User talk:Kylu/Archive 8

Archive 8

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

OMG sockpuppetry

And from an administrator, too. Such abuse of power... you must be blocked at once!

Not really. When are you coming back? – Gurch 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still here, just not editing under this account, obviously. Kylu might not for a while. Just on to change userpage per emailed request. Apparently having the tree up after the holidays are over was annoying. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

When will Kylu be back?

Hope you have a nice wikibreak! Please come back soon. :-) --Kim Bruning 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Meow meow? Voice-of-All 18:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy B-Day!

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Kylu/Archive 8, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Although you are on wikibreak, on behalf of the birthday committee happy b-day none the less! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, Kylu/Archive 8!

Same here :)   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 02:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a great birthday, heaps of pressies and good health, Kylu! _WP:BDC +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Kylu/Archive 8, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Sorry its a bit late, but there is always the whole day to celebrate! Happy Birthday on behalf of WP:BDC. --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

happy birthday!

hooray for birthday! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Birthday greetings from me too. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 05:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Me Three! --Kim Bruning 08:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope you have a great wikibreak, and of course a very happy birthday. haz (talk) e 15:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG, you edited your page today! jk, not like i'm stalking you or anything. :-P happy b-day! Cbrown1023 talk 02:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy birfday! Cowman109^Talk 02:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy coming-out-of-the-womb, cutting the cord and going waa-waa for the first time day! Rama's arrow 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak

Or have one of your socks say hi to me. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Where Are You

O! Where are you going?
So late in returning?
The water is flowing!
The stars are all burning!
O! Whither so laden,
So sad and so dreary?
Here elf and elf-maiden
Now welcome the weary!
With tra-la-la-lally
Come back to the Valley!
Iosef ^{U T C} 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm back :-)

Hope you're enjoying your Wikibreak! theProject 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan

Where do I find wikifox.jpg? 70.116.76.61 22:00, 10 May 2007

If you're referring to the Wikipe-tan that I tweaked for the UserChrome add-on for Firefox, you want Image:Wikipe-tan.chrome.png. The script is located at User:Kylu/userChrome.css. If you want to use a different picture, just make sure you modify the image size and text colors in userChrome.css so it fits the image you use. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the response on Bishonen's page. I think the immediate need for restraint has passed, but the script may come in handy in the future. :) Peace.Lsi john 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva

You protected the article recently. I strongly object to the remarks you made at the time; please read my comments on the talkpage. Hornplease 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Objection noted. Please notice that you made one comment on the talkpage regarding the article prior to protection, and that edit summaries are edit summaries, not discussion. If you'd like the article to be unprotected, please request such at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

If you're wondering, by the way, I've never heard of Hindutiva before the problems were brought to my attention. Have a good day. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and I understand your reasoning. However I do think that,given that I provided individual reasons and directed other editors to them, 'no discussion' is a bit harsh. Some edit summaries are certainly explanatory, rather than mere summaries.

I'll let the problem sit for a bit before asking for unprotection. I've done so once already,and it irritates me to go cap in hand again. Hornplease 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thankyou kind person....It's good to see you back again.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorta...semi-back, really. Just enough to make my account not a complete pointless drain on wikimedia foundation resources. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Away for a few (again)

Just to let anyone who might still be watching this page know: I've had a nasty bout of the flu for the last few days and am only logging in so my friends don't go overboard calling my work asking if I kicked the bucket (again). Back in a few. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you able to help with my research

Hi Kylu, i'm not too sure if i'm leaving this on the most relevant talkpage . . .

I'm currently in the middle of a PhD at the University of Bath, UK. I'm examining the way that mediation differs between face-to-face, video-conferenced and text-based meetings. You can get a gist of the research from my (somewhat sparse) homepage here.

I notice that you've mediated in number of cases. Would you be willing to spare some time to talk to me about your experiences mediating and as a mediation co-ordinator? It'd help me out no end!

If you'd like some more info, you can leave a message on my talkpage or contact me via the e-mail on my homepage.

