User talk:David Shankbone/Archive 8

Interview

Thanks for both conducting the interview and posting it to the article. Yes, I just moved the template to the article section whose content seems most closely related to what's covered in the interview. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 00:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Gair

Dear David,

The page Anthony Gair was tagged for deletion because it looked like an advertising. I believe this tagging is unappropriate and I have already posted a comment on the discusssion page of the wikipedia administrator who tagged the page for deletion. Cpittet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpittet (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews lead

Just FYI, I forked Blackwater USA arms smuggling off of Blackwater USA. Could be a good wikinews bit? • Lawrence Cohen 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signed photograph of Mr.Sam Raimi.

Is there some way I can confirm the authenticity of an signed photograph of Sam Raimi that appears to be from the Evil Dead era? pporter5@yahoo.com Please contact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.251.130 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Frank Messina

I created an article for Frank Messina, and noticed your wikinews interview, which has been referenced in the article. I enjoyed your interview, and wanted to share my efforts with you. Thnaks again for all your work! Alansohn 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

tag problem

Hi David,

Thank you for your help and comment regarding Anthony Gair website. Now that changes have been made how can we get rid of this orange tag on the top of the page????

Thank you very much in advance for your answer.

Cpittet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpittet (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I really appreciate it.

CP

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, award you this Barnstar for the abundance of killer photographs you donate to the project with tireless zeal. Your images are an incalculable benefit to so many articles. The Fat Man salutes you!

I know you have a zillion of these, but perhaps you can make room for one more. Thanks, in particular, for making good on your promise to provide a lead image for the porn article. So far, people seem pleased with it (I know I am!). Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Saturday November 3, 2007 New York City Meetup

You have expressed interest in creating a meta:Wikimedia New York City. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC, the meetup for Saturday November 3, 2007, where it is hoped we can actually get a local chapter started.--Pharos 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:SignTSP.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SignTSP.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Dean Johnson

Did you know of him or ever photograph him? Gay performer and part of NYC's underground music scene. Also gay escort/blogger. Just found dead. I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him. Jeffpw 05:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What the FUCK?!?!? Michael Lucas is dead?!?!? His article isn't updated with that info, so you know something nobody else seems to know. When did it happen????? I didn't like him, and found him an arrogant fuck in interviews, but I am shocked to hear that. Damn. I read the interview after I posted this. Thought you had gotten hold of some fabulous celebrity gossip for me. Oh well. Anyway, I have another "vertical smile"pic of Britney if you want it, and downloaded her new labum the other day (pretty good, for Britney), 2 weeks before its release. :-D Jeffpw 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

why on earth do you suppose she totally shaves it? Even if I was into snatch (I'm really only into Britney's), I wouldn't want a shaved one. I'd want one that looked like it had lived a little. And I'll read the Augusten Burroughs interview now. Coincidentally, I just picked up his book, running with scissors. Interesting read. Jeffpw 15:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

great interview! What an fascinating dinner that must have been. I envy you the experience. By the way, my mom looked at your page and is kinda hot for you. Full disclosure; she's my source for all the Britney crotch shots. LOL! I'm serious. We have an odd relationship, but a festive one. Jeffpw 17:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dungeon Images

Hi DavidShankBone, I just read about the pics. That's really great! Working on :de and :en Wikipedia I have been looking for this kind of material for months. The BDSM articles are in general need of high quality pictures. Do you have detailed images of the equipment as well? Regards. --Nemissimo 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:: David, you can't even guess how happy I am to get more decent material on this. Thanks a lot! --Nemissimo 19:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

ACLU interview

Hi David -- I posted a question for your interview with Nadine. Do let me know when the interview goes live! Sdedeo (tips) 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Beat

If you're in the mood for a fluffy interview with a great gay New York pop culture (full) figure, check Jackie Beat out. Think you can interview Jackie and take some pictures for her/his article? Check out his YouTube Gimme More parody -- the ultimate bitchslap tribute to Our Poor Britney.

Email

Replied. IvoShandor 18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have signed up an account under the same user name I used here. IvoShandor 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Avidor

I've asked you repeatedly, if you have a concern about my interactions with Avidor, take it to the proper channels. Otherwise, please drop it. It has nothing to do with this case, and your insistence in bringing up this unrelated issue in every discussion is not helpful. ATren 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I just find the irony in this post hysterical. --David Shankbone 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to have amused you. :-) Now please stop bringing it up in this case, because it is completely irrelevant. I am more than willing to defend my entire history with Avidor if you like - but this case is not the forum for that. If you would like details, feel free to email me from my user page. Otherwise, I am asking you politely to drop it. ATren 17:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, ATren, I haven't brought it up enough. Almost every edit you have made in the last few months has to do with a case that, in the end, has nothing to do with you. THF was a problematic editor, he was disliked by most people he came into contact with, he pushed an agenda on this site, and I went overboard in my pursuit of him. That, in a nutshell, is the case and I don't care if you disagree with that synopsis or not. But at every turn, you are commenting on every thing a person writes. You go to their talk pages and continue to carry on with silly theories, challenging them to explain their actions, and the posts at ArbCom you write are the same things over and over again. You have threatened to open COI cases against an arbitrator (Raul654) and me for my Wikinews work. Have you noticed you are the only one doing this? No. Well, go have a look. You are the main contributor to those pages now. Most of us have stepped back to work on other things. Not you. This is the *only* thing you are doing on Wikipedia. Perhaps your problem is you having trouble letting go of things, and perhaps that is the problem you have with User:Avidor. Nobody--nobody--cares what the genesis of the issue is; a year later you are still writing a blog about him, you still advertise that off-wiki harrassment of him, and you aren't letting go, just like you aren't letting go in an ArbCom case that has nothing to do with you. Whatever your problem is with Avidor, you are the one perpetuating it on your User page; you are the one who continues to monitor him. And at ArbCom, you are the one who can't seem to let any post go unanswered, including the ones that don't require comment or aren't addressed to you. What is it about yourself that keeps you unable to let go?

So if you are going to involve yourself in an ArbCom case, and if that is going to be the only thing you do on Wikipedia for months (which it is) then you should expect your own behavior is going to be an issue. Especially since it makes you something of a hypocrite in this case. Let it go. --David Shankbone 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Avidor and me: as I've said, you seem to have a problem with my behavior in that dispute, so raise it in the appropriate forums, that's all I ask. Heck, take it to arbitration if you like. But it is inappropriate for you to continue raising it in this case, because this case has absolutely nothing to do with that conflict.

Regarding this case: resign yourself to this fact: I am involved. If you are waiting for me to let it go, you will be waiting a long time, because I never give up on anything once I've started. If you view this as a character flaw, fine, but that's who I am and as long as I'm not acting abusively, there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing - even if that's the only thing I happen to be doing lately on Wiki. Point me to the policy where it says an editor cannot focus on one thing for an extended period of time. ATren 18:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care that you're involved because your arguments aren't really listened to because of your wild vehemence. It's just kind of sad; I feel bad for you. The case looks on its way to dismissal, but your behavior is as much a part of the case as anything else, since the case is examining what constitutes harassment, and you harass User:Avidor both on wiki and off. --David Shankbone 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Alice Sebold?

