User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2006 July

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Civility

[1]

How do you explain this remark? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 14:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why??????????

Dringend !!!!!!!!!! I see you have blocked me. Warum??????? I don't even know you. I tried to update an error on a date of death. It said to send an email to you, but I couldn't. Please unlock me sofort or I will become very very annoyed. Wallie 18:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

When is a block not a block???? Looks like a block. Smells like a block. Tastes like a block. Sounds like a block. Feels like a block. Even my 6 year old daughter thinks it's a block. She says your footprint is there! But it's not a block. What is it then??? Wallie 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

EVIDENCE.

User is blocked From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Kelly Martin for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "IP range used by Layered Technologies, a hosting facility that hosts open proxies with roving IP addresses" Your IP address is 72.36.139.202.

You are not blocked from reading pages, only from editing them. If you were only intending to read a page and are seeing this message, you probably followed a red link. These are links to pages that do not exist, so they take users to an editing screen. You should have no problem if you follow only blue links.

If you would like to know when the block will expire, please search for your name or IP on the block list.

If the reason given is "username", "user...", or "contact an administrator for verification purposes", then you or someone with whom you share an IP address has most likely been blocked for choosing an inappropriate or suspicious username. Please read our username policy for more information. If you do not feel that the name is inappropriate, or if the name was registered by somebody other than yourself, please contact the blocking administrator, as described below.

Sofort bitte. Danke. Wallie 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Roving all over the place

Also, I notice that "Layered Technologies" roving machine has gotten itself lost. The IP address it mentions is nothing like my IP address. What's up doc? "IP range used by Layered Technologies, a hosting facility that hosts open proxies with roving IP addresses" Your IP address is 72.36.139.202. Wallie 20:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Alles Klar!

OK. I managed to edit the article using the "normal" route. I had previously used an article from an internet search, which to an incorrect date of death. I thought that Layered Technologies was a firm employed by Wikipedia. Wallie 20:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mooooo

For all the moo'ing you've done on IRC you still haven't gotten a cow picture, I therfore award you the Cow of mooo -- Tawker 20:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
For all the moo'ing you've done on IRC you still haven't gotten a cow picture, I therfore award you the Cow of mooo -- Tawker 20:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)



[edit] SlimVirgin revert war

You removed my analysis of SlimVirgin editing style from my user page saying it was a personal attack. Will you please remove her personal attacks on me from WP:ANI? Mccready 07:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed her comments on that page and see no evidence of personal attacks. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelly you seem to have misunderstood. It was I who took it there. You fail to comment on the content of the dispute and you fail to comment on her behaviour. Here is her personal attack and, as my earlier edit pointed out, it is miscast.

:Mccready is a relatively new user who has made around 500 edits to articles. He's been involved in conflict with a number of editors since he began here, regularly issuing threats to people who revert his edits. He has demanded apologies from Xtra, David Cannon, Jayjg, Pecher, Moshe, and me; has threatened to report Sethe and Justen for vandalism; has threatened Seth, Nortman, Ombudsman, and me with separate RfCs (for separate issues); has complained about me, I believe, four times on AN/I; has stalked me to four articles; and has been warned by at least three admins. I have diffs if anyone wants them. Examples of his problematic editing: he changed the intro of Trigger point to: "Trigger points have no basis in science. They are claimed by medical quacks to be hyperirritable spots in skeletal muscle ..." [2] His first sentence of Chiropractic was that it's a "religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer." [3] And he added to Animal rights that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family. [4] SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you looking at the six points I raised for the top of Animal rights. No one has responded except one editor who said he/she agreed. Mccready 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RuneScape Fansite Links

I do not see a good reason why these should be removed. Most articles for video games have a small list of external fansites. Actually, the whole reason I found Wikipedia was because I was looking for Runescape fansites, and I found them on that article. It is informative, and that is the aim of Wikipedia. Now, if I were to link to a page called "www.runescaperox.not/RUNESCAPE IS THE BESTEST SITE IN TEH WORLD YO!", then I could see your point of removing it, but the links that fellow editors put on this article are not like that. Please show me a great reason of why these should not be included, or I will make an administrative notification to put this list back in. These sites have been there for a long time, and no one had a problem with it. Quite frankly, I am not going to back down just because I found one user that does have a problem with it. Wikipeedio 17:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC). P.S: You said on an article summary that the next person that adds the section back in will "take a long break". To me, that seems like an abuse of your administrator privileges, and if you do block someone that adds it back in, you can be sure that I will bring it up with quite a few fellow admins.

Added note: From what I understand, it is against the Wikipedia rules for one user to govern an article based on what he/she thinks, unless the edits being made are genuine vandalism.


