User talk:KensingtonBlonde: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:42, 6 August 2007

All speech is welcome here on the following grounds:

That it pertains to information relevent to one or more of the Wikimedia projects

That it complies with civility rules

That it does not contain forms of vandalism, including unauthorised modification of user comments of others

Discussions which I determine to be "age-old", in that the relevent subject matter is no longer significant in any paricipating user's present situation, will be archived. Thank you for your cooperation and if you can conform to these guidelines, please feel free to voice your opinion.The Kensington Blonde T C 02:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome

Hi, just noticed you hadn't been welcomed yet, so here goes...

Welcome!

Hello, KensingtonBlonde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Walton^talk 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw you might also want to take the image out of your signature, as per WP:SIG#Images. I have no idea why they're not allowed (especially as they are allowed on other Wikimedia projects), but it's just one of those rules you're meant to follow. Anyway, I'm always around if you need any help and advice. Walton^talk 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I knew images were generally not recommended, but I didn't know they were flat out not allowed. It's disappointing too, my sig will look kind of boring without it, unless you can see the "Vivaldi" font which the letters are in, I noticed only the newest computers have this font. I hate the way default sigs look. Anyway, thanks for the welcome, it's much appreciated. The Kensington Blonde T C 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came around to kindly ask the same, but since it's already been brought up there's no more need to attention to it. I still wanted to leave a note, partly to show off my signature (which I think is nice and may inspire an alternative), and partly to remark on your activity in RfA, considering the recency with which you began editing (at least from this account). If you are indeed new, kudos on your diving right into the guts of the wiki! By the way, I recommend using the CSS-based tag, avoiding the tag if possible—among other reasons, this should decrease the likelihood of uncommon fonts displaying as something different. See my sig and Font family (HTML) (and lots of other things on the wiki) for examples of the use of . BigNate37_(T) 17:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this here would give my sig some level of distinction. Is it acceptable, though?_TThe Kensington Blonde _C 18:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. I myself used to use this custom sig, till I got bored of it and switched to default style: Walton ^{Need some help?}. Just to let you know I'm not a totally boring person. :-) Walton^talk 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature, continued

To be totally objective, it is at an increased size ~~and boldface~~, so some may find it slightly unpleasant. However, it is distinctive and well within standards as far as I know. It isn't necessarily my favourite (mine is, of course!), but I don't mind it at all. Signatures are important, because when customized they form the most prominent part of your wiki personality. Oh, there is a problem with the code: you are leaving boldface markup (three apostraphes) at the end prior to the timestamp, and the boldface markup is never 'closed'. If it was your intent to make the timestamp bold, I'm not sure if this is a possibility?—it isn't wise to leave the boldface open, since your signature won't always be the last thing on the line, and breaking futher formatting will definately attract negative attention. If I may, here's what signature code that (I think) you are using, and what I recommend instead:

	Code	Appearance (with timestamp)
Current	`<sub>[[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde\|T]]</sub>[[User:KensingtonBlonde\|<font face="Vivaldi" size= "4" color="darkblue">The Kensington Blonde]] <sub> [[Special:Contributions/KensingtonBlonde\|C]]</sub></font>'''`	_TThe Kensington Blonde _C 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed	`<sub>[[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde\|T]]</sub> [[User:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; font-size:13.5pt; color:#00008B;">The Kensington Blonde</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/KensingtonBlonde\|C]]</sub>`	_T The Kensington Blonde _C 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My changes include adding a space after the T (which I assume was omitted by accident and not by design; feel free to not use the space there), removing the three apostraphes which are potentially paragraph-breaking, substituting and its related code for , and moving the closing span tag inside of the link for proper nesting (which probably doesn't make a difference on most browsers, but is technically correct). I considered whether to include the talk page 'T' in the span tag just as the contrib page 'C' is, but I left it the way you had it—another point where I wasn't sure whether you intended the left to be the same as the right or not. Feel free to play with what I did, ask questions or ask me to change it, or to completely disregard it. BigNate37_(T) 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so far, so good. I'm not good with the "" stuff, so I must ask a favour: If you could keep the username text the same colour, but make the word "Talk" a light shade of blue, and the word "Contribs." and even lighter shade of blue, I'll be in your debt.The Kensington Blonde_TalkContrib. 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which blues would you like? BigNate37_(T) 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cornflower blue (Talk), then powder blue (Contrib.) Thanks a lot, this is really helpful.The Kensington Blonde_TalkContrib. 04:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Code	Appearance
With normal font face for talk, contribs	`[[User:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; font-size:13.5pt; color:#00008B;">The Kensington Blonde</span>]]<sub> [[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#6495ED;">Talk</span>]]</sub>[[Special:Contributions/KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#B0E0E6;">Contrib.</span>]]`	The Kensington Blonde_TalkContrib.
With Vivaldi font face for all text	`<span style="font-family:Vivaldi;">[[User:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="font-size:13.5pt; color:#00008B;">The Kensington Blonde</span>]]<sub> [[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#6495ED;">Talk</span>]]</sub>[[Special:Contributions/KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#B0E0E6;">Contrib.</span>]]</span>`	The Kensington Blonde_TalkContrib.

