User talk:David Shankbone/Archive 1

Photo Nuyurican Cafe
Nice photo! Don't forget to add it to the Edwin Torres (poet) article. Keep up the good work. Tony the Marine 00:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Image captions
Firts of all, thanks for the many good photos uploaded. While it is good practice to give all details in the Image description page, the author of photos shoud generally not be specified in image captions in the main encyclopedia space, see Captions guidelines, as this doesn't add to the value of the articles. I removed a few from articles I watch, but I noticed you did that to a larger number of pages. --Qyd 11:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake about putting my User reference and I've begun to take them off. It's a policy that makes sense and one I agree with it. I had a wild hair. Thanks for politely letting me know, and keep up the good work. --DavidShankBone 11:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Never Drink Vodka and Edit
DavidShankbone: I think it is more in line wihtWikipedia guidelines to first ask permission befoe you upload somebod ele's photo to Wikimdia commons. You can do it legally, but it's uncourteous - and we reallyneed to try and pay each other respect and courtes. Lastly, rnaming the name of a photo that I, THE PHOTOGRAPHER, named, is bad form, because you were not thereand I was, and I named the photo perfectly what it should be named. I make a request, that you do not re name photos for which you WERE NOT AN EYEWITNESS. It's fine fr photos 100 years ago, etc., but that rally was NOT over Qana;Qana was just the straw that broke thecamel' back. I named it was most accuratl named. Thank you. --DavidShankBone 05:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Response of JKelly
 * Hi. In re your note; I'll be happy to change the filename at Commons, since you have a strong preference for another one.  But I'd like to invite you to consider how you are licensing these images.  They can be reused and modified as anyone might choose.  Given your reaction to a change in filename and server address, you might want to spend some time thinking about how you might feel about them being edited in ways that you might not be happy about.  Jkelly 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have purposely licensed my photographs so that they can be edited and used by others. What I took exception to (in a garbled message when it was very late) was renaming an image--on a controversial topic--that wasn't an accurate name, and then re-uploading it onto that controversy's page. I don't grasp the value you saw in that; perhaps it was to put the date in. I don't think I would typically care--say, if you took my CompaySegundoHotelNacional.JPG and renamed it "CompanySegundoPlaying Guitar" or something. I apologize for my tone above and I purposely didn't edit it because it shows I was tired (and had come home after a night out...). But on some of the more controversial topics, you may want to think twice before renaming photos. Otherwise, after having looked at your contributions, I'd like to say, Keep up the good work.--DavidShankBone 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Response of JKelly
 * My contrib list these days seems almost entirely devoted to unfree image cleanup. I should do something about that.  Before I do the rename-delete at Commons, can I ask you if you have a strong preference against having the date appear in the filename?  Jkelly 16:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to upload any of my photos to Wikimedia Commons and you are welcome to put the dates in, as well. You can change the titles if you think there is a more accurate reflection of the photograph. Thanks again for your efforts on cleaning up the site; yes--add some images; landmarks and other features in the area you live is a fun project, I'm finding. For the first time since a 5th Grade class trip, I'm a New York tourist. --DavidShankBone 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Response of JKelly
 * It can be fun. Have you taken a look at commons:Category:New York City?  It is relatively well-organised, and there are an incredible amount of photographs in it, but I couldn't find a single photograph of a NYC hospital!  And we have only three images of JFK there, none of which show the entrance.  There's still plenty to be done, even in the places we have the best coverage.  Jkelly 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really taken a look at the Commons, but I will do so. I've enjoyed exploring buildings, trying to find nooks and crannies and artwork. I never replace photos (though I may shrink them if they aren't as good, and move them around). New York hospitals are on my list of "To Do", but taken from that same day was the Beth Israel Medical Center in Union Square: Image:UnionSquareBethIsrael.JPG  Wait until I begin my authors series (a lot of authors do readings at bookstores here, and few of them have photos on their entries). I have a packed schedule this month. Gay Talese, Tommy Chong, Jennifer Egan, Wendy Williams.... --DavidShankBone 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

E.V. Day
Hi, DavidShankBone - I just wanted to let you know that I put a tag on the E.V. Day page you created, stating that it may meet the guidelines for speedy deletion since it only contains a picture. I don't know if you were planning to add text to the page - if so, you are welcome to put a "hangon" notice under my tag. In the future, I encourage you to put in some text, even a small amount, and possibly a stub tag or an in-progress tag, when creating a new page, as articles that are pictures-only often get deleted. Thanks, and see you around! - Tapir Terrific 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: your message: Cool! For now, I replaced my speedy delete tag with an underconstruction tag to give you some time to add text.  - Tapir Terrific 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

FLS
Student or Alum? Nice to meet you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

