User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/Archive1

A supporter of Martin, admin Harro5 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now vandalised my user page: [1]

..oh well. ~~free speech on Wikipedia~~ -_-

Derry/Londonderry

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks! --Kiand 20:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "vandalise" any pages... --Mistress Selina Kyle 20:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Djegan 21:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE NOT ADDED "nonsense", please stop categorising anything that challenges your POV as "vandalism", it is wrong... --Mistress Selina Kyle 21:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia but remember the 3RR rule. Djegan 21:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you know anything about Northern Ireland, you should know that this is a difficult subject. The BBC uses "Derry" and "Londonderry" alternately in the same news item and begins each alternate story with one, then the other. Wikipedia can't do that easily - the article has to go somewhere. So we have ended up with a compromise that is equally unfair to both points of view. We all have to accept that shouting louder at people doesn't resolve a dispute, it only makes it worse. Before you leap in making wild accusations, please read Derry/Londonderry naming dispute and then the discussions at talk:Derry and talk:County Londonderry. Truth and reconciliation commission might help too.

On Wikipedia, we use the term "vandalism" when someone destroys a consensus text that has evolved as the most neutral way to describe the issue. Inevitably, people on each side with very firmly held views will continue to believe that it is disgracefully biased towards the opposing point of view. The texts of "Derry" and "County Londonderry" have been attacked repeatedly by Republicans as being Unionist propoganda. --Red King 21:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

If I gave the impression that you couldn't improve existing text, then I agree that this is quite wrong. "Vandalism" was a lazy way to describe waht you did and the term really applies to wholesale blanking or over-writing with obscenities. A more accurate way to express it is that we aim for neutrality (NPOV = neutrality) A blatantly "(partisan) point of view" or "POV" - which should be PPOV - will get reverted. That goes for Sinn Feiners as well as DUPers. --Red King 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome

You seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot a little bit. First of all, let me give you the official welcome: Welcome!

Hello Mistress Selina Kyle/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Secondly, I should point out that the posters above are quite mistaken--none of your contributions should have been considered vandalism. That said, do try to interact on talk pages before making significant changes to controversial pages. Oh, and one more thing--your user page currently claims you're an administrator. You should remove that template--it's not a good idea to give a false impression about yourself.

Please let me know at my talk page if I can be of any assistance. Chick Bowen 21:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't think of a specific rule against it, but it does seem a bit strange to me, and someone might ask you to do something you're not able to do, like protect a page or block a user. I guess all I can say is this--if you were ever to try to become an administrator, and people found out you were already claiming to be one, they might well hold it against you. Chick Bowen 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

haha like anyone'd vote for me. ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User world

Thank you for that o mistress - your wish shall be done :) Grutness...wha? 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment. Cheers -- Svest 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Moi aussi. But the "tl" didn't work. The template seems to work just fine with the short version {{world}}. I may copy your seal hunt stuff to a wikicity about aquatic beings. Robin Patterson 03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World citizen?

Out of interest, where did you see that I was a "world citizen"? I don't remember writing that. Regards — Dan | talk 00:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have no recollection of having done that. Seems it was more than a year ago. — Dan | talk 01:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

God bless you for your kind words miss! I've now added myself to the wiki punk rockers list which I never previously knew about! quercus robur 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (PS that pic was taken 22 years ago...)- This is me as well (lying down...) [2][reply]

No Logo and.. Admin(?)

No worries at all. It was there so users like you could make good use of it! However, being a bit curious, are you a new wikipedian or an admin? Cheers -- Svest 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

The worst scenario would banning you for 30 secs if you don't respond to an admin asking about some explanations (kiddin'). If you think about keeping it for life than enjoy it ;) We are a community here and you are welcomed (we need more people to bring more joy to this place) as long as you abide by the rules. No big rules, just comment sense! Remove it only when you'd have no other choice! I only suggest that you add a silly comment inside the template to avoid any misunderstanding. I am a candidate for admin but would not consider that as something out of order. Just update it. A+ -- Svest 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

lol! I was totally right about the 30 secs. This is what makes this place a good one and full of fun. Sean did what it should be so no worries about that. -- Svest 02:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

See my user page history, admin User:Sean Black already took it upon himself to rudely remove it without even bothering to talk to me, while I was writing a reply on your talk page.

Guess it is against the rules, or at least offensive to some people who've bothered to spend most of their lives editing wikipedia and forming cliques of people to vote for them... --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin2

You have the admin userbox on your user page. That userbox has code attached which adds you to the Category:Wikipedia administrators. I can imagine only two possibilities for why you have the admin userbox on your user page:

You are an administrator editing as a newbie to experience Wikipedia from a different prespective.
You are a new editor who aspires to be an administrator. In this case I suggest you read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and get some more experience on Wikipedia.

The admin userbox is reserved for people who are administrators. If you are indeed a legitimate sockpuppet of an admin, you shouldn't have that tag on your page as it defeats the purpose. If you are a newbie, you need to remove it as impersonating an adminstrator is a serious offense. --WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok sorry :( removed

see also User_talk:FayssalF and User_talk:Chick Bowen - I have been asking around but wasn't sure

also see this from my actual talk page: "Well, I can't think of a specific rule against it, but it does seem a bit strange to me, and someone might ask you to do something you're not able to do, like protect a page or block a user. I guess all I can say is this--if you were ever to try to become an administrator, and people found out you were already claiming to be one, they might well hold it against you. Chick Bowen 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

haha like anyone'd vote for me. ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UT"

I doubt I could become an admin since it seems a bit biased towards those who spend nearly ALL THEIR LIFE on wikipedia but who knows, probably not even worth a try though, no?

umm guess that's about it. I only put it on there as a joke/to see the reaction it would get anyway :)

--Mistress Selina Kyle 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

I apologize if I sounded grumpy, but it's very suspiscous when someone does that. Sorry again, but that was not something I could take lightly. I didn't want to offend, but it's very dangerous for someone to impersonate an administrator, and needs to be avoided. Sorry again.--Sean|Black 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it really is that bad maybe something needs to be done to make it impossible to do.. like with protecting pages "protecting use of templates" would be a good idea.. --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ole

I don't think i can reconcile Prodigy with techno, sorry. I might have to assert my POV there...Anyways, read this:

"happiness not money - money is just a tool for helping it along for both yourself and others" Would you be suprised if i stated that happiness will buy you money? Just read an article in the WSJ or the Times a few days ago, citing recent research that attests for that. So, be happy, and more likely than not, you'll end up loaded :)

Cool friend template, by the way.Dragonlord kfb 08:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Guitarist

Hi,

I have noticed that you have taken the liberty of labelling me on my userpage as a "bass guitarist". I am actually a bass player or bassist. When I pick up a guitar and do an O.K. attempt at musical enjoyment of that instrument, you may call me a guitarist then. But please, above all, never call me a "bass guitarist". I strongly object to that term and the promotion of bad bass playing it encourages.

I suggest you change the label to the neutral POV "bassist".

You will note a fairly consistent, on-going debate about nomenclature for the electric bass and I adhere to the manufacturers' and designers' description of the instrument in calling it an "electric bass", or simply "bass". The double bass can be referred to as an upright if you like. I do not believe there is a such an instrument as a "bass guitar" (acoustic or electric), certainly not with only 4 strings, although I understand the vernacular reference when others use it.

Thanks Ozbass 04:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, mistress; I hope that thou don't matter that I took thy advice on User:Rama's talk page for myself, and the big pic from thy user page. May I hear from thee how can I join thy counter-vandalism unit? HolyRomanEmperor 17:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation

Don't worry, I can handle this myself :) - User:Automnial will be blocked from editing indefitely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kind regards, Fir e Fox 22:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no easy way to find out if the two are the same users. If you think another sockpuppet is created, you may want to bring it to my attention or post it here. Cheers, Fir e Fox 22:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein

Hiya - I think that in the process of hammering the language back and forth between us, we actually managed to marginally improve the article. Cool! If you have any further objections or suggestions there, why don't we knock it around here on our talk pages, or on the article talk page? --Krich 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<laughs> Who said anything about no longer arguing? I 'gree, it can be fun as well as constructive (as in our case on this article). My suggestion was that we might be able to argue it out on talk pages, rather than jerking revisions back and forth on the main article.

Or not - jerking around can be fun and constructive too.

--Krich 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that you are a fine debater - you just appear to prefer to do it in endless article revisions rather than in discussion space. This isn't the optimal path, if we are considering the readers of the material rather than ourselves or other editors. --Krich 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selina, it appears to me that you are currently in violation of the three revert rule regarding the Albert Einstein article. Several editors there have attempting to work with you contructively on the wording of the section where you are including the Asperger's information, trying to find language that will allow your desire to have this controversial topic included, without moving it to a pro-diagnosis POV. You appear to be the only editor there who believes in the language to which you keep reverting the page. Continually reverting the edits of several others, several times a day, is not a productive or constructive way to work this out. As I mentioned above, it is in fact a violation of Wikipedia official policy. Please stop this, no one wants on edit war on this subject, especially in such a well-written (and formerly featured) article as this one.

