Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 9 January 2006

User:Kelly Martin/Vacation

• /Archive1 (December 2004 through April 2005)
• /Archive2 (May 2005)
• /Archive3 (June 2005)
• /Archive4 (July 2005)
• /Archive5 (August 2005)
• /Archive6 (September 2005)
• /Archive7 (October 2005)
• /Archive8 (November 2005)
• /Archive9 (December 2005)

Note: I may remove comments that are inserted without a section header. Please be nice and create a new section if you want to leave me a comment. If you add to an existing section, I may miss your comment. This is a very busy page.

ArbCom Candidacy

I would just like to let you know that I support your upcoming candidacy for the ArbCom.Mikeroberts 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Thrax Sock

I have blocked User:JacobGrimm indefinitely as an obvious sock of User:Thrax. Yawn. Bishonen | talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of userboxes

I've moved this entire discussion elsewhere. Please make any comments you wish to make on the RfC instead of here, and spare my talk page the workout. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fancy meeting you here!

Almost all I do here is avoid double redirects and make sure sentences have full stops, so I'm not surprised you didn't know I was here. Thanks for adding the first non-template message to my talk page. Michael Slone 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

==

CheckUser request

Could you make a sock check on User:Hollow Wilerding, User:Winnermario (see Mel Etitis' suspicions) and User:DrippingInk (see Bunchofgrapes' comments)? I don't have a strong opinion about the puppetry, but please note that if DrippingInk and Winnermario are her socks, they're abusive all right. They always vote to support Hollow Wilerding's FACs, and jump in to scold those who oppose. The affair is highlighted at Hollow Wilerding's prematurely delisted but very interesting RFA. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Positive match: these three users are, without any question, the same editor (or, possibly, two or more people sharing the same connection, but I doubt that). Feel free to block based on attempt to use sockpuppets to stack opinion on FAC. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So you doubt we're the same people using different accounts? Please read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, because you did not exercise good faith, but merely the negative. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Disobeying orders...

... I know I am, but I hope you don't mind this one. Whilst I am not certain I'd have done the same thing, I am impressed by your boldness and courage in defending Misplaced Pages from division and copyright problems in userboxes (which I loathe, apart from the useful language templates). So have this Defender of the Wiki barnstar! Cheers, and happy new year, ] 16:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:82.42.237.114

I am the system administrator of this network. Please email me via this site, I believe the block is unwarranted. --Craig Whitford 17:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Top warning

Please remove or modify the top warning on this page, there is no policy that supports this kind of statement of blocking for any personal attack. _→AzaToth 20:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ignore All Rules, but only when it applies to me. For only I am above policy." -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not. That statement of personal policy is firmly grounded in no personal attacks and I will not retract or alter it. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

From the policy in question; "In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial.". Based on that, blocks for personal attacks aren't "firmly grounded" even in "extreme cases"... let alone blocking for a single instance. I think personal attacks are a major problem, but policy doesn't say you can block for them at will. Indeed, that proposal was specifically rejected... probably because standards of what is and is not a 'personal attack' are very subjective. --CBD _☎ 22:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle

I strongly advise you to file some sort of RfC or RfArb against this user, who in my view should be indefinitely blocked for the worst case of WP:POINT and WP:NPA I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. I'm a rational admin, and have only blocked trolls to date, but I can't help but look at this user as wiki-stalking you, and don't want to stand idly by. Maybe if they file a request for arbitration against you I will make a statement against her poor poor behaviour in these matters. Harro5 22:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel that there would be any benefit to taking such punitive measures against Ms. Kyle. I am content to allow the community to decide what, if any, action should be taken in relation to her conduct. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck it, I quit

Well, if you hoped to drive off Misplaced Pages contributors with your three-ring circus, you've succeeded. I will not be editing here any longer. Enjoy your little circle jerk; no person of stature or dignity could abide such disrespect and remain. Firebug 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Present

