User talk:ShaneKing/archive2

Category:Australian Football League clubs

May I ask why you removed the category from Template:AFL and added it to the individual club pages? The category worked fine by being embedded into the page along with the template. I know that put the template into the category also, but that (to my knowledge) isn't a problem. It's not really a problem for me, I was just wondering what the point was. █ T █ P █ K █ 07:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lily

Thank you for that one. :) func(talk) 05:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do Me A Favor

How you doing,Shane? I saw your picture in your user page and you've got the pose of a movie star (smile). Could you take a look at Vanesa littlecrow? Someone wrote that it was POV, and I think it was because of the phrase "multitalented". When I wrote that phrase I was referring to the fact that she has more then one talent. The person wants to discuss it in the talk page. Could you please take a look and tell me what you think. I respect your opinion very much. User: Marine 69-71

Friendly Chat

Thanks for your input on Vanesa Littlecrow. The thing that I can't understand is that dispite the fact that everyone agreed that the article was fine as it was, User Aikevar, went ahead and rewrote the article to meet his "standards". I'm not upset but, when the "talk page" is used as a forum to discuss a subject, I believe that the opinion of the majority should stand, especially if there isn't a Wiki policy established on the matter discussed. I'm not going to get into an edit war with this person, I mean I learned that it's better to let those who know more, such as the administrators, to determine the right course to follow. What is ironic, is that at first he/she claimed that the article seem written by a friend/fan and then that same User adds two External Links, one with Vanesas political P.O.V. and it made me think, Who,s the fan? I hope that I didn't bother you with this chat, but tell me what you think.

User:Marine 69-71

Bureaucratship

Thanks for your supportive vote of my bureaucratship. Unfortunately, the vote was judged to be too close, but I hope you'll support me when I run again. :) Andre (talk) 16:14, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, then. I'm not in any rush. Andre (talk) 02:25, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Question

Thanks first of all for your candidacy for the Arb Comm. I have some questions concerning your candidacy statement. As I understand it, you support removing the adversarial nature of disputes, in favor of concentrating on an individual's actions. Could you explain a bit more how such a process may work? For example, given an X vs. Y flame/edit war, would you pursue a separate case against each party? What if neither X nor Y requested the arbitration - would you be in favor of the Arb Comm unilaterally taking action? And finally, if a majority of the Arb Comm (besides you, of course) was in favor of leaving the adversarial system as it is, how would you handle your duties as an Arbitrator? Again, thanks for your time and attention. - Scooter 18:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for these good questions. I believe that it's not the Arb Comm's job to go chasing cases to persue, as that would cause an obvious conflict of interest. If the Arb Comm are the ones who have decided to bring a case, how fair does that look if they are also deciding it? The phrase "Judge, jury and executioner" comes to mind.

I believe instead that any Wikipedian concerned with another person's behaviour should be able to bring that to the attention to the Arb Comm. In the flamewar case you talk about, it's likely that both sides might seek judgement against the other party. Or perhaps a concerned third party might bring it to the attention of the Arb Comm. I think a seperate case for each party is the only fair way to handle it, because someone else's poor behaviour should never be an excuse, we should judge each person's actions on their own merit (or lack thereof).

Should people prefer to keep the existing adversarial system, I would still seek to make the other structural changes I propose, such as limiting evidence to existing material, and a time limit of a week on the evidence gathering period. Too often the fact the Arb Comm proceedings have dragged on has caused people to burn out and leave, or at least scale back their involvement. We can't allow that to keep happening.

As far as making judgements go, as I have said, I think the "what's good for wikipedia" standard must apply at all times. Someone who is staying within the letter of the law, but being a nuisance to other users shouldn't be allowed to just go on their merry way. Likewise, someone who occasionally steps over the line, but is otherwise a very good user, should not be hung out to dry. In both cases, what needs to happen is to look at what can be done to keep the good things they do while minimising the ability for them to do harm. I guess you could call me someone who favours reforming rather than banning users in that respect, although if someone has been given a chance to reform and keeps causing trouble, I believe it's better to then ban them rather than allowing them to keep wasting people's time and goodwill.

I hope that helps you get a clearer picture of my candidacy. If you have anything else you'd like answered, please ask! Shane King 00:05, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Great Surprise

It was a great surprise (a really good one), when I looked at the nominations and saw your name on it. I was thinking about nominating you myself, as I told you before, I thought that you were already an administrator. This is one support I didn't have to think twice for. Damn, I'll be looking forward to congratulating you in the near future. Good Luck, your friend Tony the Marine

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up the mess on Jhanjharpur! A friend of mine from the backwaters of Bihar with an extremely limited vocabulary has provided the original content. He and I are new inductees into the world of our beloved Wikipedia. Of course, I have him the bug!
BTW, u can contact me @ http://www.deepanjannag.blogspot.com

edit logging

You can get automagic graphs of your edits if you register at kate's. I thought I would mention this since you said something about being lazy on WP:RFA :) --BesigedB 23:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Elections

You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Advice

I would advise you to reconsider your endorsement of myself for the arbitrator position. There is currently an active spam campaign against your RfA due to it, and I would be particularly unhappy if I caused you to lose. It wouldn't be the end of the world of course, but it would be a loss to the community. Either way, be aware I would be entirely sympathetic if you did retract the endorsements. Frankly endorsements are more a friendly gesture than anything else, and are unlikely to have a large impact in the election, IMO. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was aware that endorsing you would probably get me some negative attention. I considered the wisdom of it before doing so, and decided that at the end of the day, I'm not going to play political games and only endorse people I knew were popular and likely to enhance my standing. Some things are more important than whether I win a vote, and standing up for what I believe is one of them. I went in with my eyes open, and I'm not about to change my mind now. I thank you for your offer of letting me retract my endorsement, but I don't think I can in good faith do so. Shane King 03:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

