Dartboard editing
Via Wikback, I got to your blog and the "dartboard editing" comment you made. I think this is similar to what Uncle G has called cargo cult writing. My favorite example of dartboard editing is begging. A horrendous mish-mash. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS
Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Copyediting award?
Several months ago on WikBack you mentioned a dearth of recognition for copyediting. Well I made this on a lark today to thank someone who was doing superb work, and I wonder whether you think it would make a useful personal user award? Regards, DurovaCharge! 08:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:CompromisedWebHostVandal
Template:CompromisedWebHostVandal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:CHICAGO survey
- You can consider this user inactive. Jonathunder (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:CHICAGO
You have been marked as an inactive member of WP:CHICAGO since you have not updated your status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please correct your status. If you consider yourself a member you may want to get involved in the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
policy abuse re: sockpuppet s
I came across a discussion you had regarding Wikipedia's policy of aggressively rooting out sockpuppets of users who have been banned. I believe that your comments are right on target. Hopefully you might be able to help address a sockpuppet issue that I am aware of (against:Jvolkblum). The issue vividly illustrates the problem of spiteful users stretching wikipolicy to justify edits made more for personal reasons rather than anything else. The claim is rather large and grows frequently, especially due to the help of a select few users (Orlady, Blue Azure) who focus a disproportionately high % of their energies + attention on 'patrolling' certain subject areas (ie:New Rochelle, New York; Westchester County, New York). The negative effect of these actions are two-fold; a)facts + information rightfully added to the site is being removed or limited due to personal reasons of certain users; B)user accounts are being unfairly deemed as sockpuppets and removed due to the personal issues of certain users. Orlady has over 20,000 edits however New Rochelle, New York remains in her top 10 most edited articles (that surpasses edits made to subject areas such as Oak Ridge, TN which she states as a particular interest on her user page). Blue Azure has 6495 edits and New Rochelle, New York remains his most edited article > 7 New Rochelle, New York related articles are in his top 25 most edited articles, including: Wykagyl,NY(4), New Rochelle High School(5), City School District of New Rochelle(11), Sheldrake Lake(25), Davids Island(20), Larchmont,NY(22) and Sarah Lawrence College(7)). (And to a lesser degree, users; HMishkoff - Wykagyl, Wykagyl Country Club, Sarah Lawrence College and Bronxville,NY are all in his top 25 most edited out of a total of 358 articles; Rich 257 - despite his 14000+ edits total, New Rochelle, NY remains his 2nd most edited article). The users clearly work to patrol the content of these articles. Their edits are entirely in the realm of questioning and removing information and never involve contributing information etc. to the articles. Orlady and BlueAzure are also the driving force behind the sockpuppet claims against user:Jvolkblum (with HMishkoff and Rich 257 helping with this as well). Actual review of the issues raised and the information questioned shows little to warrant such excessive time and attention on the part of these select individuals. Their actions are nit-picking at best. I hope you will have a chance to review the situation and help address the problems so that a solution or end can be reached. Thanks--Joopiecoupe (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Stop disrupting ArbCom elections to make a point!
Just kidding. Actually, this oppose was more flattering than most of my support votes, though I (partially) dispute the latter sentence of your rationale. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Your 'votes'
Is there any constructive purpose to your ArbCom 'votes', or are you just testing to see how much rudeness it takes to draw a block for gross personal attacks? Comments like these – [1], [2], [3] – are way over the line. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- That seems more a than a bit unfair. Kelly's votes may be pointy as hell – and I've sure if the election does go right to the wire, hers will be the votes Jimbo discounts – but they're no ruder than plenty of other comments plastered across the election pages already. If any of the candidates are really of such a delicate disposition that being called "ineffectual" will upset them, they're probably not exactly suited for Arbcom anyway. – iridescent 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind. When I looked at her contributions, I didn't notice that she had been away. (I read her previous contribs as coming from 2008, rather than 2007.) I shouldn't have risen to such transparent trolling. Based on the comment below, it's pretty obvious that a conversation here is a waste of time. I haven't anything else to add. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't been paying attention if you think Kelly's votes are worse than any of the others. 86.138.20.252 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- If there isn't a WP:LAUGH, there should be. After all, Kelly's votes add some entertainment to this year's ArbCom elections... they're almost as entertaining as determining how many people prove that they hate Wikipedia by voting to oppose Kurt Weber... -- Robster2001 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Jimbo has said he is looking for "thoughtful" votes, and I am sure Kelly's votes are indeed very thoughtful. However, Jimbo is particularly looking at "Admin's thoughtful" votes, so Kelly like the rest of the editorship is clearly incapable of "thought" that is not sullied by malice, revenge and hostility. I seem to remember a late Tsar of Russia thinking similar of his subjects when they tried to vote. Sadly for Wikipedia's autocracy, it seems Kelly, like certain other dissidents and trouble makers, is unable to keep her thoughts to herself. Giano (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Java implementation of Mediawiki
What's the status of the Java implementation of MediaWiki ? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)