User:Shaundakulbara/Achive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK/Next Update[edit]

Try picking the oldest items from the DYK suggestions page. We're trying to clear backlogs, so we start our way from the oldest items, and then work our way up to the more recent items. Thanks. =) Nishkid64 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note...I see you're kind of a DYK guru. You're point is a super good one -- thanks for mentioning it. I will only break this guideline in the future if its needed for either thematic or geographic variety. If I don't have an opportunity to do so, would U please add the Edmonson sisters to the next update? Although its cool we've given Black (or in this case, probably mixed race) people a place in DYK lately there really aren't that many women featured. (okay, laugh at me, I am young and have an idealistic longing for diversity)! I have never started my own article but I guess thats my next step in DYK involvement...maybe I can think up more "chick stuff" (wink)Shaundakulbara 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Edmonson sisters would probably go up on DYK either tomorrow or the day after. It's only been 3 days since the article was made, and there seems to be quite a bit of a backlog at DYK right now. Also, it's a great idea that you want to promote diversity to DYK, and I wish you best of luck in your endeavors with creating "chick stuff", hehe. =) Nishkid64 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 6 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article curb feeler, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--savid@n 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

THANKS[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar. You are funny! House of Scandal 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK Hassmyra Stone[edit]

If an entry is disputed, don't add it to the template until the problem is resolved. Or there wont be any meaningful nomination process, etc. Cheers, Camptown 15:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry. I grabbed that one because it had a picture and had no other options left for that day. I knew it wasn't awful...just a little skimpy. I should have gone forward a day to find a suitable one and will remember to do so in the future. Thanks for your good work on DYK. Shaundakulbara 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Thanks for your kind words, I'll try to continue to live up to them. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ani[edit]

You are still a major topic of conversation on the Ani talk page. I thought you might like to know. Shaundakulbara 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered vs. Redlink[edit]

Hey :) I noticed your efforts to keep the WP:AFD discussion in re. Sexy Losers fair, and wanted to make a quick clarification to help you with that.

Unregistered users -- who show in their history (and sometimes, but not always, their .sig's) as numeric IP's, can usually be struck (though it's helpful if their explanation remains intact). However, users who are merely redlinked -- have an account, but have never created a userpage -- are still members of the community.

If you suspect the motives of a redlinked user, it may be helpful to check when their first post was. If it postdates the start of the deletion discussion, then their votes* are commonly struck. If they've previously participated on Wikipedia, even limitedly, it is not considered appropriate to strike their votes*.

* - It's not a vote, we just happen to be voting :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-25 03:13Z

  • Thanks. Having remembered that red linkers can't start a AfD discussion, I jumped the gun. Shaundakulbara 03:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-25 04:23Z

The KTVX translator vote[edit]

Hi. Is there any reason why you think the info should be kept at all? I'm curious. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 15:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As long as info meets WP:N I don't mind it being on Wikipedia. That's not to say I advocate the info being in a chart the way it is now. Better it be condenced into a paragraph or even mult-column bullet points. Shaundakulbara 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Hello, I returned some of your nominations for next update. "U-85" is currently way too short; "Walter Galenson", interesting, but needs copy eds for better flow etc first. Battle of "Simmon's Bluff" is also very short, but.... ; cheers, Camptown 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    • "Akhurian River", I might add, was held up for days due to a somewhat artificial dispute about sources. Maybe, not the best article I've seen, but.... well, well..., cheers, Camptown 12:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it should be pointed out that you are doing a very fine job with the DYK. Thanks again. Camptown 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Hi. In this diff ([1]) you appear to have deleted my nomination without explanation. I assume this was a mistake. --Dweller 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. I'm new to the process... and the lack of edit summary on your diff left me bewildered. I'm delighted!!! --Dweller 09:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[edit]

Hi. Can I bring to your attention that you currently have 9% edit summaries for recent major edits and 0% for minor. Please will you try to use this feature. Edit summaries are really useful for helping nitwits like me understand what you're doing and why. They're also excellent for helping to understand at a glance the History page of a busy article, particularly when dealing with vandalism. In your preferences, you can change a setting to remind you to complete the edit summary if (like I did) you otherwise find it difficult to remember. On a personal note, the DYK template page is a little daunting and bureaucratic at first view and use of edit summaries here will help newcomers understand the process. Thanks for reading this ramble... I'd be delighted if you considered this request. --Dweller 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I will try but do find it hard to remember. Sorry if I caused you any problems. Shaundakulbara 13:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No problems - I assumed good faith above, but I think my post was still maybe slightly tetchy (hence, I detect, a little tetchiness in your response on my talk page lol). They are really useful. If you decide one day to run for admin, some users will !vote oppose based on poor usage of this feature. I recommend switching the preference... it worked for me. I was at 100%/95% last time I checked and I was a serial offender previously. (The counter only looks at most recent edits, so it is possible to get to 100% regardless of how bad one used to be!) --Dweller 13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Long overdue, but here it is. You're clearly a great addition to the Project, so you are most...