Please, either accept the compromise language that all the other editors have agreed to (and discussed on the talk page) - or take this argument to the talk pages, and away from constant reverts.

Thanks, --Krich 19:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you responded to this on my talk page (although it would be easier - and more polite- if you didn't delete my words here while we are talking). To address your latest concern, while Sowell is an economist, he is a very respected academic who has written a book that addresses this very topic - a book that relies heavily on academic research done by people who do have "psychological or psychiatric qualifications", as you put it in an edit summary. He happens to be the first name that came up when I began searching for prominent writing on this subject, which I did to address your concern that my earlier edits had referred to unidentified "others" or "some".

I could do a lot more digging, and come up with the names of the other researchers in this area who refute the Aperger's diagnosis, including academics at Vanderbilt. But I deferred to the subsequent edits of others, who felt that the langauage and citations were becoming much too wordy for the main overview bio of Einstein. I agreed that this much detail of the controversy should be moved off to another page, if it's going to be included at this depth. That's why I backed off my original edits and deferred to a much more consise version by Macrakis that was NPOV, but still included a mention of the possible Asperger's issue.

So that's the detailed answer to your question. I really do think, assuming you stop reverting and accept the current compromise language, that you have managed to get the basic information you wanted into the article, if not in the detail and form you may have wished (my edits are completely gone now too). That's a good thing, and if we had spent more time having these discussions here, or on the Einstein talk page, we could have ended up in the same place (or close) without jerking the article around so much for readers.

Thanks for listening, --Krich 20:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Love with Batman

I'll show you show drug free hedonism, baby... besides, Batman and Superman are already a couple, see below! Dyslexic agnostic 02:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panels from World's Finest #289 Panels from World's Finest #289

Academic major

You recently edited academic major to read:

In many other countries, including the United Kingdom, secondary school students take several different qualifications for different subjects rather than just one "degree". Undergraduate students are also normally required to concentrate on more than one subject throughout their degree, so the concept of a "major" is not relevant.

This seems a bit garbled, and contradicts the previous text. Could you please explain your intent on the Talk page? In the meantime, I'm reverting to the previous version. --Macrakis 03:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein

Please confine editorial comments to the talk page in the future. TIA---CH 04:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of Sci Fi Channel (UK)

Hi, I notice you edited Sci Fi channel (United Kingdom) to change the ownership. I have started a discussion of this at Talk:Sci Fi channel (United Kingdom)#Ownership, as I am not 100% convinced you are correct. Feel free to join in and welcome to Wikipedia. Regards MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vimes

Re: my talk page

Damn. My secret is out. So is yours. ;) Seriously, though, I'm not much like him - I just happen to like the name, and it's usually not occupied. Sam Vimes 15:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly page moves

Don't make silly page moves. -- Curps 17:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

The photo is a year out of date. I just like the lighting on the snow. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A UK registered charity

I spotted your note about this on Jimbo's talk page and thought I'd reply. If you look at m:Wikimedia UK you'll see that a group of us are trying to do something very similar to what you suggest. A UK charity should be fully registered by the middle of next year, jguk 21:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: World citizenship box

Sorry, there's no space for that on my userpage. :) I might rearrange it in a while, but until then I just can't figure out a good place to put that template... perhaps it should look more like the Babel templates so it'd fit in with them...? - ulayiti (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, it is, isn't it... well, I'll put it there later. I'm off to bed now. :) - ulayiti (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess... but I did get it done now after all... behold the new and improved User:Ulayiti/babel. :) - ulayiti (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you.

Doggy style

I know what your leaning point is on censorship, and I respect that. I personally couldn't care less about what images are where, but I think that it should at least be discussed before action is taken. As a few other editors agree, the image there is not only potentially offensive, but doesn't add anything new to the article. It's not a good illustration. It also has unverified copyright status (was initially claimed to be a government image). Now I'm not pro or anti-censorship, and I don't have an interest in such articles, but we should all be trying to not cause the second Autofellatio-level debate. If people say that the image should be there, I have no problem with it. But just reverting each other will get no-one anywhere. Thanks Hedley 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mistress. Please don't remove the PUI notice from Image:Dggst.jpg. The image is being discussed on WP:PUI, and the purpose of the notice is to inform other users of this discussion. Also, it is impossible for the image to be PD-USGov, since it would have to have been created as part of the official duties of a federal employee. It is also unlikely that User:Paeris is a federal employee at all, since he appears to have trouble with the English language. Rhobite 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the US government aren't pornographers. ;) Hedley 02:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a matter of censorship or people objecting to imagery that could be considered pornographic (indeed, on an article relating to sex one could expect that). But if the image is copyrighted, as it seems to be, then it must be deleted for legal reasons. Radiant_>|< 02:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#December_19 - It's copywrited, but the guy that uploaded it took the photo (the reason his wording's so bad he's apparently not a native english speaker) --Mistress Selina Kyle 03:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's only claiming that now. He was first content with saying that it is a government image. I'm not too sure that he did take it - It's not the kind of photo you take with the intent of putting on an encyclopedia. Hedley 03:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from vandalising the Freemasonry article, or any other articles, in the future. Willy Logan 02:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 'green wikipedians' category

Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 02:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your vote! Seems the categories are safe now. :) Larix 01:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMedia UK

We aim to incorporate soon. Do you want to be a Trustee or a Member? LoopZilla 12:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be a trustee you'd have to give your real name and address to Companies House, so it would be on the public record, as well as certain other information. It also carried with it certain legal obligations. Also certain people are disqualified from being company directors - eg undischarged bankrupts, those with a disqualification order against them. Being a member has far fewer legal implications. We would require your real name and an address, but we'd probably accept an email address rather than your postal address (though we haven't considered that yet). You'd also have to pay the membership subscription (price not yet determined, though likely to be at such a level that doesn't deter people because they're not as rich as Jimmy Wales!) and agree to pay an amount not exceeding £10 if required if the company wound up when you were a member or within one year of you ceasing to be a member. Mind you, there's no need to be either a trustee or a member to help out - you just need to have a few hours you're willing to spend regularly in the cause, jguk 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Care to vote fore my request for adminship:[3]? HolyRomanEmperor 16:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Merry Christmas? What about Hanukkah? Hanukkah is on the 26th December this year - aren't you going to add Hanukkah to your talk page. What ever happened to political correctness? ;-) Izehar (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, Happy Holidays? Izehar (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was Christmas really around long before Jesus? I should probably read the article on Christmas, but I can't find my glasses ;-) Izehar (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"User freespeech" template

I like it! Good work hun! Tom 18:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Welcoming committee

Selina, I bet you'd love to be a member of the Welcoming committee. I am, it's a very easy job. Izehar (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zatanna

You may not be aware of this, but this picture was the subject of a rather intense revert war just a few days ago. Four people agreed on the version of the picture that you are replacing with another picture in violation of the current consensus on the article. Before you revert the image again, please go to the talk page to discuss the issue. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that you have violated Wikipedia's rules against reverting an article more than three times in a 24 hour period, which you can read at WP:3RR. Please consider this your warning. If you revert the Zatanna article again, I will block you for violating the rule. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've now clearly violated 3RR after being warned about the consequences. As a result I've blocked you for 24 hours. Please use this time to think about ways you can more productively contribute to Wikipedia. I can appreciate that you are frustrated over the issue, but the way to resolve it is to seek more input from the community, not to edit war. Please consider filing an RFC seeking more comment on the matter, that may help. But please don't edit war. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DrBat violated 3RR too but you didn't block him, why are you doing this blatant favouritism and admin abuse?? --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for breaking the 3RR. Dan100 (Talk) 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, it wasn't clear to me that he understood what the 3RR was. (Remember, I gave you the same chance and you reverted anyway after I'd warned you.) But, after looking at the 3RR logs it was plain that he'd been blocked before for the same thing, so I blocked him for 24 hours as well. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech template

Thanks for telling me about the template. I've switched the userbox on my page to use it.
--Peter McGinley 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Election

We're not sure yet how the election will be held, but I'll be sure to let you know when it happens, thank you for your vote! Us Aspies have to stick together, so please let me know if I can help you with anything. You made my day! karmafist 02:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

Please do not revert a sock puppet notice again. If you object to the block, by all means discuss it with the blocking admin, who knows what the evidence is, but in the meantime, please do not interfere with her decision. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poetlister block

Thanks for your message, I've commented on the noticeboard. Arniep 02:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this warrants an ArbCom against Lulu of the Lotus Eaters et al. I think it has gone too far now, what with this spurious block as well, as apparent "resolution" of this problem lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a case of "you're right but you can't win anyway". I have zero confidence in the arbitration committee doing anything. Really, I recommended for the affected parties to just quit Wikipedia and never come back. And as for everyone else involved, well, we should pray that we won't get banned ourselves for daring to question admin decisions. You don't want to end up like User:Lir now do you? He was someone who took on admins over a similar issue. It is, quite simply, hopeless. Admins can do basically whatever they want to here.

