User talk:David Shankbone/Archive

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Normal Heart.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Normal Heart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In English, for every article the image is used, you must provide a separate fair use rationale which includes the name of the article, absolutely, precisely, without disambiguation in the description. So, this image is used twice, so you need two rationales, and for each one, the name of the article must be use stated precisely. Hope that helps. Then BCBot will leave you alone...! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sad face

But I was so happy, David. Damn it all. read the whole page. IvoShandor (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

hey David it's Rachel

Alas I have entered your world. Only thing is..there is no icon on the Sharpton page where it says edit this page.

Thanks again for the photo. You will start seeing it (with your credit) in other places —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharismom (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucasent

I took him to WP:AIV. He's on last warning now, so if you see him reverting again, don't hesitate to report him. He will be blocked. Jeffpw (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, Jeff. You're so strong! Such a take charge kind of man! Grrrowl! --David Shankbone 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring, adopting, WP:AIV...I'm on the fast track to admin here! And here are a few quotes I plan to put in my nomination: [1] [2]. They really should help pull in those still sitting on the fence! Jeffpw (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

lol - I'd give you a Strong support. It's easier to become a Supreme Court Justice than a Wikipedia admin. --David Shankbone 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this block make sense for a persistent reverter like him? Just trying to figure out how the process works. BTW, how do I find the AIV entries on him? — Becksguy (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (1988) GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles and just reviewed Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (1988). I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message on your page, along with the other relevant task forces/WikiProjects/editors to the article, since you signficantly edited the article (as determined by WikiDashBoard) and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. The article needs just a few more inline citations and some minor cleanup, and if fixed, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Satire and the Onion?

Yes, I agree that the Onion does fit our definition of satire - in that it is a satire on the way "news" is presented. Doesn't automatically follow that everything they say is directly relevant to this page, however, or that your edit was an improvement - but I will have another look at it and perhaps change it so it DOES fit a bit better. Like most satire - Onion has a great deal of straight humour to give a bit of relief from what might otherwise degenerate into boring "preaching". We've had so much "good faith but mistaken" stuff (as opposed to out and out vandalism) posted into this page that one has to be a bit vigilant - as it wears away what we hope is now a reasonable article on a difficult subject. Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of editing your stuff I have added a section near the top to try to make the relationship between satire and humour a little clearer. We'll just have to see what other people think. Remember the purpose of the article is to give a fairly succinct account of what satire is rather than to catalogue everything one could say on the subject.Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Honored by the Puerto Rican Senate

Dear David,

I would like to share with you that today, November 28, 2007, I was honored by the Senate of Puerto Rico with the "Resolution of the Senate Number 3603" in appreciation for my work in Wikipedia regarding Puerto Rican military related articles. I was given the resolution on behalf of the Senate by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the honorable Kenneth McClintock. It was a total surprise which I did not expect and that is why I want to share this news with you are my friend. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some fucking Rambo:-S

Gee, David, you're not as butch as you make out to be. you couldn't stop those Beaver terrorists, but Icairns dropped an atom bomb on them without even being asked. Now I know who to turn to in my hour(s) of need. Jeffpw 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AvenuAJoeStrummer.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:AvenuAJoeStrummer.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re.: PETA's Founders

Next time you interview them, ask about Operation Backfire (FBI). I've seen this on HBO very recently. The documentary I Am An Animal stated that the FBI and other law enforcement has infiltrated PETA and other groups that are considered terrorists by the US and other governments, such as ALF, ELF, EARTH FIRST!, all other environmental groups. 65.163.112.205 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the unnecessary images. Let us try to maintain this page look decent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian fortuno (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

hehehhe

That was from my adoptee. I am assuming he asked in all innocence and simply out of curiosity. Thanks for jumping in, though. you're a Prince, as always! Jeffpw 16:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

david

you suggested that by asking my adopter why he had been blocked, this was harrassment. Well if showing care and interest in my wikipedia adopter is that, then whatever... just like... seriously... go sort it out... Iamandrewrice 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections

Don't worry, I understand how they work and voted how I felt. But don't you think its a bit rude checking up on my voting pattern? Atropos 06:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the page, its a great read. I'm confused, though, are you advising me not to be a dick by voting how I felt or asking politely if you think its rude (perhaps nosy would be better?) to check how other users vote. Either way, I think you're overreacting a tiny bit. And I understand how MediaWiki works too, by the way. Atropos (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Just wanted to let you know that I couldn't tell the difference between the IP's edits and those made by trolls so I have removed everything. This includes your replies which I apologise for as you were involved in a good faith discussion with them. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Julian Beever artwork