CDR
I edited your photograph Image:CubaSocialismo.jpg to remove you from the photograph and adjust the colour balance, see Image:CubaSocialismoMod.jpg. I've attributed you as the author of the work. I hope you don't mind, and please don't take offense! But I thought it was more encyclopaedic without you in. God this sounds really cruel/lame. Anyway, the photo is cool, and we don't have nearly enough of Cuba. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers · 10:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the photo of the billboard itself (with you photoshopped out) does in fact add relevant content to Wikipedia. I apologize if I sounded in anyway rude in the afd, it wasn't my intention and from you contributions (such as in the Fordham Law related pages) you seem to be a good editor. Anyway, happy editting.--Jersey Devil 11:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked out Tompkins Square Park Police Riot, the article looks great. I fixed the problem with the categories (you don't need '|' in between them). If you are wondering about how to improve it, I would suggest adding a map, or plan of the area, and are there any photographs (free use) of the riot itself? Otherwise a well written, comprehensive (or at least it seems to me) article. Good work :) - FrancisTyers · 11:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Btw, did you by any chance write anything about your expedition in Cuba? If so I'd be interested in reading about it. Quite a rare thing to ride accross anywhere, let alone Cuba :) - FrancisTyers · 11:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise thanks for the pic and pointing me to the Sociolismo page which was hidden and I didn't know existed. We got there in the end, and the pic for the CDR is now about the best image one could use for the subject matter. Cheers.--Zleitzen 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert L. Carter
Thanks for the photo! BTW, "better days?" Are you a lawyer now, and look back fondly on law school? If so, I can relate.Ulpian 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark Green
Thanks for adding the photo. It is a good picture, but I was thinking it might be better if you cropped it a bit so that most of the rest of the stuff in the image (other than Green) was removed. Morris 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the picture better with the change that you made. Thanks. Best regards, Morris 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
I wrote the article Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act, the first bill in history that contains an article from Wikipedia. It appeared on DYK and right away somebody "tags" it for deletion. I inviteyou to express yourself here:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act. Thank you Tony the Marine 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notables
I went and looked at the articles and I agree with you 100%. I stated what I believed in the talk page. You can do this, go to the mentioned "bios" and place the following tag. That way the editors will have a faire amount of time to provide verifiable sources (and not from fansites) to prove that these persons are notable. If nobody provides acceptable sources then they should be nominated for deletion and the community will decide. You can count on me. Tony the Marine 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Chat
Hey man, that's cool. If you meet Torres tell him that I wrote his bio and get me an autograph (smile). Tony the Marine 02:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn't know uploading this image would be vandalism but I did it because there is no pictures on the Robert Downey Jr. article.Sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alfredosolis (talk • contribs).
 * Hi David, thanks for your note. As long as user:Alfredosolis stops adding copywritten images, there should be no further problems. I've left a note on his page, and don't expect further problems, but he may continue to get messages on his page about copyright violations as more are discovered, even if he has stopped uploading them. He is now aware (or should be aware) of policy, and I expect the problem will end. I will try to monitor the situation, and thank you for your attention to this issue as well as the note on my page. Happy editing! :) -- Firsfron of Ronchester 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Government sources
I don't think it's a legal issue; I'm pretty sure (though I'm not positive) that government-posted signs are in the public domain. However, it's generally good form to rephrase material incorporated from any source, or else put it in quotation marks--both out of respect for the actual person who wrote the words, and because Wikipedia's purposes are probably not exactly the same as those of the other source. I didn't mean to scold, just to explain why I was paraphrasing.

I wanted to say I appreciated your work on the police riot; Wikipedia needs more people who will sit down with a pile of sources and transform them into an encyclopedia article. Nareek 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish Hunger Memorial
Brilliant, thanks for the photos. The ones I took a few years ago were rubbish but you had a nice day, today, for this project. Now all we need is some more write up. ww2censor 00:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are quick on the draw. I like your ideas that derive from this topic. Cheers ww2censor 00:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Demonstration picture
David, I have nothing against your picture; it's just that the one I found is more directly related to the subject of the article. Your pictures shows a generic protest against the war in Lebanon; the one I found shows people specifically protesting against the US link to the Qana airstrike. If your pic isn't not already in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict I'd suggest using it there or in one of the subpages. -- ChrisO 07:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NYPD Shield
You have some nerve, you know why I keep taking the picture down... It is the wrong picture. It is a complete misrepresentation of the insignia and you know it. At least put the correct insignia on the page and stop complaining. By the way, I give up making correct edits on the "NYPD" page because pompous editors like you don't know your facts. Thanks Elhombre72 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming the worst in people is what makes this country so hateful. No, I did not know it was a complete misrepresentation of the police shield on the NYPD page.  I saw a shield and New York Police Department.  I wasn't paying close attention.  I may be ignorant, I may not have "my facts straight," but I don't want to see a shield up that misrepresents the force.  I wasn't paying attention; of that I'm guilty.  But did you ever think to put on the "Talk" page why you are taking it down?  Did you ever think to explain yourself?  Or did you just decide that we are all cop-haters on Wikipedia and that you'll take the pompous action to take it down with no explanation?  Perhaps in the future you should reach out for understanding instead of assuming people are jerks.  It's a small step toward making this country a better place to live, and one you can do easily. I'll take the shield down myself [if inaccurate]. --DavidShankBone 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The entry had nothing to do with "cop-bashing" Another user commented that the insignia was wrong, and I knew it was wrong so I changed it to a picture of NYPD HQ.  I made the error of not explaining those actions in the talk page.  I formally apolgize to you, my actions required an expalnation.  However, threatening a block was not appropiate.  A request for an expalnation was...  No hard feelings... I'm sorry.

Excuse me?, I thought this was a community of ideas.


 * I am not here to get into petty disputes regarding the image. I can tell you it is the wrong image.  Several months ago, the correct image was displayed, then one day it changed.  I am sure other readers and users noticed it too.  Well, I have the correct image on file from a irrefutable source.  However, I am not going to post because it is a law enforcement image and I don't need anyone from NYPD looking for me.  I appreciate your challenge and your passion regarding this issue, but as far as I am concerned, this issue is concluded.  I refuse to get into a conflict regarding your image, no matter how incorrect it is.  Furthermore, DavidShankBone, I can assure you that I will not be making any more edits on the NYPD page. DavidShankBone you have the floor to yourself, all to yourself.


