User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2006 April

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Apostrophe Fascist?

How dare you! You're actually prepared to declare that facet of your individuality? I find it quite divisive. (Actually you've managed to write a bio that tells me as little as possible about you. I suppose that was your aim.) Go Habs! Loomis51 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Day Kelly

Hello Kelly Martin, I would like to take this opportunity to share some observations with you. First of all, I am a new user. For several days now, I have been perusing this site and trying to figure out just what to think of it all. I find Wikipedia to be fascinating and curious, and unfortunately very political. Now, being a 67 year old retired professor of American history, I am realistic about personal and political ideas being injected into everyday life, however, I have noticed that there are a few admins who seem to bulldoze (trample) over the rights of many users. I notice in your user page, that you had recently resigned from several posts connected with Wikipedia management. I am sorry to hear of this, and should like to see more people like yourself participating in the structure of this great experiment. Anyway, before I begin to sound like an old rambling prof from the old days, I wanted to wish you the best, and let you know that I have examined many peoples contributions, and consider yours to be above the rest by many degrees.

Professor ShakeAPudn

Yeah, baby, yeah! Flattery will get you everywhere in this whirld! Professor ShakeYourMoneyMaker

[edit] WP:RCU

I am leaving this message to all 10 people at Special/checkuser list. Therefore forgive me for its being impersonal. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for CheckUser#cleanup needed. Your response and/or actions there would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Irpen 23:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color

Since you say you're interested in color, you may find this page of interest: lugnet.com color guide ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein case. Raul654 13:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned

I'm a bit concerned over your use of the block function. While anyone can make a mistake, and the thing with Grue turned out alright since the damage was quickly undone, I'm concerned that you don't appear to see that it was a mistake. If this were the first time, I probably wouldn't be leaving a note like this, but I remember questionable blocking behavior happening previously. I wonder if you'd consider not using the block function anymore? Or, if that doesn't seem reasonable, perhaps seek the advice of others, and let someone else do it in cases that you think might be borderline? I'm sure you mean well, but you're only hurting your own reputation (and, frankly, disrupting Wikipedia) with an improper block. I know adminship is "no big deal", but IMO it's very important that we don't begin to see blocking of other editors as "no big deal". Friday (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFAr

Brought forward from archive

I'd like to know if my request is getting anywhere. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance

I've recently created an entire batch of articles here. You are resonably versed in copyeditting, as well as catching my minor grammattical errors and whatnot, so I thought you might want to go through them. Regards, -ZeroTalk 08:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Today's Wikien-l post

I saw your post today on Wikien-L, in the "admin problem" thread. While my first thought was "who is she and what has she done with Kelly Martin?", I have to say in all seriousness - thank you, that was an insightful and rather brave post, and I think you are correct that things will need to move in a more democratic/parlimentarian direction as the size and influence of Wikipedia grow, at least insofar as "big picture" issues such as the userbox thing are concerned. That is not to say that people who have no interest in contributing to the encyclopedia should be welcome, and I still think consensus should be the normal, or at least the default, operating procedure in article space. But for other matters, I think the direction you outlined is... not so much the best choice, as the only one that will remain realistic as Wikipedia moves forward. PurplePlatypus 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think consensus should certainly be the goal in article space, and I think that, given that any given article will be edited by at most a dozen or so editors (someone generated stats on this that showed that some huge percentage of articles are edited by fewer than ten editors), consensus on any given article should be attainable. However, I think general policies regarding the encyclopedia and the community should be decided upon by a deliberative, parliamentary process, rather than by "rough consensus" (whatever the hell that is). Simply put, consensus does not scale. This is not to say I recommend raw democracy; parliamentarianism depends on reasoned discussion prior to voting, and that's not going to happen in pitched votes held without prior discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not advocating pure democracy, nor did I take you to be doing so. Just some moves more or less in that direction, along with less WP:IAR and more WP:PI. PurplePlatypus 10:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Blocking of Dylon Martin

Disruption. There was none. Please give a better explanation for your blocking of Canadianism other than the alleged accusation he was causing a disruption. It has no support, and your claim has been undermined in several instances. Thus far, you have not illustrated any supporting evidence for your speedy, uninforming block of Dylon Martin. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please reply to my messages, it would be appreciated. Эйрон Кинни (t) 04:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
She doesn't reply to trolling. That's why She ignored your previous discussion. Please focus on something else and let it go. -ZeroTalk 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If I was blocked without proper explaination I would take great offense to such actions and be very upset indeed, which is no doubt how Canadianism feels. He is an excellent contributor and we cannot afford to have administrators banning such people over trivial reasons. --robz0r 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Myth of Consensus

I appreciate your posting of the excerpt of consensus on Wikipedia:Consensus. I've been especially frustrated at how hard it is to delete garbage articles from Wikipedia, and consensus seems to be the worst way to deal with it. If someone invades your house and uses your toilet without your consent, at least you can flush. You can't do that here in Wikipedia. Everyone has to suffer from the smell of Wikipedia's clogged toilet. I'd rather have a unilateral decision on deletion proposals come down from a single administrator than have to deal with the numbskulls who want to keep tripe like Dirty Sanchez (sex), presumably because it's cool, or hip, or edgy. It just seems to me that two or three people who vote constantly to keep articles can override the wishes of a larger group, because of the automatic default to keep. I recently posted messages to several people who voted to keep Sexual Victimization of Native American Women, asking them to fix the article, but they wrote back to me about how much they resented me imposing my views on them. I didn't really care about what they thought personally, and I wasn't trying to impose my views, I was just trying to get a very bad article (which I didn't even vote on) fixed. In the time it took to write their comments on my user page, they could have fixed a sentence in that article, but they were more interested in telling me off instead. Voting to keep something you wouldn't be willing to work on if someone asked you to comes off as pretty hypocritical. This is probably going to keep being a problem for me, and it may make me want to quit working on the encyclopedia, because I don't want to be associated with a project that produces such shoddy work that stays shoddy because no one will do anything.

Thanks for letting me rant. Brian G. Crawford 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java Port of Wikimedia Software

Hi Kelly,

First, I cheerfully acknowledge loss of the Cert War at Advogato. Despite even long stretches of the trust metric being broken or non calculated I have never successfully achieved certification as a master. I go now to post public capitulation at my diary at advogato.org.

I am interested in your java project porting Wikimedia to a Java environment . I have been studying Java sporadically and need a useful focus to my efforts to learn the language. I have little interest in the language for its own sake, I am more interested personally in possibilities implied by peer to peer distribtuted processing with free software components for entrepreneurs with little starting capital.

Do you have a mailing list or online documentation somewhere where I can review past activities or thoughts regarding your project?

Do you have a list of preferred tools (ArgoUML, Ant, etc.) or methods (object oriented, entensible, etc) that I should look over to get started?

If I might presume to make some suggestions .... there are at least a few other Java novices, users, or programmers who have started placing material at the Wikiversity or Wikibooks regarding software development with Java. It might be a worthwhile tradeoff to announce your project there and attract some assistance. Some of them might be interested in a Java version of Wikimedia since they are finding it useful or promising enough to interact at Wikiversity.