Message also left at your Commons talk page:

David,

I don't know how busy you are lately, but I was wondering if you could be over at the Union Square Barnes & Noble tomorrow night to get a photo of Alice Sebold (she's doing a reading, signing et al, in support of her new novel The Almost Moon. If you can't I'll understand, but it would mean a lot to me — last year the deletion of the fair-use image of her that I had uploaded (the book cover photo from her past two books that I've always liked, the one in shadow) was my rude awakening to the new replaceable fair-use policy, and if I was able to play some part in arranging for a free replacement (particularly one by a good photographer), I would feel some vindication.

Feel free to reply on my Commons talk page; I'm here often enough now. Daniel Case 01:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Colbert

I agree with your edit. We don't know if it is satire or not. I was more concerned with the wording of his announcement, which it seems you kept. Illinois2011 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Peter H. Gilmore

It qualifies for speedy deletion as it does not provide references showing and indication of importance/significance. See the CSD A7 criteria. Many other articles on this topic are just as bad. -- Craigtalbert 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Second Warning

I'm trying to clean up articles that probably should have been deleted long ago. Reasonable people can disagree, but in my opinion WP:CSD#A7 pretty clear on this point. Request administrative action and see what they say. -- Craigtalbert 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: I've alerted the admin board

If articles meet the criteria for speedy deletion, they should be deleted. If there's some question, then it should go to AfD. I don't see any question as these articles lack reliable sources establishing their significance. -- Craigtalbert 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've explained my reasoning to you. I believe I'm correct. You've reported me. The admin who responded doesn't completely disagree with you. Either way, please stay out of my talk page if all you're going to do is "scold me." -- Craigtalbert 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Sourced articles? Which ones are you referring too? -- Craigtalbert 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Interviews with non-reliable sources don't establish notability. I can't find wikipedia guidelines supporting the the process you're advocating. Why not let the admin who reviews the csd nominations decided on their notability, instead of removing the templates? Why are you telling me what I like and don't like? -- Craigtalbert 22:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • CSD are very clear about the requirements. I'll give you that there's a weak argument for Peter H. Gilmore's notability there is, at least, 37 articles that mention his name. You can recreate articles after they've been deleted or petition for them to be undeleted. I don't feel like I've done anything wrong, and I'm sorry that you disagree with me. The articles I nominated didn't established their notability. According to CSD, if they don't, they should be nixed. You're jumping to a lot of conclusions about my motives, and you're interfering with the process of how CSD works. Either way, I don't think this is a productive conversation, and it seems like we're just repeating things we've said before. If you can approach the topic with a cooler head later, I won't mind discussing it with you. -- Craigtalbert 22:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • No, User:Caribbean H.Q. said "some," and used the Peter H. Gilmore article as an example. And it's only now that you're sticking up for all them -- that's a pointless fight, because some of those articles are really hopeless, and one you'll lose if you keep it up. Your wikilawyering doesn't intimidate me. I can read, I know what the guidelines say, you can tell me I'm wrong and lecture me as much as you want to, but it doesn't change the truth. -- Craigtalbert 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • Again with the telling me what I think and what I don't. Can you speculate about what I think on your own time, and stop spewing it all over my talk page? You're wasting my time. -- Craigtalbert 23:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Law school comments

Second year. What are you, a third year? Night school four-year program? It doesn't matter. I don't make demeaning comments about your status as a law student, and I would honestly appreciate if you reciprocated. Cool Hand Luke 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Then stop raising ridiculous arguments at ArbCom. We can go back and forth all night over your not applying similar standards, or my not applying similar standards. Neither one of us should be engaging in the kind of petty bickering that is the hallmark of ATren's arguments. We should both be above it, and we are both engaging in it. Right now the ArbCom is devolving into little squabbles that are a waste of everyone's time. --David Shankbone 22:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the first time you did it (in response to a very concrete hypothetic). Comment on the contribution, not the contributer; this is not negotiable. Cool Hand Luke 22:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't give me that, Luke. We are very much in ArbCom to discuss the contributors. Spare me. --David Shankbone 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To discuss my status as a law student? Really? Wow. Cool Hand Luke 22:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to argue like a law school student, and you are going to talk about what should be argued in front of a court of law, then yeah, I'll bring it up. --David Shankbone 22:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does that even mean? The talk page is not an NPA-free-zone. Period. Cool Hand Luke 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. Look at our pissing match to see. "Could you imagine going into a court and saying, 'Your honor...'" You and THF need to have "personal attack" more defined for yourselves, because what you classify as a "personal attack" is not anything that I can figure out. --David Shankbone 23:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I was also speaking toward the frequent invocation of ATren's history, but I can't and won't defend him. Let me help you: I find it very patronizing and it annoys me. Will you stop? Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will stop, if you stop bringing up how one would argue in a court of law. --David Shankbone 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It was an example of a presumption. AGF is not something that you can turn on its head by demanding proof that we should assume good faith. If you have such a problem with analogies to use of language that I assumed you would understand, I'll stop. However, even if I or others slip up, you should comment on the contribution, not the contributer. Cool Hand Luke 23:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AGF is also not an absolute. We have 5 out of 6 editors who have agreed to his problematic editing; we have him coming on saying it's a kangaroo court and lodging a threat so that he can finish his self-serving article on Wikipedia's bias. There really isn't much room for good faith with him at this moment. You're welcome to assume it all you want, but I don't see where at this moment he has any interest in helping to improve the project, so I'll assume bad faith on his part, thank you very much. In case you haven't noticed, I have a little more credibility in that regard since I'm still here improving the project. AGF isn't blind and it's not an absolute. --David Shankbone 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A majority agreed about your bad behavior, but it doesn't give me a license to assume bad faith. If AGF is impossible toward THF, at least try to assume good faith toward others. Please, really. I would appreciate it.

I did not publicize I was a law student. I said to you "if you must know, I'm a law student," but you've brought it up on at least three separate occasions now.[1] This goes towards some of the same issues originally cited in this case. Just comment on my contributions. That's all. Cool Hand Luke 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing that you continue to condone with your silence the personal vendetta ATren has against Avidor, with some of the arguments you raise both in the ArbCom and without. Regardless, I think we would all do well to back away from the ArbCom since every one of us is raising the same arguments over and over again. It's getting us nowhere except inflaming each other. I would hope you'd at least agree on that point. And the "comment on the contributions" argument has no bearing in an ArbCom, but for article discussion pages about the subject matter. --David Shankbone 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't wikistalk people. I don't care what he does with his spare time; he does not speak for me. He has not brought up Avidor once in this ArbCom, so I haven't had the opportunity to complain about it. I never even heard of the user before this started. "Comment on the contributions" applies everywhere, except perhaps for parties at ArbCom, so your comments toward me are irrelevant unless you would like to make me a party, and even then, I don't see how my status as a law student makes any difference. Cool Hand Luke 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

