User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/Archive1

(bold is my emphasis) Could you please elaborate what is meant by this? Thanks. El_C 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And this, too. Thanks again. El_C 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fact is I would like her and her abusive friends to leave me along and stop stalking me -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  02:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that dosen't at all respond to my querry. El_C 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what you are saying to everything.. it seems pointless even trying to talk to you -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In terms of an admin looking into it, I'm afraid that isn't optional; though feel free to request any other admin to look into. Until you do, you will have to better explain yourself. I asked what was meant by, but regretfuly I found your answer to have been unclear at best, and evasive at worst. Thanks once again. El_C 02:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get what the actual problem is.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  02:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we definitely have a problem. If you are unable to explain what was meant by, which implies you were reverting her, I will be forced to draw rather unfavourable conclusions. El_C 02:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What, that I was reverting her (or her friends') sockpuppets? Stop trying to intimidate and being so passive-aggressive towards me. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you find my tone to be passive-aggressive, such is not my intention. Irrespectively, though, and in answer to your question, you seem to have been claiming that the vandal ip was her, specifically. But you have no concrete evidence to support this. I remain open and willing to examine any and all pertinent evidence, but the effort must be reciprocal. El_C 03:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, I can't check the details


 * It's funny how it's ok for her to accuse my friends of being sockpuppets and block without proof but as soon as she herself gets accused it's suddenly all serious -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not familliar with the case/s of your "friends" blocked as or accused of being sockpuppets. Again, I will need to be made privy to the pertinent diffs to comment. El_C 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that the people you are calling my "friends" want to be left alone by you, so if you stop doing anything that makes them think you are stalking them (which is what it currently looks like), I'm fairly certain you'll hear nothing more from them. And I don't edit using anon IPs. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You and Slim(and others, but let's start with Slim)
Ok, you guys are invited to here, hopefully I can step in as a third party and settle this. karmafist 05:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The new incarnation of Requests for comment/Kelly Martin - also, userboxes?
Dear Selina: To be perfectly honest with you, I'm quite ashamed that I've participated in this fist-fight (and been so roundly arrogant) regardless of whose side I'm on, and I'm starting to get a bit worn out of it. Incidentally, you've persevered well on it, although I think I lack the energy to have anything else to do with the wretched affair. However, here's my last penny's worth: I know that I suppose the RfC shouldn't be about the userboxes, but to face facts the admin conduct issues and the userboxes are inexorably entwined, and indeed the RfC itself makes no distinction between the two issues. Thus, as a consequence, I disagree that all matters regarding the userboxes should go to the proposed userbox policy, since there clearly are further conduct-related issues which need addressing. However, I'll leave you to it, and won't revert again. :) I hope any injuries that you sustained through this ordeal, regardless of whose hands they were caused by, will heal in time; I am certain mine will. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted on Jimbo's Talk page a suggestion that if his time permits, he read The Mythical Man-Month because I believe there are project management insights there that apply to the inter-communication challenges of Wiki dispute resolution. The size of his admin staff seems to me to be larger than the IBM staff described in the book, and even more in need of scientifically designed inter-personal infrastructures. User:AlMac|(talk) 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you seem nice
I'm sure there's loads of stuff we don't agree about (I researched you a bit, I admit it), but I find myself not only agreeing with you regarding recent particulars, but also coming under the impression that your a nice person. Thank you, Sam Spade 09:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - Yeah I just really don't like it when people throw about Wikipedia policy shortcuts while hypocritically insulting people and insulting people by saying they're "pissing on people" etc -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  09:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, ambi is friends w Kelly Martin as far as I know. I'd be a downright monster of someone was going after my friend, esp. w/o reason (which is how she see's things, I fear). Fierce loyalty is something I can respect, but deleting / refactoring honest attempts at communication while citing irrelevant policy... that sort of thing tells me the wiki has far too many of the wrong admins. Sam Spade 09:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Things
The only way we'll stop the Kelly Martins of Wikipedia and the Kelly Martin mindset is by being nice, sticking together, standing for what we believe in, and inviting others to join us. If we are alone, the best we can hope for is both sides losing.
 * Slim Virgin sent me an e-mail asking me if there was a way to resolve things in regards with you, and I told her it had directly to do with the Kelly Martin's attempts to censor and intimidate others and defy any known policies and guidelines to achieve her goals.
 * Slim Virgin may never agree with you,with us, but if she can respect you, that would deal a huge blow to Kelly. Regardless of our opinions, we all have to stick together against actions such as hers, or it'll just continue. karmafist 12:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are being unduly harrassed by Kelly Martin or anyone else, please let me know. Also, I would like to second karmafist's advice. You'll win a lot more battles by taking the high ground then by getting into slugging matches. Sometimes being respected is just as important as being right. Kaldari 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Username
Your...username... It sounds familiar, like I've heard it somewhere before in the past.. Is it based of a famous person's..? Just curious, as I am somwhat intriqued. Nice to meet you, BTW. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Selina Kyle -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  20:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's where it was from. I remember now. Nice username, btw, its catchy, and sticks in my head. I may just strike up conversation on your talkpage now just because I can't get it out of my head. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 20:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned Comment
When replacing an unsigned comment with the unsigned tag, leave the timestamp as it is important to know the context in which a comment was written. Pepsidrinka 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) P.s. You talk page is >150 kb, you may want to consider archiving.
 * Oops yeah, sorry: I completely forgot about that part - on my way to change it now unless it already has been -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  20:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_userbox_purge
Oh Mistress! :-P

I don't know if you've noticed, but the userbox purge template had been protected deleted. As far as I know this hasn't actually gone through TfD (correct me if I'm wrong), but I was wondering if you'd trek over to the talk page and help me gat a debate going. Tom 19:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cold Fusion RfC
Hello,

There's currently a controversy at Cold fusion that I would appreciate it if you could look at. The article is about to fail a Featrued Article Removal Candidate vote. There are at least 3 fairly different versions in play: one based on the original Featured Article dating back to 2004-08-20 and tossing out all edits between now and then ("FA version"), one which was the current version up until that  ("current version"), and a proposed new draft written originally by Edmund Storms (a retired Los Alamos scientist) and edited by me  ("Storms version"). At the moment the article is being rather agressively edited by a few people who support the version from a year ago, and if this stands, a lot of good material will be lost. Frankly, I can't entirely support any of the versions; the article just needs more work and more different perspectives. Hence this invitation. I hope you can help.

I'm posting this to you because I've seen you on various physics-related pages, and/or because you've worked on the Cold fusion page before. Thank you for your time.

ObsidianOrder 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter Un-civility Unit
Wikipedia:Counter Un-civility Unit is a new wiki-project I have thought up. I was wondering if you thought it was a good idea and if you wanted to join up. I need some users backing me before I construct a wikiproject, and you seem to share my views on subjects such as concensus, civilty, etc. Reply on my talkpage if you're interested. Thanks, -MegamanZero|Talk


 * I think I already saw something like that with another name (was it the one that had something to do with firefighting?) --cesarb 19:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Scientology




Enjoy. Rogue 9 07:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Name
Actually.... &mdash; Seven Days   &raquo;  talk   18:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user (SuperButchBitch)
I've replied on WP:AN, so I'll wait for comments from other admins. NSL E (T+C) 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, and I'd appreciate if you didn't sign my name when I did not make any such post; perhaps next time you could mention the blocking admin's name, but sign as yourself... NSL E (T+C) 12:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * k sorry, I was in a rush (in hopes they'd see the message before possibly never coming back) and didn't think about it much -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User/user
Hi - I noticed you've been going round the location pages altering the readable link to read "user" rather than "User". We agreed in the below discussion that all boxes should be illustrated with a capital - obviously you might not have noticed that given all the other nonsense that's been going on. Anyway, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. I've reverted any of the pages that were on my watchlist.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 2

Cheers, Deano (Talk) 18:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I didn't know about that conversation, sorry. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation
Thanks for inviting me to join the world citizen group. Greetings. T6435bm 00:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Res
Hello, Mistress. Are you being nosy going through my personal messages and telling me that I am rude? The utter cheek of it! I was conversing with FayssalF in his langue maternelle, how is that bad? In my opinion, he/she who uses profane words and/or phrases (such as f*ck) is rude. Care to comment ;-) Izehar 11:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * PS no one else seems to have a problem with it. Izehar 11:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Discworld Aspies
Great minds think alike, I suppose. ;) - User:Asarelah

From User:Staecker
Quite a note on my talk page. I've responded there, in case you're not watching. Happy to hear your reply, if you'd like to.

And I hope you don't mind if I remove your welcome note. I've been here a little while, and I cleaned out my first one (dated March 2005) a couple of months ago. Staecker 21:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Logo
Thanks for finding the Black Mesa logo! 'ppreciate it :-) Rusty2005 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem :) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

However well intentioned...
I think your revision of was wrongheaded and mean. First of all, please read the entry for Malcolm X: he fell out of the Black Muslim movement (long before it became popularly known as the Nation of Islam), and was purged from that group because of his uncompromising approach toward racism (e.g., the "chickens coming home to roost" comments, condemning Kennedy as the racist who had aided the assassination of Patrice Lumumba). Then later, in turn, the NOI had Malcolm assassinated. I should also mention, Louis Farrakhan has always been suspected of being of that group (in the Black Muslim movement) that had Malcolm assassinated.

Second, to clear Malcolm X's honor: he wanted black freedom and independence, not simplistic "separatism." Equating that to apartheid is disingenuous - especially when apartheid's greatest fighter (Nelson Mandela) himself cites Malcolm X as an inspiration!

Last, while I respect the group for its work, I dislike linking the template to Anti-Racist Action. This is a group that, as its area of focus, tends to prioritize organizing better minded whites to confront white supremacists. Racism on Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not just a matter of white supremacist vandals; it's also about systemic racial bias, such as using the "white" take on history as the authoritative one. And I find, as a person of color myself, it's also about a certain timidity to address the problem by people of color on Wikipedia.

So I'm reverting the userbox back. Feel free to make your own "Member of" or "Supporter of" style userbox, but I feel strongly that my take was the correct one. --Daniel 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * hmmz ok. But some of the things he preached and said were quite racist themselves (for example, a quote from the Nation of Islam articl: "Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to black people."), and I don't agree with racism for any race/ethnicity/colour - personally I think we're all human beings and the amount of Melanin in skin should be completely irrelevant in how people treat each other (see Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship, which I created) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd point out that even if Malcolm said that while in the Black Muslim movement, he was purged from that group and subsequently revised several of his beliefs. Overall, this was a man who was dynamic to a great degree, starting from the time he was a intelligent kid to when he turned to a life of crime, to when he cleaned up to become a leader in the Black Muslims, to when he left the Black Muslims and became an independent thinker. It's a very big mistake to take statements from early in his life to mean his overall beliefs. To leave you with a statement from late in his life (1964):


 * "I am not a racist. I am against every form of racism and segregation, every form of discrimination. I believe in human beings, and that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color."