I've seen this kind of thing many times and I guess its not really worth fighting. No doubt the ban was used to try to push forward the argument that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, Lulu was actually a good guy, since the person that they abused is now blocked because of it. Then they will demonise Poetlister and everyone involved. Its just not worth it really.

We should just sit back and say that no, the Jewish Year Book is not reliable, what just because its an official Jewish publication listing the names of all Jews and who they are doesn't mean that we can use it. We should also say that just because someone is a judge of the Supreme Court of Israel doesn't make them Jewish. Just so long as we can allow ourselves to agree to things like that, and accept admin corruption, then we are fine. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thought I'd write in here to let you know that I've made a page going over the whole Poetlister block issue, with lots of evidence. See here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Enough to go to Jimbo over? What do you think? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing things up. I asked Poetlister to have a look too, and she suggested me removing her first name from it and didn't want me to list the contents of her e-mail to me for privacy reasons. I still think that the contents of her e-mails actually help this case, but that's her choice. I noticed that you got rid of the pic from there, and you are right. It was vandalised. It seems to have been vandalised to try to infer that Rachel Brown and Taxwoman were friends, when they don't seem to have known each other. Thanks. Feel free to edit other parts of the article, but please be respectful that it is my user sub page, hence I actually do "own" it (i.e. its not like a normal article). Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That last edit was really good. I wonder who owns that IP address. Someone involved in this dispute perhaps trying to manipulate things to make it look like the block was deserved? Thanks again. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

recent revert

I've responded on the template talk page, but on a personal note, you really should try contacting an editor directly rather than snap-reverting. Asking someone to revert themselves is a great way to state your point. Making an immediate and unexpected revert 2 minutes after an edit can potentially make for bad feelings. -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. For now, website is option ans is only used on one celebrity page that I saw (and I checked them all just after my changes. So no big hurry either way. We'll let the discussion take it's course. I was just there as a "drive-by fixer-upper" anyway, and I didn't get the context of your talk page note or I would have held of inserting website (I thought I was adding it fresh). -- Netoholic @ 07:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

I realize you have AS, but you don't have to take it out on us. You're being incredibly annoying. Stop putting back my own words when I do not wish them there. Also, why on Earth did you have to a.) report the great picture everyone had agreed on, and replace it with an ugly one, which, of all things, isn't even a personal shot. You claim to have found the source, but it's ALL OVER THE WEB. It's everywhere. Do an Eminem google search, non-image, and that's the first thing you see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelic Wraith (talk • contribs)

Sorry for butting in here. But one of the misunderstandings about Asperger's Syndrome or autism generally is that it is not something that is somehow "caught", that it is curable or somehow controllable. It is a condition that defines who you are. Someone with Asperger's Syndrome can no more stop having it than someone without it can start having it. Whilst it is possible to pretend not to have it, you can't stop having it. It is difficult for AS people to cope with others, just as it is difficult for neurotypicals to cope with AS people. So I hope that there is a bit more understanding all around. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I try. It's an uphill battle, even when it seems that a majority of Christians are willing to accept logic and agree that their God was probably born in autumn sometime. (Personally, I think the bulk of the evidence indicates that he either didn't even exist or was so different from what people think that it doesn't even matter, but I'd never try to force that POV into an article.) elvenscout742 12:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox templates

Thanks for your work, however please do not make any userboxes prefixed with userbox, and only have a max of 1 redirect. Thanks! Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC) On behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes[reply]

Template: User Socialist

Hi Mistress Selina Kyle. I've reverted your change to the userbox User Socialist. I note that you do not use this userbox yourself; therefore you are imposing your views on the dozen or so people who do use it and making unilateral changes to a dozen user pages.

If you'd like to get a consensus (of people who use this userbox) for change, please go ahead. But please don't change a box without getting that consensus, especially when you don't use it yourself. It's not fair.

Thanks! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this userbox U second that. If you don't like it, don't use it (and you don't use it), there are plenty of flag waving versions around. Bartimaeus 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it symbolises communism not fascism these are two completely different concepts, if you are having trouble understanding this please read the related articles on wikipedia for clarification. As for dictatorship, though many communist countries are or were dictatorships this is not fundamental to communism. Just as the USA's right-wing bible-bashing government is not a requirement for democracy. The more important part of the hammer and sickle is what it symbolises; the strength of the masses, that we Drones have power and will not be slaves, the symbol expresses for me and the others who use it what socialism means to us. I suggest you learn more about the subject before you start telling people what symbols mean, since you can't even tell the difference between communism and fascism. Bartimaeus 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Sorry, if I can just butt in here, but um you do realise that Australia and Sweden are both socialist democracies don't you? I mean, you can be both at the same time you know. I am Australian and I am proud of our ability to combine capitalist economies with communist equality. Australia, for example, has the lowest proportion of poverty of any country in the world, and has the most equal distribution of wealth. I for one am proud of that. "No child shall ever starve" is our philosophy. A lot of Australians are shocked and horrified when they visit USA because of the existence of beggars and homeless people who simply don't exist in Australia. In Australia, the only poverty is related to either drug addiction, career criminals and runaway children. We get huge amounts of money from welfare and you can get it for your entire life. Its actually enough to live on. And no, that's not fascism. Australians like everyone, both Russia and America. That's why we have no enemies. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last Warning?

Hi Mistress Selina Kyle. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to warn me for "vandalizing" the Latex article. I'm sorry to report, however, that yours and Wikipedia's definition of "vandalism" appear to differ greatly. I appreciate that you feel a topless, nipple-baring S&M model is an appropriate image to put in a generally informative article about the chemical substance. I think, however, that your opinions on this differ from someone who is not personally invested, as you seem to be, in the issue. A latex outfit can easily be provided as a picture without resorting to nudity or overtly sexual imagery - in fact, it would be inarguably more beneficial to the article. Accordingly, I suggest you abandon whatever personal crusade you've started on this particular issue, as it is neither in the best interests of Wikipedia or reflective of an objective stance on the issue. Additionally, if you would cease with the eye-rollingly pathetic "vandalism" warnings to anonymous users, it would be appreciated.

Ever so slightly yours. 68.159.82.23 23:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship

Hi there,

I see you reversed my edit to Category:Wikipedians with World Citizenship. What I was trying to do was change it so that, in Category:Wikipedians, it appeared under W and not at the top; I don't see that any category in such a broad category as Wikipedians has a particular claim to be jumped to the top of the list. (Whereas it does make sense to put it at the top in Category:Wikipedians by location.) Perhaps you haven't got the hang of how the "pipe trick" for categories works—you can see this page for that. The point is, whatever goes after the pipe (i.e. the "|" character) is what the category is listed under. Thus you used to have it listed under "*" (at the start), I switched it to listing under "World Citizenship" (at W), and you switched it to space (at the start). Let me know if you have any questions/comments on this; if I don't hear from you, I figure I'll switch it back to the way I had it eventually. -- SCZenz 01:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. No problem at all. :-) -- SCZenz 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a different person then above ;) I have no problem with a picture of someone wearing latex, but it seems a more tasteful (or lets say "glamour" shot would be more appropriate. I am not sure someone grabbing their breasts while wearing latex makes sense for the article. The focus becomes the action rather than the clothing which I assume is what everyone is going for here.

Also, the assumption that I must be Christian to not feel the picture is appropriate is absurd, and I am not sure what either that or, your comment about Catholic schools has to do with this. Frankly, it borders on an Ad-Hom attack on the issue. 208.176.61.219 02:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel content dispute

All I can suggest is that you take it to the article's talk page and discuss it with the person you're disagreeing with. Well, actually, if it becomes impossible to reach a compromise, you could file a request for comment about the article, and get other opinions. Then again, since Infidel is a disambiguation page, and it's supposed to have short entries, I bet you can reach a compromise just by removing extra text. Maybe just say it's the common translation of kafir, and leave it at that...? Anyway, you're right not to violate the 3RR no matter what—that makes admins sad... ;-) -- SCZenz 01:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could also leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam, and request help coming up with an NPOV wording for the page. -- SCZenz 01:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You what

If you bothered to check the talk page and the history you would see I have made several edits to that page, ths, it would make sense for Yuber to make said comment on my talk page. --Irishpunktom\^talk 01:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latex

Just a couple of things:

Watch out for WP:3RR. I know that you're saying it's vandalism and 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, but you'll probably find that if someone lists you as having violated it there will exist at least one admin who'll feel that removing the picture isn't vandalism.
Minor edits should always be minor, ok?

I'm not even convinced those gloves are latex, by the way! ^_^
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got permission to use another image. It's been placed at: Image:modelwearinglatex.jpg --DaiTengu 04:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note

Just a quick note to say that you rock. Had to tell you. Ifnord 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Why do you rock? Nothing specific; I don't think you can just do one thing, no matter how nifty, and get the stamp of coolness. But as I was nosing through your talk page, comments people have left about you, and your replies - I was struck by how you came across. It's good. Ifnord 04:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that I just recently posted to her talk page, and my comments along with another comment that was critical of her were quickly removed and not responded to... which makes me suspect that there's a reason she "came across" well. Themindset 08:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Themindset reminds me of a Happy Bunny sticker that reads, "You suck and that's sad." Ifnord 18:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"User freespeech" template

Thanks. Will do. Been adding a few new ones now as well. *Lifts some off of you.* And mmmmmmmm, another Aspie. There are too many of us online. :p Rogue 9 06:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Done and done. You'll notice some Rogue 9 originals in WP:UBX ;) Rogue 9 06:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boring?