Perhaps some code walkthroughs and documentation or reverse engineering with final notes, results or efforts used to improve the Hacking Mediawiki at meta would be useful to getting some initial assistance from the wikitech mailing list. lol Maybe there are some people at wikitech that are tired of learning PHP but have learned enough to be helful? It would be a sign from God if such a person already knew Java well! 8)

If noisy disruptive neophytes is potentially detrimental to attracting high end hacker talent perhaps a two pronged approach could be devised. A learner's list (or portal pointing at the proper Java related pages at wikiversity or wikibooks) could focus on discussion and activities useful to learning Java, creating FDL lesson plans and examples, while possibly helping catch bugs, doing some testing, or trying out alternate ideas. I doubt that I would graduate to the hacker list. Indeed. My primary motivation to participating in the Java port project is to escape the necessary of becoming a PHP hacker to setup and run a reliable Wikimedia derived site for my own nefarious purposes.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding these matters.

Sincerely, mirwin, advogato journeyor

  • michael_irwin@verizon.net
  • en.wikibooks.org/wiki/user:lazyquasar

[edit] write up

Hey. I tried to get your attention on IRC... in the paragraph that starts out "Both Guanaco and Mark..." check to make sure that the sentence that starts "This situation was not so urgent..." says what you want it to... Tomertalk 01:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I don't quite know how to say it, but I would like to thank you for your boldness and excellence in bringing up the recent RfArb case on "Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al". Well-done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Kelly Martin. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 16:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstating Template:User CCW

Hi. I believe you deleted Template:User CCW which stated "This user carries a concealed weapon in their home state, and is licensed to do so." When you deleted it, your edit summary said it was divisive. I would like to ask you reinstate it and reconsider its deletion as I do not feel it is "divisive" in the sense that is being used to justify deletion of many POV userboxes. Template:User CCW doesn't express a point of view -- it simply tells something about the user, namely that they are licensed to carry a concealed weapon and do so on a regular basis. Thank you. Lawyer2b 01:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The "information" provided by this template is not valuable to the process of writing an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the possession of concealed firearms is a controversial topic throughout the world. Given the combination of these two facts, it is my conclusion that this template offers no positive value to Wikipedia, while at the same time creating the risk of a division within Wikipedia. (I can see no practical reason for an editor to declare this other than to express a political point of view, which is a highly disfavored purpose of a user page.) As such, it should not be allowed to exist. There is no reason why Wikipedia needs to provide a generic "warning sticker" for people to put onto their user pages for the purpose of making this declaration. Note also that this userbox would not be permitted under the proposed userbox policy as it fails to be "of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia".
Having considered your request, I feel compelled to refuse to grant it. You may, of course, include within the personal details on your user page the statement that you elect to carry a concealed weapon (in whatever format appeals to you), although I would discourage you from doing so as such statement carries no significant interest to editors of the encyclopedia. I would instead suggest that you declare an interest in firearms or perhaps expert knowledge about firearms; such information would be of use to Wikipedians who need assistance in editing articles about firearms or related topics. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A carnation

A traditional carnation for the 8th of March, from Zocky
A traditional carnation for the 8th of March, from Zocky

[edit] Checkuser backlog

On 10 January you wrote:

I'm not aware of a major backlog. The seven of us with the privilege are not overburdened so far as I know. [1]

The situation seems to have changed since then: there are now 86 unresolved requests on RFCU, some of them going back six weeks to 25 Jan. I don't know what the right fix is - I'm just trying to bring the situation to the attention of all the relevant people. — ciphergoth 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Shes not doing any admin or checkuser actions "Note: If you are here to make a request for the use of CheckUser rights, please make it over on WP:RFCU instead, as I am not actively doing CheckUser requests anymore. Likewise, if you are here to request administrative assistance, please go to WP:AN instead as I am not actively doing administrative actions. Thank you for your cooperation." Mike (T C) 00:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, isn't it...now there's a centralised place for it, the requests pile in. Of course, not all accusations of sockpuppetry need CheckUser intervention; not all can be resolved with it (CheckUser is a limited tool, and only one of many) and there's probably not sufficient reason to use it on about half those requests. Rob Church 18:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay

I will be more than happy not to revert the article as soon as you or another admin explains what is wrong with the revision I posted. How is editing an article to include sourced information from a New York Times article violating Wikipedia policy? Since Jimbo has cleared the article for editing, I don't see how my attempts at revising the article are in violation of the "office" protection policy, either. Thanks. Corax 02:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Problems_with_Orphanbot

Please check. -- User:Docu

[edit] M&M's external link

Kelly, I noticed your tidy-up of this article. Can you get that 3rd external link to work? The one that points to the "m&mswiki"? I can't, but since I use a Mac with Safari browser, now and then things don't work for me. Joyous | Talk 04:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, and I've removed it as it's obviously invalid. Perhaps someone will provide the correct address in the future. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie and Clyde

Kelly Martin I had worked hard on that article, and wanted to thank you for the first rate clean up job you did. I felt you preserved my research and work, while wording it far better. Nice job, and thanks.old windy bear 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dental Floss

Kelly, could you please advise why you deleted the reference to 'FlossFirst' in dental floss? Thank you.

I did not delete any such reference; all I did was correct some spelling errors and formatting issues. The edit you're looking for is this one, by anonymous user 199.88.72.4. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Kelly, and thanks for the correction information. Very new to Wikis - Is there any way I can lock references to my product in, so my competitors can't delete it? Thanks.

Wikipedia is not a marketing resource. Your attempt to market your product was presumably deleted because it was deemed nonencyclopedic, not because one of your competitors deleted it. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] goodbye link

might not be QUITE right. it did not work for me anyway. Maybe this link instead: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye ?? (uppercase B in GoodBye) Normally I would just fix it... but... not sure where I stand with you. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, my bad, thanks for pointing it out. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
np... it is indeed a good read. (and yes, that was a veiled hint... where do I stand with you?) ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hate userboxes

I ask admins to pay attention to the nasty revert warring over a divisive hate templates entitled Template:User independent Chechnya and the fork Template:User Russian Chechnya. Please delete the apple of discord which claims energies of too many editors for constant revert warring. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why Template:User independent Chechnya and the fork Template:User Russian Chechnya are regarded hate boxes, while the others separatist vs unity movements are not. So please, restore these boxes or remove all the regional policy boxes. I do not hate anyone so I do feel offended when someone calls the userbox I am using "hatebox". I do not mind when someone puts the opposite thinking box. Regards and thank you in advance. Jasra 21:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently when revert warring nears the end due to 3RR, the best way to cope with the problem is to ask some admin to come and delete... Too bad. However, given the trivial nature of Ghirlandajo's objections (and definite lack of consensus to delete), I'm thinking of recreating the template. Any ideas? //Halibutt 21:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The nail which sticks up gets cut off. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, their deletion is seen by some (yours truly included) as both disruption of wikipedia and abuse of admin privileges. Does it mean that I should start threatening the admin to do it the way you did on my talk page? //Halibutt 22:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The deletion of a userbox, virtually by definition, does not disrupt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
But in practice, it does. It disrupts more than the people you block for disruption. --Candide, or Optimism 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Buehlmann

His response and his attempting to sidestep the issue. I've responded, and per your suggestion, will probably file an RfC within the next 24 hours.

