User talk:David Shankbone/Archive 3

Objectification
Hey David: I'm not trying to step on your toes, but I removed the image you put in the RfC. Many people can thrust many images into that RfC and it will not be productive for us. We have discussed many images, and the current consensus is no image, and we agree we want one long-term. Your image isn't the subject of any current debate, nor is any other. I don't think anyone feels that the existing ones presented offer a strong lede image. Let's ask people if they have ideas of other images that could fit that. Atom 03:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Atom, you step on my toes by removing my comments and additions, which is against Talk page guidelines. If you do it again, I will submit to admins that you have a history or editing my Talk page discussions.  Look, I don't want this to be so adversarial, but by not including the image that I want an RfC over, you are trying to shield other editors from seeing it.  In the end, i'm wrong, I'm wrong.  I was recently wrong on the Homage page.  But hiding the image or making it more difficult to access/see doesn't allow the issue to be settled.  I want outside editor input on this particular photograph.  Thus, it is appopriate to include it.  I remind you, you dont' have the right to edit my additions to the talk page.  Please keep this in mind.  --DavidShankBone 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://sportsreviewmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1194 Look, we have been getting along fine lately, lets keep it that way. I apologized for stepping on your toes. Could you explain why your image would have any place on the RfC? We discussed and came to a consensus for no image in the article right now. Your image, nor any of the other images is a good image for lede. There is no current contention in the article unless you choose to cause it by trying to strongarm an image of yours into the article again. We in the article are looking for a good image. That should be the RfC. Why not let people come into the article open minded with no preconceptions. What if, hypothetically, a number of people participated and actually chose your image from reading the article? Wouldn't that be a rewarding feeling? Trying to thrust your image back into the limelight, against current consensus is stepping on our toes. An RfC is asking people to come in and comment on the article, and is owned by the article, not by the person submitting the RfC. Trying to slant an RfC in order to get what you want is not the purpose of the RfC. Best to you, Atom 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * there was no consensus that there shoudl not be an image. You've only edited the article since January 28th (though you often speak for "long-term editors").  You yourself stated images are needed.  There are two editors who have felt there should be none (you jumped on that bandwagon) - an anonymous IP and the page's "greybeard" editor (since December) who feel none are appropirate.  Meanwhile, five editors, myself included, have expressed the image works.  This is not consensus for no image.  That you weren't fought but left alone for awhie you take as acquiesence.  It is clear the conversation will not go on without the same four editors arguing it.  I'm tired of arguing it.  I want a RfC to settile it, and I will abide by thier wishes.  I don't know why this worries you so?  You seem to have a problem with the image outside of the concept; I don't know why.  But at this point, why don't we allow fresh eyes to review?  You should follow my lead and cut n' paste the negative (succinct) remakrs by anti-image editors.  But let's get this settled.  --DavidShankBone 03:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a sexology and sexuality project editor, I have watched this article since it began. Lately I have made significant contributions. The only change you have made to the article is to put your image into it. Trying to act as you are in thrusting your images into articles, especially when it is clear that people do not want it their shows you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI. You are advertising and promoting your images on your web page, you should wait until someone desires to use your images.  Or, you could respond to the long list of requested photographs at Requested pictures.  At the very least, if you think you have an image that is applicable to an article is present the image to the editors of an article and see if they think it works.  It should be obvious that I object strongly to the way that you keep trying to force the image on the sexuality objectification article.  As a law student, you must have better things to do with your time. Atom 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your opinions on how I should behave are not registered. Your misinterpreation of WP:COI is noted.  You have a far longer record of contentious edits and fights than I do, Atom.  I'm only trying to find outside input.  My effort at doing so is what is raising your ire.  --DavidShankBone 04:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also note what a partisan you are, speaking for those who do not want the image in (three of you) and those who do (five of us). You speak for a minority.  And it bothers you I ask for wider input.  That scares you.  What a shame.  Is this really how a forty year old edits?  --DavidShankBone 04:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)\