Wait, is it the Stubs that are boring or is it me? The latter would suck since you seem pretty cool from my limited knowledge of you. karmafist 07:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Poetlister sock puppet notices etc

Hi Selina Kyle. I have noticed that you kept removing the sock puppet notice. I think that this is a bad idea. Normal Wikipedia protocol is that if a user has been banned for being a sock puppet, then the sock puppet notice has to be placed there. Notice that it is just a "suspicion" of sock puppetry and has not been proven. Thus it is okay for it to remain. Whilst SlimVirgin's removal of the bios is inappropriate, it has been agreed that the sock puppet notice should remain. This in fact points out the injustice, as we can then see what happened there. Also, by the way, Poetlister and Taxwoman weren't friends. They didn't even like each other. Its great that you're supporting Poetlister in this, but I would have thought Taxwoman was the more appropriate person. I think that Taxwoman is the thinnest link to User:RachelBrown and the one with the least evidence of sock puppetry. There is actually enough to suggest that perhaps Poetlister and RachelBrown might be sock puppets. The issue then is that if they are, did they do anything wrong by doing so? They were apparently friends and did visit each other and use the same computer. The other 3 were not friends. It seems that they may have all used the same ISP, something that they undoubtedly shared with thousands of other people. The case for Taxwoman to be unbanned based on not being a sock puppet is much stronger than the case for Poetlister. However, with Poetlister the issue is more the reasons behind the ban. You might want to look at this here: User_talk:Kelly_Martin#User-check_request. That's why Poetlister got banned - because of an edit war with SlimVirgin and Lulu, who wanted her to be banned so that they could win the edit war. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World citizen flag

Thanks for clarifying. However, this means the image descriptions are misleading; they should describe where the flags are used and acknowledge the original designer. Are you as well allowed to place the design in the public domain? Fredrik | t c 11:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cuuuuute kitty

Ok. :) --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 15:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo

I don't think that its right for me to contact Jimbo. I suggested to Poetlister to contact him if Mindspillage doesn't write her an e-mail or call her. I noticed that Mindspillage didn't respond to my e-mail either. I think that Jimbo would be very intersted in corruption of this magnitude, as it seriously puts Wikipedia in jeapordy. However, I don't think that I am the right person to contact him. It is really up to the affected users. Maybe Taxwoman could contact him as well? I suggest Poetlister because she is the one that e-mailed me about it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Mental Health

You are perceptive. I actually just created Wikipedia:Userboxes/Mental Health and the two userboxes for providers/consumers. I also note your quick addition of the specific disorders. =) As to your question, the answer is indeed, "something". Ifnord 19:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Block

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for violation of the three revert rule on Latex. The block is for a period of 24 hours. Please discuss your changes further on talk pages rather than reverting. If an edit war is ongoing, consider posting on the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to have an admin protect the page.

To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username and IP address in your email. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bans lifted

I thought I'd let you know that User:Poetlister, User:Taxwoman, User:Newport and User:Londoneye all had their bans lifted, thanks to your help! Thanks so much for helping me to edit the User:Zordrac/Poetlister subpage. Your work was wonderful.

P.S. I am very sorry that you got a 24 hour block for 3RR. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Sometimes people break 3RR by accident. Its no big deal really. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. I must say, going by your userpage and your edits, I like you! (I really like the Einstein quote, that's quality). But you've really got to stop running into the 3RR! Have a look at WP:ROWN. I'd also like to offer my services - if you ever get into situations like the one at latex again, drop me a note, and let's see if we can head off any problems before they start. Please, feel free to e-mail me with any questions or comments seeing as you can't edit for a while. Dan100 (Talk) 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, drop me a line if someone's being an idiot about removing stuff like that. Not 3RR if the reverts are spread among multiple people. ;) Rogue 9 00:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glamour

You consider this [4] [5] [6] [7] "glamour"? There were also a couple of bondage shots and "threesomes".--Eloquence * 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not sex, it comes under glamour photography as per the definition in the article. Nudity without any sex acts actually happening...

You say "threesomes", but from what I've researched about Bomis it was never more than that. I bet in those "threesomes" they never actually had any sex.

What have you got against poor Jimbo anyway? You of all people, a Wikimedia developer... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply on my talk.) I'd also like to know what your source is for your claim that none of the photos on Bomis showed models using sex toys. Were you a Bomis Premium customer? I'm inclined to only state what we know for sure from the facts and images which are public. (This includes a model rubbing a dildo between her breasts, a model wearing a ball gag, and a model sucking on a dildo. Not sure if those qualify as "using", but stating explicitly that they don't seems to go too far, and again, those are only the public preview photos.)--Eloquence * 23:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll reply here as well, seeing as you have a nasty habit of making old comments hard to access (hunting through history to find the matching date of when you deleted your comments each time is very inconvenient, but maybe that's the point(?))

Innocent until proven guilty - The burden of proof is on you, as the one adding this material to the article... "I'm inclined to only state what we know for sure from the facts and images which are public" (quote you): But the fact is you don't know that they ever did more than that, and from the evidence it seems unlikely that anything more was shown as you described:- suggestive poses without sex acts

You say "sucking" - did you see a video? I doubt it. I bet you're referring to a dildo (which is, after all, just a stick of plastic) placed in the mouth for a pose, or as you said, placed between the breasts ("rubbing" suggests action, you cannot tell this from a photo) - each photo is carefully staged, it's just for show. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently started providing permalinks to old history records, so it should be easier to navigate the talk page history. It's a better model of archiving than making copies, because you do not lose the history of who made what edit.

I do not see it as a matter of "guilt" or "innocence", and I see nothing wrong with what Bomis did and does in any case (Google my name in combination with "pornography"). The point is, we are not stating that the models were using sex toys, we are stating that they posed with them. You explicitly stated that they never were using the toys. We don't have any hard source for that, since you haven't reviewed all the content on Bomis Premium. Hence, this should not be explicitly stated without a source. As for "it's all just for show", that distinction is irrelevant, unless you want to say "never used them for pleasure", which is probably true for most sex toy porn. ;-)--Eloquence * 00:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When copying to Talk:Bomis, please copy only the content which is factually relevant (I encourage you to refactor and summarize the discussion).--Eloquence * 00:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And may I gently remind you of this bit on your user page: ;-) --Eloquence * 00:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Switzerland flag large.png

This user maintains a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.

Good night, mistress :-).--Eloquence * 01:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Secular Humanist Greetings of Winter

Thanks for the nice message on my talk page, Selina. I'm actually an Atheist - but I celebrate Christmas because I'm into presents. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well! --Krich (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Messages on talk pages

When you post vandalism warnings on user's talk pages, please put subst: in front of them; for example, subst:test1, subst:test2, ..., subst:blank2, etc. It reduces the load on the servers and also prevents the enormous effect of a blanking of the template. Thank you. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks for abusing your admin rollback User:FireFox to revert my non-vandalism edit and the polite non-existent message on my talk page. This website address is much shorter and is the same anyway

Firstly I would like to say after a discussion with User:Sam Korn, using the rollback button to revert non-vandalism edits is not abusing the power, and is not against any Wikipedia policy. Here is the polite non-existent message on your talk page as you so kindly requested:

Please do not change the Mozilla Firefox homepage address to http://www.getfirefox.com as this is not the official website. Even though it redirects, this shows that Mozilla do not count it as their homepage. Being "much shorter" which it really isn't anyway has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Your changes have, again, been reverted so next time I hope you consider your actions and the content you put in your edit summaries. Thanks, Fir e Fox 09:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

emailed you back

check & see. :-) Tomer ^talk 10:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User instrument-gen

Hi. I see you changed the sort key on the category tag in this template to "*". I'm a little dubious about that, but after some thought, I've decided it's a good way to see who doesn't want to specify eir skill level. Thanks. Ddawson 10:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlMac|^(talk) plagarized you

Hi. I been visiting pages of other people with lots of cool user boxes, and copying those I like the most. User:AlMac|^(talk) 12:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izehar's RfA

Hi Mistress,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, somehow I don't think that this template can be speedily deleted. If you want to delete it, you should list it on WP:TFD. Izehar 17:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi MSK! Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

re: Oriana Fallaci

(section moved from my talk page)

BTW Yuber, since you will read this. And for Ulayti also.

The fact is it's blatant personal POV by you and completely unsourced.

Your various Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, "Some critics say", "has attracted controversy" "critics have viewed the following quote as racist" (with a link to a page that has no mention of "racism" or "racist" at all, and instead talks about her anti-Islam point of view) make it quite clear you have no interest in maintaining WP:NPOV on the article and just want to brand her as a racist for daring to criticise your religion. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ulayti. Thanks for abusing your admin status to rollback edits that were not vandalism, and removals of unsourced POV material added unilaterally by Yuber.