Now, powder blue is almost the same colour as the background of talk pages (which is where you usually put a signature), so I recommend one of two things: changing the colour of Contribs. to a different one, or putting a white background behind the whole signature. Making the word Contribs. bold would also help, which I didn't try:

	Code	Appearance
Same as above	`<span style="font-family:Vivaldi;">[[User:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="font-size:13.5pt; color:#00008B;">The Kensington Blonde</span>]]<sub> [[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#6495ED;">Talk</span>]]</sub>[[Special:Contributions/KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#B0E0E6;">Contrib.</span>]]</span>`	The Kensington Blonde_TalkContrib.
With Dodger blue and cornflower blue for talk, contribs	`<span style="font-family:Vivaldi;">[[User:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="font-size:13.5pt; color:#00008B;">The Kensington Blonde</span>]]<sub> [[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#1E90FF;">Talk</span>]]</sub>[[Special:Contributions/KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#6495ED;">Contrib.</span>]]</span>`	The Kensington Blonde_TalkContrib.
With white background for all signature text	`<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; background-color:#FFFFFF;">[[User:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="font-size:13.5pt; color:#00008B;">The Kensington Blonde</span>]]<sub> [[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#6495ED;">Talk</span>]]</sub>[[Special:Contributions/KensingtonBlonde\|<span style="color:#B0E0E6;">Contrib.</span>]]</span>`	The Kensington Blonde_TalkContrib.

Let me know what you think. BigNate37_(T) 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go with what you see here. Thanks a lot, I could not have done this without your help.The Kensington Blonde_Talk 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I had written a reply, but I guess I didn't save the page. Anyways, you're welcome, it was no problem, and thanks for the kind note on my talk page. BigNate37_(T) 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

29 July 2007

KB, can you please reduce the size of your signature? Its appearing huge on default. Most people dont have this Vivaldi font and it defaults to Arial, making it really big and bold. Please change it so its not so big on default:

[[User:KensingtonBlonde|The Kensington Blonde]] [[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde|Talk]]

Change to:

[[User:KensingtonBlonde|The Kensington Blonde]] [[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde|Talk]]

which comes out to be:

The Kensington Blonde_Talk

--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. When you can see the Vivaldi font, it looks normal in size, so I wasn't entirely aware that it was big without the font. I'm a little sad to hear that "most" people don't have Vivaldi fonts, I'm using a very new computer and I discovered that even PCs a couple years old don't have this. It must look extremely boring to those without my font of choice. I can't stand default sigs. I might just change it all together to a different font later. Thanks for the heads up.The Kensington Blonde_Talk 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this may look to others, too big? The Kensington Blonde_Talk 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I will hopefully succeed in a month or two. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your strong support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise on old case

