Mistress Selina Kyle

Click to start a new talk topic Α⇔Ω

Click to email ⇒✉

Congratulations

Welcome back. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop

Stop tagging accounts as socks of anyone, please. That is not appropriate behaviour for someone trying to stay out of trouble, particularly when you get some of them wrong. Further, don't tag IP addresses. Risker (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There are other IP addresses that were tagged already sorry, I thought you are meant to have them all added? How are you meant to keep track of the ones not attached to accounts for future checking if you don't add them to the category?

BTW, I've just been screamed at as an "anti-SOPA zealot" for trying to help you - he is from the Comcast Corporation marketing department[2] as well, I didn't realise before but I was checking into abuse of other stuff and found out.

It is kinda disappointing how no one else apparently bothered to look through the article history (I am sure the only one I got wrong was Giggle, that was because he made a load of minor edits to it, I said sorry to PS after doublechecking and found a conflicting edit that proved he was right it's not a sock) and find all those sock edits that look pretty real to me, and most of them weren't even blocked, let alone tagged My big question to you is, if you didn't spot those, how many sockpuppets are there working for but not giving it away by editing own article? I have joined the Paid Advocacy Watch because of this. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Several of them are wrong. Please revert yourself and remove the tags. Risker (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I will do it because you are intimidating me about it, but this is not right... I just had a look at the Template:Sockpuppet to look for what the rules were and it does seem I was wrong to use that template and you're right there, but shouldn't the other one go on them instead? Anyway, I'll do it now but I hope you don't just ignore that stuff? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is intimidating you. Remove the tags please, as you have no basis on which to attach them other than that those IPs and accounts have edited a particular article. Risker (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

bleh well you made me feel intimidated enough to run and revert them against policy, it's done I hope you're happy, I did check the contributions before tagging any of them and was careful not to tag some users in the history, this wasn't an indiscriminate thing - there are just that many socks, and that's only the ones silly enough to edit its own article I notice that there weren't any corporate edits on any of the ones attached with the article, so there are obviously a lot of accounts you don't know about... WP:PAIDWATCH is a call for action and this should be a wakeup call, seriously, read it "You are making up some kind of new principle if you think some principle of Wikipedia requires that we ignore a problem that can be solved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)"

You don't need to go around reverting everything I said just because of this, I just saw your edits on WP:PAIDWATCH (not self promotion because my account is totally anonymous like Wikipedia Review article says, and the site itself runs on donations, mostly from me...), but I am not going to fight with you... I am guessing you are still angry at me about this, but, seriously, everyone should be on the same side on this... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've hardly reverted everything you said, please do not exaggerate. Placing links to the website you have stated (on numerous occasions) that you own is not appropriate. On your user page, fine. Elsewhere, no. You're also inappropriately ascribing motives; please do not continue doing that. Nobody Ent has given you good advice. Risker (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry when I said going around deleting it seemed like you were just starting to delete more, I had just saw that edit, that's what i meant - have you noticed since you and Toddst1's conflict with the signpost[3] about Surturz feeling pressurrised to remove your names from the Baseball Bugs story and he complained that Toddst1 then went and started deleting his pages, he hasn't logged on since? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mistress Selina Kyle. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
Message added 16:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Many hands make light work

It's not your job or my job or anyone else's job to fix all of Wikipedia. It's just too darn big. So don't feel compelled to address any but the most urgent or blatant violations. There's no doubt in my mind that there are many undetected socks on Wikipedia but that doesn't keep me from sleeping very well at night. If they're so good at behaving themselves that no one detects that's bad thing because ... ? It's been strongly suggested your stay out of the Wikipedia back alleys -- in other words try to stick to main article space. If you do run across suspicious activity / possible socking or start getting into a content dispute just add note to the bottom of your talk page and some (talk page stalker) will take a look. If you end up at ANI again you're probably just done. I ain't gonna pretend it's right or fair but I know it just is. Nobody Ent 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know I can't do everything myself but you saying that I should just ignore anything? I was told the original unban conditions applied which were to follow policy and listen to the advice of my mentor, I think I did what any other Wikipedian should have done really?just not many people apparently bothered to look at the history much (it wasn't just the IPs missing, there were a few sockpuppets tagged as sockpuppets of sockuppets, and ones listed on the banned page but not tagged at all... It was like someone was just playing whack a mole without looking at it carefully from the outside and noticing the things I did) I hope WP:PAIDWATCH has a chance at least --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not any other user. What did Volunteer Marek recommend you do about the sockpuppet situation? Nobody Ent 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he's on at the moment one problem might be that my timezones can be varied and rarely US :s maybe a european meantor too could be cool, marek is cool though too --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am in a European time zone, so I am more likely to be active when Volunteer Marek is offline. If you think something might even be slightly controversial, as the taggings turned out to be, don't hesitate to ask someone for their advice/opinion first before going ahead with it. Acalamari 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• As indicated above, it would be a good idea to not engage with controversial issues such as tagging socks or linking to WR (someone strongly connected with a website should not promote that site here). When editors in good standing post suggestions here, why not take their advice with some kind of "ok" message? BTW while some people archive their user talk page by moving the page to an archive, that is not generally done with article talk pages. For example, Talk:MyWikiBiz now has no wikiproject or previous-AfD boxes because they are in the archive—I doubt if the wikiprojects are important for that page and I don't mind them being removed, but it is not standard procedure. No tea for me thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

TalkBack

Wanted to let you know I left a response on Philippe's Talk page King4057 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The Neverhood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bill Brown

Websense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sex Education

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool bot

File:Mr Blobby.jpg

this is how I would make a robot look like if I made a robot --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 11:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that bot scares me a little - reminds me of the Stanford Christmas tree mascot somehow - prolly the lips. Thanks for the laugh! Cheers, --JaGa^talk 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

why is london a beautiful city? because bee venom

standford is that place where googles live right.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Websense

Unfortunately, it seems that you are well past three reverts on Websense. While I'm a fan of BRD as well, BRD isn't an excuse to continue to revert, especially when the discussion part of the process is ongoing. 3RR is not about being right or wrong with your changes, so much as trying to make conflicts manageable.

I guess you'll need to make a choice on how to proceed, but I'm afraid it is enough of a problem that it will need to be raised on the 3RR noticeboard if you choose to continue along this path, and given the conditions of your unblock I can't see that ending well. - Bilby (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle, I would definitely stop reverting at this point...and you should possibly consider even reverting your most recent revert; instead, continue to discuss the article on its talk page and come to a resolution. Honestly, this is not something worth getting blocked over, and you have been improving and doing a lot of good recently: don't give anyone itching to have you reblocked the chance to have your ban re-instated. Acalamari 13:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I already did stop reverting though I was trying to have a discussion and he kept reverting me, so I reverted those back 3 times if you look carefully at the history I remembered the 3 rule and didn't do it more than that? my first edit was a revert of a sockpuppet (Clevea and related accounts of Websense) which it specifically says is excluded --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you hit five reverts overall, ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) so even the IP proves to be a sockpuppet, you will still have passed 3RR. I'm with Acalamari in that I'd prefer not to see you blocked over something as pointless as Websense, which is why I wanted to raise it with you, but you will need to be more careful. - Bilby (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good, I'm glad you have decided to stop reverting; and yes, if the first revert was to revert a sock, that one is exempt. My comment here wasn't meant as an "official" warning from me to block you, but rather a piece of advice to prevent you from having a 3RR report filed on you that would end up resulting in you being blocked. Be aware, however, that 3RR is not a hard limit, and users can still be blocked for edit warring, rather than for breaking a 3-revert limit.

Finally, for Bilby, the "itching to have you reblocked" part of my comment to Selina was not directed at you or anyone else involved in the dispute. When I re-read my initial comment, I thought it might come across that way, but I can assure you that it wasn't. Best to all here. Acalamari 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No hassles. I understood what you meant. :) I understand the circumstances, which is why I wanted to raise things here rather than something more formal. - Bilby (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps there has been some confusion. 3 ≠ 5.

1. You say that your first revert was of a sockpuppet; let's be clear about that. [9]
2. I fixed some POV / OR / SYNTH; you hit the revert button. [10]
3. I tried removing the problematic content again; you hit the revert button [11]
4. Bilby undid your revert, trying to fix the POV; you reverted that too. [12]
5. Not wanting to get entangled in 3RR, I tried fixing some other - separate problems in the article, including more POV and misuse of sources; you hit revert again. [13]

How many does that add up to? I don't want drama, so I'm giving you a chance to self-revert, instead of getting this problem fixed at WP:AN3. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) (arghhh god so annoying) @Acalamari/Bilby Ok sorry that I went one over (4 not 5 because you don't include the sockpuppet I am 100% sure that was a sockpuppet if you look at the investigation page even without checkuser it's so obvious when you line all the edits up) sorry I should have kept track better I think just got carried away, it was annoying that I was trying to do the right thing by having a discussion on the talk page like you are supposed to and he was just ignoring it and reverting anyway, it seemed like they were just paying lipservice to how you are actually supposed to do it, sorry.

I'll just leave it alone the sockpuppet investigation stil needs to be done too, I am 100% that the first one was sockpuppets even without checkuse because as I noted in the investigation when you put the edits together it's so sooo obvious --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Threatening AN3 is inconsistent with not wanting drama. Nobody Ent 14:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) (scream)

@br: Nobody Ent has since edited the article I noticed trying to do a compromise it looks like, I think if I go and revert that to my version that would definitely definitely be against the rules? I have no idea anymore --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the version Bobrayner wants you to revert to is this one, and unless I am mistaken (someone please correct me on this if I am wrong...before Mistress Selina Kyle makes any decision to revert herself), you reverting to that version would not count as edit-warring as you would be reverting yourself, and Nobody Ent's compromise is a result of your recent edit (however, reverting Nobody Ent's edit back to your own edit would be a very bad idea, to say the least). However, as blocks are supposed to be prevantative rather than punitive, I don't believe any blocks are necessary (for anyone who was reverting on that page) now that no one has reverted another for about two hours, so I don't think bringing this to AN3 would be a good idea. Acalamari 14:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops I mean if I revert to the version before my version, sorry got mixed up, looks like you answered that as well though I think —Ok I'll just stay away sorry, I wish whoever has to deal with the sockpuppet investigation good luck because it looked like a right web of sliminess :/ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're "trying to do the right thing", a good start would be to return to some more neutral content - that is, content which actually reflects what sources say. What do you think? (One could argue that "doing the right thing" should also include striking out ad hominems and lies, but I don't want to set the bar unrealistically high; I'm more interested in the content than the drama) bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to give mixed messages. Other people have advised you to walk away rather than edit; if that means article improvements no longer get reverted, I'd be happy with that outcome too. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to censor criticism is not "improvements" by any definition.... You are the one that kept attacking me, as anyone looking on Talk:Websense can see with stuff like "point out that software is used at guantanamo bay? Ooh, it must be evil, it's used at guantanamo bay!"

Then started and kept reverting rather than discussing, despite being told about WP:BRD, that is far worse, it's not meant to be "what you can get away with" whilst paying lipservice to the idea behind the rules, the ones that aren't fixed are just as important...

I am going back to Talk:Websense where discussion should have been in the first place if you hadn't deliberately started edit warring... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop lying and misrepresenting me. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why are you calling me a liar? That was a direct quote from the page, as anyone can see if they look at talk:Websense --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Mistress Selina Kyle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silverseren^C 22:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied - and noted that this is the only message I have ever received from you, when the page says at the very top that you are meant to try resolve issues by talking with people civilly rather than using the board as a "dramaboard" which is showing contempt for the good people that try to seriously mediate or debate on issues they disagree with... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi Mistress! Response on my Talk page. King4057 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mistress. Hopefully I'm adequately articulating where you take issue with the article over on the CREWE Talk page? I'm just trying to be helpful, though I'm sure I just sealed the deal on ever getting a job at any PR agency participating in CREWE ;-) King4057 (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mistress. I thought you might want to check out my suggestions on the Talk page and see if you felt that would make the article more balanced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement — Preceding unsigned comment added by King4057 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Who's Claire Thomson?

There is a Paid Editor Watch section of Wikiproject Cooperation. There was unanimous support that the project also help police bad actors (in addition to working with the good guys). Could be a good effort for you to contribute to (diplomatically) if you're interested.

The Paid Advocacy Watch had a somewhat extreme position, but the basic function of investigating bad actors is needed. King4057 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC).