This and your obvious favouritism for some users will be mentioned, don't worry. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(end of moved section)

First of all, this discussion should probably happen at the article's talk page. Secondly, it says anti-Arab, not 'anti-Muslim' (which is not the same thing - I'm a Muslim, but not an Arab). That is criticising an ethnic group, not a religion, and qualifies as racism. In addition, you removed all of the criticism instead of just those words.

And there's no policy that says the reverts should only be used against vandalism. And favouritism - what? I had never even dealt with Yuber before he contacted me on my talk page about your removals. - ulayiti (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

heeeeeeeeelp!!

i think you know this guy so you can maybe deal with him better This is my first time reportning, i ashamed to do this Dyslexic agnostic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for atarters, ths stalking harassment-lover has emptied the Bat-embargo page, insulted me and my editions directly, i've tried to make peace repeatedly, explaining him that i feel ofended, vandalized my own page writting sturr i repeatedly told him not to, i got out of control and swear indirecty at him in that very space. lately he reverted my editions writting insulting summaries in the Batman, batman villains and superman articles. Please, at least make him stop or met me in the middle point or something. He is also confused about article sizes. i've not been that smart daling with him but i think i deserve beter--T for Trouble-maker 09:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)woow i saw what he has been doing with everythink i write...scary[reply]

Template:User bi

bi is the ISO-639 two-letter code of Bislama language. I think the use of Template:User bi should be restricted to this meaning. (see Wikipedia:Requested moves.) --Hello World! 14:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia/Pederasty

I noticed that you have one of those user boxes where it says you are against censorship, and so am I. But I could not help being a bit amused by that in light of your attempted deletion of my notice on the GLBT board. It is neither fair nor true to conflate pedophilia with pederasty, and the last person I would expect that of is someone with a certain degree of sensitivity to gender issues, which you certainly seem to possess. If any disgreement remains between us on this topic and you wish to resolve it, please let me know. Haiduc 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In countries where the legal age for homosexual sex is different than for the heterosexual, and so higher than the average age of consent worldwide, 16 years: I agree, that's unfair, is just pure discrimination. But a middle-aged man having sex with a boy who is under-age is no different than a middle-aged man having sex with a girl who is under-age. It's paedophilia. I'm not going to say it's any better just because it's the homosexual equivalent of "normal" pedophilia. It's still a middle-aged man having sex with a child.

Historical arguments are baseless: Humanity's done and allowed a LOT of stupid things, and stupidly not allowed many other things. That's just how it goes. Today we know better than to allow children to be molested by adults.

I'm quite appalled that you are in favour of sexual abuse of children and from your edits and very pro-active stance, maybe even a practioner of this. Let me guess, you're a member of the "Childlove movement"?--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a reply on my page. Haiduc 21:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again as above. You have completely misunderstood me. Haiduc 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

I have removed the request for moving the templates here. There does not seem to be any discussion or consensus regarding the matter, so please repost if necessary. I am also posting this on User talk:Sl (Hello World!), as I am not certain where the discussion should take place regarding these templates. Thanks. --HappyCamper 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user is welcome to post the move request, but currently, the backlog is filled with entries which have not reached consensus, so I am in the process of clearing them out. Technically speaking, I should be removing those tags as well, but instead I have left them there. I'll leave to you and Sl to sort it out. --HappyCamper 20:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism

Could you not revert :) The information is now in the criticism section requesting a cite. I don't think criticism should be in the lead, but in its own section I don't see a problem. - FrancisTyers 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be there if it's not cited, and I very much doubt Yuber has any sources: It's just his own point of view masquerading as "some critics say", "some critics think" etc. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism

Hi, Mistress Selina. I notice that you have now reverted the Islamofascism page three times today. Please don't keep reverting it. Why not try placing disputed passages on talk and discussing them with editors who want them kept? Personally, I find your preferred version too POV, although I can understand your concerns. Mindlessly reverting won't get you anywhere though (except blocked). If you're actually interested in pursuing the goals of Wikipedia, please consider taking the approach I've suggested. James James 03:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably a bit lacking in your understanding of fascism. None of your three points are "fascist" as such; I mean they do not distinguish fascism from any other kind of "ism". In particular, point one is entirely wrong. Fascists did not consider nonfascists as inferior -- they simply didn't permit the concept of not being part of their polity. Point two is not very accurate. Most religions do not have a utopian view of themselves. Yes, some believe that it would be good for everyone to believe; but that is because of the belief that the right way to salvation is something that is good for everyone. That's not quite as exceptionable as you are wanting to make out, because it can be positively motivated. If I want the best for you, am I being a fascist? Point three doesn't apply to fascists. They didn't kill people for not being fascists generally, but had a host of other reasons. They certainly didn't have any particular problem with apostasy.

Have a read of the page I cited on Francis' talkpage. Even in Orwell's day, people threw around "fascist" as an insult, rendering it more or less meaningless. Fascism, above all else, requires a heavily corporatised state. Osama bin Laden despises corporatism. He'd make a poor fascist. James James 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds better than Totalitarianist maybe. I dunno. That's what most people mean when they say fascist, though. Not "political party composed of people that are mostly dead from over 60 years ago" or "corporatism" - people (mostly punks) in the 1970s called the governments fascist: nothing to do with corporatism, to do with the upper classes (higher in power) repressing the lower classes - religion has historically done the same (Christianity in the middle ages, definitely): and Islamic states restrict rule to the kind of people that are experienced and influential in the religion: also just about all religions have a creation myth that discreetly implies that women are inferior to men, and some have religious doctrines confining women to essentially "housewives or nothing". The Nazis were very much the same, emphasasing "family values": "women should stay at home, cook and make good nazi babies". ick. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theocratic rule describes what is wanted by some islamers better. :) Needless to say rule by superstition is something I would count worth fighting against, no matter what form the superstition or myth states. Note, check up on the criticism now, see if you can help with citing or adjusting to take into account what the sources say. And James James is right about fascism, it has such a broad and varied definition as to make the term next to meaningless. Check out the Orwell essay, its good. - FrancisTyers 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and slavery

Thanks, slavery is one of the areas where no religion is truly clean. If you could just cut back on the wikistalking a bit you'd find that we won't have too much trouble with each other. Yuber^(talk) 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~rolls eyes~ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selina! Where do you come from?-- Bonaparte talk 12:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zatanna image

Don't be like this... It's Christmas time, almost New Year's eve. You don't wanna get an old bitter aunt, do you? xoxo 200.162.245.104 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Unionism Userbox

Fuck up, that wasn't vandalism, describe how that was vandalism? Someone has a little sand in their vagina. Anti-establishment 19:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster flag

Sorry to bang on about this, but where did the design for Image:Ulster Unionist.png come from? I can't trace this anywhere. Morwen - Talk 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nevermind, found it now. This flag, which is indeed the first hit for "ulster unionism flag" appears to be the flag used by the Ulster Independence Movement, which actually is not a unionist group but a group wanting an independent Northern Ireland (both from Ireland and the UK). Since the main emblem used by Unionists is the Union flag, I've replaced it with that.

I see you've had fun before regarding Derry. I therefore give you some friendly advice - tread very very carefully in Northern Ireland related articles - they are a total minefield. Morwen - Talk 21:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you appear to have copied (most of) the description from [8] - is that correct? I don't see any copyright notice on the page - did you get permission. Morwen - Talk 21:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy

Hi there. I'm not quite sure how I got to your user page, but I did. I'm glad you're my friend, and I'm also pleased that you don't use U.S. Customary units (meaning, I take it, that you prefer SI units, which begs the question of where you live). Anyway this rambling prolog, like your userpage, is fuelled by the secular consumption of alcohol, but still leads me to beg you to reconsider your stance on anarchism. I am with you in agreeing that anarchism as it is currently packaged by the extreme left will not work, because it's just YAPS (yet another political system) where someone's gonna be at the top and someone's gonna be at the bottom. Anarchy is, as I understand it, a system in which there is no government at all, and no politics. There is no top and no bottom. The hitch is that for such a system to work, every citizen must accept responsibility for the daily operation of the affairs of state, whatever those might represent in a government-free land. I believe anarchy is the best form of government because it offers the greatest number of freedoms to its citizenry. It is, however, the least attainable form, because it requires a degree of responsibility from each individual far beyond what modern humans can commit. Perhaps in a thousand years, we will have evolved to the point where we acept others as equals, where we accept the divergence of ideas, and where we are prepared to accept the huge responsibility which is required to live in a state where the only rules are those we set for ourselves. D e nni ☯ 21:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

meow?

you sound hot mistress selina but i guess that goes without saying....