Many thanks

MattB2 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding on your talk. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion

That is my info that I am submitting for the page. It is in the public domain. Thanks ChrisDJackson

I didn't delete the page because it's copyrighted or anything. I deleted it because you have not asserted notability under our notability guidelines (please note: this doesn't mean I'm saying you're not notable, it's saying you haven't asserted notability.)

Also, please reconsider writing an article about yourself. See WP:AUTO for why. I'll copy this section to your talkpage. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I think my entry is in line with these: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Michael_Sessions, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Michael_Sessions, and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Christopher_Seeley. ChrisDJackson

If nothing else, your article has links (unsectioned) but no reference section. You may want to consider going through the passages and trimming extraneous material. Also, couldn't hurt to remove the underscore from the link to Seeley's article. Still, it's considered bad form to write an article on yourself. Personally, I'm not brave enough to write my own article where others can come along and edit it anonymously. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Assessment of importance of articles

Hi Kylu,

How are you! I've brought up a policy issue for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here . May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard. AshLin 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted and replied. Glad to see the butterfly group is still active. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah... right...

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=374006&rel_no=1&back_url=

--Kim Bruning 03:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Under "Is Wikipedia Harboring a Secret Agent?"

"...tens of thousands of innocent and unwitting citizens around the world are translating and propagating their lies, providing these agencies with a universal news network."

Firstly, if he thinks there are tens of thousands of people doing the translation work on Wikipedia, he's nuts. Secondly, if you've been on here for six months even, you can guess a good half-dozen of the government-paid operatives on the site. It's not like they go to extreme lengths to hide who they are. :P

I think he grossly overestimates our naiveté. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've mailed SV about this. She's not going to like that fact that Brandt is on her heels :-( --Kim Bruning 05:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that why the article was created, or is it just a rehash? I didn't see anything new/surprising really. I don't know anything about ohmynews.com... as far as I know, maybe the "reporter" is someone she blocked for vandalism? Who knows?

I just wish some of these people would actually contribute to articles or do RC or something instead of pestering our admins. I can only imagine SV's regretted creating Brandt's article by now. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

apparently Jayjg didn't want that on SV's talkpage. BTW, the Navy reference from earlier? I don't think it checks out. Looks like it's just someone's personal page on a USN server. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 05:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

• Note: Copied to User talk:Physchim62

I'd have been grateful if you'd have contacted me on my talk page before unprotecting Template:PD-Australia: if you wish to take sides with Rebecca, that's your business, but it shouldn't prevent you from following normal admin etiquette. Physchim62 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Physchim62. We haven't chatted much, but I'd have thought you'd know me just well enough to know I wouldn't "take sides" like that against you. Rebecca mentioned that something in the template didn't transclude correctly and asked for it to be unprotected, so I obliged. Sadly, that's just me assuming that since she was the one asking, it'd have been uncontroversial. You have my apologies. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your graceful apologies are willingly accepted! At least you had the sense to say that you were doing it on behalf of Beck, otherwise I'd have been really mad at you ;) (see above) Still, as Rebecca and I seem to be entering a dispute resolution phase, there's no harm done. Cheers for now, Physchim62 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

My dear Kylu, how could I possible ever get mad at you, when you've gifted me one of the best moments I've had in days? :) It's so great to have you back! (and see - I saved a piece of cake, just for you!) Thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, cake. o.o <3 ~Kylu (u|t) 21:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

--Ideogram 06:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Feeling a little better now, and quite frankly mucking about with people on Wikipedia is far more fun that laying in a bed all day. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 06:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Every moment is precious. --Ideogram 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're a scary, scary man. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. --Ideogram 06:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You give up on the irc-cabal? ~Kylu (u|t) 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. You think I should go back? --Ideogram 06:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Up t'you. I'm taking things light at the moment, but at least there I can watch other people gripe about their problems on-wiki and realize it could be worse. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

'k. --Ideogram 07:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A favor

I have a great favor to ask of you. Can you please take over running MedcabBot? --Ideogram 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

quite possibly. Hosted on toolserver? ~Kylu (u|t) 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It can be run anywhere, but toolserver would be convenient. I am waiting on getting toolserver access. --Ideogram 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, putting in a new key for ts, so it might be a few days. Misza did a test run of the code from Medcabbot, and it's still good, so no idea what was giving Xyr problems with the bot... once I'm back up and running, I can just stick it back on KyluBot and mark her as active again. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Draft categorisation guidelines & Common vs scientific names

