User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2006 February

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ice cream 2 RfA 3 Concerned 4 Thanks 5 Please review motions in my case 6 Your wikibreak 7 Damn, you removed it 8 Katie Holmes 9 Assist with Junichi Kakizaki 10 egregious username vandal 11 Empty chair in clerk committie 12 Brainhell unblock 13 Thank you 14 Happy Valentines Day! 15 My sincere apologies 16 User:Bonaparte 17 Re: RFAr 18 ALP userbox 19 Comical hypocrisy? 20 About an old CheckUser... 21 The Deletion of User Boxes is against the major goal of wiki 22 My comment was removed 23 “Inflammatory” 24 Edit summary 25 Mega Man skills and attacks 26 Leaving 27 WP Illinois Userbox 28 Urgent CheckUser request 29 An apology 30 Blocking Me 31 Romans, countrymen, Liz Taylor, lend me your beers ... 32 Have you seen this?

[edit] Ice cream

Ice cream is tasty. Your thoughts? AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the flavor. Durian, for example, is really kinda unpleasant. And while I've never had it, I don't think I'd much care for chicken. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Having expressed strong opposition to my first nomination you may wish to comment on my second.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned

What do you mean by saying you're no longer participating in any aspect of the Wikipedia community? Does that mean you're leaving the project or taking a break, or does it mean you're going to focus on articles and stay away from policy and such? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that the community does not want your services. There are plenty of people who support you. However, I agree that the politics and so on of Wikipedia are quite a drain and not very productive, for the most part. I, too, am trying to cut back on my non-article involvement, especially given my limited time. (I haven't been very successful, though.) But I'm glad that you will continue participating in the most important (the only important) part of Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for stepping down from the Head Clerk's position. I suspect this action will help to restore community confidence in both you and the Clerk's office. It took some courage to give this up for the good of the community. My own opinion of you has improved significantly as a result of this decision on your part. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please review motions in my case

Thank You. Zeq 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your wikibreak

I just wanted to say that I hope you decide to come back someday. You're a good editor with useful knowledge. It is very unfortunate that your ideas and personality really did clash with a bunch of other users (and I still think they went a little too far in complaining about you being an ArbCom clerk, which I view as a rather basic clerical job with not that much power). But in opinion, your heart was always in the right place. Take care. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second that, Kelly. I disagreed with you about the userbox deletion, but I was not at all comfortable with the extent to which the community kept kicking you afterwards. I am very much aware of the dedication you have given to Wikipedia. I'm sorry that the last few weeks have been distressing for you. While I have no direct experience with you, I notice that you have the respect of several Wikipedians that I respect. I hope that you'll stay, and that things will look up for you. Best wishes. AnnH ^(talk) 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll third that. Like Ann, I have not always agreed with your actions, but I hold the utmost respect for you as an editor. I've been meaning to write you a note like this for a month now, but I was never sure how to phrase it, given my role in... well... this whole mess. Piggybacking on the statements of others after so much time has passed, I suppose, doesn't speak very highly of me. But, regardless, I did want to let you know that I respect you a great deal, and wish you the best. – Seancdaug 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I told you on IM earlier, 'ohnoes! Don't leave!' — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damn, you removed it

You just had to go and remove that Mr. Burns quote on your User page didn't ya? What's the whirld coming to? Freedom of expression is really taking a sh-t kicking these days. Before you know it, the whirld will be in flames, fighting over editorial cartoons! Got Milk? Uh-huh! Moooooooo! Wake me up when the warz over. ZZZZZZzzzzzzz Barry Wells 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Make that freedom of expression, not free speech. I still like the Burns quote better than the Wales quote. More ooomph! Barry Wells 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Holmes

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assist with Junichi Kakizaki

Hi. I notice the majoredit tag on this article, and as you are editing it, I was wondering whther I should ask your permission to assist with the article cleanup and to assist with removing the "Engrish" from this page? I am happy to help, since I have a lot of free time to kill. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 01:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack

Thanks, Kelly Martin. I will get onto de-engrishifying that article. I will set round to that asap. Thor Malmjursson 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack

[edit] egregious username vandal

Hi,

As you may be aware there's a vandal who creates annoying usernames on a daily basis (including "please block me" accounts). The main intent seems to be simply to annoy or perhaps occasionally leverage the blocks into a denial-of-service attack on other users of the same ISP, although occasionally there is vandalism if the request for blocking is ignored [1].