Welcome!

Hello, Shaundakulbara, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Dweller 14:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please exercise more care![edit]

Please exercise more care when adding items to DYK Next Update. I found that you left several extraneous marks with the DYK hooks, and I had to clean them up after I saw them on the Main Page. The point of DYK is to showcase Wikipedia's finest new articles. We need to maintain a good rep also for our neatness and uniformity on the page. Also, please don't remove the word "that" from DYK hooks. They are to remain there, until it is agreed to remove them. So, in the future please exercise more care with DYK, as it does end up on the Main Page. I still thank you for your help in adding items to Next Update. Thanks, Nishkid64 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I looked back to see what my errors were and I saw that I let two extra quotation marks in carelessly. I hope there was nothing more than that. I apologize for the error. A situation in real life demanded my attention so I didn't re-read a few times when done like I usually do. I think you should drop a note to whoever posted them onto the main page that there should always be a final proof read. The post onto the main page is almost the same as a traditional editor saying "okay, send it to print" (except, lucky us, we can make changes after print too). Sorry again for the error, keep up your good work. Shaundakulbara 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the admin who did the next update. I fixed it up, but I appeared to miss some after it was already on the Main Page. I made the necessary corrections, but I just wanted to remind you as it is always best to go to the source. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oops, sorry Nish! I guess put my foot in my mouth since you scolding yourself would be a little silly. Anyway, thanks again for making the corrections and pointing them out. Shaundakulbara 11:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuriko Miyamoto[edit]

I'm not going to pursue the question of whether or not Yuriko Miyamoto is eligible for DYK or not any further. As a hobby, Wikipedia brings me enjoyment. I hate when it becomes a contest and I am really f'ing over trying to reason with people. I like contributing, but I'd like to do so under the radar when possible for now on. Thanks anyway for your interest about it. House of Scandal 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The article definitely qualifies for DYK. I responded to the debate at DYKT, and hopefully tragic baboon will recheck the DYK guidelines, as it is a clearly qualifies for DYK. Nishkid64 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bart King[edit]

Hi there, Do you think Bart King is ready to be moved to DYK Next update? (Its creator has responded to your concerns) cheers, Camptown 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • A noob?!! Well, your contribution is really appreciated, don't forget that! Camptown 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And yes... the article needs a better hook for sure... Camptown 22:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a new hook - only to discover that the article was expanded on Jan 15... Camptown 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

This talk page is part of a series on Glueism - Life is sticky. The cause of stickiness is desire. I am rubber you are glue. Bad karma bounces off me and sticks to subsequent reincarnations of you.

With regards to your comments on User talk:HouseOfScandal: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Thanks, Navou banter 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Regarding your edit where you called me an asshole, please review Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. We're a bunch of folks from a lot of different backgrounds contributing the project, and it just doesn't work if people insult or attack each other. Civility isn't just a virtue, it's the primal glue that holds this together, and I'd ask that you consider that when editing in the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You in no position to lecture me or anyone on civiliity or Wikipedia guidelines. There is more to civility than avoiding cusswords, sir. Being an admin doesn't make you any smarter or more worthy of courtesy than a brilliant contributor. HoS has something like 40 or 50 articles on DYK in 2 months and the disrespect you have shown him, and by extention the whole Wikipedida community, is unworthy of your mop and keys. If you had "faith for the process" you would have proposed that article for deletion. The actions for which you seem so proud are shameful. Shaundakulbara 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I agree that Chairboy's actions were a little rash, but he can't be expected to run an in-depth analysis on every CSD tagged page he comes across. There are backlogs to be cleared and that means there are going to be occasional hiccups: that is why we have an appeals process. Just because you know HoS' work doesn't mean that everybody on the project does; I bet there are editors out there doing great work that you and I have never heard of. This certainly isn't a clear cut case, since it has been deleted several times already, and using inflammatory language doesn't help resolve the situation. It would have been nice if Chairboy could have risen above the terse demand from HoS, but calling him an asshole is in no way a constructive approach. Let the DRV run its course, it looks as if is going to be undeleted anyway. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Court[edit]