Rbj

Yeah, he's from USENET, and that's the way they act over there, so i'm not particularly surprised. Would you like to be a party on an rfc? Apparently, he's done nothing on Wikipedia during the last week except for trying to attack me. I'll probably start one soon. karmafist 23:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, them USENET people. they're all the same. in fact i can't tell one from the other. they all look the same to me. r b-j 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Wikistalking

Kindly refrain from leaving nasty remarks on my talk page for other people. I don't care for it, and I think it's really quite nasty of you to do so. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nice to nice people. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and you haven't produced a shred of evidence that i have stalked (that's a new one, what will it be next week? that i entered their home and robbed them?) or personally attacked either Karmafist or Phroziac, yet i have ample evidence of both from Karmafist and that it was at Phroziac's behest. facts are these pesky little things for the less-than-honest. and with WP, you can't delete the record and conveniently "forget". r b-j 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy requires that you be nice, or at least not nasty, to everyone. If you aren't willing to follow that rule, find another hobby. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you wouldn't be attacking me like this if I didn't say that about someone in your own personal Wiki-clique. Funny how you ignore the various personal attacks he has made on others.

I'd support a motion for de-sysopping you. You seem like yet another admin that believes in nepotism while saying differently... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MSK, I sincerely doubt Kelly knows much of anything about Rbj beyond this recent fracas and the short-lived arbitration request. He certainly isn't in 'her Wiki-clique'. Think of it as a territorial thing... you brought a mess onto her talk page. Add to that the fact that univeral civility is supposed to be the rule and she's just making a mild warning. No reason for the claws to come out. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ok, seeing as I've never talked to her before it seemed different from the actions (or lack of them) and words, but never mind.

I hate how some people seem to get away with murder (generally, friends of admins, or members of WikiProjects that admins are in) around here but others are almost instantly banned. -_- Corruption is rife, but then that's human nature and inevitable in any bureaucracy. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've got a problem with the 'flexibility' of standards too. Still, don't go looking for a conspiracy under every rock. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox

It doesn't make any difference whose url it is, or which servers it is hosted on. It still redirects to their "official" webpage, whose url we correctly give. In the same way, we'd give www.microsoft.com, even if Bill Gates had a domain called mikkkro$oft.org.an James James 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dicdef

Hi! I tagged that "blood fetish" entry aas a dictionary definition; in fact, there isn't much in the entry other than one would surmise from the title. Anything you can add to it? That one, I gotta tell you, is a first for me. I can't even stand to have blood drawn. :) The other article, unfortunately, was more of a "link spam" entry. Promoting small websites of any type tends to get frowned on. Just so ya know. Anyway, have fun and happy new year! - Lucky 6.9 02:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, only administrators can view deleted edits, presumably to make it harder to repost them. If that site really is major, please accept my apologies for jumping the gun. - Lucky 6.9 02:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. Heck, we even have a few Goths here in the Palm Springs area! Who'd a-thunk? Considering the twists and turns of the human psyche, it doesn't surprise me to learn that there on folks who get off on blood. Just when you thought it couldn't get much stranger... :)) - Lucky 6.9 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User alcohol to Template:User alcoholic?

The point of the userbox was not to display that this person is or was an alcoholic, but to suggest that the person drank alcohol (as opposed to Coke, Pepsi, or the like). Will you please explain your reasoning behind this on my talk page? Thanks, Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: I'd recommend looking into archiving your talk page: it is getting quite lengthy... instructions here. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was sort of sarcastic ... when you read... "This person drinks _____" userbox after userbox after userbox... it may get on your nerves, until you get to the bottom and you find something that makes you laugh like "This user drinks. Period." No "This User Drinks....", Just "This User Drinks." Thanks for your understanding and time. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liking things that go BANG

Steals that userbox.* Bwahahahahaha. That's great. Rogue 9 07:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha

Hi Mistress, sorry for that. It's not of my nature to revert w/o discussing. Anyway, I reverted that as it is considered a personal essay or in other words an original research. We don't use the terms of course and although this is unheard of in medical terms, puberty usually ending around 15 years old - a 6 year difference is considered a PE/OR. I hope I gave a reasonable explanation to my revert. And sorry again for not using the edit summary as my head is full of proteins ;). So would you consider your edits? Cheers -- Szvest 08:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Thanks for the explanations. I appreciate your clarity. PE is an abv. of personal essay as I said above. Going back to the main issue; all the edits are supposed to be based on facts (proved facts). If the issue of the age of Aisha at that time is totally contested and there's no verified source to that than we cannot judge. All we have to say is that X claims that she was 99 and all the rest is original research. Cheers -- Szvest 08:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Good. Now it looks encyclopedic whatever better or worse it is. Going to bed! See ya around! Cheers -- Szvest 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Template:WivesMuhammad

Read Template_talk:WivesMuhammad#Comment_from_uninvolved_admin and read the whole talk page. There has been discussion on this and if you have questions join in do not move it. You are being quite belligerent and it must stop. Use the talk page don't just try to change things after an issue has been lying dormant for a few weeks. And when your edits are not minor do not mark them as minor. gren グレン 11:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aspie?

Nah. Just gifted. Out of curiosity, what gave you the idea? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem remarks

Hi MSK, please tone down the comments you're making about other editors. Your edit summaries of e.g. "Revert vandalism by POV-warrior X," and "Stop fucking trying to censor every fucking thing that criticises Islam without even discussing," and comments on talk pages like "it's a blatant falsehood, and the fact that only Muslims are reverting really does show something" are not acceptable. Please concentrate only on content. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how frustrated you feel, and no matter how right you may be about any particular edit, as soon as you post comments like that, you put yourself in the wrong, so it's in your own interests to focus on content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in going back and forth about it. Yuber's request [9] that another editor look at the page is perfectly acceptable, and it's what we're supposed to do rather than continuing to revert. The bottom line is you have to stop insulting or otherwise commenting on editors, stop referring to people you disagree with as cliques, and in particular, you must stop commenting on people's ethnicity or religion, which incidentally you keep getting wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made ANY comments on peoples "ethnicity" so please don't start trying to label me as something I'm not. Incidentally, I'm not wrong about him being a Muslim, he pretty much admits it in an old version of his user page (I checked after he tried to half-deny it by saying "it doesn't say anywhere on my talk page that I am" without actually saying that he's not a follower of Islam -_- - damn sneakiness.)

You know full well what he means though. I've got more examples I can get if you want, he does this kind of thing all the time. It's not a "request to look at the article", it's a request to join him in revert warring. That's why he only leaves those kind of messages on other people in his clique of other Muslim editors..

Not that you care of course, he's your friend, and I've seen edits on your talk page where he goes to you to support him in edit wars too.

I'm consistently being followed around and harassed by a group of about 5 editors, all who happen to be Muslim, who remove anything that critises Islam.

Unfortunately not many other people that aren't Muslim seem to be interested in the content of these articles which lets people like this gang up on editors that dare to add material that conflicts with their religious/religion's point of view.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, MSK's removal of the text indicates that it has been read. That's all which is required. A user is under no obligation to leave a 3RR violation notice on their talk page. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to leave reference to a 3RR block on the talk page for the duration of the block in case another admin sees the violation, doesn't check the noticeboard, and blocks again, which I've seen happen a few times. That is why I restored it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CBD I appreciate that at least someone doesn't seem to be out to destroy any edit I make lately -_-

I notice you just blocked two of my friends, SlimVirgin:

Why is it ok for Yuber to get friends to help him in edit wars but not me?

Neither User:Countering systemic bias or User:Mr Data are me..

And I would like you to stop personally attacking me SlimVirgin by constantly calling me "he" just because you don't like that I stand up to your abusive, harassing, edit-warring friends. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know the next time, i'll help you out either as a editor,as an admin(just not as both, and if it's as an admin, I might be tough on you too), or as somebody who knows other people who can help out. Trust me, you're not alone Selina. Just tell me where the issue is and i'll do what I can to help. karmafist 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Yuber has apparently done this sort of 'calling in reinforcements for an edit war on Islamic articles' before and had an arbitration ruling and requests for enforcement on the issue - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Yuber_Violation_of_RfAr. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the?

May I ask why you deleted my entry {{User Chinese}} on the userbox listing? [10] -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I definitely didn't mean to: I made that edit a while ago, I think I might have used an old version by mistake: or some weirdness with Microsoft Word (I used that to replace all the with tl's) :please, add it back - I would myself but I'm blocked at the moment for 3RR that led from harassment by a certain group of users -_- --~~~~

OK. Well I've already added it back. Thanks for the explanation. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!}

Hi there

It looks like we have the same religion and country of origin (depending on how you define it, of course), by the way...

I saw your remark on SlimVirgin's talk page. Actually I find myself far more often on the same side than on the other side from Yuber, and I think he and other Muslim editors, and anyone wanting to deal with Islam-related topics in a fairminded way, have to put up with an awful lot of crap. It looks like you probably don't agree with me on that, but hey, the world's full of different opinions. But if you look at the side of some of the arguments you've been taking, are you sure it makes sense for an atheist to be on the side of people who are motivated by religious hatred, not to mention ones who look rather like conspiracy theorists (like Bat Ye'or for example with Eurabia)? I don;t know, that's just my opinion... Palmiro | Talk 03:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another hi, and an edit war warning

I for my part saw you revert SlimVirgin's removal of your insult on her page. Edit warring on another user's personal page is seriously frowned on. Don't revert again or I'll block you. And please review WP:NPA while you're about it. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 13:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the fact she's a clique-supporting admin who abuses her power against people she's revert warring against isn't an "insult". And ONE revert is not a "edit war".

