User talk:David Shankbone/Archive 7

Not sure if you care anymore...
But the Chihuahua edit warrior has been blocked for 31 hours.-Wafulz 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Boo!
This sucks. Where'd you go? IvoShandor 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See here.-Wafulz 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that sucks. I hope you will reconsider David, you are a valued contributor. Don't let the ne'er-do-wells drag you down, they aren't worth the time. Please come back. IvoShandor 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sad to see this; you've given a lot to Wikipedia, and we appreciate it. ElinorD (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * David, don't do this, we need you! The guy was blocked 3 hours after you reported him, I'd say that's a fairly good response time for a volunteer project (and when you think of the toothlessness of ArbCom these days, it's a good response generally). Seriously, the issue you have is not with the people who harrass you, it's the appeasers who flock to your requests for help who have never themselves had to deal with a conflict and order you to keep discussing and "establishing consensus" with trolls when it's clearly gone way beyond that. They caused WWII, don't let them cause your departure too. :( Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It would suck if you actually left, David. Wikipedia would lose one of the best photographers it has, over such a trivial matter. Please reconsider.--Atlan (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yay!!! IvoShandor 01:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank God. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving? Please don't
Okay, i kinda get the feeling that it's partially my fault if you're thinking of leaving. I certainly understand your concerns about the vandal-fighting in Wikipedia. When one deals with "replaced page with 'Nate iz gayy'" vandals time and time again, a user reverting an image looks rather light in the midst of those. Of course, I saw the word vandal listed there and was rather iffy. I stepped aside, thought over it for a while, and "single-purpose account" rang in my head. In a nutshell, he was clearly a violation of a disruptive SPA, and I should have blocked him. Where am I going with this? Well, let me say this. I was at a convention today, got to meet some sports stars, would probably be low or maybe mid priority on wikiprojects, and a photo-op was $20. Quite crazy, which makes free images hard to get. Basically, being able to get great free images of higher priority people makes you invaluable as a Wikipedian.

Anyway, someone of this nature happened to me once before. Someone disagreed with me, stormed off of Wikipedia. Granted, he wasn't a huge loss, losing you from here certainly would be. If you're considering leaving I might follow, since I kinda feel responsibility. So I guess this message is a bunch of things, namely a plea to reconsider whether or not you're leaving. I actually don't think I've done a mesage such as this before, so I am serious about apologizing/asking this. Wizardman 01:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Granted, you've since changed it from retired to wikibreak, I felt like I had to post this though. Wizardman  01:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

please please please
Don't retire from Wikipedia. I know this kind of bullshit can be frustrating and time-consuming, and that life is short. But no admin is going to ultimately choose to let this disruptive crap continue indefinitely. It will be resolved. Frankly David, I think your contributions to Wikipedia, especially as a photographer, have been immeasurably valuable. Despite our egalitarian stance, Wikipedia desparately needs professionals like yourself to contribute. In consideration of the immense benefit only your services can provide, I urge you to reconsider retiring once we've had time to cool down from this current endeavor.

P.S. I didn't have the ANI page watchlisted, so please don't hesitate to remind me about things like admins being lax in responding. VanTucky (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Echo what VanTucky's said above, and glad to see you back! --Durin 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome David. VanTucky (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Chichichihua banned
Confirmed that he edits from the same IP range as the Afro vandal, so I extended the ban to indefinite. Thatcher131 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A problem I'm not sure can be rectified
I went off half-cocked, for sure, and as I explained to User:Wizardman my quitting smoking recently had something to do with it. Still, It can be difficult to get admins to assist with help. I recognize the "Assume Good Faith" mantra is sacrosanct, and I appreciate its wisdom; however, it is also a double-edged sword. The last time I dealt with this user I had to spend two days (which, for a volunteer, is a lot) compiling an (unfinished) case of this person's bizarre behavior that stretched over a period of five months so that I could get their current disrupting taken seriously. The obvious angst I express above is not just from this one issue, but also from the past episode. My reason for getting annoyed was because when the issue was engaged by others, it didn't address the disruption, or it appeared they took a casual attitude about it. I experienced the same laissez-faire attitude in the previous episode with this troll, and it was beyond frustrating. Pretty much every edit I make is done with a serious desire to improve this Project. I've contributed a large body of work that is difficult for anyone to do (myself included - I have been far more successful at it than I ever expected). My point is that I find it a problem that the "Assume Good Faith" policy is stretched beyond reason, as it was here. We had 1. A single-purpose account; 2. two editors making the complaint; 3. diffs supplied; 4. Talk page consensus; 5. previous warnings to this user by other admins on the 3RR boards. I don't even see where it merited discussion. And it's anyone's right to do so--but if the Project, by which I mean all of us, wants to keep around those of who make every edit in a serious attempt to improve Wikipedia, then perhaps when we ask for help it shouldn't be treated casually. A lot of planning, time, editing and work goes into my photography; I don't just log on and change wording. What I do on Wikipedia is actually a lot of work, and perhaps people don't realize it's not easy to 1. get people to agree to have their portraits taken, 2. to arrange at time to do it, and 3. to get it done well (such as former Governor Jim McGreevey). It's not easy, it's not just about keystrokes. It's artistic and it's time-consuming and the results are owned by the Project, by which I mean all of us. Almost every time I have had this troll persistently mess with me I have had difficulty getting admin assistance. Like all of you, I'm a volunteer. I get a lot out of my contributions here and find them personally gratifying, but this year has tested my patience since I have some oddball in Snohomish, Washington who is obsessed with bothering me, and I have trouble getting help from the people who are meant to be the guardians of the project. If, in the end, I just don't have the emotional dexterity to "weather" these people, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for me. That's fine. But it doesn't seem to me it should have to come to that. Again, I recognize I was impatient with this episode, but there is also history and experience behind that impatience. --David Shankbone 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call you impatient at all. As a community, we can be too forgiving and too patient, always willing to give assholes the benefit of the doubt while scrutinizing some of our best contributors for biting. It's sad to admit, but the best thing I can recommend is to keep in touch with admins familiar with the situation- this way you won't start the process all over. I'll keep your experience in mind- I know it's not a perfect solution, but it's certainly a start.-Wafulz 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I am now familiar with both the Chichichihua case and the afro case, you can try calling on me the next time he shows up. I am available much less frequently than I used to be but I will do my best to look into the situation in a timely manner.  Also, the more cases of this that crop up (i.e. single-purpose editors whose mission is to challenge your photos) the easier it will be to get the random admins hanging around the noticeboard at any given moment to recognize the situation for what it is and make a more timely intervention. Thatcher131 02:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:NYPD Emblem
Hey, thanks for noticing the emblem. I'm working on fixing it up, but when I first got it I just converted in from EPS to SVG, and I didn't really notice the aliens. Anyway, I won't put it up again until it matches the original. Thanks again. – Alex43223T 16:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

good work
hey there,

This is really nice work man. A very bold attempt to come forward for a good cause. Its informative and help understand body parts as they see it..Good work ..Keep it up..!!

Al Franken drug use material
I noticed your edit summary, and I actually disagree with you on both points. First, as I outlined on the talk page there, I have a problem with the section as such. Any celebrity who has acknowledged drug use or had someone else describe an instance of drug use could have such a section. I don't think we want Wikipedia to become a database of celebrity drug use. Second, I disagree that the material was unsourced. Each claim was actually attributed to a publication or interview, which seems adequate to me. If the material is acceptable, then the version that guy added is acceptable. Croctotheface 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Watch the WP:Three revert rule. I'll be watching it and will call the single purpose guy on it if he makes another revert today.--Appraiser 14:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality film
Thank you for taking the care to keep the article neutral, and accommodating all points of view. THF 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam allegation
Please read WP:COI, which I followed: if an author wishes to insert a reference to his own work, it should be discussed on the talk page. There is no spam. My editor chose the title to the American piece, not me. Please restore the talk-page comment you inappropriately deleted. THF 14:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just posted the response on the Talk page - I won't remove a second time. --David Shankbone 14:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep WP:COOL
Some of the comments on the Sicko talk page seem uncivil. It might be worth taking a short break from the page. Cool Hand Luke 22:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding
One reason I was upset at you was because you kept incorrectly referring to the notability tag as a "prod." It occurs to me that you may not be aware that a prod refers to a specific type of tag that results in the automatic deletion of an article if the tag remains for five days -- which was why I was upset when you kept incorrectly insisting that there was a seven-month old prod.

Another possible misunderstanding stems from the fact that WP:COI is used to refer to two different ideas: the existence of a conflict of interest, and the conflict of interest policy. An editor can have a conflict of interest, but adhere to the conflict of interest policy, which does not bar editors with a conflict of interest from participating in related pages, so long as they do precisely what I did: disclose the conflict, discuss proposed edits on the talk page, and avoid controversial edits. My piece on documentary films is not going to end up on any article unless other editors decide to put it there. It thus upset me when you accused me of violating WP:COI when in fact I was in compliance with it: WP:COI compliance explicitly permits me to discuss issues on the talk page, and you reported me for doing just that.

I apologize for any strife caused by these misunderstandings, but hope you understand where I'm coming from on these issues. As a sign of your good faith, please ask for your faulty COI/N notice to be withdrawn and deleted. THF 07:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please use my new username, THF, or "Ted." Please also restrict your personal attacks to WP:COI/N rather than every talk page in existence if you feel you can't resist administrators' repeated warnings not to personally attack me.  The talk page of WP:COI is to discuss the COI guideline, not to discuss me. THF 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello - IMAX films
Hello Mr. Shankbone. I like your style. Notice here on BOMOJO that 'The Dream is Alive' is not even listed. Because it is so old and has been seen by so many young people for free in museums that there is no accurate total. Link I would like to see the box office grosses for all the Michael Moore attack movies like Farenhype 9/11 combined. Probably less than one showing of Sicko! The far-right LOATHE and DESPISE Michel Moore but are only like little tiny flies bothering him. They have no effect and no harm. Even when they thought they 'had' him like with CNN and Sanjaya Goober, Mickey came out victorious. He is an American hero. Bmedley Sutler 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I love your photos too! I myself have travelled a lot and been to Cuba too! Do you have some photos of Cuba? I love the east village. I love French food too, and ate at Le Tableau and Jules Cafe last time I was there. By for now. Bmedley Sutler

WP:COI/N
David, please read the link I provided. The COI/N noticeboard is not for trivial discussion of COI, and a proposal that states otherwise is an expansion of the scope. THF 23:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While you may edit your own talk page, you may not delete content from mine. WP:COOL, please. It's only Wikipedia. Thank you. THF 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

apology
I apologize for this edit summary, which was overaggressive. THF 00:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Plea for calm
David and THF, both of you would be well served by simply staying out of each other's way for a while. Raymond Arritt 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent COI stuff
THF &amp; David: I'm posting this simulataneously to both of your talk pages. I just want to say that I hope we can move ahead with no hard feelings between any of us. No two of us agree entirely on the issue, and I know how easy it is to get all het up. I'm pleased that you both decided to step back and calm down, and I'm hopeful that the COI guideline discussion can be resolved with a good, useful compromise &mdash; at least between the three of us! SamBC(talk) 01:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove Post
I looked into the situation and could not find your post. I will gladly look into problems with WP:OWN. Just show me the diff. enjoy your wiki break, we all need one from time to time. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy David's Day!