Hello. Trompe l'oeil artwork only works from a single angle, and the angle that photo was taken from isn't the right one - the robot is leaning and distorted, and there's very little sense of it being three dimensional. Digging around the web, there's a page that has the photo from the correct angle, which looks much better:- here. We need a better picture for that page, I just haven't found one. --McGeddon (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you happen to be where Beever is when he is making his artwork, as I was, you are unlikely to find another. The angle isn't "wrong" because you are assuming that I was taking it to show it exactly at the right angle. The angle I took it at gives both the perspective that was meant, as well as a slightly skewed one to give an indication of the dimension of the artwork. The three-dimensional aspect of it comes across clearly. --David Shankbone 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Secret Arbcom List...

The Arbitration Committee, or certain members on it, have been using secret lists to apparently coordinate attacks against people they do not like. There have been suspicions of this for quite a long time, but they were blown wide open the other day. See these articles for more details: [[3]] in the secret mailing list section, WP:CABAL, and see also the chilling comment by stifle on my talk page.

Yeah, I'm a hothead but I don't like the idea of a secret ruling caste lording over OUR encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukiari (talk • contribs) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Barrow

I suggest you file a 3rr report on this user. He has gone way over his limit in the last 24 hours. Jeffpw (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

he seems to have stopped for now. I have this article watchlisted, and if he continues I will file a report on the 3RR noticeboard (if you haven't done so already). Jeffpw (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I put a report on the admin board. I always forget how parsed the complaint noticeboards are. --David Shankbone 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting the sucker blocked now. Grrrr, some people just love to push the envelope, don't they? Jeffpw (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously - he's from Barrow and it bothers him that the film is not a complete accurate portrayal of the town. He doesn't care that the description is describing the novel/film. --David Shankbone 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Yuck, I hate 3RR reports. SO time consuming. Why can't people just play nice? Jeffpw (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• He be blocked, David. Who's your daddy? Jeffpw (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You be knowing the answer to dat. --David Shankbone 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're ever interested I'd be happy to have an interview with you.

HS, read your interview with Gilmore, good job. I am not an Atheist and I think your readers may find an interview with a non LaVeyan Satanist quite interesting when compared to your Gilmore interview. In defence of religion Atheism itself is a belief, no more or less valid than any other belief. And yes I am walking for President, too many people running I don't want anyone to trip. ISN Rev. Michael S. Margolin The Mad Poet Acbhb Baphomet Rex 666Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it; unfortunately, I have too much on my plate right now. --David Shankbone 03:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

greatly appreciate your contributions

i noticed your contribution to the 'bong' page. i think what you are doing is very generous and i really appreciate what you are doing. I am looking for a bong to use strictly for smoking tobacco only, and i saw the picture you contributed showing a vendor on St Marks PLace and i was wondering if you happened to know the address of this vendor or maybe if you pass by vendors where they usually set up their tables. I greatly appreciate your help. The picture i am referring to can be found using this link [[4]] if you could please e-mail me at weyswimkid at yahoo dot com , i would really appreciate it. Thank you ~Andrew Leung

You shouldn't have any problem finding a multitude of places to buy a tobacco bong. --David Shankbone 03:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

THF

I have not perused Wikipedia lately, but when I did, I saw some cooler (and sane) heads have seemingly prevailed, including yours.

THF was the first AEI director I had the misfortune to encounter. When he saw my edits, which he didn't like, he came after me with a vengeance, and lobbied for me to be banned on Wikipedia. He defamed me on his talk site (yes, I am aware of the meaning of the word, since I also am an attorney). It was defamation - libel, to be exact - and removed after a time, when I threatened suit. I know Wiki doesn't like that - but it reaps what it sows. THF threatened me and my husband with frivolous litigation OUTSIDE of Wikipedia, and we called him on it. We never heard from him again. At that time, Wiki cliques would not or could not listen to what I had to say, and what had occurred. I have no idea if I am "banned" or not, and don't care at this point. After the Kafkaesque experience, I never want to edit again here. That said, I am grateful that you and it appears some others were able to expose him for what he is - even if it took a different issue entirely. (I had no particular interest in the Michael Moore debate).