Hi Kylu/Archive 8,

I've brought up two policy issues for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here . May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard. AshLin 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on project talkpage. I'd like to see more Wikispecies interaction, myself. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108

can you tell me why you will not unblock me ? i want to make a legitimate defence against these sockpuppet accusations

my account seems to be blocked but the IP is not........my ISP uses dynamic address it seems User:Green108

Hello. You're still able to edit on your user talkpage, and I'll explain to the checkuser that you'll be doing so. Also, if you're volunteering to give me the IP range for your ISP so that it can be blocked... well, that's unusual, but it can be done. Please send IP's to either a checkuser or to me via Special:Emailuser/Kylu though, not posted on a page where anyone can see them. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:blocked

Why thanks. :-) —« ANIMUM » 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't pretend to understand, but you're welcome. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD

You deleted the article Rhain Davis on the grounds that it is not sufficiently "compelling and notable". I have no idea what you mean by compelling, since compelling has nothing to do with policy, but the article clearly met the notability standard of multiple, independent, non-trivial sources (in fact it had several times more than necessary). How do you justify this? Furthermore, shouldn't you make the call based on the consensus or lack thereof in the AfD, rather than your own judgment of the article? Do you feel consensus existed to delete? Everyking 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(Direct link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhain Davis) If I didn't feel consensus existed to delete, I would not have deleted the article, correct? Tell me:

1. Wikipedia:Notability (people):
   1. Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis
   2. Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).
   3. I find no sources stating that this person has played a single professional game. If this is incorrect, please have the deletion reviewed.
2. User:Batman2005 pointed out that 30 "kids" a year sign onto professional teams. Do they all have articles?
3. WP:NOTE#Notability is not temporary Is anyone going to know this article exists in a year? If the kid gets to be more notable, we can make a new article.
4. You could have started to improve the article yourself: In fact, anyone straining for keep could have and then asked the nominator to withdraw pending article improvements. I note a complete lack of your name popping up on the nominator's talkpage history. It's not canvassing, it's just process.
5. Your arguments were outweighed, in my opinion, hence my closure despite your opinion of the notability of the subject.
6. You're welcome to take the deletion to WP:DRV. Feel free to skip the tradition of leaving a message regarding the review. I expect it'll show up soon enough.

That, Everyking, is how I made the call to delete the article. Because you disagree, does not mean I'm not doing my job.

Thanks for your interest in the topic. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sup

What up kylu? --CableModem^^ 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nada nada. Back up and about, doing adminny things and getting yelled at for them, per usual. You? ~Kylu (u|t) 19:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Pardon me, but what's with the pointless deletion of one of my edits on my own talk page? I've got 75 copies of the damned thing sitting on my e-mail server right now. --Calton | Talk 13:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Riana asked for my help removing the previously deleted revisions, as there were a large number of scattered deleted revisions on the page containing personal information. I performed a partial history demerge (long story, ask later) to remove them from the page history and make it easier on the next admin to come along and remove personal information instead of keeping the page history open in one window and the revision selection page in the other.

Oh, also, regardless of your email policy, please don't post email addresses, otherwise we'll just have to remove them, and eventually someone will make a big deal about it.

Now, considering that my involvement was only to asssist Riana in her task, I'd appreciate it if you'd ask her any questions you have about the actual violations involved. I have no further interest or involvement. Have a nice day. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi Kylu,

If you have been keeping track, you would realise that we have not got consensus with two dissenting voices. In WPr Lepidoptera - we came that close! I dont know what to do next - give up or try further. Can we put it up as a guideline, but with a disclaimer. This WikiProject recommends or something like... Just feel unhappy that people place their smaller concerns in the way - neither of the dissenters gave what I felt was a justifiable reason to block all of us in progress. aarghh. Thanks for letting me let off some steam. Regards, AshLin 18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, yikes? ~Kylu (u|t) 19:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cooler, and also for the advice. I'll cool off a bit and see how I feel about things later on. Regards, AshLin 20:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki can be frustrating sometimes. Personally, I think you had a clear enough consensus to go, but doesn't matter now. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A Rolling Stone cover