Give me a break David. Did I fabricate the comments made by those others? Look at the edit history. The people whom you say "support" your image merely stated that they liked it, and felt it could be good in the article. Only you and one other voted in your poll. Why didn't the other "three" vote in your poll? It is because they offered an opinion and moved on. I'm not scared of other input on the RfC, I resent your blatant attempt to manipulate the RfC. Instead of leaving it simple, and just asking people politely to look at the images and give their thoughts, you try to steer the RfC entry, and only put one image in that RfC. Again, you are wasting both of our time. If you stand back isn't it obvious that you have a bested interest in your own work that a neutral editor would not have? That is conflict of interest. You are emotionally attached to your own image, and pushing hard to put your images wherever you can, even when they are not desired. By pushing it, this damages the objective process that editors evaluating what is best for the quality of an article would follow. I am on the board of ethics for a professional society that I belong to and evaluate ethical issues when needed. You might consider the perspective of ethics, and conflict of interest from a lawyers perspective. What if a judge recommended their own son for a position in the court, and pushed and pushed for that candidate to be hired. Also if he were one of the judges that would vote on whether that candidate should be hired or not? Of course the situation is not directly analogous, but you can certainly see the applicability. Atom 04:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this argument wholly without merit, since, as I stated before, your written contributions could fall under the same microscope. In the end, Atom, I want a clear-cut up or down vote from many editors:  Does the Imitation of Christ fashion show depict women being sexually objectificted?  Yes or no.  You have trouble with the question, and I suspect my own reasons.  But you obfusucate the issue with unrelated polls and your umpteen comments.  Why not just allow people to look at the image an answer in their own heads, "Is this sexual objectification"?  Why are you afraid to do that?  If they answer "no" you won't hear from me again.  But you don't want that, and in my opinon. the reason is clear.  Your COI argument is cute, but nothing more. Just cute.  --DavidShankBone 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why your image should receive special treatment over no image, or over the other images? As you point out, Wikipedia uses consensus, and is not a democracy. The question of whether people do, or do not view your image as sexual objectification is not relevant to the question of which image is best for the article. Consider that another image may be better for the quality of the article. Words in the article are required to be supported by citations. They have to meet standards for reliability and verifiability, and can not be original research(no primary research). A photo is intellectual property, has no citability and is always OR(primary research). Anyway, I'm tired and headed for bed. Have fun, good luck with your classes. Atom 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

David, I am going to take a different approach. I wish that you would consider that some of what I have expressed, particularly the manner in which you aggressively try to put photos in articles is a conflict of interest. You have enough good work that it wil find it's way into article without it being forced in. Regards, 11:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Atom, I tried to get us to review other images that might work as well, but Talk cabal of you, anonymous and Iamcuriousblue didn't want to entertain it seriously. Most editors agree an image portraying sexual objectification in modern society is not so difficult to come by.  Instead, antiquarian oil paintings (which clearly show emotion on the faces of the people) were proposed simply because they contained nudity.  I didn't take up this debate because it is ridiculous, and would have gone too crazy and pedantic.  Instead of trying to find images, which this article needs (and they are available) that we could all agree on, you decided to make this some kind of personal tug-of-war.  I don't understand that.  You didn't seem interested in working this out, but in getting your way.  So I randomly went on editors pages to ask for their comments - many I didn't even know.  I just want this to end - yes or no on the Imitation of Christ shot.  You have made it difficult to end by clouding the argument and not making it easy for people to understand.  I regret that we couldn't have worked as allies wanting to make the best page possible, even though we have differing viewpoints on that.  Instead, you continually lodge charges, try to invalidate my viewpoint as a Conflict of Interest (you're alone on that front), and changed edits I made to the discussion, including supercilious corrections to typos, etc.  Atom, I've looked at a lot of your edits, and you do good work, but you do so with little regard for the editors you take issue with.  I think I told you before, "you should be nicer."  You feign nothing but the best intentions, but your actions belie your words.  Your wikilawyering is time-consuming and irritating, no offense.  I hope after this issue is resolved we can work better together in the future.  --DavidShankBone 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Of course my impression of events is vastly different than yours.  I'd like to work with you in the future as well.  I won't go over my perspective yet again, but it has seemed to me that ytou are determined to push your photo into the article despite other people's feelings to the contrary.  Hopefully now that you have gotten some constructive feedback from others that feel that the image is not appropriate for this article, you and I can drop the issue.  I do have the best of intentions, I just didn't happen to agree with your opinion  on the matter.  I'm not lodging any charges of any kind, of course, I was pointing out that you do have a conflict of interest, and that stepping back, rather than forcing your image on the page was the appropriate and ethical course of action.  I've already suggested to you why the case of any photographer trying to convince others to put their iages on pages is a conflict of interest as a general thing, not suggesting that you were different than others in any way.  I am working on a policy to prevent that in the future, as a more detailed part of the WP:COI policy.  As for nice, I have always been polite and civil, as I continue to be.  I tend to toss back what I perceive as people giving.  Part of the difficulty is that you desire some kind of results on a discussion, or consensus to take place in a few days, and impatient that it doesn't try some other tactic to get the picture on ther page.  On some of the article I work on consensus can take many months.  You suggest that I have little regard for others, when it should be clear I go to great lengths to explain ot others why the position I advocate is more aligned with policy than theirs.  Respecting others means being  willing to listen to their opinion, and consider their view fairly, as well as remaining civil, even when they are not.  You'll agree that this has been the case with you throught, I am sure.