A present for you: {{User Wikipedian}}. Use it. Nuke it. Whichever, enjoy. Happy New Year. --CBD _☎ 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Fairness to both sides

Happy New Year Kelly! So anyone that tries to edit out bias, mis-quotes, expand controversial articles is a member of the entity that is the subject of the article, and those that join the editing, reverting are too? Why would anyone want to edit articles at Misplaced Pages if he would be subject to such allegations? I request that the arbcom also deal with the issues that I and others have raised. I look forward to a solution that is fair to both sides of this debate. Sincerely, Johnski 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You can help Misplaced Pages

Yes YOU !!

You can help Misplaced Pages. Believe it or not there is a big brou-ha-ha going on that is wasting time and energy of dedicated wikipedians and YOU can help solve the problem! Really! Honest to gosh, cross my heart. The solution is, well, um its secret. I can't tell you. But Slim Virgin can. Ask her. Do what she says. Do you want to help Misplaced Pages or not? WAS 4.250 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For deleting a load of useless shit, and refusing to drop your principles. Top banana! Rob Church 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Another possible PHP open proxy

See this edit and others by User:Brian Daniels. They show the same PHP open proxy damage as the last time (replacing all instances of ' by \'). It would be good to do a checkuser and indefinitely block the open proxy, if it's really another open proxy. --cesarb 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Request For Arbitration

Hello, a Request for Arbitration has been filed against you and Snowspinner here karmafist 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Can you please check User:Flavius Aetius, User:Almeidaisgod, User:Brian Brockmeyer, and User:24.186.219.3 if they are sock puppet of each other. I suspect them to be because they have been blanking the same section of the article University of Miami. I also noticed that User:Almeidaisgod and User:Flavius Aetius have very few edits. In discussions, they always support each other. I think they are violating the sock puppet policy. Thanks for your attention.--Ichiro 10:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

To prevent redundancy, just to note you don't need to check it anymore. It's already been done :) --Ichiro 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I think that the actions of this user in deleting a large portion of userboxes without following process have seriously undermined the wiki way. Please be aware that there is a process for deletion, and that it does not involve unilateral action with no warning. Being bold is one thing, being destructive of the wiki way is another thing entirely. --Dschor 11:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Chat transcript

 <karynn> i deleted a bunch of useless shit, and the people in love with it whined. 
 <ambi2> meh, I'm all for deleting them now. It's interesting that basically all the people who voted against you on that RfC were newbies irritated that their l33t toys had disappeared. 
 <karynn> yeah, pretty much. along with a handful of process wonks 
 <karynn> by the way, i'm just loving this. i should get RfC'd more often. 
 <karynn> i peed on someone's playground, i guess." 

Hi Kelly, I was just wondering if you actually wrote the above passages or if they were made up to smear you. If you did actually write them, I must admit that I have concerns about your suitability as an admin. As admins, we have a certain responsibility to serve as an example of civility. By failing to uphold civility, you undermine the ability of all admins to conduct the business of administrating. Kaldari 14:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That respected contributor User:SPUI was banned for a while shortly after posting it on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin#Assumption of bad faith and incivility by Snowspinner (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (and permanantly from the chat room by Kelly's friend Ambi) and the fact no one denied it was said pretty much says it all, really.. --Mistress Selina Kyle 15:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As one of the admins who sometimes frequent the IRC channel (no, I can't check these sentences were legit, since I wasn't there at the time, and even if I were there I wouldn't say if they're legit — we're not supposed to post transcripts), I can say admins there sometimes "blow steam", joking about things. You must always take what's said on the channel with a grain of salt, as it can be hard sometimes to know if one is being serious or joking (just take a look at m:bash for a lot of examples of the latter kind). --cesarb 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only is what CesarB states true in this case, but those quotes were also taken out of context. If you think those quotes in any way indicate that I am unfit to be an admin, I submit that you have unreasonable expectations of administrators.

