User talk:Karmafist/Archive12

Snowspinner

As an admin, can you please block User:Snowspinner for his mass violations of WP:DP and WP:BP? Also, if you could participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3, it would be most appreciated. Thanks. Firebug 17:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't block Snowspinner

Undo his blocks by all means, if there's consensus they're unjustified (as they seem to be). But don't block snowspinner—that's taking the wheel war too far, and won't accomplish anyone's goals. -- SCZenz 17:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very frustrated with Snowspinner right now, but blocking him for out-of-process blocks is, well, also out-of-process. Better to get other admins in on unblocking, to demonstrate there's no consensus for the blocks. -- SCZenz 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long List Question

Been working on updating the page List of people on stamps of Ireland but the entries from 1981 to 2004 that I have added make the list very long (about 3 times the initial list), so at first I divided it into decade groupings but then I tried to make a 2 column table. However it is a pain the select line 1 and then line 10, line 2 and then line 11 from a 20 line listing to make the 2 side by side chronological lists. There has to be an easier way than the dedious way I made it for the 1929-1949 section. Suggestions please. Also, should a list like this, now so long, really be alphebetical rather then chronological?

Also, have a quick look at my User:Ww2censor/Postage stamps of Ireland page I am working on and tell me if I am on the right track; stylewise, contentwise, etc. Several sections still have quite a bit of work to do before it can be published and a few more images will be required. Thanks ww2censor 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a pretty easy way to do this

Copy the long list from the sandbox and paste into a spreadsheet (Excel works for me), then cut and paste blocks of names into number of columns you need, save as a web page. Open web page in a WYSIWYG web software like Golive and view it as source code. Remove unneeded code like col widths, row heights. This can be done by 'find/replace' and then copy and paste the cleaned table code into the sandbox. Have a look now, I think it looks good. There is just one thing I don't like and that is the '*' from the list now shows as a 'star'. Thanks for making me think about it in more detail. I am sure other software could be used as doing this manually would have been a royal pain. ww2censor 18:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Congratulations on being elected on esperanza advisory committee! Since I am now a member I thought I should congratulate our small government too for being elected. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Kelly Martin said something I thought might make you smile:

[10:52] <karynn> i'll be glad when i'm off arbcom and can just block people indefinitely in situations like that

[10:52] <LockeCole> karynn: Karmafist tried a couple of times. :(

[10:53] <karynn> LockeCole: i'm starting to agree with karmafist

[10:53] <karynn> (our dispute resolution processes are completely broken)

Anyways, maybe there's hope yet. :P (Note: the "block indefinitely" has nothing to do with the user box thing going on now). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might like this.

Spread the word, maybe subst: it in case a admin decides to censor. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you consider deleting the userbox created in Wikicode on your userpage? This is adding flames to an already massive fire, and isn't helping anyone. Give it some thought, as it damages your good reputation around Wikipedia. Harro5 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just keep it clean. Let users like Selina (who's been blocked for personal attacks) get way too worked up, but don't let a good editor like yourself be scarred by the fall out thats begins to cut down users and admins left, right and centre. Harro5 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's fine now. Thanks. Harro5 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Question Reply

I will see what I can do once I get back to Atlanta. Tomorrow I leave for Cairo for one week before I travel back to Georgia. Wikizach 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from the coordinator

Hi, Karmafist. I'm "officially" starting the Admin Coaching now, and I've assigned Rune.welsh to Bratsche and myself. Would there be any problem if I assigned you to helping Wikizach? You would be working with Mysekurity if you don't mind. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome, and as we say in Jersey - BOSTON SUCKS GO YANKEES! Sorry, but its habit. Thanks again! HerezWaldo 03:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks

Happy Ducks in a Pram Day! For more information, see User talk:Essjay. Please join us in placing and/or zapping the ducks. (Disclaimer: We aren't disrupting Wikipedia; we're spreading wiki-joy!) --Tantalum T e lluride 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ESP Plans

Hey there Karmafist: Thanks for helping out with Esperanza; I think the group is at a good size where it has great potential. I was reading over the first AdCom meeting logs, and thought that you guys came to some good conclusions, especially about the weekly "fireside chats," and the introductory Esperanzian page. However, I was a bit alarmed at the decision that Esperanza should craft a proposal to overhaul WP:NPA, and then use our numbers voting in a bloc to get it passed. To me, this is contrary to what Esperanza stands for, and frankly, what it is all about. Quoting from the Esperanza home page:

Esperanza is an association of Wikipedians dedicated to strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community.