Hi, I notice that you deleted the Jack Nicholson image uploaded by User:Mrolston who claims it as his own work. Your rationale that "scans of a magazine cover are not original works" does not appear to be valid, because the image does not looks like a scan of a magazine cover. Furthermore, the uploader's name obviously refers to Matthew Rolston, the official photographer of the Rolling Stone.[1] I have no idea whether User:Mrolston is the Wikipedia account of this photographer, but a normal deletion request could generate a useful discussion of the tricky issue. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ghirla. Will reply on your page once I get a spare moment here. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 23:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ghirla, I noticed this image was deleted from Commons as well and I agree with you that it's not clear whether we really have copyright violation here and whether user MRolston is really Matther Rolston, author of the picture (see my comment). I was going to contact Matthew Rolston by email and ask him for confirmation of the copyright status of the image. But since you are administrator, know English much better than me and have more experience in copyright issues and wiki work as a whole, could you please contact him instead of me? It would be very pity to lose this image. Thanks already. Ekamaloff 08:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

S'okay. Ghirla's not an admin to my knowledge, though. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Kylu, for your (and commons:User:Putnik's) decision to undelete the image. On second thoughts, I concluded that the regular nomination procedure will be unlikely to help us in determining its copyright status. I contacted matthewrolston.com, asking them to shed some light on the issue. You will find a copy of my message in your inbox. If there is no reply in a day or two, I believe we should just delete the picture and forget about it. . --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it, Ghirla, and trust your judgment. If you receive no reply from him, let me know and I'll redelete the image. Which is a shame, since it's a really good picture. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have received the following reply: "Matthew Rolston indeed owns the copyright, though the poster that identified himself as Matthew Rolston is NOT Matthew Rolston (or at least not the famous photographer, Matthew Rolston). Thank you for being so thorough in your investigations." Now we have no other option but to delete that really good image. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of Hookeman

Just curious, but why did you indef. block him? He only made two articles and stopped after uw-create3. Please consider un-blocking him. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 06:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I have to admit that I don't have a lot of faith in someone who makes articles whose sole contents are, "guy with alien shapeed head he is obsessed with poo". I assume you'll be keeping an eye on him? ~Kylu (u|t) 06:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Update) Sorry to see he's blocked again. I was hoping you'd be right and he could be reformed. ~Kylu (u|t) 14:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sinhala Slang -> Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sinhala_Slang

Thanks a bunch for offering to help. I have activated my e-mail, and please do send me the wiki source for the deleted article. And regarding helping build Sinhala wikipedia, yes I am most interested and will be contributing. Cheers Ritigala Jayasena 06:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done This computer doesn't have Unicode fonts for Sinhala installed, whereas my home one does. I'd tend to think it'd still work correctly, but if there's any problems with the send, let me know and I'l resend from a known good location. Thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 14:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it nice and clean. Thanks a bunch. As I said before feel free to post whole or part of the article in sinhala website if you like Ritigala Jayasena 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're willing, I'd like to suggest moving it from your talkpage to your userpage on sinhala wikipedia, then get others there to comment on ways the article could be translated and improved. Obviously, just changing the title to the translation of 'Slang' would be appropriate. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Chess

Hello, my name is Ed Trice and I invented the game of Gothic Chess. I would like to say, first of all, thanks for protecting the Gothic Chess page. Furthermore, as the page is currently locked in the state that is correct and free of the vandalism, may I request that the expiration of this lock be extended by one calendar month?

With my gratitude,

GothicChessInventor 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, in order to not give the appearance of favoritism to any particular reversion (I wouldn't want to protect the wrong version after all. (If you don't get the joke, click the link. Really.) so I'd really like to ask you to check in on Requests for Page Protection instead, please.

I'd like to ask you to, instead of relying on page protection, please talk to the other editors about the dispute instead and try to resolve it. If the issue is actual vandalism, please make a mention on The Admin Intervention/Vandalism noticeboard instead. Please note that content disputes are not vandalism.