 * It is about time! Contratulations david! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews press credentials
Wikinewsies tend to get a bit insular when it comes to press credentials, as the typical standards include actually being involved on Wikinews. But seeing as you're a valued photographer, I'd like to grant the exception. And I believe we have done such a thing before. MessedRocker (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Bob Guccione Picture
Hi...I am a family member of Bob Guccione, distant, but family member nonetheless. The picture you have tagged to him is not him. I am new to wikipedia and I don't know how to post pictures, but I just wanted to let you know!:)

Hi there
I was looking through the feminism cat and saw a subpage of yours (User:DavidShankBone/sandbox/Sexual Objectification) listed. I templated the cats so that they are still "there" but now they do not show up in the category. I hope that's okay with you. Please let me know if you have any problems, questions, edits as i know this is your user space. I've marked this for watching fyi. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kathoys photo on Drag queen article
Hi, I don't want to get into a back and forth on the nuances of labels and cultural interpretation so I'm writing here to get the Kathoys photo back into the article as I feel it's better with it than not. As you are probably aware drag queens come in all genders and sexualities and drag is an outward artiface. In the words of RuPaul "you are born naked, the rest is drag." I work with T-girls and some might be put off by being thought of as a drag queen but most simply could care less as long as the customer is paying and paying attention. Even if the Kathoys pictured don't self identify as drag queens others do identify them as such. That's how I found the photo in the first place? See also Faux queen. Benjiboi 11:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos & consensus
Not wishing to butt in with your on-going feud at Raul's page, but I've restored one of your images, on Glans penis, until a consensus is reached to have it removed. Consensus can work both ways as far as I'm concerned! Let me know if I can help you further. The Rambling Man 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks TRM - I appreciate it. If consensus is to not use the photos, then I'll abide by that, as always.  -- David  Shankbone  16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you reverted someone's edit without explanation.  Please discuss the matter on the article talk page. --Coppertwig 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that at glans penis you've reverted Nandesuka's edits without addressing the points the user raised. You have reverted 3 times with little or no explanation or argument to support keeping the picture(s).  Please discuss the matter on the article talk page using substantive arguments that refer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and to the actual characteristics of the material being inserted/removed, with the intention of reaching consensus via discussion.  You've accused Nandesuka of violating 3RR, but Nandesuka has provided actual reasons for the user's edits.  Usually, more than one consecutive edit by the same editor is counted as a single edit, so each of you is at 3 edits in a 24 hour period I think -- except that yours seem to lack any substantive supporting discussion.  3 edits in a 24 hour period is not (necessarily) a violation of 3RR;  you need to count 4 edits in 24 hours to report someone. --Coppertwig 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why assume that I'm not assuming good faith? I just think it's redundant to have three photographs; WP:NOT an image gallery, after all.  I don't really care if the penis belongs to you or to your friend&mdash;I just don't think it's useful (in the article). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, you may find WP:DOUCHE good reading. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're edit warring to include your pet image in the article. It's a silly pissing contest.  If you're happy to go around calling people dicks, while edit warring over dicks, I'm not going to be particularly concerned that my edit summary contained some levity.  I'm sorry I stomped on your penis, already.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, I've never cited WP:DOUCHE to anyone before. I just reserve it for people who are taking their dicks far too seriously.  If you want to call me a dick again – or anything else – feel free to get it off your chest.  Namecalling is cathartic.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are clearly speaking from experience. -- David  Shankbone  20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh...oh...oh...OH YEAH? Well you started it!  Nyah!  (sticks out tongue)  You may now have the last word. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. -- David  Shankbone  21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you just remove my addition of Striptease Exercise to the Striptease section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flirtygirl1 (talk • contribs).


 * Hello, David. Just wanted to let you know that the pubic-hair-pic-issue has also been raised at WP:ANI now. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User page looks different when you are loged out
Did you know that when someone is looking at your user page with a simple IP address, the site looks different because of the Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! message. --81.15.51.66 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of factors that make the page look different, including screen size and web browser used. I may re-design it so that it is more stable, when I have the time.  Thanks for letting me know, though.  -- David  Shankbone  17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there
 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AfD
Reality film is currently in violation of WP:A. All it needs is a citation that proves that the term "reality film" is in widespread use, or that the topic indeed exists and is notable. I couldn't find one, but you are much more familiar with the topic, so maybe you could easily track one down. When you do, and have added it to the article, I'll gladly change my position at AfD. Has a major magazine referred to any movies as a "reality film"? Are there any articles in major magazines or major websites on "reality films"? If so, that would probably anchor the concept.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera's orientation
Can you please join the main discussions at WP:BLP/N or Talk:Christina Aguilera? Keeping a discussion that affect at least 3 articles and has Biographies of living persons implications in a rather obscure forum is not helping. Circeus 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad then. Circeus 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-referenced biographies?
Please see my response here - non-referenced BLP articles must be sourced, no matter how notable the person. SkierRMH 22:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake
Sorry about this comment, it seems I mis-read the situation before speaking. Keep up the good work. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : ('Go ')) 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply from Ivo
David, thanks for the kind words. I don't think I will ever feel comfortable again around here, if an article I research for weeks cannot be accurate, or perceived as such, then there is no point in continuing to do this. For now, I may drop in and make a few minor edits here and there (I just made one) but I don't know if I can ever be the full-fledged contributor I once was. The RfA sucked but I got over that and have no intention of ever trying that again, I have said it before: those people at RfA are Assholes, capital A included. I am sick and tired of the petty bickering that goes on here, it's like a gathering of children, probably because that's what most of the editors are. But to me it is clear that this project will never be taken seriously, clearly, no matter how well researched and referenced something is people's biases will reign supreme. Why continue? The only reason I was here in the first place was to tell people about the things that I learned about, studied and researched. Since the world at large doesn't care, it doesn't matter. I appreciate the fact that you, and probably some other editors, think that I am "one of the good ones." But, really, (and no offense meant) I am not here for the approval of my peers, but for the reason outlined above, and if that reason can never be attained, then, there is no point in continuing to waste my time. 67.173.131.28 23:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My plan
Based upon the discussion and kind words offered by you and others my plan is to do these things:
 * Edit less than normal, for awhile anyway.
 * Contribute less to discussion pages in the WP namespace, (save those discussions I am involved in currently)
 * Try not to let Wikipedia upset me so much (which it does at times and my edits reflect it, i.e. I become rather hostile towards some people)
 * Try to remember just how shitty of a school Northern Illinois University is, and that the president there is more likely to have graduated from Hollywood Upstairs Medical College than anywhere else.

IvoShandor 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Twinkie defense RfC initiated
Please see Talk:Twinkie defense. This article RfC is was initiated per the Dispute resolution process. Please see WP:RFC, particularly the section on Request comment on articles, for information about this process. Thanks. --Yksin 01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ranting on ANI
I gotta say, if you want to be taken seriously, ranting on WP:ANI is not the way. What good points you had were lost due to your tone. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : ('Go ')) 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice, but I wasn't trying to sway opinion, to be honest. I was flagging the issue since I know Moore, or someone at his website, is watching the page.  It looks, to me, like a sandbox full of kids.  We have 1.  THF, whose User name used to be his real name, who wrote an article attacking Moore, who now edits under his initials, and who brought to the attention of the admin board Moore's site where he, again, names him, frantically removing any mention of his name on Wikipedia; 2. we have editors who take Wikipedia so seriously that there is a cabalist attitude that is completely irrelevant to writing an encyclopedia but more about our self-importance; 3. we have partisans who will use any excuse, and any loose interpretation of policy to remove legitimate links to websites that have encyclopedic value simply because they don't like the subject; and we have an "attack" being defined that Michael Moore mentions the person in Point 1 as the editor on the articles about his work, who half-way through his Wikipedia editing career decided to stop using his name but continues to trumpet his work. All of this is pretty circus-esque.  And that was the point of the rant: to point out how ridiculous it all is, to flag Moore to it, and to hope it gets picked up in the media, something along the lines of "Wikipedia vs. Michael Moore", so that we can be shown how silly and self-important we are, talking of "rewards" and "punishments" with one of the most influential people in our country.  I would feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh.  So I hope he gets some of his friends to write some amusing stories.  Because lord knows with the silly levels this has been taken to, especially when it is over "unmasking" a person who was never masked, we sure deserve the shame.  And I say that as someone who spends about 20-30 hours a week contributing.  Sometimes some pie in the face is what it takes to humble.  So, my rant had several points; none of which had anything to do with trying to persuade the un-persuadeable.  -- David  Shankbone  02:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's pretty obvious from my photography that I know some influential people, but a good friend of mine is a producer at The Colbert Report. I'm going to tip him myself.  Is that bannable?  Nah, it can't be, because the anti-Moore side feel so justified that they'll think it will reflect poorly on Michael Moore.  -- David  Shankbone  03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone's entitled to an opinion and to argue it, but all I can see here is you attempting to get more attention for yourself by pouring fuel on a fire. This is causing unnecessary drama and isn't good for anyone, you included.  Please consider the long term consequences of your actions here a bit more.  Georgewilliamherbert 05:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you're the latest to take on the "attack site policy", you might find this essay to be of interest. *Dan T.* 03:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I will have to read it tomorrow or the next day.  I'm not upset in the least, I'm frankly just bummed at how silly Wikipedia seems to me right now.  I have 20 photo shoots coming up in the next month, and I hope I overcome my sense of embarrassment, which will only happen once we do away with any policy that describes what Moore did (or if Limbaugh, or Horowitz, or Franken, et. al. might do in a similar vein) as "attacking."  The whole thing has seemed to me to be an issue of self-importance, and moving away from the original purpose of the project to make us seem like something we never aspired to be: a site of influence that we will wield against those we deem who cross us.  David.  (typically I would respond on your page, but on this issue I'd prefer to keep the discussion together)  -- David  Shankbone  04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was good to have your input in the matter and I do understand now that you were/are trying to gather attention to this matter. This type of thing has happened several times before, which you can read about in Dan's essay.  Several editors, without crystal balls, note that it is going to keep happening as long as the bickering continues.  I registered here right around the current WP:BADSITES (like) controversies, and I wonder what course of action was taken before and why it had to be changed, only to cause so much disruption.  daveh4h 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comin' into DeKalb Angeles
Do it! I dare ya! Though how anyone who comes here doesn't shoot themselves in five minutes I will never know, jk. Thanks for your kind words again David, it means a lot coming from someone who has given so much to the project while asking for, oh yeah, nothing! How easily people forget these things about volunteer work.