[edit] your blocking of Avillia

Without making a single sound in the discussion about this user at WP:AN/I, you reverted my admin action. I think you could have at least stated some reasons, some rebuttals to other people. Would you like to wheel war with me? -lethe talk + 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert your action. I blocked him for his actions subsequent to your unblock, which means it's not a revert. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, apparently my unblocking was not entirely appropriate. I apologize for accusing you of wheel warring. It was also inappropriate. -lethe talk + 07:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Lethe, I'd like to hear an explanation as to why you reverted my admin action against a good number of people in agreement. --Cyde Weys 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AN/I for my discussion leading up to my action. -lethe talk + 00:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bad open proxy or somesuch

(Crossposted from ANI)
[5] I have faint glimmerings that this is bad, but then I usually only remember half of what anyone says and that half wrong. Refresh me? - brenneman{L} 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits which introduce backslashes before quotes are indications of defective open proxies; their sources should be blocked indefinitely. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to comment

As per your comment [6], I'd like to invite you to comment on whether user:William M. Connolley has abused his power as an administrator to use the rollback button to remove my messages on his user talk page. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 20:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Invitation to Comment on Revised Proposals of RuneScape's Links

Well after your last visit to the RuneScape article, you obviously have made some strong views clear about the article. I have made some new proposals on the article's talk page, so I would appreciate your opinion on them. I would also like you to comment on the above message from Wikipeeedio about them, as I feel he has a serious point. J.J.Sagnella 16:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ReBuilder

Sorry, I didn't notice the copyright notice on the talk page; I'd never seen that before and didn't expect it. If I had seen that I wouldn't have tagged it as a copyvio. Mangojuicetalk 05:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RfA Thank You!

Hi,

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA. I know that we've engaged in heated discussions before, but I not aware of the precise cause of your criticisms of me. Nevertheless, I apologize; it was never my intention to offend, either overtly or covertly. As an administrator, I am your servant. Although you, a more experienced editor, are unlikely to require my aid, I stand ready to help however I can. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you see me making a mistake, as I am sure I will do often. My talk page is always open, and I honor all feedback, especially criticism, a necessary friend as I work to improve myself. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Just a note...

LOL, kinda ironic it was a group about civility. I apologise over the claim regarding vandalism. Have a nice day. Computerjoe's talk 18:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image talk:Anime by nima.jpg

I agree that the discussion on this page is not going anywhere, I will recuse myself from editing it any further, and I hope SlimVirgin will too :) Ashibaka tock 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Assistence of an experienced wikipedian is needed

Dear Kelly, I would be very greatfull if you answer my question concerning the NPOV policy. Regards,--AndriyK 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Karmafist

Question for you here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Indy Star articles in a Wiki world

Hi Kelly,

If you haven't already seen them, I thought you might find these Indy Star articles interesting. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 00:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Checkuser

Hello Kelly Martin, could you let me know if this link, which should bring up a checkuser on you, works? I am trying to set up some things for Essjay, but since I don't have the checkuser privilege, I can't check. And you have edited more recently then anyone else with checkuser. Thanks, Prodego talk 00:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It brings up the form to request a checkuser on myself, but does not actually execute it. Furthermore, the form should not include "User:" to work correctly. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks so much! Prodego talk 01:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Knox College graduation

Hey Kelly. I noticed that you uploaded some images from the Knox College graduation. I assume you attended? I went and snapped about 120 pictures from the back of the crowd. I uploaded them here if you're interested in thumbing through them. I didn't stick around until the end because the people I was with didn't want to stand around in the heat, but I really wish I had so I could have met Jimmy and Stephen. It's cool to know that other Wikipedians were there, though. I hope you enjoyed yourself! Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I did in fact attend. We were seated on the front left wing, which gave me pretty good camera angles. And I managed to get some pretty good shots. Are you a student at Knox, or just a local? (Feel free to answers off-wiki if you prefer.) Kelly Martin (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just read your user page. I think I'm going to try to arrange a Chicago meetup soon (maybe in July while Jimbo is in town); please let me know if you're interested. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm moving to Chicago in August, so I probably wouldn't be able to attend any meetup before that. But don't plan around me :) I would gladly attend one during or after August, though. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Good article

Kelly,

I am newbie to Wikipedia. I am working on a page that I hope can be improved to meet the good article criteria. Your assessment of the article and suggestions for improvements would be appreciated (time permitting). Thank you. W. Edwards Deming Leaders100 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you!

For participating in my insane project and surviving, here is a present! Enjoy! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

aWP This user survived AntiWikipedia.