 * For anyone interested....http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/chfpers/patch-history.html; or http://idealogian.yucs.org/archives/2004/07/


 * C'est la Vie, Elhombre72 01:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My response:


 * Elhombre, this is not a community of ideas, it's a community of truth seekers. I responded to this entry below.  --DavidShankBone 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Elhombre, I don't understand where you are coming from. First, thanks for all the effort for to research sodomy, and you should contribute some work to the sodomy page; however I wasn't using sodomy legally, but biblically. Second, you use a log-on ID that appears to soley have been created for editing this page.  You tell us you have followed the page for months, but then immediately start taking things down (the same things that have been issues with other editors, not just me) and changing wording.  My wording.  I wrote the TSP Police Riot article, and I inserted that paragraph.  You start ranting, without giving any support, about "left wing" articles and the wrong shield.  When I ask you to give proof, you complain about shading and other things that are trifles.  You call my reasonable responses, in a reasonable tone given the above, rants.  Yes, if there's a better, more accurate shield, then it should be up.  But you didn't do that - You replaced it with a poor quality photograph, where the building was obscured by one of my least favorite public art pieces.  Even the conglomeration of shields would have been better.  Then, you lastly tell us you in fact have the correct picture, but allude to vague cloak and dagger stuff about law enforcement finding you so you'll never give it up.  Then you act like a kid who is going to take his ball and go home.  And you tell me you don't feel you need to be lectured?  Dude, you've acted inappropriately from your first edit.  Come off it.  And ditch the sockpuppet; there's a strong policy against them.  --DavidShankBone 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of the shield in recruitment posters.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I snapped some pictures of the NYPD shield on the official NYPD recruitment ads currently plastered over the subway. Its a graphic similar to the one you displayed. If you think its a good idea maybe we can post it side to side with the graphic you provided. --Zippy1981 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Omnibus Reply
Sorry for not responding earlier - I was extra busy. Today was my first day as a judicial extern and I was working extra hard to impress the clerks on my first day. A few things: Did I cover all of it? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Articles I created are hard to count. I used to keep track, but I stopped a long time ago. I was a founding member of WP:ORBCW and collaborated in the creation of dozens of articles on Orthodox Rabbis. I created a dozen articles on State and Territory Attorneys General and intend to create more, filling out the template next week or so. I created Adam Shapiro, Viktor Ponedelnik, James Hynes, Fordham University School of Law, many other lawschool and law journal stubs. All of them are short - nothing is as long as your Tompkins Square Park Police Riot. I sorted boatloads of stubs, nominated a gazillion articles for deletion, and have covered Special:Shortpages twice a week for many months now. I've done LOTS of good work. I don't do images, tho.
 * 2) Delusions of grandeur: I could be curt when in a rush. A few people find me dismissive. I was curt - as I was in a rush. I checked the three articles I referred to: HLR, YLJ, and CLR. None of them had even the name of the EIC, nevermind the whole editorial bd. Therefore, I conclude, there is consensus on the 'pedia not to include this stuff. I'd gotten into these debates more than once before over listing things like the staff of a school newspaper etc., and I was right to exclude it every time on memory. As this seems obvious to me, I am liable to assume this is obvious to everyone else. You say, that they're NN for individual articles doesn't mean they could be included here. Well, if I told you that I used to work for PwC, would you include that fact in the article? No. So what's the difference? Imagine a list, List of Editors in Chief of the Fordham Law Review. How many of those will be notable, for WP purposes? My guess is zero, and the list would get deleted. So why would we be including the editorial boards? Whom could it possibly interest that non-notable person John Q. Public is the Notes & Articles Editor of the Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law this year? Who cares?!
 * 3) I have a mind to propose Arie Kaplan for deletion, so please provide sources verifying notability if they exist.