Hey thanks for that pleasant surprise
Thanks for your wise vote on the "Controversies over the film Sicko" discussion at the Sicko talk page. It's nice to know somebody can disagree with me on everything else (at least everything else that's come up recently about Michael Moore) and still be open-minded. That was a bright spot in my day. Cheers, Noroton 20:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS
David, I can't count the number of times you have falsely made the same allegations against me, but your Village Pump post is very clearly over the WP:HARASS line when it comes to pestering. Please remove it and restrict your discussion to the abstract policy of WP:HARASS rather than continuing to make false claims against me in WP:MULTIple forums. THF 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I brought this up on Jimbo's page. I'm willing to go to ArbCom if need be over this User name issue.  It's nothing personal, THF, but this desire of yours to unring a bell you run loudly yourself has become very disruptive to Wikipedia, many times over.  Since you are persisting with this, I invite you to take me to ArbCom over it, and all the other people who are supposedly violating WP:HARASS - this needs to get fleshed out more.  -- David  Shankbone  18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * THF, the section to which you refer indicates unacceptable behaviour only on Wikipedia. You appear to be assuming that all websites everywhere should be following our policies. This is not the case, and just because a website is displaying what is common knowledge (ie, who you are) does not mean they are attacking you, harrassing you, or in any being threatening. In fact, the amount of crap you have dredged up about this has resulted in the spreading of your personal information far beyond a few lefties who read mm.com. I, for example, now know your personal details when I would not have done had you not decided to complain loudly and repeatedly about it. I imagine a lot of people do. Please stop digging, Wikipedia has enough drama without you trying to bring even more. And please stop harrassing other editors because they have the good sense to point out how silly this is.


 * And I can't even understand why you're doing this - were you not just one week ago using your real name as an account name and complaining people were calling you by it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole WP:HARASS argument smacks of WP:GAME - WP:HARASS is there to protect the random librarian or kid who isn't a public figure. Not public figures who attack other public figures, especially when the attacker revealed himself.  How can that be an adequate reading of WP:HARASS?  If Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi were duking it out on Wikipedia, or even off-wiki with references to Wikipedia and who the other person's User name is, would we really be protecting one or the other?  Ted, your already a public person, writing Op-Eds and involved in high-profile policy issues, giving lectures, etc.  How can you expect this anonymity, anonymity you never gave yourself?  -- David  Shankbone  18:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy says nothing about Public figues having less rights on wikipedia so stop the Harassment based on your political POV. (Hypnosadist )  18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You should take your dogged desire to argue for legal fights with every notable person elsewhere. You'll note nobody supports how you see things; even THF has more support than you, and he has also cautioned you in your support for him for the way you argue and the things you say. You don't really help his cause, to be honest, so if you support him perhaps it would be better to remove yourself from the argument.  I am going to go out on a limb and say THF would probably appreciate you disengage from the "battle" (to quote your user page).  You are becoming his Westboro Baptist Church. -- David  Shankbone  18:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "if you support him" I don't i support thr rights of wikipedians to edit without death threats being recieved on the home phone as happened to user [refactored]. As not one person as been able to argue against the policy as it is writen i'm still in the right. Just admit you hate THF and his politics and it is you who are wikilawyering to keep harassing him. And keep your petty insults to yourself. (Hypnosadist )  19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You aren't particularly worth my time. Happy editing.  -- David  Shankbone  19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Walken Image Flipped?
Hi David. Just wondering why the image of Walken (Image:Christopher_Walken_by_David_Shankbone.jpg) appears flipped. Has it been, or is he standing behind a backdrop that is normally seen and photographed from the other side? --Craig (t|c) 01:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

THF
David, I have proposed that we formally endorse the voluntary restriction that THF appears to accept, at Community sanction noticeboard. It would be much appreciated if you (a) stop referring to him by his real name, since everybody knows who he is, and (b) restrict your comments to substantive issues with content, in that one thread, for the time being. It is time to de-escalate this dispute, I think, and you can help with that. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with the above (fancy that!)... it seems like David and I are on the same side in opposing anything resembling the BADSITES policy, but when it comes to intentionally rubbing people's real identity in their noses just to spite them, I have to say that this is a bad idea. Keep your eye out for actual conflicts of interest occuring in his future editing, sure... oppose any efforts to forcibly de-link the Moore site from places where it belongs, certainly... but otherwise, leave the guy (not the Guy... that's the admin who posted above!) alone.  Sure, it's unreasonable of anybody to expect to become retroactively anonymous after editing under their real name, but that doesn't mean you need to go out of your way to keep mentioning his real identity when there's no reason to do so.  Sometimes humoring people (even unreasonable people) is the best policy to help everybody get along and go back to productive editing. *Dan T.* 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually never rubbed THF's name in his face. Originally, I used his real name back when he was using it himself as his User name.  Two-thirds of the way through the Sicko battle he changed his User name and it took some adjusting.  But then that left the issue of his public dispute with Moore under his real name, and it became increasingly difficult to avoid the 800 pound gorilla in the room of who he was.  But I wasn't casting about his name like a child leaving breadcrumbs in the woods.  Just FYI, since in all the arguments this is one I did not address.  -- David  Shankbone  18:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

David, as an example of my disruptiveness, I have to ask you whether this is really something you want to pursue further, or whether all of the issues are now resolved after my WP:VPP statement, and you'll stop harassing me. I really think I have been the opposite of disruptive between the two of us: Is there anything else that's really at issue? I think if objective third parties look at this, you're going to look a lot worse than I am, but if we can agree that there's nothing to fight about going forward, and you let me participate in the project in peace, we can drop this matter without further escalation. THF 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The content dispute over whether to add a cite to Sicko was resolved two weeks ago. I helped draft guidelines at WP:COIC and WP:SCOIC to address future controversies, and agreed to abide by them.
 * When you escalated a dispute off-wiki, I accepted an apology rather than bring an arbcom case, and repeatedly reached out to you to resolve the dispute, for which you gave me a resilience barnstar.
 * With respect to Moore's site, I made a good-faith inquiry about a straightforward application of a bright-line rule, and there was legitimate debate between admins over how policy should be applied. I withdrew from the debate, even closing ANI discussion threads when people kept trying to reopen it, but other editors continued fighting about it; when one who kept removing the site was blocked for edit-warring, I defended the block and tried to calm him down on his talk-page.
 * With respect to my username, I explained my good-faith reasoning at WP:VPP, apologized to Cyde, and withdrew from the controversy, though admins were still defending my position.
 * I've completely stayed out of the AFD, and haven't complained about the COIs of many of the people involved in that thread.
 * With respect to COI application, I have been following the guideline in good faith, and have repeatedly asked for clarification and even-handed enforcement, even opening a thread myself at WP:COI/N.
 * You complain that I haven't changed my username to something anonymous, but you surely see that doing so would be far more disruptive: we already have one editor pretending to be a sock of mine, imagine what would happen if I didn't have a regular account.
 * THF, I really have no personal issue with you, and I am glad you contribute to Wikipedia. My issues with you have not been over your editing Wikipedia and the articles you edit, but some of the actions you have taken that I find disruptive. I also believe that if other people were undertaking what you undertook with your documentary list, you would have a problem with it.  You don't have to deny that or confirm it.  This was our first tussle.  Our second tussle came when  you instigated having MichaelMoore.com removed as an attack site.  I really find these sorts of things disruptive to the project itself.  Both of these issues require massive amounts of time and attention of countless people, they cause bad feelings not just among me and you, but among many editors for various reasons (the aforementioned consumption of time, other spats get tangled up in them and new arguments develop between tangential editors.  I am not saying you do not make these arguments and present these issues in "good faith" but I do believe they boil down to wikilawyering and gaming guidelines and policies against the spirit of their intentions.  Regardless of your good faith, I wish you would sometimes consider whether episodes like those I mention above are "worth it" - worth the time, the effort and the hard feelings.  You will notice that I have disengaged in editorial and content disputes with you.  More so, we have engaged over what I see as disruptive requests that are silly.  You argue that you are concerned about stalking and harassment, but you are already a noted public person who gives out opinions to a far wider audience than is found on Wikipedia, so I personally find arguments like that disingenuous and game-y.  Other people may disagree.  Regarding the "threat": It was not a threat.  I used Wikimedia's servers precisely because I assumed you did not have Wikipedia mail go to your work account; otherwise, I could have e-mailed the question directly to your AEI addy from my Gmail.  I apologized because it was meant as a "dirty trick" to mess with you since you were messing with me, but there was no threat inherent in the words, or the spirit.  Going forward, if you would give a little more consideration to what your actions will bring, and whether you deem the fight worth it (e.g. instigating the removal of Moore's website from his article; trying to get your own work that is not notable in relation to the subject posted in multiple articles) then I do not think we will have any problems.  But issues like this, in my opinion, hurt Wikipedia.  Conversely, many of your edits greatly improve the project, and if you ever need my assistance or back-up (which is never given wantonly), I will be there for you.  One thing people can't really argue against me is that I don't do things in good faith here.  I want the project improved and I don't do AfDs, RfCs, ANIs, COIs, make edits or add photos that I personally think are questionable.  Although I may not be able to sway others with my opinion, that does not mean I ever do so thinking my own actions are questionable.  As a matter of fact, I've had two articles I started a year ago deleted because, in hindsight, the individuals were not notable enough for inclusion.  I voted to delete Megan McArdle, despite my portrait and knowing her, because her notability was marginal.  I congratulated someone when they replaced my Catwalk photo with a better one, and I insisted we include Al Franken's drug use in his article, even though I love the guy.  Because I am known on here for my good faith and expending vast quantities of time improving the project, many admins were hesitant to admonish me over the issues you raised; I'm not known for that sort of behavior, and it would be odd if all of a sudden I took out a personal vendetta.  Especially when I am glad you are here.  -- David  Shankbone  20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * David, I fully admit I was guilty of naivete. As I discussed at VPP, I was working from both personal experience on the other end of this, and an inherent sense of justice that like policies should be applied evenly in identical situations; and it took reasoned discussion with WJBscribe before I recognized that my error in analysis was that the unanimous consensus precedent in February that I was relying on was the one that was incorrect.  I was honestly surprised that the same unanimous consensus didn't immediately fall into place on my behalf the way it did for an editor who, unlike me, had an extensive block history and was being actively dishonest about her COI.
 * I also admit that I was careless with ambiguous language when I said "What's the policy for delinking attack sites?" when I meant "Is this an example of an attack site subject to the delinking policy?" I am also guilty of not being familiar with the SV controversy, and not recognizing that my issue would be seized upon by a lot of people who were actually fighting a different issue.  If I had any sense of the disruption that ensued, I wouldn't have raised it all (as it was plainly counterproductive to any possible goal I might have), but I honestly thought that this would be a noncontroversial application of Wikipedia policy in one direction or another.  Plus you have to recognize that someone else would have raised the issue if I hadn't.  The question remains: do we have any disputes going forward?  I don't see anything worth rehashing if you are not going to continue raising old content disputes ad infinitum or continue to demand an unreasonable application of the COI guideline with respect to me. THF 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * THF, that is a very fair statement. In the end, I think, michaelmoore.com will not be counted as an attack site because it is, primarily, not one, it's the web site of a notable public figure.  However: if anyone posts a link to that site or its comments on you with the intention of harassing, embarassing or otherwise winding you up, then the links should simply be removed with a comment that they are not relevant to content, and could the person concerned please restrict themself to discussing content.  If they won't, then it's pretty unambiguous.  It looks to me very much as if it's time for you and David to bury the hatchet; it's clear that his use of your real name in the past was not wilful, but that in future he should restrict himself to addressing you as THF.  One big BUT here, though - if you discuss or advocate linking to your own columns, it would be very unwise of you to fail to mention that you are the author, and I would suggest that there will be very limited patience if you were to try to discuss such links and actively prevent your being identified as the author.  I don't believe you would do this.  Am I right?`  Guy (Help!) 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of flouting the COI guidelines, and even helped draft WP:SCOIC to ease the process. Please let me know if you feel my disclosure in Talk:Pro_se on 23 August, which has yet to result in any mainspace edits, is satisfactory. Again, it is merely a question of repeated use of my real name to discuss my Wikipedia edits. THF 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do not see any issues going forward, and I think we all have a better understanding of where we come from. I stand by the barnstar I gave you, THF - notice I never tried to take it back ;-)  -- David  Shankbone  21:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