However, some of the usernames in the newusers log do cross the line:

• 05:51, 11 February 2006 User:Lets take turns raping Jennifer Lopez
• 21:43, 9 February 2006 User:Lets rape and kill Shanel!
• 20:44, 7 February 2006 User:Lets have a rape random women party!
• 21:35, 6 February 2006 User:Lets rape Janet!
• 23:52, 4 February 2006 User:Lets take turns raping Shanel mom!
• 18:21, 4 February 2006 User:This User Has Raped Shanel Twice
• 21:37, 20 January 2006 User:Let's fuck and rape Shanel and JoanneB
• 21:22, 19 January 2006 User:Lets rape Shanel and JoanneB
• 21:16, 19 January 2006 User:Lets rape Shanel
• 04:51, 14 January 2006 User:Lets fuck and rape admins

There's plenty of other garden-variety harassment with other usernames, but the names above are probably egregious enough to prod an ISP into action when they might otherwise be inclined just to shrug.

Do you feel motivated to do something about this, eg formulate a formal terms-of-service complaint to the ISP? In addition to checkuser, the crucial requirement for any person to do this would be the ability to speak officially in Wikipedia's name in dealings with the ISP... I presume Jimbo still holds you in the same confidence that he did when he originally appointed you to Arb Com, so he might see his way clear to grant you that authority. Anyway, it's just a thought. -- Curps 07:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As the subject of many of these attack names, a complaint to the ISP would be nice. --Shanel 07:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empty chair in clerk committie

I see you have stepped down from the clerk committie as well. Ms. Kelly, I am appalled at this, and it is most unfortunate. I find your strict, regulated, structured thinking an asset to the community as well as the arbitration committie. Per your answer on another fellow's page regarding your reasoning for stepping down, I am estatic you keep the encyclopedia at the top of the your piorities, but to this end, I believe the community contributes to this fact. I inquire you rethink your withdrawal of the clerk chair; your name is still engraved upon it. :) -Zero^Talk 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brainhell unblock

I cannot believe this. Take a look at this guy's user page and at his notes to Robert. If he stays, I go. It's as simple as that. - Lucky 6.9 06:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Please not that I have deleted my pages. I only came back to see whether or not my talk page has remained deleted; apparently it has not. No matter.

[edit] Thank you

Thank you, Kelly, for your help. Brainhell 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Valentines Day!

♥ Happy Valentines Day! ♥ May your days be filled with Wikilove! - Quadell

[edit] My sincere apologies

I noticed people adding content to your page after your last edit, and I read a comment relating to your not involving yourself in Wikipedia at this time. I did not mean to overstep my bounds, I thought your page was being vandalized from a comment in the history ("vandalizing with a picture of a dick" after your last page update). Netkinetic 05:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bonaparte

Bonaparte returned to turn Alex Bakharev's latest nomination into a new sockpuppetry circus. The bureaucrats seem to recuse from taking action against him. Please put an end to abuse. --Ghirla | talk 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This ghirlo is really obsessed with Bonaparte. Maybe he is a sock of him...You may check me or others as well, I'm clean. But this ghirlo sees in every oponent troller, vandal and more Bonaparte. Who cares about Ghirlo? nobody, he is just a duck. --Yodo 13:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFAr

Thanks for the notification. Please note I've requested a reconsideration of its opening, since it was opened during a period that I was barred from editing, i.e. opened when I was unable to submit my statement. — Instantnood 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ALP userbox

I won't comment as to the appropriateness of the tag, but I think your edit summary on this is misleading. Your edit was not cleaning up. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake. Sorry. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comical hypocrisy?