Response
 * I wanted to see that you actually could create, and not just tear down. Stubs count.  I wouldn't waste your time nominating Arie Kaplan.  First, that shows you have not Googled him, so you should do research before you tear down--it's policy.  I won't go defending my stub here. It's your job to find out if he should be deleted.  What is funny is the significant amount of work I do--thorough research and thoughtful effort at wording with insightful, interesting entries--I also have to worry that you--and you in particular--are going to attempt to be an obstacle.  Whether it's an "Under Construction" template I put up as I spent 15 hours working on the William Treanor article (when it clearly says to attempt to contact me); or when I put up a stub on a noteworthy indvidual and you threaten to delete it.  You're not my Chinese sweatshop boss, letting me know I have time limits and that you are keeping an eye on the clock while I take bathroom breaks or walk my dogs.  If you have administrator status, I am going to complain about your overzealous editing and disrespectful manner if you don't lighten up and let those who create, create.  Edit, pick and chew other's work all you want--it's needed.  But when you hamper people who create a lot of value, you should question your own power-tripping.  Chill out with me.  If you see my name on it, think twice.  Not because of this threat, but because I have more than proven my ability to know what is worthy of being added and what isn't.  You shouldn't be editing in a rush; that's not an excuse.  You're making callous and slipshod judgment on other people's work, and you need to stop.  You're not the Wikipedia God trying to answer each and every prayer, bestowing upon us all your eagle eye.  I don't get what your sense of urgency is all about, but I give your judgment respect (not your tone of voice).  Learn a little humility, or how to communicate with it.  I can say this because I have the same problem.  The way I'm talking to you is the way you talk to others; it doesn't feel so good.  I'm trying to improve.  So should you.  And you need to accord my judgment the same respect I accord yours.  This is my letting you know formally I take issue with your overzealous editing and disrespectful tone.  And I will think of you next time I want to critique an edit, or take something out.  --DavidShankBone 03:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Rough, but fair (maybe). I am not an admin at the moment. I will stand again later. Note that I didn't propose A.K. for deletion - merely asked for sources. Let's google him now... (goes away) - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Yes!! I knew it! Superman is Jewish!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Found it. Finally. A non-trivial published work about the subject. Found only one. There may be more. Have to wade through comicky morass to find. Exhausting. Here it is: Debra Rubin, Did you hear the one about the Jewish comedy writer? The Jewish State, 2/28/03. Phew. Let me add it to the article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Response
 * Russian, thanks for doing the research, but my point was you did not need to do so. There's a nice aspect of Wikpedia: longevity, editing decisions, article creation, and value contribution give editors respect, and leeway.  You have earned it.  That means if came across a reference for a stub you created, I would move on without question.  Why?  Because I know you'll get back there at some point--I respect you as an editor.  You won't leave something permanently sloppy, because you know better.  Maybe it fell through the crack temporarily, or you got caught up working on a paper for a week or so.  Maybe you were in a rush.  I give your judgment more respect than ElHombre72's, above.  But I still talked to him in what I thought was a factual, logical fashion and made sound arguments.  I still sounded heavy-handed and definitive.  Or, as I have been told my entire life, "It's now what you say, David, it's how you say it."  I think you should cherish the respect you have earned.  You do so by according it to others who have earned it.  And you expect it of others.  It's respect, and you've earned it.  You do fantastic work.  Don't let it go to your head, my friend.  I try not to -- and I'm working face to face with my subjects.  I hold nothing against you--I can't begrudge you my own habits.  Hopefully you'll think of me next time you edit or critique.  You don't want to be like me, and I think I've proven that point.  Thanks again for all the work you do.  --DavidShankBone 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Greenwich Village
In conversation I'd tend to agree, but I'm saying in maps/guidebooks/etc., "Greenwich Village" is used to differentiate it from the West Village. So perhaps what we should say is that it has fallen into disuse colloquially? --Tothebarricades 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel that it's just easier to say "The Village." This conforms with my hypothesis that if there are two equally valid names for something, the shorter and more natural sounding one wins out :P --Tothebarricades 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

timeline dates
Because I am following the WP guideline that says: "Not every year listed in an article needs to be wikilinked. Ask yourself: will clicking on the year bring any useful information to the reader?"

I did not see a use to these years since if a reader wanted to find out what happened in a year, they could just search for it.

By the way, I took the opportunity to look at some of your articles. Good work.

Thanks Hmains 23:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you. Later.  Hmains 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Stuff I created in the last month
- CrazyRussian talk/email 18:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Forbes.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Forbes.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sensation exhibition
You reverted the change I had made to an image in the above article, where I had removed the forced image size of 300 pix. Your edit summary was:
 * dude, you need to make the images that we've been able to contribute work; not try and tear them down. so, what's you r issue?!

I assure you the image still works and has not been torn down, as you can see if you go to the article. The issue is as follows. You can see on Images:
 * Logged in users can set the size of thumbnails they want in special:preferences under "files". The default, used by those not logged in, is 180 pixels. Logged in users can choose from widths of 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 250px or 300px.

For whatever reason they want, logged in users can choose what size they want images to be displayed at. For example, many users use a dial-up connection, and, in order to reduce download time, may choose a small image display size. However, if you insert an image size as you have done, it prevents the user preference from working, and they are forced to download the size you have specified. It is thus inconsiderate to insert a forced image size, and defeats the purpose of having a preference choice. I hope this explains things.

I notice you have uploaded other images specifying the largest image size and would be grateful if these could be changed, and the size not specified in future uploads.

Your work in providing these unique images is much appreciated and a great contribution to the project, but I hope you'll understand why it's necessary to allow users to choose what size they want them displayed at. Those wanting to see more detail can of course click the link to see the bigger size anyway.

You seem to have your own preferences set to mark all edits as minor, and you need to change this as it is very misleading, and means some people will not notice your changes if they have set their watchlist to not show up minor changes.

Thanks.

Tyrenius 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response DavidShankbone
 * Thanks for your message Tyrenius. I use a dial-up connection myself, so if the image sizes don't bother me, then I think they should be fine.  We shouldn't be designing this site with the Lowest Common Denominator in mind, but what it will speak to and be in the future.  You are doing great work--awesome work.  But we should have vision, and not only the past, in mind.  The past is dial-up.  I still live in the past.  But I work in the future.  I will change my minor change preference, which I've been meaning to do.  Thanks for the advice.  --DavidShankBone 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The minor setting (which you can still use by ticking the "minor edit" box above "save page") is only for things that no one is likely to dispute, e.g. spelling, punctuation, grammar correction. Any content change should usually not be marked as minor.

Re. images, the point is that you are removing people's right to choose what size they want to see the images at for whatever reason they have. The dial-up was just one example and not the whole issue. This passage from Extended image syntax makes the requirement clear:


 * From MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences).

I understand that you may not have realised this to be the case, and in fact it is something that there is widespread ignorance of. However, I would like your agreement to follow this, and therefore allow people to choose for themselves what display size they want. Anyone wishes to can click the thumb to see a much bigger image.

To set all your photos at the maximum size is anyway editorially questionable. The lawyer in Sensation is a minor part of the whole business and, if anything, should be set at the minimum size, not the maximum.