 * --Daniel 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I will leave it as it is then.. that's a much better quote to hear. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please copy your lie-truth-lie-turth comment on Templates_for_deletion to Template_talk:User_antiracist_mx_admirer, in order to keep it close to the template for when the whole TfDeletion circus act is over. -- ActiveSelective 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian Hedonism
Um, thanks. Have you read John Piper? I actually had thought about writing an article about it. (Or, were you kidding when you said that, meaning that hedonism+Christianity couldn't go together?)--Violin  G irl ♪ 22:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, thanks for your confidence in me (that I could write an article worthy to be in Wikipedia). Maybe I will someday. And regarding your comment about Christianity and Hedonism going together, the main crux of Christian Hedonism is God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him. I can't explain it that well in a short note like this, but if you read anything by John Piper, you would understand what I'm saying. Cheers!--Violin  G irl ♪ 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia by others
There is a vote here where some users to try to overturn WP categorisation policy (whereby categories and subcategories cannot be placed on the same page) and force a subcategory (LGBT organisations) onto the North American Man/Boy Love Association page. Some of the comments made are distinctly homophobic and rather disturbing. Personally it gives me the creeps even mentioning NAMBLA but your vote on the issue would be welcome. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I will as soon as I can, that sounds pretty nasty, and I agree that paedophilia movements shouldn't be classified as "LGBT organisations" definitely -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  20:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Aspie
I have noticed a large number of reverts going on at this page, and would like to help you resolve this dispute. First of all, I am not an administrator, however I know some administrators who would be able to help if this situation got out of hand. I would like to know the reason you reverted to the template with 14pt text. What about this is better then the 10pt text? Not just that it's ok as is, but why 14pt font is actually better.

Prodego talk  23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, going through your edit history revealed this edit. That edit is rather disturbing, seeing how Ec5618 clearly had no intention other then to try to make the template look better. Could you explain your reasoning?  Prodego  talk  13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Disturbing"? are you taking the piss? It seems the truth:
 * : "I have no interest in this template, but I really don't like your attitude"


 * He's just trying to annoy me and others. He doesn't use the template himself, he has no reason to be editing a large amount of other people's user pages just because he doesn't like how it looks --20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ec5618 tells me that (s)he thought the template would look better if (s)he changed it(which may or may not be true), and after you reverted his(her) changes the first time (s)he assumed you made a mistake. Note (s)he only made the comment about your attitude after you called him(her) a "nutjob". Please remember to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks while editing. Also, I do not understand, how changing a template format shows a dislike of the category of people it represents. These were minor edits, there was(as far as I can see) no vandalistic intentions on either side. It is also fine to use  in a user box, in fact I believe most user boxes are written that way.   Prodego  talk  21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no reason for the text to be smaller is the thing. I like it that way and no one else using the template seems to have a problem wtih it either, only user:Ec5618.


 * Also, it seems HIGHLY likely Morgan695 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) is Ec5618 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log]) 's sockpuppet, see here: I only just noticed this, maybe a sockpuppet check should be made.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle   (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it's highly unlikely, see here, Morgan is clearly a reputable user. Also note here and here and see the vastly different editing styles. You'll see both users have been here over a year. Also both users have 1000+ edits. Prodego  talk  21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Two of those accounts, Morgan695 and Saveus, appear to have been single-use accounts that participated only in the current war. They're permablocked, and I think that's fair." [ 1 ]
 * How can a permablocked user edit? And who would set up a sockpuppet months in advance? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well someone must've un-permablocked the account.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case as I already said:


 * He's just trying to annoy me and others. He doesn't use the template himself, he has no reason to be editing a large amount of other people's user pages just because he doesn't like how it looks


 * I already made it clear that I thought it was fine as it is however he continued to revert me just because of his own personal preferences: When he's not even using it: Essentially he is editing other peoples' user pages because he doesn't like the way they look and wants them to look the way he likes.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is no longer the point. The question is what is wrong with Ec5618's edit? Why did you revert it the first time? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I already said. What don't you understand? I already made it clear that I thought it was fine as it is however he continued to revert me just because of his own personal preferences: When he's not even using it: Essentially he is editing other peoples' user pages because he doesn't like the way they look and wants them to look the way he likes.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But that is not in violation of any rules, all users may edit all pages in Wikipedia, are you claiming some type of ownership of the template? Whether you like it better one way or another isn't the only thing to be cosidered. If you perfered the old version better, you should have explained why to Ec5618 on his(her) talk page right before or after reverting. If an argument ensued, you could have worked it out on the user box talk page. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I explained in the edit summary that it was fine as it was (and he saw this, because he replied in similar messages in edit summaries) but he chose to ignore me and carry on reverting, citing "standardization".


 * I'm not "claiming ownership" please don't put his arguments as words into my mouth, the fact that you seem to ardently support him is beginning to make me think this conversation is pointless.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you try to work it out on the talk page? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I already explained that there was no reason to change it against his bullying "standardization" arguments and he was already ignoring me: Taking the same conversation to the talk page or his talk page wouldn't have made any difference, in the history you can see clearly he had no intention of changing his mind.. I left the message to Rogue 9 after he the repeated reverts of him trying to enforce his own personal faux-"standardization" on the template -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you ever say why you liked the 14pt font version better? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I said it looked fine as it is if that's what you mean: simply no reason to make it smaller


 * also "Aspie" is definitely preference to "Asp" as he did in one edit -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Aspie is better, and as far as I know no reason to 'standardize' the userbox either. However I find the 10pt font easier to read and the light blue font color almost unreadable. However Ec5618 was presumaibly acting in good faith. You never explained why aspie is better(I know this), or why the 14pt was better(still no idea).  Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just think it looks better, it looks better big, and presumably the large amount of people who added it to their user pages in its present form have no problem with it either otherwise they wouldn't use it -_-  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's is a good reason, please explain this to Ec5618 here so we can end this dispute. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ok. (was just about to ask why you were trying to make it look like I was replying to a different comment than I actually was - makes it look like I wasn't willing to talk) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, it looked like you were replying to the first question, if you can reorder it and keep it so it still makes sense, I would appreciate it. (How does it make it look like you weren't willing to talk?)  Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No no, the previous edit (as shown in the diff) did, current version is fine don't worry. What I'm talking about is you put a comment *before* my reply which I had already made, which made it look like I was replying to your new message and not the previous one I actually was replying to. ;) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I see I meant explain it at Template_talk:User_Aspie it's where the link went. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I will now I just noticed the block ran out at last -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think Ec5618 has any idea about Aspie, I doubt (s)he knows it's in common use. You might want to explain that to him(her) Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a proposed userbox to the talk page, let's work on it now. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The current version seems ok, what do you think? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, is done. I'll get unprotection tomorrow. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste moves
While copy-and-paste moves are not recommended, they are not considered vandalism. --cesarb 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * hmm ok. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your message on my talk
What does the fact that it's "not a real religion" have anything to do with it? It's still a stupid attack on contributors, potential contributors, and a large group of people, and as such has no place on Wikipedia.--Sean|Bla ck 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not an "attack" on anything but the religion itself, no one has to be a cultist, it's their own choice :p


 * Well, although if they leave they will probably be hunted down and have criminal activities and slander constantly made about them..: Suppressive Person, Office of Special Affairs, Operation Snow White (aka Operation Whitewash) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  20:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. The point is that it serves no purpose but to disparage a group of people. It doesn't make a difference if those people are money grubbing bastards- they're still people.--Sean|Bla ck 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And occasionally people deserve disparagement. Scientologists are a shining example of who and why.  What's your point?  Rogue 9 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. On Wikipedia, nobody deserves disparegment. Saying that shows a distinct lack of knowledge of our core policies.--Sean|Bla ck 01:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know the policies. I simply disagree with them.  Rogue 9 04:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you ought to leave the project. WP:CIV will be policy forever, trust me.--Sean|Bla ck 05:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Trust me, you're on the wrong frickin' person's talk page -_- -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Rogue 9 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

's ok. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology / appalling / me
My goal was not to get the template deleted "out of process". My question was why does a different process get taken for the Jewish one than the Scientology one. Undeletion would have worked. It should be uniform process O_O! gren グレン 10:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Scientology is not a religion in nearly all countries, America is the exception, not the rule: Wikipedia is not Americipedia -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  ) '' 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
 Francs2000's Bureaucratship 

Thanks for your constructive comments on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I forgot about that entirely >_<


 * Looking at the comments it looks like you do actually deserve it, I'll remove my "oppose" vote in a bit:


 * What I was referring to however was your deletion of a the WP:RFC/KM template while TFD was still in process with no consensus which well, wasn't exactly good admin behaviour :¦  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove your objection - it was valid at the time and I would prefer the discussion to remain as a true archive of the process. As an aside however the tfd for WP:RFC/KM hadn't commenced when I deleted that page - the full series of events is detailed in response to OwenX's objection. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Template
Why did you change it? I see no discussions about it. In the meantime, I have revered it to redirect. Renata 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Thank you for your contributions. And I have a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries more often when you contribute. An edit summary helps others understand what you changed when checking the watchlist or the Recent changes, and often times complements studying the diff. Think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. I hope you don't mind. :) Cheers – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome
Thanks to u now I know that i'm an Aspie.. and what tha hell u r rite i'm not funny at all... Jfreyre

lol i didn't sign

Re:Flag of Taiwan
I have posted my reasons for keeping the redirect at Talk:Flag of Taiwan. Please respond there.--Jiang 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

user against scientology has been speedily deleted
I have requested undeletion at WP:DRV. Regardless of whether or not this template has any merit it should be undeleted until the tfd has run it's course. Your vote at the tfd counts for nothing if the speedy deletion stands.--God of War 06:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye.
You have been blocked indefineitly for trolling, personal attacks and general dickery. WP:AFG only goes so far, and I've had enough of this garbage. Goodbye--Sean|Bla ck 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By a strange coincidence, I was just coming here to give you a week-long block for these edits:  &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely? ....


 * This is ridiculous, I've made plenty of good edits..


 * It seems you're doing this for no other reason than to censor criticism..


 * As for those two edits, I deleted them because he was repeatedly placing his comments at the very top and not like a Comment as everyone else does.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  07:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following closely, but I always maintain a healthy skepticism about these things and try to hear both sides of a story. Can you summarize this situation you're in for me? I'd like to feel comfortable unblocking you, at least for an interim period, but I'd need to get a good idea of what's going on. Everyking 08:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think MSK is correct - this is a case of administrators abusing their tools. I always assume good faith, but I think that a block is totally out of line here.  --Dschor 12:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have little knowledge of the situation that transpired here, as I have neglected to fully research around the reason for your block; but seeing as I just experienced a unfair block where I felt like I had committed no wrong and had acted out of good faith, I understand how you must feel, and I greatly sympathize. I believe that the block should be lifted at least temporaily so that you can explain your actions, and despite some of actions, truly think that any wikipedian attemptting to give concensus for their block to be lifted must be at least somewhat concerned about the well-being of wikipedia. I hope you get through this and get this infinite block lifted. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel responsible for this
I first met MSK when I found out that Poetlister was banned just moments after she had written me an e-mail asking for help to resolve a dispute revolving around SlimVirgin and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. That ban, as I soon discovered (and have documented) was grossly unfair, as there is no evidence of sock puppetry, no transparency, and not even any attempts to try to justify it. What made it worse was the discovery that SlimVirgin herself had requested the ban by asking Kelly Martin for it. And what made it worse again was that Kelly Martin was lying and going around different places pretending that she was not involved and was "neutral", that she had provided a "neutral review of Mindspillage's ban and decided that it was legitimate". Of course, that wasn't the end of it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters went around different places accusing me and others who questioned the decision of also being sock puppets and called for us to be banned. He then started harassing us and lying about different things. When I asked for someone to do something about his behaviour, nobody would do a thing, and instead I got similar threats and harassment from Antaeus Feldspar, who had been previously harassing me in relation to his obsessive hatred of Daniel Brandt.