The AEI is one of the most powerful political influences in the Republican party. THF was quite an eye-opener for me. Rarely have I ever seen anyone so ruthlessly disparage others, with false "information". I can only guess what he does "professionally". THF is a public figure. His attempt to hide out at Wikipedia claiming it was only a "hobby" was laughable. It was astonishing that anyone fell for it, but many did.

Good for you for calling him on it. Maybe there is hope for Wikipedia, but I'm not holding my breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've retired from the THF issue. --David Shankbone 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Withdrawal

Thanks. I was hoping i'd put up a better showing, but it looks like this election that visibility is more important, which is unfortunate, but oh well. We'll see if I run next year. I have a year to prepare. Wizardman 16:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, David! That means a lot, especially coming from you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Senator Sam Brownback and Heliocentrism

Re: Your message at User talk: Miguel de Servet

You are violating WP:BLP at Sam Brownback

Your edits on there are violating WP:BLP, which is serious and will get you blocked. The blog you cite to specifically states it has no affiliation to Brownback. If you continue to put the material in, you will end up blocked. Reverting violations of WP:BLP are outside the realm of the WP:3RR rule, so I will continue to revert you if you continue to restore the information. Blogs are not reliable sources, especially blogs unaffiliated with the person in question. There are numerous policies this violates. This is your first warning. --David Shankbone 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User David Shankbone,

let me first of all say to you that I do not like at all your reprimanding tone, to which your being "a Wikipedia editor, Wikimedia Commons photographer, accredited reporter for Wikinews, and generat[or] of original content and information for Wikimedia" simply does NOT entitle you. I trust this is clear for any future message you may have to send to me.

As for the specific of my insertion of a sub-section Sam_Brownback#Heliocentrism:

• Before rushing to undo my edit, perhaps you could have given a look at it. If you had done, you would have noticed that, right under the title ("Heliocentrism") I had inserted the internal link:
  Further information: [[:Religious disputes over Heliocentrism]]
  .
  If you had followed that link, you would have seen that I have done nothing but reproduce exactly the same information and external link that I found there (and which, BTW, are both still there ...).
  I had therefore, of course, all the good reasons to assume, in good faith, that what had been added to the main article Heliocentrism, with Revision of 06:04, 25 July 2007 70.101.79.230, and never since removed, was considered accepted and conforming to Wikipedia.
  Miguel de Servet (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• You should not assume that because what is wrong/inaccurate/or a BLP violation on one page should then be carried forth on another page. What I did is checked our your source for the information, which is the most important thing to look at. --David Shankbone 22:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• I do assume as much as it is resonable to, and you check better another time, before butting in like an angry ram.
  Miguel de Servet (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

assume you saw this?

Nice! Tvoz |talk 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes--haha. Should be a good trip; what will be most beneficial for Wikipedia will be the photographs, including guided photography tours of the Temple Mount and the tunnels under the Western Wall, in addition to many other sites and places around Israel. Some expansion of Israeli technology company articles, et. al. I will be keeping a "Reporter's Journal" over on Wikinews. And last--but not least, assuming they come through--interviews with some of the leaders, the top people in the government. No word yet, but the foreign ministry is working on it, so fingers crossed. --David Shankbone 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey - good luck with it! Looking forward to reading about it all. Best wishes Tvoz |talk 03:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to take and post a proper photo, contact me at the Daily News (212-210-2100). The disparaging photo you posted is a silly cheap shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErrolLouis (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

New York City meetups

Thanks for your appreciation, and I look forward to you joining us at the next meetup (your idea of setting aside a "working session" actually worked quite well last time). But you can thank User:ScienceApologist for arranging the upcoming activities at Columbia — it was quite fortuitous that we actually managed to pre-schedule this in person at the last meetup in November. By the way, good luck in Israel!--Pharos (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mouse trap image

Hi, David - I don't understand the copyright conventions for Wiki. I put that image up with written permission of the owner. If it gets taken dwon, or when I have a chance, I'll photograph one of these and get a higher resolution w/o copyright issues. Do you now how else to get around all the image flagging?Bob98133 (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Errol_Louis

As a courtesy, I wish to bring the above thread to your attention. --Dweller (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Talk:Errol_Louis#new_image. Lawrence Cohen 06:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, where's my Santa?