I have a gut feeling that creating a proposal, and voting by bloc will drive a lot of editors away from Esperanza. Indeed, we shall be accused of being a cabal, a group along the lines of the Inclusionists, Deletionists et al. That's not what we want at all. Turning Esperanza into another "lobbying" group, for the sake of a better word, is a prime example of a way to increase the community factioning that we experience today.

I'm letting you know my thoughts first because you originally suggested the idea. If I have the main focus of your plan wrong, please let me know. However, as it appears now, I truly do not want this action to happen. Thanks for all your dedication to Wikipedia and Esperanza. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 05:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I disagree with your basic premise: that NPA is flawed. I think that it is a very clear, concise, and enforceable policy. If you make a personal attack (ex. "Joe is a Nazi"), expect to be blocked. No one is above this. Kelly Martin's RfC is not about NPA. Rather, it is about a single administator and Arbitrator unilaterally deciding what is appropriate in the user namespace. Was that the correct decision? I don't know; my signature is on the page explaining what viewpoints I agree with and endorse.

I also agree with your statement that we (meaning Esperanza) have a great political potential. However, it is my position that we should not use it. That can only lead to greater community factioning. Regards, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 05:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Council Stuff

Everything there looks fine, now we just wait for the community to give their decision, and of course for Celestianpower to express his, if he hasn't already done so. You've done a very good job on that, looks like you put a lot of thought into it :) →Fir e Fox 11:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied via email. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award!

Esperenza Assembly

When I checked the Esperenza talk page, I read some ideas for changing the charter when it got to 150. They were talking about going back to an Esperenza Assembly. Since I just joined, what are they talking about, and are there any things in Esperenza's past that I need to know? Thanks!. Wikizach 16:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo

Cairo is very, well, hot. It seems much more advanced than I thought. There has been a lot of debating here about the Noor emprisonment. I will stay here until either Wednesday, or Thursday. Then I come back to Atlanta!

And by the way, thanks for the info on the Esperenza charter!

Wikizach 20:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC/KM

Now's the time to lay off, ok? This is not me saying you're wrong (because you're not) or that Snowspinner is correct (because he's not) but I know that sometimes you get a rush of blood to the head. If he re-protects that page, please leave it alone... it's still a wheel war even if you're in the right. Use WP:ANI and step away, ok? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody do-gooders.

Put the RfAr in your user space and let other people help on polishing it, because it will have to be really good. The ArbCom, you may not have noticed, leans slightly in the directions of letting Kelly And Snowspinner do whatever the hell they want.
That being said, I'm happy to contribute as long as there's no rush. It's much better to spend a while (even a week or ten days) getting your ducks in a row and submitting a decent case. If a crappy request is made (not suggesting that you'd make a crappy request, or course) it hurts the chances of any real case getting in.
For an object lesson in this, think on why Tony Sidaway presented a request for Arbitration on himself recently.
Can't protect anything for you, sadly, I'm not an admin. I was crazy enough to do my bad behavior before they handed me the mop and bucket! ^_^

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me, way out on a limb here, but I've done this. Just cool your jets and wait a little bit, ok? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now this. Please please let me help you. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aaron. There is no sense in rushing to file an RFArb that is hastily or poorly constructed. Nandesuka 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Trust us.

Lots of times you get into strife because you try to fight the good fight alone. I've got a new toy, correcting disambiguations, and whenever I find myself getting into a repetative struggle, I just go and play with that for a little while. Most of the time I find that when an hour or two of good constructive editing has soothed my soul and I return to the trouble spot, someone else has made the arguments/edits/whatever I thought were right so that I no longer have to.

So just slow down a little, and wait to see it someone else takes up the slack for you. If they don't that might mean that whatever that action was that you were doing was a bad idea. It could also mean that they just haven't noticed, so don't be afraid to drop a note saying, "hey look a this!" on someone's talk page.

