User talk:KensingtonBlonde

All speech is welcome here on the following grounds: That it pertains to information relevent to one or more of the Wikimedia projects That it complies with civility rules That it does not contain forms of vandalism, including unauthorised modification of user comments of others Discussions which I determine to be "age-old", in that the relevent subject matter is no longer significant in any paricipating user's present situation, will be archived. Thank you for your cooperation and if you can conform to these guidelines, please feel free to voice your opinion.The Kensington Blonde T C ''' 02:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi, just noticed you hadn't been welcomed yet, so here goes...

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Waltontalk 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Btw you might also want to take the image out of your signature, as per WP:SIG. I have no idea why they're not allowed (especially as they are allowed on other Wikimedia projects), but it's just one of those rules you're meant to follow. Anyway, I'm always around if you need any help and advice. Waltontalk 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do, I knew images were generally not recommended, but I didn't know they were flat out not allowed. It's disappointing too, my sig will look kind of boring without it, unless you can see the "Vivaldi" font which the letters are in, I noticed only the newest computers have this font. I hate the way default sigs look. Anyway, thanks for the welcome, it's much appreciated. The Kensington Blonde T C ''' 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I came around to kindly ask the same, but since it's already been brought up there's no more need to attention to it. I still wanted to leave a note, partly to show off my signature (which I think is nice and may inspire an alternative), and partly to remark on your activity in RfA, considering the recency with which you began editing (at least from this account). If you are indeed new, kudos on your diving right into the guts of the wiki! By the way, I recommend using the CSS-based &lt;span&gt; tag, avoiding the &lt;font&gt; tag if possible—among other reasons, this should decrease the likelihood of uncommon fonts displaying as something different. See my sig and Font family (HTML) (and lots of other things on the wiki) for examples of the use of &lt;span&gt;.  Big Nate 37 (T) 17:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this here would give my sig some level of distinction. Is it acceptable, though?TThe Kensington Blonde C ''' 18:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. I myself used to use this custom sig, till I got bored of it and switched to default style: Wal  ton  Need some help?  . Just to let you know I'm not a totally boring person. :-) Waltontalk 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Signature, continued
To be totally objective, it is at an increased size and boldface, so some may find it slightly unpleasant. However, it is distinctive and well within standards as far as I know. It isn't necessarily my favourite (mine is, of course!), but I don't mind it at all. Signatures are important, because when customized they form the most prominent part of your wiki personality. Oh, there is a problem with the code: you are leaving boldface markup (three apostraphes) at the end prior to the timestamp, and the boldface markup is never 'closed'. If it was your intent to make the timestamp bold, I'm not sure if this is a possibility—it isn't wise to leave the boldface open, since your signature won't always be the last thing on the line, and breaking futher formatting will definately attract negative attention. If I may, here's what signature code that (I think) you are using, and what I recommend instead:

My changes include adding a space after the T (which I assume was omitted by accident and not by design; feel free to not use the space there), removing the three apostraphes which are potentially paragraph-breaking, substituting &lt;span&gt; and its related code for &lt;font&gt;, and moving the closing span tag inside of the link for proper nesting (which probably doesn't make a difference on most browsers, but is technically correct). I considered whether to include the talk page 'T' in the span tag just as the contrib page 'C' is, but I left it the way you had it—another point where I wasn't sure whether you intended the left to be the same as the right or not. Feel free to play with what I did, ask questions or ask me to change it, or to completely disregard it.  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so far, so good. I'm not good with the " " stuff, so I must ask a favour: If you could keep the username text the same colour, but make the word "Talk" a light shade of blue, and the word "Contribs." and even lighter shade of blue, I'll be in your debt. The Kensington Blonde TalkContrib. 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which blues would you like?  Big Nate 37 (T) 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cornflower blue (Talk), then powder blue (Contrib.) Thanks a lot, this is really helpful. The Kensington Blonde TalkContrib. 04:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, powder blue is almost the same colour as the background of talk pages (which is where you usually put a signature), so I recommend one of two things: changing the colour of Contribs. to a different one, or putting a white background behind the whole signature. Making the word Contribs. bold would also help, which I didn't try:

Let me know what you think.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to go with what you see here. Thanks a lot, I could not have done this without your help. The Kensington Blonde Talk 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange, I had written a reply, but I guess I didn't save the page. Anyways, you're welcome, it was no problem, and thanks for the kind note on my talk page.  Big Nate 37 (T) 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

29 July 2007

 * KB, can you please reduce the size of your signature? Its appearing huge on default. Most people dont have this Vivaldi font and it defaults to Arial, making it really big and bold. Please change it so its not so big on default:


 * The Kensington Blonde Talk


 * Change to:
 * The Kensington Blonde Talk
 * which comes out to be:
 * The Kensington Blonde Talk


