User talk:Shell Kinney

[edit] Comics Guaranty LLC

I don't know what the rule is, but the editor who keeps vandalizing CGC has been at it for months now. Sometimes it gets protected, but they come back soon afterwards. Maybe it should be protected for a long time, or we can just keep reverting. Doesn't matter to me, just thought you should know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They're doing it again. They must check it dayly because whenever the protection ends, they revert. The latest revert was seven hours after the protection was removed. Is there something we can do so that I don't have to keep it on my watchlist, but they won't be able to revert? Maybe you can block the IP, it may be a static IP. [1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (Contributions) 06:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give them a final warning; it looks like they've been the major problem in re-adding that biased text for some time now, so the IP is at least stable. If it happens again, a nice long block is in order. Thanks for helping keep an eye on the article! Shell ^babelfish 15:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this user also makes use of other IPs, including 63.3.17.2 [2], 63.3.17.130 [3], 63.3.17.129 [4][5], and 63.3.17.1 [6]. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My user page

Shell Kinney, could you please confirm whether it was you who deleted my user page? I am not complaining; simply asking for clarification. Skoojal (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately, the entire history of your user page contained attacks on the same person who's article you admitted to intentionally sabotaging. I hope that you understand that what you're trying to do here is not going to be tolerated and it would be best to move on to other articles if you have further interest in editing Wikipedia. Shell ^babelfish 07:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleed image

Hi, is their anyway I can view this deleted image: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:C18Digihadcomparisen.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1 Thanks. User:Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, the software will only allow admins to see deleted images. Shell ^babelfish 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of antisemitic usage in Jewish Lobby

Per your request that this not be handled by mediation, the material has been moved to Talk:Jewish lobby for discussion. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Stalking

You said "Perhaps given the number of warnings and blocks you have for edit warring or being disruptive over trying to force changes to an article, this would be a good time to take a step back and consider that the community is trying to tell you that its not acceptable to behave this way while editing Wikipedia."

Ok, then what else am I to do? On the article Banu Qurayza, I went through discussion - a lot of discussion. No use. I went through mediation (you were the mediator). It was closed. On a particular issue, I called an RfC and went to WP:RSN, and I got consensus on both locations. But the user refuses to respect it.

If discussion doesn't work, mediation doesn't work, RfC doesn't work, the tell me what am I to do when a user removes 15% of the article that is sourced to 11 different scholars, all reliable?Bless sins (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then you need to say that. What you said was "this user is following me around" which doesn't communicate the fact that you believe he is violating consensus established by neutral parties in more than one place. I haven't reviewed all the discussion in the links you provided yet, but if you believe there is a consensus and a single user is reverting, opening a user WP:RFC is probably your next step - or, since this has already gone through mediation attempts, you may want to take the issues to arbitration where the committee can look at everyone involved in the situation and decide if some restrictions on their behavior would help resolve these problems.

Give me a bit to look further into the links you provided, and let me know if you have any other evidence of what is going on so I can look over that too and I'll see if there's any more specific help I can give you. Shell ^babelfish 08:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked into the issues a bit further. I would say that I don't see a clear consensus is anything you provided - you have several people for, several against and two editors who agree that the sources are reliable. Please understand that it is possible to have reliable sources and still not state things in a way that is acceptable to everyone. You need to work out a compromise with other editors, or at least find a wording that more editors deem acceptable. In reviewing the discussion, I blocked Str1977 for 24 hours for gross incivility. I'll see if there is anything more I can do to help informally resolve the dispute that's still active on the article. Shell ^babelfish 08:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, there is consensus for atleast one of my edit. Itaqallah, Aminz, and Nick Graves agree with its addition. Str1977 doesn't. Briangotts doesn't agree on a different issue (relating to the Deuteronomy). He was mislead in believing that the RfC was about the Deuteronomy issue([7]). From the mediation Jedi Master Mk also agreed with the inclusion. And yes, you correctly noted that two comments at WP:RSN considered the sources reliable. Other than Str1977 there is no user that opposed its inclusion.Bless sins (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I have been drawn to this page, let me state that BS's statement above is false:

"Briangotts doesn't agree on a different issue (relating to the Deuteronomy). He was mislead in believing that the RfC was about the Deuteronomy issue ... Other than Str1977 there is no user that opposed its inclusion.