I don't want you to think that I'm saying "No, I won't help you," by the way. I'm a firm believer that administrators are there merely to enforce the will and intent of the community, and that we're firmly not arbitrators nor mediators by virtue of the position. I can help content disputes personally, but will not use administrative tools to do so (as that would be abuse of the trust bestowed upon my community here.) I hope that's no disappointment. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The catch is, this isn't checkers nor chess, nor can logic be applied without social consequence. Wikipedia is more like a rather large game of Nomic, and the last stated rule was, "For an extension of page protection, please see WP:RFPP." Now that you've chosen to ignore the rules of Nomic and apply checkers, I get to modify my rules again.

This one goes, "If you want to see an extension of the page protection, contact WP:RFPP or any admin which is not me, otherwise I'll simply remove the page protection altogether, since you've clearly stated your case that your version is correct. I'll choose to not interfere with the further development of the situation on that page, however."

In this giant Wiki game of Nomic, there are few standing rules, but one (encapsulated on the front page, even) is that this is the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit." By extending the page protection and validating that your version is, in fact, The Right Version, we're denying others the ability to exercise the privilege of editing and improving the page.

It would be beneficial to converse with the editor you are having the dispute with and resolve the dispute instead of extending it by using unfair methods (such as persuading an admin that your version is perfect and never needs maintenance). I'm a bit fond of the Mediation Cabal myself, having been a former mediator there. I'd advise you to resolve the dispute before it escalates further, since the ultimate end of the game for a player is unresolved disputes: They invariably end at arbitration once other methods of dispute resolution have been tried, and in my opinion, everyone that finds themselves in an ArbCom case is a loser: It means they were incapable of resolving disputes themselves and had to be told what to do.

To summarize: Find a dispute resolution method and use it first, ask for an extension on WP:RFPP if you need to lock the article from edit warring during your mediation, and if you still think that edit warring over an article is important enough to chance having yourself blocked from the site forever and ever, then go ahead and file an arbitration case.

Meanwhile, please consider improving other articles or doing maintenance work if you're unwilling to budge on that article.

I can't make that a demand (I'd like to, but eh...) since the administrators here serve in a technical capability, not a political one, and work to serve the needs and goals of the community as a whole. What would you have done if you arrived at the article and found that the other person arrived first and had (say) an indefinite extension to page protection and nobody was willing to discuss mediation options with you? (No reply needed, I'd much rather you tried to suggest alternatives with the other side of the situation.) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I refactored your previous reply because it was long enough that I couldn't find the section breaks easily. You don't actually need to do it every time. :)

I'm glad you've found something else to occupy yourself in the meanwhile. There's never a good excuse for letting yourself run afoul of WP:3RR and the like. It's just an article. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, shiny!

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ , catch anyone fun yet?

--Kim Bruning 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Haven't played with that yet, looks easier than what I usually do though. Thanks for the link. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They found Fox News, for one. Did you spot anything yet? --Kim Bruning 11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, at least they're leaving us fair and balanced. That is Fox News, right? Maybe I'm thinking of MSNBC? I always get those confused. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bugzilla 1062

Further to your offer on the Village Pump, it is bugzilla:1062. I don't want to add a new bug, just comment on that one. In this case, I want to point out that the feature being voted on could disrupt the linkage between pages that redirects help to maintain. My point against a feature that allows users to suppress redirect creation when moving pages can be summed up as follows: "unless the software checks for links to the page and alerts people 'THERE ARE 500 INCOMING LINKS THAT NEED TO BE REDIRECTED, SUGGEST YOU DO NOT SUPPRESS THE CREATION OF A REDIRECT', then inexperienced, tired, careless, users and admins will use the feature when it shouldn't be used". You could just add the bit in double quote marks, and say you are posting on behalf of w:User:Carcharoth. I can see it is an old bug, but I also know that things like that can sometimes get implemented really quickly if some developer takes an interest, and I think it needs more thought. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

comment noted. (Shortform doesn't link directly to comments.) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, remind me later: I was interested in putting a "generate password" javascript somewhere. It'd be nice to assist people who do things like use "password" for their account passwords. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, remind you, like this? :-) Thanks for posting the comment. Nice to see that it generated a bit of discussion. I'm reading the thread now. Carcharoth 23:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: MedCab bot