===>Explain to me this one So, you're putting divisive tags on userboxes, and then you mock a former head of state on your userpage? How is this not hypocrisy? -Justin (koavf), talk 18:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How am I mocking President Nixon? It's a pun, for pete's sake. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Koavf took "A picture of a dick on your userpage" to be an insult directed at Nixon (who was a dick in more than one sense of the word). Raul654 18:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Some people try too hard to find insult when none is intended, I think. Anyway, the image on my page isn't a template, and it is just a joke. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially since I'm the one who put it there. It's a joke on his name. Chill out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It would've been different if she had put a picture of Nixon with a of dick description on her userpage, but actually inserting a as to make it sound like an insult (a dick), to me, is in bad taste, even if it's a pun. Some userboxes aren't as divisive as this, and I am angered by it. Sorry, but I regret to inform you poking fun at Former Heads of Government does not contribute to a collective and knowledge-based project. They have a point. Just because it isn't a template doesn't mean it doesn't display a POV, which is what this is all about, isn't it? Are you, or are we mistaken? Эйрон Кинни 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

He is indeed "a Dick," just as Ms. Martin is "a Kelly." Note the capitalization, since we're splitting hairs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, we need to replace the image of nixon with something more appropriate. Raul654 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this Dick? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

He's an even bigger dick than the one I linked to above. Raul654 06:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For levity ... actually, that's a d/Dick. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, I put the Nixon image on her userpage, as well of the userpages of several other users with whom I am on cordial terms, as humorous faux vandalism. She didn't put it there; she just got the joke and kept it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

===>What he said That's more divisive and polemical than saying that you think Tibet should be free. That's hypocrisy. -Justin (koavf), talk 18:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"A picture of a Dick on your user page" - May I quickly comment that I do find that a tad offencive myself... Ian13/talk 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

See above comment to Raul654. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You sir (or madam, or whatever the hell you are), are a gutless vandal who gets sick kicks off vandalizing other users' pages by forcefully deleting their templates. A hypocrite and a vandal is what you are. A plague upon you and upon all those who function like you ! Mark my words, our resistance is far from over ! You have been warned, cur ! -Voievod 20:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Um.. WP:CIVIL?? That comment seems totally unsupportable in our collegial environment, and is not comical in the slightest, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found it amusing. Me, a cur! (And for the record, I'm a bitch, not a cur.) Kelly Martin (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How is it unsupported? She does delete templates that are later reinserted into the enecyclopedia. Which means she illustrated bad judgment in deleting them in the first place. I think the comment was very honest. I wish I still had the guts to say it. Эйрон Кинни 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH first the burns quote and now this? They are JOKES!!! Want to know how they help us write an encyclopedia? They make us laugh, laughter helps anything. The userboxes split up the editors into groups, was political, etc. This picture is NOT. It isnt even insulting, his name is Richard aka DICK, so its 100% true. When you see the edit summary of a picture of a dick for your userpage, you think oh great a penis, then get susprised with a picture of a guy named dick. Hell change the picture to ANYONE named dick and the joke is the same. Mike _{(T C)} 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You had to have read above, Mike, they said it was a tad bit offensive. I would sooner take the image and summary off than alienate someone, even if it's a joke. Of course, even if jokes offend certain people, who cares, right?! Let's go make some Jew jokes, why don't we? Эйрон Кинни 22:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About an old CheckUser...

Hi! I' here to ask about an old checkuser process you might remember well. It's about User:Yodo (the request's diff is this). The main problem is that this user is being object of a very hot discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Alex_Bakharev_2 and there is a question about the result the process gave that might end with the personal attacks: Was Yodo's IP an open proxy? If you are able to answer me, please do it on the cited talk page I gave so all parties can see your reply easily. Thank you! --Neigel von Teighen 23:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Deletion of User Boxes is against the major goal of wiki

Wikipedia is, quite frankly, a general source of human knowledge. Deleting user boxes deletes knowledge of individual contributors from Wikipedia, thus lessening the general amount of knowledge Wikipedia provides. I view this as against the main function of Wikipedia, to provide knowledge, for free, to everyone.

Furthermore, I do not think user boxes lead to factionalism. Most Wikipedians are above such superficial judgement, and only rely on contributions. Only if a user is attempting to insert their own POV on articles, will they (usually) be opposed.

