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)

David, I fully admit I was guilty of naivete. As I discussed at VPP, I was working from both personal experience on the other end of this, and an inherent sense of justice that like policies should be applied evenly in identical situations; and it took reasoned discussion with WJBscribe before I recognized that my error in analysis was that the unanimous consensus precedent in February that I was relying on was the one that was incorrect. I was honestly surprised that the same unanimous consensus didn't immediately fall into place on my behalf the way it did for an editor who, unlike me, had an extensive block history and was being actively dishonest about her COI.

I also admit that I was careless with ambiguous language when I said "What's the policy for delinking attack sites?" when I meant "Is this an example of an attack site subject to the delinking policy?" I am also guilty of not being familiar with the SV controversy, and not recognizing that my issue would be seized upon by a lot of people who were actually fighting a different issue. If I had any sense of the disruption that ensued, I wouldn't have raised it all (as it was plainly counterproductive to any possible goal I might have), but I honestly thought that this would be a noncontroversial application of Misplaced Pages policy in one direction or another. Plus you have to recognize that someone else would have raised the issue if I hadn't. The question remains: do we have any disputes going forward? I don't see anything worth rehashing if you are not going to continue raising old content disputes ad infinitum or continue to demand an unreasonable application of the COI guideline with respect to me. THF 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, that is a very fair statement. In the end, I think, michaelmoore.com will not be counted as an attack site because it is, primarily, not one, it's the web site of a notable public figure. However: if anyone posts a link to that site or its comments on you with the intention of harassing, embarassing or otherwise winding you up, then the links should simply be removed with a comment that they are not relevant to content, and could the person concerned please restrict themself to discussing content. If they won't, then it's pretty unambiguous. It looks to me very much as if it's time for you and David to bury the hatchet; it's clear that his use of your real name in the past was not wilful, but that in future he should restrict himself to addressing you as THF. One big BUT here, though - if you discuss or advocate linking to your own columns, it would be very unwise of you to fail to mention that you are the author, and I would suggest that there will be very limited patience if you were to try to discuss such links and actively prevent your being identified as the author. I don't believe you would do this. Am I right?` Guy (Help!) 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of flouting the COI guidelines, and even helped draft WP:SCOIC to ease the process. Please let me know if you feel my disclosure in Talk:Pro_se#Criticism_of_pro_se_litigation on 23 August, which has yet to result in any mainspace edits, is satisfactory. Again, it is merely a question of repeated use of my real name to discuss my Misplaced Pages edits. THF 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I hesitate to ask, but can you explain to me the reasoning why on the one hand you describe a particular article as a non-notable unreliable opinion in a non-notable publication from a non-notable source that isn't "mainstream," so obviously inappropriate that it "hurt Misplaced Pages" to even suggest on a talk-page its addition to an article, and then go and include that same cite in a different article? It would seem to me that if it's notable enough for one article, it's notable enough for the other, and if not, not. It's hard for me to see why it's notable to include in article X that "X commented on Y" if it's not notable enough to include the same statement in article Y. THF 03:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• THF, can you flesh out this question more? Which articles are you talking about and where? --David Shankbone 11:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ah, I understand. The article is the Michael Moore hit piece you wrote in The American (magazine). I'd be happy to explain the difference as to why I don't quibble with its inclusion on Ted Frank but I have a huge problem with its inclusion on March of the Penguins, although I think it's quite obvious and I hesitate to ask...is that a serious question? Who is Ted Frank? Is he a film theorist and critic, or is he a pundit? In what realm is he notable? What is The American (magazine)? Is it a film magazine, known for its film reviews, or is it a political and business magazine aimed at the right? In what area do people turn to you for your opinion? Is it your knowledge of film history and measurements of documentary film and the injustice your colleagues and peers at film schools and on the Arts & Leisure section have done to Eddie Murphy Raw for denying its rightful place in documentary lists? Or is over your ideological point of view and your musings on liability reform? Have your feelings about film theory been referenced at all in the mainstream media, or have your feelings on tort reform? Do these questions flesh out at all for you why I feel your insistence to include your article re-ranking documentaries to show Sicko is the twenty-second highest grossing, and not the fourth by the commonly-accepted methods, should not be included in the articles for all 25 films you ranked, but why it is fine to report about your own personal view of Michael Moore and his film Sicko on an article about you and your own personal views. Your a pundit, not a film critic. Your punditry gets reported on about your article. No on 25 film articles. So, really, was that a serious question? Did you really not see the difference? --David Shankbone 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You have answered the question why "X commented on Y" is not in Article Z; I accept that you are being consistent there. You have not answered the question of why "X commented on Y" is not in article Y, when you put it in article X. Your opposition to the first proposition was so stringent, that it seems unimaginable that you'd want it anywhere in the encyclopedia. The proposition is either notable, or it is not. If the former, then it belongs in both articles X and Y; if the latter, it belongs in neither article. You seem to be saying that X's opinions about Y are not notable because they are outside his field. That is a reasonable argument. But then why put it in the X article? THF 12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, you are going to have to be specific and fill in the blanks for me: what are you talking about? --David Shankbone 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Another note: I didn't put any article you wrote in anything; I cleaned up wording that did not make sense. Although I will accept your unstated proposition that by my not removing it, but improving it, equals acceptance. But its nascence in your article was not me. --David Shankbone 13:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So you do know what I'm talking about, then. Copy-editing that sentence is entirely inconsistent with your stated position in a content dispute where you accused the holder of the opposite position of "hurting Misplaced Pages" merely by raising it on a talkpage of Article Y, a position you felt so strongly about, you raised it on the COIN, ANI (several times), VPP, COI, CSN, and Talk:Jimbo pages seeking sanctions. If someone put it in Article Y, you'd remove it, not copyedit it: you saw the sentence in Article X and felt the only thing wrong with it needing correction was improving the wording. (NB that I am not saying that an article edit that focuses on another section and ignores a sentence is an endorsement of that sentence, so please do not derail the discussion with that strawman.) I'm seeking a good-faith explanation for it, because the inconsistency (perhaps incorrectly?) implies that you either did not really believe the accusations you made over a three-week period, or it implies that your most recent edit (perhaps inadvertently) sought to hurt Misplaced Pages in your edit of this article. Rather than accusing you of being disruptive, I'm AGF, and seeking to see your motivation through your eyes, because I simply don't understand. THF 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Oh, I get it. That you commented on Moore and Sicko is fine in your article, but then why isn't it fine for the Sicko article? Because of all the reasons I stated above: you are not a notable film critic. To discuss the views one holds in their article is one thing, but that every topic upon which they have view merits inclusion into the articles on those topics is something wholly different. For instance, it is one thing to discuss Al Franken and his drug use in his article, but it is entirely different to talk about Al Franken's drug use in the drug use article. With all due respect, THF, that you are notable in one realm doesn't carry over into all realms upon which you have an opinion. Your notability is quite limited, even in your field, although the notability is without question - huzzah! So if you write an article that Celine Dion is without a doubt the best love-making music, that Mexican Spanish is superior to Castillian or that Turtleneck sweaters are the "must have" this Fall fashion season, your opinions would similarly be shunned in all of those articles. Although, they may make it into the Ted Frank article, so write away! --David Shankbone 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify, I said you "hurt Misplaced Pages" because you created a massive amount of disruption to have your unnotable film opinion and documentary rankings inserted into 25 film articles, not for simply suggesting it be put into the Sicko article. Perhaps you forget the veracity with which you argued for inclusion of your own work, raising policy arguments and the like. Anyway, I hope all this clears it up for you. --David Shankbone 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your recognition of my veracity. THF 13:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL - you beat me to fixing the typo to voracity; thanks for giving me a chuckle. --David Shankbone 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this continuing?