Also, I am blocking Mistress Selina Kyle for 4 hours for a personal attack against Ambi. You were warned by the message at the top of my page. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember that doing that is probably against the rules _→AzaToth 15:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If I felt that such blocks were against the rules, I wouldn't issue them. Misplaced Pages prohibits personal attacks, and I simply will not stand for them on my user talk page. If you don't like this, I suggest not using my user talk page as a space to make personal attacks. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious: where is the personal attack against Ambi? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider the comments made by Ms. Kyle about Ambi's conduct (which, by the way, are false: SPUI is in the channel as I type, in fact) to be a personal attack of Ambi. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your response. I didn't realize she had made that up. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, interesting, I didn't notice that. There's no way that channel would be silent for a whole 23 minutes, or even one minute and a half. Now that I think of it, it's quite visible that the context has been completely removed. And not only the usual offtopic talk and parallel threads; it's hard to believe you wouldn't have gotten at least five other people commenting on the situation. --cesarb 16:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That transcript covered 40 minutes of time. An enormous amount of relevant material/context was removed. Rx StrangeLove 16:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what context they were in, those comments show that your actions were motivated foremost by contempt, not by the best interests of Misplaced Pages as you have been asserting in your RfC. That type of derisive and dismissive attitude makes all of us, as admins, look bad. I would respectfully suggest that you take the criticisms against you seriously. Being an admin entails a certain responsibility to promote civility and wiki-love. If you are truly interested in the best interests of the encyclopedia, please realize that your behaviour can have a very real impact on the cohesiveness of the community that builds this encyclopedia. Starting a wiki-war is certainly not in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. If you would like to end this bruhaha so that we can all get back to the business of encyclopedia writing, you would do well to seriously consider swallowing your pride and apologizing to the community. Just my two cents. (And for the record, I have never created or used a userbox, nor do I care one way or another whether they exist. I also do not consider myself a "process nazi". I do however take civility seriously.) Kaldari 18:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you don't know the context they were in, you are not in a position to comment on what they were motivated by. I'm naturally a very sarcastic and acerbic person, something which I try to keep under control on the Wiki itself. One of my release vents for this tendency is the IRC channel. The people who habituate it understand that and have learned to recognize when I'm being sarcastic, ranty, or downright contrary (as I was in several of those statements). Having more of the context would have helped to make that clear, but SPUI did not see fit to let you see that content. (If you are upset with this, take it up with him, not with me.) I stand by my behavior on the wiki itself and on the IRC channel as well, noting their respective roles in maintaining our community. The standards for conduct on the wiki are not the standards for conduct on IRC, after all, for very good reason. It was inappropriate of SPUI to have transcribed that content (as he well knows); doing so seriously undermined the utility of the IRC channel.

I do hold those whose purpose for being on Misplaced Pages is other than to write an encyclopedia with contempt. Such people do not belong here; they should be asked to leave, and if they do not leave they should be forced to leave. Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment; it is an encyclopedia. I do not believe my actions will have a serious impact on that portion of our community that actually writes the encyclopedia; my actions did not target them.

I will not apologize for my actions; they were motivated by my belief in what is best for Misplaced Pages. Nor will I apologize for the response to those actions because it was not I who responded. Nor will I apologize to my response to the response, as I have done nothing for which an apology is appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize that it was completely inappropriate for those chat transcripts to be posted. Regardless, the damage is done. I don't care so much about the userbox issue, but I believe it would be most ecumenical if you (and Ambi) would consider apologizing for the chat comments, as I feel they are insulting to a good many upstanding editors. Otherwise, I'm afraid you may risk losing some of the respect of your fellow editors and admins that you have deservedly built up prior to this incident. Kaldari 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Spread your wings!