It's more frowned upon to delete other people's comments (like she did) I bet.

Wikipedia needs corrupt admins as much as it needs vandalism.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "vandalism"

Kindly refrain from describing my edits as vandalism. Those charges are false & unwarranted. Please be more cautious in the future. Thanks. El_C 14:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fireman/Latex

I think fireman to go outside and get some fresh air haha

One wonders whether that would help. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 17:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:.

What missing pictures? ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I write that? ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, are you talking about the Greek stuff I put on the bottom? (I actually don't speak a word of Greek). ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Καλά, τα ελληνικά είναι πάρα πολύ δύσκολο να μαθευτούν. Μιλώ ισπανικό και πορτογαλικά, αλλά κανένα ελληνικά! Μιλάτε τα ελληνικά? ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, yes : ) ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Εδώ είναι ένα αστέρι για την ύπαρξη τόσο καλό! Τα ισπανικά και πορτογαλικά είναι θαυμάσιοι γλώσσες, και πολύ παρόμοια. Το ι γράφει σωστά?

What I am trying to say: Here is a barnstar for being so kind! Spanish and Portuguese are wonderful languages, and very similar. Am I writing [Greek] correctly? ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

^χα.αχ^ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

many edits

What are you doing? you have placed somthing like 30 edits in 30 seconds each of 543 chars?Eagle (talk) (desk)

Please respond on my talk page. Thnak you. (just curious)

I am still confused. please elaborateEagle (talk) (desk) 22:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your bot's going mad - it's creating templates, not removing them. --Oscarthecat 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the response, please excuse my ignorance. :-) --Oscarthecat 22:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just some help when you put those notification boxes up. Mark the edits as NOT minor. That will get attention.

What Can I do to helpEagle (talk) (desk) 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crap I keep forgetting I have it on automark as minor.. turned that off now --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for two things

Using my "minor" idea
Showing me where to comment

Kelly Martin

Your support on the RfC is appreciated, but please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Replacing the deleted templates with a "Big Brother" notice is extremely inappropriate. Thanks. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I concurr, the new templates are being speedied (for they now fall into CSD) and they're just being recreated to make a WP:POINT. You criticize not following process, but these balck boxes are not following process either (the right process is discussion at RFC page) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours for disruption. -- Curps 23:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to do the same thing. The inappropriate re-creations have also been deleted. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell.. no one even warned me.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er...I did. Right up there, at 22:50 (UTC). —BorgHunter (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well I didn't notice, had loads of windows open :(

in any case reading the above you definitely didnt warn that I would get banned for a whole day - HappyCamper already banned me for 5 minutes .. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a kindergarten. We generally trust that people are mature enough to show basic common sense and civility. Ambi 23:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't "incivil", rude maybe but that depends how you define it - I was justly bringing attention to Kelly's abuse of admin powers and that's about it. I definitely didn't insult her, although I did put "Big brother is watching YOU" and "--~~Wiki-censorship~~--" at the bottom. You can't accuse me of making personal attacks if that's what you're trying to do --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just answered your own question. That's precisely how you were being uncivil and making personal attacks. If you wanted to bring attention to a perceived abuse, file a request for comment, don't disrupt Wikipedia and make personal attacks. Ambi 23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack. I didn't insult her, I merely said that Wikipedia was being censored and linked to the page about abuse of admin.

you're obviously biased towards her in some way or another so it's going to be pointless arguing any more I bet. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for making the black replacement boxes. It might not have been the "right" thing to do (I really don't know or care at the moment), but it alerted me to the current conflict and the request for comment. See ya in 24 hrs. --Fang Aili 23:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

glad that it helped people, that was my intention :)

Until I saw a message saying about this I was confused at first, see User talk:Djr xi#Your template has been deleted (with no vote or discussion it seems)

I wanted to alert other people using these templates that got arbitrarily deleted without discussion and with blatant disregard for people using the templates .. people who didn't see that message are going to be wondering where their userboxes went and what's going on I bet. -_-

It'd be nice if you could mention that it helped you on the page, I notice that Curps used the reason as a bad point, that i was "changing other peoples' user page templates" -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the debate on my userpage. Cheers! --Fang Aili 00:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious Mistress Selina Kyle, were you actively replacing userboxes with the black box/censored thing when you got blocked? Or was it more of a "you have been naughty lets block you as punishment" block?--Commander Keane 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you should be unblocked, just for the sole reason that you can be able to participate on the RFC process, if you agree on stop recreating the black boxes, I'l remove the blocl. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willy on Wheels & Communism Vandal templates removed --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willy on Wheels? "the communism vandal"? Really? How odd. --Fang Aili 00:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

I've restored the Userboxes, but on the most part without your black box version. Hopefully no one will feel the need to re-delete them, as deleting them was out of process to begin with. I'm going to unblock you now, but please do behave. No more posting those black box templates, and please do try to be civil. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not unblocked, maybe you missed one or something I dunno - thanks for the thought tho, dunno when anyone will notice this message if at all within 24 hours :>_<: Oh well --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the block log he gave you a one second block, which in theory should have taken precedence over the other blocks and then expired. Block logic may have had a problem with the ultra short duration or there could be a separate block on your IP or something. Think Evilphoenix called it a night so you may be stuck for now. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 03:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok i'll go back to sleep hehe. thanks.

By the way why did God of War get blocked by User:Neutrality, do you know, or can maybe find out? seems like there's a bit of "silencing" of dissenters going on, looking at "God of war"'s contributions he didn't do or say anything rule-breaking... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but I'm guessing it was this edit. Still, an indefinite block of someone who has constructive edits exceeds the limits of blocking policy as I understand it. I'll ask. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 04:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I doubt it. More likely this, which again, is hardly blockable.. noting the stuff going on in the userboxes page and with the blocks by Cryptic, reason "trolling" (the guys were just putting the message back on the WikiProject page noting the RfC after Cryptic removed it without consensus, and he isn't even a member of the project) - looks like it's the same thing.

Permanant blocking from Wikipedia for disagreeing with the admins. Those other editors are all permanantly blocked too looks like. what the hell.. Very Orwellian.

i'm going to sleep. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I tried unblocking you, you might have been caught by the autoblocker accidentally, but hopefully manually unblocking you will clear that. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nope

"Your IP address is [censored]. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by DragonflySixtyseven.

The reason given is:

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mistress Selina Kyle". The reason given for Mistress Selina Kyle's block is: "Let's try this again"."

Funny thing is I'm logged in and haven't logged out since the block. I'm using firefox 1.5 if thats any help o.O --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 05:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the autoblocked IP and unblocked it - try editing now. Izehar 11:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template User serial comma

I just reverted your recent edits to the above template. My justification is that you completely reversed the meaning of it if you don't specify "|yes" or "|no". I personally did not specify either because I DO have an opinion, but it isn't either the given "|yes" or "|no". Also others who added it without "|yes" or "|no" also had it reversed. They added it knowing it would show they DO have an opinion, and you changed it to "they don't". I hope you understand why I did this, and by all means let me know if you think I'm wrong. .......oh and have a Happy New Year! - ^R_H^e _o^d_t 01:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewalls blocked

I have blocked Whitewalls for 48 hours for vandalizing your user talk and user pages. David | Talk 01:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC logs

Please do not post public logs (or portions of logs, or conversations, etc.) of conversations on the wikipedia IRC channel. I've deleted the portion you posted on Kelly Martin's RFC (personally I don't care, but...) - if you restore it, I know several admins who would probably block you on sight for "trolling" or "privacy violation" or "being a jerk" or whatever...

Cheers! – ugen64 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rules about it: m:IRC channel quotes --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3. Firebug 17:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I've asked for Jimbo's intervention, but if he is too busy or prefers to allow the community to handle this, would you be willing to join in an arbitration case against Kelly Martin and Snowspinner? Their actions are reprehensible and they have shown no comprehension as to just how offensive their behavior is. Firebug 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If someone else would rather start the RFAr for this misbehavior, that is fine with me. Your point is well taken. Firebug 18:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a passer-by, I may was well note I would support. Ian¹³_ID:540053 19:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Mistress Selina Kyle, this comment is not acceptable, and do not even try to pretend that it was justified. More than once today you have made personal attacks against Kelly, and I am close to blocking you for personal attacks as has been mandated in the past by Wikipedia practice. Please desist. [[Sam Korn]] 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puhlease. "I loathe userboxes", 'have a barnstar for abusing your admin powers to get rid of them'.

You're only threatening me because of your obvious personal bias towards her.

To most of the people (not you and your admin friends who voted for protecting her abuse on RfC) it's perfectly justified.

The fact is that is the policy she's made very clear in quotes from RfC.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you underestimate my devotion to fairness. Don't cloud the issue. Your behaviour is completely inappropriate, and you would do well to recognise that. [[Sam Korn]] 21:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your devotion to fairness is clearly nonexistent. If someone's behavior is worthy of attack, they should be attacked. Kelly Martin's behavior over the past day has been abysmal. Rogue 9 00:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading what was mentioned here, and due for your creation of Template:User purge, which violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, I have decided to issue you a 24 hour block. If you have questions, click on "email this user" and I will discuss this with you there. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced your block to time served (ie, I unblocked you. again. Play nice). Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. yeah, I'll be more careful.