Again I warmly thank you for your unique contribution to the project, but it has to be balanced against other considerations, or it starts to become counter-productive.

Tyrenius 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response DavidShankbone
 * I agree to stop setting the image sizes. Reluctantly, but I agree because what I want doesn't trump what others want, I understand. Thanks for enlightening me.  But I'm too involved in other projects to spend the time to go back and undo all those settings.  It'll just have to happen with time.  I also don't want to do that with my biographies because I think the size of the photograph is part of the article itself.  I like the format, and I like the white space they take up.  I also like that their written accomplishments come before any image.  To not view them in the sizes I select means I would need to put them in the upper right hand corner again, and I like the look of them the way they are.  I'm no unbending on this issue, but I have a strong preference.  --DavidShankBone 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding an agreeable solution, which I accept. I will not be going through the list re-setting sizes, and I think that an "as and when" procedure will be fine, decided by any editors on a particular article. I will only be attending to articles I am already editing. There is perhaps a case to state on Image use policy or Images, but it doesn't look as though you'll have time for that. Thanks again for your generous and unique contribution in this way. Tyrenius 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Circus image in Hugo Chavez's articles
JRSP: I reverted your addition to Hugo Chávez. If you consider the image is relevant to the article, please discuss this in the talk page JRSP 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response DavidShankbone
 * First, I apologize for putting this photograph up without giving this page more consideration given the controversial subject. I put this image up not as a partisan--As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out with Chavez--but as someone who went to go see a free circus on Coney Island on Labor Day.  Circus Amok--see Jennifer Miller--is an award-winning production that has received grants for its work.  In their act, they were illustrating the differences between the South American Presidents, and our own.  Our own President's record did not look as favorable as the South Americans, at least for in terms of what they attempt to do for their own people.  That's besides the point.  I think it is relevant to this page because of of a high-profile act and that Chavez is obviously influencing artistic expression (that is government-funded, mind you).  That's relevant.  Besides, it's an interesting photograph that I make a bet people would find interesting to view, and this is great page to do so. It adds dimension that simple figurative photographs do not, on their own.  I request it be resurrected, please. You all will note I took pains to write a neutral caption. --DavidShankBone 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen:David I love your pics, especially the Compay Segundo live pics which must have been a treat to attend. But I don't feel the Chavez pic, nor the pic on the Evo Morales page are really right for these pages. The Chavez article is very serious, we're talking about people being murdered here. Maybe on other articles, I don't know. Thanks anyway.--Zleitzen 18:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response DavidShankbone
 * Zleitzen, I understand you position, and I respect it. But your position on Chavez or Morales, and my position, are irrelevant to the work we do here.  When I tell people I went to Cuba I invariably hear, usually via a joke to soften the statement, "Oh, didn't mind supporting Castro a little, huh--haha."  Trust me, I was poor when I went there and Castro made little off me.  I went there to see a country that I grew up thinking housed the devil himself.  And I wanted to see it before it became Starbucksa-fied and before history is written, and re-written, on Castro.  With that mentality, I posted those photographs.  I liked them, first off. I thought they were interesting and good.  But I also thought it served my job--our job--here to do so. Which is is to tell a full story, not a partisan one.  I am working on Floyd Abrams and that's my photograph.  I also worked extensively with Evan Wolfson.  Still, if I came across a criticism, I had to put it up.  To let people know not everyone feels and thinks the same thing.  At least to give a hint of it.  That is why those photos need to stay on those pages.  I have a lot of respect for the work you put into this, by the way.  --DavidShankBone 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Miller
Nice additions to Jennifer Miller - Skysmith 08:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking Freely: New York Times Co. v. United States
I believe this is supposed to be an article about a book entitled Speaking Freely: New York Times Co. v. United States? If so, could you please remove the SCOTUS infobox and make it more obvious in the introductory paragraph of the article that you are discussing the book, not the case?