It just got too much, and so I quit, on Christmas Day actually. I had tried my last ditch effort to make peace, asking Slim Virgin to help to broker peace with Lulu, only to have Lulu engage in perhaps the worst ever attacks on me, which are still on my user talk page. Still not a single person would do a thing, and these 2 abusive users with lengthy documented histories of abuse, were not only allowed to wander about harassing people and threatening to get people banned who stood in their way, but they were encouraged to do so. I saw with horror that someone who had written to support me in relation to Antaeus Feldspar got permabanned because of it. Oh and on top of that Kelly Martin was going around threatening me for "not assuming good faith" because I dared to question the actions of an administrator.

Now, most people would be scared off by this kind of thing. I was, Dan100 was, Arniep was. We all were. We couldn't handle the abuse. Whilst I'd dearly love to start a Request for Arbitration against Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Antaeus Feldspar, SlimVirgin and Kelly Martin in relation to it, its just not worth it. I don't have the strength to go through with something like that, not with the abuse and corruption and all of the rest.

But Mistress Selina Kyle does have that strength.

She is a hero, and has kept the fight on, kept fighting the good fight, kept trying to right the wrongs. And because of her work, a lot of users are beginning to see a ray of hope, that things might change. And maybe, just maybe, with thanks to MSK, I might eventually feel safe enough to use this thing again. And maybe even have some kind of faith in the process which seems to be being polluted by these few who abuse it.

I know that MSK is not always terribly polite. Some of her edit summaries and comments are very direct and other users take offence at it. But that's just typial Asperger's Syndrome behaviour. Its not a personal attack, and just represents an inability of some Wikipedians to understand people who think a little differently to how they do. You could even call it discrimination for her to be banned for being herself.

I was horrified by SlimVirgin's note on the Administrator's Noticeboard to try to get MSK banned, pretending that she was a sock puppet of a "banned user" User:Chaosfeary (note: the user is not actually banned - but had been banned for 2 weeks at one point). Whilst I could not find his behaviour patterns, I would be quite surprised that they are similar. ChaosFeary seems to have been some kind of a political activist, whilst MSK is not.

Now, I don't know if MSK started doing this because of me, to try to help me out, and that she, like me, discovered the wealth of corruption as part of her investigation. Maybe she had been doing this beforehand. I don't know.

But I would dearly love to see MSK promoted to Administrator, even Arbitrator, as I think that she is incredibly good for Wikipedia. She is tireless and has great internal strength. She is technically brilliant, with getting diffs from out of nowhere. She is calm under fire. Her response to the ridiculous claims by SlimVirgin on the Administrator's Noticeboard were just amazing.

Oh and from what I can gather, MSK started this because of her adoration for User:Taxwoman, who quite obviously is not the same person as User:Poetlister.

Anyway, so if this is my fault, I suppose I should say sorry. Except that I think that what MSK has done has been incredibly good for Wikipedia. Getting rid of her would seriously hurt Wikipedia. We can replace people like SlimVirgin and Kelly Martin and the like, but I don't think that we can replace MSK. She is 1 in a million. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 15:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

She'll be back
If I were a user who gave barnstars, I would give one to her for her tireless efforts to fight admin oligarchy and return wikipedia to users. I am sure I will soon be reading the notice board about a "suspected sock-puppet" of Selina Kyle. May the winds be with you.--12.221.139.214 23:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course she'll be back. It was rather evident all along that she was a reincarnation of some other banned troll. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? Wait, do you actually believe that nonsense from SV about it (that was proven to be false)? And how do you define "troll"? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 01:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

your ability to appeal
If you wish to defend yourself by making an appeal to reduce or remove your current block, and should you show you can be constructive, I am informing that should you show the interest, you can make an appeal for your block at Requests for arbitration. If you choose to do so, I will file a request on your behalf, but you have to write your own statements which I will forward. Affirming this choice means the block will be technically lifted should injunction follow, depending on how the process turns out. However, despite the lifting of this technicality, you will still be considered banned from all articles and talk pages, templates et al., except your userpage, your talk page, and the arbcom pages. Should this be violated during the temporary injunction, the block will be automatically reinstated, and your chances for appeal ruined.

This is a genuine chance for you to demonstrate that you are a Wikipedian, that you have the capability to act in good faith, and a capability to change. If you truly have Wikipedia's interests at heart, do not take advantage of other editors' willingness to make a case for you, nor mine. Consider yourself lucky. That said, do you want to appeal? Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécu heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to contribute in your defense as well. You have worked with me in good faith in the past. Keep in mind that even assuming ArbCom lifts your indef. block, you'll still be under some intense scrutiny once you return. You've annoyed quite a number of people, be that intentional or unintentional. Good luck, though, whatever your decision. &mdash;BorgHunter (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Take ur chances and fight... I've seen ur contributions and I think u've been working in good faith, so this block-thing is just unfair.. good luck... Jfreyre 03:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think an indefinite block is ridiculous. If there's any way I can help within reason, let me know and I'm there.  Drop me a line at renegade.paladin (at) gmail.com any time.  Barring that, I can always be contacted at my message board or Librium Arcana's forums.  In both cases, the Testing forums can be edited without creating an account; simply leave a new thread with Rogue 9 in the title and I'll see it.  Rogue 9 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to but I don't know what I can say that will make any difference really :/ I've already pointed out a lot of things (for example the block by kelly martin at the top of my page for saying the (FACT that was confirmed by others afterwards) that SPUI got banned, lying and calling it a "personal attack".. um


 * I've tried to help wikipedia and been attacked and finally chased off, I doubt much will change in the future in the way Wikipedia works: the people who want power are usually the ones least suited to have it. there are too many huge egos around.


 * as for "she will be back" (comment by a sockpuppet itself), please don't make stupid statements like that however good intentioned; I have no intention of coming back by making a new account or whatever, the fact is that Wikipedia is a waste of my time if simply debating (it's true when I was newer I tended to insult people, but people often insulted me first and I just reacted in the same way I would if someone started insulting me in person - recently I have disagreed, maybe argued a bit, but rarely actually called people names etc) and pointing out some pretty serious corruption is something that'll get people banned. Zoe, you are one of those users who supposedly should know better than to personally attack people, but you obviously don't. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I commented that you are a "troll" (and so look like one).


 * for people reading this you might also want to note that Zoe supports Kelly Martin in being an arbitrator [ 2 ] [ 3 ], and so obviously doesn't agree with the fact that Martin habitually mis-uses her admin privileges for her own personal ends and likely is happy I'm gone because it "proves" (to her and other followers) that Martin was right. Definitely not a neutral party here.


 * Also I would like to know why my user page has been blanked and replaced with a "banned" banner, this is completely un-necessary, if Sean Black wants a big notice he could've just put it at the top of the page.. I believe this is an attempt to make it look to the casual viewer that I'm just one of the many banned vandals or whatever.


 * Anyway I would like to appeal but I don't really know how, and I'm not really sure what could be said that would change people's minds, especially as many of the people who would be reviewing the ban would be people distinctly involved and with reason to want me gone; one of the few things I can think of that might help is waiting until after the ArbCom elections finish so that more neutral parties get a say.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  10:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Advice #1: This is about your appeal. Reply to accusations if you wish, but do not make remarks about other users, because for one, that is an ad hominem. I will file the case on your behalf as you have shown interest, but I beseech you to act politely from now on. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécu heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok thank you and sorry (I just really hate it when people insult me and expect to be protected by WP:NPA when they're violating it themselves..) Um see my reply at the bottom regarding the file case though -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

request for arbitration has been filed
A request for arbitration for your appeal has been filed at Requests for arbitration. Please craft your own statement here, preferably as politely as possible, so I may post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalinasmpf (talk • contribs)


 * ARGH please no...


 * Can it wait until after the elections? Looking at the votes there's going to be substantially fairer arbitrators being elected this time around.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? That you want the RFAr to be withdrawn? Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes at the moment however I would like it to happen after the elections finish please (I don't mind waiting around) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, Dschor has left a note of that at the RFAr page. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't Elle (Natalinasmpf) just remove it? If you're reading this Elle please do if it's allowed :/ -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom request
Well, you may wish to work on your request and discuss your future appeals with other users here. I have withdrawn my motion and cut and pasted it to here, and cut out comments since they wouldn't apply for the future appeal. Feel free to deal with this as you wish, you may or may not like this to exist on your talk page, or have people modify it. Cheers.

Involved parties

 * (nominal defendant appealing, represented by acting as proxy)
 * Users who advocate an indefinite block for Mistress Selina Kyle

Mistress Selina Kyle accepted my offer to file an appeal on her behalf. 
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User was indefinitely blocked without any steps taken in the dispute resolution process. Mistress Selina Kyle wishes to appeal this block.
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by proxy Natalinasmpf
I wish to only become involved in the case to act as Mistress Selina Kyle's proxy because she is currently indefinitely blocked and cannot make this request herself. Mistress Selina Kyle wishes to appeal her indefinite block. Please treat me as a representative, not as an involved party. I am currently listing her as the only involved specific party at the moment, because I do not know who wishes to pursue the case against her. I am therefore only currently replacing the second party with a generic "users who advocate an indefinitely block for Mistress Selina Kyle". Pardon me.

I request the temporary injunction that Mistress Selina Kyle's indefinite block be technically lifted, but she remains effectively banned from articles and other pages except for her user page, her talk page, and the arbitration pages.

Statement by Zordrac
I first met Mistress Selina Kyle when I was asked for help with mediating a dispute between User:RachelBrown and User:SlimVirgin/User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, which User:Poetlister (largely a neutral party in the dispute) asked me for an opinion on. Poetlister and 4 other UK users were banned as a result of daring to question SlimVirgin. I investigated, and discovered that Kelly Martin was behind it. I was threatened with being banned over it, by Kelly Martin and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, and so was Mistress Selina Kyle, who helped out. I think that MSK is a hero for her work on that dispute alone, and I know of hundreds of Wikipedians who adore her for her work in this.

If MSK was a common troll, she wouldn't have hundreds of messages to her praising her for her efforts. She is no troll. She is a hero. Her work in delving deep in to the editing habits of Kelly Martin and Slim Virgin has been exemplary, and, through people like Firebug, it has also exposed Snowspinner, as well as others involved like Ambi, David Gerard and Sean Black.