 * --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. When you can see the Vivaldi font, it looks normal in size, so I wasn't entirely aware that it was big without the font. I'm a little sad to hear that "most" people don't have Vivaldi fonts, I'm using a very new computer and I discovered that even PCs a couple years old don't have this. It must look extremely boring to those without my font of choice. I can't stand default sigs. I might just change it all together to a different font later. Thanks for the heads up. The Kensington Blonde Talk 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how this may look to others, too big?  The Kensington Blonde Talk 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I will hopefully succeed in a month or two. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your strong support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But |seriously |folks  08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please advise on old case
Since the case in which you mediated seemes unresolved -the editor in question still has some issues with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA- and at this time he borders on new violations also against other contributors, would it be possible for you to review the latest exchanges (here and here) and advise how to proceed since apparently this is a "highly passionate" editor. Especially the notion he is unable to notice the difference between his allegations and the facts I find disturbing. Any discussion with this e3ditor is about things that are not there or about him misrepresenting the facts. That is not a good faith way of contributing. Respectfully. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. That case was about mediation and you were involved in the etiquette department. Anyway, you probably understood what it is about. If not feel free to ask. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, KensingtonBlonde. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. ∆ 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Block
You know very well I have blocked you, but if you need reasoning, read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of KensingtonBlonde.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this mean I'm just supposed to leave WIkipedia for good. I was never banned. What is wrong with trying to start a new account in order to edit legitimately? This sounds like a form of condemnnation. Is there no chance at all for me to be welcomed back? Even on WIkipedia probation?
 * No - you've repeatedly showed that you are going to misuse the trust Wikipedia places in editors by granting them editing privileges. You've repeatedly exhausted the community's patience though your disruption and misuse of secondary accounts, and action has finally been taken to prevent further harm coming to the encyclopedia ~ Anthøny  19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see what's going on at the WP:ANI case listed abouve. There, you can find a link to all my explanations. The Kensington Blonde Talk 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message to Ryulong has been forwarded. What he chooses to do with it, if anything, is out of my hands, but I do give you high marks for being sorry for the trouble you caused, for realising there is an issue here to be resolved, and for trying to come to grips with it. That is far more than many are able to do. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for Dialogue with Ryulong

 * Ryulong, I have read over the incident report pending at WP:ANI and want to let you know that I am more than prepared to dialogue with you and convince you that the unblocking of my EnglishEfternamn account will not be returned with disruption, but constructive editing. I have made note that you have read my e-mail, and I thank you for that, because you had every right to delete without even looking at it. I understand you are worried that I am trying to deceive you, but I can assure you, I would not be trying this hard to get on everyone's good side if my intentions were anything other than to began editing productively once again. It took me a lot of thinking to write up my official apology to you and I have much more important things to do than spend this much time to get unblocked (knowing there is a chance my efforts might not even work) only to start disruption again which would only be stamped out in a matter of minutes. I want to put this behind us, even bring us on good terms if such an outcome is an even remote possibility. You are welcome to post any type of reply here. Thank you, and I hope we can find a resolution. The Kensington Blonde Talk 04:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Still mailbombing?
New evidence has come to light that you are still mailbombing other administrators, even after telling Ryulong in your long missive that mailbombing was wrong. That's just unacceptable behaviour and absent a satisfactory explanation ("I was frustrated" doesn't count) I can no longer support any second chance or mentorship. ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You have more than obviously abused editing privileges here, and have done so before, even before patience with you was exhausted. I find it odd that you are asking to be reconsidered in your block, even when you know what you did is wrong around here, and you kept doing it. Jmlk 1  7  05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (Copy-paste from meta)

I was going to think of giving you a third chance. However, spoofing my e-mail, mailbombing me and Netsnipe with that e-mail, and then using one of the accounts I skipped over that Mackensen found that was a sockpuppet of another joke account from you to mailbomb me is extremely immature. I know you're the one that spammed John, because the e-mail address he gave me you used to spam me at en. If you seriously want a third chance, give me a serious response to this. The "YOU THINK YOU ARE SO SMART, DON'T YOU? I WAS SORRY, AND I WAS GOING TO LEAVE YOU ALONE, EVEN BECOME A SUPPORTER OF YOU, BUT YOU AND JOHN (AKA GUINNOG) WENT AND ACCUSED ME OF MAILBOMBING, AND JOHN ADMITTED THE WHOLE THING TO ME. CHECKUSER BLOCKING WON'T KEEP ME OFF, NOTHING WILL. LET ME BE, AND I'LL MAKE GOOD CONTRIBS HERE, KEEP STANDING IN MY WAY, AND YOU'LL GET THIS!!!!" is not the way to get unblocked, especially 100 of them at a time (and don't continue to fucking play innocent). You want to edit under EnglishEfternamn or KensingtonBlonde at the English Wikipedia? Then stop being an ass like this when you know the accounts of yours that you should not be using in the first place are blocked. I saw the edits on the account that you used to attack John. They were most definitely yours. Honestly, you're not hard to spot when you're like that.