Sure! Go ahead and give Misza13 the password, I trust him. My version of the bot is offline. I have totally forgotten what the password is :) —Sean Whitton / 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Forgot to add "please? with cherries on top?" Ahwell. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you tell me what these are and how to transfer . . . —Sean Whitton / 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on Misza's talkpage. I don't know the structure of the filesystem on toolserver or WRT pywikipedia well enough to provide those answers, partly because they still have yet to reauth my account there. Apparently the next round of accounts starts on the 28th of this month, but we'll see if it actually happens. Meh. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Question

Thanks for looking at Vandalism by 63.162.143.21. I've copied from WP:ANI in case you didn't see the questions I left there.

Personal information from Amy Fisher removed from page history. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know that it was possible to edit the page history. 'Tis a good thing. Sbowers3 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Second note: I've looked over the edits and it appears there are at least three users coming from this IP. One, in fact, has done a number of useful edits. It may be worthwhile to contact DHS and ask them if this is a proxy and encourage them to have their users register accounts, especially given the new tools available in the last few days. ~Kylu (u|t) 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Yes, I also thought there were multiple users. Some clearly was vandalism; some seemed useful - but could have been subtle vandalism. I didn't know the subjects well enough to tell if the edits were useful or vandalism so I wondered if there were a way to warn other editors to double-check the edits.

These are the questions I hope you can answer:

Is there some way to identify an administrative contact at that IP site and find an email address? I'd be happy to send a message but I don't know how to find an email address. I will send snail mail if there is no better way.

BTW, what are the "new tools"? Sbowers3 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer

jbarrett@dockmaster ~
$ whois 63.162.143.21
Sprint SPRN-BLKS (NET-63-160-0-0-1)
                                  63.160.0.0 - 63.175.255.255
DeptHomelandSecurity SPRINTLINK (NET-63-162-143-0-1)
                                  63.162.143.0 - 63.162.143.31

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-08-17 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

More information:
OrgName: DeptHomelandSecurity
OrgID: DEPTH
Address: 801 I Street NW
City: Washington
StateProv: DC
IP address n021.dhs.gov
TTL Answer n021.dhs.gov. A IN 86400 63.162.143.21 dhs.gov.
TechHandle: JHO28-ARIN
TechName: Hoffman, Jim
NetRange: 63.162.143.0 - 63.162.143.31
CIDR: 63.162.143.0/27

• New tool that everyone's raving about: WikiScanner (wired.com article)
• Note: Wikipedia admins have known for some time that everyone edits Wikipedia. Whitehouse, CIA, Fox and CNN employees, etc... this is why the Neutral Point of View policy is so important. We don't discriminate on organization, anyone capable of putting together verifiable information obtained from reliable sources and adhering to the various policies we have on content, including notability is welcome to post. The people at the DHS are human, and when bored there's as good a chance as anyone else that they'll do something dumb. This is not news. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• p.s., For actual permanent deletions of specific revisions, please see WP:OVER. For simply deleting specific revisions, any admin can delete a page and restore all revisions except certain ones. This comes in especially handy when we find violations of someone's privacy, though it's labor-intensive. Sorry for not answering that question. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal comment

It is normal practice to respond on the page of the person who wrote to one, I respond again onmy talk but this is strange bnehaviour let us say, SqueakBox 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the practice of leaving the conversation in one place, as it's easier to refer to after-the-fact. Linkback: User_talk:SqueakBox#Some_trolls. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Exegesis (group)

Rather than delete the page, why cant you just delete the section that you consider spam?

Or

Reinstate it and use the talk page to let us know what you think is spam. Last time I viewed the page (couple of weeks ago at most), I couldnt see anything remotely objectionable.

Stevehawker 10:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While, perhaps, the top of the page could be salvageable, the sections "Graduates of the Exegesis seminar and ex-members of Programmes Limited and Merchants" and "Companies formed or largely staffed by Exegesis graduates and using the material" were indiscriminate lists comprised of only external links.

In addition, the text itself did not did not cite a single reliable source, made no assertation of notability at all.

The deletion of the lists was my main concern, however without the lists you're simply left with a stub with no citations nor assertation of notability, which still would've left the article subject to speedy deletion.