CREWE

I just want to be clear that I was not trying to hide views that I disagree with, I was collapsing a discussion that was seriously off-topic and dealt with individual editors' opinions about the subject rather than published sources or constructive criticism of the article as it is written. It's important to keep this talk page free of the drama that goes on in the real world happenings of CREWE and its supporters/detractors. Unless views are expressed in reliable sources or directly pertain to the article, we have no business discussing them on the article's talk page. That's just basic Wikipedia policy that the talk page is not a forum. I hope you better understand why I collapsed the conversation, and why I would do it again if it continues in that manner. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to the plain and simple conflict of interest guide on WP:COI

I saw you added a link in the header to WP:PSCOI. I worked on that guide extensively, and love to see it mentioned (in fact I added it to the See Also section of WP:COI today). That said, I don't know that it's appropriate to link to a guide which doesn't carry weight of policy or even a guideline at the top of a core policy. What do you think? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 07:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Meant to reply to this earlier and got distracted, you're probably right then I figured if it was just a shorter one it would be useful, if it's missing enough things that it can't be considered an accurate summary of what the policy is then maybe it shouldn't exist at all and maybe just try reword the main one so that they can understand it easier? Their main argument seems to be that it's too hard to understand, but then again, you lot are PR I guess maybe it may well be just a way of trying to lobby for less rules? :p ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in PR, by the way, I've been a regular editor for 2-3 years and only joined CREWE because I think we need to do more to help COI editors work in harmony with our policies. PSCOI is a useful guide in my opinion, and I wrote it to reflect policy. It recommends creating drafts and seeking other editors' feedback, remaining neutral, disclosing conflicts of interest, and such. I don't think it provides a less stringent approach, but if you thought it did I'd take a close look at that. Anyway, I think the See Also section is the best place for it at the moment. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were going to remove it, just did it now

And ok, though there's been longer sockpuppeting than 3 years before lol I've seen too much about bad goings on at WR to be able to trust people much to be who they say they are anymore If you realy do believe that, cool, so do I - that's why I think it's important for those discussions to be had --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, you don't have to trust anyone's biography here, only the neutrality of their work. Though I support COI disclosures, I think we sometimes miss the point that focusing on content rather than contributors is usually the way to go. WR seems like a drain on energy and good faith; I usually avoid it. Thanks for removing the link, I was going to but got distracted. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

too much good faith is a bad thing[14], this went on for over 6 years with no-one spotting it, and they didn't even attempt to hide it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What Ocaasi said above is really what I feel is the obvious bulls-eye. If PR people were pitching the media, they would call them, tell them who they were, pitch their story and either (a) offer content and hope they write it or (b) write a contributed article that is reviewed and published by a neutral reporter.

There are many issues involved, but that's really what it comes down to. Thanks for letting me hjijack your thread ;-) King4057 (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Focus on topic at hand

This is not good.

• It's implicitly expected that editors limit discussion to the relevant topic area.
• Please be concise.
• In your unban request you indicated your intent was to focus on article work; I'm observing what I classify as a lot of activity in the WP: space.
• You were given a heads up that WR critics would be taking pot shots at you. There's not much Wikipedia can or will do about one off comments from IPs; best just to ignore them. Nobody Ent 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Endorse everything that Nobody Ent has said. Ignore WR critics, and has been said before, don't draw attention to yourself by mentioning the site. You have been doing more work to articles/templates and are gradually improving as an editor: don't undermine all you have achieved so far by commenting on arbitration cases! I do know you have good intentions in mind with what you have to say, but honestly, for now you really are better off keeping away from Wiki-politics. Hey, I'm an admin and I rarely even get involved with them, too! Acalamari 19:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) (*) I did and tried to stop the changing of the subject by telling them "(if you've had some kind of problem on Wikipedia Review then send a PM there)" (*): *that page says "As a label, it is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing" too, you can't have a discussion made up of one-liners. Serious discussion sometimes needs a couple paragraphs (*): Yes and I've done plenty to articles too, it sounds like you are trying to say I can't edit despite what the policy says? I was never told I can't talk, just to follow the rules, there was no extra conditions or whatever, that can't be held over my head forever... (*)(IPs): Ok yeah you're probably right, I was trying to follow wp:IPs are human too though rather than being rude and just starting an argument though --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

@Acalamari you're probably right about the attention but I thought someone should bring those other topics and sue gardner (whos's head of WMF these days)' comments on the issue in there, cos it's important and everyone seems to recognise that as per the talks that have been going on, don't worry I'm not going to make any stupid mistakes with trolls again or anything --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to "I was never told I can't talk...", I believe the implication that Nobody Ent was making with your activity in the WP/WT spaces was that you should keep your ratio of activity in those places lower than your activity in the article space (sorry if I misunderstood you, Nobody Ent, but that's how I understood that part of your comment). No one has said you aren't allowed to talk, but as you have said yourself, we are here to build an encyclopedia. :) Ultimately, articles should come first, and we are all better off keeping out of Wiki-politics as much as possible. Yes, you have done quite a bit of work to articles, but ideally you really should have the highest proportion of your edits to be towards the mainspace, not to WP/WT. Acalamari 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't play any of those silly edit count games and never will I'm not interested in them, I've been doing what's best for Wikipedia at the time, I've made plenty of article edits but because I tend to use preview more on those to get them right they aren't as edited as much as talk (where as nobody ent probably noticed I tend to make alot of edits to go with trail of thought, meaning one post equals about 5-10 edits sometimes when I keep thinking of more stuff to add ha) —- and recently a lot of stuff has came up that is very important regarding paid editors and not many people are actually defending Wikipedia against the lobbying . I thought this was pretty damn constructive considering the people who are meant to be catching these people ignored it for over 6 years(!) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc.

more stuffs that isn't talking: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Idontknow [15][16][17][18]

(Also, I like joining Wikiprojects and talking on them, that's not against the rules either I'm pretty sure lol )

and again discussion is sometimes important too, and the few debates I've been in I've behaved a hell of a lot better then a lot of people here -.- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with everything Nobody Ent and Acalamari have written in this section. Please, refrain from commenting on (or even defending) Wikipedia Review; furthermore, please do not tag users you're discussing with as WP:SPAs and do not remove other people's comments. If you believe another editor is behaving in a disruptive fashion, please contact a clerk or an arbitrator. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

But their the only edit was to that discussion page and they clearly weren't a newbie, that wasn't a user discussing, that was someone's sockpuppet About removing personal attacks, I was going per wp:RPA, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not talking about wikipedia review, he was replying directly to me in his attack and he was told before to leave me alone... It was deliberate rudeness to try disrupt a serious discussion yeah. RE arbitrators/clerks I didn't think you were supposed to contact them about minor stuff like that? I will if you say so as an administrator though but I figured it's best to just wp:DNR like the SPI team said to me before in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Idontknow RE the anonymous accounts that kept attacking me --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Selina, Salvio, Nobody Ent and Acalamari are right in that you shouldn't tag IPs as SPAs or fall for the trolling that some people carry out, yourself. If it happens on a ArbCom case page like it did here, best thing to do is to let the clerk (here, Salvio, I believe) know. He should nip it in the butt, it's part of his job, and he's pretty good at it.

I do want to emphasize though that the only problem I see is in removing other editor's comments (however trollish they were) or pointing out that an IP is an SPA (actually, if that's true, I don't think that's that bad - it's done all the time on AfDs, votes, etc.) - just point it out in your own comment rather in the user's comment. I don't see much of a problem with Selina's original comment.

While we're here though:

1. Is that IP the same one that as the red linked user that has been vandalizing Selina's user page?

2. I thought Bugs got banned/volunteered to stay off of AN/I and related pages precisely in order to avoid trolling comments like he made here? Is it just that ArbCom pages are not subject to this ban (which would be an obvious oversight)?VolunteerMarek 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Selina, please go and read the long post I wrote on your talk page (now on your talk archive) that outlined a few points that you seriously need to start following. Yes, you don't 'have to' and no, they're not conditions of your unbanning, but if you don't give them some serious thought and make some sort of effort to follow them, you are going to get dragged in front of ANI on a block request again, and you're risking losing some of your support base in the process. Your last block should have been a wake-up call for you. If you're going to go back to what you were doing before without taking anything in, I won't continue to support you. So again, please re-read what I wrote and consider following some of it. You won't get conversations like this one if you follow the advice you've been given. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Selina, I wasn't actually referring to "edit counts" in themselves or suggesting trying to "up" your edit count, I was saying that it is important to have a higher ratio of activity in the mainspace than towards WP/WT pages. I hope that clarifies what I meant. :) Acalamari 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1)@Acalamari: that's what I meant too I am not interested in editcounts and ratios I think that's a silly approach to take if you read what I said maybe you might see what i mean there now? I was trying to point out that sometimes a ot of stuff in those pages is important and not just chatter, and also what I said about editing my chat posts a lot to get them right screwing up any of those kind of systems anyway lol. It's a really really silly approach to take that somehow people have to follow some kind of ratio on editing, as long as you make plenty of article stuff too it really shouldn't matter if you talk a lot too, because it's important and too few people are doing it (I am the one who put the green banner at the top and cleaned up a few template stuff there). Wikipedia's social environment is definitely very lacking as that civility thing and all the discussions RE jimbo's talk page put forward, it'd be negligence to ignore that when I have relevant experience (and I don't mean just WR:p)

@techno Ok but it just seems wrong when other people actually go around breaking the rules constantly on purpose just to try cause trouble that nothing happens to them when I get every tiny mistake I make commented on by someone bringing up threats of bans each itme, don't you see how that is... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

On reverting

Selina, I am somewhat worried about some of your reverts. Can I kindly recommend you revert less, or even possibly consider limiting yourself to a voluntary 1RR? (In other words, sticking to only one revert at a time in a 24 hour period, unless you are reverting vandalism or a sock.) As I mentioned previously, users can still be blocked for edit-warring, even if they do not break 3RR. Don't worry about other users reverting you: ultimately, you will be better off if you stick to a single revert then be the one to get discussions going on talk pages. I'm about to go offline now, so I won't be able to reply until the morning. This is only a suggestion, but it is one I would definitely consider. Best. Acalamari 23:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for being diligent on sock puppets, not because I'm involved with any of the pages that you did before, but because it's a good thing to do and I have seen socks in use and never known what to do about it until I read the template pages, to which I was lead by your tea and cookies on Elen of the Road's talk page!! It's that six-degrees-of-separation thing. In any case, when I first started at wiki, I made an account for a few edits, and then forgot I had the account. My bad on that one... when I came back I used anonymous IP for two edits, I don't know why, probably a mistake, and started my new account. What I did after reading about socks and templates was to go back and own up to those two "non-account uses." I'd never have known to do this without reading what you wrote, so thank you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

awww thank you that's really sweet I never actually finished putting it together properly I got distracted, I'll definitely finish it off and add more co of this I saw the main list was such a mess and thought someone should fix it and it always seems like (since I was around in 2005 even I remember when I used to mess with template stuff) that not many people do I think it's cos of a kind of geek elitism that people don't maliciously mean to do but just don't think about making it easy for the average person reading it to find things in the tangled webs of links, next on my list is to improve the AFD stuff[19] That reminds me I should put a big link tp wp:SPI on it cos thats the main place for it apparently the other templates are meant to be used as part of that (I got in trouble before for trying to be helpful and tagging ones that looked suspicious myself lol) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silverseren^C 19:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Posting an editor's personal information on the Internet in retaliation for an on-wiki dispute is completely unacceptable. I have previously supported your unblock requests - twice, actually - but this kind of behavior will simply not be tolerated. 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That was actually in a private forum though because a moderator moved the thread - after I moved it to the main section I actually edited that stuff out voluntarily because I had just been angry at the time and wanted to not sink to his level - He is deliberately just trying to silence anyone who criticises the Corporate Representatives group, please see here[20]

If you look at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Trying_to_stop_this_before_it_starts please read my replies there, this is a systematic gaming of the system to get at me because me and Jimbo are the Corporate Representatives group's biggest critics...

I didn't get any warning that I wasn't allowed to talk about people on wikipedia review, in fact adminstold me before that it was not relevant and I should not bring Wikipedia Review stuff up before :(

this is because Seren is part of the Corporate Representatives group and hass been harassing me ever since I joined WP:PAIDWATCH (in opposition to his WP:CO-OP) and edited the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Engagement article supporting Jimbo (other than Jimbo I am their biggest critic) :(

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well no - it's because you posted personal information about an editor. That's not quite the same as discussing Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review. pablo 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

that link was posted in a private forum that wasn't public though, and when I moved it into public I removed the stuff as I said before, I edited it out out courtesy when I didn't even have to- - I was told before that stuff on wikipedia review doesn't matter and shouldn't be brought onto Wikipedia --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't private to you only though, now was it? pablo 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I bet you must have said uncomplimentary stuff in private to friends about people who've been nasty to you too though? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between venting and posting personal information. Please read WP:OUTING. --Rschen7754 20:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of course. And in public too. But what I haven't done is anded out names, addresses, phone numbers, links to their web presence etcetera. pablo 20:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@Rschen He and the others from wp:CO-OP have been harassing me on the wiki since I joined wp:PAIDWATCH, that article talks about posting things on wiki which I definitely never have, he has been constantly attacking me here though please look at my replies to the WP:WQA honestly look he started following me around everywhere and this WP:ANI was started up just after I made this edit supporting Jimbo, it's because other than Jimbo I am the biggest critic of the Corporate Representatives group that Seren is a member the WP:ANI was started straight after this edit:[21] --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@pablo: Neither did I, I named him in private sure he is a public figure on the group going around saying he is silver seren, he himself said it's known - should I restore the thread so you can see? I don't know what to do anymore I removed personal information from it when I made it public (not even because I thought I had to but just out of courtesy to not sink to his level where he's been harassing me on wiki constantly...) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a supporter of WP:PAIDWATCH which aims to monitor subversive PR operatives on Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc.. You can disagree with someone whilst remaining wp:CIVIL and I have done nothing but do so on wiki, he just seemed to want to stir things up constantly to get what he wanted, I knew he was trying to get me banned when he started that - the Corporate Representatives group on Facebook (that he goes around openly saying he is silver seren on) fairly malign as has been discussed on a Wikimedia Foundation official's talk page previously: User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel and as Jimbo has said, it's a serious problem that cannot be ignored:[22]

At Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement#Credit_Where_Due anyone can see that I was replying to him as a member of the "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" group who was defending the PR advocacy editor... Silver Seren has been wp:wikistalking me[23] constantly after I stated my opposition to the Corporate Representatives group and this seems to be normal tactics of the group Silver Seren founded supporting corporate editing in retaliation to wp:PAIDWATCH to try harass dissenters, as I also had a similar issue happen 2 days before he made that WQA thread to try defame me since I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[24], "bob rayner" arrived at 9:58[25] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[26] to talk:Websense to defend the companies' paid PR sockpuppeting — both whom are not members of wp:PAIDWATCH, but apparently founding members (the 5th and 7th respectively) of Silver Seren's previously mentioned Wikiproject working with the Corporate Representatives PR group, which most of them including Seren - as stated on their site - are also supporters of