I am awarding you these wings regardless of the ruckus going on. There are some of us who apreciates fine mopping work. --Cool Cat 17:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK

FYI WP:AN/I#User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle. SlimVirgin 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Comment

Please do not make threats on my talk page. I have far less need to apologize than you do right now. karmafist 19:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And so, an advise becomes a threat. This looks like a job for Kitty (please deposit payment in tuna). El_C 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

But where'd Kelly be without her threats? Dan100 (Talk) 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of Mistress Selina Kyle

I'm curious why you believe that Mistress Selina Kyle's statement that Ambi banned SPUI from an IRC channel was a personal attack? SPUI has made the same claim and Ambi has thus far refused to deny the allegation. Kaldari 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the manner in which she made the statement (and the fact that it was factually incorrect, as SPUI's ban was temporary, not permanent) is what causes it to rise to the level of a personal attack. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So instead of correcting the statement (which I would consider hyperbole at worst), you decided to immediately block the user? For what it's worth, I understand your frustration at dealing with MSK (whose problematic behavior is well documented), however, taking unilateral actions like that only adds fuel to the bonfire. Are you honestly that unconcerned with being typecast as an unrepentant member of the elite wiki cabel? I suppose your unwillingness to play politics is, in a way, respectable. However, I can't help but worry about all the townsfolk with pitchfolks and torches at the gate. Kaldari 00:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't tolerate bonfires on my talk page. Correcting the statement would have simply perpetuated her personal attacks. The policy I've adopted is there for a reason. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy you adopted? Do you have the right to define your own blocking policy? _→AzaToth 01:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the right to say I can't? Kelly Martin (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The right to say it? Yes, unless things around here are much worse than even the most passionate of the nay-sayers have alleged. I can, and do, say that you don't have the right to define your own blocking policy... if that policy is wider than Misplaced Pages's blocking policy. Which it clearly is given the quotation from the official policy I gave above. I can say that. I can't do anything about it, but I can definitely say it. --CBD _☎ 11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your block on MSK was completely out of line. Given this whole userbox debacle, I am well within reason to consider you and her to be in conflict, and therefore it is absolutely not your place to enact a block on her, as she is someone you are in a dispute with. If you feel that she has commited a blockable offense, you should seek out a neutral Administrator to consider enacting a block, but it in entirely out of place for you to do so yourself. Your repeated and willful disregard for the policies and customs of the Misplaced Pages community is appalling. Ëvilphoenix 00:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Evilphoenix; I suppose this ought to be a question for your ArbCom candidacy. —James S. 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to my candidate's questions page. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

checkuser of Australian vandal socks

The Australian-topic vandal seems to have come back for a second round. He's obviously using open proxies, if you look in the block log for (dozens and dozens) of Australia-related socks that have been blocked, we should be able to close off a whole bunch of open proxies.

PS, is there anyone but you that's doing this sort of thing? As far as I can see, the other admins with checkuser just use it to look for people double-voting on AfD and such, which is fine and dandy but doesn't do much for the vandalism problem. In fact, Jimbo really, really ought to have a full-time salaried person working on this: closing open proxies and especially Tor; or, if it's an ISP, regularly getting in touch with their abuse contact persons to get them to lean on their wayward customers. Who knows, perhaps you yourself would be ideally suited for that? -- Curps 06:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if he wants to offer me pay and benefits comparable to my current position and let me work from my house in Chicagoland, I'll do it. But somehow I doubt that'll happen; I don't come cheap. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's just wishful thinking on my part, I don't have Jimbo's ear. I'm increasingly convinced, though, that this is something that needs to start getting taken care of, with slowly increasing urgency. -- Curps 08:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Tip jar