THF's Michael Moore hit piece on the Ted Frank article
I hesitate to ask, but can you explain to me the reasoning why on the one hand you describe a particular article as a non-notable unreliable opinion in a non-notable publication from a non-notable source that isn't "mainstream," so obviously inappropriate that it "hurt Wikipedia" to even suggest on a talk-page its addition to an article, and then go and include that same cite in a different article? It would seem to me that if it's notable enough for one article, it's notable enough for the other, and if not, not. It's hard for me to see why it's notable to include in article X that "X commented on Y" if it's not notable enough to include the same statement in article Y. THF 03:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * THF, can you flesh out this question more? Which articles are you talking about and where?  -- David  Shankbone  11:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand. The article is the Michael Moore hit piece you wrote in The American (magazine).  I'd be happy to explain the difference as to why I don't quibble with its inclusion on Ted Frank but I have a huge problem with its inclusion on March of the Penguins, although I think it's quite obvious and I hesitate to ask...is that a serious question?  Who is Ted Frank?  Is he a film theorist and critic, or is he a pundit?  In what realm is he notable?  What is The American (magazine)?  Is it a film magazine, known for its film reviews, or is it a political and business magazine aimed at the right?  In what area do people turn to you for your opinion?  Is it your knowledge of film history and measurements of documentary film and the injustice your colleagues and peers at film schools and on the Arts & Leisure section have done to Eddie Murphy Raw for denying its rightful place in documentary lists?  Or is over your ideological point of view and your musings on liability reform?  Have your feelings about film theory been referenced at all in the mainstream media, or have your feelings on tort reform?  Do these questions flesh out at all for you why I feel your insistence to include your article re-ranking documentaries to show Sicko is the twenty-second highest grossing, and not the fourth by the commonly-accepted  methods, should not be included in the articles for all 25 films you ranked, but why it is fine to report about your own personal view of Michael Moore and his film Sicko on an article about you and your own personal views.  Your a pundit, not a film critic.  Your punditry gets reported on about your article.  No on 25 film articles.  So, really, was that a serious question?  Did you really not see the difference?  -- David  Shankbone  11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have answered the question why "X commented on Y" is not in Article Z; I accept that you are being consistent there. You have not answered the question of why "X commented on Y" is not in article Y, when you put it in article X.  Your opposition to the first proposition was so stringent, that it seems unimaginable that you'd want it anywhere in the encyclopedia.  The proposition is either notable, or it is not.  If the former, then it belongs in both articles X and Y; if the latter, it belongs in neither article.  You seem to be saying that X's opinions about Y are not notable because they are outside his field.  That is a reasonable argument.  But then why put it in the X article? THF 12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * THF, you are going to have to be specific and fill in the blanks for me: what are you talking about? -- David  Shankbone  12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another note: I didn't put any article you wrote in anything; I cleaned up wording that did not make sense. Although I will accept your unstated proposition that by my not removing it, but improving it, equals acceptance.  But its nascence in your article was not me.  -- David  Shankbone  13:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you do know what I'm talking about, then. Copy-editing that sentence is entirely inconsistent with your stated position in a content dispute where you accused the holder of the opposite position of "hurting Wikipedia" merely by raising it on a talkpage of Article Y, a position you felt so strongly about, you raised it on the COIN, ANI (several times), VPP, COI, CSN, and Talk:Jimbo pages seeking sanctions.  If someone put it in Article Y, you'd remove it, not copyedit it: you saw the sentence in Article X and felt the only thing wrong with it needing correction was improving the wording.  (NB that I am not saying that an article edit that focuses on another section and ignores a sentence is an endorsement of that sentence, so please do not derail the discussion with that strawman.)  I'm seeking a good-faith explanation for it, because the inconsistency (perhaps incorrectly?) implies that you either did not really believe the accusations you made over a three-week period, or it implies that your most recent edit (perhaps inadvertently) sought to hurt Wikipedia in your edit of this article. Rather than accusing you of being disruptive, I'm AGF, and seeking to see your motivation through your eyes, because I simply don't understand. THF 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Oh, I get it. That you commented on Moore and Sicko is fine in your article, but then why isn't it fine for the Sicko article? Because of all the reasons I stated above: you are not a notable film critic. To discuss the views one holds in their article is one thing, but that every topic upon which they have view merits inclusion into the articles on those topics is something wholly different. For instance, it is one thing to discuss Al Franken and his drug use in his article, but it is entirely different to talk about Al Franken's drug use in the drug use article. With all due respect, THF, that you are notable in one realm doesn't carry over into all realms upon which you have an opinion. Your notability is quite limited, even in your field, although the notability is without question - huzzah! So if you write an article that Celine Dion is without a doubt the best love-making music, that Mexican Spanish is superior to Castillian or that Turtleneck sweaters are the "must have" this Fall fashion season, your opinions would similarly be shunned in all of those articles. Although, they may make it into the Ted Frank article, so write away! -- David  Shankbone  13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, I said you "hurt Wikipedia" because you created a massive amount of disruption to have your unnotable film opinion and documentary rankings inserted into 25 film articles, not for simply suggesting it be put into the Sicko article. Perhaps you forget the veracity with which you argued for inclusion of your own work, raising policy arguments and the like.  Anyway, I hope all this clears it up for you. -- David  Shankbone  13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your recognition of my veracity. THF 13:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL - you beat me to fixing the typo to voracity; thanks for giving me a chuckle. -- David  Shankbone  13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this continuing?
Please stop encouraging harassment. You told me to put it on the WHO page; I did, an editor there told me to cite to someone experience in healthcare, and I did that. We've already established that I'm not violating COI, and it's not self-promotion for me to put a reliable source that is not me on a page: I know hundreds of academics, and it surely isn't the case that I am not allowed to cite to anyone I have exchanged pleasantries with. We've already established that it is permissible to make a suggestion on a talk page. You already said you were going to drop the matter if I didn't raise an arbcom. So why are you continuing to harass me, and WP:CANVASSing over it? THF 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you put Stossel on the page? He's the one you were pushing? I know plenty of people, too.  I had no problem with you raising an ArbCom, but I don't think you'd care for the results.  I have a problem with your agenda-pushing, THF.  Like I said to Mark--and I asked him because he is an authority--I don't plan to pursue this myself, but I am curious to know if this considered acceptable.  You continue with behavior that quite a few people have a problem with; it's not harassment to ask questions about it.  You throw around a lot of terms that ring hollow. -- David  Shankbone  17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:STALK and WP:AGF. Look at the history: I added Stossel to the WHO page, had the Stossel edit reverted on the grounds that he wasn't an academic, and, in an effort to reach consensus, added a cite to a health academic that made the same point.  I made one comment on the Stossel talk page suggesting a useful external link more consistent with WP:EL than half the external links on that page.  Editors will agree to insert it or not.  You have nothing to do with either page, and are seeking to exacerbate a dispute that I have repeatedly tried to resolve when I have done nothing wrong.  Are you going to abide by our agreement to leave me alone, or do I need arbitral resolution? THF 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it to ArbCom. I think your edits merit comment, and perhaps that will resolve this.  I'll respond. It's nothing personal; it really is about what I (and others) see as an agenda in your edits that I (and others) think is questionable. -- David  Shankbone  18:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Diff: "Leave the guy alone" from two editors. I will open a separate COI notice on myself for WHO to seek guidance. However, I expect you to abide by the findings of the COIN, just as I intend to. THF 21:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a loose interpretation of that comment, from someone who was responding to not me, but to your accusation against about three different editors for using your name. In fact, Guy actually confirmed I was not using your name wantonly.  I don't ask that you open a COI on the WHO issue.  The fact is, THF, your edits are problematic and you don't seem to care about your behavior and the fact that so many people have an issue with it.  This goes beyond one or two edits, but the totality of your behavior.  We are discussing John Stossel on Talk:Sicko, and you want to insert his criticism of the WHO (where he casually mentions Sicko in half a sentence) and I tell you that this film page is not the place for the criticism of widely-used stats.  I told you I would support you inserting John Stossel, whose notability you vigorously defended, on to the WHO's page.  What do you do?  You put a co-worker's criticism on the WHO page.  Why?  Why not Stossel?  I don't care at this point.  You make it so difficult to assume good faith.  You give nothing to go on, and you see no problem with your edits, only a problem with everyone else questioning you.  The correct place to go is ArbCom.  I'd post this reply to your Talk page, but you have a habit--against all Wikipedia etiquette--of removing comments you don't like immediately (another thing that makes Good Faith difficult) with no archive.  At this point, COIN is not the right forum for you; I think ArbCom or an RfC on yourself would be best place to take your issues.  Let's bring up how you edit, what you do, and the way you go about it, and if I'm told in one of those forums "There's nothing wrong with the way this guy edits" I will back off from watching what you do.  And I know you watch what I do; or is just by happenstance that after I photograph Arthur R. Miller you did a REDIRECT for Rudolph Perini?  I didn't go wingeing all over the place about WP:STALK (which is another good faith challenge to you - your loose use of policy and guideline, except as it concerns yourself).   -- David  Shankbone  21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My domestic partner has a very strong opinion about Arthur R. Miller from personal experience with him at Harvard, and I admit that I looked at your edit history to determine whether you were attacking me on yet another page, saw a page on a subject that I was interested in, examined the page, saw a red-link that had nothing to do with your edits, and fixed the red-link by creating a redirect page. If you find that objectionable, I will not challenge a CSD of the redirect page.  I'm trying to resolve this with a minimum of disruption by seeking a third opinion at COIN, but I can't stop you from going to arbcom. THF 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You were the one threatening the ArbCom, I simply told you it was a fine idea. But you have no good faith with me at this point - it's all used up.  In fact, I will go so far as to say you have little good faith on Wikipedia, except with those who support your agenda.  So don't be surprised if you constantly find yourself, as you do, writing "WP:AGF".  -- David  Shankbone  21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)  p.s. - the correct thing would be to create a stub for Rudolph Perini or to remove the wikilinks, since it just a self-wiki now.  -- David  Shankbone  21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect Arbcom would reject such a case, given it is a content dispute and given the lack of prior mediation. I, too, would like to express my irritation at THF's habit of removing select parts of his talkpage - four times now I have looked at it to find a message or conversation and found it gone. Learn to archive, man. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's his M.O., Dev. What's really funny is that I asked User:Raul654 if a couple of his edits had COI problems at all, and what does THF do?  He goes and opens his own COIN about it.  I wonder if he plans on opening a COIN every time one of us casually questions his behavior.  Mark could very easily have said, "Nope, no COI stuff there" and I would have said, "Cool, thanks, just wondering..."  But for THF, he feels he is off limits for discussion.  If we merely breath his name or discuss his edits, it is WP:Harass, WP:Stalk, blah, blah, blah.  So, there he sits in his self-COI, simply looking for validation over a question that, even in the affirmative, I had no intention to do anything about.  Par for the course. His reasoning on there is almost akin to, "They made me do it."  With as many new and varied editors as he fights with daily, I think he's going to be opening a lot of AN/Is and COINs in the future.  Perhaps a COIN/THF board?  -- David  Shankbone  01:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * David, it is a WP:HARASS violation. See the previous Arbcom ruling on the subject.  Or, you could just not stalk me, and then you wouldn't have to worry about all the compliant edits I make. THF 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's a WP:HARASS violation then bring it up on the ANI board, please. -- David  Shankbone  01:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It would probably be in line with prior precedent to block both of you for 24 hrs for mutual harrassment at this point. Is it possible that you could simplify things and just not talk about each other for a while and see if you can live with that? Georgewilliamherbert 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality film and Category:Reality film and deletion review
I've discussed the reason for my edits on Talk:Reality film and I invite you to discuss your edits there as well. I've nominated Category:Reality films for deletion and you can put any input you have on that matter there. I've also nominated Articles_for_deletion/Reality_film for deletion review because I feel the closing admin misinterpreted the debate. Feel free to discuss that here: Deletion_review. --Pixelface 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed a big list of potential sources posted during the DRV btw. IvoShandor 09:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See also sections
David, See also sections are precisely for Wikipedia articles that are of too little weight to be included in the main article. AFD Stuart Browning if you feel he is of too little notability to be mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, or self-revert, and please stop edit-warring. THF 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See also sections aren't for every minor point of view, THF, and this seems to be more a form of advertising. I won't revert again b/c of 3RR, but I don't support this inclusion.  I would, however, support inclusion of a link to "Criticisms of the WHO". -- David  Shankbone  12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted Frank (businessman)
You included a weird comment on the talk page of reality film which seemed to be a personal comment toward me utterly irrelevant to the article. As it turns out, I would be happy if Ted Frank (businessman) is deleted. He has more reliable sources discussing him than reality film, but in the process of creating the article I realized that most of the 100+ LexisNexis hits were press releases from his own company, and that he probably doesn't meet my standards. You'll notice that I expressed doubt immediately after creating the article. Sorry to let you down, but I'm not challenging that prod. Cool Hand Luke 15:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GE Building
Hello, David. Firstly, I'd like to compliment you on your impressive pictures, particularly the buildings. If I may ask, how do you get to your vantage points?