First, you've admitted in ArbCom you shadow people's edits, so don't give me the "I dont' wikistalk" bit. And you have the wrong idea about ArbCom. ArbCom is exactly the place where we talk about the contributors. I have no problem talking about your law school thing, but your blowing it out of proportion simply because it annoys you (I said it twice, both times in reference to inapplicable courtroom analogies you raised?). Regardless, you are aware of the harassment of Avidor now, and if you really believed half the stuff you say you believe in that ArbCom (you OR Georgewilliamherbert) one of you would tell him that it doesn't matter of Avidor is found to be sending pipe bombs to anti-PRT people off wiki, on wiki it has nothing to do with the project and this isn't the place to advertise personal vendettas. But...you both just sit there, arguing one thing in ArbCom, but allowing it with others. So, whatever. --David Shankbone 00:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what ATren does off-site. If you have some heinous diffs of his on-site behavior, perhaps I would support an ArbCom for that, but he doesn't seem to be disrupting anything right now. THF agreed to have his comments monitored by me and Newyorkbrad. I don't wikistalk people without their consent, and I don't bring in disputes unrelated to the matter at hand. And it was no less than three times, including one outside of ArbCom[2] As ArbCom's unwillingness to examine the behavior of other problematic users has shown, this is not a free-for-all bitch-about-editors forum. That kind of behavior hinders ArbCom and is as off-topic there as it is with any talk page. At any rate, I'll assume that you'll stop doing it. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 01:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not off-site, it's on his User page. --David Shankbone 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it's wise to intentionally annoy anyone? Look, it doesn't even matter. I didn't make a law argument, and this case is basically over, but you seem hell-bent on provoking me. I'm just going to let it slide, but this is the last time. Cool Hand Luke 04:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE - Wow, you really showed a petty side to yourself in the ArbCom. Must feel good. --David Shankbone 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What?! I'm not trying to annoy you. We had this absurd conversation, where you again called me a hypocrite and demanded that I condemn ATren (who removed his user page note 10 minutes after I said "Yeah, he should take it down..."), but you at least promised not to bring up the law school thing again if I don't use court talk. Fine. Good. And so you... do it anyway.

This is just baffling. I'm not threatening you, I'm not calling you names. I just don't get it. Cool Hand Luke 04:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, you make this big big point of trying to get me to appear out of the blue and tell some random guy who hasn't been involved in the ArbCom that he was wrong to say something to THF? Like it makes sense; like I'm going to expend the keystrokes, time and energy. You starting going on in the ArbCom about how it will "improve the project." Grow up, Luke. I realize you're in your twenties, but you can at least not pretend like you have no idea that you weren't provoking me or trying to annoy me in the ArbCom. You can sift through the diffs yourself for the Wikidea. I don't have any inclination or desire to entertain your silly requests and demands. --David Shankbone 04:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say this as flatly as I can. I was not trying to annoy you. Admins often get away with too much (see sentiments on my user page), and I think one did in this case. I shouldn't have assumed you would try to help, but I hoped you would. I shouldn't have grandstanded, but I did because you had called me a hypocrite. It was nonetheless a mistake, and I'm sorry.

I sifted and found nothing, so I'll assume that you would have condemned him now. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 04:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's time to present your evidence

Since you seem to be an expert on my dispute with Avidor, and since you have insisted on raising the issue in every discussion, it's time for you to start presenting evidence. I'm sure you've researched this extensively right? And you have a large collection of diffs to support your case, right? You wouldn't pursue me so relentlessly without some evidence, would you David?

So please, present your case. I've begun presenting mine on Ossified's talk page and on the arbcom talk page. It's time for you to respond with diffs that justify your relentless pursuit of this issue. If you can't produce those diffs, then this has been nothing short of harassment. ATren 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

ATren hasn't informed you of this, so I will. He has gone to ANI, saying you're harassing him. I think it is the other way around, actually, and have said so on the ANI page. Jeffpw 04:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that really all it was?

So after so many weeks of you harassing me about that conflict, are you now saying that all you wanted me to do was remove one line from the bottom of my user page? Is that one line the only reason you pestered me for so many weeks? Why didn't you just come to me directly with your concern? Why did you feel the need to spend weeks parading around vague accusations against me? Do you have an answer for this David? ATren 05:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The John Barrymore page

hey David, we've had our differences in the past but there's a poster named Baseball Bugs whose editing/vandalising the John Barrymore entry. I put in his text a line about his trip to India in 1937 and cited two sources where he went to do some "soul searching". This poster has a problem with the term "soul searching" which makes me think he's a religious fanatic and not interested in the truth. I've tried explaining to this poster on his talk page but he's being elusive. perhaps he needs a block on him. What to do? your help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alice Sebold pic

Actually, I like that one the best too. She's talking, there's a resemblance to the cover photo that I had liked, and the lively background helps.

Now if only I could have been there to get my book signed. I do owe you for this one ... if we meet at a meetup, you can have a drink of your choice on me. Daniel Case 02:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at an article I created?

In the last few weeks, I've returned to the project on a more regular basis, and I've now written the article Tom Dula. I need some extra eyes on it, and I appreciated your input when we worked on James Buchanan together. As such, I'd really appreciate it, if you have the time to take a look at my new article. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 03:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for the Barnstar! And the kind words were too much. Tom Dula was a labor of love for me, and wrote itself after I got going on it. I appreciate your taking a look at it. If you have any ideas for improving it, I'd love to hear them. K. Scott Bailey 01:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to seek out such images. Where to go, what to do? ... I do definitely agree that the article would be further improved by finding some image of him. It's hard to say whether one exists or not, as he was from a desperately poor family who probably rarely--if ever--had photographs taken of themselves. K. Scott Bailey 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)`

Getting pictures

I want a picture of Gene Amdahl for his article (he's very old, and very famous in my field). I have no idea how to get in touch with him, which is something you are quite good at. Can you give me some pointers? Raul654 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

I'm a bit unclear on how images of murder scenes can be used in Wikipedia articles. I refer specifically to the Ripper murders of the 19th century, and the somewhat famous, yet gruesome crime scene photo here. I am aware that they are in the public domain, and am fully aware that WP is not censored, but I am wondering about the value of its usage in the jack the ripper article. Can you Devil's Advocate for me? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument against its use is that it is superfluous and unnecessary. It's not a winning argument, but it's the argument. Crime scene photos in the public domain add a lot of value to the article. It gives the impression of the horror of the crime that neutral encyclopedic wording do not, and should be included. --David Shankbone 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, David. Your input, as always, is invaluable. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ted Frank

Given the serious disputes involving this individual that you have been involved with on-wiki, culminating in a bitter series of noticeboard reports and an arbitration case, it would be best if you refrained from editing the mainspace article on Ted Frank.