His very next edit after deleting Jimbo's reply to the group (speaking as the public representative for Wikipedia) that I added to the article was to go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked try get me banned... you're letting Corporate Representatives use the system for their own ends perfectly --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you care. Why did you come back to Wikipedia? Was it to simply edit? Be a part of the community? Or was it to get involved in politics? If these policies needed attacking or defending, you could have let someone else with far less baggage do it. You could have waited a while to rebuild good faith in you. You somehow could not avoid getting involved, and here we are. --Golbez (talk)

I came back because I care just look at my contributions I want to make the place better and help people.. .look at the messages people have left me saying thank you here too I didn't start that WP:WQA or the WP:ANI, both times that was seren who I had never even talked to before (minus defending him on Wikipedia Review when he was saying thekohser called him a fag, which he afterwards admitted was a lie) it was because I edited on the wp:PAIDWATCH project and seren hates it, that's when they started harassing me to try scare me off "their" (Corporate Representatives) articles like when I uncovered all those Websense sockpuppets and posted about it on PAIDWATCH his WP:CO-OP people came straight away

But that's just it. Why did you care about PAIDWATCH? Why could you not just lie low for a while and not give anyone any ammunition for hating you? Why did you have to get involved with anything? --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) ::I restored the thread for now so you can hopefully see what I mean[27] I removed this thread after a complaint was made on Wikipedia about it, but restoring it so the facts can be verified by neutral parties such as the fact that the personal information was actually voluntarily removed by myself (like I said before I didn't want to be like him, I didn't even know there was a rule against it but I removed it anyway just because I didn't want to go to his level of harassing people, I don't consider calling names harassing?) when I moved the thread into the public section

@your question I thought that could be done without getting into serious arguments I didn't realise how sneaky people would get about it I thought if you just follow the rules it would be ok since I was staying away from the dramaboards? til seren kept leaving me messages telling me I had to respond on them and even then I always stayed wp:CIVIL something I said before I think is iimportant so work can get done here neutrally but they just wouldn't leave it alone

I don't know you're probably right but I thought if I went by that thinking then "how long would be long enough" before it was ok? I mean I never broke any of the rules and even people I disagreed with I mostly got on ok with like Ocaasi because we did it civilly

I was told that the unban conditions were the same that I need to avoid breaking the rules and I didn't

if you want me to be more careful about arguing with people on Wikipedia Review I can do that too, it was just that I was told before that stuff on there doesn't matter and shouldn't be brought up here -- I did not post any personal information publicly that was in a private forum and when I made it public I edited that stuff out

honestly if I can just edit articles I'd be happy and I promise I would do that if that were the rules? but I was told that the unban conditions were the same that I need to avoid breaking the rules and I didn't or at least not knowingly if there's a rule against arguing with people on other websites I think everyone knows by now I am a good editor just look at the messages people have left me here honestly or [28] or [29] --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

How long is enough? I don't know. I suffered due to your forum and I was willing to let you back. That's how much I'd hoped we'd all matured. It however didn't take you more than two weeks to get everyone riled against you. That wouldn't have happened had you not sought it out. You say you'd be happy to just edit article, but you were given two chances in the past month to do just that, and you just couldn't. I don't understand. I don't think it even needs to have been made a formal "unban condition", it's kind of obvious. --Golbez (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that I don't think i've ever sen your name there, I haven't had time to post there a lot and mostly left it to the others to run, since I've been back I've actually been cleaning it up a lot lately and got a few complaints about that.. that ranting about sernen was in a private forum at first and when I moved it to the public one I took the name stuff out (even tho it was public info) just because I didn't want to be on his level if I leave do you want someone like thekohser running it? I have been trying to get it turned into a more serious forum lately, the ranting I even named myself as venting and edited it out :(

I wanted to give one last chance to care about Wikipedia and try make it a better place if you really want me to not get into discussions at all I could do that but I thought it should be ok if i's not on the drama places and just about articles no one ever told me there would be any problems with posting at WR people said it didn't matter and shouldn't bring any WR stuff here --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My dear Selina, I am WR member #35. I was there near the beginning, and I last posted somewhere around five years ago, back when it was still harboring people like Andrew Morrow. If you've been trying to improve it lately then excellent, though I won't be checking it out. I will not be unblocking you here - it would be very unseemly to do it twice in a row - but I still hope for a positive outcome at some point. --Golbez (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get any warning that I wasn't allowed to talk about people on wikipedia review, in fact people said it was not relevant before :( i NEVER posted any ppersonal information publicly if you look at the thread I had actually edited the personal stuff out when I moved the thread to public (not evne because I thought I had to I was told before it doesnt matter what is on WR but just not to go th his level..) i really wanted to give caring abut wikipedia a chance i just wanted to make it better i stayed within the rules and they are saying that because i called silver seren names on WR i get blocked but no one ever said that was against the rules in fact everyone said stuff on WR shouldnt be broguht up here :( could you maybe at least not endorse blocking me then bleh

if I could just write articles I would be happy I thought it would be ok to have discussions about articles too if it wasn't on the drama boards and just about articles and wp:CIVIL I was told as long as I followed the rules that was the unban condition and I did --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I can remove my endorsement, yes. Not that it will matter. --Golbez (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should I spend my time tryng to help make WR a better place and making sure personal stuff is always removed before it is public when you attack me about it even when it's in public.... WR could be a lot more free speech than it is but we try not to go to that level.... can anyone please tell me why I should bother holding back the tide of nastiness (have you SEEN the kind of stuff on ED about wikipedia people) and trying to make wikipedia a better place rather than doing going along with what so many other people said and giving up on it as hopeless...

I want to at least try, if you want me to not talk about people on other sites ok but no one ever told me that... admins told me before that stuff on WR didnt matter --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

How would you feel about a topic ban from Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement and WP:PAIDWATCH? Silver Seren seems willing to let this go if you stay out of that area, and Johnuniq feels you no longer need to mention Wikipedia Review on Wikipedia. Neither of these seems overly restrictive to me. Would you consent to this type of topic ban? AniMate 01:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

if that is what you want as administrators then I'd say ok

I still think you are doing a bad thing though to let him get what he wanted by starting the drama in the first place like that though, after I reported Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. onto WP:PAIDWATCH they started following me onto articles afterwards - I posted diff links abov ^ - that is how Seren started harassing me in the first place just because I was trying to do the right thing and report that kinda slimy stuff :(

none of your own checkusers spotted that going on for 6 years

the whole Corporate Representatives group are collaborating here of-wiki WP:CANVASS on Facebook and elsewhere in hopes of furthering real life career prospects Jimbo spoke up that if they really wanted to edit ethically, there are rules for that already, but it's just about trying to bruteforce their way into control, they banned user:King4057 because he was too genuinely ethical: Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement#Credit_Where_Due

they tried to get me here:[30] (that is king agreeing I was right, who has been editing wikipedia ethically for years openly not interfering with articles and working within wikipedias rules than trying to bruteforce corporate dominate articles like Websense - then if you scroll down there is silver seren starting a rant thread trying to cause enough trouble to intimidate me into not touching the articles they are declaring they "own"...)

and when that failed, he saw me venting on WR and took it as a chance to use as ammunition to get rid of me even though he goes around openly saying he is silver seren it was about points scoring, it's about shutting people out from discussion and as he says, stopping critics editing their articles

the edit he is upset about, if you look at his contributions he came to WP:ANI straight after reverting me adding Jimbo's comments as spokesman for Wikipedia here: [31]

if you really want I could just drop it yeah... but this isn't right :( --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

@Seren I was calling the Websense sockpuppeting slimy, that I reported!!! notice I said "report that kinda slimy stuff", I never reported you anywhere! -.- I do think your tactics aren't exactly in the spirit of Wikipedia though, even if you are angry at the arguing on WR if you truly believed in ethical editing then why so opposed to oversight? why join Corporate Representatives and support banning king who's supported working ethically for years? they are not the good guys, the whole PR industry is based around manipulating people, they are slimy, they are just using you --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oversight is one thing, but you've just been insulting CREWE (and then myself when I disagreed with you). Oversight is actually trying to be helpful and collegially giving suggestions.

And, as i've said before, I wasn't involved in King being removed from the group. If you mean support as in why I don't think it was wrong, that's because, as i've also said before, the reason why he was removed was for promotion. He was promoting himself and trying to use the group to get the members to be his clients, when that wasn't the purpose of the group.

And if that's what you think about the PR industry, then I really think you need to try and stay out of this topic area entirely, because it's clear you can't edit neutrally in it. Silverseren^C 02:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

David King is a very ethical PR guy, who your friends at the group have banned, said: "I have a PPT slide I call "the wall of shame" with about 20 major brands who have all been busted for inappropriate censorship on Wikipedia. My experience has been almost every PR person breaks the rules, but most of the time for disclosure, puffery, etc. and not for censorship. The Wikiproject outlines a major PR agency that censored their clients' executive fraud scandal. It's more common than you think and the volunteer community is extremely forgiving. Almost every client I get has some kind of history of trying to do it themselves, but not following the rules." 3 February at 18:27

Claire Thompson's comment "There seems to be a time delay between stuff being written and appearing in this forum" again gives the impression this was a political thing. David King's posts seem to have disappeared after posting this article encouraging PR people to act GENUINELY ethically by Wikipedia's policies], and I notice he linked to wp:PSCOI quite a few times too ...

don't you wonder why they are a facebook group? it's because facebook has some of the best censorship tools available for companies to completely control what people can say on their pages, it's one of the PR tools of choice these days...

if you really believe what you are doing is right then why are you going after apparently the only person in 6 years who's able to spot sneaky corporate editing without needing checkuser on articles like websense?

if you really believe what you are doing is right then why are you going after the only non WMF person that's been standing up and saying sneaky editing is wrong? Why are we even on different sides if you truly believe in encouraging them to act ethically?

why did you and the rest of the group start following me in the first place after I posted about websense on wp:PAIDWATCH?

surely we should actually be on the same side if you truly believed in ethical editing as King who got banned by your group does...

seriously, why go after me at all? why aren't we on the same damn side? lol. it just seems like you think neutrality means corporations should have more of a say than everyone else, not equal - the goal should be equality --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what King told you, but he is not the only PR person that has been trying to make ethical, transparent contributions to Wikipedia. There are a large amount of them that have been doing it for years, William Beutler for one, whom i'm working with in the Wikiproject. User:Rklawton is another such person. And there are many more besides.

And you keep quoting Claire's comment, when that was explained in the group already. Facebook sometimes has a time delay. Groups have no control over what messages are posted. They can delete them after the fact, but they don't control the accepting of them being posted and the timing and all of that.

That's cos Claire is cool, she really gets it:

"The phrasing of that piece makes me want to step outside of this group. "One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on Fortune 100 companies. Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles." It sounds hugely self serving and probably explains why people view PRs as a bunch of paymaster's puppets, which is exactly why a source like Wikipedia is so needed and so valuable." ::::--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)}

Do you even know what that comment was in response to? Claire was making that in regards to the CREWE article that Ocaasi made. She thought the PR people had made it, but they didn't. And the info she's quoting came directly from the reference in question, so... *shrugs* And she's not saying that PR is bad, just that people view it that way, which seems to be a bit at odds with your opinion of PR. Silverseren^C 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As for King, yes, he was banned after adding that link. Because, in addition to adding that, he tried to use it as leverage to get other members to hire him. And other people in the group have linked to WP:PSCOI as well.

If that's what they told you then they lied, because they've ALL been advertising to each other, constantly:

1. "A few weeks ago I posted about a survey I’m conducting sponsored by Page Center _link_"
2. "Ya'll will be interested in this guest post on my blog _link_"
3. "Jack O'Dwyer: Here's an excellent historical column .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_"
4. "Robert Lawton: I think this is an excellent summary of the current state of affairs: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia by Gerard F. Corbett _link_ — Gerard ::::Francis Corbett likes this."
5. "Jack O'Dwyer: A PR problem is confronting the PR industry .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_"
6. "Blog by the CEO of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, updating on our progress _link_"
7. "Jack O'Dwyer: Here's my blog today _link_"
8. "I interviewed ... _link_"
9. "Jack O'Dwyer: I'm urging the PR Society.. _link_"
10. "Phil Gomes: Phil Gomes' Thoughts _link:_"
11. "Jack O'Dwyer: ...Here is a link to my blog"
12. "Some of my own thoughts _link_"

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about linking to articles they made on the subject, that wasn't the issue at all. Yes, they all do that. The issue was that King was trying to drum up business for himself through the group. It had nothing to do with the article he linked. Silverseren^C 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

They're a Facebook group because Facebook is currently the best technology and social networking site around to get people together to discuss something. That's why the protesters in the Arab Spring used it as well to organize rallies.

Facebook is used extensively by PR Because if you ban someone from a public page it never actually tells them, it's designed to falsely give the impression to people that their posts are still going through ok, it's utterly slimy and designed that way on purpose because ultimately Facebook is a big sticky pie for marketing, that's where nearly all the money comes from othe than games. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly that your opinion about Facebook, an opinion that I do not share. Silverseren^C 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And I haven't been going after King. I wasn't involved in whatever the Websense issue was. I don't control what other members of the group do. There's not some secret collaboration going on behind the scenes, no matter how much you think there is. If they were following you places, then I guess that's a separate issue that you have to deal with with them. All I know is that you were following me to pages I was editing on, and even to User:Doctorow's page, which I don't see how you could have gotten to if not by stalking my contributions. Silverseren^C 03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I know you haven't been going after King, but why support them doing that is what I was asking? It's obvious he wasn't promoting any more than the others, practically ever post O'Dwyer makes is promoting as I mentioned

you followed me after you complained on WP:PAIDWATCH's talk page... it's still there for anyone to see, and as I said before about Cory, I posted about him on Talk:Websense the day before I messaged him, and if you want to email The Register and point them to this page confirming it's ok with me, they will confirm that I've been talking with them about stuff for a few days...

so it comes again to why are we arguing at all if you genuinely want co-operation ethically? I don't get it --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

See what I just said above. He was promoting more.