(Sigh) Why the hell can't people be polite? Interestingly, spot this...I quote from Meatball's GoodBye page:

Finally, beware of the protracted reply. The "I'm leaving!" "No, I'm really leaving." "Well, let me just say, but then I'm leaving." The person is looking for something from the community and thus is extending his or her exit until it appears, and the longer you withhold it from them, the worse things will get.

Anyway, thanks Kelly. Rob Church 14:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to leave. Then I saw AzaToth's admin candidacy, which I couldn't resist to vote. It was a last try to help protect {{qif}} as I think the inventor and template guru Carl would fit nicely for this job. qif is protected but it already happened that an admin broke it by error. Carl is very good and fast at fixing such things. He fixes things like this before others even notice. It would be a good idea to give him the sysop bit, at least until a MediaWiki conditional is available, as Brion agreed. Once again, we now have more than 100,000 pages depending on qif. If someone simply states that he doesn't care about that template, then I'm asking what admins are good for then if not for protecting things like qif. Assuming that Carl would abuse the sysop bit actually is assuming bad faith. And in this special case it might even be a violation of WP:POINT as qif is a delicate thing that must be taken care of. Due to the conflict with Rob Church on that RFA discussion, I then dicided to stay until that conflict with him is resolved. It's as simple as that. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
At what point did I state I believed he would abuse it? Rob Church 17:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
So, what is it that you're expecting from the community, then? It's obvious from your comments that you are "leaving" (as per the commentary at meatball:GoodBye) for the purpose of manipulating the community. So let's talk about this openly and honestly without all the nastiness. Just what is it that you want the community to do differently than it is currently doing? Kelly Martin (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I have no intent to manipulate the community. To be honest: I am tired of the endless and fruitless discussions with and about Netoholic and how he games the system and wastes wikipedian-hours. His "thankless" work in destroying meta-templates by revert warring on the templates. But it might be that I was just a bit naive about how this wiki works. It also seems that my dealings with that matter might have altered my own behaviour here too. Seems like I somehow lost my default cool "assume good faith" glasses after having seen that much of fruitless battles (example: WP:AUM). Wikihate is contagious. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General cleanup with AWB

Hi Kelly,

I've noticed several editors using AWB for "general cleanup," such as removing lines between sections or bulleted lists. Is this a policy or guideline somewhere, or just a personal preference? Personally, I find the new, "improved" versions much harder to read when edititing articles. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More AWB cleanups

The work AWB did on the article Westlock County, Alberta was mostly helpful and useful improvements (spelling, wording, etc.) Thanks for that help. However, adding commas to numbers with more than 3 places isn't helpful. Wikipedia has a policy that articles about a specific place be written in the national variety of English used in that place (see: Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English). In Canadian English a number with more than 3 places in separated by a space, not a comma. Please take this into account when using AWB to correct Canada-related articles. Thanks. Kevlar67 00:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expressed style policy on numbers. PLease see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers_2. I made those changes by hand because they are correct per the style policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess we have two competing style policies. No worries, I'll just have to check some of the larger and older Canada-themed pages and see what they've done. Anyways, thanks for the other help. Kevlar67 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, looks like even the article "Canada" uses the comma standard. My bad. Thanks anyway. Kevlar67

[edit] AWB-Cleanup at Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe

Can I undo your changes (spelling fixes, tidy, and general cleanup using AWB) and then add your corrections manually? The AWB deleted many empty rows which were added for formating purpose. Now the layout looks like squashed at some places in the bibliography section.Weapon X (de) 11:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. You should not be using blank lines for formatting purposes in most cases, so it's likely there's a misuse of markup issue there. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
What would be the alternative to blank lines? <br>-tags?
(Btw: I added the blank lines, until I know an alternative that is the standard in wikipedia.) Weapon X (de) 14:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illinois

Have you ever heard Illinois, by Sufjan Stevens? Excellent music (one of my favorites this year); you might also appreciate the subject matter. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backslash-apostrophes

Are we still to block backslash-apostrophe-ing IP addresses? [2] -Splashtalk 17:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I think you wrote a template for this; could you remind me of it? -Splashtalk 17:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I found Template:CompromisedWebHost. -Splashtalk 17:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I've already blocked the entire /22 that that IP lives in; it's allocated to a hosting center. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, right. Thanks. -Splashtalk 17:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Leaving

Thanks for the quote & link. Helps to get a perspective on things. Guettarda 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Meatball should be required reading for every Wikipedian. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The more I see of it the more I agree with that statement. Guettarda 22:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay

When I think of something more creative I'll vandalize your userpage again. (^_^)

--Dissolve&Decay 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Prasi90, etc

I blocked the associated IP for a month...are these other editors (I didn't know Big boi oi was part of the same group) still editing now? I am on my way out and will not be getting back for 4-5 hours so I will check in with you then. Thank you for your concern in this matter.--MONGO 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kelly for looking into things...any unblock you do is fine with me. Happy editing.--MONGO 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Mutoscope

Your post warning about legal threats on the talk page of the American Mutoscope & Biograph article was removed by user AMBC. I restored it. — Walloon 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki in Java?

Are you serious? -Ste|vertigo 07:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User review

I have restored this template per the exception clause of the undeletion ploicy. This template has been deleted before as a T1 candidate, which has been contested at this DRV debate. The subsequent TFD debate produced a unanimous "keep" result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither TFD nor DRV has any clue what is best for Wikipedia, then. I'm not going to delete it again, but this is the wrong decision. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? I think the reasoning given explains why this is a useful template at the micro level. What is the macro level consideration that we're missing, that wasn't raised in the discussions as far as I can see, that justifies deletion? ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Neither TFD nor DRV has any clue what is best for Wikipedia, then. I'm not going to delete it again, but this is the wrong decision.
Perhaps the most sensible comment I've heard in quite a while. Indeed; since when did wikipedia become a bloody MySpace..? -ZeroTalk 21:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moo!

I've been meaning to give this to you for a while: For all your moo-tivational and moo-ving words in IRC, I hereby award you this Moo Star! Moojay Talk • Contact 14:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SPUI

My ban notice has the basic details, made under the probation which says:

  • 10.2) SPUI's creation of a userbox that referred to previous incarnations of the pedophile userbox was purposely inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, SPUI is banned from Wikipedia for 10 days. Additionally, he is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes. If, after two months, SPUI can demonstrate good behavior, he may appeal the probation.

My decision to ban resulted from a discussion here where SPUI went to moan after being warned on his talk page about incivility by MONGO.

