Jump to content

User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mistress Selina Kyle (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 24 December 2005 (→Glamour). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Derry/Londonderry

Information icon 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]

Information icon 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&#153;[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...) [1][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&#153;[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&#153;[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&#153;[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:

  1. You are an administrator editing as a newbie to experience Wikipedia from a different prespective.
  2. 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]

Archives

Hi, sorry for moving the page. HolyRomanEmperor asked me to - he's been having some trouble with his connection lately and can't make large edits. Izehar (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To comment on your other userbox - can I be your friend :-) Izehar (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - I'll have to make my own version, as you can see from the many userboxes on my page that I don't like to share and I don't like bright colours. World citizens like us have to stick together :-) Izehar (talk) 18:17, 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, FireFox 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, FireFox 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]

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:[2]? 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

You made my day! RAWRRR!

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! Ian13ID: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]

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 | tc 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 [3] [4] [5] [6] "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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle/Archive1&oldid=32640417"