If you want to be unblocked, cut the crap, stop being an ass, and fess up.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to play innocent, I'm trying to figure out what it would take to be given a chance at editing, even under the most stringent conditions. I only started the JensEriksson account because I was almost certain I would not edit again under any other conditions. I really do want to make amends, but every time I try for a fresh start, YOU always seem to ruin it. Why? Why not give me a chance, we both know I've made just as many good edits as bad. The Kensington Blonde Talk 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you or did you not use to mass e-mail me?— Ryūlóng  ( 竜龍 ) 06:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I did, only after you made blocked my Jens account. I only do this stuff when I am convinced I'm finished here. Much of it I do on a whim and I always reget it. I regret it right now, in fact. I really don't want to. I really want to help here. The Kensington Blonde Talk 06:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you or did you not use the account to perform the joke edits that I blocked EastGermanAllStar for?— Ryūlóng  ( 竜龍 ) 06:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As well as use the account to mass e-mail John/Guinnog?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wouldn't have done that had I thought I had the shadow of a chance. The Kensington Blonde Talk 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the problem. First you lie to me, then you fess up to it. You've done this multiple times. You act completely innocent when one of your alternate accounts that you use abusively gets blocked, when you know why it happened.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not pretending to be innocent now, I'm only appealing for undeserved redemption. The Kensington Blonde Talk 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe you deserve redemption? It has been proven that you were behind multiple abusive accounts under various names. People get banned for less at Wikipedia. You need to tell me why you deserve to be unblocked (under either this name or EnglishEfternamn) despite the fact you have enough sockpuppets to entertain two kindergarten classes.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said I deserved it, I know I don't. I appealed to you for "good graces" as grace is traditionally defined as that which is "not deserved". The reason I am so determined to resolve things here is that I am passionate about editing. I positively enjoy it. Even 10 minutes a day (which might be all I can do when school starts again) proves to be de-stressing to me; it helps give me a break from my busy schedule, and I love the knowedge I accquire in the process. This has been an interest of mine for over a year now. I acknowledge I have not handled inability to edit properly, but inability to edit is something I find to be quite frustrating. You don't have to sympathise, and I understand if you don't. The Kensington Blonde Talk 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is that while your contributions are helpful as EnglishEfternamn, KensingtonBlonde, and JensEriksson, you've still created this mess with the accounts you shouldn't have used as you should. EnglishEfternamn was not blocked when the bulk of those accounts were used. How do you explain that?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I just got bored one day. I thought it was funny, I thought no one would ever find out it was me, and when I created the Ichtragekeineschuhe accounts, I was just having a good laugh. Again, I know how well disruption prevention works here, and I knew it wouldn't do any long term harm. It's inexcusable, I know. And even though I am strongly opposed to CheckUser policy (for reasons other than you might think, I should add), I would be willing to have it used on me each week if I were given my EnglishEfternamn account back. I'd even be willing to post an account of all that went on here on my user page, for however long you would require. I'm trying to seek a resolution here, even on unfavourable terms. The Kensington Blonde Talk 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except I don't know if I can trust you even under those terms. I know you've used open proxies when editting under this account while one of the prior IPs was blocked, and I know you can create several accounts in your "boredom" spouts. You are good when you're not bored enough to create the Ichtragekeineschuhe and the like. You need to contribute where I can be assured that you are not actively screwing around on another account through replacing a photo of Mikail Gorbachev with a screencap of Cartman. You can write, but you cannot be an ass under other names. That's what got EnglishEfternamn blocked in the first place.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason I edited under open proxies is because it gave me a way to start editing again, I though maybe I could go back and present myself as a different user, start all over again. I really did go out of my way to be benign while editing under KensingtonBlonde, but I was quite upset about losing EnglishEfternamn. There's quite a bit of history behind that account, though someone of your level would probably consider 1500 edits to be a week's work. Nonetheless, it's the account where I learned Wikipedia guidelines on. When I started KensingtonBlonde, I thought maybe, just maybe, I'd be able to re-create this type of merit (though not everyone was ever impressed with my old username to begin with). The Kensington Blonde Talk 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the benign editing under KensingtonBlonde. However, you were still evading a block. I can see that you can edit constructively. It's just the other things that you did on the side that got the blocks placed on the socks and EnglishEfternamn. However, the creation of other accounts is an issue. You wouldn't have lost lar's confidence if you hadn't created BrightonOfBurgundy and then harassed John. There have been several editors affected by your "boredom." At this point, ArbCom would not accept the case, and I don't know if Jimbo will give you a third chance. I want to be sure that by the time I wake up later today that you won't have made a new slew of EastGermanAllStar's or Ichtragekeinschuhe's and another good account if I unblock this or EnglishEfternamn.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I am given the EnglishEfternamn account back, I will begin by posting an official written apology on my user page, basically apologising for what I caused. If you wish I could place links to any relevant pages. If I do anything strange, may my ban be nothing less than permanant. But what if I could tell you that I could, in the span of a few months, make most of you believe that my unblocking was ultimately a beneficial thing to the project as a whole? I've accomplished things that have seemed to be highly unlikely in real life situations, I don't see why I can't do the same here. The Kensington Blonde Talk 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I know you have lost the trust of several users. If you were to be allowed to edit, you would be watched over by several users (and honestly I don't know how probation workson WP). I will discuss things with Lar, John, other administrators, and the like (and post a link to this at ANI). Right now, I don't know if I should unblock this or the other account. You've made my experience here shittier with your "boredom," and I don't know how your experience would be if you were under constant scrutiny.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better than nothing believe me. I would only prove to them my intentions to turn this around. If you were to unblock me I would post an official apology immediately, and I guess the situation would go from there. If you don't want to, I understand. The Kensington Blonde Talk 07:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now (within the next few hours) this is not happening (the unblock). Maybe within the next 24 hours. Your actions under the other names are inexcusable, and I'm not sure if anyone will be willing to mentor you. You fix articles, but your other accounts are the problem, as well as your propensity to use the email feature to say "IF YOU DON'T UNBLOCK ME, I'M JUST GOING TO BE MORE OF AN ASSHOLE TO YOU UNTIL I GET MY WAY." This civil discussion is what should happen.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you, for even having this conversation. I guess I'll see what happens. For now, I must go. It's late and I am tired. I suppose we will resume this tomorrow. The Kensington Blonde Talk 07:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To those viewing this from WP:ANI
Good morning, you may have heard about what has come to pass regarding me as a user. I am writing this because at this time, I don't have much leeway in communicating with anyone. I feel the need to make something clear: I can sense that my being given another chance is a possibility, I don't know if it is a big possibility, but I can see that it is one nonetheless. What I a seeing on WP:ANI at this point is questions of mentorship, and the issue of whether anyone would even be willing to do it. All I can say at this point is that I could show anyone who could step up that such would not be done in vain. I already have a number of tasks in mind in the event I become unblocked and I can assure the Wikipedia, to the best my ability, I will attempt to demonstrate to everyone that my presence here will benefit the encyclopedia as a whole. I'm not trying to make light of my wrongdoings, but maybe we can put things in the past and move on. Thank you for your consideration. The Kensington Blonde Talk 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments on pending WP:ANI case
I know I am not in a position to speak at this time, but I must express my concern on the matter of my pending incident at the Administrator Noticeboard. Two admins, Ryulong, and LunaSantin have recently added their comments to the incident where they discuss possible ways to have me unblocked. These comments can be seen here and here. I am concerned because I am wondering why these comments are not showing on the present version of the article. I'm just wondering who removed these comments and why. I am also concerned about this user's attempt to get me to leave. While I understand his disagreement with my possible unblocking, this user is not an administrator and furthermore, has accused me of being a sockpuppet, of user that I was shown to have to ties to, when I merely warned him against unauthorised modification of user comments per a WP:WQA case. Mistakes like this could be seen on his part when his contributions are reviewed. I know it's quite ironic as I did have socks, but I had absolutely nothing to do with this user, which I had been associated with in the CheckUser report Matt57 started.