If push comes to shove, I will do the citation work, myself. But let's hope HoS is not going anywhere. He has made a lot of positive contributions to Wiki. And you're right, his userpage was really pretty (I peeked through the history). Jeffpw 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read your comment on the LGBT Project page--that's twice in 24 hours you've made me laugh!!!!! Hope you're having a nice day, and I am happy to have made your acquaintance. Jeffpw 08:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Last warning[edit]

If you make another personal attack towards Chairboy, as you did (several times) here, you will be blocked. -- Steel 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks there, just some heated discussion about a previous one which Shaundakulbara has already been warned about and removed. Let's not escalate the situation any further...(and Shaundakulbara, chill out...I understand you are upset but everything will work itself out in the end, and hopefully HoS isn't gone for good). Yomanganitalk 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that there are no insults in the post I linked to. -- Steel 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Steel , I respectfully note your statement and I will refrain from saying anything more on this issue. The last thing I want to do is put Yomangani in the middle.Shaundakulbara 18:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Banjee[edit]

It's not normal policy to protect articles on the main page, and the level of vandalism on that article doesn't really warrant it. Just warn those vandalising and then a kind admin can block them when they do it again. Yomanganitalk 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It was vandalized by 7 different people in 3 hours, several of those people multiple times. I sent warnings and am keeping an eye on it as the author is apparently on hiatus. Shaundakulbara 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my edits, how about changing them and let's have a discussion about it instead of threatening to block me. I'm trying to contribute, and blanket threats don't help anyone.Tritium6 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I didn't change this person's edits. Some else did. This person slapped down multiple inappropriate tags without a hint of justificication for doing so. Completely disruptive edit. Shaundakulbara 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The dispute between Tritium6 and me is based upon that user's mistaking vandlism for part of the article. As this was a mutual misunderstanding, I hope it can be dropped. Shaundakulbara 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Banjee (copied from here)[edit]

I was told by House of Scandal that he is the author of the photo and the model gave permission. Note the face is largely obscured. Admins involved with DYK are aware this photo is being used and none have objected. Please assume good faith. Thanks! Shaundakulbara 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The images in Banjee are potentially libelous to the persons in the images since the images appear to be of living people and the persons in the image are associated with being thuggish men who have sex with men. Since article does not include Wikipedia reliable sources to support such an association, I do not believe that the images meet the requirements of WP:BLP. I deleted the images because WP:BLP requires quick deletion under such circumstances. -- Jreferee 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are working with the assumption that having man/man sex or dressing in a certain way is a bad thing. If the article was about straight men who dressed a certain way would THAT be a problem? The subjects of the photos can't be ID. There is no problem here. Please, please let it go. Shaundakulbara 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother[edit]

Your first message on your fresh, clean page! Gack, if I didn't feel like this was a Police State before today, I sure do now. Big Brother is watching us. Keep the faith (and I did think your message on the LGBT Project page was funny! If that makes me an awful human being, so be it). Jeffpw 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

St Ambrose College[edit]

The point on the emblems on the sixth formers' ties is true, though unprovable short of taking a picture of one of the ties which seems a hassle for something which is so trivial it couldn't be made up - hence why it's in the trivia section, it was even linked to the St. Ambrose page. The only inaccuracy in the point is the wasps bit. Furthermore, whilst some of the trivia in the section is obviously erroneous, though often amusing (particularly the "the-pocket-sized-collapsable-surf-board" which broke near water, rather inspired for 'vandals'), the entire section should not be deleted off handedly as you seem to have done on several occassions. If you find it acceptable, I would like to ammend the section with this point of trivia. Nev1 20:25, 2nd February 2007 (UTC).

Bees[edit]
  • It's bees, not wasps, right? Shaundakulbara 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct Nev1 20:31, 2nd February 2007 (UTC).

Info without a source really shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. As it says here, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. I won't delete a bee mention that isn't obviously hoaxery. But bad info is worse than lack of info. Keep your eyes open and keep vandalism out out of this article as best you are able and I won't even have a need to think about it! Thanks. -- Shaundakulbara 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cess Pit[edit]
  • Right! There's a fucking sixth form tie on the St. Ambrose College page. Is there anything else that needs to be done to prove the integrity of the 'bee hives' trivia? And Shaundakulbara, do you actually go to St Ambrose College? Because if you don't it seems a little strange that you should actually care whether it is a beehive or a fucking 99 cone?!?!? Please reply quickly as we are all dying to know both your affiliation and your subsequent obsession with this cess pit!!!! 217.180.78.33 09:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My attempts at counteracting the sort of vandalism for which you have recently been blocked require no explanation. In regards to your message of 09:50, 5 February 2007, please review Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to your account being banned for disruption. Shaundakulbara 11:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Compliments of the season. This was not a perssonal attack, hence no insults being thrown in your general direction. It was however an expression of my anger regarding your scrutiny of information that could never be vandalism as there is no way anybody would find any amusement in this. 217.180.78.33 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Nerd[edit]