Again, where did I follow you? You started commenting on articles I was already involved in. Again, I have no idea what's going on with Websense or why The Register is involved (though I would advise not trusting them about stuff, they're more on the gossipy side of the street). But whatever was going on there, your comment on Doctorow's page was specifically about me.

The issue is that you keep insulting me and the group i'm working with, who are trying to edit ethically. Silverseren^C 03:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I never spoke with you on Wikipedia (and only once that I remember on WR? when you were claiming someone called you a fag when I defended you to give you a chance to prove it... until it turned out to be wrong?) before you started posting on the talk page of WP:PAIDWATCH, which you aren't a member of, and then removing the comments stating Corporate Representatives are a lobby group... after that 2 of your group followed me onto the websense article when I posted there, and when I posted on the corporate representatives talk page you complained about it on WQA then started linking messages I had left on king's talk page... But you're right, that's not as important as as the rest:

You have claimed that King's claims that Corporate Representatives are not a lobby group and want to bully Wikimedia into changing the rules are a lie, and that they only want to work within the rules ethically, but I just looked at your contributions and found this only just now saying:

"you'll need to change Jimbo's mind and also get WP:COI changed"

Your group shouldn't be regarding WP:COI and Jimbo as your enemy (when he's speaking on behalf of Wikimedia rather than Wikia anyway, I'm not actually blindly loyal like the now-deputy of WMF claimed, ha, I have people from both sides claiming I either like Wiki too much or am bad) — again (and I also note that the editor that reverted me on the Corporate Representatives page seems to be taking an unusual amount of interest in companies like Caterpillar etc who Corporate Representatives mentioned on their group would be enlisting to edit PR articles on their behalf which skirts rather close to WP:MEATPUPPET)...

Alpha Quadrant has a point and said it far more eloquently than I tend to in my blunt ways () on the former link that there are plenty of avenues for it to be done ethically, why not support that as wp:CO-OP stated goals are instead of trying to change policies to better suit corporate wants? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Selina, I have sent you an email with some advice about this whole situation. Please, read it and take it to heart. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll go look thanks --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We specifically all agreed on the talk page way back at the beginning of the Wikiproject that we are not going to try to change any policies or be involved in doing so. So I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be taking an extensive amount of things out of context of what they mean. And, again for the second (third?) time, I am not the keeper of other members of the project. I don't know what they're up to right now. If they're doing something wrong, then you need to bring it up with them. Silverseren^C 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you are not their representative then it might be cool to give them a chance to speak themselves more? And not so much behaving like "Corporate Representatives Representative on Wikipedia" thing where you answer questions directed towards them? ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Who were you expecting to respond? Because the people you were referring to are Wikipedians, not members of CREWE. There's only 3 CREWE members I know offhand that edit Wikipedia and I don't believe any of them are watching that page. Silverseren^C 04:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That thread was started by Gomes who you've talked to on the group, and originally created it, as you must have saw? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 05:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd be better off asking him directly on his talk page. I doubt he looked at the discussion again after the change was made. He isn't all that active on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 05:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As I replied below before on #Suggestions though it's not my job to oppose this stuff I get paid far too little for it (e.g. nothing, I actually donate both to WP and WR[32][33]), it's WMF's even if they apparently leave Jimbo to have to do everything and prettty much no one to check articles to see if they are free of bias from what I saw at Websense I'm happy to just let you play your silly arguments out if it has to be that way, I only came back because I cared and wanted to give it a try honestly (rather than coming back on a new account which I could have totally easily done) despite all the abuse I've been given overall --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have some suggestions, but will start by noting that I opposed your original unblock on the basis that I did not see any evidence to suggest that there would be good results, and because I oppose the excessive linkage between WP and WR that has arisen with multiple people contributing in both places. Regardless of the accuracy of criticisms raised at WR, I am one of many here who dislike WR's outing and abuse of editors—even banned and crazy editors should be left in peace IMHO because editing an encyclopedia should not lead to real-life problems. I do not want to debate any of that, and I have mentioned it merely for disclosure. Despite my opposition, I was pleased when your block was lifted because by that stage many other editors had commented and had demonstrated a good community spirit and I was coming around to thinking I was being petty. Let's not discuss any of that.

The best strategy now would be to review what you want to do, and why you want to do it (serious thought, not just a quick reaction). If the political side of Wikipedia appeals to you (such as ANI, policy pages, Jimbo's talk, and paid editing), I'm afraid the future is bleak—we have enough people to comment on all that. I'm not telling you my opinion on what you should do; I am giving you my opiniion that the community will not accept a person returning to political activity after problems. So, if such activity is your main reason for participation here, I think you should be prepared for opposition from many in the community. I haven't looked at the fuss over paid editing, but I guess you oppose those who imagine paid editing is good. I agree with you, and have stated many times that paid advocacy is bad for the encyclopedia, and would kill volunteers. However, people who run WR and who have been banned should not engage in that side of Wikipedia (despite being correct, and despite the unfairness of the situation). What the community wants above all is people who can drop a topic when it blows up—it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong because someone else will step in if warranted. Bickering, and harping on the past, are corrosive to the community.

Re mentioning WR (my comment at ANI): I have no idea whether that has arisen before; it is just my suggestion for the future. Whether fair or not, many here do not like some aspects of WR, and it would be a good idea for someone very closely associated with WR to voluntarily declare that they realize it is a problem for some people, and the topic won't arise again. If you did decide to make any undertakings, you can always add that you would like the situation reviewed after six months, with a possibility of a change—nothing is permanent here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to just let other people defend Wikipedia in future, or neglect to as with the 6-year long abuse on the Websense article that I uncovered, whciever way, it looks like I can't without getting into trouble so yeah if I absolutely have to just stick to edigting articles I will, it's such a shame when so few people seem to be able to discuss civilly withe people they disagree with rather than people dividing people into who is an enemy and who is not and all the stupid games, ugh, I just don't want to get involved in that stuff anymore if that's the way it has to be, I think the culture still is too easy for people to use the system against people they decide are enemies I think I'll just leave the criticism to WR in future cos it's obviously still not safe here, or even there really --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your email

Frankly, I don't really care what happened off-wiki. Your behavior on-wiki has been to stir up trouble from the first minute you were unblocked. The only conditions I would support an unblock is if you confined yourself purely to editing articles, and stopped all on-wiki political activity in any way. As I don't see that happening, given that you were given ample warning to do so before this block, I am washing my hands of this. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you would please please just read this talk page just above I actually just agreed that I would be willing to do that, only a line or two before your post here just above ^ --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Per your email

Per your email, I will take a closer look at your edits/history later this evening (hopefully) and will reconsider my stance at ANI if necessary.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I really really appreciate that thank a lot, if you look above here I gave links to that stuff above in my reply to Wehwalt and DGG there

Well, it's kinda moot now, but I had started to look over the pages earlier tonight before you were unblocked. Basically, what I decided is that I had mixed emotions. On the one hand I definitely sympathize with you and your stance relative to the paid writing. It makes me uncomfortable that there are people here editing who are paid to do so, that being said, we can't stop it from happening so maybe moderating what they do might help? I dunno, I think I land closer to your position than SS's.

I also felt some sympathy because you are drawing the short straw. Because of your history/past all it takes is a little faux pas and people are going to jump all over you. So while I sympathized with you, I walked away wondering what good would it do to unblock you if all you were going to do is piss somebody off next week. So I'll echo what I've seen others saying.

Avoid the politics. Work on the articles and build up a reputation here on wikipedia of being a valued contributor. You might be 100% right when it comes to various disputes, but for the time being, you have a huge target on your back. Let people start to trust you HERE... keep your nose clean, even if it means eating crow. Otherwise, we'll be right back here in a week. I wish you the best... I don't know if you can do it or if the community will actually give you a fair chance. Hell, I'm not sure if it's worth it, but if you want to be part of this community, you'll have to go out of your way to pacify people. If you can't/won't do that, it would be better for you just to admit it and leave.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Email access blocked

Mistress Selina Kyle, as a result of several complaints from individuals who have received your emails in the last short while, I have blocked your email access. Spamming Wikipedians is not appropriate. Risker (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not spam anyone, I never sent anyone more than one message and I only messagesd a couple of people recently (I don't think I bothered anyone, with only one message? ) the same as I would if I could edit talk pages, but I can't obviously If Prioryman (talk · contribs) has complained then I am sorry, but all I did was ask him to please take a look at my side of the story on my talk page, honestly --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

? MSK, did anyone ask you to stop emailing them? Nobody Ent 23:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No one has said a word of complaint to me I didn't email anyone here more than once either I only left a couple of messages asking if they coud look at my talk page and reconsider since there's been a lot of discussion on here that isn't on ANI and I think some people hadn't realised that I had agreed to stay away from that stuff here --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• In response to Nobody Ent, over 40 emails have been sent through the MediaWiki interface since the block was put in place. I personally received four complaints about them, including two from admins who had never heard of Mistress Selina Kyle. It is no surprise that the recipients did not respond, because in doing so they would give MSK their email address. And really, if someone has no interest in being involved, why would they post on this page? Risker (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't message anyone more than once though, I didn't bother anyone I made sure if they have an issue with 1 email wthen why not just ignore it instead of being so vindictive, I don't get some people --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the deal...

... if you get unblocked one more time, and I very much hope you are, you are going to have to show that you are serious about being here, and not just hanging around to cause drama.

Basically, if you do get unblocked, I want to see you do some real content work or I'm dumping you as a mentoree, - I have supported you very strongly so far. I think you're way smarter than the average Wikipedian (okay, that may not be saying much) and you could bring some sanity to this place. But, to put it simply, Wikipedia doesn't need more drama queens.

Yes, yes, yes. People like Silver Seren or Baseball Bugs or whoever the fuck else just mostly hang around this site, add a lot of noise, troll and take not-so-funny potshots at people who can't answer back and do nothing productive (I think Silver might have actually at some point). That does not give you an excuse to become some kind of twisted mirror image of them. As people have told you over and over again, stay away from drama boards, stay away from trouble, ignore these people. Write a goddamn article!

At the end of the day, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Yes, I am very aware of the fact that on a good day it doesn't even come close to resembling one. But there are some of us, who still hold out a flicker of hope that it could be (and there are some corners of it that do manage to resemble one). And writing an encyclopedia involves... well, writing. Not bickering with people on AN/I, not tagging people's talk pages (you tag theirs now, someone will tag yours when you're blocked - oh, hey, someone already tried), not spouting off on Jimbo's talk page. All that stuff is a side show (once in awhile, it's okay, maybe even necessary sometimes, but it is a sideshow). You want that kind of a social interaction, WR should be sufficient. If you're gonna cause trouble then at least first do something to back it up.

So, if you are unblocked, and I very much hope you are, I'm gonna give you ten days to write a quality new article (say, at least DYK worthy - which is a pretty low threshold), or substantially improve an existing one. Otherwise, this is just gonna keep dragging me into drama that I despise and which is a total waste of my time.

Tough love and all that.VolunteerMarek 07:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Silverseren^C 08:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I find this characterization of Silver seren to be highly inaccurate - he is a productive editor, and when he participates in the discussion of "meta issues" it is as a voice of reason. Discussion of those issues is not worthless, or else why are there admins and noticeboards in the first place? The problem is that we have unworkable policies which have made these processes unproductive, but people still need to take the time to think that through and fix them. Wnt (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of those issues is not worthless, or else why are there admins and noticeboards in the first place? - that's actually a really good question. Anyway, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.VolunteerMarek 16:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Selina, I do have to agree with Volunteer Marek, especially the part about not wanting to be dragged into more drama. If you are unblocked this time...and while there is hope on this occasion things are looking pretty tough right now...your best course of action, as always, will be to stick to articles: pretend that places such as AN/I and other dramaboards, Jimbo's talk page, the political parts of Wikipedia, etc...all don't exist; I am an admin and I rarely feel the need to venture to those parts of the project. I also suggest that unless someone directly mentions WR to you on your talk page, don't talk about it anywhere on-wiki (if someone brings it up on a talk page other than your own, don't fall into a trap by responding to it). If you are unblocked, please follow the advice you are given more closely (such as this that I mentioned the other day), otherwise you will end up being blocked again, and it's unlikely that VM, myself, and others would be able to help any further if that happens. Lastly, my intent here is not to patronize you, but rather, to be firmer to help ensure you aren't blocked again: a lot of users have supported your unblocking in the past, and I don't believe that we all want to be let down by you ending up with your ban re-instated. Acalamari 11:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think I would just leave the criticism to WR in future it's obviously still not safe here or even there really the recent events

It still amazes me how quickly things can get out of hand here, even when I stay within all the rules (I had no idea there was a rule stopping you talking about people on other websites now, that was new to me and I had no way of being prepared for it cos yeah in the discussions before people kept telling me WR stuff doesn't matter, don't bring it up here, and when seren brought it up here I tried to point out that I never brought any of it here or posted anything against the rules here)

I'm happy to just stay away from the politics, it's all toxic and nasty and pointless trying to make it better it seems like I'd be happy to follow that and just take it a lot slower in future definitely... but yeah that's all pointless if I'm blocked I might as well just let the trolls win on WR too, over there the mods spend so much time trying to keep that place cleanm, the other mods more than me but recently I was trying to clean the place up... but why do we even bother when we get treated like crao regarless, it's like the admins here WANT us to be totally alienated and give up, and let the trolls turn it into a worse form of ED

I really would be happy with trying to give it at least one more chance before I just say give up on the place, ignore lal the crap and just try make the best of the situation --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the developments surrounding User:Mbz1, who appears to have frequented WR and other sites? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

peace offering

Yeah ASCII I saw all that - but nothing about WR or other sites was why she was banned was it, it was for on meta here wasn't it?