Now, just to clarify, while the speedy deletion criteria do state that recreation of deleted material (G4) is a deletion reason, that doesn't apply to deletions per the CSD's themselves. If you'd like to recreate the page, including asstertation of notability and citations, it may well satisfy the various policies for inclusion. In fact, if you'd like the source for the deleted page, please let me know and I'd be happy to recreate the page in your userspace for your reference.

I hope this was of some help. I'm copying this section to your talkpage (with a handy welcome message full of useful information!) for your convenience. ~Kylu (u|t) 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, I would like to have a go at expanding the Exegesis page that you deleted. Would you mind recreating the deleted source in my userspace? Thanks AnthonyConway 10:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, text is now at User:AnthonyConway as your userpage was previously blank. You may wish to consider moving it to a subpage to work on it, and I assume you'll have no problems sharing with User:Stevehawker? Good luck. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Matt57

Kylu, you invited Matt57 to edit articles that Elonka isn't editing. Which articles did you have in mind? Because to my knowledge, Matt57 isn't editing any articles that Elonka's editing (though she's invited him to do so.)Proabivouac 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: I've posted a an/i thread (link to it is on Matt57's talkpage, I'm sure you've seen it by now) regarding the situation. I realize you're his friend, and it's for this reason that I'm going to ask that you not do any unblocking yourself. Please, ask someone else to do this.

If you're his friend, you've got to see that this really just isn't healthy for either of them. Please, use the 24 hours provided to try to convince him to fixate elsewhere. I'm sure I've relegated myself to the deepest depths of wiki-hell for the sin of blocking a long-time contributor (yes, again, but with much more forethought this time, I promise you) but if there's a chance that just maybe this will persuade him to leave Elonka alone then it's worth it.

I'm really not looking forward to the headache this is going to cause me, but I'm trying to do the right thing here. On that note, I'm getting some Advil and going to sleep before this makes me grumpy in the morning. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks a bit awkward, some information seems to have gotten lost in the delete/restore process. Apologies... ~ Riana ⁂ 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's the private information I contacted you about, it's fine by me if it goes away; It shouldn't have been on here in the first place. Thanks for the help. Gonna go die for a while now, ciao. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodnight, Kylu. For tomorrow, if Matt57 posted personal information which Elonka hasn't disclosed herself, that's a big problem and obviously must be acted upon.

What the rest of this boils down to is, so far as I can discern, is her very strong desire to maintain her original research about her relatives in mainspace. Leaving Elonka alone is good, but that can't mean leaving her COI material alone. To threaten users who attempt to bring it into compliance with policy, whatever their motives, is just a continuation of the same conflict of interest she had when she created these articles.Proabivouac 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, what was private about the information I posted? Did you even investigate? That was public information posted on User:Elonka/About. May I ask how you were contacted about this block and what was said exactly? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have examined the circumstances leading to this block, and have come to the conclusion that it is both unwarranted and punitive. Hence, I have undone the block. Please see the thread on the admin board for details. >Radiant< 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have expressed my objections to this unblock in several places. "Unwarranted and punitive" seems a direct failure to assume good faith about your action. Your block had been endorsed by numerous admins at the time it was overturned. Radiant seems to merely have decided his judgment of the facts were better than yours. A poor decision in my opinion. WjBscribe 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant is entitled to his opinions, though it disturbs me that he's gone against what I see as consensus on the block. I certainly don't see it as punitive (obviously), simply hoping to persuade him to use the time to reconsider his course of action. I'm not Mike's mother, and if he continues this course, I'm not going to give him a spanking. I assume he's a grown adult and is willing to take responsibility for his own posts: I wanted to reinforce to him that his decision making was flawed and the fixation there seems to be inappropriate. I'm 0WW though, typically, so I'll leave it be. I'm not concerned about particular edits of Mike's, nor am I concerned about disputes nor content: I'm concerned that he's digging into the life of another editor for private reasons and not editorial ones. I'm concerned that he's still "researching" her even after she's given him "notice" to stop. Privately owned sites aren't WP:RS, right? Mike was wanting to remove unreliable sources and wikis from the articles? Then why visit her private wiki in the first place and start following links there? No reason, unless he's interested in her for reasons other than simple article-editing.