Stop Being Such A Wikipedia Nerd! 217.180.78.33 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shaunda -- he's been blocked again ([2]). Let me know if you have trouble with this user again. Antandrus (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again -- I blocked the IP for a week this time. It belongs to St. Ambrose College (surprise) and since it's currently being used only for vandalism I doubt there will be too much collateral damage. I made the block such that logged-in users will be able to edit. If he/they return to vandalise after a week we can block it for longer. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Traducción Española[edit]

There are translations from other wikipedias in some cases (I don't know how to write that), in other cases, the references are in the links and you're welcome :) Gaudio 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cephalopod size matters[edit]

I noticed you have been reverting my edit to Cephalopod size in which I linked two species names in image captions. I noticed that you have other image caption links intact. What is your objection to my additions? Thanks. -Shaundakulbara 12:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • My objection relates to the placement of one image on the left. Regards, Mgiganteus1 12:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that it is preferable whenever possible to change a specific thing rather than revert. In effect, you undid three edits of mine to accomplish one edit you wanted to make. In regards to the placement, on my screen those two pics stood side-by-side after my edit and eliminated blank space. Do I guess correctly that on your screen my edits created rather than eliminated ugly blank space? You can respond to me right here, thanks. -Shaundakulbara 12:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bartians[edit]

How about something like "the Bartians, a pagan tribe of Prussia, were the targets of a 13th century Crusade by the Teutonic Knights?" -Shaundakulbara 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello! I found your notice, your suggestion is good too, but maybe those "targets" should be changed; and btw, why my original suggestion is not good? Cheers, M.K. 11:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't implying your suggestion wasn't good. I merely though that since people generally don't know anything about the Bartians, Vytenis or the Teutonic Knights its much more intersting to let people know via the hook that this was a Crusade in Europe against pagans that happened around the same era as the Crusades in the Middle East against Muslim opponents. My suggestion is irrelevant now; your suggested hook is already on the front page. Shaundakulbara 11:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • A I see now; probably you was right on this issue :) Thanks for the comment, M.K. 11:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. Thank you for nominating it. Shaundakulbara 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

NCIS episodes[edit]

I saw the list and looked at some of the articles: they are in poor shape. But I'm sure an AFD wouldn't work, considering Wikipedia is flooded with TV episode articles. NCIS isn't the only show with issues. I doubt it will just be an easy cleanup that people want to do. So, I suppose a group AFD (not sure how to do that), is worth a try though. RobJ1981 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you handle the mechanics of that? I don't have the technical knowledge of proceedure needed to pull that off. Shaundakulbara 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome[edit]

And why is that? Shaundakulbara 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the masses of AfDs that have been kept. generally they are: a) Exceedingly long, b) blood baths as the deletion reasons are shot down ten fold, c) The same thing you quote states to avoid AfDs. HTH HAND. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You are interpreting that completely wrong. The plot is derived from the primary source (ala self-citation) - you are also violating WP:POINT. Cease. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the link upon which you are basing the claim that these articles shouldn't be tagged for lacking both references and notability. I'll contact you if I need any more info. Have a good day. Shaundakulbara 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The individual episodes don't seem to have enough content for independent articles, but they're not speedyable. I'd recommend a merge into the main lists, but it would be disputed so take it to afd. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • AfD should only be used if you believe the articles should be deleted, not if they should be merged or cleaned up. Both a merge proposal and cleanup seem valid - the quote sections belong on on wikiquote if anywhere and the episode summaries could easily merge back into a season level article. If discussion fails then follow the dispute resolution procedures. Yomanganitalk 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Result[edit]

I took the articles to AfD debate myself. There, Uncle G asked me to look and see if there were references online. I looked and discovered that all 85 articles were a copyright violation of material at TV.com. As a result, all 85 articles were deleted. Shaundakulbara 08:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Choirboy[edit]