I actually said to her on WR before she could probably come back here if she could just stay away from the topic of gwen gale (I actually said to her, "it sounds like gwen gale gwen gale gwen gale" and go back to the lovely constructive stuff she was doing like her photography (which is quite frankly AMAZING if you look at her userpage and the people asking to use her stuff all the time, it's such a shame) she could probably come back, but she didn't want to she was too upset though I think if an admin talked to her maybe she could have a chance too if she could somehow bring herself to agree to just not getting involved int that stuff too, you lost someone who is really nice there she just felt wronged and ended up acting just as bad to try make it better, I know.

oh and I saw on the WP:ANI#Blocked that you said that you didn't like how I conducted COI investigations, but if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc./Archive I actually did it totally within the rules --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That does not excuse the way you treated User:Silver seren, who as far as I can tell has nothing to do with Websense. His efforts to engage PR people via CREWE may be misguided, and he may be seen as tool by some, but I don't think the colorful language you have used to describe him in addition to the attention you've paid to his Internet presence at large is a response appropriate for a Wikipedian. If you want to follow the path of Anonymous, you will find that it is incompatible with many Wikipedia policies. An appropriate first remedial step would be for you to apologize to Silver seren. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

please please please read #Blocked and #Topic_ban because we had that conversation about all of that if you look (nothing we talked about on WR was actually personal info that he hadn't given out already, as I mentioned on the Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement#Credit_Where_Due page a few days before I said anything on WR he is openly a member on their public group and openly says he is silver seren...

Yes, the insults were too much though, and I'm sorry for that now, I was just stressed because of his group following me around on wiki as mentioned at the #Blocked and #Topic_ban threads above and so we had an argument on WR - I was always nothing but civil on Wikipedia itself, he just took issue that I had joined paidwatch and was editing articles that his group had laid claim to as said before I'm happy to just not get involved in that stuff it's just toxic and no point fighting it, like everyone on WR has always said I guess. As I said, I'm happy to just edit articles and not get involved in politics in future, if Wikipedians don't want to support Jimbo when he's speaking in Wikipedia's best interests, that's their decision and I'm not going to try defend anyone anymore here if that is what people want --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

I am willing to unblock, or support an unblock, on the condition that you will confine yourself for 6 months to making positive contributions in article space, using article talk space only with respect to the articles you are working on, and going elsewhere on WP only for the purpose of discussing those contributions, and not commenting on WR at all, At the end of six months, I would urge you to be very careful both as to the substance and the language of what you post elsewhere. I don't want to word it formally, but your your work after the 6 months with respect to promotional articles and paid editing after that should be confined to calling attention to problems in a the simplest possible manner, and leaving the subsequent discussion and fixing to others. As for broader issues, I expect things will have developed by then. (I do not know if others will think a condition involving WR is appropriate, but things there have effects here.) DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be wise for you to limit yourself to article space and also avoid saying anything provocative on WR. Unhappily, some people are not convinced you are a net benefit and so it is best to keep a low profile. Discretion being the better part of valor, etc etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you thank you, I would honestly be willing to do that [34][35]

I don't think I agree that you should say namespaces though since I am pretty good with making things more readable for non-techy people and fixing stuff?[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] just not the horrible damn drama pages? I don't want to go near them anymore at all now honestly --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be really cool then I would really appreciate that and I would not let you down I promise - I'd not even try to interpret the cpnfusing rules on what you can or cannot say anymore (I literally had no idea if you argue with someone on another site it could be held against you I thought it was scrapped as part of the WP:BADSITES stuff ) and just stick to the buildy bits, I promise... really think you so much and I'm sorry for the mess... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Selina, if you're really just going to edit articles, perhaps I should do the unblock, thus sparing DGG and Wehwalt (both good guys) the drama. I'm less likely to have it held against me, since my association with you is held against me anyway :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If I let you down the crazy vandal calling me a vegan witch can have my userpage - I wouldn't let you down, promise, if you truly beieve blocks are supposed to be to stop trouble than punitive like the rules say then it would be really really cool I dunno what else to say other than if you unblock me I'll try quickly go through a bunch of stuff I have open in tabs still that I was meaning to finish but got distracted and prove it, honestly --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's just be clear on the conditions, repeating what DGG said above: "on the condition that you will confine yourself for 6 months to making positive contributions in article space, using article talk space only with respect to the articles you are working on, and going elsewhere on WP only for the purpose of discussing those contributions, and not commenting on WR at all". We're on the same page there?

As far as Wehwalt's suggestion... "politically" that's a good idea, but that's probably a moot point if you're keeping to those conditions. You already have my advice on the WR stuff but I'll repeat it in other terms: maybe just stick to reading, digesting, and making silly comments like me and horsey do. WR is mostly chaff, but all wheat is mostly chaff ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Insufficient. going elsewhere on WP only for the purpose of discussing those contributions is a loophole that will allow MSK to baited/sucked into DR dramaboards. She needs mentors and to allow them to acts her "agents," if you will, when she gets crossed up with another editor. Nobody Ent 01:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) I agree to it (maybe I should change the banner too to make it more clear that I don't want to discuss stuff from WR here), thank you so much I'll try prove you right, I promise, thank you thank you --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

oh Nobody Ent you have a point there when I was told of the dramaboard before I was worried that I had to reply or get in trouble, that is a good point, it would be nice if it was made clearer what I'm, supposed to do if someone tries to draw me into something, those templates sof you have been brought up at X suggest that if you don't reply you'll get in trouble --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK, how about adding one more condition: if you post on any "dramaboard" (AN, ANI, etc.) for any reason whatsoever, I'll re-block you (someone else can unblock then if your presence on the "dramaboard" is greatly desirable). Agreed? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That works --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hit the button and explain on ANI (a page that I strongly recommend you to take off of your watchlist). One further condition that obviously follows is that you should not feel you have the right to complain if you don't stick to your agreement ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok that is totally understandable, I'll try prove I'm more useful unblocked than blocked sorry again. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

kitteh haz nine livez and taht waz probably your last one. be careful. Alarbus (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks I'll try do my best, I'm tired as hell right now but thought I should get throwing in some stuff to prove I mean my words --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll peek in once in a while, and you can ping me if something comes up. Care to work on JFK? Alarbus (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do it! --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

ok

didn't do him!

Honestly, I would try and stay away from anything in the Wikipedia: namespace as much as possible. We have several other editors who are capable of handling issues with editors misbehaving. --Rschen7754 05:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Rschen7754. However, I'd like to add that if you do feel a need to make an edit to a page in the "Wikipedia" namespace (but not the dramaboards, as you are explicitly not supposed to post to them now), but are worried that if you did make the edit you would be violating any terms of your unblock agreement, the simplest thing to do would to be either ask SB Johnny about it first; or just post a thread to your own talk page and one of us watching your talk will answer (I know I would prefer you ask questions rather than we end up at AN/I again). There is rarely any urgency to do something around here, so don't feel any frustrations about having to wait for a response.

For SB Johnny, while I strongly agree with Selina not posting to drama areas anymore, about the only things I am concerned with and would like to clarify are AIV and sockpuppet investigations. On SPI, I would have to assume she is barred from that now on the basis that it can be a drama area, but what about AIV? If Selina has a legitimate vandal to report, would it be okay for her to do that? Acalamari 12:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that she will have enough talk page stalkers for the foreseeable future that she can just leave a note there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

AIV can be iffy sometimes because "vandalism" is sometimes harder to define than one might think (particularly when it comes to "blanking" parts of BLP-ish articles, where it might actually be a content dispute with a non-communative IP user, etc.). I think Wehwalt is spot on about that in any case... perhaps it would be better if she just added a new section here with "AIV" in the title so that a conscientious page stalker can look into it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops!

Hi Selina. Given your way-long-ago history with this, I really think it would be a good idea to avoid getting involved with user-template stuff for now. I know, I know... you were just replying to a reply to pre-block-and-unblock business, but I think "staying between the lines" (that's in scare quotes because it references an old TV ad for an off-road vehicle) is par for the course right now. It's also probably better to encourage people to keep giving me gruff about how overly restrictive and mean I am than it is to encourage them to complain that I'm far too lenient. Ya with me ;-)? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

At #Unblock I replied to the conditions and was told "no objections" to my suggestion? *confused* I wouldn't consider those talk pages dramaboards? ? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your line was "Roger Wilco", Selina.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's just a matter of keeping up the appearances, my dear :-).

Wehwalt is clearly campaigning for next year's straight shooter... good guy to listen to! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, just "Wilco". Nobody Ent 00:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And with that, I've added another bit of obscure trivia to my "icebreaker files". Thanks, Mr. Ent! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Popups is showing you blocked...

See this note:

• Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups#user:Mistress Selina Kyle's block status in popups

For some odd reason, popups is showing you blocked when you're not. I think it's related to the old block that evaporated. Not sure if you should talk there, but they can visit here if need be. Alarbus (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Got a reply there while I was leaving this; database is corrupt (which is funny, really). Alarbus (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Click to start new topic semi-broken

Your "Click to start a new talk topic Α⇔Ω" doesn't work correctly for a securely (https://) logged in user -- see WP:FULLURL for details. Nobody Ent 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Secure server is moot these days; no worries. Alarbus (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh why is it moot? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Because the en:server is now secure. Links to the secure server now <strike>https</strike>. Alarbus (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

sSomeone should update that page then I would normally but yeah --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 05:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

http:// is always insecure due to the danger of Packet sniffing; but is a moot point. Nobody Ent 10:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean when sites copy my pages onto their sites that the link to talk to me won't go to Wikipedia anymore because the "base page" would be their own website? I put the {{user page rounded}}/{{user page}}on my page and that uses a full link and doesn't seem that anyone's complained about it (or fixed it if it should be)? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor problem with the two links above was that anybody using one of the two secure Wikipedia variants (i.e. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) would have found themselves logged out after following them. Feel free to restore the hardcoded links if you want, but I would recommend to include the "en." language subdomain so that at least the site-wide javascript logic will recognize and dynamically change them accordingly. Amalthea 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

unblock conditions

I've written User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/unblock conditions; messages have been left on SB_Johnny & DGG's talk page asking them to review and edit. Nobody Ent 11:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've replied with some stuff from #Unblock, and I'm not sure if a separate page is good because a lot of it just going to be repeating stuff said here already though? and it's also a bit of an unpleasant a thing to have as part my user page stuff it's like Stocks or something when the discussion is all here anyway --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's in response to [46]. The discussion here was informal; a concise clear statement will benefit both you and Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 14:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone can't bring themselves to read through a discussion and want someone else to tell them than looking for themselves, they probably aren't capable of making much good judgements really, both the idea of reluctance to look at sources before commenting on them, and "too long don't read" are terrible attitudes for there to be on an enyclopaedia how a decision is arrived at is just as important as the decision itself really or you lose context and background[47][48] -Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, with the world producing five exabytes of information by next year [49], accurate précis are only becoming more valuable, not less. Nobody Ent 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Pff, never trust a grand vizier --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

World Factoring Yearbook

I'm leaving this message as you're listed as a current participant of WikiProject Business. I was informed yesterday that the current World Factoring Yearbook (circa £150) is now free for download as an ebook. It's a matter of filling out this form. I'm not sure if you'll find this useful as a reliable source, but I thought I should let you know that it's freely available online. I apologise in advance if this doesn't interest you! All the best, The Cavalry (Message me) 15:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please contact the Arbitration Committee

I've e-mailed you on the last e-mail I know you to have used. Please send your reply to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org as soon as possible. Thank you, AGK [•] 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I replied, sorry been having arguments about other stuff --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see our further response, to which your reply is also requested. Regards, AGK [•] 19:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited District nurse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of termination

I do not wish to be considered as your official mentor anymore. I don't think I can help anymore and at this point my loyalties are conflicted. If, as I suggested, you create some real content work and give evidence of being serious, I might reconsider but other than that I don't see any canines in this belli that I have pro-fund feelings about.VolunteerMarek 04:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you fired Selina from Wikipedia altogether, although I think it's more likely ArbCom did that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say it, because Marek was nice before and I'm disappointed in this, but I would say to ignore his rather rude message above because um, he's having some kind of "wiki-breakdown" I think and is angry at me for what I posted, as this message, at 04:17 seemingly in retaliation 4 minutes later after I posted about a sockpuppet of a friend at 04:13, and then he replied at 05:48: [50]

"Is there anyway you could refrain from using the phrase " Herschelkrustofsky" for like... next two weeks at least?

(and then afterwards) I want to be the guy thlos to the echoes of his own solitary laughter in Wikipedia's empty hallways and closes the door."