What we have here is someone who is criticising Wikipedia. But she isn't aiming to destroy it. She is aiming to create it. What she wants here is for everyone to be here in a happy, community-happy, relationship, where everyone can edit freely. She isn't out here to destroy Wikipedia - she is here to make it good. Rather than MSK being banned, she should be promoted. The instant that he is unbanned, I will post an RFA - Request for Adminship, and I am sure that she would get in. She is one of the most loyal, devout supporters of Wikipedia that you could imagine.

As for MSK's editing habits, oh sure, she is rude, abrupt, to the point, direct, and sometimes offensive. In other words, she is an Aspie. She has not engaged in a single personal attack. Some people have misunderstood her edits to suggest that she has, but they are wrong. Just take a look at what Asperger's Syndrome means before making such comments. She is accurate. She is highly technical. That makes her *IDEAL FOR AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA*. With people like MSK on the books, we can ensure an accurate encyclopaedia free of errors. That is what we want, ultimately, don't we? On top of that, she is brave enough to put her life on the line (or at least her online status) to get rid of corruption.

You cannot get more loyal than that.

If there is an administrator, or any contributor to Wikipedia who is more committed to its success, then I'd like to know who they are. Mistress Selina Kyle is the most loyal and dedicated contributor in the history of Wikipedia. Getting rid of her, and people like her, will be the death of Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * ...but, after all that rhetoric, you've missed one fundamental thing. She doesn't work on the encyclopedia. After all that aggression, she's made less article edits that I (or most admins or dedicated editors) do in a single day. Had she made any effort to actually contribute to the encyclopedia, instead of playing war games, we may not be here. Ambi 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made plenty of edits and was intending to make more, but the fact that people like you, Martin and SlimVirgin can act in such a disgusting manner for someone in a position of authority points towards a large problem with corruption and nepotism/cliqueism within the "functionaries" of Wikipedia and is seriously damaging it, corruption that needs to be challenged for Wikipedia to function properly and avoid scenarios like this where people are banned for disagreeing with or pointing out misconduct of friends of admins. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have marked these replies as a separate section since this request is supposed to be a copy and paste arbcom request when it is done. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheerful greets from near the Pacific Ocean
User:Terryeo Hello Mistress Selina Kyle, here's a photo of some of the chickens and ducks in my yard. I live in a small town near the pacific ocean. Have a nice day, hope to talk with you sometime.Terryeo 03:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ~sigh~ This is an attempt to show me that you're "just another guy", I see


 * - fact is some of the POV-pushing you've been engaging is worrying. I notice you just removed the Scientology template from many pages claiming that it's "historical" and also edited it to remove all the links that were to Scientology controversy articles.. I hope someone stops you, looking at the edits you're making it's clear to see what your aims here are, essentially part of Scientology versus the Internet -_-  -- Mistress Selina Kyle   (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  10:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and that you misquoted and personally attacked me on your talk page the day before posting this message here doesn't help either. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Abusive Blocks
I see that you are another victim of the cabal. Welcome to wikipedia. I also have been subject to blocks (though not an indefinite one, that's just daft) for attempting to point out the rampant cronyism and corruption of some administrators. These admins enjoy vandalizing user pages, blocking users who attempt to inform others of the abuse, and generally wasting the time of dedicated editors. You are a valuable member of Wikipedia, and I hope that you will be unblocked as soon as possible. It only takes one intelligent administrator to remove the block and restore your user page - hopefully there is still one left. --Dschor 11:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am an ex-admin now, but I can still point out that the correct manner to dispute a block is to first send a polite request to the blocking administrator, explaining why you feel the block was in error. If their response is unreasonable, or you have further reason to feel they are being injust, you should email an uninvolved administrator in the same polite tone, citing reasons (and providing appropriate URLs where possible) for the request for the block to be lifted.


 * Tone is important. An administrator will not unblock a user who demands it in an unacceptable and/or trollish manner. One will also look at your reaction to being blocked, and your conduct in general, to see whether or not you have acted in good faith.


 * It's quite possible for this mistake, if it was, to be turned around. It requires co-operation from both sides. If you are willing to be co-operative, and pleasant, then I am willing to ask the administrators involved to remember the same. I would suggest a careful RFC is in order; do not file it against an admin, per se; rather, make yourself the subject, so that the true purpose can come out, and the community as a whole can gauge how it feels about your behaviour.


 * I am accused often, too often, it seems, of being on one side. The truth is, while I might be an "adopted member" of the Cabal, I act for no side other than mine. My opinion is simple. Those who are here to help write an encyclopedia are welcome. Newcomers who make mistakes are still welcome, and should be treated well. Those who behave poorly but are capable of demonstrating their worth are still welcome. Those who put other gains above our goal are not. It makes no odds to me if your account is, as claimed, a reincarnation of a blocked user. If you're here to help us, then I support it. Rob Church Talk 19:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

=(
I also feel you have been delt an unfair hand here, I hope everything works out. =( Mike 13:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I seriously will consider unblocking you if you describe the situation to me and I conclude that you've been treated unfairly. Right now I suspect you've been treated unfairly, but unblocking you could get me in trouble and I don't want to risk it unless I'm quite sure. Everyking 14:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, um. Well, pretty much the whole situation is on this page now. As per the link at the top of the page (goes straight to the right section) there's also talk on the Administrators' noticeboard about why kelly martin and friends banned me but that hasn't been updated recently. As per the top of the page I made a point with proof against her (rather silly) accusation that I'm "a new willy on wheels"-type user, she also tried to call me a vandal due to sharing the IP with vandals in the withdrawn RfA but as I already said posted proof above (this in fact is very recent as she must have done a check user after I was banned and went back to college, I never use this IP except when I'm at college for my own privacy) (as a sidenote they actually block Wikipedia here too haha, classified under "Chat" .. lol. I don't use it to get around the block though I use Firefox for that: while internet explorer has options hidden so you can't remove the use of the college proxy server I install firefox and voila no proxy.. it rocks.) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  14:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so what do you think you've done incorrectly, if anything? Would you change anything if you were unblocked? How do you think you could get along better with these people who oppose you&mdash;do you think it'd be possible to reach some kind of understanding with them? Everyking 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (Here's a link showing Wikipedia banned at my college (if not for firefox, yay for firefox by the way)


 * Um, ok:


 * What I think I've done wrong
 * Using a proxy (see my reply at ) (which anyone can use), as I already said and as I said also I've never edited on there without being logged in, any other edits are not me: Kinda divided on this though, as I know it's against the rules to use proxies but I'm also only using it so people can't get my college IP and so know what college I go to..
 * Not talking on talk pages enough, I tend to (out of laziness rather than anything else) hold mini-debates in edit summaries instead
 * Implying that some admins are corrupt (even if they are in my and many others' views) (but not all, I've never said that) tends to annoy people and make friends of the admin in question get angry
 * What I would change
 * Well, try not do the things listed above really
 * How to get along better with the people that oppose me/reach an understanding
 * I have no idea, SlimVirgin and Kelly Martin have their own vendetta against me now for pointing out various things; SlimVirgin has already refused, saying that she doesn't have any problems, after Karmafist offered to mediate, and the fact that Martin is trying so desperately to keep me banned.. well.. I doubt she is going act any different in future. One thing I have found is that with some people, when one person decides they don't like you, friends of that person start grouping on you to attack you together..

Looking at my contribs, the last edit I made was merely to Half-Life 2: Aftermath so couldn't have been what got me blocked, but before those edits I left a message regarding SlimVirgin's use of an image that was tagged as fair use (when the message was left) on her user page, see Image talk:Kamelia shojaee.jpg (link to diff with message): I admit I was a bit terse but hardly a personal attack or whatever. She had [ previously aggressively deleted a message I left about it on her talk page twice] (in an edit marked as a [[Wikipedia:Minor edit|minor edit]]) and ignored it. I didn't try putting it back after that and pretty much dropped the issue for a while until other people began talking about it.

It seems more than anything I was blocked by Sean Black for implying that SlimVirgin could simply write an email, making it "From: museum" or something and forward it, which is a valid point because it would be easy for anyone to do -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  15:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed a message left by recently-created admin, who I opposed his adminship on count of his constant POV-warring on Islam-related articles, which was quickly removed to hide his bias and sent by email instead: He and SlimVirgin are no doubt very happy to have a critic of their nepotism banned.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Overall I really don't know what to do, it seems a lot of people have a personal interest in having me blocked. Many users have done similar things at times that are bad but aren't blocked: I think an indefinite block is definitely unjustified and it seems, against blocking policy too. It was done by Sean Black a little after the message about SlimVirgin's use of fair use images on her user page and Cryptic (who has banned people for merely linking to Kelly Martin's RfC on Userboxes before (later overturned)) -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this sounds good to me. I'll wait 12 hours or so for someone else to provide a good reason for you to stay blocked, and if not I'll unblock you. Everyking 22:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Everyking. I have not been involved with any of the issues relating to Mistress Selina Kyle.  However, I did notice the proxy placement of a request for arbitration, followed by the removal of that request, which piqued my interest.  A cursory examination of her talk page history confirms that she has admitted to editting from behind an anonymous proxy server.  This is clearly against policy as described at Blocking policy, which states "Administrators are permitted and encouraged to IP-block anonymous proxies indefinitely". A cursory examination her contribution history often shows surly, even abusive comments, lack of discussion on talk pages, impersonating an administrator on her user page, etc.  Again, looking at her talk page history, there have been numerous warnings about these activities here.  Therefore, I urge you not to unblock her unilaterally.  Instead, we should reinstate the request for arbitration, so that she has a chance to explain herself, and so that others have the chance to state why she has been blocked. Johntex\talk 23:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For most of my edits though, I have NOT been using this proxy, as I already said I only use it when I am at college for my own personal privacy.
 * Also yes, proxies should be blocked indefinitely but there's nothing there that says people that use a proxy should also therefore be blocked indefinitely. Just not able to use the proxy anymore, which is fair enough (even though I never used for any bad purpose and only when I was logged in anyway..)


 * Point: I did not impersonate a specific administrator I just copypasted the "administrator" userbox from someone else's page (they're all the same anyway, it's just user admin), and it was only in fun, I wasn't sure whether it was allowed or not. I was actually told by varying different admins that it was alternately "not really important, doesn't matter much" and "impersonating an administrator is a serious offence" - after I was told this I removed it straight away, so that's really a non-issue here: there was no bad intentions and as I remember I only had it there for about half a day before I voluntarily removed it.

I'd like to thank Ms. Selina Kyle for identifying a few more open proxies for us so we could block them. Due to the high volume of vandalism that comes from open proxies (and the very low volume of legitimate edits), it's a general presumption that anybody who (a) edits through one and (b) generally acts like a shit, is a vandal. Ms. Kyle meets both halves of that condition. I don't recommend that she be unblocked any time soon (I really don't see any evidence that she has ever substantially contributed to the encyclopedia, and I have no reason to believe that she would start doing so were we to unblock her), but I may have been mistaken in identifying her with the program vandals she shared an open proxy with. She is still a very disruptive user, and her current block is totally warranted on that basis. I must say that using an open proxy in combination with her persistently combative and unfriendly attitude definitely has not helped her case. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You also generally "act like a shit" to many people, Martin, but you're not banned thus far - It's funny how some of the largest quoters of WP:CIVIL are often uncivil to other people themselves (above quote is a great example, thanks).


