User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle

[edit] 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 Zordrac (talk • contribs) to evade the ban you earned as Internodeuser (talk • contribs). 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)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for posting someone's personal details, in line with Wikipedia's blocking policy. [1] I'm letting you know because the admin that blocked you, MarkSweep (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), 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) | (contribs)} 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)

[edit] 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. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 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!" -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit: It's back now. malber 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Desperately Seeking Selina

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

[edit] 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)

And I'd still be right and you'd still be wrong. There's no reason why addressing someone by name should be against the rules and every reason why it should be permissible and encouraged; the policy is arbitrary just to be arbitrary, and is therefore null to any reasonable person. I would reveal my name for any legitimate and most illegitimate reasons. I am, after all, not a criminal nor someone attempting a systematic disruption of Wikipedia, therefore I have nothing to hide. Rogue 9 13:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is not what information you may choose to reveal about yourself, it's about what you may choose to reveal about others. If other people decide not to reveal their name, the present custom is not to violate that wish. --Improv 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Archive

Your talk page reached a total of 272 Kb; such long pages interfere with housekeeping. I have archived comments prior to 2006 March 1 to Archive 1. See: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. John Reid 05:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

I hope you have had time to rest and have thought about your past actions. Please be careful. If there is anything you need you know where you can find me. --Pilot|guy 22:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to stay out of trouble, Selina. If you feel pressured or angry, feel free to contact me at my email address, but try to avoid yelling at other editors. I don't think you really enjoy it and, as you know, you can't fight the power here. Grace Note 23:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back from me as well, if you need any help, contact me on my talk page. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Im going to be one of your mentors once your unblocked. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been reblocked

2006-05-28 23:30:06 SlimVirgin blocked "Mistress Selina Kyle (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (restoring block as this was not discussed; this user has been extremely disruptive and was never a useful contributor)

as the wheel turns. See discussion on WP:ANI. Kotepho 23:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blu_Aardvark_and_Mistress_Selina_Kyle:_unblocking (at the bottom)

To anyone reading this can you please point out this, because what SlimVirgin is saying is blatantly false and just an attempt to smear me as some kind of vandal (when I am definitely not):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle?oldid=47363392#A_list_of_some_positive_contributions:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mistress_Selina_Kyle?namespace=0

Also remind her that Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks/Extension is NOT policy and likely never will be, and even if it was you can't attack me just for helping run a forum where some other people have said nasty things - I myself usually are the voice of reason there...

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"I would also like to make note that I informed Jimbo of this decision, to which he did not have any problems (he told me "good luck")" --Linuxbeak on WP:ANI --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do have this page watchlisted, but there are about 5 different tempests in various teacups going on at the moment. Kotepho 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

Ok, so you are re-blocked, again, indefinitely? I missed the incident that led to this. This user was under mentorship with an admin, and being watched and given a new chance to become a productive wikipedian. I know there was some wheel-warring by SlimVirgin, but she has now left Wikipedia. So, what happened with the mentorship and what did Selina do to get blocked again, this time? I don't see any new notices.Giovanni33 02:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Shutting down your attack/harassment/stalker site might go a long way in convincing people that you are serious about becoming a valued contributor. You have the power to do the right thing. Pull the plug on that dying wasteland. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 03:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Which site is that? If it is the one Im thinking of, I note they did ban the user who did post info and engaged in stalking. This is as it should be. There is no need to shut down the site as a whole unless the idea is to suppress any critical thought outside of the control of Wikipedia. I think that is wrong and smacks of totalitarianism. Giovanni33 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This site is all about harassment, intimidation, and blackmail, not criticism or "review." -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to be careful on how you word that. You paint everyone who uses the site with the same brush. It's generally a bad idea to make generalisations. I'm a member of the site, and the only attacking I ever did was use the phrase, "such a**holery". I haven't "intimidated" or "blackmailed" anyone, and I'm a member of WR. — Nathan ^(talk) 06:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like guilt by association you may wish to be careful who you associate with. You may also be mindful of Selina's homophobia if you check what she changed by avatar to. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a homophobic bisexual..... ROFL