Now, as for the image you removed from the "GE Building" article: I understand your point. The article was a bit cluttered, but I uploaded the picture because I felt it added yet another facet to the different profiles of the building. Its further significance lies, I feel, in the fact that many people (natives and tourists alike) see the building from this angle, so it adds a bit of recognition and familiarity. As such, I've taken the liberty to add it to the general Rockefeller Center article (as a smaller thumb image), in which you only have one picture of the GE Building. I hope you don't still feel that it is unnecessary.

I look forward to hearing from you. CrankyScorpion 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the great advice! I hadn't thought of just waltzing on in, but next time I'm in the area I'll give it a shot. Maybe I'll try it out down here in Miami. As for the GE Building, I've got a couple of books on it, so maybe I will expand on it. Thanks again! CrankyScorpion 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Press credientials
Check your email. Raul654 01:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

THF

 * I appreciate your comments, and I am not taking a position on THF's edits about film reviews; but some of the discussions I have read about the issue go way outside the specific matter to policies that would limit my editing.--Cberlet 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * David, I accept your apology. I never stopped liking you, either, which is the one thing that continued to piss me off about the whole matter so much, that I wasn't working with you any more.  Yeah, yeah, Cberlet is right that you and I both go way outside the specific matter--but sometimes it is the only way to get someone to listen, and sometimes the issue is too important.  KP Botany 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the succint version. I had vaguely heard of this, as I watch films for a living on occasion, but did not really follow it.  Keep your cool, stick to the facts, and thank you for doing the right thing regardless of the personal consequences.  KP Botany 01:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reality film
A hypothetical: How would you distinguish between Salesman and Jackass as documentary vs. reality film? Girolamo Savonarola 20:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See, this is the thing: I think that a lot of people have this preconception in their head about what a documentary is, and it probably involves things like Ken Burns, National Geographic, and talking heads. The reality is that the genre is much wider than that, and in fact most of those things are relatively recent developments in a long line which stretches back to actuality films. (Speaking of which, how would you say one would distinguish between reality film and actuality film, aside from time period?) So the question of neologism is really one of asking, is this genre going to retrospectively apply back throughout the history of documentaries? Because if not, I have problems with it being a recentism issue. And if so, how are you going to parse it against the "canon" of things like DA Pennebaker, Maysles Brothers, and a LONG line of concert films including The Last Waltz, Woodstock, and Monterey Fest, to name but a few. I don't mean to be snotty or elitist here, but those who haven't seen most of those films or filmmakers probably shouldn't be making those distinctions.
 * And this is a larger issue that I think I'll always have with the film articles - people like films, and therefore often want to create articles about specialized subtopics without having much perspective of the larger view. (Just to clarify, I'm not criticizing you.) This is problematic in the sense that you generally don't have this occurring in most non-pop culture areas of knowledge, to my awareness. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the article can't be reconciled fully to film history, I'm gonna have a problem. So think about that and its full implications, and decide how to proceed. The current references and quotations are a good start, but I honestly feel that they mostly create the appearance of a legitimate topic. Which is not to say that it isn't; just that I'm not convinced yet.
 * Does that make sense? :p Girolamo Savonarola 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, off to ArbCom we go.
I've asked ArbCom to rule. . Guy (Help!) 22:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a better quality screen shot that you are welcome to use. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Carpe diem wants this discussion removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyx123 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The August 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 is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reality film
Hi David. The article looks good. I can't close the DRV since I participated in it. I'm still not clear on why there is resistance to this article. Reality television, Reality film - plenty of room in Wikipedia for all of it. Keep up the good work. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 05:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gloating
Please edit it as I did on this page--you really don't want me going near your user page (see mine for why, realizing it has been cleaned up by one of the botany editors). Thanks. Lovely picture of Anna Wilding by the way, best I've seen of her, please do send her a nice print. KP Botany 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo!
I was going to reply to your message, but have found it's not necessary. I'm sure you'll do a "woohoo" with me too! It's a victory against bigotted trolls, and shows that people who really care about improving, adding to and developing Wikipedia will in the end prevail. Thanks for your persistence Dave!  Wik idea  19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwoman
who's that girl in one of your pictures labeled transwomen. She's beautiful, I'm a filmmaker and would love to get in contact with her...Thanks in advance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.64.7 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you, unfortunately. She was in the pride parade in the transsexual contingent; I will see if I have a photo with the sign they were holding; she was, by far, the most beautiful of the bunch..  You could always take out some advertisements with the photograph, say on Craigslist or something.  -- David  Shankbone  22:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How to do an ArbCom
Friendly advice: if the case gets accepted, you will need to take ten deep breaths and get diffs before every statement, because thats what the Arbs like. State the timeline of the dispute, but please DO NOT prolong or perpetuate it; it would be best if both you and THF avoid any mutually disputed articles entirely until the case is over. And certainly don't do anything that could be interpreted as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, harassment or anything else. ArbCom always looks at all parties. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the case is accepted there will be an Evidence page, which is the place for diffs. I think acceptance is likely at this stage to clarify an important principle in respect of conflicts of interest. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested person to photograph
Since you said you take suggestions, if you get the chance, Greg Giraldo could use a photograph. Raul654 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Hi. Could you please remove all the evidence you are adding to your statement now? The case will be opened shortly, most likely today, and it will have a page specificly for evidence, where you can paste back what I'm asking you to remove now. Since the arbitrators have already accepted the case, and the purpose of statements is to explain why you think they should or should not accept it, adding to statements after acceptance does not serve much purpose. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 21:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Help?
Hello David, I have been noticing that almost each conservative blog and commenter has an article on wikipedia but liberal ones dont. Even blogs that dont exist any more like allahpundit have big articles. IMO the RW wiki editors have done a very good job promoting their people and sites and blogs on Wiki. Much better than the liberals! I guess we're too worried about  real issues to write all the self-promotion! I was reading some comments and I discovered that there is no wiki article for the  very  important website and blog newshounds.us. It tracks Fox news and other RW media, and is very regarded like Mediamatters. Its from Robert Greenwald of Outfoxed. Would you help me write this article in my Sandbox a little before I move it to the 'mainspace'? I was advised not to put it there as a 'stub' as the RWs who watch me wil 'AFD' it in a NY Minute (I love that saying!) I was advised that it would be better for me to stay away from the high profile 'battleground' articles where I get into fights from being provoked and write  new content and edit articles where there are no giant wars. I will not edit Larry Craig again for now, for instance. This seems like good advice. Maybe it would be good for you to work on something without harassment too. Any way, I started the article here, and you could really help since you like to write and write so very well. newshounds sandbox Thank you. <font color="#000000">•smedley <font color="#CC00CC">Δ <font color="#CC0000">butler• 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

hi there david
hi there my name is santos and i would like to know if you can help me get in contact with miriam rivera please if youo could pass my number thank you 610-570-5438 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.171.99 (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone's Virginal Book
LOL David. But sadly, I doubt very much it'd do... How go the Pubic Wars? Nick (Nick Michael 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. You can readd the evidence I asked you to remove from the case page yesterday to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about this David - I didn't realise I was your "meat puppet"! I thought it was now over. It's a bit of a shame. I think if I'm asked to make some kind of a statement, I will - but like all continuing editors on Wikipedia, including yourself, I'd like to continue making positive contributions on article pages, not responding to silly accusations on talk pages.  Wik idea  20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