 * A "vandal"? That's just seriously seriously wrong, and it seems you're just trying to tar me as a "vandal" without actual evidence: I have only ever vandalised one article, and that was only in joke and was quickly reverted (on Iain Lee). As I already pointed out near the top of this page I've made plenty of good edits, looks to me like some people just choose to ignore them when it suits them though.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't think moving Template:User US Customary to Template:User uses-obselete-imperial-units-from-exbritish-empire was vandalism? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * hmm, wrong to do yeah (and now you mention it I'm pretty sure I said sorry for it after too), but even then not actual vandalism since nothing was broken as such (the template didn't disappear from anyone's page, didn't change in appearance in any way, the name of it was just changed and since it was automatically redirected there was absolutely no damage to wikipedia made by moving the user box -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Perhaps we could unblock her for an interim period, with her activities limited, and see how that goes? Everyking 03:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And what makes a "legitimate" edit in the view of Kelly Martin, then? You'll have to forgive me for saying so, but recent events inevitably lead me to conclude that your view of what is legitimate is a very narrow one.  Rogue 9 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey. Wondering how it was going..? Are you okay? Figured I'd keep you company while you're on lockdown :( I know, I know how it feels to be blocked unjustly. Hope you get off soon. -MegamanZero|Talk 17:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Im ok just going home from college now. I don't know whether I'm going to be unblocked or not but I hope so, looking at the facts of the matter (including some of things i've pointed out in reply to accusations here) it really is totally unjustified.
 * I won't be contributing to Commons while if I'm banned because quite frankly this is showing me everything I need to know about just how much Wikipedia is misrun even though it's a good idea in theory.. From my edits you can see I'm definitely pro-wikipedia and no "vandal" but this kind of thing kinda implies it's a waste of time for anyone to try edit if they want to be able to have free speech as well. It seems I'm essentially being banned for pointing out admin misues and abuses as well as policy violations.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand. And you're absolutely right- its not fair, and administrators should not abuse their "powers". However, "pointing out" administrator's behavior is bad for you too- it makes you enemies. And when that happens, then its ever easier for someone to mis-understand your good faith and block you for the most insignifgant of reasons. I also felt like leaving when I was unjustly blocked, but I argued my situation, and someone let me off my block early. Just apologize, and continue to explain how you didn't mean to be vindictive, slanderous, etc. If you are truly in the right, I'm sure someone will lift your block. I hope for your return. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:(
... Jfreyre

Unblocked
I've unblocked you from your indefinite block because I am not convinced you merit a banning. However I don't think I will be able to unblock you again. Please be exceedingly cautious in your future comments during this period. I believe there does need to be an Arbitration or at least an RfC about you, your behavior, and other users response to you. I think you are wise to want to wait until the new ArbCom is seated. Please do not remove anyone else's comments from any Talk page, for any reason. That is seen as exceedingly rude. Best wishes, &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no justification for an unblocking here. I have restored the block and taken the case back to WP:AN/I for review . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was happy to see Ëvilphoenix' unblocking of MSK. I don't agree with all she says, and she and I locked horns early on, but she is most energetic and has made some good contributions. As we are in the process (neverending) of building an encyclopedia, please let's remember nobody has a lock on truth or fact, it's all just a matter of where you're standing at the time, and there are a lot more malicious folks out there who need a good banning, real vandals who seriously need made into mulch, and a whole lot of really good people who are doing this all out of the goodness of their hearts. She's a good young lady, she'll find her way, and she has much to offer. Kudos Ëvilphoenix, carry on! Chris 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that she should have been blocked, but undoing the actions of another admin acting in good faith is something I would never consider doing. It's moot now that she's been reblocked, but if she wishes to pursue it, it's up to the ArbCom to decide. The block was not made out of policy. I believe it was improper to unblock. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * BorgHunter, please explain what you mean. If "The block was not made out of policy" in the first place, then why is it "improper" to remove it..? I greatly agree with the concept of respecting your peer's thoughts and actions, but the oringinal block had no concenus (as the matter wasn't discussed beforehand), so nor does the reblock. And Arbcom can't decide if she can't argue her case. It was. however, improper to make an inquery before the action of implimenting an indifinite block. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What I said was, the block was not made out of policy, i.e. the block was perfectly fine. Made within policy. There needn't be consensus for an indef. block, or any sort of block, for that matter. This is why we have ArbCom: To decide these things if a block (made within WP:BP) is required or not. (Incidentally, if she does contest her block before ArbCom, there will be a temporary injunction to unblock her to allow her to edit things related to the case only.) —BorgHunter (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware there's no policy agaist blocking indefintely, however, the concenus "You have been blocked indefineitly for trolling, personal attacks and general dickery. WP:AFG only goes so far, and I've had enough of this garbage" means absolutely nothing. However, seeing as another admin was proceeding to give you a week long block for various blocks, anyway, it shows that if you ever get out of this situation, MSK, you should take this very, very seriously. No more "speaking out", No more reverts without concensus, no more personal attacks, namecalling, etc. Just edit in good faith, and speak positively about articles. If someone breaches civilty, don't sink to their level. Just remove it and ignore it (and inform an admin so they can get their "reward"). -MegamanZero|Talk 16:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Administrators with personal reasons to ban this user have taken advantage of their position to impose an improper block on MSK. In the interests of Wikipedia, MSK should be unblocked immediately. Tony Sidaway reinstated this block after it was removed, and provided absolutely no reason for doing so. This entire episode appears to be a personal attack on MSK for attempting to reveal cronyism and corruption that may be negatively impacting the project. --Dschor 20:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're free! :) But remember: Tread carefully. They'll be looking for a reason to reblock you. Please neglect to give tem the oppurtunity. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not -_- Tony Sidaway blocked me after I was unblocked: see top of this page for info and link(s) .. no coincidence it's another Martin fan determined to silence critics -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mistress, if Tony hadn't reblocked you, someone else would have. I would have for certain and I'm not a Martin "fan". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * don't try to pretend to be neutral Woohookitty, it's clear to see you're one of slimvirgin's friends.

Notice on your User page
I hope I have not overstepped my bounds by recreating the notice on your User page that refers to your ongoing block. Tony seems to think it is silly to take responsibility for his actions, but I thought it would be in the interests of full disclosure to place the notice. Let me know what you think of the messagebox. --Dschor 01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that it's accurate. MSK was banned indefinitely by User:Sean Black.  User:Tony Sidaway just did the reblock.  I would have thought that it would be more accurate to state that she was permanently banned because of a ruling of Sean Black (also note that Sean Black is MUCH more closely allied with Kelly Martin and Slim Virgin than Tony Sidaway is - although both are closely linked). Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 01:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC:KM
You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin. CastAStone|(talk) 03:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, actually she can't, as a banned user, but thanks just the same. I am sure that this was an automatic message you send through. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 06:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Concrete steps
What sort of concrete steps can we take to get this user unblocked? To me, the block clearly doesn't have admin consensus, so it shouldn't have been done. How about we arrange a poll about this? That will give a little bit of process and legitimacy to the outcome, and I suspect it would be the right one (I don't think supporters of the block could get consensus). Everyking 10:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
Per discussion on WP:AN/I it's clear that there is no consensus on whether this block should stand. In this case, by default, the user should not be blocked, pending consensus on the topic. As such, I decided to unblock this user for the time being, providing her with the opportunity to improve. I appeal to other administrators to not reblock her immediately, provided that she: If you think reblocking is appropriate, consider following formal procedure (WP:RFC or WP:RFAr), instead of acting unilaterally.  Grue  11:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stays clear of personal attacks
 * Uses reverts only on clear-cut vandalism
 * Makes useful edits to encyclopedia

Archiving
Your talkpage is becoming quite immense; you might want to consider archiving. -MegamanZero|Talk 12:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think someone mentioned that before, not quite sure how to do it properly


 * Um I think I'll leave it for a week or so though, just so all the information is easily out for people to see -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I made you a link: User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/Archive 1; just copy and paste your old conversations in there (I usually put my comments down to 85), then put this link at the top of your talkpage for future refernce. -MegamanZero|Talk 12:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, Here's my first archive if you want an example of how its done. -MegamanZero|Talk 12:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

message
Sorry. What's that game tho? Never heard of it so I don't get the reference -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  14:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a joke. The "Plame Name Blame Game" refers to a scandal in Washington D.C. about the wife of an ambassador, Valerie Plame, who was a CIA spy "outed" by someone in the Bush Administration.  There is a special prosecutor trying to figure out who did it, and people are pointing fingers everywhere. Endomion 15:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And other things...
Mistress, I don't mean to be offesnsive or anything when I say this, but you've got to stop. That editor's summary of your edits was somewhat uncalled for on the administrative board, but calling him a prick and screaming at him will not solve anything. Absolutely nothing. Its also extremely easy to precieve that "defense" of yours as a personal attack. Were you not just blocked for this...? Please, take consideration into what you say, and think before you type. In the meanwhile, I suggest you reword your thesis concerning your edits less offensively on the Admin board, and explain yourself better. You are cruising for trouble, and I really don't want you to get blocked again, as if that happens, I'm afraid there's no coming back. Please take my advice into consideration. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Block
Your recent comments on AN/I are a clear violation of the no personal attacks policy. Since you have a long history of being blocked for disruption, and have not reformed, I am issuing a 24 hour block for disruption. Please refrain from further personal attacks if you choose to return after your block expires. -- <font color=#696969>Essjay Talk • Contact 15:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You see what I was getting at...? -MegamanZero|Talk 15:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: What malber (talk &bull; block user) (who from his talk page has a history of making unjust personal attacks on people that I do not) was a far more worse clear violation of the no personal attacks policy and extremely offensive saying that I "hiding behind my aspergers" (I never did any such thing, as I said) and that I should "accept the fact that she's a jerk"

Why is he, the one that personally attacked me, not banned and only me who as should be quite understandable got angry with vicious personal attacks like those by malber?

This is sick and I would have thought better from you of all people ..

-Selina


 * Quit giving them attention and stooping to thier level. Just ignore it. Please. Because as of late, your in hot water, and defending yourself civily is not your strong point. MSK, I like you as part of the community, but you've got to stop insulting people no matter what they say. Period. "Accepting the fact they're jerks" is the probmatic conduct. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Ok, but why is it ok for people to insult me but not for me to do the same back? Why the double-standards? It seems it's nothing more than certain administrators seeing it as perfectly fine to insult and be abusive towards me.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  15:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because we're here to build an encyclopedia. Really, I'd like to say "speak up for yourself", however, but when you do, you insult people in return. When you take a person's critiscism and don't respond in an negative manner, guess what..? You're the winner  because you can report them for slanderous comments and not vise versa. Just ignore it. It fets more and more difficult to defend your posisition MSK, because people constantly tell you to leave it be, and you continue to. Again. And Again. When the block nullifies, just avoid confrontation. alright..? -MegamanZero|Talk 15:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK.. But seriously, what does "reporting" people do? I've never done it before but looking at messages on peoples' talk pages, the usual process is a slap on the arm and "don't personally attack people". Look at malber's talk page, he's been warned about personally attacking people before but nothing ever happens.