I uploaded the image of Nast's Santa and someone swapped it out for a bleached version. When did that happen? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I'll look. --David Shankbone 19:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted because it was transferred to the commons. --David Shankbone 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What? I don't recall getting any notice of that. The image that replaced it (1) wasn't from Commons. Mine seemed to have some pretty solid free use licensing and summary. Help? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they are both from Commons (the wood engraving and the bleached version). Under the photos you will see "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below" for both of them. You could take the original cropping and crop it closer on commons. I forget what yours looked like in terms of difference. --David Shankbone 19:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mine was a sepia-tone cropped image fromt he Library of Congress. And I went to Commons. The image isn't listed there. I don't mind that the image was replaced, even though some other dude is apparently taking credit for my work. What I mind is that my image vanished like a fart inthe wind and I never heard about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask User:Anetode about it? It seems odd it vanished with no tags. --David Shankbone 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, what's with you and Jeffpw? Clearly, you guys have issues; otherwise he wouldn't have acted the prat when I suggested him trying to square things away with you in User Talk. I tried to encourage discussion, but was curtly dismissed as being intrusive. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has a problem with not personalizing arguments, which he has a history of doing. We have historically gotten along very well, and indeed have corresponded in some e-mails. But in many of his disagreements, he tends to become emotional and make it a personal battle. I'm not particularly worried about an RfC because I have kept to policy, have supported all my arguments using policy and guideline, I have refrained from making personal comments, and I'm trying to construct a neutral encyclopedia article that doesn't dance around the issue. I think it's important to consider where each person starts from. I start from the position in my WP:SANTA essay. I think Applejuicefool and Jeff are starting from the position, "There's nothing wrong with believing in Santa and we don't want to 'spoil' the ruse for kids." That's all well and good, but this isn't the place for that and I am extremely uncomfortable with Wikipedia being a place where people take the POV we should be careful not to expose people to the truth. --David Shankbone 16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, often when adults say they "believe in Santa" they typically are not talking about a magic man who lives in the north pole, but something more ethereal, the embodiment of a spirit or what "Santa" symbolizes. That's fine, and if they want to flesh out that difference, then we should do so. But taking a belief in what Santa symbolizes and transposing it onto a belief that this magic being actually exists are two separate issues, and hurt the article. --David Shankbone 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree withyou there, but i think that editing to specifically address that point of view is not very neutral. Understand, you are preaching to the choir when it comes to not dumbing down the article for children - you and others have already convinced me of that. When you make statements where you say "We aren't taking out the criticism we don't like", you set yourself up for people pointing out how you removed the Canadian citation. I know you were concerned about people gaming the system to push the pro-Santa agenda, but I am concerned that the same thing applies to using the system to say precisely the opposite. I think there's better neutral ground to be found here. As youhave stated (and I have repeated), Wikipedia is not a substitute for a parent. We also aren't here to attack the parent,either. We just present the info about Santa and move on. As well,I think your comments about Santa are perhaps more geared to the Santa in North America article. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You will be unable to find one diff of mine where I removed the 300 Canadians. Indeed, I made room for them. I think the criticism section I drafted is very neutral. What we have are people taking issue with what the critics say, and that is POV. We aren't here to argue the critics are wrong. We're here to present their case. --David Shankbone 16:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

hey man, I saw your balls on the internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.54.8 (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And that has...what to do with any topic here? Sigh. looks like you have another admirer, David. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• And hey man, they aren't my balls. Sorry to disappoint. I'm not one for plastering my body all over the place. --David Shankbone 17:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

thought I'd point out that the anon poster from above may very well be a sock, along with Mister_ricochet (all of them being socks of SixString1965, a fraud from the John Lennon) article. The filed SSP report is here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon image

