User talk:Kelly Martin

/Archive1 - up through April, 2005

Thanks, Whore!

For voting and commenting in favour of my RfA! I greatly appreciate your support for my nomination! Yours, El_C 01:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repug

Why was Repuglican moved to Repug? Clearly Repug is the short form; the long form of Repuglican should be the main article. Kelly Martin 23:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the commonly used term should be the main article. Repug/repugs pulls 80,000 Google hits [1] while repuglican/repuglicans pulls a measly 3,720 [2]. I've not personally ever even seen the term "repuglican" online. I always see "repug". But if enough people form a consensus that the main article should be at Repuglicans, though, I will respect it. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 02:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tim Reynolds / TR3

the band had, I believe, 15 years together and multiple albums. So I think its fair to give them a page, despite Tim's solo efforts being more recognized. You wouldnt redirect The Police to Sting, would you? :) It just needs time.

~Erichwanh

Conspiracy theory

Thanks for your note, Kelly, and you're welcome. I hope something comes out of it too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:Aaronantrim

You marked this User page for speedy deletion, apparently because an anon had left the word "try" on it.... Am I mssing something? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply — only this page has a contributions record. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misread your reply; i thought that you'd said that the vandal had created the accounts, not just the user pages. Still, wouldn't just deleting the word in each case be enough? Is it that you thought that the User wanted his user page to show up as a red link? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for including the template in my article. I was looking for the right name of this template and it wouldn't come to my mind. Wikicarlos 00:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Wikicarlos[reply]

Creating a stub

Hi Kelly, can you explain to me why you speedy delated {morocco-stub} template? Svest 12:33, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You are right. Anyway, an admin will delete that. I created the stub template under the namespace template. Cheers Svest 12:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA, even though it was made a few hours after the deadline and the bureaucrats have not yet processed the results as it was 14-8-2, thus no consensus. See you around. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory third section

Hi Kelly, your third section proposal is actually already included in my second section proposal. Note where I say rename "conspiracy theory etc only when used to describe another subject". So I think the third proposal can be merged into the second section keeping any info that improves clarity that the proposal does not apply to generic Conspiracy theory titled articles. What do you think? zen master T 18:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

Just checking -- it's not okay to remove material without discussion or consensus, but it is okay to add material without discussion or consensus? BrandonYusufToropov 20:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point. zen master T 20:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, are you simply going to ignore my question above? BrandonYusufToropov 21:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're either missing, or unwilling to answer, the issue I'm raising.

By what logic do you, as opposed to those making the proposal, get to structure what people will be discussing? Is there a rule somewhere that I'm missing? Why do you, as opposed to anyone else, get to say how many proposals there are? BrandonYusufToropov 21:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, when you lecture people as follows -- "do not delete other proposals without a consensus from the proponents of that proposal" -- and you are simultaneously attempting to dictate which proponents' viewpoints will be channelled onto the project page -- at that point, you are both playing the game on the field and appointing yourself as the referee. That's not kosher, as my stepmother might put it. To my way of thinking, you should either add material and wait for a neutral (i.e., not you) party to arbitrate, or disengage from the discussion and stop creating text. BrandonYusufToropov 22:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you consider this way of working normal is not the issue. It is clearly causing problems, and you need to pick one role or the other. BrandonYusufToropov 22:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly: You have made some good points on the page, but I do not see you as a neutral arbiter, and I don't see any paperwork from the federal judiciary requiring me to accept you as such. If you were really neutral, you would realize that, having stirred up all this dust by both participating in the conversation and lecturing/reverting people's edits, you have created a sitation that might best be served by someone else emerging to mediate, someone who has not stirred up that kind of dust. The fact that you're clinging so tenaciously to this self-appointed role raises deep suspicions in my mind that you have a particular outcome in mind for this discussion. BrandonYusufToropov 22:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the changes, Kelly. MadIce 19:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Purported) vandalism

You replaced a lot of stuff with a line that read ""Oh that bloke is such a see you next Tuesday"."[3] → JarlaxleArtemis 03:35, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

At least, I thought you did. I was apparently wrong. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:37, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Bands

your criteria for a band is a bit harsh. requiring a band to have won an award or to play in front of at least 10,000 people is insane, there are plenty of high school bands that never release anything and only play for their friends are still bands. by your rules the band Rocket From the Tomb is not a real band because they only released one CD and have never won any awards, in fact they never played for more than 300 people at a time. however you never started a vote to delete that one. (I know they reformed and are touring again) if Hydrophonica was listed in the Major Bands section then you would have all right to delete them but the mere fact that they are listed as Indie Artists and say that they are still working on a debut EP should have tipped you off. for the record Indie means Independent which means not signed to a major label and that they don't have a large back catalog of music. JCS 04:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I truly believe that the only reason you like to delete peoples credible pages is to amuse you in a sick way. If there are any other reasons, grow some balls and email me them at happyhappy246@msn.com (anonymous comments from User:159.191.12.26)