The block log shows the sequence of admin actions. More of course on User talk:SPUI, User talk:HappyCamper and my talk page which is there-> --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backslash/apostrophe-inserting IP account

Hello,

I understand from reading Splash's talk page that IPs from which ensue backslash/apostrophe insertions are to be blocked. I came upon one when I went to look at User:Kotepho's page, and blocked it. I thought I'd alert you to it as you seem to be the resident expert on the matter, and may wish to perform some techno-wizadry on the IP range or something. ;-) Or even reverse the block, if I've erred. Regards —Encephalon 00:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am going to unlock Grue

If the fact that Sjakkale didn't discuss it with Nicholas was your concern, Kelly, I hope you won't mind me lifting the block, since I did ask Nicholas on his talk page to consider lifting it. He hasn't responded so if it's a question of 'discussion' the ball is in his court. Consensus on AN/I seems to be behind Sjakkale and me that 48 hours is too long. (Copied to Grue's talk page, Nicholas' talk page and AN/I so all bases are covered. Please reply on AN/I if anywhere rather than forking it further.) --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)(talk) 20:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My disapproval of Sjakkale's action was based on his unblocking without even notifying the blocking admin. I don't object, in principle, to unblocking Grue, although personally I think Wikipedia would not be harmed in the long run by disinviting Grue. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive User

  1. 07:22, 2 April 2006 Kelly Martin blocked "76.160.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 hour (Repeat range block of abusive user User:Blu Aardvark's ISP. Apologies to anyone affected by collateral damage.)
  2. 07:22, 2 April 2006 Kelly Martin blocked "76.160.0.0/24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 hour (Repeat range block of abusive user User:Blu Aardvark's ISP. Apologies to anyone affected by collateral damage.)

Blu Aardvark says, "Raul, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Malber, and Grace Note are trolls"

Kelly Martin says, "Screw process"

Pleas to be blocking your own IP. --72.160.73.242 08:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you decide?

On Pokemon move: hydro cannon, I noticed that you deleted the RFD ntoice and replaced it with the redirect. Did you decide that the redirect was important and necessary to mantain or what? The discussion on RFD has not been archived or anything... - Hbdragon88 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I just forgot to finish what I'd started. Silly me. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:All in

How do you know my IP? I'm willing to discuss the issue you raised. How do you suggest we go about talking about this in private? --All in 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion?

Could you do me a favour, please. Check the revision history of Republic of Macedonia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and give me your opinion. I think there's more sockpuppetry there than in all other article put together - it's blatantly obvious. What do you think I should do? Edwy (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blank and protect

Please blank and protect my user page and my user talk page, and that of my admitted, non-abusive sockpuppet Hpuppet, as I have left the project. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser and WikiMB (talk · contribs)

Hey Kelly,

Sorry for the long post, it kind of expanded more than I expected.

I noticed you denied the CheckUser request on WikiMB (talk · contribs). You note that just from looking at the contributions, you think it is unlikely that they are the same user. Although I agree that the evidence is mostly circumstantial, I have found more conclusive evidence since the denial of the request yesterday. Although I had no feelings one way or the other initially, I now do feel there is enough to warrant a second look. Especially my last point (discovered while posting this message) has convinced me something foul is afoot (gotta love pirate-talk) Feel free to scroll down immediately to the part about Israel :-). Update: I have found even more evidence as shown below.

Firstly, the manner in which WikiMB (talk · contribs) was created is plain strange. Serbiana was online at 02:10 on March 29, telling somebody to butt out of a conversation. Several minutes later, WikiMB (talk · contribs) was created (as many user are created daily of course). WikiMBs first three edits were to his user page, referring to a subpage of photo's he had uploaded to Wikipedia (which he hadnt yet - how many new users know how to create a subpage?). During the following few hours, WikiMB indeed uploads images (how many new users know how to do that?), and Serbiana is dormant (by the way, note the initials). WikiMB posts his last message on 03:28, and lo and behold, Serbiana posts his first message at 03:33 and continues to edit from that point onwards. This taking turns in editing is a frequently recurring theme.

Second, it certainly is a great coincidence to see both users, both hailing from Vancouver, both speaking Serbo-Croatian (whereas most people call it either Serbian or Croatian). Interestingly, Luka Jačov (talk · contribs) leaves a message on WikiMBs talk page (in Serbo-Croatian) asking: "Serbiana, why do you have two accounts ;)?[3]. This message is promptly removed by Serbiana[4] (why would he want to remove a friendly comment from somebody elses talk page?), only to be replaced later by the same message without the reference to a double account[5]. Although the coincidences are already piling up, WikiMB responds to these edits by defending Serbiana, saying "it is true that Serbiana erased it. He has been accused several times of having sockpuppets (even of being a sockpuppet) and we have talked about it extensively in school, he got angry that someone would attack me of being a sockpuppet and he erased it" [6]. Apparently they also go to the same school?!

Lastly - and this is the smoking gun - WikiMBs pictures seem to have a lot in common with Serbianas pictures. WikiMB posted several photos on Wikipedia here (they're rather nice actually!). I especially enjoyed the sign in the Negev desert of Israel, thought it was quite funny. Now, Serbiana maintains his own website, on which he has posted several of his holiday pictures [7]. If you scroll down, you can see his pictures from Israel. Hey wait a minute, does that picture look familiar? I have backed up the site itself if need be.

I can accept that they are both from Vancouver, both speak Serbo-Croatian, and have the reverse initials. I can even accept that they are from the same school to top it all off. However, I find it hard to believe that both have taken the exact same picture or just happen to have exchanged it. Given these circumstances, I feel that a CheckUser is still necessary to shed some light on the situation. Although I admit that the motivations for the sockpuppetry (to tip the balance in Balkan-related articles, and in a possible future RFA) and the manner in which it is executed are of such an elaborate nature that I wouldnt be surprised if he changed his IP as well.

I hope you can shed some light on the topic. Thanks for taking the time to read all this and hope to hear from you.

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 10:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In my desire to be thorough concerning evidence, I have checked the Serbian Wikipedia where Serbiana is an administrator. you can see his profile here. Now, I dont speak or read Serbian, but with some quick thinking it isnt hard to locate the images uploaded by Serbiana on the Serbian wiki, and more interesting images pop up:
These images, uploaded by Serbiana on the Serbian wiki, are the exact same 24 images uploaded by WikiMB (talk · contribs). I'd be very surprised if these are two distinct users.
Thanks for your patience, The Minister of War (Peace) 15:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

At the very begining, WikiMB said that we go to the same school and we are close friends. The pictures prove nothing.

WikiMB is not my sockpuppet, he explicitly asked me if he can upload my photos from the Serbian Wikipedia, and I agreed. I thought him how to upload pictures, and yes, I even uploaded one for him, so he can see how it's done. If that's not allowed, please tell me right now, and I'll never teach anyone how to edit on Wikipedia ever again. Everything else is thoroughly explained my WikiMB on his talk page. This is not fair, I know that user in person, are you trying to say that two users on Wikipedia can't have personal connections or else you accuse them as sockpuppets? Is that what you're saying? -- Serbiana ₪ 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you have any more questions, I'd be glad to explain, because WikiMB is not my sockpuppet, and I intend to fight untill justice has been done. -- Serbiana ₪ 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

Hello there,

I wanted to inform you I have filed a Request for Arbitration against User:Bormalagurski here. Considering your role as CheckUser admin, I thought you might want to keep an eye out.

Greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 09:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've recommended that the Committee reject the case. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I probably agree with you, the ArbCom may be busy enough. But I posted it on WP:AN/I in the first place to gauge whether there was any idea as to the appropriate course of action. Despite what I expected, no admin actually stepped in to take the lead.
You say that "Given that the evidence is quite clear, arbitration is not required because the appropriate administrative action is obvious". Do you mean a block? (certainly seems like the appropriate course to me). But if so, then why hasnt anybody actually issued one?
The reason I posted this on WP:RFAr is that no admin has actually taken any corrective action.
Hope you can clarify this for me. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 11:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
WikiMB is currently blocked; what more do you want? Kelly Martin (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I dont want anything!!
Listen, I'm no admin, I dont know the ins and outs of the policies (though this is making me learn fast), and I am not pursuing any beef with User:Bormalagurski. I didnt even know he existed until yesterday.
As I started the investigation, I feel responsible for following it up. Now, perhaps stupidly, I expected that there would be some inquiry into user:Bormalagurski. Because of the nature of this whole thing I thought an RFAr seemed logical. If that seems ill-advised, then please: advise me!
Im just the guy who caught him and doesnt know what to do next. Just asking questions concerning what the next step should be. No more, no less. The Minister of War (Peace) 11:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Typically an Request for Comments would be more appropriate at this juncture. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backslashes before apostrophes

Hello, User:216.86.153.120 is creating backslashes before apostrophes. I can't remember what to do in such cases other than notify you. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Such IPs should be blocked indefinitely as open proxies. I'll take care of this one. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in re Restored Gary North et. al.

Thank you for restoring the Gary North article.

Would you consider extending the same (note? protection?) to the other deleted and/or redirected BiNet USA people that were removed along with him?. That would be Luigi Ferrer, Wendy Curry and Margaret Rood.

The situation was extensively discussed with both Liberatore and Ciphergoth using Luigi Ferrer (arbitrary choice) as an example of why these people did meet proper "notability" requirements. And it is my belief that consensus was arrived at and that we are allowed to begin re-adding them.

I see that unfortunately there is a small dispute erupting because Ms. Curry did the actual physical posting of her own article. I do realize that looked inappropriate but it was just a matter of someone having the technical skill and time to physically place it in there.

I would like to just make sure that we all do the correct thing and there are no future misunderstanding and hurt feelings, leading to harsh words or even edit wars, etc.

Thank you CyntWorkStuff 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the note to this article. Is the discussion that led to the article being restored here on Wikipedia anywhere? What's OTRS? Thanks! — ciphergoth 17:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The unconscious is structured like a language

Madam,

I understand (but do not agree with) your impulse to delete the unconscious is structured like a language. Next time, could you use AfD or some similar mechanism, rather than taking it down quietly?

Thanks,

Bacchiad 22:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've redeleted this recreation of previously MERGED and deleted material. All the content in that stub already exists in Wikipedia, in Jacques Lacan, where it belongs. Don't recreate it again. We do not create articles named after the tenets of psychologists except when those tenets are so pervasive as to reach the level of "buzzphrase" (which this particular phrase has not). Kelly Martin (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Madam,
It is a buzzphrase. It's one of the most recognizable buzzphrases in the Lacanian playbook, right up there with objet petit a, the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary and the Gaze.
Now, if your objection is based on naming conventions, I'd be willing to consider a rename to Unconscious (Lacan) or Lacanian theory of the unconscious. But I'm not convinced that naming conventions don't allow this. We have cogito ergo sum, bellum omnium contra omnes, carpe diem.
The linguistic model of the unconscious is central to the thought of not only Lacan, but also Zizek and Judith Butler; and a similar position has been advanced on Wittgensteinian grounds in The Grammar of the Unconscious The Conceptual Foundations of Psychoanalysis by Charles Elder. We have an article on the alleged collective unconscious - i.e. on the Jungian model of the unconscious; why not on the Lacanian one?
Bacchiad 04:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Lacan is NOT in the mainstream of human thought; at best he is a backwater of the philosophical universe. "Cogito ergo sum" has been heard by and is recognized by quite probably a majority of English speakers; "the unconscious is structured like a language" has not even by heard of by a majority of college-educated persons, and, on top of that, appears to me to be little more than random gibberish. Nobody is going to run across this phrase and go "Gee, what does that mean?" because they're not going to run across it. It's just not out there, except in the little circle of people who find Lacan strangely interesting. This topic, while deserving mention in the encyclopedia, is not worthy of its own article, unlike, say, Jung's collective unconscious, which is out there. Lacan's theories simply aren't relevant enough to get their own articles, and there simply is not enough to say about them. Its proper point of mention is within the article about Lacan, which is where I put it and where it ought to stay. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and while I'm at it the other four Lacan-stubs you mention really should be merged or deleted as well. I'll try to make a point to get around to that soon. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making your motivations abundantly clear. Bacchiad 05:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin activity report

Wow, that's sound like quite a good tool. Is there any way it could be done for other wikipedias to? Myself ofcource is most interested in seeing it for the Swedish wikipedia. /Grön sv 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can run this report for any wiki that's available to the toolserver (which means basically all of them except for the ones hosted on the Asian cluster). I'm going to be converting this to a general purpose tool (covering all Wikis) in the next few weeks; watch my toolserver page for an announcement. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Tanck you. I think its gona be fun to see/Grön sv 07:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Shared parenting
P.E.I. Rocket
Injil
Fathers Direct
Mount Arafat
Constitutional right
Family court
WCWM
Jeddah
Islamic science
Mothers Apart from Their Children
Gaetano Arturo Crocco
Musa al-Kazim
Salaf
Tawalla
Divisions of Islam
Jill Pitkeathley, Baroness Pitkeathley
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim
Jahannam
Cleanup
Militant Islam
Seal of the Prophets
Stockholm Palace
Merge
List of neighborhoods of the District of Columbia by ward
Isra and Mi'raj
Quraish
Add Sources
People of the Book
Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.
Nubuwwah
Wikify
Cruise of Deception
Social support
Pool checkers
Expand
Rhythm Nation
Notre Dame College, Dhaka
List of British entomological publishers

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière

I'm a little confused... you have checkuser rights, but on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière you posted:

":Outside comment by Kelly Martin I should like to see the evidence on which it has been concluded that User:-Lumière, User:Lumiere, and User:Étincelle are the same editor. The complaintant(s) are requested to amend their complaint to provide such evidence. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)"

Couldn't you verify whether these accusations are correct...? KI 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether I can or can't is not the issue. The evidence, if there is evidence, for these allegations should be made public. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case. Raul654 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Lest We Forget}}

Why did you delete this template ? SirIsaacBrock 22:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I stated my reasons for deleting it in the deletion log. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
So when did Rememberance Day reflect political intent ? Is this only in your mind or do you have some wikipedia guidelines to support your assertion ? SirIsaacBrock 00:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note here

I appreciate your having taken the time to look into my request for assistance... very much appreciated. Thanks again. Netscott 05:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:1WW

The discussion having stalled (not without plenty of participation first), I suggested archive and refactor; this suggestion uncovered the proposal you worked on recently. I'm glad you're happy with the merge but I still support a refactor; as I said, it may be easier to gather broad support for a single unified proposal. I think all six proposals are restatements of the same basic concept.

