Thank you for all of the warm wishes and generally nice thoughts sent in my direction. I have retired from all Wikimedia projects and turned in all my extra tools as a security measure (we all appreciate those now, don't we?). For those few of you who were disappointed at not getting a whole ton of gossip out of my explanation for leaving (and didn't think to ask me privately, duh) I can only offer this cartoon as penance. Best of luck to all of you and feel free to keep in touch (see above). Shellbabelfish11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rodryg Dunin, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mindraker21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (unintentional vandalism/test)[reply]
Hrm, I reverted your blanking of sources and I'm the one vandalizing? I believe you may be a bit confused; you seem to have been a productive Wikipedia editor in the past. I'm not sure if you and Elonka had some kind of disagreement that has led to your bizarre behavior as of late, but continuing this type of behavior is unlikely to end well. Happy editing. Shellbabelfish22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already survived multiple Afd discussions, so the community seems to disagree with you about the encyclopedic worth. Since you were the one removing sources, perhaps you could review the policies on verifiability and citing sources? Can you explain why it is that you continue to remove sources and sourced information? How about explaining the nasty comments you are making about Elonka on other people's talk pages? Shellbabelfish 21:28, 3 November
Matt, your new buddy Mindraker is the one who took out the original refs and put the one's you're questioning in to begin with. I really have no further interest in the drama being created surrounding these articles. I'm sure if everyone works long enough, all the Dunin articles can be brought to a poor state that allows their AfDs to achieve the result you want. Shellbabelfish20:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting the article deleted is not my mission and its not going to happen anyway. I'll take a look at the refs and maybe try to come up with a version of the article in my sandbox, which has no OR and relies on sources. I'll let you know when I'm done and maybe you could give your opinion on it. --Matt57(talk•contribs)23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Matt, I'm just not interested in another wikilawyering session. Feel free to rewrite the article to your standards; I've tried reasoning and discussing with you and it simply hasn't worked. The fact is that if Elonka didn't edit Wikipedia, none of this would even be a question - that's a rather blatant lack of common sense and a detriment to the articles you've targeted. Your work on these articles has been strictly removal; you have yet to add anything positive or make the articles better. I hope you can find a constructive way to resolve your concerns and stop blaming this on some hidden cabal attempting to thwart your efforts. Happy editing. Shellbabelfish23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If all I wanted to do is remove information, I wouldnt have done stuff like this. Ok, I'll not engage you in discussion for any of these articles, although you're welcome to give your input anytime on their talk pages if you want to. --Matt57(talk•contribs)00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. I refer Shell to Wikipedia policy and I come back two days later to find this nonsense on Wikipedia and private email. Take a deep breath, people. Stop fingerpointing. I really hope you do a better job than this on the Arbitration Committee, Shell. Mindraker12:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mindraker, I have never sent you an email, nor do I appreciate you calling our discussion nonsense. You removed citations - you did not remove uncited information or provide a new source, you simply deleted the sources, period. In fact, you do not even claim the sources are incorrect, just that you don't like the citation format. Furthermore, you were the one who originally inserted the sources. Boggles the mind really. There is a world of difference between your behavior and Matt's - for example, Matt doesn't leave condescending and attacking messages or use ethnic slurs (which, by the way, is what you were actually blocked for). We were having a civil discussion of the difference in our views on OR; feel free to join in if you'd like. Shellbabelfish17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shell, before the Stanley Dunin article was deleted, it was essentially stripped and 'mass removed' as well. Were you against that? That was all OR in the article. There are many OR statements in other articles as well. Many people have admitted that. Anyway, dont worry, again, I'm not out to delete these articles and am not in any hurry of any kind. --Matt57(talk•contribs)14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issues of the Stanley Dunin article were that the focal claim of notability could not be verified. This is a perfectly reasonable deletion reason, however, gutting the biographical backfill on the article was unnecessary and completely beside the point of the AfD. It would be much different if what was being removed from these articles was contentious information, but what's being disputed is marriage dates, places of residence and other minor trivia that helps to flesh out the article - I just don't see what this accomplishes. If you'd like, I can take a tour through our biographies and show you other instances where family or self websites are used to add bland background data to the article - its rather common practice.
I understand your concern about OR. We can't have people creating websites just to provide references for what they'd like to see in articles. Major points, points of notability and anything at all beyond rather bland fact needs a credible source. However, so long as reliable secondary sources can be verified that support the existence of an article, do we really have a reason to doubt uncontested, unexciting biographical facts published by a family member? Shellbabelfish17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: ADOPTION
Is that a yes to adopting me or a no? People have said that they will adopt me but they havent been active to tell me. (please say yes) :-?
Lassie2501 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I was debating whether to block that one myself, because it wasn't necessarily sexual and there was an apparent good faith edit in the contribs. I'm new at this, though; am just curious to hear your reasoning as part of my learning process. Dppowell04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me that's pretty obviously a sexual reference; if someone comes up with another explanation for it though, I wouldn't mind unblocking. When a user has good contributions like that, there's no harm in leaving a personal note on their userpage. I also always make sure to use one of the {{usernameblocked}} templates in the block reason so they have instructions right up front for handling the problem. Also, when the user had good contributions, I make sure that account creation and autoblock aren't checked so there will be little difficulty for them to move to an appropriately named account. Shellbabelfish05:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Its always easier to ask first than apologize later :) If you ever run in to any other questions, feel free to drop me a line. Shellbabelfish07:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reQall
I request you to keep the article since I will make the necessary changes that would make it Wikipedic. Please give me an example for me to understand from the page to understand the problem. I really want to make it non promotional and an biased. Thank you