Could you bring me up to speed on what happened with the John Lennon image you reportedly removed? I think there is some back-story on that that maybe you don;t know about. However, i know you to be pretty friggin' thoughtful about images. Edumikate me on what happened? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The main issue with it is that it needs an OTRS ticket saying that it has been released GFDL. HotCop2 said it was released for Wikipedia to use, but because of our licensing structure with Wikipedia's copyright, they don't allow for non-GFDL images unless it strictly falls within the boundaries of that license. There are very few exceptions made. However, I was not the one who removed it, and I don't have a problem with it being used "Fair use" but the copyright that was listed by HotCop2 said it was released GFDL and the copyright of Bob Gruen was released to the general public. Basically, the way HotCop put that license on perhaps one of the most famous photos of Lennon, he said that Bob Gruen has released his copyright to the entire public to use the photo for commercial and non-commercial use. I question if that is really what Gruen intended. Copyrighting it that way--unless it is true--opens up the site to legal problems. However, I simply raised the question. Other user spotted it immediately. If it had not been me, it would have been someone else. Now, something I *disagree* with to a degree is that they do not allow fair use images of a person on BLP articles. This is one of the reasons why I spend so much time taking original photos of people myself. I initially fought against the no-fair use images of people argument, but I lost that battle. So, I have spent an inordinate amount of time hunting down and contacting people to take original photos for the site, releasing my own copyright on those photos. Over 500 people. It sucks - but I fought against the policy and lost. The bright side? We have a lot of original content on our site that we, the community, own. --David Shankbone 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating public works that can be used by anyone for the rest of history free of legal entanglements. 1 != 2 17:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Free culture is the only way to go. And my images aren't just the little 29KB files some photos are - they are the full-on highest MB photos possible. --David Shankbone 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeless Photos

HI there,

I am the editor of the Santa Monica, (Los Angeles) street newspaper called Making Change... I was wondering if I might view your homeless photography samples, and perhaps you may consider some if you wished for publication in our newspaper.

We have a distribution of 2,500 on the Westside- Venice Beach and Santa Monica - the Third Street Promenade and the Santa Monica Pier, as well as the Main Street Farmer's Markets, West Hollywood, and sometimes downtown.

We are a group of homeless and formerly homeless people working with housed people to discuss poverty and social justice issues. Perhaps you have seen other papers in the North American Street Newspaper Movement, or the International Network of Street Papers. We are a member.

We are a by donation based paper. The person on the streets recieves 90% of the donation. 10% sometimes comes back from our more functioning members who wish to produce the next edition of the papers. We supplement that with our subscription base. We have no employees or paid members, we are completely volunteer based, and have been organizing for the past ten years.

If you would like a copy of our paper, I can send you a copy. I viewed some of your other work, on the wikipedia connection. I got your contact off the homelessness look-up. Good photography compels readers in a way, that a human sleeping in public often can't. Just like the hand drawn street art we publish, every image is worth a million words...

Thank you for your consideration.

Jennafer Yellowhorse Editor, Making Change... a community human rights newspaper empowering the poor and unhoused with an income and a voice P.O.Box 235, Santa Monica, CA 90406-0235 (310) 289-7446 makingchange@earthlink.net www.friendsofchoices.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.140.146.32 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Hi, David. Please don't revert war at Santa Claus, no matter how the opposing editor conducts himself. Keep count of your reverts, too, and don't let yourself be goaded into violating the three revert rule. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

I know it ain't your faith, but

Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Arcayne/ECard}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

AMNH tour

We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mythical?

No Christmas for you, boyo.--Santa (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

bah humbug. --David Shankbone 17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should always use NPOV.--Santa (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why we should say he is mythical. --David Shankbone 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm legendary all right.--Santa (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews again