What say you? John Reid 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You've introduced a second proposal. Is there anything I can say to bring you around to my idea? If not, can you say why? I think we can work together on this. John Reid 07:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re Help request

hi, I'm new to Wikipedia! Learning as I go, trying to abide by the rules and be a constructive member here. ( I feel like a tattle-tale but..) I've come across as slight problem and am not sure how to proceed. I've been in contact with the band Scarling. while editing their Wikipedia page and I am getting in a pissing match with their ex- drummer User:Gspider/IP address 69.234.30.6 over content. He's basically signed up for Wikipedia to vandalize the articles Jessicka and Scarling. I have asked him to stop nicely numerous times trying to keep the articles factual, but he's very persistent. How do you recommend I proceed?

to user Gspider To Garey Snider: Please stop vandalizing wikipedia's Jessicka article. I have worked very hard to insure all facts are correct and to preserve it's content. I'd truly appreciate you complying with my request or I will be forced to seek other action. I have written email conformation from Scarling. the band that my information is indeed correct! Thank-you. (Bella Donita 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC));

All and any help would be appreciated.(Bella Donita 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC));

Wait, I think I may have answered this question. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I will follow the steps.

[edit] re Help request

"If you want it to say that the member was forced to leave the band, find a source to back you up."

Cool, thank-you for this. I have written email confimation from the band. Would that do the trick? I asked them a few questions reguarding the article here and one of the question asked was, "Was Garey Snider fired?" I also have this article. Scarling. Slug Magazine Thanks so much again for taking the time to answer me. I'm really enjoy contributing to this site! I know I'll get better as time goes on. (Bella Donita 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC));

[edit] thanks

thanks for the assistance - 7258 15:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral damage from the W&M range block

User:Mangojuice has an unblock request on their page as their ip is one of the ones blocked. As you are more familiar with the depth of the W&M vandalism, I figured it was best to contact you. From my interactions with Mangojuice, they are a valid contributor if that matters. Cheers! Syrthiss 17:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not unblock. You may instruct him to speak to the IT department at his university. This block is in place at the recommendation of Danny per WP:OFFICE and will be released once we have had a chance to discuss the matter with the people there. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Okee, I'll mention that on their talk page. Thanks for the quick response.

[edit] My RFA

Many thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, which passed narrowly, but even more so, many thanks for your accurate reply to some of my critics. Another user had advised me not to respond to criticisms and said bad faith critics would be responded to by others, but it was hard to sit on my hands. I think many of the "needs more project edits" et al. type criticism was reasonable enough, but as you seem to have discovered, it was just patently wrong to accuse me of violating WP:OWN, and the Rand edits are mostly citations and copyedits! By taking the time to appreciate this, you came through big for me. Also, I will try to consider your advice about how best to contribute. Many, many thanks. Regards, Kaisershatner 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin reports

Are you still going to develop the adminreporttool even if the en.wikipedia database isnt updated on the toolserver anymore? /Grön sv 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Moot point, as en replication is going now, but yes. I haven't worked on it because I usually do work like this on the weekend and last weekend was tax weekend so I didn't have any time to work on it. Plus there's been some Foundation stuff that's been keeping me busy the past few days. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] check user

As your checkuser led to the block of ROGNNTUDJUU! who, by the way, told me you did not answer his email, and who it turned out just uses the common router of our house I think it would be fair if you could do another checkuser and tell others that friendly users who are willing to help like JamieBattenbo and StabiloBoss are from other countries. These sockpuppet and userbox paranoias annoy me a bit. [8] [9] I even agree that userboxes are not beneficial for an encyclopedia, I just think people should be fair and delete all of them rather than using "userboxes are bad" as a pretext to delete those they do not like. De mortuis... 14:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't run a checkuser on someone simply because you want me to. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
How very civil of you. Thank you so much for your help. De mortuis... 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Petros471

For a more general RfA thanks to all voters see User:Petros471/RFA Thanks.

As I gain confidence I'll probably know when to bend policy a bit if needed. Whilst I do generally think that policy is important I agree that results are what matter! Thank you for your support. Petros471 20:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Have you noticed this bug: if you attempt to make a revision purge on a page that it currently protected, you have to re-apply the protection manually after you restore the edits you want to keep. It seems that if you delete a page, it will also automatically remove the protection. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Of course, I am not sure if those revision purges "helped" considering the subsequent edits to those pages and what appears to be currently a misunderstanding on Wikipedia talk:Office Actions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please contact me offline if you wish to discuss this further. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Help

After reading the result of arbitration Guanco, Marksweep, et al. I was wondering if you can help me file an arbitration against user: Nlu and User: Jiang, who are both admins who are disruptive to the wikipedia community. Some of the most recent misconducts include

User: Nlu recently deleted Rhtcmu's comments on his talk page in an effort to cover up his own conduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nlu&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nlu&diff=48523697&oldid=48498685 --Freestyle.king 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jiang was reverting his user page and talk page to a state that, in my opinion, called disruption of Wikipedia. (See [2].) I am tempted to revert it, but I might very likely be block by either Jiang or Nlu. However, I would like opinions on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it a personal attack (albeit against a group (specifically an ethic group, not an individual), deserving consequences? Am I wrong about this? --Freestyle.king 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also demanding consequences for the actions of User: guanaco as well as User: Nlu, for blocking me without explanation.--Freestyle.king 02:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Discoveries were made in the following location http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=50&ip=nlu This makes me wonder the connection of .--User:Nlu and.--User:Willy on Wheels because of the creation of account Nlu on wheels. While this is just a suspicion, note that admin with multiple accounts is never allowed.--Freestyle.king 02:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To add to that, Nlu constantly edit Jiang's talk page and answer questions from users on behalf on Jiang, which cause the speculation of multiple administrator accounts. More info available upon request. Thanks--Freestyle.king 01:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to decline, not because I think your case lacks merit, but simply because I don't have enough time to help you with it. I'm sorry. If I find someone else who can help, I will ask them to contact you. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks--Freestyle.king 04:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Your" article on wikitruth

I found this article about you on wikitruth.info: (url removed), perhaps it can give you a good laugther :) →AzaToth 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. Thanks for adding publicity to it by linking it from my user page; that should bump its google rank by quite a lot. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in regards to External Links

Hi Kelly and thank you for taking the opportunity to listen. Over on the Lou Dobbs article there were two links. One involving dobbswatch.com and the other involving the opinionjournal.com. They provide nothing in regards to Lou Dobbs, the article in general or anything at all that would bring insight to the article. So I removed them, there are other links that disagree but those were the two that simply had nothing to offer. I've been beaten upon the brow ever since for that by the two editors hell bent on keeping those links for some reason. The full discussion is available here Talk:Lou Dobbs obviously it's a long long discussion. I'm tired of fighting for the right thing to be honest but I sincerely appreciate your ear. Thanks again. --Redwolfb14 02:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping me with that article. I said thank you on my talk page, but I was not sure if you would see it. So thanks again. The Genesis 04:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-kelly

I placed myself up for constructive critisism on WP:ER. I'd appreciate it if you could comment there. -ZeroTalk 19:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rory096

What was User:Rory096 blocked for exactly? —Ruud 01:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked earlier today for substing {{prod}} on multiple pages without consensus, over objections, and after being asked not to. He was blocked again when he resumed doing it after he block had expired. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Because of that change, I've been changing {{prod}} to {{subst:prod}} in articles I've edited. Should I now change them back? Or what? Is "prod" currently working? If not, who has the responsibility for fixing it? Is this related to the "dated prod" and the bot that makes that change, or is that a separate issue? What about the problem that the "dated prod" bot resets the date of the "prod" to when the 'bot runs? There's a discussion at Template talk:Prod, but it's not conclusive. I'd like to ask that everyone involved in this area update Template talk:Prod, so we're all on the same page. Thanks. --John Nagle 02:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
No the template should be substituted. —Ruud 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experienced admin needed