Also, instead of having a "main article" link, you could simply make the first (non-title) mention of the case be a link. If you still want the a prominent, separate link, it should be moved to the end of the article under a " ==See Also== " header, because if the article's about a book, then New York Times Co. v. United States is not the main article. --Tim4christ17 talk 11:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the book is just called Speaking Freely, perhaps it'd be best to just have one article (Speaking Freely (book) to deal with the entire book? It could be split up later, if necessary, but perhaps it's best to keep the pieces together until there's time for input from other interested Wikipedians?   Your "main article" link makes a lot of sense now, btw - though I still suggest some work on the first paragraph to make it more clear that you're discussing the book, not the case(s).
 * I'm going to remove the SCOTUS template (readers can see that when they follow the "main article" link) to help ease the confusion. Thanks for the clarification. --Tim4christ17 talk 11:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The "See also" link can be a good tie to the actual case, if that's what you're concerned with. My question with regards to the SCOTUS infobox is quite simple - what new/important information does it bring to the article?  --Tim4christ17 talk 11:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the title of the article - whatever the title of the book/memoir is is good.  If the book is Speaking Freely, the than an article about it (and you'll need a base article, even if have split articles supplimenting it) would be Speaking Freely (book) (since Speaking Freely is taken already).  The current title sounds just fine, assuming it is kept as an article about a segment of the book.   My primary concern about the segments as articles is notability - I'm just not convinced that the sections are notable enough they'd survive an AfD. --Tim4christ17 talk 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got no objection to keeping the SCOTUS template - if it adds significant content to the article and isn't just there for show - which is what it seems to have been doing on the article.  But...whatever.   I'm not going to make any further edits to the article, myself - I'm afraid I don't care enough about the topic.  Just wanted to pass on a few thoughts I had about the layout/appearance of the article.  --Tim4christ17 talk 11:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess now I'm wondering what the purpose of your article is - if it's about the book, the title of the article should be the name of the book. If it's about the case, it should go in a sub-heading under the case's article.  If it's about Floyd Abrams, it should go in Floyd Abrams' article.  See WP:NAME for the Wikipedia policy on article names  (no, I haven't read the whole thing, but...)
 * Well, now you've got me interested. :P  I think I've read Speaking Freely a while back, when I was browsing First Amendment books.  I'll go through your articles in my free time and deal with any wikification issues, as I can.  I may move a few articles as I do that, but I'll update any affected links as I can, and a redirect will be left at any old location.   And of course, if I make an inappropriate edit or move, you can revert me.  :P --Tim4christ17 talk 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One other thing - I don't think the picture you added to Pentagon Papers is appropriate, esp. since Floyd Abrams isn't even mentioned in the article.--Tim4christ17 talk 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The template doesn't support counsel names. If you feel this should be changed, you should discuss it at WP:SCOTUS.  Please remember that with major changes such as this, it is important for the community to reach a concensus before the change is made.--Tim4christ17 talk 12:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please watch your usage of bold text - Bold in the first sentence of an article is only for the title of the article, and the names of documents should be italicized only, not bolded. Thank you.  --Tim4christ17 talk 12:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability
I'm just not seeing how Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case and Floyd Abrams and the Landmark Communications case are notable enough to merit their own articles. At the very least, their titles are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and the articles' content seems to be nothing more than a re-stating of the information already contained in the articles about the cases, with some highly POV comments (by Floyd Abrams) added in. --Tim4christ17 talk 12:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As you'll notice from my userpage, I'm an undergrad student (fourth-year) majoring in Political Science and Philosophy.  So no, I don't know how they use Wikipedia.  Myself, when I want to know about a case, I usually get out the opinion and skim/read it.    But whatever, I'll back off for a while.   Just remember to let me know when the articles are "finished"  (most wikipedia articles are never finished, but...)  --Tim4christ17 talk 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture overload on the Homelessness article again ?
Hi David. There's been a problem with "picture overload" on the Homelessness page, so say many editors (not necessarily me). And they say it causes a NNPOV bias visually in the article, a priori. Confer Talk:Homelessness and Talk:Homelessness. We had flags put on the article, and just got the WP community to agree to remove it. We still are stuck with the American-centric flag on the article. Your photo is excellent. But should it be on the Homelessness in the United States article instead ? Perhaps you can move it ? Or do we have "overload" everywhere ? Your thoughts. Many thanks and Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)


 * Hi Dave. Thanks for your kind response. I like the picture very much. But I am glad you thought over the hassles we have had internationally with NNPOV and pics, etc. Say hello to NYC to me ! I miss it. Thanks for your brilliant work (checked it out; definitely liked it all !), reply and kindnesses. St. Barts is a massively interesting church and place. Especially the old squash court in the basement if it's still there. ;) Bests and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Hey Dave, thanks for the thoughts again. It's been decades since I was in that court at St. Barts ! My memory could be playing tricks. A "senior moment" ? ;) Well, I hear you on the Homelessness article USA-centric concerns of the WP community-at-large. It seems like we have the worst here. 88,000 in LA. Huge numbers in Manhattan. Boston. But contributors abroad say the problem is very bad, as well. The whole trick as I wrote in the article is how people "count" homeless people, too. Your're welcome for the compliments. I dare say they are well-deserved. That's coming from an old Hasselblad 500c user. ;) Bests, keep in touch, and huge thanks ! --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)


 * Hi Dave. Excellent series. As I am sure you know, one must be very careful about showing faces, and identification aspects, except in cases where someone signs a release compos mentis. Also, even if a release is signed, when dealing with the homeless street sleepers, one must be very careful, as their relatives might not know they are homeless. Really. Or they might be sought after by some authority. But your photographs are brilliant. Thanks & be in touch. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Dave, I put an internal WP link on both the Homelessness and Homelessness in the United States articles to your photography project "Street Sleepers" on Wikipedia. I hope it stays there. Perhaps you can make a TOC so it can go directly to it ? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)


 * Hello Dave. Thanks for your reply and making the "Street Sleepers" accessible directly from the two articles. I take your point. I knew a homeless man in our neighborhood in Manhattan, and I used to spend an hour with him, chatting about things. "Mike the homeless guy". He was a very decent man. He was a Vietnam vet, and had gotten down on his luck. He would say to me, "Bob, thanks for talking with me. During the day, people throw me change and money, but they don't acknowledge my humanity. When you talk with me for an hour, I feel like I am human again, and my existence is validated." That's huge. One must distinguish between hustlers and real homeless people. Okay, thanks again. Liked your posts at St. Bart ca. 22 August 2006. Today is a hard day. I was living there in NYC on 11-IX-2001. :( It still hurts a lot. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Hey Dave from Sarah
Hey - great site.