As for why I haven't been editing, I just haven't been in the mood with all the arguing on WR... after I read about Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Herschelkrustofsky and then found a smaller ring of sockpuppets (because we never banned any) on Wikipedia Review too ("It's the blimp, Frank", "BananaShowerMonkey" and back as Waalkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here)

Marek was nice before (I hope he feels better later) but he seems to support the "cabal" on WR that defends "regulars" no matter how bad they are and even when people like Herschelkrustofsky abuse WR itself whilst being paid by a political party for over 6 years hiding that they were not just a hardline POV but actually being paid for it whilst in a position of staff, abusing sockpuppets and setting up those sub-forums specifically to attack on the Party卐's enemies, using the sockpuppets to make it seem there is more demand for criticism of them than there actually is [51]... when it is meant to be a neutral forum :

...and during Herschelkrustofsky's time sockpuppeting over the years[52][53][54][55] with "It's the Blimp, Frank" (as well as all the Wikipedia stuff) whilst being paid by the Larouche cult created forums to massively abuse the Party卐's enemies with his "puppet theater"[56][57]

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 13th March 2009, 6:39am) "Now he's engaged in an interesting back-and-forth with Leatherstocking, who opposed one of his grander reverts. Will seems to have a special juju that makes him impervious to Leatherstocking's sarcasm." ...Sheer Narcissistic megalomania-like gloating in the third person... Special:Contributions/Leatherstocking (click userpage to see who the IP evidence they mentioned was for...)

— The sick thing is, if you look through that one, it went back as far back as July 2007 (starting off with racist stuff against jews) and ended in September 2009, the Poetguy stuff happened around May 2009, so all that time he was trying to manipulate people from WR into the Party's battles to defend "Leatherstocking"... whilst pretending he was not like that >:|

QUOTE(Selina @ Mon 27th February 2012, 3:23pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 27th February 2012, 2:54pm) *
the only time (we have) ever taken official notice of either Wikipedia or Herschelkrustofsky is in this article..
----
I am literally calling bullshit here, and everyone here knows I don't swear much...

You've been waging a campaign for years now. And even in your own damn articles they try to make it come off as though you're some kind of uninvolved fan... a war of deliberate deception...
Anyone:
GOOGLE site:larouchepub.com "wikipedia" "About 113 results"
2007-06-06 "LaRouche-hating Wikipedia"
2007-08-29 "Wikipedia-related case, planted, like a fungus, on the. NASA web-site"
2007-11-09 "the great Ministry of Truth Wikipedia"
2007-11-09 "the Ministry of Truth, Wikipedia"
2007-11-22 "Wikipedians and others, who are content to force others to live as slaves"
"H.G. Wells' followers of the "Wikipedia" hoax"
2007-12-07 "In August 2004, User:Herschelkrustofsky followed procedure .. opposition to User:Herschelkrustofsky by other political enemies of LaRouche"
2008-04-01
QUOTE
Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed by Genesis Communications Network internet radio host Jack Blood on his "Deadline Live" program today. Blood last talked during the 2004 Presidential campaign, and Blood continues to follow larouchepac.com and EIR regularly.
..
BLOOD: Now, what about the rumor that you were the founder of Wikipedia? You want to dispel that?
LAROUCHE: .. Jimmy Wales and I are on different wavelengths entirely!
BLOOD: I was going to ask if you can get me reinstated. I've been banned, from Wikipedia
2010-01-15
QUOTE
the most widely read source of information in the world, Wikipedia
2010-12-03
QUOTE
On Oct. 17, 2008, Kronberg attended and spoke at a conference sponsored by the Duggan campaign in Germany, which sought to ban the activities of German political entities associated with LaRouche. She and the gaggle of ex-LaRouche associates and Wikipedia editors
— You are JUST like Scientology in the way your main aim seem to try to defame or destroy the lives of any political opponent that gets in your way...(+this)
2011-01-07
QUOTE
control of Wikipedia pages by editors hostile to LaRouche .. control of Wikipedia is far too large for our present purposes.


GOOGLE site:larouchepac.com "wikipedia" "About 240 results"

I'm the one that did Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. before and that kind of sneaky manipulation of people annoys me quite a bit, worse when it's not just some nolife dork hiding from bans but an actual political party or corporation... the manipulative behaviour some people do here was one of the main problems I had with the admin that blocked me in 2006 too saying it was "a community ban" when there was no actual discussion, just emailing people that they had better not challenge it because of the hate for Wikipedia Review... It's funny because some people on WR are actually making conspiracy theories there that it's you someone from you lot/arbcom to blame that I am challenging the creepiness -.- I wish someone had told me, because it would have been so much better if I had known to check his activity more to know he was prone to doing that kind fo stuff before letting him stay as an admin years ago But it's too late now, it's the same everywhere humans gather in groups it's just such disappointing tribal clique behaviour... there's so few people that will actually stand up and say something when people are doing something wrong if it doesn't benefit themselves somehow... turtles all the way down...

*sigh*

If any nice person would like to try the "mentor" thing again please let it be no one in any way associated with WR please this time though that pool is getting smaller --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't owe anyone an explanation for when you decide to edit, and when you don't.

Please keep your unblock conditions in mind, which included not discussing Wikipedia Review. Nobody Ent 12:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I never agreed to any such thing in the conditions I was given when I was unblocked though, can we please please agree to not keep moving the goalposts?

On my own talk page I deserve a right of reply like anyone else, I agreed to stay clear of the drama pages and that is what I have done... I don't want to be some kind of second-class citizen forever where people can insult me on my talk page and I'm not allowed to reply to it? Or why do I bother trying at all when I could just do what everyone else does and come back on a new account, don't you understand, I am trying to do the right thing here

It's important because it gives the circumstances of the termination, which was done in bad faith as a result of arguments off-site, and without my reply and the full circumstances around it to prove that I was actually doing something good ( take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Herschelkrustofsky! :/ ) ( I got accused of being in league with admins! ) it gives the impression that I somehow did something wrong to get "terminated" --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As previously mentioned by many of us here, you're starting from a hole because Wikipedia Review annoys a significant part of the community. There's another part that is either doesn't see WR as a negative or doesn't care one way or the other, and is willing to simply consider what you do on-wiki.

That is definitely what I would prefer hence the talk page header I am a bit sick of stuff from WR coming here -.- Obviously I know now having a mentor that's also on WR probably wasn't the best idea but I had no idea something like that would happen at the time and I didn't exactly have much say in any of it anyway lol --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence you have any other motivation that to improve Wikipedia. The way to do that is write content. What I'm seeing is:

• Trying to improve Wikipedia by pushing/prodding/poking the rest of the community i.e making annoying edits
• Seeing a guideline/policy/statement from an editor/whatever and, rather than accepting/getting the big picture concept, attempting to grok out the very limits and go there.
• Arguing, arguing, arguing

I haven't got in any arguments lately That point was a one off for obvious reasons it was a major thing, and kinda had to be replied to properly cos deleting would have just made it look like I was trying to hide something! --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For example, this -- making the nursing template annoying with lots of red links -- in addition to not being in sync with the gestalt of, if maybe not the exact wording of, WP:REDNOT -- is not the way to get more nursing articles into Wikipedia. That's a fine goal, and the best way to do that is to write one of them.

I did start writing them, then I got distracted, I can't be editing all the time and I took a break for a bit too, just calm down, honestly, these things come in time Got to put the foundation down before a city can be built, which is what WP:REDLINK is all about - making people realise there are gaps, and encouraging growth - it's much more annoying that the articles don't exist! --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know, nor actually care, whether the transcribe from WR to your own talk page is a violation of the ban or not, but I know it's, again, not a good idea. You have as of now 138 stalkers and while the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors are decent folk, there's a few malcontents in every crowd.

One of my many ways of staying Wiki-happy is reserving the right to walk away at any time for any period of time, so I never make commitments such as agreeing to mentor someone.

I have tried to be helpful in providing advice and support to facilitate you getting an opportunity to return to Wikipedia. I don't see myself as having any else to offer and will be on my way. I wish you the best of luck. Nobody Ent 15:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well ok, thank you for the advice I do appreciate it *hug* and yeah that's kinda what I mean, I do disappear sometimes but I always get stuff done in the end, I already started Forensic nursing if you looked properly ;) (lately I've been so busy it's hard to settle down to think what to write on stuff which doesn't help lol) I should probably put a list together of Things I Need to Write, I get distracted by watchlist too easily too lol --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Selina, while you said that you don't want anyone associated with WR as a mentor (for anyone else reading this, I do know I shouldn't raise the site here, but I had to mention it in this case), I am willing to be a mentor if you want me to be: while I do have an account over there, I have only made one post there within the last two years, and am a reader more than a poster. I have already been helping you since your original unblock over a month ago, and am still willing to help you out if you would like that. Acalamari 15:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh that sounds ok, I was just wary of more silly politics invading this place, that sounds absolutely fine sure

Thanks! I'd be happy to take any advice and can email me too --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, I'm glad you'll accept my help and me as a mentor. :) Now then, speaking as your new mentor, I noticed you filed this report: while I don't object to the report in itself, I should remind you that you're not supposed to post to SPI in accordance with your unblock conditions. It would have been better to have raised the possible sock here on your talk page; and that I'm a mentor, the other place to raise it would be my talk page. Acalamari 16:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The unblock conditions I was given that I agreed to and was then unblocked though are on this page at the link, can we please please please agree to not keep moving the goalposts? that page was made AFTER I agreed to conditions and unblocked

I replied to the creation of it giving my concerns about additional things being getting added that I didn't previously agree to (and that the other admins previously said would be "no problem") such as editing outside articles in a constructive way without visiting the drama boards - and my concerns seem to have been ignored I don't think that page should exist at all, we already agreed the unblock conditions when I was unblocked and rather than a summary of what was said it seemed to turn into instruction creep which is the kind of thing that puts people off editing at all (or saying screw trying to be honest an doing what everyone else banned seems to in coming back on another account that you literally have no way to detect unless people are a) stupid or b) don't know what an IP is I think you really need to work on the ban culture here to realise that you need to work with people more not give them ultimations, because ultimately if someone really cares enough you can't ban anyone, you need to be reasoning with people more, not "punishing" - you are creating a "punishment culture" where the honest people are treated worse than those that don't even try to play by the rules --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Selina, please take Acalamari's advice to heart. He's not trying to punish you, he's trying to offer you guidance to steer you away from areas that are likely to attract negative attention from people who think you're here to fight battles instead of create and improve content. I may be unwelcome here because I blocked you, but I'm offering you sincere advice because I have great respect for Acalamari and if he thinks mentoring you is worth his time and effort, I support him 100%. But you have to help him. If you just argue with him or blow off his advice, all the mentoring in the world won't do any good. Listen to him. Please. 28bytes (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this. Selina, you need to be able to listen to advice all the time, not just when there's a proverbial gun to your head. Your unban conditions represent a bare minimum. It's like if someone asked you to stop insulting his mother so you start insulting his father instead. Just following the letter of the rules without understanding why you shouldn't be doing what people don't want you to be doing will not end well. I've watched situations like this progress before. The community does not like having to keep redefining fine-grained restrictions because the editor has decided to play to the letter of the restriction instead of the spirit and intention of it, and they're more likely to turn around and say 'okay, fine, you get to edit nothing, ever' if they think their good graces are being exploited or insulted. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I was putting off replyng to that because I wanted to write out a proper reply::: I know, I am saying the other stuff seemed like it, not the stuff he said! I wasn't arguing in a nasty way, just trying to have a constructive debate about it, because that's the best way to decide things really --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I was listening, and I agreed with the unblock given before I was just trying to say I think it should be sticking to that, the original unblock conditions since there seemed to be no discussion on that other page after I tried to discuss it - Acalamari wasn't involved in that I'm not sure if Johnny is around on here much or busy lately but I would like a fair discussion if more restrictive stuff is going to be put on me than what I agreed to before being unblocked that's all I was trying to say? {{smiley} --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As it was SB Johnny who made the call to unblock you, I think it is fair that he created his own unblock conditions, and I think that the ones laid out on the subpage are fair and not really too different to what DGG and Wehwalt said above (the WR limit is good, and you have said that you don't want to discuss it anymore here anyway). I was somewhat involved with the creation of the page on your unblock conditions, although I had no say on any conditions listed there: I recommended User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/unblock conditions be created merely as an easy reference point for yourself and people involved in helping you, and to ensure your restrictions wouldn't be gamed by anyone...it wasn't created to "shame" or "punish" you, and I can assure you that if I wanted to "punish" you I would never have supported your unblock in the first place. Regarding contributions to the Wikipedia-namespace, I will state that I have no problem with you participating in the WikiProjects you are signed up for, providing said WikiProjects are to do with improving content, as the LGBT and Feminism WikiProjects you have joined do; but as DGG said, leave anything to do with paid editing (or any other WikiProject that is Wiki-political/not directly to do with improving article content) alone. Beyond a few WikiProjects to do with the main articles you edit, I don't see any reason for you to edit that namespace for now; and I will say that if you do have a problem or a sockpuppet to report, I would rather you post a note here about it (as your restrictions state) or come to my talk page rather than you get into any trouble. If there are problems that you encounter, I am sure we would all rather spend a bit of time fixing them here rather than you get blocked again (and sadly, if you are blocked again, it is unlikely that any unblock arguments would still convince anyone or that anyone would be willing to unblock you again). Acalamari 11:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

conditions, revisited

Selina, see above under "unblock":

Okay, let's just be clear on the conditions, repeating what DGG said above: "on the condition that you will confine yourself for 6 months to making positive contributions in article space, using article talk space only with respect to the articles you are working on, and going elsewhere on WP only for the purpose of discussing those contributions, and not commenting on WR at all". We're on the same page there?

As far as Wehwalt's suggestion... "politically" that's a good idea, but that's probably a moot point if you're keeping to those conditions. You already have my advice on the WR stuff but I'll repeat it in other terms: maybe just stick to reading, digesting, and making silly comments like me and horsey do. WR is mostly chaff, but all wheat is mostly chaff ;-). --SB_Johnny 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree to it (maybe I should change the banner too to make it more clear that I don't want to discuss stuff from WR here), thank you so much I'll try prove you right, I promise, thank you thank you --Mistress Selina Kyle02:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the conditions were pretty clear.