I would especially appreciate your no longer mentioning the arbitration case in mainspace edit summaries, as the way you have been doing this is really not appropriate. Newyorkbrad 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree completely. First, CHL is also a major participant in the ArbCom case, and is in fact THF's advocate and the one who presented the evidence. Second, CHL removed pertinent criticism lodged by Frank, and which he is currently going to resurrect in a new article on "Wikipedia's bias." You saying it is "really not appropriate" doesn't make it "not appropriate." You'll need to supply better reasons than that you say so. It's less appropriate to have CHL removing information from Ted Frank's page, since he arguably has a COI in doing so. I suspect you have told him as much? --David Shankbone 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A mainspace article about an individual should generally not be edited by a user who has been in a protracted dispute with that individual. Newyorkbrad 20:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Nor should it be edited by a person who has acted as that individual's advocate or proxy in the same dispute, especially when they are removing information that I think the community would find dubious, given that individual's statements in ArbCom. It was also perfectly appropriate to mention that person's statement - ArbCom isn't secret. I will restore the information again if it is removed; there is no policy, guideline or ArbCom ruling stating anything to the contrary. I encourage you to speak to Cool Hand Luke so that you don't seem so one-sided in your advice. --David Shankbone 20:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd stick to criticizing what David writes rather than where he writes it. THF indicated that he's no longer going to edit Wikipedia, so, assuming good faith on his part, there shouldn't be any more clashes between DSB and THF. THF was intimately involved in the fracas. No more THF, no more problems between DSB and THF. Injunctive relief is pretty serious and should be reserved for situations where one can no longer AGF. As I recall, there were no sanctions proposed against DSB from the Arb case--only against THF. Additionally, most of the proposed findings of fact related to THF revolved around his edits and his style of editing. The sole proposed finding of fact regarding DSB revolved around his use of THF's real name after THF requested that he stop. Would you have the result of that case be that DSB was barred from editing particular articles? That doesn't seem to be a rational conclusion. Ossified 05:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, but really the issue comes down to an article that the community worked diligently on to create, and CHL removing a piece of information that is not only pertinent and deemed notable by a spectrum of users, but that reared its head in the ArbCom itself, namely THF stating he is going to write an article that is highly critical of Wikipedia's bias. Of course, CHL went so far as to take down the article to remove my reference to THF writing a Wikipedia hit piece out of the edit summaries, and for some unknown reason newyorkbrad chiming in that it's inappropriate to mention that THF is preparing such an article. It also makes no sense how this could be considered "harassment" especially since I referenced THF's own words, and he doesn't even edit here anymore. And I was restoring information that was removed with misguided reasoning. --David Shankbone 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

...on the interview with Gay Talese. I love his writing, and to read such a far-ranging interview with the guy was fascinating. Considering you're always photographing all these people, I can't believe you doing reporting wasn't thought of earlier (or implemented I guess). Anyway, congrats on the interesting work - VanTucky ^Talk 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

True?

Is Erection by David Shanknone,jpg your thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.64.11 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

While I would never ask such a question, I'm thrilled to have this talk page watchlisted! :-P Jeffpw 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's a model's thing. And Jeff - !!! --David Shankbone 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Deadjournalist

Just wanted to let you know I've concurred and also reverted this linkspammer for WP:COI vio, and have left a note on his page. Good vigilance! --Tenebrae 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you want to get an admin on this at the Noticeboard page,, I'll go back and start re-undoing his linkspam. I've left him a second notice just now. Geez, some people. Thanks for catching it.--Tenebrae 03:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it just looks like one article he re-linkspammed. I fixed it. --Tenebrae 03:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I guess my familiarity with the field comes through, huh? :- )

Don't know as many as I used to, but I can ask around. What would this be for, how much time would be involved, and would it be over phone or in person? --Tenebrae 03:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone Dismissed

The above named Arbitration case was dismissed due to the inactivity of one of the participants.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

click here sent me elsewhere

I left a comment on the wrong page via the big click here box at top. See my contribs to find it. Jidanni 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks for pointing that out. It's French, an Americanized version of Chanque-Bonne. --David Shankbone 23:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

City Ballet

Agreed; I was in the process of replacing the current season rep. with their repertory of all ballets as your message arrived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgreer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great minds

we reported at the same time :-D Jeffpw 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Mwah ha ha. --David Shankbone 20:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out that vandal

I appreciate you getting it all sorted out and cleaning off my talk page as well! Benjiboi 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Merkin POTD

Your name was invoked in the discussion at the admin noticeboard. I also saw it today at closed cases. That's it, so far. : ) -- Jreferee t/c 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the FYI. I'm actually not a commercial photographer - just an amateur who worms his way into places :-) --David Shankbone 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lucas

Hello, David. I'm writing to you because you have recently contributed to the Michael Lucas (porn star) article, and perhaps Michael is your friend. I would ask you to inform Michael that an editor here at WP has managed to remove the reference to Michael's Jewishness from the lead sentence of his bio article. Despite the efforts of an admin (seen here: [3]) and an anonymous user (seen here: [4]), reference to Michael being Jewish was finally removed (seen here: [5]). The first edit to remove "Jewish" from the lead sentence, along with a bizarre edit summary that says Michael is circumsized (which he isn't), is seen here: [6]. David, I don't pretend to know Michael, but from what I've read about him over the past couple of years I *know* that he is proud to be Jewish, and he has never concealed the fact that he is Jewish. I think he would be quite angry to learn that an editor has used Wikipedia mumbo-jumbo to explain the removal of Michael's Jewish identity from the lead sentence of his bio. You know, if you google search "Michael Lucas, gay, Jewish" you'll come up with a bunch of stories where Michael's Jewish identity is in the *first* sentence or the title even, not just buried or hidden later on in the article. Please let Michael know so he can get his people to work on correcting this outrageous deletion.--72.76.93.128 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not working on it, David. I made 2 edits to the article based on wp:MOS. For further background, there is duscussion on User talk:Mangojuice, and of course, the anon IP can also be discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Just look for the subsection about the anon IP who has been harassing Benjiboi and me. Cheers, Jeffpw 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

David, regardless of what these involved editors are saying here, they, or one of them, in effect, removed Michael's Jewish identity from the lead sentence of his bio. They use WP:MOS as a justification, but MOS is only a guide, and further, it says nothing about removing one's religious identity from the lead sentence. It discussed "ethnicity," but from what I've read of Michael Lucas, he self-identifies as Jewish and his Jewishness is an important part of who he is. He would not want to see a single reference to it removed from his bio. Why not ask him? --72.76.93.128 21:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Mangojuice's talk page:Mentioning in the opening sentence that Lucas is Jewish still seems disproportionate to me, considering the lack of any details in the article itself. The word 'Jewish' only occurs the opening sentence and in the Infobox. I think we need reliable sources commenting on the significance of his Jewishness. We know he visited Israel, so that's something. Since I helped review this article while it was at WP:COIN I'm aware that relative importance of different topics ought to be judged based on what reliable sources have written. In particular I disagree with the comment left just above by the IP editor, anyone familiar with the subject Lucas knows that his Jewishness is essential to his self-identity. Let's have the reliable sources please. If he was interviewed in the press, and the interviewer elicited comment on his religious affiliation and views, that would be fine. EdJohnston 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 22:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) David, take a look here: [7]. In this source you'll read:

Despite some attacking his plans to visit Israel, Lucas says his trip will not be cancelled. "Contrary to the opinions I've been reading, the Israel that I know and love is a democratic, free, fun-loving society," he added. Lucas has also defended the porn he produces. "Yes, I produce gay porn. But for the most part, I am just like you, proud to be Jewish, love my family, proud of Israel, and was glued to TV for the past month, worried for my people. The fact is, lots of people love and need porn. I do not harm anyone, I make them happy," he said. The former Russian, also revealed what it was like being labelled a Jew in the former Soviet Union. "I have experienced a great deal of anti-semitism growing up in Soviet Russia. Like all Jews, I had a paragraph in my passport which read "Jewish". People called it "5th paragraph". Russians never gave me the opportunity to be one of them. Israel is my country as much as it is yours. To come to Israel is my birthright."