[edit] Target Corporation

In response to your recent edit to Target Corporation [7], I've noticed that you (accidentally?) deleted quite a bit of content from the Differentiation section. I don't know what the heck happened there, but I went ahead and re-inserted the content assuming that part of your edit was unintentional. Just thought I'd let you know, also, thanks for the new image :-) Tuxide 04:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a bug in Mozilla (actually in the Google Toolbar for Mozilla) that I didn't know about at the time. Sorry. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RFA reform

Talk hasn't really gotten anywhere, but I'm not sure shutting down RFA itself would help. For one thing, people might be in a rush to get a new system in place. If you think that RFA is too focused on voting, why not try a smaller change? Find a candidate, write up a thorough nomination statement for them, replace Support/Oppose/Neutral with Discussion and place it on RFA just like any other nomination. Sure, some might oppose because the nomination is "malformed" or it being too much of a breaching experiment and even if consensus is reached they might not be promoted (maybe get a bcrat on board beforehand?), but something might be learned along the way. What is the harm in trying? Kotepho 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I may return to this issue; I am going to be busy on personal matters until the end of the week, and I have some significant Foundation-related things to look at when I get back, so it may be a while. However, I am still thinking about the best way to proceed. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RFCU

Hi Kelly, Sorry to disturb you but the outstanding request queue is overcrowded (10 outstanding requests). You seem to be around so I was wondering if you could help. Thanks --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 14:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I salute you!

for finidng the absolute best solution to the EasyPizza problem! Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I take no credit for this solution; it was Danny's idea. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur, though its a solution I was hoping I could see out of a near-future AfD. Kevin_b_er 05:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I am not an anti-semite

Enough said. Stop trying to smear me as one. I request a full apology from your for your blatantly false and hurtful accusation. You may contact me via Special:Emailuser/Blu Aardvark. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A gift

For when it all gets a little too much, relax and take solace in the fact that the Cabal carries compensations. robchurch | talk 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I need an advocate and help with mediation

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

Michael D. Wolok 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hi Kelly,

Hi Kelly,

Thank you for sticking up for me. Or maybe you were just upset someone edited ***YOUR*** talk page without your permission. Either way, I appreciate your objection to "HappyCamper" reverting my requests for help.

HappyCamper said he was just trying to help me. But then when I asked him for help he said he couldn't help me because it would displease others. He said there was considerable displeasure on his talk page with his attempt to help me out. When I went to his talk page I noticed there was considerable displeasure with his attempt to delete all my requests for help, not displeasure with his attempt to help me out.

This is the email he sent me:

Dear Michael,

I wish I could help you out, but it seems on my talk page, there was quite a bit of displeasure with my attempt to help you out. Unfortunately, I will have to address those concerns elsewhere before I will be of any help at all. At the moment, my administrative duties would be tied up, and probably will not be as free to help you out as I am normally able to do.

I would suggest that you contact "Gareth Huges" - his userpage is at User:Garzo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garzo -- he has mediated a dispute in the past involving the Afshar Experiment, and I believe the outcome was amicable to everyone involved. I will send him a note via e-mail that I recommended you to seek him - he may be available to help you out in a capacity that would be much better than what I could offer at the moment. I wish this were not the case, but unfortunately there are other priorities I need to attend to at the moment.

I hope you understand, and accpet my sincerest apologies. Today, I genuinely felt I could lend a helping hand, but circumstances seem to be in deference to this. Regards, -HC

When I went to Gareth Huges page, I found out he is a priest. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics leaves no room for God, and little room for free-will. It is very similar to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal. Given this, I wonder if Gareth will be neutral.

Anyway, I've tried to edit Gareth Huges' talk page all night but Lucky has me blocked from editing that page. When I go to Lucky's page, it is blank and says he is no longer active at Wikipedia, that everyone should leave his page blank.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Lucky 6.9 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mds92". The reason given for Mds92's block is: "User flamed my e-mail with attacks over a lousy 24-hour block.". Your IP address is 205.188.116.8.

And so it goes . . .


Michael D. Wolok 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Incivility

I feel this: "While I'm not convinced that sbharris' posts constituted a bona fida legal threat, they were definitely assholery and a (short) block was warranted on that basis alone. Wag the finger at him and cut him loose." is a personal attack. Everyking 05:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Something tells me the system doesn't work well this way, Kelly. You're highly placed in the project and you're always being uncivil and treating people like they're inferiors—not a good thing. I complain and I get a sarcastic dismissal—I seem to remember having done this on other occasions as well, with the same result. So how does the problem get fixed? Humor me and assume there is a problem. And don't tell me to take it to RfC—you called the participants in your last RfC "scum and lowlives" and totally dismissed the outrage that was expressed there. Everyking 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The system does not work well when people are accused of "personal attacks" for pointing out that another person is acting like an asshole. The system you want, apparently, is one in which people can act like assholes and get away with it. I don't like your system, and I certainly don't want our system to act the way you want. The best way to fix this problem is for you to change your expectations; if you're not willing to do that, then don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"Assholery", in my opinion, includes calling people assholes. We have our civility and NPA policies for a reason. Do you favor abolishing them, or do you just feel they shouldn't apply to you in particular? The uninformed reader would probably be astonished to learn that you were once on the ArbCom and were briefly appointed by them as their "head clerk". Everyking 05:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This entire discussion is, of course, hypothetical, since I did not call anyone an asshole. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It's fairly close, and moreover, you defended your right to call people that above, so it seems reasonable to treat them as functionally equivalent. So anyway, getting back to the point: what if I was always talking to people the way you do, issuing harsh commands and profane insults—would that be acceptable? What I'm trying to figure out is whether you feel civility should not apply at all, should apply only to a very weak degree, should apply to most people but not you and select others, applies differently to different people, or whatever. Everyking 11:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No, actually, I did not defend any "right" to call people assholes, nor did I issue any "harsh commands" or "profane insults". At this point I believe that you are being a jerk (which you will no doubt consider a "profane insult"), and given your current probationary status I think you are skating on thin ice. I would advise that you discontinue this discussion lest someone at the Arbitration Committee decide that you've stepped over the line once again. (You will no doubt consider this a "harsh command".) Kelly Martin (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So what did this mean: "The system does not work well when people are accused of "personal attacks" for pointing out that another person is acting like an asshole. The system you want, apparently, is one in which people can act like assholes and get away with it. I don't like your system, and I certainly don't want our system to act the way you want." It sounds like you were saying it's all right, even good to all people assholes. And yes, your response includes both an insult and a command; under other circumstances the irony might be funny. Everyking 17:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Kelly is relying on a hair-splitting distinction between calling people assholes and accusing them of *acting* like assholes. Which, personally, I would view as a distinction without a difference, but it may be enough to get past the letter (though certainly not the spirit) of the civility rules. PurplePlatypus 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"MONGO's reaction to it tells me that he is in dire need of an attitude adjustment, however, and I think he should consider either (a) a wikibreak or (b) resigning his adminship."