We're going to be here for years, decades even. Very little has to be done right now, that's the kind of thinking that Tony, Kelly, and Snowy are using when they gumm up the works. Give people a little bit more space to cover your back, you'll feel better.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The toy

Ahh, sometimes borderline OCD is a good thing, eh!

Yes, it does drive me crazy that some people are currently "above the law". But I have faith that we'll work it out. Think about it this way: How many users (admins included) drive you batshit right now? I've got five on my list, two sysops and two standard. Now how many do you think do outstanding work? I've got ten right off the top of my head (nine if I don't include myself.) And hey, here's the encouraging part: all but two of them are admins.

The good content will drive out the bad, it just takes time. Cheer up!

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated

While I'm here, there's a slightly complicated WP:MUSIC issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conglomerate that I'd like to see other opinons on. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Eddie (haven't heard from You)

Hi, Karmafist.
I've been looking at the user template for adding sports team icons to userpages. I see that You support having the little images (e.g. the Red Sox template). I'd like You to take a look at Template:User MLB-Yankees because the image keeps vanishing on that one also and I'd like to put it on My own user page. -- Eddie 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

I've blocked you and Snowspinner both, for one hour, for 3RR violations over that stupid redirect. There must be another way than this! -- SCZenz 04:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now be good, ok? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, karmafist mate, go grab a drink and watch TV or something, take your mind off everything. NSL E _(T+C+CVU) 05:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't unblock myself - one does not have to do that to block another user. I did, however, unblock you. Phil Sandifer 05:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please don't get sucked in again... you'll only end up covered in mud. For the love of all the ducks in prams everywhere, just step away from the keyboard. PLEASE. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

karynn's RFC/Nobel Prize

Heh thanks for the kind words about the Nobel Prize, I wonder if it's for Peace. Perhaps you should give out your own Karma Prizes once a month or so like the Nobels :P NSL E _(T+C+CVU) 12:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return favor

I've requested a peer review for Victor Hugo. Your comments would be appreciated. --Tantalum T e lluride 19:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your inappropriate unblock summary

My block was an attempt to intimidate? I strongly advise you to take that back. She was blocked for using my talk page as a pulput to lie about another editor; I don't allow that, and I think WP:CIVIL supports what I'm doing. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling me a liar. You have great love for chucking around WP:CIVIL but making personal attacks is not at all: It's already been established as true that what I said was not a lie and that Ambi did ban SPUI, as per the RfC. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSK

Hi Karmafist, I see that you're a supporter of Mistress Selina Kyle. Following discussion at WP:AN/I#User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle, the consensus seems to be that an indefinite block would be unwarranted, but that steadily increasing blocks for disruption and personal attacks would be appropriate. I intend to implement this, but I don't want to get into block wars, so I'd prefer to work with you on this rather than against you. This is in part because you know more about her than I do, and I'm always prepared to admit that I'm wrong (and I hope I am wrong in this case). My main concern is the personal attacks and ad hominem comments that a few editors have been the targets of, apparently on the grounds of their perceived religion, because there's no reason they should have to put up with it. I'd very much appreciate your input and advice as to how best to proceed. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To SlimVirgin it's fine for her friends to insult me, but not the other way around:

I'd like to see some of these so called "ad hominem" comments: When I've called attention to peoples' personal religion, it's been to point out that it's a reason of some of the blatantly biased editing on some articles (usually Islam) by people that seem to want to do nothing else than censor criticism and start revert wars with anonymous IP sockpuppets --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: When, exactly, did I insult you? BYT 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see bias all the time, bias what makes me want to weep. Nevertheless, I've managed to avoid making edit summaries like "Stop fucking trying to censor every fucking thing that criticises Islam without even discussing," [1] and referring to editors believed to be Muslim as "Islamists." I don't care how frustrated you are, other editors shouldn't have to tolerate bigotry, whether in the form of racism, anti-Semitism, or Islamophobia, and it has to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Of You Two

This isn't productive. I'd start an rfc to give a place for you two to be mediated at, but I know what a bad connotation those have gotten recently. If you both don't have IRC, just state your thoughts here, and try to see the other sides's view and think of a way both sides can work to fix this. karmafist 04:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Karmafist! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on RFD

Hola.

