated reverts on Chiropractic History on the mysticism topic [3], [4], [5], [6]
Again on Chiropractic History, when your edit to change material you don't like is reverted, you revert to a previous version that did not include the material at all.
On Chiropratic, with each new issue that occurs, you are involved in the edit war. About a patient-centered approach [7], [8], [9], [10], over mysticism again here [11], [12], [13] and over pain management benefits [14], [15], [16] just to use examples since April of this year.
This edit warring, which most frequently stars QuackGuru and yourself, then moved on to the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article where you edit warred over article tags[17], [18], [19], [20] repeatedly.
Finally, just before the sanctions, repeated edit wars on QuackWatch finally resulted in article protection; your reverts there were part of a few editors warring over various items [21], [22], [23].
Obviously you are not the only editor who's been involved in these revert wars, but you and QuackGuru seem to make up the largest percentage of reverts during each incident. I'm glad to see you've been working hard in other areas since the ban; if you can remember to apply the same kind of positive energy when dealing with topics you feel strongly about, I'm sure you'll find that other editors will appreciate those efforts. Shellbabelfish 03:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upload multiple MediaWiki pages?
Hi, I have a few seedwiki wikis that I want to copy over to a friend's MediaWiki site. I have managed to convert the markup, but do you know how we could go about uploading multiple wiki pages to MediaWiki? --Surturz (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the easiest way to transfer files is using the Special:Export and Special:Import functions. The export page can take a list of all the articles you want to export (it can also grab a whole cateory). I'm not as familiar with importing, but the options for it are described here. Hope that helps! Shellbabelfish 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! That's very helpful. I've started writing a little program to convert the markup, I think I should be right with it now. Much appreciated! --Surturz (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Best of luck with your project! Shellbabelfish 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just to let you know about incident I filed on QuackGuru
Shell, I wanted to let you know about this since I mention you in the events leading up this latest incident. The incident report [24] --stmrlbs|talk 03:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but since QuackGuru has gone right back to edit warring and harassing other users despite the very recent sanctions and clear warnings, I've just gone ahead and blocked him. Shellbabelfish 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no, I don't mind. I think QuackGuru is used to people just dismissing it - I did the last couple of times. But, I'm tired of it. This was an obvious bait. --stmrlbs|talk 03:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rgowran
After this comment, I think a further block is needed and a checkuser to find the range they are on. I have a feeling we will be hearing from this guy for awhile. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the best thing would be to not respond to him until after his block is up. He needs some space to settle down; if we do see any odd behavior around the article or have another reason to believe that he's evading the block, I'd be happy to look into it. Otherwise I think its probably just blowing off steam. Shellbabelfish 09:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie, I will let you all handle it from here. Good luck. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't No Sunshine!!!!!!!!!!
Greetings Shell Kinney - I'm dismayed at the terse note you left on my talk page as I consider I have done nothing reproachable in the slightest. I realise that as an admin you come up with this kind of stuff all the time and would rather be doing other things, but I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to study the edits in question & explain where you consider I went "wrong". Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on your talk page. Shellbabelfish 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. S'pose I'll just have to leave it at that and go off an' lick me wounds. The sun'll shine again tomorrow.--Technopat (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shell Kinney I would like to know about the status of "Solomont: chapter.
I would like you to take a look at the discussion board, terrible insults and disrespect I am going through.
I would like to discuss with somebody reasonable and experienced. I don't know who you are but I feel you know the ways of WP. I appriciate if you can get back to me so we can discuss this issue.