I didn't bring this, but you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Wikinews interviews and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews: Please post definite answer. Cool Hand Luke 21:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, "Who cares who is the person that asked the question."—you do. That's why you have a the appearance of COI. It's not a big deal, but I think you should use the talk page. As Jimbo said, "it would be best to avoid any appearance of impropriety if Wikinews reporters refrain from citing their own work in Wikipedia. I would say the same thing for New York Times reporters." Cool Hand Luke 02:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that, and I think the case I laid out is stronger than regurgitating Jimbo's response before I began to make the case. The vast, vast majority of information I take from my interviews is pedestrian and uncontroversial. Such as Bishop F. D. Washington converted Al Sharpton from Pentecostal to Baptist. So it's on Washington's page. Who cares? It's always the 10% of controversial stuff that people point to as needing to be addressed in policy/guideline, instead of saying, "Well, that might require more thought and taken on a case-by-case basis," like Craig Unger. --David Shankbone 02:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't have a conflict of interest with the content. You have a conflict with the byline. You create the impression of promoting your own work. Cool Hand Luke 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the exact same argument that was oft-repeated, and oft-rejected, about my photography. In the end, I'm not a professional photographer and I'm not a professional newsman/interviewer. Any work I do I do for Wiki with no COI since I have no off-site interests that coincide with my work here. I never hope to be a professional photographer nor professional interviewer. --David Shankbone 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is that it would be a bad idea to let reporters cite their own work here. Photography is different becuase we need free images, and you've often provided them where there were previously none. But when a reporter continually plucks their own stories out of the pantheon of available coverage, there's a conflict of interest in appearance if not fact. I don't think your self-described professional goals make a difference; we would not want citizen reporters to do this either. It would be better if all reporters—amatuer or professional—use the talk page when suggesting their own articles for inclusion. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference here, Luke. I'm not plucking "stories" I'm plucking people's words. Notable people's words. If I am able to flesh out the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by directly talking to the President of Israel, to me, this seems absolutely ludicrous not to use the information. Or his thoughts on the decline of the Hebrew language. COI doesn't prevent even someone like [THF] from inserting his own material (indeed, you supported him inserting his own blog articles on some law articles); so why should quoting people be an issue for you? It makes no sense. I'm not quoting my own work, I'm simply quoting people's words. Al Sharpton on Tawana Brawley is hardly quoting my own work. --David Shankbone 04:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You asked him questions of your choosing, transcribed, and edited. Of course it's your work. It was your work in your great interviews with politicians, and also in your interview with Craig Unger, where the transcript suggests you were finishing his sentences. Anyhow, since it's not terribly urgent, I'll just ask on an applicable noticeboard once the Wikinews question is settled. Feel free to ask yourself. As for COI, it simply states that it would be best for such editors to make suggestions through the talk page. That's my modest claim—that it would be better if you did. Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You guys are both taking this pretty seriously. There's a simple solution here, if you're interested in doing something besides arguing! David is absolutely right, that in uncontroversial areas, there's no problem whatsoever with the author of a work citing that work (whether it's Wikinews or NYT.) Luke is absolutely right, that there will be cases where such an author (unintentionally) weights things weirdly, because of the bias that comes along with being involved in the creation of a work. As long as the author is responsive to the community where he is perceived to have overstepped, there need be no problem.

I have no idea what sparked this latest kerfuffle, but whatever it was, it seems overly dramatic to question the entire right of an author to cite their own work. Focus on the case at hand, guys. You're wasting all the valuable pixels!

(Any jabs herein are meant to be lighthearted…I hope you guys are having a great holiday season.) -Pete (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that some IP didn't like that I quoted Al Sharpton's view on Tawana Brawley from our 2007 interview, and raised it on Wikinews (at my invitation). Luke has a bone to pick with me from the THF dispute--which he brought up on the Reliability board in what was a breath-taking case of irrelevance, and even speaking on behalf of other editors--so, he continually pursues me, even though he has continually said he will not. So, here he is again, you know, not pursuing me. --David Shankbone 05:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I first noticed this dispute from the verifiability noticeboard. I cross posted on both with links, because the context is not always clear. I don't monitor your edits, I don't pursue you, and I gave you notice here as a courtesy. I happen to care a lot about OR and V—they've been on my user page for a long time. I often comment on those noticeboards. I wish you could assume good faith for once, but I do understand how it would be difficult to believe. Maybe I couldn't myself if I was in your shoes. I don't know. At any rate, I think the user's suggestion is good. Feel free to add links, but when challenged, it would be wise to wait for consensus. In any case, it's not so important until the Wikinews situation is resolved. (You will note that I'm not taking a hardline "wikinews is a wiki, therefore fails" stance. These are my honest beliefs, not something I make up to mess with you.) Cool Hand Luke 08:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Luke, there are lots and lots of us who care about V and RS. We're out there every day making good faith efforts, like you, to hold Wikipedia articles to a high standard of verifiability. I have David's talk page on my watch list, and I do notice you making comments here a whole lot. Is it really too much to ask you to leave the monitoring of David's edits to other editors, who may not have as much personal history with him as you? Are you worried that things will slip through the cracks? It's not uncommon that people have difficulty taking criticism from certain people. Wouldn't it be better to focus your efforts elsewhere? If you think it might help, I'm willing to start monitoring that noticeboard from time to time, if there's a big backlog. -Pete (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't monitor his edits; that's what I was trying to explain. I will continue to read the noticeboards that I read. I said before that I would use them exclusively in the future. I just imagined that I could talk to David this time because he didn't accuse me of campaigning against him until above. I think I'll just use the boards. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 09:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I did understand what you were saying, sorry if I chose the wrong word. I was merely suggesting that as you monitor that board, maybe you could generally leave it to others to respond to those cases where David's work is concerned. I suspect that you'd find the bigger issues get dealt with, and that maybe the smaller issues are just that. Anyway, I understand that you're doing what you think is best for the encyclopedia; just suggesting that in this case, it might be best for everybody concerned to let sleeping dogs lie. -Pete (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: I won't comment unless I honestly believe it's a big deal with site-wide implications. I think the Wikinews situation is such an event. I've been trying to keep my comments there focused on the issue. Other things I won't worry about. I was actually emailed by a user who figured I was some sort of Shankbone tormentor. They apparently didn't like the tone at Santa Claus. I took a pass on that because it doesn't have broad impact—content dispute that doesn't make sweeping statements about the reliability of sources. That said, I agree that the appearance-of-COI issue is small potatoes. I'm dropping it, but I still wish that he would suggest his own articles on the talk page, as THF did. Merry Christmas. Cool Hand Luke 10:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, being bold and possibly a bit of a dick here, but I'm removing the latest bits of "discussion." David, if you want Luke to stop coming here, you simply have to stop taking the bait like you just did. If you're retired from the THF issue, then stay retired!