I must request the cession of this purge. If not, Wikipedia will lose a layer of depth.

Sincerely, Dylon Martin

Canadianism 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survived for 4 years without userboxes and it had quite enough depth. All of the information can be inserted without using templates (unless they are attack). — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I’ll admit I may have over sensationalized the user boxes’ importance. However, I believe the user boxes add another layer of knowledge and depth to Wikipedia, which is good. Furthermore, this issue is causing divide and the actions are breaking up the Wiki community. Just let people keep boxes on their own pages and have actual article quality focused upon. Canadianism 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that people have used the categories to rally support for their POV agenda? Too much knowledge about wikipedians may be quite devisive. That is why i am anti info boxes and, to tell yout the truth, not that keen on user pages either. David D. (Talk) 06:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of userboxes is more polarising than the userboxes themselves. Many people have on their userpage which political party they support, so for some strange reason as soon as it is in a userbox it is intolerable to power-tripping administrator henchmen of J. Wales. --Rob McKay 05:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's polarizing within a small fraction of the community only. We can safely afford to lose that fraction without any significant impact on the encyclopedia. And losing people who call editors working to preserve the primary goals of this project "power-tripping administrator henchmen" will, frankly, be a net positive to the project. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an blog or an area for self-gratification, group thinking, or an place for sharing personal ideas. What some editors have lost site of is the fact we are here to contribute to an encyclopedia. If the userbox in question does not contribute to this goal, then they must be deleted without a second thought. What some people are trying to personify on the site is an ideal of free speech and babbles on their userpage at the extent of disruption and imflammatory content. This is not acceptable. Absolutely not. Perhaps some editors who fail to see the true goal of wikipedia should turn their interests elsewhere. -Zero^Talk 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source of human knowledge, verifiable human knowledge. In fact, it is an area where anyone, for free (requiring, of course, that they are connected to the internet) can attain a sum of this knowledge. Furthermore, most user boxes are descriptive as in an article and are used as self reference. They do not appear to harm Wiki that much and I haven’t noticed sudden increases in POV editing. Quite frankly, I think this unilateral, rouge admin mass deletion of Wikipedia User boxes is more divisive. User pages are separate from the main encyclopedia.

Furthermore, when I write on my user page, I am in an entirely different state of mind than when writing a Wikipedia article. I was once accused of a POV, but that wasn’t even my POV, it was the opposite!

Quite frankly, I find such intolerance of opposition on Wikipedia to be frightening. I really don’t think eliminating those with unfavourable opinions of administrators would help this project. If anything, Wiki would become like a paper encyclopedia or Encarta.

This conflict will have severe repercussions on Wikipedia. Many contributors’ Wiki stress is on the rise and many are talking Wiki breaks. Even as I type this, my Wiki stress is increasing. I don’t think the great user box purge is positive and I don’t think Wiki should be so exclusive. It should be a source of (on the main encyclopedia) Neutral, verifiable, human knowledge, not a bureaucratic and strict Encarta like encyclopedia.

Canadianism 06:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Describing your social or economic opinions or allowing others to acknowledge them isn’t bloging. This is, quite frankly, just being honest and exposing potential biases that we’d find out sooner or latter. Furthermore, Wikipedians have shown that political divide isn’t a factor. Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Socialists, and all the likes have came together in opposing your rouge, unilateral platform, based mainly on some statements Jimbo made. Self references certainly do not harm Wikipedia and are disconnected from the actual encyclopedia. Wiki isn’t a bureaucracy and self descriptive templates problems don’t match the hype administrators have been putting on them.

Furthermore, Wiki isn’t about a sole authority figure, even Jimbo, unilaterally directing things. Wiki is about a community and collaborative effort. A few Administrators shouldn’t have absolute power and Wiki must foster discussion to succeed.