So much for avoiding politics, Shane. I guess it sought you out. I'm sorry that the users in question have dragged you into their personal battle. You're very fair-minded (the quality that makes you fit to be an admin) and for some, that's not a particularly desirable quality!Dr Zen 07:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That’s what I was hoping you would say, but it didn't seem fair to expect it, and I thought the decent thing to do was to offer you a way out. Be aware that not only do some wiki's hold grudges (something I am increasingly trying not to do) but they also keep extensive "mailing lists" to rally support when needed. This has been known to backfire of course, alot of my support votes for adminship were from people who were contacted with the expectation they'd vote against me, but its something to be aware of nonetheless. To be perfectly frank, I think your consistent show of integrity better qualifies you for a prominent and contentious position such as arbiter more than any of the other candidates (admittedly I don't know some of them very well at all) and out of the two of us, I'd rather see you win than I. I hope none of these recent circumstances cause you any undu stress, and please do let me know if there is anything I can do to assist you. Glad to have you here, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your adminship

Shane, I urge you to reconsider. Don't let these people bully you out of it. Look at the consensus in favour of you. Giving in just lets these guys think they can force their POV on you and others.Dr Zen 14:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also would like it if you reconsidered, but I don't see that as very likely. You strike me as quite the strict moralist, and altho I don't exactly understand your descision, I assume it is based on your sense of honor and personal ethics, and I of course respect that (even if I don't comprehend the subtleties). Again, I (and others) would like it if you reconsidered, but you have our respect either way. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shane, I respect your descision, even though I do not agree with it. You have the ability and the qualities to be one of Wiki's best administrators. If you were to reconsider, count me in. Your friend User:Marine 69-71

Dear Shane: Hi! I just want to say I would have liked to have you as an administrator. I think I voted for you, but I can't remember (mind overload of wikipedia work I guess, lol!) It shocked me somewhat that you decided to retire your candidady, although I read it had something to do with Sam's candidacy for another title. I think you would have been an excellent administrator!

God bless you! "Antonio Rocky III Martin"

---

Thanks all, but I really can't. I agree I'll probably get the vote if I keep it running. The problem is if I keep it running I allow these people to vote against me for no reason other than I stood up for someone they don't like. I'm not willing to be a part of that. If it was someone else's request, I would feel comfortable rallying support to do whatever it takes to ensure they can't influence the vote with their politics. However, it's not someone else, it's me, and to do so for myself would risk looking like I was just doing whatever I could to get support.

So I'm stuck between wanting to not let them do what they're trying to do, and not appearing to be acting out of selfishness. In such a situation, removing my request was the only way I could satisfy both things. I agree it's not a good solution, but I feel the other solutions would have been worse. Besides, there's nothing wrong with being just a private citizen. :) Shane King 23:03, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Say, in a month or so's time, someone nominated you, you'll accept it, yes? Let this particular nonsense blow over and then take up your adminship?Dr Zen 02:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lets cross that bridge when we come to it. Shane King 03:07, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements page

Sorry to bother/spam you, but I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the state of the endorsements page on its talk page. --Michael Snow 01:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Email not working

Your email doesn't work.

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at dontletsstart.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<•••••@dontletsstart.com>:
This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6)

I was attempting to send the following:

I recently updated http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_MediaWiki_hacker which has some good information on where to start, near the bottom of the page. If you tell us more about your skills and interests, we'll see if we can think of a good project for you. How good are you at PHP? MySQL? HTML/CSS?

-- Tim Starling 05:31, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen King

I noticed you "lurking" in the vacinity of this page (making a minor edit) and I'm wondering if you might like to become involved in the talk page. Things seem to be on the edges of civility, with the potential for misunderstanding enormous. It doesn't worry me which opinion you might hold on the particulars, what I am interested in is getting back on track and keeping civil, which are areas you seem rather expert in. Also, just curious, do you think I was especially offensive or off topic with this (now widely reviewed) exchange:

I was wondering if you could explain your glee, and then perhaps it will help me to become less hardened and cynical. mat_x 09:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lesbians make me happy, as do embarrassments for celebrities, as does reading wacky stuff about people I pay attention to. I just got done reading the dark tower series by this guy, so finding this out makes me raise an eyebrow. I also want photos, if you know where I can find em. Sam Spade 03:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to be candid, I am honestly curious as to your opinion on the situation. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Canonical" (as in Politics (novel))

Hi. Whose canon is it? It's certainly not mine. Please refer me to the text where it explicitly says that even if there is only one external link the heading must read "Links" (plural).

This is so silly (actually reverting it AGAIN!) that I'm definitely not going to waste my time with it any more. A bit of common sense, please. All the best, <KF> 01:22, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by your question...

...but perhaps I just need to understand your perspective a bit better.

In any case, my reply is here. --DV 03:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your last thoughtful reply. I followed up with some additional ideas, but ultimately, perhaps a technical solution will make this a moot question.

Hey.

Cheers :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring

In cleaning up the discussion that had been incorrectly placed on the main Requests for comment page, I moved around some of your statements, which are now located either on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa knott or Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Theresa knott. This was done to comply with the standard format for listing user conduct disputes on Requests for comment. None of the text you wrote has been altered in any way. It appeared that you were supporting Theresa's position, so I listed you as endorsing her response; if you disagree with that, please move your statement to an appropriate place, such as under "Outside views". --Michael Snow 00:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)