David, I'm actually rather peeved that you did not ask me to be your meat-puppet. Is a resumé involved for this gig? I was actually a pork-chop in my kindergarten play about food groups. Does that count? If you get a moment, I'd like to ask you a bit about Creative Commons images,and what all goes into it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Ok, since you have an aptitude for getting celb pics, how do I go about getting permission for an image of Richard B. Frank? I have no idea where to begin. Raul654 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Photograph request
I saw that Mark had requested a free photograph for a celebrity, and I was wondering if there was any way to get one for Victoria Wyndham. I'm pretty sure she still lives in the city and is active in stage theatre. Of course, she's best known to me as that wonderful grande dame Rachel Cory off my favorite story... ;) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 12:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you respond to me and tell me what you think when you have a free moment? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I sympathize. Hopefully you can do it; she's a fabulous woman. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Workshop edits
Due to your intensive edits before I had finished and resulting edit conflicts, I removed a few of your edits. Fred Bauder 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Re: ArbCom
Yes, I meant for it to go in findings of fact --Random832 19:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

the time stamp
Well to be honest, these pictures i submit are not just for Wikipedia, I also put them on transit forums and also I submit them to nycsubway.org, and the time stamp i use for personal reasons so then I can remember when I took that picture. Next time though i can edit out the time stamp before I upload them to Wikipedia, is that good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Error46146 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, i will try that.

also i would suggest you don't use flash for your subway photos, since it is not allowed.

quote from MTA site:

"Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part."

link: http://mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Error46146 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Numbers by Jasper Johns by David Shankbone.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Numbers by Jasper Johns by David Shankbone.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 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 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 02:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Retireing?
Hey David, Why are you retiring? You requested the arbitration and as far as I can tell, it's appropriate. IMO THF has been less than neutral. Oh well. -Gary- —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryLambda (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, everyone knows you are a stand up guy. I kinda hope you stick around. You are living proof that good guys can exist in WP. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, frankly, if you don't stand up to this crap, who else is going to? Sure it gets tiresome being the lone wolf, but, you know, nobody else is doing it.  And I didn't find out about it on Wikipedia until you refused to let it die--although I'd heard about the reviews and stacking the standings elsewhere.  You've done the right thing, and you're continuing to do the right thing, and I bet it gets tiresome repeating yourself until you're blue in the face and nobody seems to be listening.  But some people are listening, and some people see what is going on, who didn't know about it before--and that's all you really ever have to do to do the right thing, make one more voice in the darkness hear.  You've done right.  On the other hand, I know you wouldn't be the sort of person who would take a stand against this if you weren't also the sort of person who could get down about the situation.  Take care of yourself first, always,  KP Botany 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope that you're taking the opportunity of your break from Wikipedia to take lots of photos for WP:LGBT. :) See you when the ArbCom case finishes, and I hope it recognises what you have done for us all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * David, just take a break, a long one if necessary. Your contributions are not only appreciated around here, but needed. Cast this whole dispute aside, from everything I have seen you are in the right. IvoShandor 08:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear David, I hope this finds you well. I am in a little trouble at the moment.I'm writing a childrens book called 'Ice Mice'the book is being illustrated by South African wonderman Tony Grogan. The problem I am having is finding the best images that I can for the story for the kids to learn from. This is where your picture of the Chrysler Building comes in - I was wondering if you would be as kind as to let me use the photo on the wikipedia site within the book. Its a beautiful shot of the magical building and captures the city below. The reason why I need the shot is that one of the principle characters - a professor sets up shop on an unfurnished floor near the top and saves the world. I look forward to your reply - and I'm sorry if this all seems a little unpro and hasty.This is the first time out for me so I'm looking for all the help I can get.I want to approach any publisher with everything together.leaving them with less to do. Yours truly, Russell Miles... minideli@btinternet.com Many thanks for reading this and any help you can throw my way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.225.65 (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

...continued from Talk page of RfArb
David, I recognize your frustration, and accept your apology about trying my patience. Some people write the way they write, and so long as they understand their own pros and cons of doing just that, so be it. If the lack of good faith is coming from me (your last sentence), I offer my apology too but only then ask you to clarify where I missed a better faith alternative. And too I apologize for my post coming off as an admonition (if you were referring to mine with "it tries my patience to raise an issue and be admonished for it, just because someone else raised it a different way"). It was meant entirely as a suggestion (I thought it would be beneficial to you) and as a favor (beneficial to me too), and nothing else - I too stand by my point, but do hope this helps. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In the end, we are all volunteers and I can walk away from Wikipedia feeling I have done enough and, to be honest, probably be better off for it. There's a lot of talent I give away for free I could start to spend on myself.  So the pros and cons of writing the way I write, at the worst, means I leave Wikipedia.  There are content disputes I have had over photos, but I do not nearly have the long, contentious history THF has arguing, slinging accusations at long-standing editors, misusing policy and guideline like a bully (diffs for all of this have been provided in evidence).  At least three times he threatened to take me to ArbCom.  He has purposely (I say purposely because he's a lawyer and should know better) made accusations I have broken laws.  Now that we are at ArbCom, he says he's been "harassed off Wikipedia" and is "Retired".  Until he pops up as User:Evidence storage.  He must be interested in a legacy.  Then User:Cool Hand Luke presents THF's case for him, stating "THF began work on his evidence before leaving the project" as if he was not here all along making the case as User:Evidence storage.  That's fine, just be up front about it.  And since he continued to work on it while CHL was making his case for him, why couldn't THF himself make the case?  THF writes proposals with titles that don't resemble the proposal, but are his spin on the proposal.  CHL raises petty spats that I should not call him "THF's advocate" but instead "CHL, THF's advocate".  CHL makes personal attacks like "These attacks seem worse than any NPA violations you've documented against THF, but you are apparently blind to them. Some of the editors involved in this dispute exhibit a stunning bias where they think conservative editors are incapable of uttering truth. Some users believe NPA and CIVIL take a holiday around conservatives. I don't care to prove that Wikipedia is biased, but you, David, are biased enough to not appreciate clear blackletter violations against the other side." and nothing is said.  I raise the issue that titles of proposals should mirror the proposal, and THF raises an issue I'm "whitewashing" the page, and brings up my withdrawal of a motion as evidence.  Nothing is said about any of this.  But when early on in the Arb I bring up we should be participating ourselves, I'm "harassing" and not letting THF present his case (a remark that made no sense).  When I point out that THF is making a strawman argument that there is a bias against right-leaning editors that boils down to "unless people agree with me, they prove me right that there is anti-right bias on Wikipedia", I'm told by you that my "snarkiness" is "trying your patience."  You said nothing about CHL trying your patience for his snarkiness that I have not "yet" accused Newyorkbrad of bias.  I've accused nobody of bias.  It's incredible the double-standard I find at ArbCom right now.  People jump all over me if I make a good faith move that they think is unproductive, even though it is done in good faith; yet all these shenanigans, and THF constantly threatening to "withdraw" and "retire" etc. get not one word said.  So before you come at me again, why don't you start applying your comments evenly.  Because I've earned far more good faith on this project than THF has by leaps and bounds, and the evidence shows that.  And I am being given little good faith right now.  So if it pisses me off, well I'll live with the "pros and cons" of that.  In the end, to leave Wikipedia is really not some death sentence on my life (trust me) and it' something I've contemplated before.  So maybe Wikipedia will end up with two less editors.  Or maybe it'll keep THF, constant flamer and wikilawyer (and the evidence shows that), and lose David Shankbone.  But at least THF will be shown...there's no bias against right wingers on Wikipedia.  That would be satisfying for everyone, I'm sure.  -- David  Shankbone  04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
Hi David, stopped by to request that you take a look at Columbia River, which I've been working on a bunch and would like to nominate for GA soon. Thought it could use a fresh pair of eyes soon - there's definitely still work to be done, but I don't really trust my judgment about what's most pressing, since I've been staring at it for so long.

