Misplaced Pages

Christina Aguilera's orientation

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

My bad then. Circeus 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-referenced biographies?

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

My mistake

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

Reply from Ivo

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

My plan

Based upon the discussion and kind words offered by you and others my plan is to do these things:

1. Edit less than normal, for awhile anyway.
2. Contribute less to discussion pages in the WP namespace, (save those discussions I am involved in currently)
3. Try not to let Misplaced Pages upset me so much (which it does at times and my edits reflect it, i.e. I become rather hostile towards some people)
4. Try to remember just how shitty of a school Northern Illinois University is, and that the president there is more likely to have graduated from Hollywood Upstairs Medical College than anywhere else.

IvoShandor 07:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Twinkie defense RfC initiated

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

Ranting on ANI

I gotta say, if you want to be taken seriously, ranting on WP:ANI is not the way. What good points you had were lost due to your tone. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Since you're the latest to take on the "attack site policy", you might find this essay to be of interest. *Dan T.* 03:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Comin' into DeKalb Angeles

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

Hey thanks for that pleasant surprise

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

WP:HARASS

David, I can't count the number of times you have falsely made the same allegations against me, but your Village Pump post is very clearly over the WP:HARASS line when it comes to pestering. Please remove it and restrict your discussion to the abstract policy of WP:HARASS#Posting of personal information rather than continuing to make false claims against me in WP:MULTIple forums. THF 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I brought this up on Jimbo's page. I'm willing to go to ArbCom if need be over this User name issue. It's nothing personal, THF, but this desire of yours to unring a bell you run loudly yourself has become very disruptive to Misplaced Pages, many times over. Since you are persisting with this, I invite you to take me to ArbCom over it, and all the other people who are supposedly violating WP:HARASS - this needs to get fleshed out more. --David Shankbone 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, the section to which you refer indicates unacceptable behaviour only on Misplaced Pages. You appear to be assuming that all websites everywhere should be following our policies. This is not the case, and just because a website is displaying what is common knowledge (ie, who you are) does not mean they are attacking you, harrassing you, or in any being threatening. In fact, the amount of crap you have dredged up about this has resulted in the spreading of your personal information far beyond a few lefties who read mm.com. I, for example, now know your personal details when I would not have done had you not decided to complain loudly and repeatedly about it. I imagine a lot of people do. Please stop digging, Misplaced Pages has enough drama without you trying to bring even more. And please stop harrassing other editors because they have the good sense to point out how silly this is.

And I can't even understand why you're doing this - were you not just one week ago using your real name as an account name and complaining people were calling you by it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• The whole WP:HARASS argument smacks of WP:GAME - WP:HARASS is there to protect the random librarian or kid who isn't a public figure. Not public figures who attack other public figures, especially when the attacker revealed himself. How can that be an adequate reading of WP:HARASS? If Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi were duking it out on Misplaced Pages, or even off-wiki with references to Misplaced Pages and who the other person's User name is, would we really be protecting one or the other? Ted, your already a public person, writing Op-Eds and involved in high-profile policy issues, giving lectures, etc. How can you expect this anonymity, anonymity you never gave yourself? --David Shankbone 18:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy says nothing about Public figues having less rights on wikipedia so stop the Harassment based on your political POV. 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You should take your dogged desire to argue for legal fights with every notable person elsewhere. You'll note nobody supports how you see things; even THF has more support than you, and he has also cautioned you in your support for him for the way you argue and the things you say. You don't really help his cause, to be honest, so if you support him perhaps it would be better to remove yourself from the argument. I am going to go out on a limb and say THF would probably appreciate you disengage from the "battle" (to quote your user page). You are becoming his Westboro Baptist Church. --David Shankbone 18:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"if you support him" I don't i support thr rights of wikipedians to edit without death threats being recieved on the home phone as happened to user . As not one person as been able to argue against the policy as it is writen i'm still in the right. Just admit you hate THF and his politics and it is you who are wikilawyering to keep harassing him. And keep your petty insults to yourself. 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You aren't particularly worth my time. Happy editing. --David Shankbone 19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Walken Image Flipped?

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

THF

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

I would tend to agree with the above (fancy that!)... it seems like David and I are on the same side in opposing anything resembling the BADSITES policy, but when it comes to intentionally rubbing people's real identity in their noses just to spite them, I have to say that this is a bad idea. Keep your eye out for actual conflicts of interest occuring in his future editing, sure... oppose any efforts to forcibly de-link the Moore site from places where it belongs, certainly... but otherwise, leave the guy (not the Guy... that's the admin who posted above!) alone. Sure, it's unreasonable of anybody to expect to become retroactively anonymous after editing under their real name, but that doesn't mean you need to go out of your way to keep mentioning his real identity when there's no reason to do so. Sometimes humoring people (even unreasonable people) is the best policy to help everybody get along and go back to productive editing. *Dan T.* 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually never rubbed THF's name in his face. Originally, I used his real name back when he was using it himself as his User name. Two-thirds of the way through the Sicko battle he changed his User name and it took some adjusting. But then that left the issue of his public dispute with Moore under his real name, and it became increasingly difficult to avoid the 800 pound gorilla in the room of who he was. But I wasn't casting about his name like a child leaving breadcrumbs in the woods. Just FYI, since in all the arguments this is one I did not address. --David Shankbone 18:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