Hello! I've responded to your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I hope this will be useful for all of us. Shaundakulbara 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have explicitly asked you not to call me "Choirboy". This is the second time you've done it. I believe it is a diminutive and I formally ask that you stop doing it. If it was another mistake, then I ask that you please correct it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • That was error. Looking back, I saw that at times I wrote "Choirboy" and linked it to "Chairboy" and vice versa (both user names are active). If you see this typo made by me in the future, you have my complete permission to change it yourself. Even the first time, I didn't mean this as a taunt -- it has always been a typo/keyboard faux pas and nothing more. I do not want conversation to focus on personal attacks and incivility. In that matter, I have admitted incivility and have stated intent to avoid the same in the future. I am hoping only to persuade you to apply the criteria appropriately in the future based upon my belief that you don't. Really, I don't wish the pox on you. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi, I note that you moved the RfC you started about Chairboy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) into the approved section of the WP:RFC/U page. I have moved it back. RfCs are only approved once the following requirement is met:"at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed". You will note a section under your statement is headed: Users certifying the basis for this dispute. It must be signed by at least two users for the RfC to be approved. If not, current policy requires the RfC to be deleted 48 hours after you started it. I hope that explains things. Yours, WJBscribe 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Two people other than me, right? Shaundakulbara 23:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No, actually you count as one of the two people as long as you feel that you tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed I believe you can be one of two editors endorsing the basis of the dispute. WJBscribe 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you sir! Shaundakulbara 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ouch, sorry if I've come across as a little overbearing here :-). WJBscribe 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
File:Order of Smile.png

No, you didn't at all - you've been super. I guess calling people "sir" online is one of my silly idiosyncracies. I do it both when I am being especially friendly and when I am peeved. In this case, I was just expressing deepest appreciation for your assistance, especially as I know you are being helpful despite disagreeing with the basis of the RFC and I, on the otherhand, have (in the past 4 days only) probably earned a rep as the worst bitch on Wikipedia! Shaundakulbara 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I doubt you have any such reputation, these issues are prob best aired than brushed under the carpet. And I note that it was Chairboy who first suggested the RfC. In any event regardless of the outcome of the RfC I do feel that a number of changes to policy need to be considered:

  1. The process at WP:RfC/U may need to clarified. It doesn't seem very accessible to those who aren't allready familiar with the process. For example, I had to check around quite a lot to confirm my belief that the two-editor certification requirement included the person who started the RfC.
  2. WP:CANVAS definitely needs to address clearly what requests for WikiProject involvement in XfDs etc is appropriate and what is likely to be seen as vote-stacking. If every editor has to make a personal judgment on this, disputes are going to result more and more in future.

Glad I haven't offended. WJBscribe 00:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam4Adam[edit]

Speedy Debate[edit]

Hi...your writings about the speedy deletion were brilliant, well thought out and as well introspective and humorous.

Convergent Ideas, LLC doesn't operate the www.mochamale.com site...it's down anyway...and I don't think they own the boyhunt site either.

We and a few others at adam4adam (who have zero to do with running the company) have been following the wikipedia fiery postings the past week or so...you truly put up a passionate and articulate "fight."

Thanks for this. We sent a copy of the article to the owners and they have a LOT of errata to bring to your attention.....I believe they have already send a memo to the general mailbox at wiki.

But from what I see...the errata (i.e. the India connection) would not in any large way get in the way of the info conveyed....UNLESS you are a documentarian doing something on the company itself.

I find what you have down there MOST compelling...most illuminating and quite a view into a cultural "sub-culture" which many people (even alt. lifestyle folk cuch as myself) had NO IDEA was going on out there.

Congratulations! You're world class...and that's by design: yours!!

Many thanks. - SHANNON REARDON, Honolulu, Hawaii, 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Order of Smile.png

I'm not the original author of the article so I can't comment on how the errata slipped in. I am positive an email sent to Wikipedia will have no result so I am emailing my email address to you so info can be sent to me in addition if the operators want.

I did just recently expand the article. The expansion concerns what newspapers have said about the company rather than the company itself, so I doubt many errors will be found.

Thanks for your compliments! I got myself in alot of trouble with my big mouth for sure! Shaundakulbara 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Afd Debate[edit]

Shaunda, don't forget that unless there's a consensus to delete, an article stays. It behooves you not to say more than is needed. In this matter, I doubt there is anyone besides those that already agree with you and those that will never agree with you. If the A4A people actually email you info, you can take it into consideration but remember such a missive is neither a verifiable source nor an independent one. Peace. House of Scandal 08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • What I said above isn't literally true, but it does hold true when something isn't obvious one way or another.--House of Scandal 12:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
LGBT Project[edit]

Your notice got deleted (probably by accident) when WhiteHotel posted a note. Do you want it back on there? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Order of Smile.png

Maybe we should. The AfD discussion is about half and half right now. I promised the original author I wouldn't open my mouth about it any more! Shaundakulbara 02:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked opinion runs 16 to 7 in favor of keeping it. Shaundakulbara 08:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Message[edit]