See [10]. I don't know if this is necessarily the responsibility of an arbcom clerk-- still this is a matter for an experienced admin. This threat is pretty weird, and I assume similar threats have been dealt with very swiftly, right? Regards. 172 | Talk 01:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. I looked up the name "Scott Greyban" in the official list of Medal of Honor winners, and he's not in there. There are only five living USAF Medal of Honor winners, and he's not one of them. See Talk:Cuba for details. --John Nagle 02:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The case is similar to the one made famous by the heading Wikipedia:I WILL SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY -- and Other Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense. It's probably nonsense. Nevertheless, I think it should be looked into by the administration, given that it has been standard practice on Wikipedia to slap indefinite blocks on users making similar threats. 172 | Talk 03:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Never mind. The matter has been taken care of. [11] Best regards. 172 | Talk 03:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thank you for answering, I put that error message up there a while ago--it seems to be fine now though. Almost Famous 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneer Playhouse

I have no idea whether the paper exists or not. Until your message on my Talk page, no one had made that claim. I will, however, be deleting egregious advertising/plagiarism from the page. Eleemosynary 16:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've indicated in the talk page, the content you refer to as "plagiarism" appears to have been contributed with permission, and as such is not plagiarism. If you feel that it is "egregious advertising" I suggest you edit it. Repeatedly removing it, as you are doing, is edit warring and incivil, and you persist you will be blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Spare me the threats, and please assume good faith. "I have reason to believe" is hardly a Wiki standard. When you show your reason (and if it's legit), then you may reinsert it. Your threats to block are uncivil and combative. In removing plagiarism, I am adhering to a Wiki standard. Eleemosynary 16:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the "Star-Tribune" reference had a 1978 reference date. It could very possibly be an out-of-print paper. If the reference is false, it should be deleted. However, Wikipedia is not a place to whitewash documented fact. Eleemosynary 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC
I have informed you that it's not plagiarism; I am in receipt of communications from an employee of the theatre authorizing the content. Your insistence that it is "plagiarism" is misfounded, and you are edit warring by repeatedly reverting without discussion. I'll be glad to pass this matter onto another administrator if you feel that I'm being unreasonable. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
And why should I, or anyone, take your word for it? "I am in receipt of communications" is not Wiki-approved corroboration. Another editor has already suggested as much on the Talk page. The language is a direct copy of material from the company website (try googling it and you'll see). Your personal research is, so far, a first-person account (and non-Wiki). I am not edit warring. I've responded here and on the Talk page. Haughtiness and threats are extremely poor form. Eleemosynary 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for comments

I tried to leave info on the discussion page, but cannot as there is a spam link somewhere on that page so I am leaving what you requested here. Sorry about that I'm not sure what you want explained about the edits made to line 6 seem minor. APSAC are the initials of a professional organization; Amer Prof Soc on the Abuse of Children.

Line 140: added link to above professional society's recent publication and report on Attachment about standards for evaluating and treating children with attachment disorders, published in Child Maltreatment.

The groups listed in Critics are fringe groups that have no standing in the field of Infant Mental Health, American Psych Assoc, or any recognized professional group. For some reason they pursue a number of people who treat children with attachment problems and are not open to considering other points of view. It is true that there have been some unethical professionals working with such children...most of whom were unlicensed; but in any field there are outliers. We don't hound physicians because a few are guilty of malpractice. The groups are not professional associations, but are advocacy groups.

line 151. Mercer/Lester is a Board member of several of the groups listed above and may be a founder of one or more. Mercer Resume/CV: CURRICULUM VITAE JEAN MERCER* Date of birth: 10/16/41 Address: Richard Stockton College, Pomona NJ 08240 E-mail: petedempsey@worldnet.att.net EDUCATION: Mt. Holyoke College, 1959-1961 Occidental College. 1961-63; A.B. in Psychology, 1963 Brandeis University, 1963-67; Ph.D. in Psychology, Feb. 1968 FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT: Assistant Professor, Wheaton College, Norton,MA. 9/67-6/69 Assistant Professor, State University College, Buffalo, NY 9/69-6/71 Assistant Professor, Richard Stockton College, Pomona, NJ 9/74-9/77 Associate Professor, Professor, Richard Stockton College, Pomona NJ 9/77-2/81 Professor of Psychology, Richard Stockton College, Pomona, NJ 2/81-present COLLEGE SERVICE: College Examiner, 1972-74 Coordinator of Psychology Program, 1978-80,1990-92 Chair, Affirmative Action Task Force, 1980-81 Organizer and first Moderator, Women’s Caucus, 1980-81 Chair, Academic Vice-Presidential Search Committee, 1982-83 Moderator, Women’s Caucus, 1988-89 Co-chair, Premedical Committee, 1988-89 SOBL Faculty Review and other committees, various years Chair, Committee on Ethics in Scholarship and Research (now Institutional Review Board), 1990-92, 1996-2000; member 1991-95 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: Consulting reader, Infants and Young Children,1992- Editor, The Phoenix (NJAIMH Quarterly Newsletter), 1994-1999; Editor, Nurture Notes (NJAIMH Newsletter), 2000-2001. Vice President, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health, 1996-2000 President, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health, 2000- Member, Prevention and Early Intervention Committee, New Jersey Community Mental Health Board, 2000- Consulting editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 2002- Member, New Jersey Better Baby Care Campaign Advisory Committee, 2002-