No problem :)
Thanks, Dave. Glad it's over. :)) - Lucky 6.9 18:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Heck, I helped write the book on wikistress. Believe me, I can relate.  Take a break if you must and don't stay away long. - Lucky 6.9 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look
Dave, I took a look at the deletion nomination and I can't understand the logic behind such an act and much less deletion votes on the speculation that the articles are copyrighted. Take care Tony the Marine 04:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contacting me on this as well. I agree wholeheartedly with Tony and I just left the most elaborate "keep" vote that I have ever issued on an AfD...and I have weighed in on a lot of these in the past.  These articles are exactly the types of contributions that help this site.  For anyone else who happens to swing by and read this, I urge you to vote to keep this series.  The articles are educational, factual, well-written and well-researched.  These took time, effort and not a little bit of high-end research. - Lucky 6.9 04:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Floyd Abrams
I completely understand having an incomplete page that takes time to create, but is currently in progress. The single best solution that many Wikipedians use is to create pages inside your user page (e.g. User:DavidShankBone/Floyd Abrams case history) where you can write and edit and create a page, and then move it to the main namespace when you're ready, without having to deal with RfDs or other editors. I hope this helps. Thanks. --MZMcBride 21:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm afraid I know nothing about this, so would feel unjustified in butting in on this one. Sorry not to be much help. TimVickers 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox
Dave, I used to have the same problem. I used to create an article and before I could finish the damn thing someone would come along and start editing. It was a real pain. What I did was create my own sandbox, take a look:[The Marines Sandbox]. Here I create my articles without having any interference. After I'm done I paste the entire article. You can do the same. Cheers Tony the Marine 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case
Congrats, Justice prevailed. Tony the Marine 17:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
I would like to reguest your opinion in the following issue :Talk:Puerto Rican women in the military

Thank you, Tony the Marine 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message
Dave, thank you for your message. I don't agree with McBride who said that he thought it was dodgy to alert other editors. You did the right thing in your case. I believe by notifing someone who's your friend and whose judgement you trust about a certain problem, you should only expect an honest opinion. A true friend will tell you right out when you're right or wrong. In my case you can always count on me. If you are right about a certain subject, I will back you up all the way. However, if I feel that you are wrong I would tell in private and let you handle it from there. I expect no less from a friend. That's is why I contacted you, because in you I believe that I have found a true friend who will do the right thing in Wikipedia.

Always be true to youreself and always count on those who you believe to be your true friends to be by your side in times of need and to give their sound honest opinions.

Your friend, Tony the Marine 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pink is now history, damn I should have made Marine Corps green (smile) Tony the Marine 04:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: 158.165.103.198 vandalism
DavidShankBone wrote:


 * Hi Gurch - this unregistered user once again vandalized the Bill of Rights page. --DavidShankBone 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks – Gurch 19:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Colbert
Hi, DavidShankBone I don't believe there is any specific policy about the quotes section. As you probably noticed I was getting enquiries on my talk page from an anon editor about it so I quickly checked several other biographies to see how this section was usually applied. I changed it to "Quotes" instead of "Quotes by Colbert" but I have no strong feelings about it one way or another as both usages are probably fine. Cheers. -- No Guru 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Safelibraries RFC
As discussed on the ALA talk page, I've gone ahead and asked the Wikipedia community to comment on Safelibraries edits, so that people who are unrelated to this dispute can help guide him. You may want to respond to this RFC at Requests for comment/SafeLibraries.org. --Alecmconroy 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Happened to be reading the Wikipedia page on the Seagram Building & noticed the incorrectly labeled picture taken by you. The sculpture currently in front of the building is not Lichtenstein's "Brushstroke" but Calder's "Ordinary, 1969". See the bronze plaque on the base, or http://www.pacewildenstein.com/Exhibitions/ViewExhibitionWork.aspx?artist=AlexanderCalder&title=Ordinary%2c1969&type=Work&guid=36168d00-814e-4c49-9132-4ecfecd7407f It's only there from June 2006 to June 2007. Thanks for posting the pic, but best fix the label. Regards, Bob Moniot

Ben Georgia
The last 2 sentences were fragments. I made them whole sentences, but you might wish to have them make sense. Chris the speller 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"added not guilty plea"
that's exactly what I did yesterday lol - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:BlueBrushsroke.JPG
Hi, I know it seems bizarre but you can't actually release this image under Creative Commons as you don't own the copyright of the painting. If we are going to use it we need to add a WP:FU rationale. Arniep 15:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad


'''O.K., so maybe you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones a "Happy Holidays" and all of the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)'''


 * Merry Christmas in 100 languages

Happy New Year
(Feliz Año Nuevo)



I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

William Cohen
I like yr photo more. I'll ask some buddies to weigh in crz crztalk 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuyorican Poets Cafe (copied from User:Jreferee)
Hi - it would be helpful if when you created new articles that you made sure all content was transferred, including photographs, or else the article is diminished. --DavidShankBone 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that there was a photograph of the cafe. Thank you so much for adding it to the article!  -- Jreferee 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I created the article using some of the text information from Special:Whatlinkshere/Nuyorican_Poets_Cafe and from the cafe website.  My interest was to get rid of the long existing red link that appeared in DYK's history and I did not spend too much time reviewing the whatlinkshere items.  You mentioned that there was an old article on the Nuyorican Poets Cafe, but I have not been able locate it.  It did seem odd that the talk page for Nuyorican Poets Cafe had text but the article page did not. -- Jreferee 22:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