And in an interview yet! It can't be any clearer than that. By the way, this source is found in the Lucas bio; it could be easily seen by "others" if they weren't so busy with their deluded agendas, like removing Lucas' Jewish identity from his bio. Ask Michael what he thinks about that! --72.76.93.128 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on that source, David, I have no objection to his religion being reinserted into the lead, so long as that quote, the reference, and a sentence paraphrasing how he feels his Jewish identity is important to him is included. Then it passes the WP:MOS biography (opening paragraph) guideline. Cheers, Jeffpw 22:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the editor speaking above is in any position to establish conditions for the inclusion of Michael Lucas's Jewish identity in his bio. The fact that Michael is Jewish had been in the article since August of 2006. It was in the lead sentence where everybody could see it, and nobody raised any objections to it until the editor speaking above removed it without justification. The source for the material I quoted above has been in the Lucas article. The opening sentence actually never failed any guideline when it listed Michael as being Jewish. --72.76.93.128 23:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why is it important to mention his Jewishness in the lead paragraph? He is categorized as Jewish on the page several times in the Categories at the bottom. --David Shankbone 23:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's important to mention his Jewishness in the lead paragraph because it is important to him, Michael Lucas. Michael Lucas has spoken most unequivocably of his pride in being Jewish, his love of Israel and his worry over its safety and that of its people, and so on. He refers to himself as being "like all Jews." It is who he is, more than anything else. That is why it should be included in the lead paragraph, just like his being gay, etc. Michael Lucas's Jewishness defines him, and he has never made any move to conceal that fact. --72.76.93.128 00:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS (biographies) - Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening (first paragraph) unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Lucas is not notable because he's Jewish, he's notable because of his artwork. Infobox retains Jewish information and it has also been included further down in his bio as appropriate. Benjiboi 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Michael Lucas has several times traveled to Israel. Each and every time he has expressed his solidarity with the people of Israel, calling it his "birthright" to return there. He says that "Israel is his country" as much as it is that of the people there. Michael Lucas's Jewishness is what he is: it describes him more than any other label in the opening paragraph, and his own words reflect that. The MOS is only a guideline, as such it only guides editing. Michael Lucas's Jewishness is more than "relevant" to him: his pride in being Jewish, his support of Israel and its people, his travels *to* Israel in *connection with* his work -- all comprise his notability, he is known for all these things, not just his films. --72.76.93.128 01:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IP, since it is mentioned in his infobox, in his bio, and in the categories at the bottom of the page, I don't think it seems particularly concealed. I would think this would satisfy your concerns. It has been decided that we aren't going to highlight everyone's religious affiliation on here (whether that person wants it highlighted is beside the point). We don't want every label placed at the beginning of the article for a host of reasons; his being gay is there because, well...he's a porn star. His sexuality is endemic to his career, which is why Melissa Etheridge doesn't have hers at the top. There is a consistency that has to be followed in formats; the subject's wishes aren't really taken into account because we aren't writing this for them. --David Shankbone 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree for all the reasons that I've annotated exhaustively. To omit Michael Lucas's Jewish identity from the lead paragraph where it can be seen by all is to deprive Michael Lucas of his rightful identity. Jewishness is his ethnic identity, entirely relevant to include because of its interconnectedness with his work and thus notability. Michael Lucas is Jewish! -- it defines him more than anything else, by virtue of his own words, and his own deeds. --72.76.93.128 01:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree. Best of luck to you. --David Shankbone 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tashi Wangdi interview

Hi, David. Thanks for the heads-up about your interview with Tashi Wangdi. Is it okay if I make some comments about the questions other editors have suggested? If so, would you prefer that I put the comments on the same page, or use the collaboration page?

Also, if possible, it might be nice if you could say something briefly about what sort of questions you think Tashi Wangdi would be competent and willing to answer. Thanks, Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

hit me back

i lup u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.151.163 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Edmund White interview

Oh, interesting, thank you. I think what I want is for him to do an academic paper on the Violet Quill - I should go through the archives of some academic journals I read, he's bound to have done so before. Interesting to hear his thoughts on Alan Hollinghurst and David Leavitt as well.Zigzig20s 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you David

Thanks for always being there when shit sucks around here. Thanks for the barnstar, they don't make one big enough and special enough for me to give to you. :)IvoShandor 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You're a very attractive man

What? I looked at your user page, and there's a photo, and I couldn't help noticing. You're really quite handsome. But I couldn't help noticing the fabulousness of the photos you took, as well. I guess you must just rock, in general. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you've gone and made me blush! --David Shankbone 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just stopped over to see who you were after your (very reasonable) revert of me at Talk:Stephen Colbert, and I had no idea that you had taken so many useful and high-quality pictures for Wiki. I did take a picture of a building and a gazelle once, and thought I was somethin' pretty special... now I'm all in awe of you and everything. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm in awe of your gazelle (nice!) and your building. --David Shankbone 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, would you guys like to be alone? ;) lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm gay... I think David might be, too. We could play Scrabble. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