  • Name was legally changed from Gene Lester, May, 1977

2 COMMUNITY SERVICE: Board of Directors, Treehouse Preschool, 1972-74 President and Secretary of Atlantic County New School at various times from 1978-1991 Consultant and workshop leader, Stockton Child Care Center, 1985- Workshop leader, CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates), 2001- PUBLICATIONS: Lester, G., & Morant, R. (1967). Sound localization during labyrinthian stimulation. Proceedings of the 75th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1,19-20. Lester, G. (1968). The case for efferent change during prism adaptation. Journal of Psychology, 68, 9-13. Lester, G. (1968). The rod-and-frame test: Some comments on methodology. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 1307-1314. Lester, G. (1969). Comparison of five methods of presenting the rod-and- frame test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29, 147-151. Lester, G. (1969). The role of the felt position of the head in the audiogyral illusion. Acta Psychologica, 31, 375-384. Lester, G. (1969). Disconfirmation of an hypothesis about the Mueller-Lyer illusion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29, 369-370. Lester, D., & Lester, G. (1970). The problem of the less intelligent student in the introductory psychology course. The Clinical Psychologist, 23(4), 11-12. Lester, G., & Lester, D. (1970). The fear of death, the fear of dying, and threshold differences for death words and neutral words. Omega,1, 175-180. Lester, G. (1970). Haidinger’s brushes and the perception of polarization. Acta Psychologica, 34, 107-114. Lester, G., & Morant, R. (1970). Apparent sound displacement during vestibular stimulation. American Journal of Psychology, 83, 554-566. Lester, G. (1971). Vestibular stimulation and auditory thresholds. Journal of General Psychology, 85, 103-105. Lester, G. (1971). Subjects’ assumptions and scores on the rod-and- frame test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 205-206. Lester, G., & Lester, D. (1971). Suicide: The gamble with death. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lester, D., & Lester, G. (1975). Crime of passion: Murder and the murderer. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Lester, G., & Rando, H. (1975). No correlation between rod-and- frame and visual normalization scores. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 846. 3 Lester, G., Bierbrauer, B., Selfridge, B., & Gomeringer, D. (1976). Distractibility, intensity of reaction, and nonnutritive sucking. Psychological Reports, 39, 1212- 1214. Lester, G. (1977). Size constancy scaling and the apparent thickness of the shaft in the Mueller-Lyer illusion. Journal of General Psychology, 97, 307-398. Mercer, J. (1979). Small people: How children develop and what you can do about it. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Mercer, J. (1979). Personality development and the principle of reciprocal interweaving. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48, 186. Mercer, J. (1979). Guided observations in child development. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America. Mercer, J., & Russ, R. (1980). Variables affecting time between childbirth and the establishment of lactation. Journal of General Psychology, 102, 155-156. Mercer, J., & McMurphy, C. (1985). A stereotyped fo llowing behavior in young children. Journal of General Psychology, 112, 261-265. Mercer, J. (1991). To everything there is a season: Development in the context of the lifespan. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Mercer, J.,& Gonsalves, S. (1992). Parental experience during treatment of very small preterm infants: Implications for mourning and for parent-infant relationships. Illness, Crisis, and Loss, 2, 70-73. Gonsalves, S., & Mercer, J. (1993). Physiological correlates of painful stimulation in preterm infants. Clinical Journal of Pain, 9, 88-93. Mercer, J. (1998). Infant development: A multidisciplinary introduction. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Mercer, J. (1999). ‘Psychological parenting” explained (letter). New Jersey Lawyer, July 12, 7. Mercer, J. (2000/2001). Letter.Zero to Three, 21(3), 39. Mercer, J. (2001). Warning: Are you aware of “holding therapy?” (letter). Pediatrics, 107, 1498. Mercer, J. (2001). “Attachment therapy” using deliberate restraint: An object lesson on the identification of unvalidated treatments. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 14(3), 105-114. Mercer, J. (2002). Surrogate motherhood. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Child Development (pp. 399). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Mercer, J. (2002). Child psychotherapy involving physical restraint: Techniques used in four approaches. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(4), 303-314. Kennedy, S.S., Mercer, J., Mohr, W., & Huffine, C.W. (2002). Snake oil, ethics, and the First Amendment: What’s a profession to do? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(1), 5-15. Mercer, J. (2002). Attachment therapy: A treatment without empirical support. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 1(2), 9-16. Mercer, J. (2002). The difficulties of double blinding (letter). Science,297, 2208. Mercer, J. (2002) Attachment therapy. In M.Shermer (Ed.), The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (pp. 43-47) .Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. 4 Mercer, J., & Rosa, L. (2002). Letter on Attachment Therapy. New Jersey School Psychologist, 24 (8), 16-18. IN PRESS: Mercer, J. (in press). Violent therapies: The rationale behind a potentially harmful child psychotherapy and its acceptance by parents. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Mercer, J., Sarner, L., & Rosa, L. (in press). Attachment therapy on trial: The torture and death of Candace Newmaker. Westport, CN: Praeger. UNPUBLISHED/ IN PREPARATION: Lester, G. (1968). Some investigations of the audiogyral illusion. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University. Mercer, J. (1993) The successful single parent. Unpublished book- length ms. Mercer, J. The developing child in changing times: Infancy through adolescence (in preparation) Invited comments on the New Jersey Children’s Initia tive proposal (March 10, 2000); with Gerard Costa and Elaine Herzog. Invited comments on the U.S. Bright Futures children’s mental health proposal (July 5, 2000); with Gerard Costa. Mercer, J. (2000). Notes on Attachment Therapy: Relevant Research and Theory. Prepared for use by the prosecution in the trial of Connell Watkins, Colorado, April 2001. RECENT PRESENTATIONS: Various presentations on child development and parenting issues to parent groups and training workshops, including CASA. “Law, policy, and attachment issues”; presentation at the Second Annual Conference on Attachment of the New Jersey Psychological Association. June 9, 2000, Newark, NJ. “Custody changes and their effect on children’s development”; presentation at New Jersey State Child Placement Advisory Council conference, April, 2001. “Bad language: How the professions confuse each other with words,” welcoming address at conference on Attachment, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health, Piscataway, NJ, April, 2002. “That cranky, crying baby”; presentation at Coalition of Infant and Toddler Educators Conference on Health in Child Care, Princeton, NJ, May, 2002. “Warning Signals: When parents consider unusual mental health treatments for ther children”; presentation at Third Annual Multicultural Health Conference, Richard Stockton College, Pomona, NJ, Sept. 2002. “Misuse and abuse of attachment theory”; keynote speech at 2002 Annual Meeting, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health, Piscataway, NJ, Nov. 2002.

I certainly don't imply that Dr. Mercer is a transexual or that she is not reputable in her fields of expertise. She is an advocate who has attacked a number of professionls and who's dean has been called on several occassions and made to stop some of her activities (according to Dr. Ronald Federici...I can provide you his contact information if you wish to gather more information). User: AWeidman AWeidman@Concentric.net

a)If Weidman and Federici had any familiarity with academic life, they would realize that deans don't interfere in senior professors' professional activities, except to suggest that they do more than they are doing. b)I'm not sure what my several-years-old vita is doing here other than demonstrating that I've done a good deal of relevant work. c)I would like to encourage members of the attachment therapy industry to reply to the substance of the criticisms they have received, rather than wasting people's time like this. [N.B.: "who's", "occassions", "transexual"-- we can all make errors on the keyboard, but these may reflect a general and relevant lack of attention to detail.] Jean Mercer

For heaven's sake, what now? Why does someone want my several-year-old c.v. to be here? I'll send you an up-to-date one if you like. J.M.

[edit] Response to RFA

Note: This is not intended to be a personal attack, request for you to change your vote, or an attempt to intimidate you; I just want to know a few things.

Firstly, I was wondering what you meant by "poorly handled conflicts"; I have only had one conflict that didn't go over well because of a mixup, and I admit to that. But I was just wondering if you reviewed the other conflicts that I have had as well. Again, I'm not asking to change your vote; I'm just asking that you view the other stuff, too. Thanks. _-M o P-_ 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually what I said was "evidence of poor conflict management". You had one conflict that went badly because you shoved the stake in when you should have been backing away. Tact and discretion are major parts of the job, and I see you as lacking them, based on what I'm seeing so far. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In that one conflict, I agree I probably should've left it to older, wiser people. However, there are also conflicts that have ended well (see [12] and the subsequent IP talk page), User talk:Fame live4ever, Talk:Christina Ritter. I have also helped a few users with their problems ([13] [14]).

If you review those, which are only a small portion, please note that they are all much better than the Drmagic incident. And again, I stress that this is only for critical reasons, I do not want to pressure you into changing your vote; this is your choice. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. _-M o P-_ 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)