The bottom line is that I am not trying to excuse myself of wrong doing, I am only trying to ensure that whatever outcome is decided for me, that it may be done fairly, and without uncivil intervention. Thank you for reading this, and I will continue to wait as the situation developes. The Kensington Blonde Talk 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly spoke too soon, I see the comments now, but I know they were placed hours ago, and I could not see any sign of them for some time. The Kensington Blonde Talk 05:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably just an old ID you were reading. It should be visible at WP:ANI and I'm still trying to discuss unblock options.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The Kensington Blonde Talk 05:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave me blocked the "safest" way?
At my case pending at WP:ANI, it was recently stated by the administrator Lar that the safest course of action would be to leave me blocked. I can understand why anyone would think this. He also states that unless someone would have the willingness to mentor me, that my unblocking may not be in the near future. I want to take this time to say that I don't see why either claim is true. I know what how I plan to use my time here, and I know that I will not need near as much mentoring as is being assumed. I could show the Wikipedia this in a matter of a week. The purpose of this note? To plead that the concerned parties don't leave me hanging, I would like nothing more (in the context of Wikipedia) than to start editing in good standing, once again. The Kensington Blonde Talk 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen absolutely no discussion take place in days. Does this mean the Wikipedia community has decided against me? The Kensington Blonde Talk 23:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In light of this, how may I request arbitration? The Kensington Blonde Talk 17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)