Canadianism 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I must correct a couple of misapprehensions of yours. First, Wikipedia is about an encyclopedia, not about "community" or "collaborative effort". Those latter things are tools we use to write the encyclopedia; when they fail to help with writing the encyclopedia, they can and should be curtailed, restricted, or discarded entirely. Second, allow me to quote Jimbo: "Most people outside wikipedia believe that debates within wikipedia must always be roughly 'the party of the left' versus 'the party of the right' whereas _we_ know that it's something like 'the party of the calm, friendly, tolerant and reasonable' versus 'the party of the jerks' -- and that no particular ideology has anything like a monopoly on jerks." Which party are you in? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That’s peculiar, as I thought that the communitarian-collaborative effort was fundamental to Wiki and what set this encyclopedia apart from more cabal like ones. In fact, the Wikipedia:Wikipedian article states:

“Wikipedians are the people who write and edit articles for Wikipedia. Some might think that Wikipedist would be a more appropriate name, as an encyclopedist is someone who contributes to an encyclopedia. The ending of Wikipedian, though, suggests being part of a group or community. So in this sense, Wikipedians are people who form The Wikipedia Community”

Are you saying if our current method of article writing fails we can start doing what Encarta does? That really doesn’t sound Wiki to me.

I’ll quote the Consensus Manifesto:

“Wikipedia has a serious problem. Administrators believe they have the right to speedy delete any political userbox they disagree with, and unfortunately, they do have the power. Not only do they delete political userboxes, but they delete any userbox that is critical of their actions. This is a serious problem and it has to be stopped.

They are using a new dictate by Jimbo that makes "templates that are polemical or inflammatory" worthy of speedy deletion. This new policy is refered to as CSD T1. First of all, we as a community should not recognize Jimbo's authority to dictate commands that fly in the face of previous group decisions. Wikipedia should be run based on consensus as much as humanly possible, and one person disregarding the opinion of thousands is NOT consensus. And even Jimbo has said that this policy should be eased into slowly to keep things like this from happening.”

As for your Jimbo quote, I’d like to say the reasonable, however self-examination usually ends in a POV.

Canadianism 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I’d also like to comment on those who claim Userboxes have no utility or function. Quite frankly, they decorate your user page and give others a unique or humorous glimpse into your state of mind, and in my opinion, this is a good thing for Wikipedians to do. I’d also state that your User page has a picture of Nixon, calling him a “dick”. This is clearly POV and serves no utility what so ever, and won’t help the encyclopedia. Yet, you have it. Why, for humour or an insight into your mentality? If so, this is the same function of the user boxes.

Canadianism 18:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You say that userboxes divide the community and result in factionalism, then how can you explain Liberals and Conservatives, Atheists and Theists, Europeans and Asians, can you explain their working together to mutually save one another's userboxes, even though they may disagree with the others' views? The only two philosophies that don't agree on this and are exclusive of it are the obvious ones, Inclusionists and Deletionists, and I'm afraid you're the latter. Эйрон Кинни 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea, you're going to lose a lot of good, and worthwhile editors because of this, and you say it doesn't matter? We'll see when vandals mess this encyclopedia up and all the editors will be gone, and the ability to rv vandalism will be lost. Then will it matter, when in all Paris Hilton and Courtney Love articles, it simply says one word, "whore." Then what will we do? This is creating more division that there was with the userboxes, this isn't necessary. Эйрон Кинни 20:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My comment was removed

User:MegamanZero removed my message on your talkpage and said that I was trolling. I think you should be the one to judge what should be on your talkpage. --Candide, or Optimism 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The troll is right. The oringinal message can be found here. -Zero^Talk 21:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You should mind your own business and not call other people for trolls. Especially if you don't know what you're talking about. --Candide, or Optimism 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero does sound a tad bit rude when he directly, without any rationales, called you a troll Canadianism 21:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Instead, he lets you do the dirty work." sounds quite rude as well, and could summerized as an personal attack. However, two wrongs don't equate to an right; for that I apologize. -Zero^Talk 21:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “Inflammatory”

Note: This is a modified version of a message I sent to Jimbo Wales.

Kelly, you have opposed “inflammatory” user boxes, due to the fact they divide the Wikipedian Community. However, what is absent here is a definition of “inflammatory”. “Inflammatory” is a rather individual and subjective term, unless you can define it.

For instance, some may find photographs of reproductive organs as “inflammatory”, while others may find censoring this information as “provocative”.