I unblocked you because you said you just wanted to work on articles, and I think anybody should be able to work on articles if they want to do so. You seem to have become distracted by other things, and I wouldn't have unblocked you so that you could do those other things. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Punk music COTM

Delivered by benzband (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Punk music, 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Selina, thanks for your note, which was a surprise, but a very welcome one. I share your concerns about paid editing, as I do about the other issues you mentioned. I've been having health issues recently, so I'm not sure I can get involved in PAIDWATCH (I'm trying to focus mostly on content editing at the moment), but I'll definitely take a look.

Anyway, welcome back to Wikipedia! I hope things work out for you, and that you enjoy it. If it's not fun, there's no point, and I think a lot of the fun has gone out of Wikipedia lately, so it's good to see an old timer return (yes, you count as an old timer). :) All the best, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks that was a surprise too awh... and yeah, I'm kinda worried for the future if they don't work out some way to keep tabs on the paid editors... I think in the end there's pretty much only two ways it can go, to go for total anonymity so that people judge stuff totally on contnet rather than contributor or something (to stop people building up false profiles of "trustworthiness" whilst manipulating people) or requiring people to identify and declare interests in the same way that money trails can be traced in political lobbying in the normal media - god I don't know... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'm allowed to have an opinion on that as an unblocked user, someone correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not touching it --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The RfC would count as a restricted place for you, with it being a "dramaboard" and a part of the Wikipedia namespace not directly related to the articles you work on, so you are correct in not participating. :) Acalamari 10:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Substing User Talk Templates

Hi there! When using certain templates on talk pages, such as welcome templates and user warnings, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:welcome}} instead of {{welcome}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. If you need any further help on the matter just ask me on my talk page. Cheers.·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD re CREWE

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. FYI; a needed discussion. Alarbus (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have an interest in this. meow. Alarbus (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alarbus, unfortunately, since this is a page in the Wikipedia-namespace and is to do with paid editing, it would be very unwise for Selina to comment on the AfD, in accordance with her unblock conditions. Acalamari 12:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I know that; pretty sure she does, too. It's still polite to let her know given that I saw the talk on Jimmy's page. Alarbus (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

chilling effect --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just urging caution, not throwing blocks around. :) Acalamari 13:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean you, sorry, I was just being a bit lazy there - you're right, it would be a risk that PR affiliates would probably find a way to get me blocked again somehow --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I Pity the Fool who closes that school of sharks. Alarbus (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok well, I replied, I think it can be considered on the same level as a talk page discussion about the article so pretty "safe" for no personal attacks to happen, hopefully - and well, Jimbo seemed to think me informing him was a good thing, WP:IAR and all that. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I just saw. I've not really been following the whole series of discussions about this. You be careful. Alarbus (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad that there's more easy going admins around like you two and well, most of the visitors to this page, I hope it is ok considering the circumstances...

I think DGG's original block conditions that I agreed to and he was about to unblock me before Johnny showed up were better, I can't really consider Johnny's stuff in good faith considering his remarks about me on Wikipedia Review... (with the political "cabal" that had formed to control the site with gomi (another example) and Herschelkrustofsky) - I don't think I should have agreed to let a moderator from there unblock me and let the other admins do it, I suspect the idea was to get me "under control" here too... I hope I don't really need to publish the comments about me made in the moderators' forum and that Johnny will agree it was not an appropriate thing to offer to take over from the other admins either really. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnny's a straight shooter; DGG I'm not sure about. You seem to know Johnny well from the other place. The Drama Board mob certainly wants to keep you under control; that's power games 101. Don't you go thinking I'm an admin who could unblock you; I don't have that button. Alarbus (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm out of this one, actually, and have informed ARBCOM of my withdrawal. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah! That's fine then. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :) Acalamari 19:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hope Diamond

I have reverted your entry of Hope Diamond from Sita Mata article. It is unnecessary in that article! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 07:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

h2g2

Hello, thanks for the message. I didn't notice that was on, but I can watch the dvd instead, yay :) It might be a good excuse to listen to the radio series again, too! --h2g2bob (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI mainpage and WP:PAIDWATCH

I have to agree with Alison here that the link I don't think belongs, but I'm willing to hear Jimbo's comments out, but I can't find them, could you link them possibly for me? (I could just be tired and not be seeing them) Though I would like to note, but not to attack your edit, but an overall comment that Jimbo talking != what has to be done. We do have community process here, and unless this is a office action or ArbCom action he's doing, then it's subject to every one of the community's polices. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I linked Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch#On_this_list if you read through that, then onto the other threads, the thread you want with Jimbo's comments is this one: #Corporate_Representatives_paid_editing_on_Wikipedia (there's a bunch of stuff on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch too if you CTRL+F 'jimbo' and tap F3 there ) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

COI template

I left you a note here: Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement#COI_template. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 08:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Paw

Thaanks for the link to the Paid Operatives essay at Paid Advocay Watch. Tra. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Websense

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch/Editor Registry

During the deletion discussion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch/Editor Registry, the consensus was that the page should be used for those who have self-identified as COI editors. LauraHale has not disclosed any such affiliation, and using as evidence that she is Wikipedian in Residence at the Australian Paralymic Committee is insufficient - being an Wikipedia in Residence does not make someone a paid editor with a COI in relation to those articles. Accordingly, I've had to revert your addition [58]. This is something that we'll need consensus on before adding. - Bilby (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned with how you justify listed suspected paid editors - the issue is that the page was saved from deletion only on the basis that it would be used to list self-disclosed paid editors only. To use it to maintain a list of suspected paid editors, on the grounds of some very flimsy evidence (in particular in regard to LauraHale) is both outside of the agreed purpose of the page, and a personal attack on the users concerned. On those grounds I have to remove LauraHale from the list again. I'm hoping you rethink her addition - or at least try to seek some sort of consensus about including her on the page. I'll also raise the issue of the purpose of that page again on it's discussion, so hopefully we can get some more input from other editors about the direction. But it seems we'll need that input before electing to use it to list suspected paid editors. - Bilby (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find very little support from anyone at Wikipedia for your goals "Bilby"... If you hvae a problem with these activities being exposed, nominate it for deletion again... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to hash it out on the talk page, but that's going to be difficult if your only response is to revert things. In regard to LauraHale, I looked at your evidence, and the only thing you have shown is that she is working with the Australian Paralympic Committee as a Wikipedian-in-Residence. There is nothing there to even suggest that this is a paid role, and as VP of Wikimedia Australia, working with them is part of what she would be expected to do. By listing her there you are alleging that she is being paid to edit WP in order to advocate for a group without any evidence that money is involved at all, or that any advocacy is happening. This is a serious allegation to make on such poor grounds. It seems that the best move would be for you to remove her from the page and discuss whether or not she should be included on the discussion page - personally, I can't see a case for including her there, especially based on the evidence you've shown. - Bilby (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Selina, why are you getting involved in paid editing-related areas again? I thought it was agreed that you keep away from them, and I don't understand why you feel the need to involve yourself in those matters. Honestly, if you are blocked over your recent activity there I don't think that there will be much support to unblock you again. In addition, please don't use Twinkle in a dispute or label edits you disagree with as vandalism, as done here and here...it isn't appropriate. Acalamari 13:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In the past 6 years or so Wikipedia has become almost completely subverted... Even Jimbo's freaked out by it (per the links at top of WP:PAIDWATCH. No one is speaking up... No one is doing anything... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, however you choose to proceed, please don't keep reverting when someone reverts you. Whatever your dispute with Bilby, discuss with them on the talk page: constantly reverting is bad and not helpful. Acalamari 18:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I did after you asked ... He reverted me without discussing first either by the way --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi, Selina. Follow the trails and they lead back to Alarbus being Jack Merridew. Good luck, here, while it lasts.

Buck 12:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarify Email about block

Hello, I understand that you emailed me regarding for being blocked for "talking about paid editing". Could I ask why you are contacting me regarding this, and why not a uninvolved admin? Phearson (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know many admins, and it seemed weird/spammy if I just mailed a random person? It's over WP:PAIDWATCH, suggesting that bringing to light COI editing in breach of WP's policies is somehow disruptive and block-worthy What else are you saying I should do, I obviously can't use talk pages to tell anyone I just went and filed one of those report things, I would have a public discussion about if I could but it seems like the system is designed to stop people being able to have a voice as much as anything... This happens way too much, blocks made for political reasons than what is actually in Wikipedia's best interests as an encyclopedia. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that this be a great discussion for WP:ANI. However, do note that emailing people to participate in discussion is frowned upon as it is not transparent (stealth canvassing). I'm not mad by the way, I was just simply letting you know. I am following the discussion, and will comment as I see fit. Phearson (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for violation of the condition in your earlier unblock, at User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/unblock conditions that you would confine your editing to article space, and article talk space directly relevant to your contributions to article space, and that you would avoid nonarticle space. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text

While I am neutral toward MS and am not familiar with the specifics of the incident, I would reiterate, if you are not famaliar with the case---you probably do not want to unblock without discussing on ANI.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblockThose were not my unblock conditions, those were agreed before on #Unblock on this page... That page was written by SB_Johnny who was collaborating with banned user "Herschelkrustofsky" in the moderator forum on Wikipedia Review to "keep me under control" on Wikipedia from drawing attention to the covert pushing of people like him (and to help "protect" thekohser and gomi greybeard too):

#AfD_re_CREWE

I said before that that page was invalid, on that page, even, too, no one disputed or responded in any way to my comments there...!!! I even said specifically the goal-posts should not be moved like that, it wasn't what I agreed to when in the unblock:

I don't think I agree that you should say namespaces though since I am pretty good with making things more readable for non-techy people and fixing stuff?[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] just not the horrible damn drama pages? I don't want to go near them anymore at all now honestly --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't be blocking the whistleblowers but going after the actual bad people instead Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch/Editor_Registry#Covert_paid_editing [69]"in my view, a front line issue to be dealt with firmly" --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Those were not my unblock conditions" is completely contradicted by the plain English text that you linked to on this very page. SB Johnny said "Okay, let's just be clear on the conditions, repeating what DGG said above: "on the condition that you will confine yourself for 6 months to making positive contributions in article space, using article talk space only with respect to the articles you are working on, and going elsewhere on WP only for the purpose of discussing those contributions, and not commenting on WR at all". We're on the same page there?" You then replied "I agree to it (maybe I should change the banner too to make it more clear that I don't want to discuss stuff from WR here), thank you so much I'll try prove you right, I promise, thank you thank you". Even a cursory look at your contribution history shows you've made literally hundreds of such non-articlespace edits in the last week alone! I don't know how you can possibly argue that you didn't violate your unblock conditions. (But if you do decide to argue that, please focus on that, and not on your enemies. Whatever their misdeeds are or were has no bearing on your editing status.) 28bytes (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at that page linked to, I pointed out that and replied, and no one else replied to me when I said that I was agreeing to the original unblock conditions and when I replied before it was something like 5am ("at night"), that's why I pointed it out again and no one disagreed with what I said or said it was wrong

What is the plan for dealing with covert paid editing then because it looks like it's just shoot the messenger to me... Jimbo speaking up should be a wakeup call, not a reason to go after someone... (please don't refer to them as "my enemies" that's muddying the waters, I criticised them was because of them because of them being such a huge problem to Wikipedia, whilst pretending to criticise being part of the problems and some of the worst people around... though yes you could say enemies in a sense that they have been harassing me off-wiki with them sending me pictures and threatening me impersonating me, trying to hack my email, Jayen466/HRIP7 trying to trick me into phoning him to get my number, yeah... please, please, just don't go there)

Seriously, I'm not the enemy, why is no one doing anything about this stuff?[70][71][72][73] That is the literally thousands of stuff you should be worrying about --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused what this has to do with you? Obviously paid editing is an issue that Wikipedia needs to figure out. But it doesn't seem to relate to you at all. Prodego ^talk 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the point yeah I'm neutral, the only reason I care is because I care about trying to make Wikipedia less bad in whatever way I can. No one else blew the whistle on those sites even though they've been sitting in public view for years, no one else reported websense[74], everyone is just so complacent whilst you are being ran rings around by really slimey people...

If you don't do anything, Wikipedia is just going to become a total blight on the internet because it is going to become totally subverted by those hordes of anonymous shills, some of whom openly state they are embedded in the culture and above suspicion etc on those sites...

This is your last chance for anyone to actually try save Wikipedia: [75][76](you are going to lose the few honest ones like David King otherwise because they too see it as an issue that the deceptive sneaky ones are literally getting away with it all: [77]) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (can the category stay til discussion is over maybe, please?)

Now this may come as a surprise to you, but I'm actually disappointed that it's come to this. You see, I believe that you're well-intentioned, however the "collateral damage" that's come as a result of your vigilante actions has unfortunately become untenable. I hope you will see in time that there are other people around that are equally fervent defenders of WP's principles, and that working with them rather than against them will allow you to achieve much more than doing battle on your own. When your ban is over, and if you're still inclined to contribute to this project, then I hope to see you engage constructively with other editors to improve this project in a postive and collaborative way. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1)

80880

^ This guy needs to be blocked. The only reason he knows about this is his habit of following people around WP:WIKIHOUNDING people who disagree with him:

1. (2012-03-24, 10:44) Threatening me with "reporting to admin"[78] on Talk:Browser security
2. (2012-03-27, 11:18) And then when I avoided the arguing and gave up on trying to edit that article due to his combative nature apparently trying to WP:OWN articles, a couple of days later he follows my contributions onto Websense and tries to start a new argument with me there instead, where I avoided him again: [79][80][81][82]

Not being able to control your aggressive teenage male editors is another reason why so many people leave... Of course, everyone knows my usual reaction to people trying to harass me is to make them think twice about doing it again than let them make me a victim, but my lately being "good" like I was 'warned' to and avoiding the teenage boys on a hormone trip just gets them trying to stir up other people against you instead — you can't win, you can have your playground.