Do you plan on donating that to the project, or are you implying that you deserve to be paid for your work on Misplaced Pages? When the link is followed to your paypal page. It says "Payment for Misplaced Pages." No one should be paying you, or anyone else for Misplaced Pages. I find this highly troubling from an admin. --WAvegetarian (email) 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a tip jar. If you feel that I deserve a cash tip, you're free to use it for that purpose. If you don't feel that way, don't bother. I already donate substantially to Misplaced Pages, so unless you put a whole hell of a lot of money into the tip jar, it'll just become part of my routine donations anyway. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you should disclose how much money you get from this "tip jar." Hearing this is troubling and it makes you look like even a worse person that you already do. I can tell you are not going to get re-selected for ARb Comm next time. And I'm a mentally Challendged south american saying that! Why don't you do us all a faovr and just step down? I've already asked you once and it was before all this started with the user boxes thanks.Wiki_brah 05:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request / result of a personal threat

User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Misplaced Pages guidelines, manners, and so on. To his credit he is trying to learn. Unfortunately, he was a bit abrasive at first and stirred up some vandals and such, especially anonymous editors User:68.45.146.191, User:199.216.98.66 and User:216.13.219.229 who placed User:Bumpusmills1's personal contact info on User:Bumpusmills1's user page and threatened him. (Examples of these threats are and , although there are more examples in the history.) It appears these anonymous users are sock puppets of one user. To cut to the chase, I was told to check with the people on the arbitration committee to see if one of you could do a checkuser on these ISPs and see if this is a Misplaced Pages editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give.--Alabamaboy 16:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This incident has take a more serious turn (see the comments on the admin noticeboard). Can you please run this checkuser request if you get a chance? Thanks, --Alabamaboy 00:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in this

Dunno if you know of this already, but have a look at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_support_Kelly_Martin. --Gurubrahma 17:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

Per our discussion on the admin discussion board, you said, "Note that deleting the edits removes the IP edit history (meaning we can't find the underlying IP from which a logged in editor made the edit). I don't know if the IPs are restored when the edits are undeleted; perhaps a developer can answer that. (As an aside: it would be really nice if CheckUser searched deleted edits, too.)"

Since I'm still a new admin, I was wondering if I did the right thing in deleting the page? The user was frantic about removing his personal info (actually, his parent's address) before people starting sending threaten stuff and the only other way I knew to remove the info was to bring a developer into the game (which seemed unlikely). Just for future reference, what's the best way to handle stuff like this? Thanks in advance.--Alabamaboy 14:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a big deal. Deleting the inappropriate content is more important than preserving the IP address history. Although you should consider undeleting selected revisions so that the page history is maintained. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that next time. Best,--Alabamaboy 19:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Backslashes

I've indefinitely blocked User:207.150.184.44, per your comment on inserting backslashes before quotations. Tom Harrison 17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert I case

Re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Robert I as Robert I has resumed editing I'd like to request an injunction. Homey 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser Request

You might want to take a look at the following:

• Gulzarres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gui_Redfor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guizaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All blocked by myself. Their sole actions were adding {{defban}} to user pages and the associated talk pages. I presume it's somebody that has been banned, but you'll do a better job of identifying who it is. --GraemeL 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably best if you answer at the AN post on the same subject. --GraemeL 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Addding fuel to the fire

I have no idea as to the accuracy of this, but it was clearly uncivil. Can you please stop doing things just to upset people? - brenneman 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about. It's perfectly true that Cool Cat took the idea from me, and I thought it was an amusing addition to the chain. I guess some people have no sense of humor. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't understand that editing the user page of someone who had just been blocked for an "attack" on you was a bad idea, I'll attribute this to total lack of comphrehension of human beings rather than malice.