 * It seems the only way to get anything done is to nullify their viciousness yourself.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  15:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And look what happens. A 24-hour block, respectively, and the other chap gets off scott free. I'll just give it to you straight...Your comment was honest, and so you were blocked for a (relatively) short period of time. (if you hadn't mixed up the comment with "you prick" it may have been only few hours block) The point is not the content of your defense, but the context. The context is you are in a dispute with other editors regarding pointless and petty issues. Making any significant edits to those people (who are just trying to bait you anyway) isn't the best thing for you to be doing. It's really simple, stop or be blocked. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you did the wrong thing, purely by saying "You prick". However, I disagree that that is as bad as what User:Ambi said earlier in the same article, where she said "The Black helicopters are coming for you". "You prick" is insulting, but it is not a personal attack - talking about helicopters is. Also, I think that User:Malber was demonstrating clear discriminatory bias, not just against you, but against Aspies in general. However, I do not believe that Wikipedia has a policy about bigots. I suppose that they are needed so that we can have experts on such things as the Ku Klux Klan and what have you. Also, it might be (although a huge stretch of WP:AGF) that Malber was just totally ignorant as to what Asperger's Syndrome is, and mistakingly thought that you were trying to use it as an "excuse". Just the concept of that is ridiculous. You might use a broken leg as an excuse, because its a temporary thing. But Asperger's Syndrome is a lifetime thing - hence you can't use it as an excuse. Its who you are. And of course, not once did you try to use it as an excuse. Of course, in saying that, I am not sure that it's a good idea to tell people that you're an Aspie. I don't even like the term, myself. I think that autistic is good enough, and I don't agree with Asperger in his definition. I very rarely tell people that I'm autistic, because of all of the discrimination and irrational hatred that it brings. And of course, that's got nothing to do with why I like you. I like you because you are a hero. But, in saying all of that, I can see how a 24 hour block for saying "You prick" might be reasonable. But I think that Ambi should be blocked too, and Malber. Perhaps that is up to an administrator though. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 20:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

By luck I just found out that extended the block to one month on the Wikipedia Review forums, http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1137241826

It seems it's for not being nice to malber after he said that Asperger's Syndrome was a fake disease/"social construct" and that I was pretending to have Asperger's Syndrome as an excuse/"hiding behind my aspergers" and that "she needs to accept that she's just a jerk"

As bliss2yu said over there: So its okay for Malber to discriminate and offer bigoted hatred against an entire group of people, yet its not okay for me to call him a "prick" for saying that? -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They said that..? Ridiculous... They need a block immediately. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI Blissyu2 = User:Internodeuser, a 1-year blocked user (expires July 2006) so is already blocked, if that's what you mean. And as for Malber, I agree that he should have been blocked. He did call MSK a "jerk", which should have been dealt with before MSK responded. Of course, ?MSK shouldn't have responded by calling him a "prick". But which is worse? In terms of words, they are equal. But the issue is that Malber was offending an entire group of people, while MSK was just stopping one person. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 04:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"I think it should be noted that most 'Aspies' are possibly self-diagnosed. The existence of a userbox makes this extremely easy. It is unfortunate that in this day, bad behavior is hidden behind a constructed disorder. We say a child has ADHD and administer pharmaceuticals instead of addressing the possibility that she lacks discipline. When the child grows up she can hide behind the label of an 'Aspie' instead of dealing with the fact that she is a jerk. This is unconscionable. Even if someone has a legitimate though manageable disorder, it's the person's responsibility to deal with it instead of hiding behind it." I think it is pretty clear he is merely saying that people should be accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they have a medical condition, pathology,Psychosis troubled background, or if they are simply having a bad day. If someone is a pathological liar,would we excuse their vandalism of articles with made up facts? What if they were delusional? I submit that we would not. Everyone must take responsibility for their actions. Johntex\talk 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Malber did not call MSK a jerk, as far as I know. His paragraph with the word "jerk" does not even mention MSK.  Malber said:


 * According to this she's coming back in 24 hours.--God of War 22:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou
Just want to say thankyou for the good work on the flag and the kind words on my talk page. It's been a month now - things have died down a little but there's still bad blood. Erath 01:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle for admin!
I think that Mistress Selina Kyle has demonstrated brilliant skills for adminship and would be a real asset to the community in that capacity. I would like for some administrators to work towards this with her. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 04:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear hear! Rogue 9 04:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ...... -MegamanZero|Talk 04:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Me agree! -- ActiveSelective 05:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Award!
I would like to give you an award, just for being still here, (you may or may not be blocked at present, I've lost track), even when there are editwars among admins over blocking you:

(This does not mean I endorse your actions). Ian13ID:540053 10:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the formatting, I just hit the [+] button at the top :p Ian13ID:540053 10:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK should get the comedy award too, for what happened with the Masonry page. That was pretty funny. SkeenaR 04:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * lol, forgot about that (ages ago when I was really new) yeah that was kinda weird, two anonymous users came out of nowhere after that:
 * 
 * 
 * -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty funny too:) Here- SkeenaR 22:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I got banned for supporting you
Just like how you got banned for supporting User:Taxwoman, it seems that I got banned for supporting you. I am sorry. Zordrac

Stop reverting
Don't do it. You'll most likely just get blocked again.  Grue  17:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I won't don't worry I know well about 3RR now

This is the kind of thing that BYT and his friends seem to get up to though, making false claims of me "being abusive" when I was polite as utterly possible and engaging in "pack reverting" behaviour.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Use the talk pages and explain your concensus. -ZeroTalk 19:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't strike through other people's comments
Dear MSK, could you please refrain from striketrhough in someone else's comments, as you have done with Malber's comment, above. Doing this is likely to give someone the impression that Malber has struck through those comments, which is false. This is tantamount to quoting Malber as retracting things he did not retract. Thank you, Johntex\talk 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Sean Black did the exact same thing to me though...  &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.230.206 (talk &bull; contribs) 00:04, 17 January 2006.
 * Looking at the link you provided, I would not condone Sean Black's action there, either. Johntex\talk 00:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility on Talk:Islamofascism
Accuse another editor instead of giving civil discourse on your disagreement on this page, and I will block you for 24 hours for disruption and poor conduct. Is that clear?--Tznkai 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You agreed to have NO personal comments --Tznkai 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * THAT WAS IN REPLY TO THE OPENING OF THE REQUEST FOR COMMENT FOR GODSSAKE, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DELETE PEOPLES' TALK PAGE MESSAGES ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WAS ONLY LINKING TO THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTICEBOARD.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You clearly had an opportunity to see this warning, and you have failed to comply. You have been blocked for 24 hours.--Tznkai 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * THIS IS COMPLETELY AGAINST ANY POLICY WHATSOEVER AND AN ABUSIVE BLOCK, I WAS PERFECTLY CIVIL AND DID NOT MAKE ANY PERSONAL ATTACKS AT ALL: ALL I MENTIONED WAS THE VOTE STACKING ATTEMPTS AND LINKED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR NOTICEBOARD, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm forced to disagree with you here. From WP:NPA: (bolding is mine)


 * Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia."
 * Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
 * This is disruptive conduct and certainly goes against the policy of creating a good enviroment for an enyclopedia--Tznkai 21:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just don't know what to say. But we've got to stop meeting like this MSK...-ZeroTalk 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage change - for the better I hope
I have (perhaps ill-advisably) done some editing to your userpage which was in some dire need of shape. I haven't given it much of a overhaul but I tried to tidy up the userbox area which was in a sorry state and a bit messy with  tags everywhere.

If you find the changes to be too much to take, then please accept my apologies and revert the changes. Also, if you feel adequately offended by my good intentions, I invite you to vandalise my user page appropriately! :P Or, simply leave a comment on my talk page! Either way is good! Have a good one!--Dan (Talk) 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin
Selina, it's very possible to disagree with someone without disliking them or feeling that they are badly motivated. I have often disagreed with SlimVirgin, sometimes very strongly, but I have no doubt that she is a decent person, doing what she thinks is right.

You know, I do believe you have a good heart. I have a bit of a reputation for being a trolls' advocate, but the truth is, I like to think the best of people. Maybe you could give the same thing a go. Try to like people here. Give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand that even if they do the wrong thing, they are not trying to. It's not good vs evil. You hate it if people dismiss you in simple terms, don't you? Try not to do it to others.

"Artists" was in quotes on my user page because I'm using it in a broad sense to mean people trained in the arts, rather than people who paint. I do paint, but very badly.

And I'm happy for people to have any picture of me they like, male or female, so long as it's a goodlooking one. Happy editing, Selina. Try to stay out of trouble. Grace Note 03:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

TWN
Hi!

I understand why you want to use the Taiwanese independence flag in this template, however, there is one big problem: TWN is the ISO code for Taiwan. For the same reason that GBR must produce 🇬🇧 and not (for which GBR2 is used), TWN should produce the Republic of China flag. How about using TWN2 for the version you'd prefer? &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the technical reasons to use the Taiwan Independence Flag. But as a Taiwanese who supports an independent Taiwan, I don't think using any proposed Taiwan Independence flag to represent Taiwan is any appropriate at this moment. First of all, it is far less recognized by people in Taiwan or all over the world, because it has never used by the majority of people in Taiwan. More important, that proposed flag was chosen by a very small group of activitists and the proposed flag has never been approved by Taiwanese people, no matter what political positions they have. Even though the Republic of China flag is not approved by Taiwanese people, either, historically it has been used and widely accepted in Taiwan and all over the world today. For the practical reason, I feel that using the offical ROC flag to refer Taiwan is more appropriate at the current time. And in the future when Taiwan officially declares its independence and officially recognized by the major countries of the world, I believe we Taiwanese people will determine a new flag to represent us by a truely democratic process, not just decided by some die-hard activitists  --Verdant04 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for the barnstar! You really should archive your talk page, by the way.

Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  15:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 24 hourse for your continued vandalism of Image:Flag of Taiwan.svg. Your last edit there was the latest in a string of unhelpful edits related to the use of this flag. I will assume that most of them were initially due to you not fully appreciating the implications of this rather sensitive issue. Drawn-out, nasty debates have raged over the Taiwan/ROC issue in the past, and there is now a general set of recommendations at Naming conventions (Chinese), which represents the de facto consensus. As I've explained on Talk:Half-Life 2: Aftermath, there is little room for debate about which flag to use, due to real-life facts which we have to respect, regardless of whether we think the real-life situation should be changed. While you're entitled to your opinions, you're not entitled to vandalizing the collective work of others by repeatedly removing useful content without discussion. Labelling others as sockpuppets and their productive edits as "vandalism" isn't helping much either. You have to consider the possibility that, if it seems everyone is against you, this may be due to the fact that you're actually wrong about something. There's no point in digging in and proclaiming that conspiracies are at work; you need to accept that you can't be right all the time. Look at this block as a chance to cool off, so that you can resume productive editing when it expires. And if you're thinking of getting more deeply involved in the Taiwan/ROC issue, I'd urge you to review the guidelines and conventions first, including the talk page discussions that have already taken place on this issue. Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for Move of Blood sport to blood sport (hunting) ?
Howdy, MistressSelinaKyle! There are some fireworks today over at blood sport (hunting) and since you seem to have been involved in this move I was wondering what the original thinking was on that. I'm guessing, based on the history of both articles that the idea was to disambiguate blood fetishism from the Jean Claude Van Damme movie, but now I'm wondering if it would not make more sense to move most of blood sport (hunting) back to blood sport with the top disambig links keeping their current position, much as is the case currently with stalking. If you have any insights or thoughts on the subject, they would be most welcome over at Talk:Blood sport (hunting). Thanks from Rorybowman 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ummmm
on my talk page you posted: The material on that site is, as it says, a reproduction of the text at http://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm - it is not necessarily the views of the US Navy. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My intention was to indicate someone's opinion whose intention is neither to destroy nor to applaud, but to provide information from a disinterested, third party point of view. I'm not sure it does, but it is a better quality of information than some are.  But I'm unclear about your motivation, do you mean to say there are very few such pages, disinterested pages?  Or are you attempting to point out that my research could be more complete? Terryeo 14:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Islamofascism (term)
Hi, thanks for your message on my talk page. I would encourage you re-read the definition of vandalism and assume good faith, if you still consider me to have vandalised (as described by the policy) your comment I would appreciate it if you could help me clarify which part of Wikipedia policy defines what I did as vandalism.

WP:RPA is not a policy as you rightly point out, it is a guideline. I believed that your comment describing another user as racist did not add to the debate and was likely to inflame the situation causing even more extraneous discussion. I provided a link to what you wrote.

I didn't find that part of your message offensive, I don't even know if it was true, the term racist is bandied about a lot, a bit like fascist in that respect. I think a reading, and practicing of WP:CIVIL would perhaps help you to edit and discuss more harmoniously within the Wikipedia community.

I see that you have restored the comment, as is your perogative. I shall not remove it again and I feel that you probably consider that I asked in a rash manner in removing it. I really didn't intend to cause offence and my apologies if I have come off in any way rude or patronising. To help me in improving my future conduct would you recommend that I leave a talk page message detailing possibly inappropriate comments rather than deleting them and providing a link? - FrancisTyers 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, in future that is what I shall do, thanks :) - FrancisTyers 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Strap It On" article moved to "Strap It On (album)"
If you're going to move an article (without even attempting discussion first), please at least have the courtesy to check what links there and update as appropriate. &mdash; Lazytiger 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
If edit warring continues on this talk page I will deal with it by freely blocking those who seem to be responsible for it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the kind word, I hope things are going better for you at least.. --Winter 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And to answer your question there is a javascript tool that users can use for rollback, hope that helps --Winter 00:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

UDUIW
I, Shell (DotShell), would like to personally invite you to join the UDUIW. You can do this by adding our userbox or simply adding yourself to our category. Thank you for your time. --Sh e ll 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Strap It On
Selina, there's no reason to dab dictdefs. Wikipedia is not here to teach people what English sentences mean. Besides, your definitions were entirely circular and POV. You didn't mention for instance strapping on a sword, strapping on a backpack, strapping on shoes and so on.

BTW, you quoted Disambiguation in moving the page. Can I draw your attention to this from that policy:

"Dictionary definitions

Dictionary definitions don't belong here. However, there are templates for linking to Wiktionary. (See Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects#Wiktionary.)"

Happy editing, Selina. Grace Note 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the history, you've got the wrong end of the stick. ;)
 * There were two articles with the same name, one was a video series - but it got deleted ~shrug~ whatever -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  13:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Block warning
Vandalize the clerk's office again and I will block you Raul654 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since my previous message didn't sink in, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Raul654 17:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * convenient how you left the message AFTER I had made my second reversion and then blocked me for said reversion.. there was no "you have no new messages" link when I clicked edit on the talk page, and I edited the talk page after reverting the second time.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I reverted you at 17:16 and left you a warning at 17:17 . You reverted me (for a second time) at 17:21 . Raul654 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well there was no way for me to see the "warning" as I must've already had the tab open. A less authoritarian user would've actually tried talking on the talk page about it and replying to my message instead of abusing administrative privileges to enforce POV - blocking is not meant for that, nor personal disputes, the fact remains that it was not vandalism to put back the proposed policy template back on the page after you removed it, as there was clearly very little knowledge or about or advertisement of the policy by the community and no consensus for this team of unelected "mini arbitrators" to be made. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  18:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And while I'm on the subject, perhaps you should read template:proposed a bit more carefully too. This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The clerks office is not a policy, it's a process. Notice that when I removed it, I didn't put a policy tag (which I would have done IF it had been policy). Furthermore, I would have explained all of this to you HAD you actually asked me instead of jumping right into a revert war. Raul654 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See above. I posted a message on the talk page but you ignored it until after you'd blocked me so I couldn't participate in the discussion. Sneaky move. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  18:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I've decided to unblocked you, so that you may participate in the discussion on the talk page. If, however, you engage in further revert warring, you can expect to be reblocked. Raul654 18:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * my IP is blocked so I can't edit there nor anywhere else apart from here anyway -_-


 * it got blocked when I tried to reply to the talk page message by you there... -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be the autoblocker. I'll take care of it.--Tznkai 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. Now play nice.--Tznkai 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does it all have to be accompanied by threats of blocking? Everyking 23:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because some people aren't too quick on the uptake and need things to be explicitely spelled out for them. Raul654 23:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, disagreeing with you is no grounds for being blocked, so I think it's understandable if a person isn't too quick about catching on to that. Secondly, try talking with people in a reasonable manner for a change, and see how that works. In terms of actually getting to constructive solutions, I think you'll find it works wonders, as opposed to these threats, and the accompanying unconditional language that is designed to assert power, that just deepen the personality feuds that go on. Everyking 23:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

hiya
hey, thanks, dont worry bout it! nice userpage btw ;) wots up? at the sec im making a pizza - how u doing? x XYaAsehShalomX 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * i'm at college at the moment lol.. I wouldn't be, cept I have no internet back at my apartment - just going back home now, no point staying now anyway (see the top of this page link)


 * have steak to eat when I get home yay


 * maybe go club but friends want to stay in today it seems grr. oh well -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

ah, ok :) see ya round i hope, you seem really nice...hope your not letting stuff get to you :( Take care, yeah? xx XYaAsehShalomX 21:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopædia
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please also consider archiving your talk page – it's excessively large. Thanks, --cj | talk 12:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It really wasn't a disruption, given recent events it's evidently a fact. Wikipedia is not democratic despite "elections" which are then rigged to let the Fuhrer (Jimbo) choose the winners anyway, Wikipedia is not bureaucratic, but it is fascism - or a dictatorship - when one single person has the say over the whole organization rather than the community. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it really was disruption. You can call it vandalism if you'd like. The point is, don't be a dick. Regards,--cj | talk 13:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * you're a dick. don't call people dicks, dick. ...See how nice it is? It isn't, is it. Not pleasant - the link doesn't make any difference, you're still personally attacking me. Please don't post on my talk page any further, you're not wanted here. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  13:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Don't be a dick" is a guideline, in fact, which all Wikipedians need to take to heart. You're being pedantic when it suits you, which really doesn't advance any cause you may have. The pair of you need to grow up, or get another battleground.

While I'm here, let's stab a fork at the root issue. You're misguided insofar as to the purpose of the Arbitration Committee elections, which were specifically worked out following a lot of discussion and a straw poll, which stated how things would go. The reasons we can't hold a full-blown democratic election are that Wikipedia is not a democracy and the Arbitration Committee are classed as appointed agents of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation; that is, their position is recognised by the board, and is considered to be official. The community has little power to influence these sorts of external decisions. The compromise Jimbo Wales made was that he would largely follow the trend in the community's wishes, but also exercise his right to use his brain cells.

Refer to dictatorship, totalitarianism etc. Also consider the usual implications of the term fuhrer, popularised in English to refer to Adolf Hitler. Now consider the connotations of your use of the term and consider that certain of our users might take mild to considerable offense at what could be interpreted as likening someone to that man.

I've followed few issues arising over your usage of Wikipedia, but what I can see is the general trend that you don't understand completely What Wikipedia is and what it is not. In addition, the feeling from some of our more experienced users is that you misinterpret the value we place on consensus. You've been rude and abrasive to a multitude of users, many of whom were merely trying to correct your mistakes or help you see what I've spelled out above. You've been blocked several times, and have yet been unblocked.

Why? Because our core principles include the assumption of good faith? Because we're nice people? Because you shouldn't have been blocked? Maybe. Or maybe it's because we're giving you the chance to prove your point; that you are here to help us write a free-content encyclopedia written with a neutral point of view, licensed under the GFDL. Please think about it.

On an unrelated note; your signature produces some five lines of wikitext. This is unreasonable; please alter it. Rob Church (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Seconded) Ian13ID:540053 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Speaking as an admin, I think Selina seems to have a pretty good grasp on what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia's problems are. She goes to extremes, yes, that appears to be true, but frankly, I don't blame her. Everyking 06:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyking: so you support MSK's equating the arbcom selections with the holocaust? --malber 11:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously she was using "fuhrer" in a rhetorical sense to emphasize the problem of Jimbo's individual and arguably abusive exercise of power. Not comparing his actions with genocide. Everyking 12:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See the article on the word Fuhrer. I don't think your perception matches the consensus. When one wants to delve into hyperbole, one must choose one's words carefully. --malber 13:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted though that you don't speak for all admins or for admins as a group. Rx StrangeLove 06:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor do I claim to. Everyking 06:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All intent aside... Führer means "leader" in German, so it is in effect an accurate description of Jimbo. Sorry, just stirring the pot. :) --Scaife 23:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * MSK, please don't vandalise wikipedia further, and try not to antagonise other users so much with your outspoken views on Taiwan and Islam. Any more of the former will merit a temporary block, and more of the latter will likely eventually bring about a RfC or RfArb, as appropriate. It is better to calmly discuss these things than do the kind of edits that you've been doing. It's true that you've given the project some good contributions too -- it'd be great if we only got that stuff. --Improv 14:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Would you consider moderating your comments on User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Jimbo%27s_request? Many of them look to me like personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

About time
I was getting sick of all of this pretence of people treating you well, when really they clearly wanted to boil you in oil so as to hush up all of the problems. Now finally they've done it. It makes them all look like shmucks of course, but finally they've done the unfair ban and we can get on with something else. Wonder how long before they ban Malber and Antaeus Feldspar though? Or do they like disruptive users? 203.26.136.138 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Explanation of Ban
Unfortunately the indefban courtesy of Sean did not include any reasoning whatsoever. What gives? Curious wikipedians would like to know. --Dschor 07:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * you havn't a clue of what you're talking about. Research the situation before you start pronouncing judgement.--Tznkai 07:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * From all that I can see, it appears that MSK has been banned because some admins were offended by her sense of humor. Tell me more?  The edit summaries are woefully inadequate for indefban.  --Dschor
 * Am I misreading this, or did you just reply to his request for explanation with a criticism that he was uninformed? Everyking 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The tone of the request for information was hostile, and sean wasn't the one who banned MSK. Little details like that are things one should know before using accusitory tones.--Tznkai 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed on WP:AN/I. The proximate cause was vandalism on Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and ensuing discussion on this talk page. The history of this user on Wikipedia has been problematic since the first few days (more than two weeks before the userbox kerfuffle).