beard photo
Again, i am not jared. I created this account because I thought this photo of jared would be useful, so it only made sense to use his name. You will also notice that I was not responsible for posting this photo to the bearded lady site (which appeared to be vandalism, so accusing me of posting it when I was clearly not responsible seems like a personal attack); also, it is unclear how what goes on at other articles has anything to do with what content is appropriate for the beard article. Also, no one who has removed this photo from the beard site has responded to my specific rationales for including it -- if you look at the beard talk page, you will find that there has been a long discussion regarding whether the current photo is really the best choice, as it seems to be of an atypical type of beard. Including a trimmed beard to show what beards more typically looks like is a completely legitimate response to this ongoing issue with the article and I do not appreciate my good faith being called into question (see assume good faith ) when I attempt to respond to this issue. Sure I know Jared, he is a friend of mine, but it seems that most user-made photos of physical attributes will likely feature friends of the users who take these pictures, so accusing me of a vanity posting seems irrational and unsupported by general wikipedia practice with regard to illustrating articles with non-copyrighted images. Finally, I assure you that I will be careful not to violate the three-revert rule. However, only two users (yourself included) have expressed disapproval of including this image in the beard article. Moreover, neither of you has attempted to reasonably discuss my rationales for including this image in addition to, or in place of, the existing image of a beard that many users find atypical. Instead, both of you have accused me of "vanity" posting and reflexively reverted my edits. As such, since I have actually offered arguments based on legitimate rationales, I am justified in continuing to revert within the confines of the three revert rule. In closing, I really do hope we can work this out -- it is clear that we both have the same goal here: improving wikipedia. Jaredlenowguy 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Per policy, "consensus" on wikipedia is not determined by a majority vote. Rather, it is determined by having a rational discussion and reaching a reasoned conclusion. I am the only person (still) who has offered a rationale beyond unfounded accusations. I told you why I used Jared's name -- I created a wikipedia account expressly to edit this article by posting what I think to be a userful photo of a beard, and [NAME REMOVED] is the individual who happens to sport this beard. It is unclear to me why you are unwilling to discuss issues rather than reflexively reverting. And, as I said, I can assure you that I will not be violating the three revert rule. Jaredlenowguy 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the photo has been appropriate in the three contexts in which I have posted it (beard and moustache). it was also appropriate for sideburns, where I posted it but eventually decided a better image could be found. thus, it is unclear how my actions do not constitute good faith.also, if you review the sockpuppet policy, there is no policy against sockpuppets per se: the policy prohibits using sockpuppets for abusive purposes, which I have not done -- do you see any votes to AFD debates? do you see another user apparently attempting to game the system on the specific sites we are editing? Thus, even if I do have another username (which I do not, I have just long been fascinated by wikipedia and how it works and thus have read many other debates and know the basic policies...i guess it is all just really interesting to me as I am a law student), I would have no obligation to tell you what it is as I have not violated the wikipedia sockpuppet policy. Jaredlenowguy 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * again, I am not Jared. for the sake of compromise, collegiality and consensus, I will agree not to post this image to the moustache or sideburns articles anymore (though jared clearly has both in this photo). I will continue to add it to the beard article, though, since, whether I know Jared or not, I have offered a genuine rationale for including it there and no one has offered an argument based upon the usefulness of the photo itself for excluding it. Maybe you would like to reach a consensus here or acatually think about my arguments rather than threatening me? Jaredlenowguy 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you so unwilling to debate the merits of my argument rather than just threatening me? Jaredlenowguy 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, you asked for a policy providing that inclusion in an article is based on consensus reached through discussion of the relevant issues and rational discussion rather than the fact that two editors believe something should be removed from an article and only one thinks it should remain? Try WP:NOT and the links from it, which seem to completely support this argument. Jaredlenowguy 22:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is incredible to me that you continue to base your reversion on my motives and not on the arguments that exist for including this image on the beard page. I have agreed not to post this image elsewhere, so that issue is off the table. I will tell you how the bearded lady thing happened -- I mentioned to a fellow student that I had posted Jared's photo as an illustration of a beard and the bearded lady silliness (vandalism for sure) ensued. I would have reverted it myself if I had personally seen it before someone else reverted it. Maybe I got carried away with the beard and sideburn postings, but I honestly and in good faith believe that this photo of jared is appropriate for the beard article and have provided the reasons why. let's come to a consensus based on valid arguments rather than making threats. that's all I want. Jaredlenowguy 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to your last comment: perhaps you should review the role of admins per wikipedia policy. the role of admins is not to solve every content dispute. admins are not uperusers who are immune from ordinary procedures. this seems to me like a run of the mill article content dispute, of a type that happens tens of thousands of times a day. I have violated no wikipedia policies and have even been willign to compromise (as I did re moustaches and sideburns). I have already made clear that I do not plan to violate the three revert rule. You seem more likely to have violated polciies, as you have questioned my good faith and made a personal attack against me by accusing me of vandalism that I know for a fact I am not responsible for (because the individual responsible for it is literally sitting a room away from me right now and we are discussing this issue through an open door). I really want to find a solution through the ordinary wikipedia means: consensus-building. Why are you so unwilling to do this? Jaredlenowguy 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

also
you have freely admitted that this would not be an issue if i had only posted this image to the beard page. well, that is the only place where I am seeking to have it remain. thus, this has become a personal crusade by you against me and doesnt seem to have much to do with the appropriateness of this image for the beard article -- which really should be the matter at hand in this discussion. Jaredlenowguy 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You cry for attention. I am sorry that your mother did not hug you.... seriously though, 'im sorry our mother didn't hug you'.

Image:Rube Goldberg sketch by David Shankbone.JPG
I guess I'm a little confused by Image:Rube Goldberg sketch by David Shankbone.JPG. I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing, Can you help by saying... Is this
 * a sketch by Rube Goldberg, uploaded by you?
 * a sketch by David Shankbone, characaturing Rube Goldberg?
 * a sketch by a third party, or something else?

Notinasnaid 14:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC) http://sportsreviewmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1194