What Luke says above seems reasonable to me, and looks like an attempt to show some good faith and move on. Obviously it's possible to keep arguing if that's what you guys really want to do, but if ever there was an exit ramp from this silliness, that was it. Go ahead and revert my blanking if either of you feel that you must, but I just ask you to think it over carefully before you do. -Pete (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Look Pete, I'm not the one who continually brings up the THF issue - Luke does because he simply can't let it die. And I was not found to have done much wrong in the THF issue; the only poor behavior on my part was using his name. So, if I have another editor linking to the THF issue in unrelated discussions on the source board, raising the issue there, and bringing it up here, I am hardly the one that is not letting this die. --David Shankbone 19:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the edit you refer to was a gross BLP violation, as noted by Newyorkbrad, because it mentioned the ArbCom proceeding of THF, and it's been removed from history, but see [5] [6] [7] see also [8] David I haven't asked a lot from you, yet you still intentionally provoke me.[9] I told you, I don't follow your edits, I don't attack you, I don't follow you around to your disputes, and I'm not even going to raise the appearance-of-COI issue. If you have any further problems, take it to an RFC/U. Cool Hand Luke 19:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Get real Luke. You removed that Frank had criticized Wikipedia, and I raised the issue that he brought this up in ArbCom as well. That's not a "gross BLP violation" - you're crazy interpretation of policy is beguiling. This is an abuse of the anonymity policy, as if we have to play secret. Get real. You simply don't let this die, and you bring it up over and over again. In the end, why don't you just excuse yourself from anything having to do with me, as has been suggested to you? I don't like you, you don't like me, and your impartiality is nonexistent. Editing organizations that deal directly with my own interests aren't editing biographical details of Frank, and I'm tired of discussing it with you. Go somewhere else. There are plenty of other issues for you to handle, and there are plenty of people on this project that can handle concerns you raise. In the end, you and I ended up the main antagonists in ArbCom, it didn't go the way you wanted (since you were THF's proxy), and you continue to raise the issue. Why don't you go create some articles. --David Shankbone 20:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not re-raising that issue. It's not a link to show that you behave badly. To the contrary, I think you put it well how a marginal source can be used to launder OR into Wikipedia. It was your own opinion. The diffs you asked for show that you edited Frank's information even without my supposed provocation. I told you what I'm going to do. I think it's very reasonable. I'm not going to comment on your behavior, but I do care about how Wikinews is used on this site. And that should be all. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs don't show I edited "Frank's information" but show that I edited one of the major forces in Republican politics; and my edits all pass policy and guideline, and were sourced. Frank is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the AEI. Do whatever you wish, but don't expect anything from me, either. Nobody is laundering OR on Wikipedia; although your arguments are comical since you were originally supporting the Michael Moore hit piece "documentary list" produced by Frank for insertion onto Wikipedia. I guess there's not talking principles with you, though. Anyway, refrain from coming to my Talk page. --David Shankbone 20:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm out. Have fun guys. -Pete (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)