Any band that has released a CD with substantial distribution will avoid deletion under my criterion. Frankly I don't think most high school bands are worthy of an article on Wikipedia no matter how much their friends like them. I don't seek out articles to delete so the continued existence of articles that I haven't voted to delete doesn't mean that I would vote to keep such articles were I aware of them. I am familiar with the concept of an indie artist; indie artists still need to be published or otherwise notable (as described in my policy) to be considered notable enough to avoid deletion.

In my opinion, Rocket From The Tombs (which is, I assume, the group you're referring to) is borderline (they are published, although whether the distribution reaches the bar of "national o or large subnational market" is not demonstrated). I would probably vote to delete were this article up for VfD. Hydrophonica has no published music with any distribution and thus fails to establish relevance for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

In the future, please sign (using ~~~~) your contributions to my talk page. I would also ask that you refrain from using my user talk page to make personal attacks on any Wikipedia editor. Kelly Martin 16:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

i don't see how pointing out the fact that you are using your own idea of what is a band and what is not a band counts as a personal attack. it would be like calling your user profile a "vanity" page because it is about you and by you. any group of people playing music together would count as a band even if they have no recordings, it would be like saying a band does not exist unless it has been lampooned by Weird Al. the second comment about you was by someone else latching on to my comment and i am sorry that they did, however your policy on bands only works when applied to notable artists and not to young or small or lesser known bands. by your logic a band like The Bravery is not actually a band despite the fact that they have toured and sold out shows, or what about bar bands, bands that play once or twice a month in their local bar. thank you for correcting my mistake JCS 04:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be disingenious with me; it's plainly obvious from the history that the insulting comment is also either from you or from someone close do you (both edits are from the same IP). Please also note that I am not defining what is a "band"; I am defining what I consider to be a "notable musical group" for the purpose of deletion. The failure of your favorite band to meet this criterion doesn't mean that your band does not exist, merely that it isn't worthy of a Wikipedia article. Again, I must ask you to sign your comments here (using ~~~~); any further unsigned comments will be deleted without comment. Kelly Martin 20:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for noticing the fact that you are judging "Notable Bands" but what about INDIE artists that deserve coverage too. in todays music industry small unsigned bands have to find diffrent methods to get the word out. why should it be up to you too decide what other people should read on a collaborative site like this one, if wikipedia only contained information that had to pass such a harsh system that you have it would only be as good as a traditional encyclopedia, that is out of date. The whole point of wikipedia is that EVERYONE comes together to contribute their knowledge and to learn from others. as for the IP i was posting from a library and so was someone else apparently I have no idea who it was but they were wearing their thoughts on their sleeve. PS Hydrophonica is working on some mp3s as we speak but are a bit short of money/studio space and every bit of publicity helps. JCS

I understand your desire to obtain advertising for your venture. However, Wikipedia is not an advertisement service. Once you've made a real name for yourself, you might then qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Until then, you don't. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; you are not entitled to use Wikipedia to promote yourself. Again, please use the four tildes to sign your comments. Kelly Martin 22:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

i am not using Wiki as a soapbox but simply using it to state that your method of choosing articles is just as broken as if i was using it for a soap box. and as for the advertisng i do belive you misread my previous statment, i was saying that artists these days can't just play in friends basements or small bars they need a way to reach larger audiences without signing themselves to a label. do you know how much it costs to put out a debut EP a lot just for basic things like instruments and not icluding studio space/time, and besides the Hydrophonica entry was not put up by a band member. i repeat that Hydrophonica is an indie artist and so your rules for "Notable Artists" should not apply to them and please prove to me how that article is being used as a soapbox. JCS 04:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I checked in the rules about bands and deletion and very few of your rules qualify in that respect. JCS 04:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome back

Thank you for welcoming me back. Sorry that I hadn't written to you sooner since your message seemed to get lost with the other messages. If you saw what I wrote on my user page, I put in a few self-imposed restrictions on myself so I would not get a very high wikistress again that caused me to leave in the first place. See ya around. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for deletion/Continuum calculator

Hello Kelly, thanks much for discussing the article. Since I am interested to keep the article I have overworked it a bit and I have added an explanation to the vote list. I would be glad if you had another look. Thanks. -- Karsten88 15:14, 21 May 2005 (CEST)

re: Merge Sergei Taneyev quartets

Kelly,

The reason why I created the Sergei Taneyev string quartets as a separate page is that it relates principally to the string quartet page, which is becoming a major compendium of data on the many string quartets and their composers. As such it is getting very large, and Schissel thinks that page itself is getting too long - I'm inclined to agree.