Yesterday, you listed WP:RFC/KM on RFD under January 3rd, apparently not being aware of the pre-existing entry under January 2nd. (No worries. It's hard to spot amid all the other stuff.) I removed your duplicate nomination and moved your vote, along with the other two votes that had accrued, down to the pre-existing discussion.

I note today that you relisted, then deleted, the entire bunch, and then voted *Strong Keep Shortcuts are used for heavily accessed pages. I can't speak for all of the above, but i've been to the Kelly Martin and POTW rfcs dozens of times, if not hundreds by now. The day we fear vandals is the day they defeat us. karmafist 13:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, that vote appears at the very bottom of the January 2nd listing, under the nomination for The Communism Vandal → Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism. The text of your vote could be interpreted as a vote for this nomination, or a vote for the collective mass of RFC redirects, and I'm not really sure which it is. As the person who's been defaulted into the task of primary RFD closer, this is something I'm hoping you wouldn't mind clearing up.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political graph more or less complete

Check it out sometime. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:55, Jan. 4, 2006

Template:User against scientology

You have always seemed to be rather reasonable but your vote on TfD really perplexes me. How would deleting that template be a victory for Kelly Martin? It seems that the vote has turned into who wants user boxes and who doesn't. I would really appreciate it if you would explicitly state in your vote that you believe boxes that are "vehemently against" ideologies are okay. This box is vehemently against Scientology but that is easily transferrable to "vehemently against Unitarian Universalism" or "vehemently against Buddhism". I really had hoped people would see beyond that whole use box issue but it appears they haven't. If your vote of keep supports all boxes like that (and do tell if "vehemently against Jews" is another acceptable step) then please make that explicit because this is not another vote for or against user boxes. gren グレン 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're a fuck face for thinking that. gren グレン 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(But really, civility does mandate a certain amount of censorship. As does writing an encyclopedia. I don't particularly care about the majority of user boxes but thinking of user space as a God given right is slightly problematic. I'm not endorsing Kelly Martin but when you say "on a whim"... well, no it wasn't exactly a whim. It was a longstanding opinion among some in the community not to link people by beliefs not relating to wikipedia. Jimbo expressed that basic mentality as well. So, I don't like how each side is trying to completely dismiss the other as having "whims" or whatnot. It's not like I'm against free speech but there are definitely mediums where it's not a right (e.g. I support the allowance of the NAMBLA website). I think it's a little, I don't really want to say childish... but, foolish to let your userbox rules override general civility. I'm not sure on what pages you work the most but if you worked on Islam related pages (I suppose other religions as well) you might find that incivility and attacking others ideologies between users is a big problem that leads to bickering rather than writing. That's why it's sad to see boxes, which are supposed to create comradery, and do to an extent I'm sure, being created to denigrate other's ideologies. They are user boxes and are not, and never will be as fundamental to wikipedia as civility. So why let them create incivility. I personally believe it should be speedied per civility policy, but I really didn't want the controversy. Oy. Pretty pathetic place this is. gren グレン 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Copyrighted images in userbox edit-warring

Hi. I'd like to invite you to take a step back and think about this issue. I understand that you are convinced that copyrighted images in userboxes pose no legal concern whatsoever. I further understand that this belief leads you to argue that Wikipedia:Fair use is unnecessarily restrictive. I would like you to consider whether or not, even if both of these things are true, your edit-warring to include professionally-designed graphics for userpage decoration is worth making the effort to keep Wikipedia a source of free content and free of copyright infringements that much harder for those people who devote their time to dealing with copyrighted images. Your baseball, browser and political party logos may be very important to you, but they can be used as an example by those people who like to post galleries of pornstar photos in their userspace. Please consider also whether your course of action is helping in any way to make a free encyclopedia. Thanks. Jkelly 18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSK

Hi Karmafist, thanks for your note. This is just to make clear that I am not in dispute with MSK, and there is no need for mediation. I have warned her that she'll be blocked for further policy violations, but if she doesn't make any, she'll have no trouble from me. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your latest TfD

Two templates are overlapping, because the "do not modify" section from the other template was in the same section. Can you please fix it? KittenKlub 16:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Hey man, thanks for nominating me, just to let you know (in case you didn't know) I got it! Thanks again ;) - FrancisTyers 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD votes

I voted a strong keep for Template NH Infobox City... could use your support for the one right above it.... It's in the same spirit. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 03:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]