OK, instead of entering into a petty edit-war, please explain why your pictures are supirior to mine. _TheIslander 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, your photo is low resolution, 65KB, blurry, poor color, and the toe nails look like they either need to be cut or are dirty. Mine are clear, sharp, good color, and at a very high resolution. --David Shankbone 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did notice that this picture is in clear focus, while this picture is pretty fuzzy. They're definitely both pictures of toes, though. Yep. Toes. That's what they are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you that the quality of my picture isn't perfect, however, your comments about the nails make no sense - they neither look dirty nor too long (need to be cut? At that length, ouch...). With respect, the 'model' you've chosen has very bizzare looking feet. For want of a better description, the toes look like they've been crushed, and it is for that reason that I feel my picture is better. _TheIslander 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on bizarre toes doesn't particularly trump the quality problem since we are illustrating...toes. Not your conception of "perfect toes". The image you have chosen is just poor quality. I have no problem replacing the toe photos; I'm not particularly beholden to them, but let's at least improve it with something better quality. --David Shankbone 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that, aesthetically speaking, neither set of toes is very attractive. Adult human feet tend to get kind of misshapen from years of shoe-wearing and walking, don't they? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree toes aren't all that attractive, but out of all the feet I've seen, the model's toes I use are not at all "gruesome". They aren't mine--I have terrible toes. --David Shankbone 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(untab) I'll certainly agree that the quality of your picture is supirior to that of mine, but I also think that the subject of my picture is supirior to yours. Therefore I think the reasonable conclusion is to find a third picture with both good quality, and a good subject - I'll start looking. _TheIslander 17:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. It's always better to have a better photo. --David Shankbone 17:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't enough pixels to enumerate all of the compliments I have received over the years regarding the quality of my toes. It's been said, though (to keep it brief) that my toes are the personification of God himself come to earth. I'd be ever so happy to show my toes on Wikipedia if only one of you (or both) would send me the plane fare to come to America and model them for you. Think of the contribution to Wiki culture you'd be making if you did it.... Jeffpw 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I heard your toes are just a shadow of their former selves...I heard time hasn't been so kind to those piggies. --David Shankbone 19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, one thing's for certain, my dear: you'll never know! Not after that crack. In any event, I see you're not a subscriber to our glorious newsletter. We hired Julie, the former cruise director from the Love Boat to write it (her career really never picked up after that cocaine scandal and all those rehab stints, so we took pity on her and gave her a 100th chance). You even got a whole paragraph mention in last month's edition (though I doubt quite sincerely if that will be happening again any time soon:-s). Jeffpw 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually did check Wikimedia Commons, to see if there were better pictures of toes. I didn't see any; I think David's toes are the best picture to use for the present. I also disagree that David's toes are less attractive than Islander's toes; it's the Islander picture that made me go, "Ew, what happened to that guy's feet?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm sorry your toes haven't stood the test of time. It must be something akin to a hand model with liver spots. But keeping me out of the LGBT letter is just vicious! Vicious! Accept the things you can not change, bitch!  :-) --David Shankbone 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Above, I hedged because not everyone in Project LGBT is actually gay, and I don't know you really well. But now I am clear, because no straight man on the planet could have written the above sentence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Al Sharpton

I'm mostly involved in copy editing and vandal patrol on the Sharpton article but recognize that it needs more background and positive info to balance the controvery/criticism. Toward that effort can you ask him some background type questions to flesh out his early years, such as, what influence the death of Martin Luther King had on his decision to become involved in activism and if he believes that violent or peaceful protests are more effective? Also, we get a lot of people wanting to include a NY Post story that he was involved in a drug sting and I've found references that he brought a lawsuit for entrapment regarding the article/sting but no information as to what happened after. If you find an opening, could you get some information regarding this? Thanks. --PTR 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions. --David Shankbone 18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added most of the positive information about Sharpton's activism to the article, but it's still a very weak section. The whole article is in pretty bad shape. Anyway, getting to the subject, here's something I would ask Sharpton if I had the opportunity: What do you consider some of the biggest mistakes of your past, and how would you do things differently if you had the opportunity to do them again? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. Let me know if you come up with more. --David Shankbone 05:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Philip Deaver

Hi Dave - I don't want to get into the deletion discussion regarding Phil Deaver, but I just thought you should know that his article pre-dated anything to do with my ill-fated Wikipedia (Gary Forrester) article, and I had nothing to do with starting it, although I did add some stuff to his article when I was having a rush of blood to the head about my own (pre-deletion). He is the real thing. The O. Henry Award and the Flannery O'Connor aren't minor awards. He has a long and distinguished track record of publishing short stories and poems with very reputable publishers. I just wanted to set the record straight - nothing more. Best regards, --203.97.219.2 19:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't win the O. Henry Award. The main problem with the article I have is that there is all this personal information that is completely irrelevant to what we are doing on Wikipedia, which is to discuss notability. If certain events in one's life shaped that person's notable work, then it can be discussed -- with sources. Currently, there are no references on the page, and there is all this gooey stuff about his life journey. The article can be improved, but User:Yeago was PROD (meaning - it was PROposed for Deletion barring any improvements) and he twice removed it without improving it. So, it became an AfD - Article for Deletion. It can still be saved, but it needs work to not sound self-promotional. --David Shankbone 19:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This 'Learn how to use appropriate tags' barnstar has been awarded to...Yeago 09:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Dave - I don't agree with Yeago's criticisms of you (in the Phil Deaver AfD discussion). I know for a fact that you do your homework, and he is just slinging ill-informed mud. I do think Deaver is notable, however, and I hope that someone (not me, not him) will fix his article by expanding the sources and doing a better write-up. I sort of poisoned his well, because I was so delusional about the greatness of my own article that I suggested his should be expanded, and that was dumb, because I didn't know what I was doing. But that really shouldn't factor into it, should it? Hopefully, the consensus will be that he is Wiki-worthy, but someone needs to beef up the sources. (And as I said before, I love your user site and the things you are doing. Fantastic.) Cheers from NZ.--203.97.219.2 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. (Comment) Re: the O Henry, see Philip F. Deaver

"Arcola Girls," New England Review and Bread Loaf Quarterly, Winter 1986-87. He also won the Flannery O'Connor.--203.97.219.2 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of Amanda Lepore

Hello David;

From your pictures, am I correct to assume that you live in New York? If so, and if you are out at all around this crowd, do you think that you could get a good picture of Amanda Lepore for the article about her? Even if you keep it on the back of your mind for a while, that'd be great. Charles 08:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for the reply. Amanda is in Turkey right now, I believe, but if you have a chance to take a picture of her in the future you really should. She's a really great lady! Charles 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

AEI redux

David, I'm sorry to see you have removed the section of your talk page dealing with this issue. Irrespective of how one feels about Merck's conduct, if there is more than one factual way to refer to a person in a half-sentence capsule description, we should 1) look for a broadly applicable description rather than focusing on a single specific fact or incident (the undue weight clause), and 2) we should generally respect that person's wishes if they object to one reference over another, especially if the objected-to version is less respectful of the undue weight clause. (I would certainly afford you the same courtesy if you were the subject of an article.) As we recently discussed, brief capsule descriptions should generally be neutral and broadly applicable. For example, in the article Law & Order, which makes a passing reference to Fred Thompson, it would be appropriate to refer to him as "presedential candidate Fred Thompson" or "former Senator Fred Thompson" but not as "former pro-choice lobbyist Fred Thompson", which is an NPOV and undue weight violation. (That complicated issue can be covered in a neutral and balanced way in Fred Thompson of course.) Here I feel from your other edits that you feel that defending Merck and other corporate clients is bad thing, which just reinforces that any capsule description of THF as "the lawyer who defended Merck" is an undue weight violation. Please stick to neutral descriptions in passing mentions and lists, and save the coverage of the issue for the main article. More broadly, I am concerned that you appear to be making THF-related edits that have more to do with picking at old scabs and less to do with an altrusitic interest in writing the world's greatest free encyclopedia. Count me as a fourth admininstrator who thinks you should avoid making further THF-related edits. Thatcher131 12:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Thatcher, you are incorrect in your assumptions. First, the height of Ted Frank's career was his Merck work. He has become an expert on the subject of Product Liability and that is his most visible case. It would be similar to Ken Starr not being cited as the Special Counsel in the Clinton scandal. Second, I hold no personal animus toward Frank nor toward Merck nor toward its Vioxx product. You are ascribing motivations to me, which is the central problem here: you are focusing on the editor and not the edits. But your advice is considered. Thanks. --David Shankbone 13:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that the situation is complicated. THF feels you are deliberately poking at him, and I remain concerned, but I am certainly not at the point of escalating my concerns. Thatcher131 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Had the edits been made by anybody but me there would be no controversy, so in the interest of keeping the peace I will refrain from editing his biographical information. --David Shankbone 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that will help to defuse tensions. Thanks. Thatcher131 14:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, due to the fact that there are plenty of other eyes on the article, and given that I've advised both THF and David on this situation, I'm not going to get any further involved. Sorry. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