I left you a message at my talk. House of Scandal 01:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your vote on CFD[edit]

I had to correct a misplaced CFD closure, which had pushed your vote out of order here; please check to make sure that I had replaced it under the right section. Thanks, Postdlf 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Joachim (Star Trek)[edit]

Ricardo Montalbán[edit]

You changed the quote in which Ricardo Montalbán was referred to as "Ricardo". While surnames are more encyclopedic, we can't rewrite quotes. -Shaundakulbara 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No need for apologies! Correcting within a quote is a common mistake among editors. -Shaundakulbara 19:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're more forgiving than Khan would have been. :) "from Hell's Heart I edit thee!" Totnesmartin 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks![edit]

Thanks for all your hard work on Joachim (Star Trek). The time you spent on it saved it from being deleted! Thanks again. TenaciousT 18:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You're welcome! I am delighted I managed to accomplish something positive. Shaundakulbara 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations on saving that article. For someone who professes to not be a writer and to have little interest in Star Trek, you did an amazing job of improving it. I hope this triumph released some gas from your stress balloon. You also did remarkably good work on Adam4Adam while I was on Wikibreak. It look like that debate will be won by the good guys as well. Best wishes.--House of Scandal 09:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek II[edit]

I downloaded Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan from Limewire this weekend and watched it. Apparently some fans think is the best of the Trek movies. I thought it was a piece of crap. Some of my problems with this film include:

Shaundakulbara 01:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Joachim edits[edit]

If you're going to undo edits, at least use the edit summary or talk page to explain why -- I've done I think a clear job explaining why some of the content you're inserting is, while well-intentioned, either OR, grammatically incorrect and/or otherwise unclear. If you have a compelling reason to restore it, please share. --EEMeltonIV 03:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your post on the Talk page and have responded there. Thanks. --EEMeltonIV 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

More Congratulations[edit]

With (or perhaps in spite of) your assistance, Adam4Adam has passed the AfD debate. What an absurd and unfair waste of time and energy this has been. At least it has been resolved sensibly. --House of Scandal 12:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The RfC discussion is over...that's fine as the few were willing to talk about the Speedy Delete anyway. Did you know he was only an admin for 3 days before making this mistake? How arrogant. Anyway, I am 3 for 3 on the causes I've championed lately and I am going to quit while I am ahead. Best wishes. Shaundakulbara 01:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Are you referring to me? I've been an admin for quite a bit longer than 3 days. Also, community consensus clearly showed that the speedy delete was appropriate, and the article that passed AfD was significantly improved in relationship to the criteria that got it deleted in the first place. Please use more care when making contentious statements, your track record is pretty poor right now, but with some work, I know that you can be a good editor. If there's anything I can do to assist, please let me know. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Response[edit]

A very respectful response, thank you. Why do you keep saying that I only became an admin 3 days before I deleted the article? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Order of Smile.png

Um...I made a mistake and forgot it was 2007 rather than 2006. See? When one makes a small error and simply admits it everyone feels better. Seriously Chair, the consensus at the Speedy Debate was 15 to 3 of the opinion that a mistake had been made. Referring to you as an asshole was my mistake because that took focus off the issue of the Speedy Delete during the RfC discussion. If people were of the opinion that it is more important to encourage civility than to focus on the interpretation of a certain guideline that is understandable – I don’t begrudge that. Among those who did more than sign their names at the RfC, there were several seemingly reasonable people who thought an error had been made. Right now, you have people who have a heightened opinion of you because you remained mostly unfrazzled during the conflict. You have people who have a lowered opinion of you because we feel you compounded a small error with stubbornness. If at some point you decide it’s likely those 15 people were right in noting that the criteria weren’t met, a mention of that on your part would turn my scorn to admiration. Food for thought, perhaps. Shaundakulbara 02:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have been looking at a different RfC, I saw nothing like the numbers you've cited above. If it's another error, you may wish to correct it lest it appear that you were deliberately misrepresenting the outcome. I'd like to talk about something that concerns me. During this conflagration, you've variously accused me of lying, hypocrisy, homophobia, arrogance, and more. I take my responsibilities here very seriously, and as the community noted in the RfC, I haven't played fast and loose with the policies that shape the project. Your attacks have been underhanded and have not reflected well upon you as an editor. I know that spirits can run high when working on something you're passionate about, but there is no good reason to make it personal. Everybody makes mistakes, but not once have you ever apologized for the unwarranted accusations you made against me. Even the one other person willing to certify the basis for the dispute distanced themselves from most of your arguments and disavowed two of the three basic charges you were making. There's a certain point where you should maybe take a look at what you're doing and ask yourself if you're happy with how things have turned out.
Please use more care in the future. If you find yourself in conflict with someone, back up a moment and see if there's anything you can do to turn the "fight" into a discussion, and from there, to consensus. Second, try and assume good faith. I won't link you to the templates, you know what it says. When you constantly ascribe malice to the actions of people you disagree with, you poison the waters and make understanding difficult. Finally, if you make a mistake or realize you've attacked someone after the fact, apologize. Without doing that, you create the impression that you're just taking potshots at people and people will start to discount your opinion.
I hope you'll accept this advice in the spirit in which it was intended, and that we can co-edit peacefully going forward. You're a passionate editor, and you bring many good things to the Wikipedia, but some of your recent talk page edits haven't been up to that same standard. The only person who can change that is you, and I stand ready to assist in any way possible at your request. Foes to friends someday hopefully, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben, Ben, Ben,