Some may find homosexuality “inflammatory”, while others will find homophobia “provocative”.

This is the same for userboxes. Some may find socio-political-religious related items “inflammatory”, while others will find not including such information and possible biases as dishonest and “inflammatory”.

This hole in the term is an issue. And, until you find a universal definition of “inflammatory”, will keep my inflammatory “” user boxes on my talk page.

My sense of the way to solve this loop hole is to simply ignore user pages. Quite frankly, what’s on a Wikipedian’s user page is of no concern to the encyclopedia. Wikipedians know how to separate their encyclopedic work from their Wikimedian opinions.

I won’t eliminate my userboxes, as there isn’t a universal definition of “inflammatory”.

Sincerely Dylon Martin

Canadianism 23:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruption and for declaring the intent to continue disruption. I hope you take the time to reconsider your intention. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where he was being disruptive. He asked for a clarification on the definition of the term. That can't be disruptive. I checked his userpage and found nothing in disorder. I then checked the history of the userpage and I still haven't found anything in disorder. Perhaps I missed something, or, perhaps being an asexual is deemed as inflammatory. In fact, I didn't even know about that term, so I would like to thank Canadian for informing me what an asexual is by placing the word on his userpage! --Candide, or Optimism 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew this was going to happen eventually. First they delete the userboxes, then they delete the new userboxes that express discontent with the deletions of other userboxes, then they delete the categories of wikipedians who support userboxes, then they actually block a user who is making good faith attempts to work out the problem and is doing nothing more than voicing an opinion on policy. I will assume you are acting in good faith, but this can very easily be viewed by some as censorship and dictatorial control and I suggest you make ammends or explain how this is actually disruptive. The Ungovernable Force 07:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

She claims that the guy was being disruptive, but how was he being disruptive? I asked that question and got no explanation. The guy simply said that he will keep his userboxes, because the definition of the term "imflammatory" doesn't cover his material. How is that disruptive? --Candide, or Optimism 07:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a disruption either. I debate Dylon all the time, and we may not agree on several things, but this is pathetic. I pity Wikipedia. Since when did constructive criticism become disruption? I get blasted for intolerance, yet when someone does something an admin doesn't like, they block them. Obviously and clearly an abuse of power. I suggest we act on her authoritarian antics and move towards taking her off the power pedestal. Эйрон Кинни 09:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, I think your decision to block Canadianism for 24 hours was quite inappropriate. I think everyone should be a bit more flexible and loose here, rather than being scared to state their own opinions about certain issues that concern the community. Canadianism was polite and made a genuine comment, not some sort of trolling disruption. I thought we were a free community that vibrantly and collectively worked with each other to produce the best free encyclopedia out there. Clearly not. Ronline ✉ 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And even if the guy tried to protest by keeping his userboxes, he should still be allowed to do that, and not be blocked. --Candide, or Optimism 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hi. I've recently found a number of edit summaries on my watchlist starting with "AWB assisted ...".

Starting your edit summary with a link promoting some software makes it slower for me to scan my watchlist. It's also frustrating because I can't even run Windows software on my computer, so it feels a bit like you are spamming my watchlist (no offence intended). Would you mind setting your AWB software so that it doesn't add the promotional link to the edit summary, or at least so it puts it at the end, like "... using AWB"?

If you don't mind, would you also leave a note for the developers whether you agree with me or not, at talk:AutoWikiBrowser? Thanks, Michael Z. 2006-02-20 05:29 Z

There is no option for doing so in the software. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Man skills and attacks

Hmm...I am beginning to think you are more interested in video games and their articles [2] than you let on. :) -Zero^Talk 07:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what this really demonstrates is that the people who edit video game articles can't spell worth a damn. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In my case, well, obvously I deny that completely and this will be demonstrated in the rebuttal regarding the overall quality of the article. :) -Zero^Talk 13:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you SURE you're not a sockpuppet of Tony?? (KIDDING!) Kelly's right though. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course she is. I'm merely saying that when I constructed the article from the ground up by myself at the beginning, spelling wasn't my primary concern. And matching socks are great for fashion. :) -Zero^Talk 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the article and table information took an entire week to construct. However, now that that's evicerated, we can now concentrate on copyeditting and the like. -Zero^Talk 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I primarily edit video game articles and I like to think I'm a decent speller. It seems like we CVG editors sometimes get the short stick around here, although I know you said that in (half-)jest. --Pagrashtak 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving

I just wanted to let you know that I have decided to leave the project for a number of different reasons including the fact that the project has gone way downhill since it's inception and the fact that nobody is civil to each other any longer but before I went I just wanted to thank you for your help with everything. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP Illinois Userbox

I get the impression that the WP Illinois userbox on your main page, isn't really a userbox per se. Is that the case? And if it is a template, where is it in the system? Thanks, Johndodd 07:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a template. I handcrafted it and placed it on my user page. You're free to borrow the code. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent CheckUser request

Please see WP:RCU regarding User:Bowlhover. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

Recently in the debates you made a point about userboxes, and rather than assess your point and make a reasoned response, I resorted to an ad hominem counter-argument, which I regret. Despite some differing views on the execution of userbox policy, I have no reason to think you edit (or opine) with anything but good intentions for Wikipedia. It wasn't a particularly nasty attack, but it was a cheap shot, and was lazy arguing, and I apologize. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 15:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed my earlier comments. I have largely withdrawn from this debate, as I feel contributing to the Wikipedia project itself would be more helpful to the project than being involved in discussions which often can get rather hostile. I'm glad to have cleared the air. Again, I regret that our first interaction was a needless attack from me; I hope our further conversations (and any collaborations) will be productive and for the common good. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 16:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Blocking Me

Kelly Martin, I must ask, why was I blocked? I have read the disruption policy, which includes harassment (propagating negative emotions), personal attacks/incivility, as well as modifying comments. I’ve done none of those. Furthermore, disruption blocks are controversial to begin with, so you should have acted with restraint when blocking me. Administrators, in accordance with Wiki policy, must be cautious and act with restraint, especially when blocking. You weren’t, in fact it appears more as if you were rationalizing ways I could be blocked for the most time.

Wikipedia is Sociocratic and requires consensus to run. You blocked me for attempting to gain consensus through discussion, essential to Wikipedia, what differs it from cabals like Encarta. I, must admit, view you as somewhat mildly against Wikipedia’s format. I kind of think you’d prefer a regular encyclopedia or Encrata-styled one. But that’s speculation.

I must ask you, through consensus, resolve or explain your action. If you unilaterally block me again for trying to engage in civil discussion, I will have no chose but to use the policies Wikipedians have at hand.

Sincerely, Dylon Martin

Canadianism 22:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I did act with restraint in blocking you. If I had not, you would still be blocked. Consensus already exists; you're just not willing to accept it. Refusing to accept consensus is disrupting Wikipedia. If you continue to disregard consensus, you will continue to get blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am saying this in the most polite way I can, and this is not meant to be an attack, but I feel you are horribly out of touch with the community if you think consensus exists on this issue (at least consensus for deletion). Just look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. There is absolutely no consensus on this issue--I for one am very oppossed to it. I find it ironic that you are upset about "refusing to accept consensus", considering your actions in January regarding the deletion of userboxes. The ones acting out of consensus on this issue are administrators, besides, debating an issue is not action out of consensus, it is merely trying to forge a new one (or in this case, articulate the consensus that currently exists). And even if he was the only person who thought that way, he should still be given a warning before being blocked. If you do something like this to him or anyone else again, I too will make sure that some form of formal action is taken. Again, this I am trying to be as respectful as possible, but this is just not acceptable. The Ungovernable Force 01:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of "disruption" doesn't appear to fit the actual Wikipedian policy. According to the policy, disruption is:

"Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks. Users will normally be warned before they are blocked".

Does not appear to pretain to me. Canadianism 03:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romans, countrymen, Liz Taylor, lend me your beers ...

Thought you were hankering for a Roman "Dick" on your user-talk page, a Dick with a legendary love for the grog. Cheers! Barry Wells 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have you seen this?

Have you seen this? They're bringing back userboxes! --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)