Atom 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

David, left commentary on designated page per you request. However, wish to compliment you here on your approach to resolving this problem. The founders of Wikipedia, would no doubt be proud. Your approach is exactly why Wikipedia is a reliable source of information. Respectfully --Random Replicator 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't encourage him, he is likely to think that the manner in which he has acted is acceptable on Wikipedia. I rather doubt that the founders of Wikipedia intended aggressive, uncooperative behavior as the model approach for resolving problems. Atom 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right, you should see how editors who don't know me jumped all over Atom's case for his aggressive editing and violation of policies and common courtesy. That whole incident had two editors award me the Photographer's Barnstar you see on my Talk page.  Of course, Atom doesn't see his mistakes.  I've also received e-mails from editors who know me (and the substantial contributions I've made) who complain about Atom; Atom makes a habit of "getting into it" with people - he just erases the arguments from his talk page so one has to play with the history, instead of archiving the numerous disagreements he has.  A recent one had to do with him continually threatening another established editor.  Atom hasn't learned how to behave in the Wikipedia community...because he always thinks he's right.  He was even against my Request for Comment from outside editors on the Sexual Objectification page...because they "wouldn't understand" such a complicated issue (one he has only edited since the day I put up my photo).  --DavidShankBone 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The topic currently is your behavior regarding sexual objectification fiasco. Not your self-promotion, and the things you said on the administrators noticeboard. I don't appreciate your slander. Your suggestion that I have had "arguments" with others, and erased them is silly. 99% of anything that I have ever said is archived in my archives. As for your last statement(regarding me being "against" any RfC, read your own talk page to show that as incorrect. The issue was that we were in the middle of a discussion about various images, working on a consensus, and when you did not get immediate consensus you created an RfC, claimed it as "your" RfC, and then asked people if 'your image should be in the article or not.  That completely disregarded and disrespected those of us in the progress of working towards consensus. (which you were losing)  You didn't get the answer you wanted, and consensus did not happen quickly enough, so you moved on to a different appraoch.  I am curious to see, now that you are losing your own RfC as well, what you will try next.  Atom 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You were put in your place on that ANI board, and every editor pointed out that there was no self-promotion; but Atom is "always right", ay? LOL - yeah - we had five editors who said the Imitation of Christ image worked, and three who didn't.  That wasn't consensus that didn't work in my favor.  After hearing from those editors; I decided to try a poll.  Even though you said the article definitely needed an image, in spite you voted for "no image."  I will abide by whatever the RfC editors suggest - the point is, I wasn't going to just have three relatively new editors to the page (including you) make the decision, period.  Do you really think that out of the hundreds of photographs I've contributed to hundreds of pages, this one page is a big deal?  I will ask an uninvolved, well-established admin to interpret the results after a week has passed.  Now, run along, Atom.  There is no need to continue this discourse between you and I.  It's clear we just don't like each other nor do we share similar perspectives - but I've bookmarked the Image Use page so that I can laugh as you propose people "vet" photographs before posting - that'll be a scream to see the reaction!  Any future postings by you on my Talk page will be removed.  Take your supercilious argumentative-ness somewhere else (you don't seem to lack for places to take it).  --DavidShankBone 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Granted I am not knowledgeable about the history prior to my invitation for commentary. I guess I liked the idea of soliciting an outside or “fresh” perspectives to break a dead-lock. Edit wars … try reaching compromise on the topic of evolution. His approach seems reasonable to me. If nothing else, I learned about objectivity in regards to women. If there is a trend toward rejection of the photo; yet David … is still relentless, then you’ve made a case toward a non-Wiki decorum. I’m curious how this meets closure.   --Random Replicator 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