How was your interview?

with Ingrid Newkirk? Was it at a signing for her dog book? Bob98133 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It went really well. She's really nice and I don't know if her public persona belies the fact that she is very, very funny. She invited me to the HBO screening of the Matthew Galkin screening of the film about her life, and it was balanced so I based the interview off that presenting both criticism and questions about her work. My dog made a nice prop for the photos. --David Shankbone 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wolfowitz warning

I won't template you, but you are over the 3RR on the wrong side of a BLP dispute. Cool Hand Luke 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are harassing me. I am going to raise this on the admin board if you do not stop. Raise it on the Talk page. And I am also not over a 3RR --David Shankbone 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about the 3RR. Let's discuss this. I think third-party wikinews articles are a BLP issue, and it should be discussed, but it should be out of the article in the interim per BLP. Cool Hand Luke 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have raised your harassment on the admin board and this is another example of it. --David Shankbone 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to quit editing your talk page? I'd be glad to do that if you consider it harassment. I'm not really sure what you want here. Cool Hand Luke 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are following my edits and reverting them when they meet guidelines. You need to simply leave me alone; you have no clear head when it comes to me and I already told you if you have a problem with my edits you should ask a third party who is unvested in the ArbCom dispute to review it. --David Shankbone 16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did that on BLP/N and you called it continuing harassment. Nonetheless, I'll strive not to revert you anymore. Cool Hand Luke 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not harassing you. My concerns were brought in good faith, and I retained my perspective over your edits. Thank you.

If you prefer, I'll just go to the boards in the future because you'll never believe me, and I don't want to be seen as cherry-picking users. Although if you quit editing Frank, I doubt we'll ever cross paths again; we have almost no overlap, and I plan to keep it that way. Cool Hand Luke 18:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I will quit editing Frank, although I reserve the right to edit organizations he may be involved in, such as the AEI. --David Shankbone 18:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, just stay away from biographical details on Frank (and I will as well). Cool Hand Luke 18:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is reasonable. --David Shankbone 18:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you're claiming he says this in the book anyway, can you cite the book instead? Most commentators agreed it would be a more reliable source than his extemporaneous remarks. Cool Hand Luke 20:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure either. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux Cool Hand Luke 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tashi Wangdi interview

Hi, thanks for asking the question about McMahon's Line and related issues in the interview - I've always wondered about the CTA's position on the issue, and this was very informative - and authoritative too - straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Thanks! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - the funny thing about the interviews is that they end up being pretty long, when I usually tell them, "Oh, about thirty minutes." Next thing you know, I'm asking them about the Simla Convention and filling holes on Wikipedia - lol. --David Shankbone 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

38.100

NB that 38.100.43.50 is the IP address for several computers here. I see someone else from AEI has edited my page without asking me, probably Veronique Rodman (though it might have been someone else such as one of the interns). I don't think the edits were controversial, but I will ask her not to do so; she's not familiar with the Wikipedia rules. Rest assured I am not editing my own page, and I politely ask that you not edit THF-related pages either. -- Evidence storage (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw

I wasn't aware that there was any problem with asking questions of an arbitrator about his actions as an arbitrator. I withdraw. -- Evidence storage (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, now you are re-litigating. You had legitimate questions at first, but now you are arguing issues that are irrelevant and re-litigating the case. If you want to re-open the case, we can do that. But this isn't the forum for you to re-litigate your losing arguments. --David Shankbone 21:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I missed the drama though I have left a brief comment on the Q&A regarding ES's block. If THF does anything else similar, however, I suggest you move for the case to be reopened - harrassing Raul654 on his Arbcom Q&A takes this well beyond just COI. For him and Atren. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ATren was classic - he dug up a Wikipedia Meet-up photo where I'm standing near Raul654 and presented it in a "AHA!" fashion to show we are friends or know each other. Aside from the fact I showed up to the event half an hour before it ended, I think the only thing I said to Raul about anything was my infamous troll. Their actions certainly didn't make either of them look good, and indeed reminded me of User:THF's infamous problematic editing. --David Shankbone 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You still deny you knew him after all the evidence I presented! Ha! You also had that dialog about your Wikinews creds as well - "It's in the bag my friend" surely sounds like something one stranger would say to another! :-)

Raul should have recused, that much is clear. It probably won't matter to his election - that's up to the community to decide, and the community is very forgiving of certain long-standing users - but there were at least 2 very compelling reasons why he should have recused, and he didn't. Newyorkbrad recused as clerk for that case, for prior involvement that was likely less significant than Raul's - and he didn't even have a vote! Raul's actions damaged the integrity of the arbcom. ATren (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: Raul654 could die tomorrow and it would probably be a month or two before I noticed he wasn't around editing anymore, unless I had an FA question. And I think he could say the same about me, unless he had a photograph question. Of course we know each other's work on here--most people do; but to a degree that he would ever need to recuse himself from an ArbCom? Not even close. --David Shankbone 00:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Though of course we both wish Raul a long and happy life. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I was part of that 'death' equation too! Yes, of course I wish Raul a long and happy life; I wouldn't want to lose the only Arbitrator I have in my pocket to do my bidding! Mwah ha ha ha... --David Shankbone 13:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Scott Caan

If I didn't like you so much I'd swear you were stalking me! Jeffpw (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Joel-Peter Witkin

His non-free photo is about to be deleted, and I think he is in your neck of the woods. Any chance you can track him down for a portrait? - Crockspot (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

hey u are hot

User:Esskater11/Dirty images

Hi David. There is an Administrators noticeboard thread that might need your expertise. Would you please address this matter. If you need admin assistance, please let me know. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your interviews, and all your other amazing contributions to Wikimedia. Superm401 - Talk 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This link seems to be broken

Benjiboi 00:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

BDSM

Hi David, I just wanted to let you know, that I move the extended version of the featured :de article's translation today. Of course, your articles' links are still included. Kind Regards. --Nemissimo (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I love the photograph of Ingrid Newkirk biting your dog's ear! :-) We should use it in her article, although the one that's there is very cute too. Thank you for taking them.