David, as an example of my disruptiveness, I have to ask you whether this is really something you want to pursue further, or whether all of the issues are now resolved after my WP:VPP#THF statement, and you'll stop harassing me. I really think I have been the opposite of disruptive between the two of us:

• The content dispute over whether to add a cite to Sicko was resolved two weeks ago. I helped draft guidelines at WP:COIC and WP:SCOIC to address future controversies, and agreed to abide by them.
• When you escalated a dispute off-wiki, I accepted an apology rather than bring an arbcom case, and repeatedly reached out to you to resolve the dispute, for which you gave me a resilience barnstar.
• With respect to Moore's site, I made a good-faith inquiry about a straightforward application of a bright-line rule, and there was legitimate debate between admins over how policy should be applied. I withdrew from the debate, even closing ANI discussion threads when people kept trying to reopen it, but other editors continued fighting about it; when one who kept removing the site was blocked for edit-warring, I defended the block and tried to calm him down on his talk-page.
• With respect to my username, I explained my good-faith reasoning at WP:VPP#THF, apologized to Cyde, and withdrew from the controversy, though admins were still defending my position.
• I've completely stayed out of the AFD, and haven't complained about the COIs of many of the people involved in that thread.
• With respect to COI application, I have been following the guideline in good faith, and have repeatedly asked for clarification and even-handed enforcement, even opening a thread myself at WP:COI/N#Sicko.
• You complain that I haven't changed my username to something anonymous, but you surely see that doing so would be far more disruptive: we already have one editor pretending to be a sock of mine, imagine what would happen if I didn't have a regular account.

Is there anything else that's really at issue? I think if objective third parties look at this, you're going to look a lot worse than I am, but if we can agree that there's nothing to fight about going forward, and you let me participate in the project in peace, we can drop this matter without further escalation. THF 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• THF, I really have no personal issue with you, and I am glad you contribute to Misplaced Pages. My issues with you have not been over your editing Misplaced Pages and the articles you edit, but some of the actions you have taken that I find disruptive. I also believe that if other people were undertaking what you undertook with your documentary list, you would have a problem with it. You don't have to deny that or confirm it. This was our first tussle. Our second tussle came when you instigated having MichaelMoore.com removed as an attack site. I really find these sorts of things disruptive to the project itself. Both of these issues require massive amounts of time and attention of countless people, they cause bad feelings not just among me and you, but among many editors for various reasons (the aforementioned consumption of time, other spats get tangled up in them and new arguments develop between tangential editors. I am not saying you do not make these arguments and present these issues in "good faith" but I do believe they boil down to wikilawyering and gaming guidelines and policies against the spirit of their intentions. Regardless of your good faith, I wish you would sometimes consider whether episodes like those I mention above are "worth it" - worth the time, the effort and the hard feelings. You will notice that I have disengaged in editorial and content disputes with you. More so, we have engaged over what I see as disruptive requests that are silly. You argue that you are concerned about stalking and harassment, but you are already a noted public person who gives out opinions to a far wider audience than is found on Misplaced Pages, so I personally find arguments like that disingenuous and game-y. Other people may disagree. Regarding the "threat": It was not a threat. I used Wikimedia's servers precisely because I assumed you did not have Misplaced Pages mail go to your work account; otherwise, I could have e-mailed the question directly to your AEI addy from my Gmail. I apologized because it was meant as a "dirty trick" to mess with you since you were messing with me, but there was no threat inherent in the words, or the spirit. Going forward, if you would give a little more consideration to what your actions will bring, and whether you deem the fight worth it (e.g. instigating the removal of Moore's website from his article; trying to get your own work that is not notable in relation to the subject posted in multiple articles) then I do not think we will have any problems. But issues like this, in my opinion, hurt Misplaced Pages. Conversely, many of your edits greatly improve the project, and if you ever need my assistance or back-up (which is never given wantonly), I will be there for you. One thing people can't really argue against me is that I don't do things in good faith here. I want the project improved and I don't do AfDs, RfCs, ANIs, COIs, make edits or add photos that I personally think are questionable. Although I may not be able to sway others with my opinion, that does not mean I ever do so thinking my own actions are questionable. As a matter of fact, I've had two articles I started a year ago deleted because, in hindsight, the individuals were not notable enough for inclusion. I voted to delete Megan McArdle, despite my portrait and knowing her, because her notability was marginal. I congratulated someone when they replaced my Catwalk photo with a better one, and I insisted we include Al Franken's drug use in his article, even though I love the guy. Because I am known on here for my good faith and expending vast quantities of time improving the project, many admins were hesitant to admonish me over the issues you raised; I'm not known for that sort of behavior, and it would be odd if all of a sudden I took out a personal vendetta. Especially when I am glad you are here. --David Shankbone 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)