Since the case in which you mediated seemes unresolved -the editor in question still has some issues with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA- and at this time he borders on new violations also against other contributors, would it be possible for you to review the latest exchanges (here and here) and advise how to proceed since apparently this is a "highly passionate" editor. Especially the notion he is unable to notice the difference between his allegations and the facts I find disturbing. Any discussion with this e3ditor is about things that are not there or about him misrepresenting the facts. That is not a good faith way of contributing. Respectfully. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. That case was about mediation and you were involved in the etiquette department. Anyway, you probably understood what it is about. If not feel free to ask. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, KensingtonBlonde. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. ^∆ 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You know very well I have blocked you, but if you need reasoning, read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of KensingtonBlonde.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KensingtonBlonde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, I admit it. The "EnglishEfternamn" user and my account are both me. I admit wrongdoing and I am more than sorry. I started this account for one purpose only, because I just wanted a second chance and editing legitimately. I've done absolutely nothing wrong since I started this particular account, and my contributions show it. If I still wanted to make sockpuppets, I would have done so. I am only interested in editing constructively now, my contribs should show this. I sincerely hope that this account does not remain blocked, because I really don't want to leave Wikipedia, but I will, with much disappointment, if I am cast out. I really do have a lot to contribute here, and I think those who look into the situation can see that. All I ask for is another chance.

Decline reason:

It is not the case that you have done absolutely nothing wrong since you started this account. Every single edit you made was in violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. — Yamla 15:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Does this mean I'm just supposed to leave WIkipedia for good. I was never banned. What is wrong with trying to start a new account in order to edit legitimately? This sounds like a form of condemnnation. Is there no chance at all for me to be welcomed back? Even on WIkipedia probation?

No - you've repeatedly showed that you are going to misuse the trust Wikipedia places in editors by granting them editing privileges. You've repeatedly exhausted the community's patience though your disruption and misuse of secondary accounts, and action has finally been taken to prevent further harm coming to the encyclopedia ~ Anthøny 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what's going on at the WP:ANI case listed abouve. There, you can find a link to all my explanations.The Kensington Blonde_Talk 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to Ryulong has been forwarded. What he chooses to do with it, if anything, is out of my hands, but I do give you high marks for being sorry for the trouble you caused, for realising there is an issue here to be resolved, and for trying to come to grips with it. That is far more than many are able to do. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for Dialogue with Ryulong

Ryulong, I have read over the incident report pending at WP:ANI and want to let you know that I am more than prepared to dialogue with you and convince you that the unblocking of my EnglishEfternamn account will not be returned with disruption, but constructive editing. I have made note that you have read my e-mail, and I thank you for that, because you had every right to delete without even looking at it. I understand you are worried that I am trying to deceive you, but I can assure you, I would not be trying this hard to get on everyone's good side if my intentions were anything other than to began editing productively once again. It took me a lot of thinking to write up my official apology to you and I have much more important things to do than spend this much time to get unblocked (knowing there is a chance my efforts might not even work) only to start disruption again which would only be stamped out in a matter of minutes. I want to put this behind us, even bring us on good terms if such an outcome is an even remote possibility. You are welcome to post any type of reply here. Thank you, and I hope we can find a resolution. The Kensington Blonde_Talk 04:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still mailbombing?

New evidence has come to light that you are still mailbombing other administrators, even after telling Ryulong in your long missive that mailbombing was wrong. That's just unacceptable behaviour and absent a satisfactory explanation ("I was frustrated" doesn't count) I can no longer support any second chance or mentorship. ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

KensingtonBlonde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That sounds absolutist. I know for a fact that there are other users who have done worse who had their bans lifted. Why them and not me? And again, I am not banned. Only ArbCom or Jimbo can ban me.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=That sounds absolutist. I know for a fact that there are other users who have done worse who had their bans lifted. Why them and not me? And again, I am not banned. Only ArbCom or Jimbo can ban me. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=That sounds absolutist. I know for a fact that there are other users who have done worse who had their bans lifted. Why them and not me? And again, I am not banned. Only ArbCom or Jimbo can ban me. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=That sounds absolutist. I know for a fact that there are other users who have done worse who had their bans lifted. Why them and not me? And again, I am not banned. Only ArbCom or Jimbo can ban me. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
 ===Still mailbombing?===
 New evidence has come to light that you are still mailbombing other administrators, even after telling Ryulong in your long missive that mailbombing was wrong. That's just unacceptable behaviour and absent a satisfactory explanation ("I was frustrated" doesn't count) I can no longer support any second chance or mentorship. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
+{{unblock|That sounds absolutist. I know for a fact that there are other users who have done worse who had their bans lifted. Why them and not me? And again, I am not banned. Only ArbCom or Jimbo can ban me.}}