Well, I think the same of you—am I allowed to make the same suggestion to you? Or do different rules apply? Everyking 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to second that...looking over this talk page, incivility seems to be Kelly's MO. Interesting that the only encounter I have had with her was unpleasant one...I doubt I am alone in that scenario.--MONGO 06:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Spoiler tags

Hi. The common thought advocating the use of spoilers is for "courtesty for the reader". As a user that has been present on the project for a extended amount of time has been any complaints issued from readers to the foundation concerning this or any archived requests on the mailing list. I'm concerned because I'm not able to verify if the original creation and implementation was a reply to comments or a dire need. I'm convinced it was more of a assumption lacking any basis of fact of previous edvidence. You may wish to see comments on my talkpage for clarification.-ZeroTalk 11:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any information on the origin of the practice of the use of spoiler tags. However, I am not inclined to support your crusade against them as I believe they serve a legitimate and valuable purpose. Please discontinue your crusade. Thank you. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem, Kelly. I just wanted information of anything I could have overlooked. Thank you for your response. -ZeroTalk 12:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked?

I stepped away so the block was ineffective. Think about this...I didn't see that Gmaxwell had asked for no more responses on his talk page due to edit conflicts. I have left one last response at that page due to what I definitely saw as further misrepresentations of my good faith. Hopefully, you won't block me again. I get deeply worried when editors here spend more time worrying about the junk than writing an encyclopedia...I have written a lot of articles, my resume is more than transparent, so I would strongly advise against working against a solid contributor such as me.--MONGO 20:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This looked like a poor reason to block to me so I posted it on ANI Hort Graz 21:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] your Jamie Carragher edit

Hi, just looking over your edit of the above page and the main thing you did was change "&ndash" to "–". While actually giving the same end result is it not easier for most people to use the longhand version as the actual character doesn't appear on keyboards? The reason I say this is when the average user comes to edit this page they'll just glance at "1998–99" and think they should type their bit the same which will come out as "1998-99", an error which is very hard to spot during copy-editing. cheers, aLii 21:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your edit to my talk page

Your edit to my talk page has been noted but I am a little annoyed at the tone of your message. Please note that the image was placed there as an example of an infobox which I was in the process of assisting in creating. 23skidoo 00:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

For sample infoboxes, use sample images. We have tens of thousands of freely available images that can be used for that purpose. Using unlicensed media for that purpose, or for any other purpose other than to illustrate an article about the topic of the unlicensed media, is a violation of both Wikipedia policy and copyright law. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Warning

Please do not revert in-process administrative decisions with which you are in disagreement. This is disruptive, and you may be blocked for so doing. Discussion is good. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quite inaccurate. I have only "restored" these redirects, never created them. Please double-check your facts. Policy is quite clear that WP operates by consensus, and I acted in accord with a consensus at DRV. My warning, well-reasoned, calm, and amply warranted, was not incivil. If I felt like being circular in my reasoning today, I would say that a false accusation of incivility amounts to incivility -- but I will off with this preteritive remark. Acting against consensus without discussion remains disruptive, and I stand behind the prior warning. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Your belief that DRV is flawed is your own, to which you are entitled. For now, DRV is still here, still in policy, and I will continue to act according to its consensus decisions when I happen to close them. The flaws that you see in it do not, in my view, provide justification for ignoring it (and thereby disrupting Wikipedia.) Notwithstanding your beliefs claimed, my warning stands. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that you believe that a handful of deletion-obsessed process wonk on DRV can determine "consensus" for Wikipedia indicates to me that your logic and commonsense is so absent that it would be criminal of me to even pay any attention to anything you might say. Given that, I have decided to simply ignore you and your opinion on this, and on all other matters, until such time as you show signs of actual complex thought. Please consider a different pastime; you may find Agora Nomic more your style. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)"