 * Her edit there was definitely vandalism, but I don't think that's very serious in itself. If an admin can get let off the hook after deleting a bunch of stuff outside of process, I think we can forgive Selina for her inappropriately expressed frustration.


 * Another point worth making is that people seem to be sometimes divided on the blocks because they think she's made some good article contributions; the implication there is that the other stuff she's done, the controversial stuff, has no merit and is bad, and the question is how you weigh and balance the two. I don't think I agree with that perspective. Even if you look at something like that last bit of vandalism, it highlights an important point: what is Wikipedia, if it's not a democracy? I tend to think there are just two basic modes of government, which are democracy and autocracy, and beyond that you're just looking at various shades and mixtures of them (you can amend them with the ideas of, say, "democratic thinking" or "autocratic spirit"&mdash;that's to generalize it, beyond the formalities of the system). So if you explicitly reject democracy, you're left with autocracy, by my thinking&mdash;and this matches the tendency for unpopular (implicitly autocratic) things to be defended with the line "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Rejection of democracy, or democratic spirit/thinking, means an embrace of autocracy to an equivalent degree&mdash;I think this is sometimes blurred on Wikipedia because we talk about consensus so much, but that is the real dichotomy beneath the surface.


 * My point is that Selina expresses an important idea, albeit in a bad way. It's better to look at fundamentals than surface characteristics, so I'd rather focus on the idea there than the edit itself&mdash;I think the idea is something the community needs to look at more closely and do some hard thinking about, rather than targeting Selina like this. I think Selina is, generally, a good contributor with good ideas, but one who goes to extremes. She really shouldn't be blocked indefinitely, although she doesn't need to get away with anything and everything, either. Moderation is important on both sides. Everyking 10:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, no matter how good a contributor she is, she eventually needs to stop behaving the way she is. Personally, I wouldn't do an indefinite ban quite yet -- she may get the hint and stop her disruptive and incredibly offensive edits with a bit more warning and reflection. She *must* learn to express herself in an appropriate way if she is to get along on Wikipedia. If she were in a workplace, doing a "sieg heil" to her boss if he micromanaged would probably get her immediately fired, or calling people in her workplace names behind their back on an internet site would at the very least get her a stern reprimand. Wikipedia is not a workplace, but to a certain degree, the same rules for how we treat each other in civilised society must apply. It does not matter how right she may be in any of the issues she brings up -- if she can't treat people with civility, we can't have her here. I agree that a long/indefinite ban may eventually be called for, but would attempt weaker measures and stronger language first to give her more of an indication that there's a serious problem with her behaviour and that it must be fixed, e.g. a 2 week or monthlong block (with, of course, very vigourous looking for sockpuppets -- I have reason to believe she's been editing from an anonIP since the block). The change, in the end, would need to rest on her shoulders to change, not on anyone else to tolerate her as she is now. If she wishes to contact me in a month and talk with me on these issues, convincing me that she has gotten rid of both her sense of entitlement and her problems with self-expression, then I will do my best to convince enough involved people to go with me that I'll feel comfortable lifting the block into a probation. --Improv 16:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

bye
i havent done any editing at all since the block ("for calling wikipedia fascism") and don't want to.

whatever.

wikipedia is obviously a waste of my time, too many egotistical people who can't take constructive criticism around who enjoy bullying others to compensate for their lack of power in real life.

people like malber and co as well as the admins who support people like that will let wikipedia rot and die from disease in the inner core - it's already well on its way there it seems. :|

(someone has sneakily omitted this from his talk page archive I notice to try hide how I helped, the whole section has been deleted) (referenced on  but these links actually work as they're diffs and the stuff linked to got moved)  --- do those look like the edits of someone who doesn't like wikipedia? shouldn't, because I don't, I want the best for it and I don't think it's currently being ran in away conducive to a good encyclopedia with power mad people working for their own nepotic interests and taking out personal issues on others who they would have no power over in real life.

as for tony sidaway's bullshit one-sided page on his opinion of "why the blocks were made", I already answered most of these and pointed out the actual facts on wikipedia review - he has made these pages so as to try keep only his and his clique's point of view in the picture. See here for where there's already been debate about this kind of garbage: http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1137433578#1137435407

the main objection seems to be that I pointed out the obvious dictatorship here ("democracy? oh, that's "evil". everyone knows totalitarian states are better for everyone!") with Jimbo at the head of it.. and blocked for saying it - which is pathetic.

goodbye and good luck to those who deserve it.. but slimy manipulative corrupt people like tony sidaway, mark sweep, tznkai, zoe and all that lot, well, for wikipedia's sake I hope you die early - there really will be no loss to the world, and syncophantic weasels like you truly deserve it so much. sczenz I thought you were better than this but from WP:ANI you're obviously just another fanboy to jump on the bandwagon of hate if anyone so much dares as criticize Jimbo in any way. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a funny way of "constructively criticising". If any interested observers would like to see what I mean, take a look in the Wikipedia Review forums for her post about SlimVirgin. She found a pornographic image of an obese woman, uploaded it to their site and implied this was what SlimVirgin looked like. I find the block to be well worthwhile, we really don't need editors like this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
I unblocked you. The indefinite block was not justified. However, you seem to have made a significant number of enemies, and I would suggest that in the future you not change guidelines to say Wikipedia is Fascism. It's not Wikipedia, it's a select group of admins. freestylefrappe 17:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I adjusted it to 1 month. That seems like an appropriate length. --Improv 18:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose that could work. Every time MSK makes a provactive edit, she gets a 30-day time-out. Raul654 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think wishing death on people is enough to earn this block and more. These standards aren't ridiculous, there's hundreded...thousands...of editors that come here everyday that don't feel the need to express the hope that other contributors die. Rx StrangeLove 15:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think 1 month is still over the top, but it certainly is better than a year. I can see how people might be upset to see the lack of compassion for others MSK shows above, but having watched this drama unfold, I can see where she is coming from.  There are some admins that have gone well out of their way to try to make her miserable, and the ill will they have displayed would be difficult for anyone to swallow without some bitterness.  --Dschor 16:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Black_mesa_research_facility.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Black_mesa_research_facility.svg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 08:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

24 hours
Its been a good 24 hours now and the powers that be haven't banned this IP address. Will they bother? Well of course they can't ban all of these IP addresses, because there are too many of them. I will just let them go through and ban them one by one. I don't really care. While Antaeus Feldspar remains unbanned, its irrelevant anyway, because I can't do a thing while that evil minion roams around. He needs to be banned first before I even consider coming back.

>>Removed banned user comment<< Rx StrangeLove 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Before you "consider coming back", you would need to stop sneaking around with sockpuppets like this one, which is what earns you an extension of the ban you earned for creating the sockpuppet to evade the ban you earned as .  And, you'd have to learn to stop making personal attacks, such as calling people "evil minion" because they refused to take it lying down when you told malicious lies about them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for posting someone's personal details, in line with Wikipedia's blocking policy. I'm letting you know because the admin that blocked you,, apparently failed to notify you of the block. (For the record, I don't agree with the block, but feel you should be informed of the block and the reasoning for it). See block log. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have appealed your ban and I hope that Mark or another admin will be kind to you. I think it is harsh for what you did but you have to try to understand that you are not considered a constructive user and admins will treat any breach of policy harshly. Grace Note 11:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked, but please...
You have been unblocked, but what Grace Note said above is true. Your best contributions to the encyclopedia lately have been very minor. That is in itself not a problem. It is a serious problem that you have engaged in egregious incicility and personal attacks. It is a serious problem that you hand out personal information about people's identities on the internet. This, coupled with your activity at the Wikipedia Review board has worn the patience of several longstanding contributors here very thin, if not away altogether. Also, I know userboxes can be fun, but are really not very constructive to the encyclopedia. Effort is better spent on improving articles than on improving userboxes.

Please, if you wish to continue contributing to the encyclopedia, contribute to the encyclopeidia and not the heated policy discussions or userboxes. Please, if you must contribute to the policy discussion fora, do so in a non-accusatory tone. Please, if you must criticize another admin, do so with the same assumption of good faith so many have now shown when they have unblocked you. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That means: be glued! El_C 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One wonders if she will have to wear the patience of all 804 admins, the arbcom, Jimbo himself, and a partridge in a pear tree before something permanent is done. -- 16:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was here 2nd! El_C 16:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * :-) El_C. I've been watching this drama play out at WP:ANI but unfortunately the cable's out and someone deleted the page! I wonder how long before selina deletes my comments from here 'cause I've been "banned from her talk page!" -- 16:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit: It's back now. malber 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamist POV
Thanks Selina, I actually was in effect aware of that... the intention of my posting that editorial comment was moreso to bring the other editors on that article in on what's occuring. Cheers! Netscott 17:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Poison Ivy
Before reverting reversions to your additions that have been reverted by multiple people, please look at the discussion page. There may be a relevant discussion going on there. If not, try to start one! Avert reversion wars before they start. Give peace a chance. 204.69.40.7 21:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Desperately Seeking Selina
Welcome back. Send an email my way when you get a chance, yes?-Disposable0008 23:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Block duration
I convinced Raul to reduce your block by half. See you in a month. El_C 02:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That certainly didn't take her long. 24.62.27.66 03:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How the fuck does linking to AN/I constitute posting personal information? Rogue 9 15:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the edit summary here. --Improv 05:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And if someone's harassing me, I'll call him out by name too. Accountability is a good thing.  My userpage doesn't list my name, but someone could find it out simply by e-mailing me, and could even get pictures of me with a little Googling and digging through forums.  Total anonymity is the bane of the encyclopedia.  Well, one of the banes of the encyclopedia; the multiple policy flaws dictate that it has several.  Rogue 9 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "And if someone's harassing me, I'll call him out by name too." Then I'd say you can probably expect to be blocked, too.  Revealing someone's personal information is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, and it doesn't become acceptable once you say "well, this person was harassing me, so instead of following the procedures Wikipedia has to handle harassment, I decided to take my own revenge." -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Eminem303.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Eminem303.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 18:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Accidental template use
You have posted the following markup to a number of user talk pages:

$)$

While I suspect you intended this as some sort of smiley, it is actually a transclusion call to a deprecated template. Please don't do this. Thank you. John Reid 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)