Um, same problem as last time though: It's blocked my Ip as well as my account which means my account is blocked too it seems - I haven't logged out, but while logged in and trying to edit it still says "autoblocked because your ip has recently been used by mist.." etc :¦ Template:Bigspace --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO

I'll put that up at the top of my user page, I check that area often since i've been in a dispute regarding images on userboxes. Sam's right, Kelly can get under your skin, but it's better to keep things in regards to actions rather than the individuals that make them. It's alright, I think these past few days will result in some massive changes around here, hopefully for the better. karmafist 21:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt much will change, bureaucracies rarely do.

There's too much cliqueism between many admins and users to let any real changes for the better ever happen. :¦ Template:Bigspace--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I share your sentiment, but i'll try to hope at least. I'm going to copy and paste the code from the template, but remove the rfc link. The issue here isn't Kelly(even though we often butt heads), it's the bureaucracy you speak of. Yelling and screaming at each other isn't going to fix that. If Kelly came to me and said "karmafist, ok, I was wrong, let's bury the hatchet and try to fix all the shit around here", i'd bury the hatchet instantly. I don't think that's likely going to happen, but i'll try to keep the door open for it at least a bit, despite my bad temper. karmafist 21:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic wikipedians

Thanks for fixing the User dyslexic template to point to Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians. Should the old Category:User Dyslexic be removed entirely rather than being a redirect? --Pfafrich 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Good to know there are others here that are aspies and like things that go bang. :) Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 23:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salute!

I, CJ Marsicano, hereby award Mistress Selina Kyle a well deserved **Tireless Defender Of Wikipedian's Free Speech** for her stance against the Great 2006 Userbox Purge. Your efforts are greatly appreciated! 00:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Take care, fellow bass-wielding punk rock warrior... ;) -- Cjmarsicano 00:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC quotes

Let me quote from meta:IRC channels:

"You might be able to log #wikipedia and #wikimedia privately (check with local laws), but you must not indiscriminately publish full channel logs on the web. This includes publicly viewable "tail" logs, where only recent talk is shown. If it is related to a discussion elsewhere, you may quote small sections of the channel log. If you wish to do this, you should delete any lines which are not related to the topic in question. You should also seek permission from the participants in the discussion before publishing their words. According to a popular channel topic, publishing logs is punishable by Crushing by elephant. Banning is probably a more likely result. This also applies in several of the other channels as listed above." – ugen64 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I didn't mean to come across in a negative way, but several people at #wikipedia tend to react harshly when portions of logs are published, so... and if you had permission, then I'm sorry for, uh, being all over your back about it :) – ugen64 05:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even used it (not even sure how to be honest lol, havent seen a link anywhere to chat room):

All I did was copy/paste stuff already released into public by someone else on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'User freedom'

Hi Mistress Selina Kyle! I've contacted you before on the proposed deletion of the 'green wikipedians' category - perhaps you remember. Since then I saw you supporting the freedom of users to express their beliefs and (dis)likes using userboxes and other things on several places. I also noted your userbox against censorship. Therefore, I've awarded you a self-created barnstar. :) Perhaps you would be interested in this template {{user freedom}} and in this debate (Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes)? Regards, Larix 09:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Education

Hi, I removed {{limitedgeographicscope}} from this template, which you added. I also attempted to clean it up/make it clearer. Please respond on template's Talk page if you have concerns about it. cheers, pfctdayelise 11:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmmmmmm, steak

Post away. ;) Rogue 9 17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood fetish

Regarding blood fetish: please don't suggest to people that:

- a common way of finding out whether a person would be safe to engage in bloodplay with is for them to go to their local blood donation organisation, who check blood if it is safe and contains no diseases before it will be stored.

Using a blood donation organization as a proxy STD test is highly irresponsible; if the testing is not 100% perfect (and in never is), and the person trying this is positive (and presumably anyone who is considering doing this considers this to be entirely possible), they will almost certainly (because of pre-test blood pooling, and the very large blood volumes involved) infect one or more unwitting third parties with a potentially lethal disease.

Instead, they should get tested at their local sexual health clinic. -- Karada 20:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the article or the subject of its concern, but I fail to see how saying "X does Y" constitutes an actual endorsement of Y. If such a method is indeed commonplace then, regardless of the advisability of such method for practitioners of said activity, it should be included as part of the article on that activity. Kurt Weber 22:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, is it actually a 'common way' for people to test blood? Do we have a reliable source for such a claim? The wording would have to be amended anyway—even if tested at a blood donor clinic or–preferably–a public/sexual health clinic, there is no guarantee that the blood is 'safe'. Blood tests have a false negative rate, recent infections may not be detected, and there are some diseases transmitted by blood for which we do not have a lab test. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving all this to Talk:Blood fetish - hope no one minds but there's a similar discussion going on both at Karada's talk page and here, better to have it in one place methinks --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing others' comments

Please don't edit the signed comments of other editors ([11]), even if you believe they constitute a mild personal attack. While Wikipedia has a policy against making personal attacks (WP:NPA), there is no formal policy that permits you to remove those remarks. (Occasionally it is done in the most egregious cases, but this really doesn't qualify.) Edit warring over the issue never ends well, in my experience, and its best to simply take the high road. Water off a duck's back. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing personal attacks may be okay on projecyt talk pages, but not in formal procedures, like RfC. Grue 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed guideline is WP:RPA. HTH. 69.49.99.19 21:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People unjustly blocked?

Hi Selina. Just saw your (quickly deleted) remark on WP:AN/3RR#Snowspinner. If there's anyone who has been unjustly blocked, and that block still stands, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll look into it. -- SCZenz 00:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those accounts, Morgan695 and Saveus, appear to have been single-use accounts that participated only in the current war. They're permablocked, and I think that's fair. The other two are unblocked, and were in fact blocked only briefly. -- SCZenz 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

Why'd you put an Ifd tag on a public domain image I made, and not even list it on WP:IFD? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was listing it at IFD as I got this message. It's a duplicate of Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg. dbenbenn | talk 01:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Try clicking the image. It is not size-limited so can be scaled to any size - It's similar, but better --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a "size limited" SVG file; that's the whole point of SVG. I guess you're referring to the fact that your new version has a natural size of 23101x11533, whereas the one at Commons has a natural size of 600x300. Is there a benefit to that change? dbenbenn | talk 01:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC Snowspinner deleted

That RFC contained the following when it was deleted

Hi Phil!

OMG VANDAL! Phil Sandifer 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{ safesubst:p{{ safesubst:#if{{{1}}}:{{{2}}}|1|2}}|{{{3}}}|}}

Where do I sign? :D -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So deleting that one was OK I think. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA and WP:CIV

Please stop calling other editors Islamists. [12] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, I said that's the kind of things Islamists say. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Of course, this is exactly the kind of thing a staunch Islamist would say." It's an inflammatory post and of course it attracted a response in kind from another editor, which you deleted as a personal attack, having caused it in the first place — and that's how talk pages become toxic. If you look at the last few hundred edits you've made, almost none have been to the encyclopedia, and this is an encyclopedia, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. It would be good if normal editing could resume, assuming it ever got started. And please don't change my header again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derry/Londonderry

"Vandalism"

Hello and welcome

User world

World citizen?

Reply

No Logo and.. Admin(?)

Admin2

Sorry...

Ole

Bass Guitarist

Archives

Impersonation

Albert Einstein

In Love with Batman

Ownership of Sci Fi Channel (UK)

Silly page moves

No worries

A UK registered charity

re: World citizenship box

Vandalism

Deletion of 'green wikipedians' category

WikiMedia UK

What?

"User freespeech" template

Free speech template

Arbcom Election

Sock puppetry

Poetlister block

recent revert

Ok.

Thanks!

Userbox templates

Template: User Socialist

Last Warning?

Infidel content dispute

You what

Latex

A quick note

"User freespeech" template

Userboxes

Boring?

User:Poetlister sock puppet notices etc

World citizen flag

cuuuuute kitty

Jimbo

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Mental Health

3RR Block

Bans lifted

Hello

Glamour

Positive Secular Humanist Greetings of Winter

Messages on talk pages

Re: Thanks for abusing your admin rollback User:FireFox to revert my non-vandalism edit and the polite non-existent message on my talk page. This website address is much shorter and is the same anyway

emailed you back

Template:User instrument-gen

User:AlMac|(talk) plagarized you

Izehar's RfA

My RfA

re: Oriana Fallaci

heeeeeeeeelp!!

Template:User bi

Pedophilia/Pederasty

Requested moves

Islamofascism

Islamofascism

Religion and slavery

Zatanna image

Ulster Unionism Userbox

Ulster flag

Anarchy

meow?

Rbj

Speaking of Wikistalking

Firefox

Dicdef

Template:User alcohol to Template:User alcoholic?

Liking things that go BANG

Aisha

Aspie?

User:AlMac|^(talk) plagarized you