How very civil of you. Doesn't take much to rattle your composure, does it? Be thankful you never practiced law -- you'd have a great deal of difficulty surviving with your tendency toward reckless words. "No signs of complex thought"? LOL! That's a good one! Best wishes, Xoloz 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This taunting isn't helping your side of it either, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 14:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I do believe you are supposed to be ignoring me? :) Ah well, if it was not reckless, it was simply... unwise. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Does Agora Nomic really need to be dragged into this? Michael Slone (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] re: Be bold et al

Show me the policy. I've asked very politely in multiple locations. Where does it say that cross-namespace redirects like this one are forbidden? Until someone can show me a policy-level decision that trumps a consensus decision, I am not going to give this one up. But, honest, that's all you have to do. Just show me the policy that says these redirects are inherently bad. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Travb

He had previously apologised for his actions and was in the process of seeking an advocate to help him resolve the issues. Blocks aren't mean't to be punitive, and I saw no reason not to assume good faith and give him the opportunity to do so. If this does not occur (and at the moment I'm not awfully confident of this, given that he jumped back into pulling the same argument with Cyde), I will not object to a reblock. Rebecca 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Using AWB to copy edit...

Hi. I see you used AWB to copyedit List of haunted locations. Just wanted to suggest that when you use AWB, as when you use any grammer or spell checker, you should check to make sure the changes it wants to make are correct. For example, on the List of haunted locations article, AWB changed a sentence that read, "a man in his 30's" to say, "a man in his 1930s", which makes no sense. It's really not a big deal, and someone promptly fixed it by changing it to, "a man in his thirties", but still, bots can make errors. Thanks. ONUnicorn 13:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that one. I do check over each and every one of my edits, but obviously once in a while one sneaks past. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Immaculate and correct edits to "People Associated with Anne Frank". Thanks - good job!!

--Melos Antropon 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Woman's Barnstar

The Working Woman's Barnstar
For your tireless efforts in improving Wikipedia doing the thankless work of copyediting a billion articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. --mboverload@ 00:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is kelly a guys name? Sorry. --mboverload@ 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For my age group, it's about 50-50 male-female. However, I am, in fact, female. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] TfD

I think a potentially very disruptive template is on verge of being kept. If you have time, please take a look at this TfD discussion. [8] Regards. 172 | Talk 21:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A slightly more serious question

If you have the time and interest, would you be willing to take a look at Forbes State Forest and its Talkpage? It's the first time I've uploaded an image that I didn't create myself and I botched something up. I'm asking you because you just answered a related question at the village pump, so as far as I'm concerned, you're an expert :) P.S. - a little grammar fascism would probably help the article out... --Doc Tropics 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I listed the http as the source and changed the license to Public Domain. Thanks a lot for your help! --Doc Tropics 21:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] reblock of User:ARYAN818

Kelly, I've reblocked the account User:ARYAN818 as an inappropriate user name. You say the user is "using their own name"; I'm not clear what you mean by that. 818, in white supremacist culture, stands for HAH (the 8th, 1st, and 8th letters of the alphabet): Heil Adolf Hitler. I wish I was making that up. I feel like the support of Nazism is not one we should endorse. (This is one of the few times one can discuss Nazis and not violate Godwin's Law; cherish the moment.) As the admin who unblocked the user in the first place, I thought you ought to know. JDoorjam Talk 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AWB bot did great damage to the Che Guevara article