User:Contimm had a total of 7 reverts on those two pages in the past 24 hours; that certainly is more than enough to be edit warring. As odd as it might seem, even when we're sure another editor is wrong, we still have to stop and discuss. If Contimm just got caught up and understands not to continue reverting, I'd have no problem unblocking him/her. Kehz99/67.191.237.201 certainly does seem to be reverting more, so if they continue when they return its likely they'll receive a longer block next time. Shellbabelfish 23:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but its still edit warring no matter how you look at it. Its only a 24 hour block and Contimm doesn't even seem to be online right now. I'm not sure how much I'll be around Wikipedia today, but if Contimm comes back online and says that he won't edit war any more and I'm not here to unblock, feel free to point another admin at our discussion here and I'm sure they'll help you out. Shellbabelfish 23:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have checkuser privileges, so I can't check to see that the same person is behind these accounts. Have you considered starting a sockpuppet investigation? Shellbabelfish 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sanger
Hi Shell. I noticed a conversation you were having with QuackGuru, and wanted to make a quick comment. Your thought that editors may not be working on the article due to concerns of WP:OWN are indeed accurate, at least in my case. I first made efforts to help with the article back in Feb. (I think), and the talk page archives will be a testament to that. I'll be honest, I did rather give up on trying to improve the article, simply because I felt that no matter what I offered, it was rejected by QG. Now, I will admit that QG has added a great deal of quality input, but for myself, I was just not able to communicate my thoughts effectively. Rather than bicker about things, I simply went on to other areas where my efforts were met with less resistance. I do stop by from time to time at the Sanger article, and have on occasion considered putting it up for GAR. I haven't, because I didn't want to appear "pointy" or anything. Anyway, I'm the one who re-added the search box, simply because I think it helps editors find past conversations that may be relevant. The whole "founder vs. co-founder" is I think a prime example. To be honest, I liked the idea of a search box enough to add it to my own talk page. I'm not sure how the "stalking" comes into play here at all. The fact that you mentioned the entire "ownership" thing impressed me, as it showed a great deal of insight. My compliments. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that you had trouble like that. Editors who don't allow changes to articles can really stall development and even end up seriously skewing the article. Hopefully QuackGuru will take this next month to seriously reflect on whether or not he really wants to edit here. Shellbabelfish 00:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shell. In this articles I wrote that location of this monasteries is de jure in Azerbaijan, because NKR is non-recognize rebublic. But you blocked me, cause I wrote true. Now please, Shell, explain me, why we must write NKR (don't recognize by any country), and don't write Azerbaijan (recognize by all countries).--Interfase (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You not blocked because of the content of your edits, you were blocked because you were edit warring. You need to discuss your changes with the editors who object and work out your differences. If you're unable to do that amongst yourselves, the methods discussed at WP:Dispute resolution can help you resolve the problem. Shellbabelfish 01:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to discuss with them, but they don't want to agree with me. They also were edit warring, but not blocked.--Interfase (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well if they don't agree with you (and its more than just one or two people) then its likely that the change will not get made. Wikipedia articles work by what we call consensus, meaning that everyone tries to agree on the right way to do things. Of course most times not everyone agrees and so we go with what the majority thinks.
If its just one or two editors though, you probably want to get more people involved in help to make the decision. The dispute resolution page I mentioned will give you a lot of ideas on how to involve other editors and help come up with a solution.
Either way, undoing their edits isn't the way to solve things. Shellbabelfish 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shell. I hope you're having a nice summer. I have been reverting the same change by an editor with an apparent WP:COI over at the Gabrielle Ray article for some time. Ray was a famous actress in musicals about a century ago. The editor just established a username which clarifies what I had suspected, that she is a relative of the subject. In any case, it appears that the information that she wants to delete is, perhaps, embarrassing to her, although it is referenced and seems to be quite encyclopedic. I am happy to hear if she has a reason for deleting the info, but she seems reluctant to post to the talk page. Any ideas? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My summer has just been fantastic, thanks :D I've tried leaving a message for the editor to see if we can get some discussion going and find out what their concerns are. I've also added the article to my watchlist just in case they keep reverting and ignore the messages. Hopefully we can start a dialog and get this sorted out. If not and they continue to edit war, they may end up getting blocked :( Shellbabelfish 01:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope she is willing to talk about it. She may have information that could improve the article.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She certainly could. Wikipedia can be darn confusing, especially if you've never used a wiki before so sometimes it takes a few explanations of the basics like how to get to talk pages and that you're allowed to edit them to talk with others before a new user catches on to this new way to communicate. I also tried to give her my contact page, so if she clicks on it, we may be able to get a dialog started elsewhere and then help her out with communicating on Wikipedia. Here's hoping for the best :) Shellbabelfish 01:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that everyone in America is of African descent; Williams' achievement was very specifically in being successful as a black person, not in being a coy euphemism. 213.78.235.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Would be nice if everyone looked at it that way, but most don't think far back enough in history to get the reference. In any case, the majority of sources refer to the achievement in that manner, so Wikipedia follows suit. Shellbabelfish 14:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AE request concerning Pmanderson
I had meant to get back to this AE request, but it slipped my mind. As you have now closed it, I'm leaving a note here instead. As I said at the AE request, I'm commenting as an editor here, not an arbitrator (I'm recused on matters relating to this case). My question concerns the other editors whose restrictions were lifted by that arbitration motion. There were sixteen editors whose restrictions were lifted, of which eight had topic bans relating to the editing of MOS pages ("style and editing guidelines"). I mentioned two of them by name in my comments at the arbitration request, one of whom I had intended to file a separate arbitration enforcement request about (he later struck the comments I mentioned, but in the past I've seen action taken even after people have struck their comments). My question is whether you considered the actions of other editors or were just considering Pmanderson's actions? My other question is if there are concerns about the actions of other editors whose restrictions were recently relaxed, should AE requests be done separately, or all together? If the latter question is better asked at some talk page where other admins who deal with AE requests can see it, which page is now used for those sort of discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