  • I appreciate the good advice contained above and promise to take it to heart. It's nice of you to take the time to convey your thoughts.
  • The 15 to 3 opinion poll referred to above is that of the Speedy Delete discussion. You must know that; I've never accused you of low intellect nor you I. You don't want to address that opinion poll. That's your option. 15 people feel that your decision which initiated this entire situation was a mistake. My agreement with this majority is not incivility.
  • Calling me "underhanded" is not peacemaking. I admitted errors, you haven't. Continuing to focus on my character rather than the original point of contention is underhanded. Misrepresenting many things I have said and back-peddling on many things you have said is also underhanded. While support rallied to your side during the RfC for reasons I have acknowledged and understand, there were some during the Speedy Discussion besides myself that thought you acted in an ignoble fashion on several counts. We are not one another's sole critic.
  • The negative characteristics ascribed to you fall short of malice. Every criticism of you has in your reinterpretation and retelling, been "cranked up a notch" or two. I forgive you for this. As an emotional impulse, its human nature. As a tactic, it generates straw men that work to one's defense. The worst thing said in my last message was that "[some] feel you compounded a small error with stubbornness."
  • At this point, you have written enough text about my bad character for a novella. While we both, I am sure, have a positive impulse that makes us want to end this on a good note and hope to make one each other see the light of our own reason, acrimony wrapped in good advice and words of largesse is still acrimony.
  • Your response above is overflowing with civility. The theme conveyed, however, is extremely acrimonious and has nothing to do with the point of original contention. For some, honeyed words are more persuasive than frank ones. For some, they aren't.
  • My above message gave you the opportunity to have the last word along the lines of "let's agree to disagree". Instead you presented another essay on my shortcomings devoid of any suggestion that you may have contributed to the situation that took place. If you want the last word, compose a response that isn't a sugary indictment and you may.
  • My above message concluded with a mention of how you could easily "turn my scorn to admiration." I was being jocular. I don't actually have scorn at this point. I am just rolling my eyes and smiling.
  • I'll have to better proofread and spellcheck this all a little later, now I have got to now. Best wishes to you, happy editing.
    Shaunda (Shaundakulbara 11:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Warn[edit]