It is true that I informed Brian about the RfC and that, in my message, i confounded two issues I had in mind, the Deuteronomy issue and the BQ chose issue. I later realised my mistake and corrected it. BS's claim that Brian was misled into disagreeing is bogus as per Brian's comment here. BS has read this comment too but he choses to ignore it so that he can cast me as the lone opponent. Another editor, Jayjg, has also expressed his disagreement on my talk page but he has chosen not to get involved.

I hope, Shell, that despite all our quarrels you will see how this behaviour also contributes to the volatile situation on the BQ talk page.

Str1977 ^(talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Bless Sins is not always correct in his statements, which is why I originally responded on the Admin noticeboard and asked him to stop edit warring. And, as you've pointed out on the talk page, I did make it clear that I don't believe he has a clear consensus on that or really any of the other issues -- some more discussion is needed to work out a compromise. Shell ^babelfish 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Only on the article talk page he still pretends to have consensus. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crews article again

Shell Kinney, the main section of the article on Frederick Crews is currently titled, 'Publications, work, research and criticism.' Would it be OK for me to change this to something shorter and more concise, say, 'life' or 'work', or is there a reason why that would be illegitimate and get me banned? Also, I'd like to add the date of publication for The Pooh Perplex to the bibliography; is that OK or not OK? Skoojal (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You made it abundantly clear via your now deleted user page that the only reason you edited the article benignly was to build up until you could intentionally put in biased and defamatory text. As such, you are not welcome to edit the Crews article ever again, even to make spelling corrections. The only reason you were given a second chance and not banned from Wikipedia for this behavior was because you appear to be able to contribute productively elsewhere. If it turns out that you are planning on acting the same way on other articles, its very likely that you will be banned all together. Wikipedia does try to take being an encyclopedia rather seriously, so its just not going to be an appropriate place to vent your feelings. Shell ^babelfish 13:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever you say. This new stance of yours does seem to contradict what you said in the past, which was that I should ask before making changes, implying that I wasn't banned from making changes of any kind. Unclarity on this point does not exactly help matters. If I may say so, what I wrote on my user page about minor changes wasn't intended to suggest that they were only a way of building up to inserting controversial stuff; they're always worth making in their own right. Skoojal (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal asked me to comment on this, and I did so on my talk page.DGG (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Personal attacks"

Even though its been said on the talk page, I wanted to make sure that you understood that continuing to attack other editors and behave in an incivil manner will lead to additional blocks. I know that you feel very strongly about the subject, but there must be a way to discuss your concerns without being rude. If you are so sincerely frustrated working on the article that you don't feel you can discuss it without making personal comments about other editors, then I would suggest that you might want to consider Arbitration, the last step in the dispute resolution process. Shell ^babelfish 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I also feel very strongly about what I feel is these harassing comments on your part. Since my unblock I have not engaged in personal attacks . I now tempers are flaring at that article (but not only mine) and I feel wrongly singled out by you. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. I will do the best I can. However, I want to note that all these are not personal attacks. Maybe not helping the discussion but also not attacks. If they were, BS accusations against me for "censorship" "deleting x % of the article", "removing x scholars" would be too as they do not address actual content issues but my editing behaviour.

And I must say that it is frustrating if my questions are never answered. Devotus ignores my questions completely and BS responds but leaves out many substantial things contained in my postings. You should also tell him off for this behaviour which contributes a lot to the volatile situation. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand how Str1977 feels. Arguing with Bless sins is indeed pointless; his responses are usually non sequitur, but he keeps reverting, and reverting, and reverting until he gets his way or is outreverted by an overwhelming majority of editors. This experience is the main reason why I stopped editing the article where their dispute is occurring. Beit Or 18:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, it sounds like it may have been appropriate to try opening a request for comment on this behavior. Shell ^babelfish 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)