User talk:KamrynMatika/2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Contents

[edit] WP:RHCP

Yes, I agree that we've both done some great work on getting WP:RHCP a good GA list. I'm going to look over Californication this weekend. Next week I have exams, so I won't be on too much, but we should certainly discuss Cali's FA possibility sometime soon. Best wishes, NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user page

nah, it's just a joke. Is that stuff not allowed here at Wikipedia or something? >_> Xihix 15:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry my humor isn't the same as yours. Xihix 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xihix RFC

You may be interested in viewing the request for comment on User:Xihix and perhaps certifying the basis for the dispute. CloudNine 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we wait for others to get involved (I've left messages at other talk pages), and a third party will then come along and arbitrate as such. CloudNine 08:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hi Kamryn, thanks for your note of support at my RfA. Cheers. Shyamal 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By the Way

If possible, could you aid me in adding some general information to By the Way, such as Release info and other background knowledge? Thanks, NSR77 (Talk) 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an exam tomorrow but I'll try to look at it in the evening or over the weekend :) Kamryn Matika 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Cheers! NSR77 TC 15:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] u2 wikiproject

thanks for letting me use the template. i am only new to this so i need to "borrow" peoples stuff. i know everything is free but i will give u credit if you want. and even if u cant stand u2, i will always be a rhcp fan! smithcool 21:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

there is a problem with the template. where i have the section "templates" i want it on the bottom but it is in the right hand coloum. if you have a change do u mind fixing it. thanks. smithcool 19:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers June 2007 Newsletter

The Red Hot Chili Peppers WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, no. 3 — June 2007
"When I joined the Chili Peppers Anthony and Flea could have said 'Listed, we're the whole thing, and you're just here to play guitar', ya know, but we would have never made a record like Blood Sugar or Californication had they said that to me, ya know; instead what they said was 'You're equal to us...you're ideas are no less important than ours are'." - John Frusciante
News and Announcements
New members

Since our last newsletter was sent in late May, several new contributors have joined the project: Bdifjb, stswil, Kaitonkid, G1ggy , MagnoliaPenn and Smithcool.

Editors

NSR77 TC
Categorized To-Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.


You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or want to receive it in a different form, please contact the publishers. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] Californication

Can't really see why not, either. I added some extensive background and the Tour info last night. NSR77 TC 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw, good work... the article is pretty comprehensive now, I can't think of any more aspects of the album that we've missed. Kamryn Matika 22:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I was willing to work on the article, no matter the amount of work. Thanks for the kind words, though. Regards, NSR77 TC 01:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A message about links

Please see here. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "An ArbCom ruling from eight months ago is not policy. The ruling was made with regards to Encyclopedia Dramatica, and in no way could they have predicted what would happen in the Essjay controversy. This is a completely different issue and situation, as the link is informative and a reader of the article would in most instances be likely to be interested in it. Really, I can't believe we're letting personal grudges get in the way of our encyclopedic integrity and stop us from following our mission statement (i.e. to provide a free resource of knowledge) and give a non-comprehensive view of a topic. The blocking was almost certainly unjustified, as the ruling doesn't even define what an 'attack site' is, and the link I reverted to doesn't actually contain an attack. Kamryn Matika 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "You have been warned by an admin not to link to an attack site. You can discuss on the Talk page if you disagree, but to link despite an admin warning is unacceptable behavior. — Crum375 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Oh well if an admin says so. Kamryn Matika 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A nice pincer movement there. Why not take a look at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks while you're sitting on the naughty step. - Nigosh 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, 'the naughty step'. Not sure what happens now. If I re-add the link once my block expires do I get indefinitely blocked? Kamryn Matika 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This essay might be interesting reading too. *Dan T.* 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen and read both, and I vaguely agree, although I don't care much if such links are removed from non-mainspace. Kamryn Matika 01:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I'm sorry, I've had to block you. I left a message on your IP talk page, warning you that you'd be blocked, and linking to the ArbCom ruling that stated that "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." It also stated that users could be blocked for continuing to post those links, and that removals of such links were not subject to 3RR. In case you hadn't seen my message after logging on, I left a message for you here as well, alerting you to the message on the other page. Nevertheless, you went ahead and reposted that link. If you agree not to continue to post links to sites that harass Wikipedians (you don't need to say that you agree with the ruling, just that you're prepared to follow it), I'm happy to unblock you immediately. ElinorD (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to agree to that, as the link in question does not contain any attacks or 'outings' of users. I actually signed up to Wikipedia Review the other day, as the public forums didn't contain any outings that I could see for myself, and even in the private forums I couldn't find any information that hadn't already been published elsewhere. Why on earth would I follow rules that I don't agree with? Especially rules that were formed as part of an ArbCom ruling that had no idea what would happen a few months later. I don't really care if we're not allowed to link to WR in other namespaces, but when this idiocy spills over into the mainspace the only purpose it will serve is to make us look like spiteful navel-gazers to the general public. Will the average reader of Essjay controversy care if WR 'outs' editors? I doubt it (and in my opinion, it doesn't anyway). Will they be interested in finding out how the revelations began? I think so. So I'll wait out my 24 hours, thank you, and the very first thing I will be doing when it expires is submitting a request for clarification to the Arbitration committee on this matter. Kamryn Matika 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your evidence at Charlotte's RfAr

Kamryn, as has been discussed extensively, there is no need to post links to sites that harass Wikipedians, as such links, if necessary as evidence, can be emailed privately to the Arbitration Committee. I have removed the link. As you do not have email enabled, I shall send it to the Arbitration Committee myself. Do not post it again. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence that for any reason should not be posted on-wiki can be e-mailed to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) or arbitration clerk for forwarding to the ArbCom mailing list. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've emailed the link to the ArbCom. I suggest if you have other such links that you feel should be submitted as evidence that you enable your e-mail preferences. ElinorD (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad, it didn't actually occur to me. Not sure why email wasn't enabled, but it is now :) Kamryn Matika 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)