I changed it to that because I knew it would annoy you - most 12 year olds cartoon fans are homophobic - I succeeded, because you bitched that I did it for days afterwards. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• This suggestion seems a little bit too close to blackmail to really feel right. Whether MSK is to stay on Wikipedia should depend primarily on her behaviour and contributions to the project. I don't think it's a healthy thing for us to bring conduct outside of our walls into this process unless it connects to a policy violation. --Improv 18:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Removed personal attack by Malber (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Malber has been banned from editing this page since January because of his constant personal attacks against me, and previous vandalism of this talk page (which he has been blocked for, see his block log and talk page). See User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle/Archive1#Harassment_and_bigotry_by_malber, Template_talk:User_Aspie#Useful_Category.3F and Template_talk:User_Aspie#Autism_Spectrum_Disorder. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • (this is in response to a (removed) statement by Malber that it would be a show of good faith to take down Wikipedia Review) I understand the idea behind your statement, but I think that unless things on external sites violate policy (e.g. the IRC logging thing), we should be very reluctant to ask that our participants keep their off-wiki discussions on Wikipedia within boundaries. I've visited Wikipedia Review a few times, and think that it's largely a place for problem users to let off steam, justify their actions to each other, etc, all in a generally nonproductive way. By and large, it's a cesspool and a waste of time. However, it's still their site, not ours, and so far any requirements on our users for off-wiki conduct have been very minimal (the IRC logging example again comes to mind). I think we should be very wary of making such demands, both in the general and in the specific, as a number of people (myself included, despite my many years time here) would become turned off to the project very quickly if we felt that Wikipedia policy might act to judge our personal lives in a significant way. There are some kinds of activities that are "asking for it", such as posting personal information gathered on-wiki, posting #wikipedia IRC logs, and similar, but ordinary (and even extremely childish) criticism and the kind of stuff that goes on at Wikipedia Review is generally of a different character, and something that I think we should not consider off-limits for our users. --Improv 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

She doesn't ban people who defend Wikipedia from the forums either. That's not quid pro quo. We don't block people just because they criticise Wikipedia, or host a site in which OTHER people post such material. Of course, she as a moderator has a power to regulate that material, but it doesn't affect her status as a contributor. It is true, there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, but beyond that it is plain ridiculous (for activities committed OUTSIDE Wikipedia). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, she has banned several IPs from Wikipedia contributors from even viewing the site. She also doesn't allow those with gmail or yahoo e-mail addresses to register. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about himself here of course, since only him and Amorrow are banned. Two of a kind, really.

What part of "She doesn't ban people who defend Wikipedia from the forums either." don't you understand?

Malber was banned for spamming the board with photographs of penises. That's not "defending Wikipedia" except from his skewed "wiki-terrorist" perspective (as well as the others who have been planning attacks in #Wikipedia). --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, I was banned, Grace Note was banned, Golbez was banned, my IP address was given to Brandt, et. cetera, et. cetera, et. cetera.... -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see you're continuing to troll...:

Golbez was never banned, he quit because people he couldn't take the pressure and is "scared" (see his most recent posts, and "Last Active: Today, 3:49am".

Your IP address was never given to Brandt, he said he found your real name for Hivemind via Google (on the WR topic about it), you can't blame anyone else for that but yourself for that. I'm pretty sure you're just trying to get me to link to it to get an excuse to get my talk page protected.

So yeah, yet more lies from banned troll Malber refuted. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Curious how he got my home town without geolocation of the IP address. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your problem not mine. probably something to do with those posts on newsgroups about backgammon or whatever. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested your user page for unprotection

Just so you know, your page should actually be intact but the admin who blocked you, Dmcdevit, has vandalised your page:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Cprotection_log.7Chistory.7Cwatch.29 (>diff<

[edit] Irish History

You seem like you have a lot a knowledge with respect Irish history so maybe you would like to comment on the historic basis of this term here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DownDaRoad (talk • contribs) 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).