Hello Kelly -- It seems that you recently ran the AWB bot on the Che Guevara article, as per the following entry on its History page, i.e.: 17:09, 4 July 2006 Kelly Martin (Talk | contribs) m (spelling fixes, tidy, and general cleanup using AWB). I just wanted to let you know that this bot completely disrupted the "Content Notes" section of the article and all of the associated links throughout the article, for which reason I had to revert it to the last version before you ran the AWB bot. I would therefore be most appreciative if you would never run this bot on the article again. -- Thank you, Polaris999 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how the references section was disrupted. I did "unicodify" a number of inexplicable uses of ” and otherwise made a few minor corrections, but nothing should have "disrupted" the article unless you are doing something strange. Please consider bringing your use of references into line with standards elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Oh, and AWB is not a bot. I reviewed all of the changes to that article before committing them, and none of them should have been problematic. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any difference visually. --mboverload@ 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is a bit of background: Many months ago, when the editors who were working on the Che Guevara article decided to adopt the m:Cite/Cite.php system for notes, we were confronted with a major problem because the article had some notes which contained a considerable amount of text. We originally converted and kept these lengthy notes in the <ref></ref> format, but immediately two serious problems arose. First, having these lengthy notes in the text of the article made it confusing for many editors when they tried to edit the article; second, as a result of their confusion, the notes were continually getting truncated and otherwise mutilated which rendered all of the notes in the article inoperational each time it occurred (which was constantly). After discussing the matter with User:Jmabel, I developed a method that would permit the use of a separate set of notes which we decided to call "Content Notes" (as opposed to the "Source Notes" which we could keep in m:Cite/Cite.php format) and, in order to do this I used the symbol › ( &rsaquo;) to designate a content note within the text of the article itself. Using this system, we are able to maintain the "Content Notes" and "Source Notes" independently and ever since we implemented this change we have not had any problems with notes becoming disrupted during edits. This system of footnotes had been in use for several weeks before the article was nominated for FA status, and during the nomination process was commented upon favorably.
You mention that you removed "a number of inexplicable uses of ” "; however, I am not aware of any usage of &rdquo; anywhere in the article and when I searched the last version before you used AWB on it, I could not find any occurrence of it. Perhaps you meant ›? -- Polaris999 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The only difference is the replacement of "a.k.a." with "also known as" in one location. It seems that Polaris999 is attempting to claim ownership of this article. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the replacement of "a.k.a." with "also known as" which is not the issue, you also replaced 34 occurrences of &rsaquo; with its graphical representation which is the cause of the problem I am referring to. These 34 changes that you made can be seen at Comparison of versions 61895671 and 62046906. Many – probably most – editors won't know the code for the symbol "›" and this will be a problem if they are trying to enter a new content note. Why do you object to using the code &rsaquo; rather than the symbol since it makes no difference in the appearance of the article, and only serves to facilitate the editing of it? -- Polaris999 03:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
So you're complaining about the use of Unicode? That battle has been fought and lost, I suspect. In any case, your original claim and reason for the revert is proven false. Please try to avoid histrionics in the future. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A new userbox you might like

Hi Kelly,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

 Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP: Policies & guidelines
This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”.



[edit] I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Indulge. :)
Indulge. :)

Dear Kelly Martin/Archives/2006 July,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avillia

I'm concerned that you're really not taking avillia seriously enough if you're blocking him for only one week. His recent edits show him to be a blatant and unrepentant troll, lilo has identified him as involved in DOS attacks on freenode, he's been editing disruptively and he's known to have trolled Slashdot. Why are we planning to permit him to come back to editing our wiki in the near future? He's an obvious indefinite block candidate. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry!

Sorry, Kelly. Some IP who's not happy with Caldorwards, wrote that he reverts as (rv) signed Kelly Martin. The message was to me, signed by you. And I'm like-I do revert differently and I erased my message as I saw it was Caldorwards you were talking to. Sorry for the revert. Per Caldorwards4 talk page I did it. Please respond on my talk page as it is hard to remember every talk page I posted to. Thank You. ForestH2

Your an admin? I would propose that you block Caldorwards4 for (24 hours to a week) instead of banned. I think he understands now. Because-he does make some good edits, and it would be really harmful to ban him. Respond on my talk page. ForestH2
Is there some reason you told Caldorwards that he was blocked but you didn't say it was by you? I looked at his page, and you seem to say, that someone else blocked him. Why? ForestH2

[edit] FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

[edit] EasyPizza

As you may now be aware EasyPizza has appeared in the newspapers including the London Evening Standard. eg [9][10] Two sources mean Notability, there are plenty more sources, and an information page on wikipedia will be useful because it is supposed to be the internet information source and at present alot of people will be. Read about it in the newspaper but when you look on wiki there is a a deleted page.

[edit] EasyPizza

Now that EasyPizza has appeared on BBC news 24 and SKY news as well as appearing in the Evening Standard, Daily Mail, Times, and many other publications this issue of not being in the public interest and not being notable is a non issue. Now we can be sensible and post the EasyPizza page back up. Look at these links as examples [11][12]

[edit] The Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your tireless efforts in improving Wikipedia, even when others tirelessly try to do just the opposite. ~Kylu

[edit] FYI, Cat RfA

[13]

[edit] question

yes hello I would like to know if u knew if people ever plans on bringing back the Pepsi play for a billion promotion I read your article and I was a big fan of the promotion thanks.

[edit] Re:What is this bot doing, anyway

If you check this page's history, my bot's edit was marked as minor. Also, the subst of the award2 template was per WP:SUBST#Templates that should be substituted. --WinHunter (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Committee of Public Safety

This edit of yours (which I gather may have been bot-assisted) broke an external link. I fixed it, but thought you'd want to know. - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that one. I normally check for those, but I obviously missed that one. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm not sure how much of that energy/courage/insanity I have left, either (well, definitely the insanity :-) but I take it one day at a time. Catamorphism 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check user

Can you look on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng? User:Mackensen suggests to contact you directly (do not ask me why). Thanks in advance abakharev 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gurch

I've left Cyde a message about this; it's intended for you also, so I'd be grateful if you could take a look when you have a moment. Thanks – Gurch 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on Cyde's page. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not just recreate that page? I don't think they had any basis to delete it, let alone speedy delete it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go to DRV