Anyway, I see things are still kinda heated with THF…sorry to hear it. And if that means you don't want to get involved in another article of course that's fine. I hope that this "retirement" business doesn't stick, cause I really enjoy having you and your perspective around. But if it does, I trust that it's for the best…only you know what you need to do. -Pete 06:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest Ped whatever brouhaha (among other things)
That knucklehead really stirred up ahornet´s nest for no reason. The Pedophilia article was never tagged with the LGBT label--only the Pedarasty one. I guess in her mind the two are inextricably linked together, or she thought it would make a more convincing case if she linked the two. Anyway,thanks for weighing in.

Moving along, congrats on getting your press credentials. What a coup! Very exciting for you, and I really admire the photographic work you´re doing.

Isaac is back in the hospital and they think he has lymphoma, so I am stressed (writing this from the hopsital cyber cafe). We´ll have definite diagnosis next week. Hope you´re well. Jeffpw 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wilding
Hi David,

Your picture of Anna Wilding in your /Entertainers page links to Buddha Wild Monk in the Hut. I've moved this to the correct film title, with a colon after Wild, so you at least should adjust your link to that. However, as the Anna Wilding article looks to be here to stay (and is now being actively worked on by some respected editors), that linking directly to Anna Wilding would probably be better. Thanks! &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi David
As I wrote earlier -- I represent Ropes & Gray and I was hoping to talk with you.

You can reach me at 781-487-4608.

Thanks, George —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.200.158 (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * George, anything that you would like to discuss regarding the Ropes & Gray article can be done here, or on Talk:Ropes and Gray. I understand that this controversy is unflattering, but it did in fact exist.  If you feel the "whole story" is not told then we can discuss that.  I didn't appreciate John Tuerck legally threatening me in an e-mail because a sourced, cited criticism that was news is included on the page.  Wikipedia editors don't take kindly to threats, and to now discuss the issue with the PR firm of the subject article, frankly, doesn't sound appealing.  -- David  Shankbone  00:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Studies Tag for Larry Craig
Hi, I just wanted to say your rationale for including the Larry Craig article in the LGBT studies category was keen. You have a lot of great edits! Keithbrooks 09:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to file a case against me...
... go ahead. Don't think for a minute I'll be hounded off the project like THF was. Unlike THF, I don't have much in my edit history that you can twist and turn against me, so good luck. ATren 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your harassment is already being addressed by other people, just not by you. You harass another editor by keeping a blog of his edits called "Weiner Watch", you trumpet this proudly on your User page (half of which is taken up by this), and then you have the gall to go into an ArbCom that addresses THF's problematic edit history and rant about how he is being harassed?  Seriously, this is one of the more hypocritical things I've seen on Wikipedia.  You, who have harassed User:Avidor, another Wikipedia editor, and have done so for over a year by continually updating a blog criticizing him and his edits, calling him a Weiner, who use his real name on your User page, actually thinking you have any moral credibility to raise any kind of argument in that ArbCom is galling.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  -- David  Shankbone  16:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, feel free to file the case. I have nothing to hide. ATren 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

David, you talk about our straw men, but you continue to insist that my position is that THF did nothing wrong. I specifically told you otherwise hours ago. Please have the decency to characterize my arguments correctly. Cool Hand Luke 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please redact
David, I think you have crossed the line with your latest post. I think you should strike the stuff referring to THF's chin, which is entirely inappropriate and excessive. I understand the point you are trying to make, but it is inappropriate nonetheless and you should remove it. There are other ways to make that analogy. ATren 17:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's completely appropriate since it was said by Wikidea, not me, and that comment itself has been an extreme focus of the ArbCom and oft-discussed. -- David  Shankbone  18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And you don't think there's other ways to make a point about Ken Avidor besides calling him a Weiner? -- David  Shankbone  18:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And did you ever consider that if I wanted to call him a wiener (note, "i before e, except after c") I would have named it "Wiener Watch"? Do you know anything about that dispute?
 * Now, really, you should remove what you wrote. THF is gone, and regardless of the point you are trying to make, you should not be using such language. ATren 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ATren, once again, you have little moral credibility here, considering your mocking the intelligence of another editor for over a year. The example is illustrative and apt.  Your concern has been noted, and discarded.  -- David  Shankbone  18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * David, please don't forget to apologize, too! In fact, let me save everyone some time. "I do not accept David's apology as it was not sincere and can't possibly serve to undo the horrendous, reprehensible, vile attacks on someone's chin, which caused untold anguish, rending of garments, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. In fact, because the apology is so inadequate, I now favor David being drawn and quartered and having his entrails roasted on a brazier before his very eyes." Ossified 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wilding
I emailed the contact of that website, when Tonyx123 was claiming the permission to use the images. Instead of using the email address that Tony provided, I researched and that website had one that I used. I missed that it was a fansite at first, so emailed anyway. The reply I got was, well... I could forward it to you, but it's clearly written in the same style as a certain irate person who has been editing recently. &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but that editor is also acting on behalf of Wilding (I spoke with her on the phone). I have to get out of here - I'll put some more work into the article, which clearly needs a good deal of work.  I may do an interview with Wilding that might help alleviate some of the problems the article has.  -- David  Shankbone  21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * raises eyebrows* you've spoken to Wilding personally? Interesting.  And thanks, I look forward to hearing more from you. &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you tell her they are doing a piss poor job of representing her? If I was paying someone who wrote so poorly to write about me, I would hope someone would kindly tell me.  I hope you sent her a print, also.  My son loves her picture also.  KP Botany 19:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If she has some influence over some editors on Wikipedia, perhaps she could suggest that they tone it down a bit. We all want the best Anna Wilding article and we have a long proven process of getting to that. Aggressive behavior never leads to that, however. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pornography lead image
Hi David Shankbone. Your name came up when I was discussing ideas for a better lead image in the pornography article. If you have any suggestions, your input would be appreciated. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wilding
Hi David. I'm glad you took an interest in the Anna Wilding article. I received a request on my talk page to look into the article. If you think upping the protection will help bring the article under control or that I can assist in any other way, please let me know. Thanks. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An interview, LOL. Get some good info and good photos. I think the article can support several free photos so long as they represent different aspects of her life. See if she will release a childhood photo or two. That really would be great for the article. If you are in a photo with her, there is no reason that could not be use in the article as well. And, see if she has a press clipping folder. She is likely to have the early news articles on her that are not otherwise available. Also, tell her hi from the gang at Wikipedia. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call
Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add   to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing! An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Albert Reed
Hi David. I wrote the Albert Reed article because someone posted on the internet that this guys was so unknown, he didn't even have his own Wikipedia page. He's a model. Because this guys soon will be on TV in front of millions of people, I saw a great opportunity to boost Wikipedia's credibility. He will be appearing on Dancing with the Stars on September 24, 2007 and thousands of people will be saying to themselves, who is this guy. They'll head to their computer and pull up the Wikipedia page. Wikipedia has the most extensive information on this guy anywhere and I am hoping they come away with a positive impression of Wikipedia. I also like the irony that he will be the least known person on Dancing with the Stars and yet has the best Wikipedia page. The Albert Reed page lacks a photo. I've been in contact with Reed's people trying to get a photo for the page, but have not been successful. Would you see if you can snap a photo of this guy so that it can be posted to the article before he appears on TV on Monday, September 24, 2007? He's probably practicing his dance right now, perhaps in New York. He has reps in New York.IMG and INNOVATIVE ARTISTS TALENT. He has a MySpace page and an official website where he lists his activities and can be contacted. Thanks. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent events
Good personal safety call. KP Botany 16:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Accrediation
Re:this edit - So do you have the press credentials you requested? Raul654 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the picture, but
i liked the one that was up on my page (Sharyn November) before better, so i reverted back to it. sdn 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

okay ...
okay; i have deleted the previous photo and let yours stand, and i've also alerted jessamyn, who put the first photo up.