But I find that really hard to believe.

brenneman 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the block. I don't pay a lot of attention to this. I don't really care if people who attack me are blocked or not. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I sent an email to you to request that you remove the block, Kelly, so I think you were well aware of it. And I only objected to the edit on the basis that it was not referenced, and apparently false, as CoolCat had such a box before you (according to page history). I think it was rather bad form to edit my page in such a way. At this point I hardly expect an apology, but it would have been nice to at least revert your own edit upon my request. And thanks, Brenneman, for keeping an eye on this, too. I agree that I find it rather hard to believe that Kelly did not understand exactly what she was doing, but I will assume good faith. --Dschor 04:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar fascist

You claim to be a "grammar fascist". I assume you mean something positive by that. I have no idea what positive relationship to grammar one could have that I would call being a "grammar fascist". I don't care to hear anything about the word "fascist". I do care to understand what you perceive your relationship to grammar to be. The reason I ask is (1) I find the evolution of language very interesting and (2) recent unfortunate incidents have brought you to my attention. Thank you, in advance, for favoring me with a little insight. By the way, I'm all about accuracy and sourcing myself. So long as I'm accuratly communicating, I care about the grammar as much as Shakespeare cared about spelling. On the other hand, I love the subtle distinctions English is capable of. To me "grammar nazi" or "grammar facist" would be one who railed against ending a sentence in English with a preposition. Surely, that's not you? WAS 4.250 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm a grammar nazi myself (and I have Kelly Martin's talk page on my watchlist, for what purpose I have forgotten), I'll pipe up here. The deteroriation of the English language which has been steadily occurring appalls me. I mean, there are typos, and then there is "hay cn u giv m3 teh hw from ms smiths class plz thx" is awful. Run-on sentences also are particularly nauseating. Abuse of the English language (when not used for artistic license, as in Shakespeare's case) is simply being lazy, and that's all there is to it. If you don't care enough about your first language to learn it properly, in my opinion, you don't deserve to pass high school. Period. Basic English skills and the ability to write are essential skills, and it's important not to look like an idiot, as you would if you said "Its about time!" No one uses the damned apostrophe anymore unless they're using it in a pluralized noun. All in all, people bandying bad grammar about simply irks me. There are my two cents; I wouldn't be surprised if Kelly feels similarly. (But, of course, I offer no guarantees.) —BorgHunter (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"hay cn u giv m3 teh hw from ms smiths class plz thx" Man I got a headache just looking at that. If it means fewer headaches, I'm with you BorgHunter. :) Jokermage 04:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Different people are good at different things. Should someone not pass high school if they are blind? if they are dyslexic? if they can create great poetry but can't grasp the number line (a friend of mine (age 40; on disability) was like this; 2 minus 3 was beyond him but his vocabulary and creative skills in English were amazing). I'm of the opinion that society, like the human body needs its brain cells, muscle cells, white-blood cells, etc. While Robert Heinlein is right that specialization is for insects, rejecting capable people because they can only help in some ways but not in some special way is, well, Nazi-like, and is a losing strategy. The winning strategy is to accept anyone who can help. WAS 4.250 05:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Name a job that requires a decent level of education in which fluency in either written or spoken English is not a requirement. My opinion: If someone cannot speak or write English, they do not deserve a high school diploma and are perfectly capable to either A) try harder to learn proper English so they can pass, or B) accept that they don't have a diploma and go ahead and succeed despite that. It's up to them. There is a C, but it's not pretty and it involves the person being lazy, which is something my idealistic mind cannot comprehend. The error in your reasoning comes when you assume that not granting someone a diploma shuns them; it does not. It merely indicates that they do not have a sufficient grasp of the proper skills to function at an educated level in today's society. If they are great at math but bad at English, surely they can get training and become a mathematician if it suits them, despite the lack of a diploma. (Incidentally, shouldn't we consider moving this off of Ms. Martin's talk page? She hasn't contributed to the discussion, and I don't know if she wants us cluttering her page with this.) —BorgHunter (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I would suggest that you move this discussion elsewhere. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving to User talk:BorgHunter. --cesarb 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your email

Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 18:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your comments on my request for adminiship, the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me.

I hope that in time your opinion of my understanding of the 'ways of the Wiki' will improve, please assist me with that if you notice me going off in the wrong direction, I obviously hope not to do that, but we are all fallible.

btw, I am frequently in IRC, should you wish to discuss anything there, where I use the nickname AlienLifeForm. --Alf 11:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your contribution to my request for adminship.