Hi, I really appreciate being elevated to Q4, whatever it is, but I'm afraid I'll stick with the deletion as a G4. You can always take it to DRV, you know. Or undelete it thirty times, because eventually I will get tired, but it isn't like I'm going to be restrained by 3RR for deleting an enemies list I happen to be on. Call it a "point of personal privilege," if you like. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonk away. And don't forget to clean up when you're done. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, do you just have a passion for generating Wiki-drama, or what? If so, this list was a brilliant move. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intentions of creating wikidrama. I'm just trying to use wiki techniques to assist me in my duties on the wiki. Why these people are so intent on making that impossible, is beyond me. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Apparently, people's normal reactions are "beyond you". If you understood people a little better, you would have easily predicted that this would have created controversy, but you didn't. Now that it has, are you going to continue to mismanage the controversy into a full-fledged train-wreck, or what? Here's a big clue - anything with the impression of secrecy about it isn't going to go over well here and you should have known that. Now that you know it, act accordingly, unless your goal is to generate more drama. You know what quells drama, and makes it go away? Candid openness. Increased communication. Not dismissing people's actions as "beyond you" when you could display diplomatic understanding instead. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I realize that there are people who will react badly to such things. Tough. Let them. I will not reduce myself to their lowest common denominator.
Here's a clue, for the terminally clueless: There are LOTS of secret groups and activities within Wikipedia. I am part of some of them, and not parts of others. I deliberately never intended that list to be secret; if I had I would have put it on my personal wiki, or just on one of my computers, or somewhere else where nobody but who I wanted to see it could see it. I'm not stupid. What I do not understand is why these... people are so intent on interfering with my efforts to administer this project as best I can. It certainly causes me to question both their judgment and their good faith -- and to that extent this episode has been beneficial to me, as it has exposed several more people who I clearly should not trust. I do not regret anything I have done, and I have no intention of altering my conduct for their benefit. If they don't want Wikipedia disrupted, they can bloody well stop doing it. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you're saying that you don't care how much drama and heat you generate, because it's other people's fault. That's really dumb. Right after asserting that you're not stupid, you go on to explain your utter lack of understanding of human nature. Since we're trading hints, here's one: if you really don't understand why people are doing what they're doing, then you'd do well to find one before trying to deal with them. It will make you a more effective administrator. Right now, you're acting like an incompetent administrator, because you are sustaining and escalating this situation rather than competently defusing it. Is this really the best you can do? A good administrator doesn't create such situations in the first place, because they have the foresight to avoid them, knowing that they're damaging to the project. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that it's damaging to the project. Actually, I think the outcome of episodes like this is a net benefit to the project, because invariably we cast off a few useless users who are only here for status and identify a few more problematic individuals who are not trustworthy so that the rest of us can watch them more closely, while at the same time having little or no effect on the actual editing of the encyclopedia -- something I suspect you will find that most of the people whining about my list do relatively little of anyway. I could benefit the project immensely (and resolve this entire situation) simply by banning a small number of exceptionally problematic people, but the community (being shortsighted and focused on things other than the best interests of the project) would object too strongly.
The real problem is that too many of our administrators are too puffed up in their own importance, and think that their petty little toys are actually important to Wikipedia. They are wrong. What matters to Wikipedia are the thousands of mostly faceless people who actually write our content. Most of whom are not administrators, not because they aren't capable of it, but because they don't want to be. And I can't blame them; becoming an administrator puts you in the company of some pretty odious people, and you don't have the choice to avoid them, either. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That's an excellent explanation of where you're coming from. Thanks for the food for thought. I don't agree with you, but I don't have any further reply right now. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not continue to disrupt Wikipedia with these lists. Just stop, and go back to improving articles. Jonathunder 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one disrupting Wikipedia; that distinction belongs to the people who are running around making threats and deleting stuff out of my userspace because they don't understand what it's for and aren't willing to either assume good faith or accept my statement that I have no malicious intentions. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem accepting that you had no malicious intentions with that list, but to create another one, with the edit summary "Yay", seems not to have been the best idea, since you knew that the original one had caused such resentment and suspicion — indeed, it nearly cost Sean his adminship. AnnH ♫ 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Look over my edit summary history. When I edit my own user space, my edit summaries often make little or no sense, and may be ironic, sarcastic, or parodic (or all three at once). I don't see a point why they should, since my user space is, well, mine. I know what my intentions were, and since it's my user space telling OTHER people what my intentions were are, well, not really necessary. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Uhh... Wikipedia is not a free hosting service. If you use your userspace for some stuff, you should be ready to explain other Wikipedians what it's for.  Grue  18:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Asked and answered, counselor. Move on. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how User:Grue/Brandt is relevant to writing an encyclopedia. --Cyde↔Weys 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Easy. I used this page as a link target to promote Wikipedia on reddit. Asked and aswered, move on. :)  Grue  19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"since it's my user space telling OTHER people what my intentions were are, well, not really necessary." No, provided you just don't care how much Wikidrama yhou generate, given that human nature is what it is and you can't will it to be otherwise. By the way, your user-space isn't yours. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
As someone who was on the list, I am really offended by it, and by all the smugness surrounding it. It is disruptive, and it has to stop, or people really will be leaving this project. Jonathunder 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to meatball:GoodBye before making threats to leave the project. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to meatball:OpenProcess, meatball:BackRoomDecision and meatball:RumourMill, and reflect on how you, as an administrator, have a large degree of control over, and thus responsibility for, the impression you give with the openness of your actions. The public reaction to what you do is also a consequence of your actions, and you are not free to ignore it and still be acting responsibly. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've reviewed the pages in question, and as far as I can tell they mainly apply to those complaining about my actions, rather than myself. I created the list in public view, and I have not sought to hide its purpose. The community has given no salient reason why I should not maintain lists of this nature -- however, it has suggested that I keep them privately, which is contrary to the suggestions in meatball:OpenProcess. And yet others spread false rumors about its purpose, fail to assume good faith, and exercise authority without discussion to interfere with my purpose. When one editor asked me why I put him on that list, I explained myself, and he merely became more stridently nasty, instead of offering to discuss. I think you need to look elsewhere for the root cause of this particular problem. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No don't