So you lose another who actually wanted to change things for the better and spots things that thousands of people apparently just blink and move on without speaking up about. I should've known better than to try help make anything better within WP's messed up power-crazed bureaucracy, Wikipedia's still as broken as it was 6 years ago in that you still can't draw attention to problems on Wikipedia for its own good without being persecuted by zealots claiming talking about problems cannot be tolerated, because they obviously do not exist. Even Jimbo agrees something needs to be done, but you'd rather stick your head in the sand and shoot the messenger. So be it, let it be remembered that it was "DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)" who burnt the bridges for people trying to help and helped push the door open wider for trojan horse scum when in a few years time the corporate puppet hordes fully arrive when the serious "persona management" software starts getting into the corporate sector: [83]... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Has Selina caused any disruption in the Wikipedia namespace? If not, then perhaps WP:IAR is applicable. Drama isn't the same as disruption; some issues simply need to be discussed. Selina was only trying to help Wikipedia against what she perceives to be a major threat. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Her original unblock conditions were basically that she didn't cause drama in the Wikipedia namespace. Discussing is one thing, but Selina really needs to take a break here, because her edits were well beyond anything you could call discussion. And I don't think blaming everything on her opponents at WR is helping things along. Perhaps when that drama has settled down one way or another might be time to come back - without that to worry about. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it right though, seriously, that at the same time as those "ban conditions" were being "decided" here, those banned COI editors were talking in a hidden forum on WR with some Wikipedia administrators about "what to do about me"? That seems deeply deeply broken to me? You have people that are working for truly abhorrent people deciding on what to do to their "enemies" here... Since then I've been forwarded email chains and screenshots of them "discussing" me in private too... some of your admins are basically "insider" meatpuppets for those banned users...

When I say "abhorrent", it's not an exaggeration, we are talking about people that are compulsive liars and serial manipulators, the kind of people who steal other peoples' photos and pretend to be them like thekohser[84] who openly boasts to have many undetected sockpuppets pushing propaganda for corporations[85] and stalked Jimbo's children[86][87](I got that deleted) and user:Steven McGeady/Steven McGeady/gomi greybeard engaging in identity theft stealing photos from peoples' blogs[88][89] to help push propaganda, for corporations like Intel[90] and the Larouche cult[91][92][93][94] along with Hersch[95]... I challenged them on their absolutely scummy behaviour, worse than nearly anyone else on Wikipedia whilst hypocritically putting themselves on a pedestal as supposedly uninvolved critics when I found this out, and so they got one of their "pet" admins to get the block conditions tightened to try prevent me speaking out more... I'm not going to go into the non-Wikipedia stuff like the harassment I've been getting off wiki because I know that doesn't belong here (I'm going to post that on WR), and I am not some damn victim and think someone should stand up and say something about this stuff because you're right, it is only going to get worse and worse... Unless you actually do something about it. The first step is awareness, not some kind of vigilante campaign, if I wanted to do that I'd be following King4057's suggestion of running stings on those sites, but I realise totally I can't get them all.

I challenged the "extras" tacked onto what I had already agreed to (look at the dates/times, I posted my message after the discussion at the bottom) and was ignored... If I had known at that point, I would have said about that stuff too, but yeah... Either way after I replied there was no more discussion, which I thought meant people agreed...

If you look at the discussions I've been involved in, none of anything I have said has actually been against any of Wikipedia's rules, just that blanket "lock out" attempt at keeping a whistleblower from speaking out on discussions about those issues. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

we all care about promotional editing. I've deleted at least 6000 articles as promotional; many have done as much; some have done much more. But like dealing with any other threat to the integrity of the project, it has to be done dispassionately with respect to the promotionalism, and sensitively with respect to the humans who are the editors. Our psychological problem is the same as dealing with other forms of non-constructive behavior: not getting overinvolved. It's not reasonable to think that any degree of drastic action can put an end to it--as Wikipedia grows in prominence it will inevitably worsen. The way to deal with it is as a dedicated businesslike enforcement officer, not Dirty Harry.

It's not as if any degree of outrage can put an stop to it, it will have to be countered without ever stopping as long as we hold to the principle of permitting anonymous editing. But nobody will get paid for writing bad articles if we are alert to always remove them; it can be done better without anger & without focusing on individuals.

"The way to deal with it is as a dedicated businesslike enforcement officer, not Dirty Harry."... That's the PERFECT metaphor actually, because you have a system that is seemingly incapable of policing itself... You are totally right that no degree of action can "put an end to crime" completely, but that doesn't mean you can't make a difference in smaller ways, it doesn't mean you should just give up on dealing with this stuff completely and persecute anyone who dares talk about it... It's not like I actually did much hunting myself (though King4057's suggestion of running stings could eliminate some very high value targets in your midsts such as the ones statin they have been here for years, above suspicion, probably administrators too etc...)

All I did was provide you with the information on what was going on to try raise awareness, I don't think speaking about issues should be a reason to block anyone, it just kinda proves the point that WikipediaReview needs to exist and apparently trying to change things from within the system is entirely pointless... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I will give you another example of another problem user masquerading as respectable, Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been attempting to cover for other paid agents for a very long time, in fact nearly all of his non-article space edits are about defending paid editing and covering up evidence.[96], and he WAS WP:WIKIHOUNDING me as a result of WP:PAIDWATCH, on 16th Feb when I added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. to the PAIDWATCH wikiproject at 9:23[97], with "bobrayner" then suddenly arriving to talk:Websense at 9:58[98] along with "Bilby" at 11:13[99], both founding members the 5th and 7th respectively of this group and not members of wp:PAIDWATCH

In the meantime, "Bilby" who states that he is in the Information Systems department at the University of South Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been repeatedly WP:COI editing his university's own article, which in the history[100] also appears to have many edits from what look accounts specifically created to edit that article, including one named "Digital Marketing Team". At the very least, he should be topic banned from these areas whilst he and his university is blatantly manipulating their article, because it makes it very obvious why he pushes against oversight of these kind of activities... -Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The intent in setting the unblock conditions was that Selina would focus on the necessary proactive writing and rewriting. But she seems to think that it all depends on her, and that if she doesn't deal with all aspects of the problem personally, nobody can do it. Thus, I would be responsible for opening the floodgates by blocking "people trying to help." If she says that, she must believe she is the only person trying to help. When someone takes that attitude to a WP process, they need to work on another aspect of Wikipedia. When someone, even after a last chance warning, cannot stay away from going back to that process, they need to take a break from the project altogether to regain perspective. Like everyone else, I terribly regret it has come to this, but I see no other alternative. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I did both, and I was hounded at every turn for both, because of the intensive restrictions being seen by some bullying type personalities as a weakness to exploit, an easy target when you put someone in a situation where anyone can say what they want to them and get away with it, but the other person is likely to get in trouble if they reply back. It's just broken. It's also incredibly counter-productive, just like scaring off the good PR editors who are honest about what they do, because otherwise you just drive everyone back underground instead of attempting to work with you within a broken system. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see this block reduced to a month. MSK means well, but the crusade needs to come to an end. The unblocking agreement was that she would return to editing productively and avoid drama. That hasn't happened. We don't need you to save Wikipedia. It seems to have survived and thrived for the six years you were blocked. Your goals are admirable, but you need to cool it. Everyone's run out of patience. I think you have a decision to make. What do you want to do here? Do you want to edit in the mainspace or do you want to tirelessly work against paid advocacy? One is acceptable, and at this point the other will get you blocked indefinitely. AniMate 19:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I chose 6 months because that was the original period set for the topic block. It was a last chance unblock, explicitly done as such. As the ed. returned to prior ways a month after that, I do not see that a month now would be sufficient. The eds. replies above indicate to me that perhaps 6 months is not enough, but I can understand a feeling of frustration & increasing it in response might seem unfair. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking back over things I believe that you are right. I remembered there was some ambiguity, but looking at User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/unblock conditions and the conversation that preceded it, I see I was wrong. This seems fair enough. AniMate 20:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no "crusade" though I did a lot less than I could have, rather than attempting to police individuals I was just presenting you with a few links to show the scale of the problem which is far too big for any one or small group of people to deal with (LauraHale was originally brought up by Herostratus[101]]), I just presented you with the information that was out there[102]. See above replied to the point about the "conditions" in the others' comments too. (trying to keep the different topics of contention together than writing one big reply)

break

Just my take, but this strikes me as overreactive and overkill. You can't possibly expect a "just edit articles" restriction, meant in good faith to cool someone off from arguing on projectpages, to be actually applied to a meta-editorial procedural page like AN/I or any other noticeboard. They are not random talk pages, they are part of WP's quasi-legalistic WP:PROCESS; you cannot simultaneously exclude someone from the process while holding them to it, absent their being an outright troll/vandal. It's 100% expected and normal that people will respond to complaints and allegations lodged against them at noticeboards; it's essentially demanded of them. Simply speaking in one's own defense on a noticeboard cannot under any sane interpretation of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR], which I remind you is a matter of policy, be interpreted as a violation of a "stick to articlespace" restriction, or Wikipedia adminship has really, really gone off the rails into WP:THISPROJECTISULTIMATELYDOOMED land. PS: Please consider that I came off of a close family member bereavement wikiabsence to make this point, that's how offensive I think this block is. Being a self-styled WP watchdog does not make someone a secondclass editor here. If that were the case, every editor who takes WP:V and WP:NOR seriously would be a second class editor blockable by whims like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Selina asked me to comment here. I do think that she's demonstrated some incredible research skills that are of value to PAIDWATCH. Everyone on Wikipedia carves out different roles for themselves based on their interests and an editor doesn't have to edit article space to be of help. So it seems unproductive to suggest that Selina tear herself away from a topic she's passionate about. In fact investigating unethical paid editors seems to be a role she's ideally suited for and highly motivated by.

It's also clear she has a strong POV that can make her comments somewhat disruptive or offensive with excessive speculation, constant smiley faces, really long notes, calling people shills and so forth.

A 1 month cooling off period seems more reasonable. I would suggest her unblock conditions be focused on attitude rather than topic or article-space. For example, it could be (a) will avoid speculation without clear evidence (b) will avoid attack language on individuals or groups of people (c) will conduct herself in a courteous way and attempt to be neutral and balanced in all discussions. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds more reasonable, being both less overreactive and more aimed at correcting the problem than being punitive just for the hell of it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 04:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think the block should be reduced to one month, with the editing restrictions recast to focus on conduct rather than territory. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reducing the block to one month sounds reasonable to me as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If we're all running a straw poll here, I'll say that I support DGG's block as written. MSK was given a number of chances after she was narrowly allowed back into the community, and she's thrown away each of those chances by failing to control her impulses, even when advised by friendly parties that her impulses were or were being perceived as disruptive. Her latest unblock was under a set of conditions which she agreed to, and which she then attempted to repudiate when she again went back to her impulsive, disruptive editing. Unless we can get some commitment from MSK that she can curb her impulses and edit according to what she and the community decided would be her restrictions - and it would have to be convincing, since each of her unblocks has come with such promises, which then got broken - then I don't see any reason to shorten the block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite accurate to say Selina agreed to the conditions; rather the conditions established by the community were made explicitly clear to her. Nobody Ent 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Would reducing the block to three month be a suitable compromise? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking template

It appears that there was a link to a category that caused your talk page to appear in CAT:RFU. I've tweaked the page to fix that, if you have questions on how to post the unblock template, please use {{adminhelp}}. TNXMan 14:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Arthur Wallis Mills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Browne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, pointed to Tom Browne (illustrator). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PAIDWATCH

Template:PAIDWATCH has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it's okay with the admins, let me know if you'd like to comment on this deletion debate, and I'll post your !vote there for you. Any watching admins should let me know if this would be okay, as I'm not sure of the current views on this. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't been agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch

A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Artifact, category moved to WikiProject Integrity

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia green edit button.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Wikipedia green edit button.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bifemale.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Bisexual2.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Bimale.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

Hi MSK. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Macrovirus (fiction) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Macrovirus (fiction) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrovirus (fiction) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Speedy deletion nomination of Sexual Freedom Coalition

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sexual Freedom Coalition requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Dissident Aggressor 22:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Sexual Freedom Coalition for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sexual Freedom Coalition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual Freedom Coalition until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine for u!

		Sunshine!
		Hello Mistress Selina Kyle! Bhootrina (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bhootrina (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer Security user status

Hello Mistress Selina Kyle,

I would just like to inquire on your status on WikiProject Computer Security as the list of WikiProject Computer Security/Members is going to be improved to list active and inactive users.

This is update is being done according to a request for comments on the WikiProject Computer Security talk page. Be sure to state your status at the User status section in the WikiProject Computer Security talk page before the end of four weeks as this will state your status as inactive in the project if not done before then.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bifemale.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bifemale.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello Mistress Selina Kyle! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

RachelWex 16:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Blood fetishism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blood fetishism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood fetishism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Uw-1 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Uw-1. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Uw-1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"Template:WP:ub" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:WP:ub. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Template:WP:ub until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Tlu

Template:Tlu has been nominated for merging with Template:Template link. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16

The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

:)

Hello!! Is there anybody out there!!! Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home? 2A00:23C4:B006:3601:E882:D1F0:6CA6:F9CC (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Wikitea2

Template:Wikitea2 has been nominated for merging with Template:Wikitea. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Sdkb ^talk 06:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)