Banned user returns?

Hi, what do I do if I think a recently banned user has returned under a different user name? I hesitate to post my specific suspicions on a public page because if I am wrong, a user gets needlessly tarred. Thanks.--Cberlet 16:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You can request an investigation by email (see links on my user page) as well. Please be sure to explain why you think the user in question is the same person as a recently banned user. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Backslashes before apostrophes

Hi, you asked to be notified of vandals adding backslashes before apostrophes. TequilaAndLime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did so. (Curps already blocked TequilaAndLime indefinitely after TAL marked Obesity for speedy deletion as an attack page. In the edit summary, TAL claims to be Mindspillage's "autoedit bot", which is IMO extremely unlikely. --Angr (tɔk) 16:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Proxy-hunting

A list of open proxies here, please block accordingly: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Sunfazer/Open_proxy_list

Hope this helps!

--Sunfazer 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I already blocked these after seeing the post on the noticeboard. However, I'm not a checkuser user, so I cannot follow the trail to the accounts that used them. You can take a look the IPs on my block log and do your magic, if you feel there is a need. --cesarb 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar Fanatic Help Needed

The phrase Indirectly Personally Responsible. Are there any oxymora or redundancies in it? Robert Taylor 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Shooting

I think it is wrong to use terminology suggesting violence, even in jest, such as vandals being "shot". That's not compatible with a compassionate outlook, in my opinion. I know you probably think that's ridiculous, but understand that it is troubling to some people, myself included. Everyking 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey

One and the same. Nice to see a fellow Agoran here! Chuck 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. Inquiry

Nothing personal, but I felt that comments such as the following are inappropriate: I do hold those whose purpose for being on Misplaced Pages is other than to write an encyclopedia with contempt. Such people do not belong here; they should be asked to leave, and if they do not leave they should be forced to leave. Rhion 18:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The bit I find objectionable is the "contempt". Rhion 19:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just find "contempt" inappropriate. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Rhion 19:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it's a harsh way to say it, but in essence I agree with Kelly. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a facebook type website. We obviously disagree to what degree that should be enforced, but the basis of her message is sound.Gateman1997 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hell, I don't agree with myself on the degre to which that should be enforced; but I do know that if someone is causing trouble and is not helping write the encyclopedia, I have no qualms at all with banning them. That's probably the extent to which I would enforce that particular "contempt". I certainly don't support witchhunts of any sort. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Compassionate Leave

I respectfully disagree. Your behavior indicates, to me, that your time ArbCom has sufficiently rattled your perspective and love of the project. You remain dedicated, but pretty angry and prone to ranting. You're a vaulable editor, adminstrator, etc, but even if you remain somewhat planted and stable enough for ArbCom, (which I don't doubt really), it takes too much of a toll on you for me to do it in good conscience. Find me on IRC if you want more of an explanation. I may reconsider towards the tail end of the vote.--Tznkai 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your inquiry

Kelly, my comment, just as the comments of most other opposing people, referred to the recent userbox controversy. I hate to join the lynch mob in this, especially because I myself believe that many userboxes are crap that does not benefit encyclopedia-building (or community-building) efforts in anyway, but the way you handled the matter did not strike me as appropriate for an ArbComm member. Whatever your reasons were, I hope you will not resort to unilateral actions in the future and wish you best of luck with your run. I do otherwise find you as an exceptionally good candidate.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

DickyRobert stalker

For several months now, a vandal known only as "User:DickyRobert" has been spamming and vandalising Misplaced Pages articles, as well as stalking, harassing, and otherwise making threats toward other editors (and administrators). About an hour ago I just marked over 112 registered accounts as sockpuppets of this person. If you would work some of your CheckUser magic so that we may determine what ISP(s) are being used and put a halt to this ongoing problem it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)