Please stop encouraging harassment. You told me to put it on the WHO page; I did, an editor there told me to cite to someone experience in healthcare, and I did that. We've already established that I'm not violating COI, and it's not self-promotion for me to put a reliable source that is not me on a page: I know hundreds of academics, and it surely isn't the case that I am not allowed to cite to anyone I have exchanged pleasantries with. We've already established that it is permissible to make a suggestion on a talk page. You already said you were going to drop the matter if I didn't raise an arbcom. So why are you continuing to harass me, and WP:CANVASSing over it? THF 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you put Stossel on the page? He's the one you were pushing? I know plenty of people, too. I had no problem with you raising an ArbCom, but I don't think you'd care for the results. I have a problem with your agenda-pushing, THF. Like I said to Mark--and I asked him because he is an authority--I don't plan to pursue this myself, but I am curious to know if this considered acceptable. You continue with behavior that quite a few people have a problem with; it's not harassment to ask questions about it. You throw around a lot of terms that ring hollow. --David Shankbone 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, see WP:STALK and WP:AGF. Look at the history: I added Stossel to the WHO page, had the Stossel edit reverted on the grounds that he wasn't an academic, and, in an effort to reach consensus, added a cite to a health academic that made the same point. I made one comment on the Stossel talk page suggesting a useful external link more consistent with WP:EL than half the external links on that page. Editors will agree to insert it or not. You have nothing to do with either page, and are seeking to exacerbate a dispute that I have repeatedly tried to resolve when I have done nothing wrong. Are you going to abide by our agreement to leave me alone, or do I need arbitral resolution? THF 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality film and Category:Reality film and deletion review

I've discussed the reason for my edits on Talk:Reality film and I invite you to discuss your edits there as well. I've nominated Category:Reality films for deletion and you can put any input you have on that matter there. I've also nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Reality_film for deletion review because I feel the closing admin misinterpreted the debate. Feel free to discuss that here: Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Reality_film. --Pixelface 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a big list of potential sources posted during the DRV btw. IvoShandor 09:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See also sections

David, See also sections are precisely for Misplaced Pages articles that are of too little weight to be included in the main article. AFD Stuart Browning if you feel he is of too little notability to be mentioned in other Misplaced Pages articles, or self-revert, and please stop edit-warring. THF 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• See also sections aren't for every minor point of view, THF, and this seems to be more a form of advertising. I won't revert again b/c of 3RR, but I don't support this inclusion. I would, however, support inclusion of a link to "Criticisms of the WHO". --David Shankbone 12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted Frank (businessman)

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