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I made an edit. You reverted it twice. This warning applies to you, not to me. Shaundakulbara 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd be very much interested in where you construed I made four reverts? I count three, all perfectly legit to comply with wiki policies. I count three I've made and three from you. Thus I have not violated the 3RR. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Hi, I've just noticed the edit war going on at Joachim (Star Trek)‎. In my opinion the problem stems from the fact that the images used in that article are by definition copyright images. Some limited use of such images is permitted by fair use (see WP:FAIR). However, each photo used must be necessary in the context of all the photos in the article. You already have a photo of each actor who has played the character. In addition you show the character's death, which is justifiable on the basis that this illustrates a significant event. However given the fourth photo you plan to introduce is just another photo of Joachim alive, I don't think fair use justifies it. WjBscribe 00:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The photo shows this character's exile on Ceti Alpha V and his fellow augments. Both these subjects are discussed throughout the article. While I will try to assume good faith, I am concerned because User:MatthewFenton has expressed anger at my role in having several dozen articles deleted for copyright violation. User:MatthewFenton has made no other edits to this article than to revert my edits. Shaundakulbara 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, well feel free to argue that the photo is necessary but I'm not convinced a photo of his exile is needed for the reader's understanding and as such fair use doesn't seem to apply. As a side note, fair use images can't be used in your userspace. That includes drafts of articles. I've accordingly changed the photos in User:Shaundakulbara/Sandbox to links. Sorry the fair use stuff is spoiling things for you a little. Best of luck with everything. WjBscribe 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I like you, WJBscribe. You follow rules but I think you also have a sense that much of what goes on here isn’t what it seems to be. The image you mentioned in my sandbox was in a draft of an article and it's not needed anymore. A note was left on User talk:Shaundakulbara/Sandbox rather than here, which was confusing as I use that as an alternate sandbox. No, it's not spoiling things for me. My complaints have always been in favor of following policy, not bucking it. But I notice sharply that the people who are dogging me now are those who were on the losing end of AfD debates earlier this month (I don't mean you, WJBscribe). How many registered users does Wikipedia have? Still, it must be a coincidence. Worse, I find myself starting to engage in the same sort of icky-wikipolitics that I despise i.e. be sickenly polite while fucking people over, gathering allies to come to one's aid, etc. THAT is spoiling things for me. BTW, WJBscribe, remember regarding the RfC debate in which you, after checking around, assured me that 1 editor making the request plus one editor who certified equals the needed 2? That was totally brushed aside, the matter was dropped as not having been certified and inquiries made regarding this went unanswered. Wikipedia...nice. Shaundakulbara 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I tempt you this delicious looking WikiCookie? WjBscribe
    • Sigh, internal politics tend to be aggravating in any context. To address a few of your points:
      1. People take their contributions to article very personally despite the opposite dictates of WP:OWN and lets face it no one likes to loose arguments, much less repeatedly. And loosing an AfD about an article you want to keep is more personal than loosing one about one you want to keep. E.g. I'm not sure an article about Joachim is needed and worry a little about the precedent in other fan areas, especially as it looks to me like a way to get round the fact that Memory Alpha does not accept that the two actors played the same character. But its not going to keep me up at night! All you can do is play by the rules, if your edits are in line with policy no one can disagree with them. Fair use pics are the easiest targets at the moment after a recent comment by the Wikimedia Trustees.
      2. As to running into the same editors all the time. Its interesting because on the one hand it really does happen by coincidence. Or sometimes we are troubled by something an editor does and look into their edits to see if its part of a wider problem. Sometimes that's done in good faith and sometimes its hard to see that what we're really doing is holding a grudge. At the extreme end, if the same user continually aggressively edits articles in an area(s) they have never been involved in before and the only connection is that you edit them, that is wikistalking. That practice is totally unacceptable and should reported but needs a sustained pattern of the same thing happening to prove.
      3. Don't worry about the sandbox thing- I was pretty sure it was just an old draft but thought I'd better let you know what I'd done seeing as I regard making change in people's userspace without prior request (as I did) rather on the rude side.
      4. As to your RfC. You may be interested to know see this post [3] and its reply [4]. I didn't take it any further because I don't think the RfC would ever have gone anywhere, but I am not happy with the deletion.
    • I think everyone goes through phases where issues with editors start to niggle. Generally I think the best way to get through them is to start contributing in an unrelated area or if really necessary take a short break from Wikipedia and see how you feel later. I certainly hope you won't be going anywhere and include this WikiCookie to cheer you up... WjBscribe 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your sweet cookie. As for this heinous non-reply, it's remarkable this admin almost put in writing that my complaint was dumped despite policy "just because". Whereas indeed. Apparently one needs 2 certifiers, or 3 if the boss admin doesn't like what you have to say. This fellow needs to bone up on his Aesop, however. Sour grapes are for those who suffered disappointment. The side I advocated won the Speedy Deletion debate and the subsequent AfD too. When you say the RfC was going nowhere, however, you're absolutely right. After referring (not calling...his name wasn't even mentioned anywhere nearby) to someone with a naughty name that became a main focus of all subsequent talks. I have big Valentine's Day plans so I won't be back for day or two.

Ben, I know you monitor this page vigilantly. If something I've written here prompts you to write yet another chapter about my inequities and your hope for my eventual redemption, please just pop it into my archive where our last exchange now rests. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, enjoy Valantine's day. My only plans for the eve are helping a mate move into a new flat. Sad, eh? WjBscribe 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Goof with image[edit]

I mis-clicked earlier and consequently got this notice on my talk page about an image, when probably it should have landed on yours. Erm. Yes. --EEMeltonIV 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I can never have too many notices telling me of what a bane I am to the Wikipedia community. It was, however, TenaciousT who updating that image, not I. Shaundakulbara 03:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, oops (yet again). I just saw your name closer to the top and scooted over here. Well, then. Enjoy bane-ing! --EEMeltonIV 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get for being atop a list of Wikipedia badgirls. Shaundakulbara 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shaundakulbara/Achive&oldid=1142137897"