Y'know, I don't know Elonka. I have seen, but not voted on, her RfA. I've got people on either side of the vote there and quite frankly I don't know if she'll make a good admin or not. I'm a bit wary of having notable figures (per WP:NOTE, not per my opinion) be admins simply because of the COI potential. I personally like to stay far, far away from the article on my employer, for instance, and rather wish everyone did similarly. Is she a nice person? Probably. She hasn't left me any nasty template messages or called me dirty names to my face yet, nor either tried to dig up my real name and address to pester me to my knowledge, so I'm assuming she's a nice person. :D This doesn't magically mean she's my friend, it does however mean I'm willing to assume good faith on her actions.

Mike, this answer's just for you: Nobody. Nobody suggested a block to me, it was my own idea. The whole concept of an IRC cabal is flawed. The more accurate concept might be, "Off wiki conversation influencing on-wiki action." Was IRC involved? To some extent. There's a fast RC feed on IRC, similar to special:recentchanges, except it includes a bit more detail about the edits. The protocol used is IRC, sure, but the RC feeder certainly makes no suggestions as to appropriate action. This very edit will show up, along with the link to the diff, text moved, edit summary, etc... quite handy. So, I see your edit, click (actually I was going to start rolling back vandalism out of boredom) and stew a while on if to act or not. You've already had others ask you to leave Elonka alone. Elonka has asked you to leave Elonka alone. I've seen this on WP:ANI myself and in the RC. You don't leave her alone. Is it that hard to simply relent and let someone else handle the articles? Do you really think you have to be the one to fix the problems in them?

The link to the wiki really wasn't the issue, it's simply part of a greater pattern of ongoing Elonka-directed editing that quite frankly isn't needed here. It's intimidating, annoying, and abusive, and others on ANI have agreed. The fact that you don't see any merit at all in that view is at the root of the problem, in fact.

If any of the individuals involved believe that either my or Mike57's or Elonka's actions have been inappropriate, I'd suggest filing the RfC and notifying us of such. Maximum one RfC per recipient please, prices and participation may vary, void where prohibited.

In the interest of trying to maintain peace (and sanity?) I'm leaving the issue alone from now on, but I'm quite disappointed that instead of some sort of community effort to correct the situation, it's simply been dismissed by certain people who suggest that there's absolutely no problem here except some rouge admin blocking people willy-nilly and without consideration of the feelings of others. I'm quite near disgusted, actually, of our indifference.

Hopefully the wiki-drama ends soon, preferably with people leaving eachother's personal lives alone and getting back to editing articles and gnomish tasks. If I don't get any notifications of additional action, I'll assume the situation is resolved and we can move on. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not you and IRC inspired blocks again? Giano 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Hi Giano. The funny thing about it all was that earlier that night, I advised a newer admin to not block based on irc conversations, and if they felt inspired to do so because of it, to let someone else handle the situation instead. Yeah, me, really. The RC tool (which is, granted, IRC based, but more a more-detailed version of special:recentchanges than anything) is filtered through a program so I only see th change feed itself, then I can pick at anything that looks interesting.

...by the way, you know anyone that speaks Sinhalese? si.wikipedia needs more native speakers. I'd write (or at least translate) articles, but I don't speak the language. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I should point out that I have nowhere suggested that there is "absolutely no problem here"; indeed, I specifically mentioned there was a dispute, and suggested an RFC. I see both parties equally at fault with respect to intimidating, incivility, and following each other's contribs logs. Neither have I in any fashion suggested that the block was "bad faith", "rouge", "willy-nilly" or "without consideration", and I apologize if this can be read from my words, because that was never the intent. However, note that a "community effort to correct the situation" appears to have surfaced, as evidenced by recent edits to the articles in question, and threads on COIN and MFD. >Radiant< 09:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Gone off to play with an editing sock. Please leave harassing posts, policy violations, and unresolvable complaints here, not on any of the sock talkpages, thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bother

*Bother* :D Cowman109^Talk 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Meow. How's a Cowman? ~Kylu (u|t) 00:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)