The purpose of the Sergei Taneyev string quartets page - as a separate page - was to include string quartet-specific information for the string quartet page without adding to the bloat. Merging it with the Sergei Taneyev page would confuse the original purpose, and I have not collected information on Taneyev's other compositions, so a merge would distort the Taneyev page's information content.

I really do think - for the moment - that separate pages is the way to go.

--dcnicholls 05:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count stats

Just a question - where do you find all the stats about editors and their specific edits to each namespace? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 00:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Go to Hell

And take your edits with you! (unsigned edit left by Julian Delphiki 05:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC))

Talk:Air Force One

> You replaced the entire Talk:Air Force One page with just a single subsection thereof. Is that what you intended to do?

Geez, you're quick. No it wasn't. I don't know how it happened, and I noticed it and fixed it immediately. Duckecho 22:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case

> I think you ran into the same problem on this page, too.

Yes I did. Also recognized it right away and fixed it immediately.

I now know the symptoms that lead to it and should be able to avoid it in the future. I don't understand the mechanism, however. I'll desribe it to you: I open a new window (browser session) to edit the section and once I've completed the edit hit the Preview button and the browser then proceeds to the preview window. Once I am satisfied with its appearance, I hit the Save button. Most of the time I either get an accept (well, no "accept" message, but the freshly edited and saved page comes up) or an "Edit Conflict" window. But in both of those cases tonight, upon hitting the save button it went to another preview. The first time I got that new edit window two or three times before it was saved and I didn't notice until I looked at the new page what had happened. I noticed the second time (not soon enough) that that second preview was of the whole page, but the whole page was now just the section I edited.

I'll watch for that scenario in the future and while I can't promise it won't happen again, I do promise that I'll fix it promptly if it does. I'm not some vandal indiscriminately terrorizing wiki; my edits are in earnest, although I can appreciate what you're looking for and how it appears. Thanks for watching out for me. Duckecho 03:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Martin

I remember Kelly Martin from that show Life Goes On and Christy. She was hot!

Not related to me, I am afraid. Kelly Martin 04:26, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Abusive reverts

This user is reverts changes without even reading the comments, what was replaced, why. The quality of the changes makes no difference to this user and editing privleges should be reviewed if not removed altogeather. see Sex change History (unsigned anonymous comment)

Actually, I do in fact read the edit comments (there are no article talk comments on Sex change yet, so there's nothing to read there). I merely disagreed with your edits and felt that, in their totality, they did not benefit the article, and so I reverted them. May I suggest that you get an account? It makes communicating easier. Kelly Martin 06:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Then read the wording of what's there with what I replaced it with and see which is clearer, factual, and easier to understand. Attempting to justify an off topic fact is just as off topic as that subject.

I did read the wording of what you wrote, and I felt it was inferior. There were several grammatical errors, and factual information from the previous edition was removed without obvious reason (you feel it's off topic, I suppose; I disagree). Kelly Martin 06:51, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote:

Sex Change is a descriptively inaccurate term often used by society for gender reassignment surgery. 
It is also interchangeably used for the medical procedures inter-sexed individuals undergo, or more 
often are subjected to as children.

Off topic removed

Many people also see "sex change" as factually inaccurate. 
Sex in humans is usually determined by four factors:

Chromosomes 
Gonads (Ovaries and/or testicles) 
Hormone status 
Primary sex characteristics, sometimes also secondary sex characteristics 
Not all of these factors can be changed, however:

Chromosomes cannot be changed. 
Gonads can be removed, but not replaced 
Hormone status is easily changed 
Existing sex characteristics can to some extent be changed; existing ones mostly through surgery, 
non-existing ones can be induced to grow through hormones.
For example: Changing a male genital anatomy into a good or even excellent female appearing and 
functioning one is complicated, but entirely possible; changing a female genital anatomy into 
an even reasonably male appearing one however is extremely complicated and not successful very
 often; function is always limited.

My paragraph covered the inaccuracy of the term. Discussing how sex in humans is determined is not germane to this article and is thus off topic.

As for bad grammer that is what edit is for not revert. You should not attempt to use this to justify your reversion of the page to one with much worse grammer and which is much harder to read.

I suggest you discuss this further on Talk:Sex change. Kelly Martin 07:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry I havent said Thank you sooner but I just noticed today that you rv vandalism on my to do list (you did it so quickly I didnt even notice) thanks again. Happy Editing (sorry for any grammar mistakes I have horrible grammar.) 578 (Yes?) 14:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)