No Don't. In the past I was affected by an autoblock, no need for that lady. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 18:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

Hi. Please cease immediately from creating pages such as User:Kelly Martin/B User:Kelly Martin/Q, etc., or you will be blocked for disruption. Thanks. El_C 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Kelly Martin (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
What is being disrupted? Wheter you see it as her just being whimsical with her user pages or being passive-agressive, I still don't see any disruption to either our WP: functions or our encyclopedia funtions; I don't see anything being disrupted at all.Voice-of-All 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ordinarily I don't do rhetorical questions... I insist that you find something better to do (you too, VoA), something that advances the encyclopedia. You are causing disruption and sowing discord with these lists. Also, stop creating cross namespace redirects. El_C 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you're in a position to be ordering other editors around. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please adhere to the above instructions, and try to refrain from unnecessary innuendo and confrontations. Thanks again. El_C 20:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not see why I should take instruction from you, given your history on this project. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I simply saw you using "disruption" where it clearly did not apply, and no explanation was given, where a block was threatened...I don't see how you're silly "find something better to do" comment was warranted. Note that I didn't even support having her original /b list on Wikipedia either.Voice-of-All 23:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You have a long history of being confrontational and disruptive, Kelly. And I hope to see it stop here. El_C 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I do have a long history of being willing to tackle difficult problems and of dealing with people who, when confronted with their malfeasance, disrupt the wiki. I don't expect that I'll be stopping that any time soon, though. And people like you won't let me stop the need for that sort of thing by banning the people who make it necessary. So I doubt it'll stop here. Sorry I can't satisfy your urges. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Mz Martin: the topic is your urges in making divisive lists. If you recreate these, you will be subjected to administrative sanctions. That is all. El_C
I doubt that rather severely. Do not make threats you cannot enforce. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I can and will enforce it. Feel free to appeal my decision through whichever channels you see fit. El_C 00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


You have been blocked for 24 hours for recreating the list on User:Kelly Martin/R. El_C 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you want to retract that, since the /R list was NOT the same list. Maybe you should actually LOOK before you LEAP next time. Jumping to conclusions is not becoming in an admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna let the arbitrators sort this one out. I get to choose the clerk. El_C 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

Why was I on your now deleted "Q" list (categorized as "teal")? I notice I wasn't on your "B" list, but then after I voted to oppose Sean (and pointed out the existence of the list to the other voters), I showed up on that Q list. Everyking 21:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point in discussing with you why I consider you untrustworthy. We've had this discussion before. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait, it's because you think I'm untrustworthy? People go on the list because you believe them to be untrustworthy? Forget why you think they're untrustworthy; are we at least now establishing the purpose of the list—to document untrustworthy people? Everyking 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
People on that list are on that list because they were notable to me in some way. Some of them because they're trustworthy, or reliable, or have shown wisdom; others because they're not trustworthy, or not reliable, or have shown foolishness. I know which are which, and since it's my list that's all that matters. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so the different categories mean different things. What did my "teal" categorization indicate? (BTW, I don't see any names that stand out at me as being people you'd be likely to regard positively—actually it seems to be basically just the people who voted to oppose Sean.) Everyking 04:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So why was I on your now deleted "Q" list ? For your information, I stand by my oppose vote. David D. (Talk) 00:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tea Time!

A nice cup of tea
A nice cup of tea

It seems like a good time to have a nice cup of tea and take a couple of deep breaths. Maybe we can negotiate a cease-fire  :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I had a cup of tea a couple hours ago, with a half shot of blended Scotch for good measure. I'm currently nibbling on an apricot. But I'm quite calm; actually this has all worked out pretty much the way I expected it to. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Scotch, eh? I tend to prefer a good Martini, but I'm a tolerant kind of guy...--Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)