HOLY COW
Have you ever been productive. You are like a photography madman, producing all those pictures. Do you have a camera grafted to your body? Wow I have never seen anything like it. Man oh man. Very very impressive. I always wondered where all these pictures come from. I am glad we have someone like you willing to help with the pictures because they really help with articles, in my opinion.--Filll 05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo
DavidShankBone said: I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please?

Thank you for your message. I will attempt to give an opinion as good as I can on the page you requested I look at. If I feel I am unable to do so, I shall leave it as it is.

And I have to admit that I concur with Filll, your photographical additions to several articles are, for someone who has only been an avid Wikipedia contributor for six months, something to put 99% of the rest of us to shame. Kudos. Bobo. 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have practically no knowledge of the topic of that article and hence no substantial opinion on whether to include the image. Sorry. —xyzzyn 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the use of your image and have expressed my opinion. Tony the Marine 17:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

February 4
I noticed your rather adament about adding this grand conjunction into the events section of this article. Would you please create an article about this event first? Rklawton 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I thought I was actually taking it out myself. I wasn't paying close enough attention.  I reverted my revert.  --DavidShankBone 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My user page
DavidShankBone said: Your user page is awesome! I love the organization - I may have to pay some flattery to you and copy some of it. Just a note to say thanks for the kind words on my Talk page; always appreciated.

Thank you very much for your kind words about my user page. I assume you are viewing it in Firefox to see the full effect of the rounded corners rather than the new version of Internet Explorer which still can’t handle the rounded corner tabs. Feel free to copy it through to your own user page with content of your own.

I’m by no means a designer of these things but I think that’s the best design I’ve come up with so far, and I’m glad that it’s resonated with someone. Many thanks. Bobo. 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

POV in EV
Hi,regarding your revert of my edit in the East Village, Manhattan article, I have to disagree - if it's not properly sourced and it takes an anti-police POV (rightly or not), it is POV. If the main article supports it, let's keep the POV language there, where it's sourced. That has the added benefit of you leaving the EV article (relatively) concise, so you kill two birds at once.

And whether the main article supports it is immaterial; the word "brutally" does not belong in a Wikipedia article, and "was a contributing factor" is certainly inserting one's own perspective into the article. I'm going to do the edit again, though I'd be happy to discuss any version that's less POV than the current one. Ytny (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Numbers by Jasper Johns by David Shankbone.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Numbers by Jasper Johns by David Shankbone.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cacophony 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Cacophony 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heya
Long time no see! I just read your comments on the LGBT project and realized your not a member of the project! Wanna rectify that????? We're always looking for new members to expand the project. And off the subject of this message, I saw your user boxes--you're like a brother or something. Of the 12 on your page, I have 8 on mine. :-) Jeffpw 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What a sweet (and flattering) message! Many of those userboxes I made myself, so I had an idea you borrowed some from my page. That's what they're there for. About the project: I understand your lack of patience with edit wars, but maybe you could just watch list a few of the LGBT project pages. We're a fun group, and very supportive of each other. The offer's open, and doesn't expire...and we could sure use a good image guy! Jeffpw 23:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm even if you have 8 of Jeff's, that must still mean he has over 40 you haven't ;-). WjBscribe 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't realised you hadn't signed up yet. Thanks for getting us moving on sorting the template over-crowing issue. WjBscribe 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)