I'll try from now on to upload the ALF images both to Wikipedia and to the Commons, if I can work out how to do the latter. The reason I've been keeping them on WP is that several times people have uploaded them to the Commons, deleted the local copy, and then someone has deleted the Commons copy too. This has happened even when the permission (the release) has been very clear. I don't know whether it's an anti animal rights thing, or just carelessness, but it has been a bit of a nuisance — I only notice if I happen to stumble across an article with an image missing, and then I have to go about finding it again etc. So from now on, I will try to upload to both, and I'll leave a note on the Wikipedia version please not to delete the local copy. Best, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool - that's odd about them being deleted off Commons. I sent a note to Ingrid to ask if they could release some photos to PD or GFDL or, if they have, to point me to where I can snatch them. --David Shankbone 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They wrote to confirm that their images are PD unless they say otherwise. There's an OTRS ticket number on image:IngridNewkirk.jpg on the Commons. [8] They wrote: "Thank you for contacting us about PETA materials. Our materials are not copyrighted and may be redistributed freely. The only exceptions are materials that were excerpted from other sources, such as passages from books not originally published by PETA." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Used one of your images

I used one of your images here (on Wikinfo). I'm trying my hand at adapting articles cross wiki. Let me know if I have attributed it correctly per the license. - Crockspot (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• One thing I did do is jpeg compress it more so that it was less than 150kb, per the standard there. I hope that does not make it a derivative, and violate the license. Let me know if it is a problem, and I'll talk to Fred about uploading the full boat 1.5MB version. Crockspot (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oops, nevermind. Closer inspection of the license shows it has remix permissions, so the compression should not be an issue. The CC licensing is all new to me, but it is very cool stuff. - Crockspot (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

holaaaa

HELLOOO HOW ARE YOU... I AM MR CORNELIUS COLI,I HAVE 22 YEARS OLD,I COME FROM CUBA,AND THEN I NEED YOUR COOPERATION WITH ME IN THIS EMAIL,I WANT TO BE YOUR FRIEND,BECAUSE MY FAMILY IS POOR,AND NO HAVE ANYTHING SO I HOPE YOUR CONTRIBUTION WITH ME,I ONLY HEAR FROM YOU TO WAIT YOUR INFORMATION AS MY FAMILY AS SON AS POSIBLE.PLEASE CONTACTME AGAIN IF YOU RECEIVE MY EMAIL. MY ADDRES COMPLETE: NO.14 CAPITÁN SAN LUÍS GRANJA BRIONES MONTOTO SANDINO_PINAR DEL RÍO_CUBA. NO.TELEPON:005348411451

I SEND YOU MY PICTURE PLEASE CHECKING IT.

"neliz" <nelis@elam14.pri.sld.cu> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to canvass?

It seems you would like some specific feedback. Would you object if I posted to all of the people who have previously commented? Everyone I listed, plus User:Lawrence Cohen with a message like "You may be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux." Cool Hand Luke 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to state again that this is a good-faith concern. I had some of these pages on my watchlist. I disagreed with the edits, and I don't like to engage with you. I'm doing what you asked and am soliciting outside commentary. And maybe Wolfowitz is fine, but it's a nit-pick in the broader issue. I'm sorry for even listing it because it's misleading. Cool Hand Luke 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would object, because you don't have any cogent argument fleshed out exactly what you are arguing. Are you arguing BLP? Are you arguing against Unger? Are you arguing against Wikinews? I have no clue what, exactly, your issue is and that's what I'm trying to figure out. The Wolfowitz issue was sorted out because there is no prominent box, I cited Salon's reprint of the Unger chapter, and I used Unger's interview to back up his chapter printed in Salon. This was originally a BLP question to you, but then you raised Unger's research on Team B and Christian Zionism. How do those fit in? Then you say "Concentrate on Rumsfeld". So what, exactly, are you arguing against because right now you are all over the board. I've raised the issue with Cary Bass at Wikimedia, but I have no problem writing Jimbo if this issue starts to become anti-Wikinews; and I know that is not what Wikimedia wants. But right now you have spread this in so many different directions, and raised it on a "Reliable source" noticeboard, that I think involving Wikimedia is what is going to have to happen. --David Shankbone 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the issue is with using interviews to comment on third-parties without secondary sources to provide WEIGHT. I believe I've made myself clear. The issue before was not the box. Hardly anyone mentioned it. This is not anti-Wikinews, it's an issue with interviews. Write whoever you want. I'm going to canvass with my short non-partisan message because I think it's an important issue. Cool Hand Luke 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to the guideline or policy that supports that? --David Shankbone 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPS, as I said. Cool Hand Luke 21:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in SPS that states interviews with notable newsmakers, authors and journalists are "SPS" - they are primary sources. This makes no sense. I left a message on Jimbo's talk page. --David Shankbone 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback and Crockspot both said they were de facto self-published remarks, and I agree that it's the proper way to understand them. If they wrote a blog post about it, the remarks would be self-published, and it's not very distinguishable from a Wikinews interview taken down verbatim. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I alerted Jimbo on his Talk page.--David Shankbone 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that the Rumsfeld claim needs a better source? Cool Hand Luke 06:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, right now I'm trying to flesh out what the issue is, which is what I wanted to do with you before you went around canvassing since you raised several different issues and you don't seem to know what you want to argue. --David Shankbone 13:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't finding that productive. I tried asking you on your talk page, but you didn't respond. I tried posting on the board, but you didn't believe I had a valid concern and said that my issue was unclear. You don't believe anything I say, and can't assume that I'm saying it good faith. That's fine. I can live with that, but it means I must get other people to tell you.

And the answer is yes: at the least the Rumsfeld claim needs a better source, because SPS if forbidden in that case (and discouraged in the others). Please fix it soon. Cool Hand Luke 19:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

David, I see that you have contributed a lot to Billy Name, and so I don't like to say that I find the article a mess -- but that's how I find it. (I'm guessing that the messy bits aren't your responsibility; I'm not going to dig in the history.) Could you cast a dispassionate eye over it, and over my moaning in its talk page? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Retarded...

...is a matter of opinion. The curse of a relatively high IQ, such as mine, is that it compels one to question the things people say, rather than accepting them at face value, especially those who are promoting themselves, such as the Onion guys in this case. You, as a seasoned reporter, surely would be taking a similarly skeptical attitude. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. You should question this curse when you are willing to take a rumor, or a myth, that has no citation based upon anything, and question a non-satirical interview simply because they produce a product that is satire. Regardless, stop posting on my Talk page. You could also used the cursed intellect of yours to Google, where you will find other citations supporting what they said. Of course, it's easier--and intellectually lazier--to just assume they are "lying" because it contradicts a preconceived myth. --David Shankbone 16:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the right to post a reasonable comment on your talk page at any time. I also have to right to stop watching your talk page, which I now intend to do, as it is clear there is no resolution possible to this discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New York City Ballet

Could I ask that we discuss the NYCB entry before you remove things?

The list you removed links to entries for the ballets in their repertory.

NYCB has the largest rep. of any dance company in the world, so the list is long.

I have discussed with scholars, ballet teachers (of a very high level) and choreographers what they think would be most useful on Wikipedia and modelled this entry on their suggestions.

If the restoration of the rep. section is not acceptable to you, I've noticed that there is a seperate category of lists; might I move this to a seperate list and use a SEE ALSO section to connect to it (without worrying that it will be summarily deleted)? Robert Greer (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem on New York City Ballet is we have one short paragraph of history, and a gargantuan amount of lists. What you should do is form something like Category:New York City Ballet Repertory. You could also write a paragraph on them being a largest repertory. But a list, in and of itself, is not particularly notable, unwieldy, and too long. --David Shankbone 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)