sdn 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a gorgeous photograph, David took of you. David, stunning.  KP Botany 02:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn...
that I saw somewhere that you mentioned that the web admin of someone's fansite was called David. Did I imagine it? &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You might find this interesting User_talk:Fredrick_day, especially given the name of that first editor. &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

aw.
i thought it was a little too much to have TWO photos. you should send me the other five. ::grins:: sdn 23:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage speaks!
David, sweetie, I was visiting your userpage, and I couldn't help but to hear it whispering to me... I swear, it said in a faint, but urging voice, "redesign me... redesign me!" What should I do, baby? Do I comply, or should I ignore the poor thing's request? :) Lots of love!  P h a e d r i e l  - 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Peruvian meteor illness
I saw you wrote the Wikinews article on the 2007 Peruvian meteor illness. Just wanted to let you know an article existed here, as well. • Lawrence Cohen  16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I need help with posting a public art image
Hello! I posted a photo that I took of a Public Art Mural, Venus, in NYC. Can you advise me as to how to list it/copyright it as my photo of a copyrighted work? I have seen your photos on wikipedia, that is why I am asking you. I am very new to this. My photo has been requested for deletion, a lot of talk, but nobody will tell me how to list it correctly. Thank you very much for your kind assistance--Hanska99 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon
In the John Lennon article, the current main picture is a sideways image of the musician, and is a free image (from Commons, I think). Could an argument be made to use a non-free image if it presents a better image of Lennon in portrait style, or has that argument been dismised on prior occasions? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

colin channer pic
that photo on colin channer's page is NOT colin channer. where did you get that photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosauris (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your photo for Joe Meno
David, Hello, I'm Joe Meno's assistant. I am asking if you could please remove your photo of him from his wikipedia page, as he did not sign any release for that particular photograph. If you would like another photo to post instead, I would be happy to send you one. Thank you, Jonathan Casper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancasper (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Peru meteor update
You might be able to get a follow up article for wikinews: 2007 Peruvian meteorite event. Turns out its likely arsenic poisoning, of all things. But, well, it makes perfect sense. • Lawrence Cohen  06:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe Meno
Great exchange on the Joe Meno article leading up to such an excellent picture being contributed by the subject himself. I've asked User:Acalamari to do some editing so the article itself looks better. Thanks. KP Botany 18:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Duncan Hunter
I read what you wrote on Talk:Duncan Hunter and I thought of some questions you might want to ask. Please give me feedback on your interview.-- Southern Texas  01:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you limit the large amounts of unwanted births, abortions, STDs, and countless child abuse deaths in our country?
 * What do you think would be the effects on our country if drugs were legalized?
 * What will signal a victory in the war on terrorism?
 * Michael Bloomberg has stated, "We're not going to deport 12 million people, so let's stop this fiction." Considering that you support the deportation of illegal immigrants how do you respond to Bloomberg's criticisms? How can we be more practical in enforcing our immigration laws?
 * If you had to support a Democratic candidate that is running in this election who would it be and why?

Charles Rotmil
Re your speedy: no problem, I was dubious but thought I'd give the newbie the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't find the Saturday Review articles mentioned, and few Google hits that struck me as notable, so I'm fine with the speedy and have no intention at all to go any further with it. The author will probably ((hangon)), and I'll leave it up to whatever admin cares to decide. Accounting4Taste 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify
It's my understanding that even wiki commons images aren't allowable if there is nothing in the article refering to the subject of the image, right? The image in question was added by one of my least favorite editors here, but the image seems to either belong to the editor who added it or the image provenance isn't really clear (flickr images aren't automatically free, are they?). As well, the name of the article cited in the not really notable image isn't noted at all in the article. I am not really sure how to proceed. I know the image doesn't really belong, but am not sure of the rules involved. What do you think? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Were you evaluating the image, what would your instincts tell you? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See, that's what I thought, too. I know that a lot of editors inaccurately consider Flickr to be a source of free images, and I sent a message to the author of two of the images being used in the article (and just sent a note of inquiry to the author of the third), and was informed that the author was unaware that the images were being used in Wikipedia. I've left a message asking if he wants the images removed. I don't really know how to speedy delete images (but am willing to learn), but such seems to be needed here, as the owners of the images seem unaware of their inclusion as free images. Am I missing some steps or is my logic flawed here? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, the ongoing discussion regarding the images is occurring here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ana
Be sure to mention this note from the wikiepedia editor: Thanks for licensing so many of your photos of NY Fashion Week under CC licenses. They have been included in the Wikipedia articles for Lauren Bush, Sarah Jessica Parker, Chanel Iman, Lily Donaldson, Emina Cunmulaj, Dylan Lauren, Barbara Walters, Katie Lee Joel, Suzy Menkes, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Donna Karan, Vera Wang, Tracee Ellis Ross, Gilles Bensimon, Ana Beatriz Barros, Carolina Herrera, Barry Diller, Diane von Furstenberg, Irina Lazareanu, Scott Schuman, Lisa Edelstein, Nikki Sixx, Julia Allison, Snejana Onopka, Fran Lebowitz, Bruna Tenorio, Julia Stegner, Carmen Kass, Rachel Zoe, Selita Ebanks, and Liya Kebede. A million thank yous for your awesome photos! The wikipedia community appreciates it. calliopejen Sacredhands 09:25 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is "the wikiepedia editor"? We're all editors.  It's great that you are uploading so many shots, but you also seem to have designs on self-promotion in doing so.  For articles where there is no photograph, that's fine (in my opinion) until we can find photographs that don't require bylines.  But on Ana Beatriz Barros we have 1. a better photo; and 2. no byline.  -- David  Shankbone  13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * how is yours a better photo when all you can see is her backside? like I said, I'm happy to have a third party decide. it's rather naive to suggest that any uploaded image is not self-promotional. again, the creative commons license chosen is ATTRIBUTION. please look up that world. Sacredhands  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I believe it's a well-established fact that Ana's backside is one of her most compelling and highly-regarded assets. As for the "attribution" issue, it's always been my understanding that having one's name on the *image* page is enough to satisfy attribution; including it in an *article* is unsightly, unnecessary to the primary goal of the encyclopedia of being a service to the reader, and not required by "attribution required" licenses. I don't know for certain that this is the case, so maybe one of you can correct me if I'm wrong. At any rate, I'd hope that anyone contributing to Wikipedia would recognize the importance of not cluttering up articles with self-promotion, and be satisfied with the level of attribution afforded on the image page. -Pete 21:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tancredo interview
Suggested questions: Thanks for taking the time to conduct the interview. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Rounding up and deporting millions of people would be a major government undertaking, requiring massive federal spending and invasive enforcement. What level of funding would be necessary for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to achieve the level of enforcement that you'd like to see? How long would full enforcement take at that funding level? 
 * Farmers rely heavily on seasonal manual labor. Strict enforcement of immigration laws will inevitably reduce the pool of migrant labor and thus increase costs. Do you support tariffs or other government intervention to keep American farm products competitive?
 * ''You've consistently stated that you believe threatening to bomb the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Media would be a deterrent to terrorists operating against the United States. Can I thus assume you are an advocate of legalised marijuana and toke up from time to time yourself? Wouldn't such an action have the same effect that destroying the World Trade Centre had on the United States, unifying Arab populations to support even further aggression against the West? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're interviewing Tom Tancredo? Excellent! The three questions above are, amazingly enough, exactly the questions I would ask of him. Good work, guys! -Pete 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Great interview! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Duncan Hunter interview
Suggested questions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Pentagon is famous for its accounting problems, including waste and fraud by suppliers. A colleague from a neighboring district, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, was convicted taking bribes from defense contractors. When you served as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, what did you do to investigate the corruption and waste in defense spending? What would you do as president to end the waste of taxpayer money in this department of goverment? 
 * What is the proper role of Congress in the time of war?
 * You have supported proposed constitutional amendments that would ban abortion and same-sex marriage. You are also a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Why do you believe that the U.S. Constitution should regulate medical procedures and personal relationships, but not gun ownership? 

Chris Dodd interview
Suggested questions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the proper role of Congress in the time of war?
 * You have been a consistent supporter of NAFTA and other free trade measures. How would you characterize the nature of trade between China and the U.S.? What changes, bilaterial or unilateral, would you seek in U.S.-China trade if you were president?
 * The gap in pay between the average worker and top executives has grown enormously in the last few decades. Do you think this has an effect on society and the economy? How should federal tax policy address it?

Two favors
Hey, cutie! I have two things to ask of you. First, any luck with Vicky Wyndham or finding out her agent? I hadn't seen you online in a while so I figured I'd drop you a line here. And second, I noticed the supermodel article was just a cesspool of crap. Since you had commented on it before, I was wondering if you had thoughts on how to proceed. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll only accept nutcase if it was meant as a compliment, and I think it was. ;) Everyone has their favorite actress if they watch soaps, and she just happens to be mine. Great find re: Christian Camargo! He's good-looking. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 13:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to say hi
Just thought I'd drop a note and say hey to one of the few wikifriends I actually have. :) Thanks for being a good pal, too bad we live so far apart and cannot meet. Hope things are well for you Dave. IvoShandor 05:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Is that all your work? Nice job, btw. IvoShandor 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pubic hair
Hi David. I can see that you are a passionate lover of images, which would explain your revert of my edit. However my edit was in line with several Wiki policies: Manual_of_Style; Guide_to_layout for example. The article does look rather messy and cluttered with so many images squashing the text. What is preferred by general consensus is for an editor to select one or two representative images to illustrate a section. Galleries in themselves are not encouraged, the preference being that surplus images go to Commons, with a link placed on the article, but I leave that move up to others - as long as an article looks tidy I am quite content. Given that my edit was in line with wide consensual guidelines, would you continue to object if I put it back to how it was? Regards <font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork  *<font face="Roman" color="#0ccccc" size="0.5">SilkyTalk 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. I saw your last edit on the Pubic hair. <font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork  *<font face="Roman" color="#0ccccc" size="0.5">SilkyTalk 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NYC question for you
Was the Met's Times Square simulcast of Lucia di Lammermoor free for the general public? It looked sensational in the pictures I saw. Jeffpw 08:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You can safely ignore this
Nothing important, just wanted to say that you must be one of the most important contributors with your outstanding photographs (and many other key contributions). --Taraborn 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your photos - comment on my page
You've got some amazing photos too! --Joi 07:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Project AW interview
I will write up the questions tonight. I do want to know what her conditions are. I want to release the interview to Cox Newspapers (I have good contacts there now), especially considering how I know she feels about Soap Opera Digest (she turns down their interviews). This is just a big coup for us; I don't know if you fully realize how reclusive she is in terms of the soap press. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you go to http://www.wikimania-atlanta.org, and go to the press release, my cell phone number is there. Please call me; I have a lot to discuss. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I know this is in poor taste...BUT
God, your pics are arousing..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.197.38 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fordham fair use images
Hey can you help provide a satisfactory fair use rationale for these images? You probably know the nitty gritty better than I do. Thanks.


 * Image:FordhamJCorp&FinL.png
 * Image:FordhamFinSecTaxLawForum.png
 * Image:Fordham-iplj.png

Wl219 05:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't resist...
-- hope you don't mind. ;) And kudos to you on a great body of work.  I was just poking around.  Wow.  Cheers,   Into The Fray  <font color="#999999">T /<font color="#999999"> C  16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
The September 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)