User talk:Shell Kinney

Archives: Archive 1

I hereby award Jareth a barnstar for her extensive work fixing bracket problems listed at the Wiki Syntax Project.
Nickj (t) 02:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Block

Hi Jareth, just saw your 3rr block on Yuber. The user who was reverting against him was the sockpuppet of a user who was blocked recently for a 3rr, user:Mistress Selina Kyle and they are both likely sockpuppets of a banned user. Can you unblock until sockcheck is complete? Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jareth. Can you watch the Islamophobia page, the reverting user has returned. Please revert edits and protect if possible. Thanks.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant, are a revert of edits by a likely sockpuppet possible because of conditions that they are violating 3rr? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR dispute: User:Huaiwei

While I appreciate the need for evenhandedness in handling disputes, I would have thought that my responding to user:Huaiwei's violation by reporting it in accordance with guidelines, and limiting my subsequent edits to relevant talk pages, should be sufficient to demonstrate my intention to comply with the applicable policy. Given his sanctioning by arbcom barely two weeks ago for similar behavior in another area, I don't think your response is appropriate. user:Huaiwei has taken a garden-variety verifiability question and, without provocation, turned it into a full-blown, personalized dispute, and is edit warring to preserve a set of unsourced, moderately dubious claims. He has conspicuously violated applicable civility and personal attack policies and guidelines. He denies an overt, intentional 3RR violation. It is, I believe, irresponsible to tacitly encourage him to continue in such behavior, as your response has done. Monicasdude 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that I "concluded that your disputed edits didn't merit discussion" is entirely inaccurate; I made about a half dozen posts on the FAC page, including an explanation of the disputed edit and my reasons for deleting the supposedly "sourced" sentence, before this dispute broke out. That's been the general practice with regard to FACs, followed by almost all users, for as long as I've been commenting on FACs. Note that, for example, both User:Tony1 and user:Natalinasmpf made more extensive changes to the article than I did, commenting only on the FAC page. I've subsequently discussed the changes in even more detail in various places.

And if you really see "no lack of courtesy" from User:Huaiwei, I would ask you to explain to me why you believe that statements like "from someone who appear to be placing ego above the good of wikipedia," "So you want to play the 3RR game now. I said before you are in no position to comment on the behavior of others," "So you condider it ethical to use FACs to enforce your personal POVs in articles, since contributors have not much leeway and must "bend to your demands" before they get accepted? Whats worse, you engage in revert warring if it fails to go your way in an attempt to further shoot down the article's FAC nomination?" and "his reverts were devoid of reasoning" don't meet exactly the definition of incivility in the applicable guideline, "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress."

There is too much territorial behavior in Wikipedia, too much substitution of personally directed comments for substantive discussion, and too little attention paid to verifiability and NPOV policies. Comments and actions like yours in this case encourage the continuing deterioration of the editing environment. Monicasdude 01:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monicasdude, I think you are being very very very very very unfair to Huaiwei. You are being selfish. Are you trying to bring the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) down. Say so. I feel you are only trying to find fault with SGpedians'. I suggest you should just stay away from this page. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 05:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as Monicasdude wrote the wrong facts. Huaiwei just simply reverted his edits. However, he took this as abusing the 3RR and reported him. This is being very unfair to Huaiwei as he was just trying to correct the wrong facts. A block on him is being unfair. Dude, Huaiwei was merely correcting facts by reverting your edits, and you think is 3RR. This is ridiculous! --Terence Ong ^|Talk 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for giving me a message. Is Monicasdude a he or a she? Now I know the whole case clearly. :P --Terence Ong ^|Talk 14:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jareth, I would "sincerely appreciate it" if you corrected your plainly inaccurate, inappropriate comments about my editing practices. You wrote that I "concluded that your disputed edits didn't merit discussion" even though I'd discussed them extensively on the FAC candidacy page. I think it borders on the uncivil for you to make such comments and refuse to make a substantive response when I point out your error. I think it would have been less civil for me to involve others without allowing you an opportunity to correct what was plain error on your part. As for User:Huaiwei stopping his reverts, that's a fairly silly comment. User:Huaiwei deliberately broke the 3RR rule, I followed it. Because I followed Wikipedia policy, there's nothing for him to revert. Monicasdude 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take another look at the FAC page, because the objections came after I made the edit, not before. I also think you should review WP:Verifiability, an official policy which cannot be overridden by consensus. From the Consensus guideline page: "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). . . . a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing." The underlying dispute is a simple verifiability issue -- in several places, the text of the article is inconsistent with -- sometimes nearly contradictory to -- the references it cites, and needs to be corrected. Monicasdude 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling

There's a misspelling on the Islamophobia page you protected: "It is mostly used to negatively characterize criticism directed at Islam whether legimate or not." // paroxysm (n) 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auguste Toubeau

Thanks for the translation. I was going to participate, but I wasn't able to get to it in time. (Right now I'm on wikibreak and am only online a little bit each day). One thing I noticed: Frameries is the name of a place in Belgium, not a type of organisation. The third section will probably need to be revised to reflect this. I can do this myself, but not until after New Year's. Again, thanks for the translation; I'll move the page's entry on WP:PNT into the "done/needs cleanup" area. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a section for translated stuff that still needs cleanup (as this does, to deal with the Frameries issue), or just needs another set of eyes to proofread. With stuff I've translated, I tend to put a {{cleanup-translation}} tag on the article, and move it to the "done/cneeds cleanup" section for a several days. (Or longer if there was something in the translation I wasn't confident about.) Then once I'm satisfied that the article is good and no errors were found in my translation, I delete the entry and remove the cleanup tag. Others follow different practice, some delete the entry right away, without moving to "done/cleanup"... and others have left their articles in "done/cleanup" for a _very_ long time. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello Jareth, I am rather new to this all....so please bear with me....you recently reverted something by 130.76.32.23 which -I think- was a rude comment about speedy deletion. Well--thank you---but I'm not exactly sure what was done and I would like to learn and be able to keep track of those who are systematically harassing me. I would appreciate it greatly if you would explain it to me. I also saw what you put on that users talk page---so again, Thank You!! Braaad 23:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC) aka 68.112.201.90[reply]

Thank you for the details. I would like to point something out to you that you may find interesting. A few days before the -speedy deletion- thing happened I received a -repeat vandalism- warning box on my page from 130.76.32.15. You may notice that this IP number is very close to 130.76.32.23. I'm not exactly an expert----but---I'm thinking they may be near each other say at a library or school. I believe that McNeight is the instigator of this recent harassment and you may have more tools available to you to check. I find the whole thing rather humorous and enjoy commenting on those interesting warning boxes.....I know I offended a few people when I first started using Wikipedia but this type of vandalism seems like the type of thing that foolish, childish, people are doing to get some sort of revenge. Thank you very much for your time. Braaad 19:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC) aka 68.112.201.90[reply]

Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I just like to wish people. :D --Terence Ong ^Talk 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You obviously know nothing about the subject and you have no business repeatedly vandalizing this article. Sam Sloan 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about me? I didn't blank any page. --Terence Ong ^Talk 17:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Terence, he/she's not referring to you. - Mailer Diablo 23:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wishes

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 17:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Monicasdude

Monicasdude has been removing my comments on his/ her talk page. His removes include (in choronogical order) [1] [2]. I don't know what is up with him. His criticisms to the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)'s FAC sub-page is not constructive and trying to prevent the article to be promoted to FA status. I find his comments annoying, and trying to bring it down after a long effort. I wanted to bring it to an administrator's attention. --Terence Ong ^Talk 17:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your inappropriate comments regarding me on user:Terenceong1992's talk page

It's really not appropriate to suggest that a user who posts inappropriate graffiti on my talk page invoke dispute resolution when I delete them. Do you even bother to check out the complaints you respond to? Monicasdude 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate for you to make false accusations of stalking, or making false references to my "constantly labeling things vandalism." It's just too bad that you don't like accurate criticism over your poorly-thought-out actions and comments , but you'd be far better advised to take more care in your own behavior than to make inaccurate criticisms of others'. Monicasdude 23:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad you feel criticizing inappropriate behavior is uncivil. But, as you ought to recall, you posted a string of grossly inaccurate comments regarding an editing dispute and refused to correct them, instead choosing to make comments regarding me that bordered on violations of the personal attack standards. And you're repeating that behavior again. Monicasdude 23:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do that? I'd particularly like explanations of why you declared that I had "concluded that [my] disputed edits didn't merit discussion" even though I'd discussed them at length on the article's FAC page, as has been the practice regarding FACs; why you said that I'd insisted on "making the changes even after three other editors diagreed" even though the disagreements came after the changes; why you thought that Huaiwei's comments above showed "no lack of courtesy"; and why you suggested I subordinate verifiability/NPOV disputes to consensus even though Wikipedia policy is precisely the opposite. As somebody else here pointed out in response to poorly advised comments, not unlike yours, regarding supposed incivility, "I was occupied with the idea that we had an encyclopedia to write, and ranked the function of Wikipedia as a discussion forum second to that function." Monicasdude 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a crime to post a comment there? I didn't write a personal attack on you. --Terence Ong ^Talk 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

Monicasdude claims that this featured article contains weasel words and the factual accurancy of the article is disputed. Could you please take a look to see whether there is any problem with it? --07:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]