User talk:Tim Shuba

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. And do please sign all contributions. Failure to abide by these unofficial guidelines may result in a refactoring of this page. Thank you.

I cleared your sandbox. The word "libel" has specific connotations and to use it carelessly is to risk being [{WP:BP|blocked]] for legal threats. Please endeavour to remain civil even during disputes. Just zis Guy you know? 08:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word stalking also has specific legal connotations, see the entry. Nevertheless, in this case no implication about legal threats was intended from either party involved, I am quite sure. Interestingly enough, I put the draft of my response in a sub-page under my user space so that I could request for deletion myself by trying out a {{db}} tag, in the event that my name was no longer specifically mentioned in the context of being a stalker. As that has now occurred, I have no problem with your deletion of my draft, other than it shows a lack of good faith toward me as a new user. I do have to laugh at the various accusations or innuendo about me from "seasoned" Wikipedians after posting one draft in my user space and one request that my name not be unfairly mentioned on a third-party user talk page.

incivility
legal threat
bad faith
"It looks like it is from a puppet of some form rather than a real editor"

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tim Shuba, have fun and try not to become jaded like so many of us here!

--Tim Shuba 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the welcome template

I have read much of the advice on writing articles, and I have also skimmed through the various policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia. So please, no need to insert one of the welcome templates on this page. Thanks! --Tim Shuba 03:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KraMuc socks?

FYI, I have reported PaolaDiApulia (talk · contribs) as a suspected sock of permabanned user KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/KraMuc_(2nd). ---CH 04:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of article

Tim Shuba said: It seems that that you have deleted an article under CSD G1 that should not have been tagged that way. While the article is very possibly worthy of deletion under prod or AfD, I'm afraid in this case you have bitten a new user acting in very good faith to create a sourced article. Please take the time to read the article again, as well as the good-faith comment on the talk page. Thanks!

You're right, I probably shouldn't have acted so rashly in retrospect. I had several articles with Speedy delete templates open at the same time and should probably have taken more time to review them. Feel free to restore the article and let it run its course, be it as a kept article, or similar.

Sorry if I acted too harshly on the spur of the moment. Bobo . 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shuba said: Thanks for your response. I'm not an admin, so I can't restore it myself. If you restore it, I will remove the speedy tag. No problem on your actions, by the way. I understand there is a lot of material that needs to be removed, and it's easy enough to miss things.

I was wondering whether you would have been able to restore it yourself, but you're right, it's a lot quicker to do it with the tools. I have restored the first version posted. Bobo . 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tim - thanks for the note (regarding the article); that seems fair enough.Owl Frosh 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9.6 year lynx abundance deletion proposal

The closed discussion in this section is preserved as an example of the behavior of Ray Tomes. Please do not modify it. Tim Shuba 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about this.

I want to take serious issue with several things:

You state "as part of long running cycle to promote original research" which it totally inaccurate and clearly so if you read the article. It states published sources of articles by people (now dead). None of the research was done by me. It is not original research. Are you related to Hillman?
You state "See the various xFD discussions on and linked to from the pages here, here, and here." and give no reason why this is related. These deletions were also based on factual statements in error, as yours is above.
You state "Merge useful information, should any exist, to Edward R. Dewey". This is not at all wise because the discoverer of the cycle was not Dewey. The material does not belong there, just as the FSC does not belong there. Ray Tomes 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was nominated for deletion because I firmly believe it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia to do so. Others can read my statements, click the links, and form their own conclusions. Should the page stay, that won't bother me either. In that event, should I choose, I will edit it with the goal of following the core principles of the encyclopedia. Tim Shuba 06:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if the others are as careless as you and believe what you say? If you were interested in quality you would admit you made a mistake and state the real reasons for disliking the pages. Ray Tomes 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cats, Expanding Earth and rv

Hi Tim,

Thankyou for your attention to EET. When I removed the category 'Obsolete' at the expanding earth article it was with the assumption that I was the one who had added it. A quick check of the history reveals that it was in fact youself. Apologies. I feel that removal of something like that deserves an explanation and usually I would do just that. Please attend at the talk page and help to improve the article with your thoughts and comments. Again, sincere apologies. - Fred 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's no big deal in any case. I made some comments on the talk page, as I'm sure you will see. Tim Shuba 04:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and rationale. I plan to improve to improve this article when I have read more of the literature and hope that you will a become co-contributor. You have made some valid points that will lead to the improvement of the article. I agree that it is fringe science, but do not share the view that it is obsolete. Precedence of the categorisation on other wikis is not a sound reason for inclusion, I expect you can see that. I will take a couple of days to consider all the valid concerns you have raised. On a personal note: I am not a strong supporter of either proposition, but would make the point they are not mutually exclusive. Please help lift the article with your further comments and edits. Best regards - Fred 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. Candace Gorman

Hi, I took a look at this article. You are correct that most of the contributions by the related person had been removed, so I retracted the coi tag. As for the extended section about her client, I don't think it belongs there. It's really about the client and it makes no difference who his lawyer is, so it properly belongs in his own article, which is linked from this one. Plus, it was even longer than the section about the subject herself! I wouldn't object to expansion of the sentence stating that she represented him to include information that she has been a public advocate on his behalf, or that she visited him personally, or whatever she herself did that might be notable. Finally, while I am not challenging her notability, I suspect that others might as she seems to be a borderline case. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation for the Study of Cycles

Hi Tim. Thanks for your message regarding RayTomes. I will get in touch with Ruud Koot to find an explanation for his behaviour. In the meantime I notice that you have reverted my own editing on The Foundation for the Study of Cycle. The correct route for deletion or redirection of The Foundation for the Study of Cycles is via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. As you may have noticed I pointed that out on Ruud Koot's talk page. A revert war is an unpleasant thing, and I'm surprised and disappointed that an editor who has been around since June 2006 should be provoking one. Perhaps you are not aware that RayTomes has asked for assistance Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/RayTomes and that I am acting as his advocate? With regards, SilkTork 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there has been an AfD on that article, and while it was closed with no consensus, there were few votes to keep, all of which were conditional. You are somewhat rash in accusing me of provoking an edit war after I make one reversion; perhaps I just want to make it obvious that by ignoring the concerns of several editors in that AfD and elsewhere you aren't doing anything positive for the credibility of the encyclopedia. Have you actually gone through the many XfD discussions relating to RayTomes' contributions? Have you noticed how many of RayTomes' attempts to insert original research have been removed? Have you checked the contributions to see that RayTomes is largely a single purpose account with a personal agenda? An advocate has no special standing as an editor, though one would hope that decent advocacy might include steering an editor to follow policy instead of acting as a proxy to help pollute the encyclopedia with original research. Tim Shuba 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]