User talk:Kylu/Archive 9

Archive 9

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.

Wordforge

Yep, this is me. Admin, checkuser sounds fine to me. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

02:05, 28 August 2007 Midori Changed group membership for User:Xaosflux from to sysop, checkuser

Okay, you can go fight vandals and things now. Have fun. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sherurcij

Care to explain why my userspace is suddenly protected against myself being able to edit it? A tongue-in-cheek comment is hardly "high-risk, requiring immediate page protection", and I'm not sure it's even possible to "edit war" over your own userpage. I've compromised on the complaints, but it makes no sense to protect the page, and I was curious what the process for instigating it had been. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Please don't post into an existing section unless it's related to that section. I appreciate it, as do those who may read the page and wonder at the lack of clarity in that diff.
2. There's two possible answers to your question:
   1. I'm an evil cabalist who conspires in secret IRC channels with my fellow cabalists in order to use and abuse the Wikipedia proletariat. This seems to be the most quoted answer and is included simply so neither you nor others need to make the accusation later. I'm sure it'll come up.
   2. I watch the bloody RC feed and certain things (like the same page being edited a number of times by different authors who seem to be reverting eachother) trigger an alert, to which I go investigate the situation.
3. WP:USERPAGE#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F notes you're advised to not include polemical statements. Labeling another as a "Nazi", even in jest, rather violates the intent of that rule.
4. WP:USERPAGE#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space:
   1. Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
   2. Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not.
5. WP:USERPAGE#Removal_of_inappropriate_content:

   If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you have been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it.

   If you do not cooperate, the inappropriate content will eventually be removed, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate).

6. The most important thing to recall, however, is that you do not own your userpage. It's not yours, it belongs to the community and you're merely the prime contributor. There is considerable leeway with what content people may put on userpages, however it's a slippery slope, as then people start to think it's their personal property. Please don't fall into that trap.
7. You may be considering this to be an exception to WP:3RR, however:

   Per Wp:3rr#Exceptions, everts done by a user within his or her own user page and user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere;

   Please remember that policy pages are not definitive, they are declarative: That is, instead of the policy page determining policy, policy pages display what the current policy seems to be. An easy way to determine policy is to do something against policy (like stating that others are image nazis?) and, if you get reverted by numerous others, then perhaps you're violating what the community wants.

8. I'd already told you, if you'd like to have the page protection removed, there are people who watch WP:RFPP for that. Alternatively, you may contact any non-me admin of your choosing to have the protection removed. They, of course, being volunteers just like you and me, are free to ignore or reject the request.

I hope that answers your questions. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You made a huge mistake

• What this is regarding: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ramdrake ~Kylu (u|t) 04:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a huge mistake to block Ramdrake for one month! How can that be? One month for a 3rr infraction! I've seen others who've egregiously ignored policy get a slap on the hand. This is absolutely ludicrous. How do I contest this excessively harsh punishment? Where do you get your orders from that this is fair and just? Seriously, I'd like to know. I'm not trying to be combative, I just don't understand the harsh punishment one bit! Do you know you are losing a PhD and a good editor? My gosh. I don't understand this place at all! I must be stupid then. If there are others, who are in HIGH SCHOOL, edit articles, evade blocks, and create an atmosphere of disruption continue to play homework assignments by editing Wikipedia. That's all Wikipedia will have left! In case you may not know, younger people take this much better and will come back than older people would? Do you really understand those consequences? By blocking a person with actual credentials and life experience is the worse thing that Wikipedia needs! Now will I be blocked by expressing my disgust of this type of punishment? Abuse of process?- Jeeny ^Talk 03:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This was absolutely needed. You forgot to mention how you're going to have him start an arbitration case against me, also. I mean, you should. Look at the horrible, incivil, personal attack I left as a block message on his account.

Oh, wait. Ramdrake's not blocked. He can, in fact, still edit. His IP can, in fact, still make new accounts. I think you mean this block which, according to Ramdrake, was his rude houseguest, not him. Shouldn't affect Ramdrake at all. Don't forget to leave another hysterical note here after you've looked at the logs, thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I love you now. You made me laugh with the "leave another hysterical note". So true. OMG LMAO! <smooch!> - Jeeny ^Talk 04:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and no I would never file a case against you, even if what I thought happened, happened. I don't do that stuff. Only in extreme cases, and this was not to be personal toward you at all, just the system. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 04:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mommy, Jeeny's scaring me...." ~Kylu (u|t) 04:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so dramatic. Sheesh. ;p - Jeeny ^Talk 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Want to share my candy? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. No thanks, I don't take candy from children. ;) - Jeeny ^Talk 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A possible solution to the Great Firewall of China

1. The Chinese Government (and others) wish to keep citizens from editing English Wikipedia.
2. Chinese citizens can get around this by using proxies.
3. Proxies (including Tor) are prohibited from editing on English Wikipedia and blocked on sight.

Ideal: Have a new permissions group... "Proxyable" ? which grants the "ipblock-exempt" flag to its user. Issues:

1. A new permissions group! Ohnoes!
2. Who's going to grant this group?
   • Bureaucrats already have a lot of work to do...
   • All admins?
   • All users of the groups Bureaucrat, Checkuser?
   • Yet Another New Permissions Group? (Checkuser and WP:OP members?)
   • Would be otherwise immune to ipblocks (obviously)

Benefits:

• Ability to grant proxy use to specific accounts, which would then be flagged in special:listusers as having said flag.
• Valuable otherwise-blocked editors could contribute.

Please opine. ~Kylu (u|t) 09:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a mediawiki extension that allows IPblock-exempt to be individually assigned to users. I think the ability to assign it could be given to any user group. Not sure exactly on the details but will ask around for a link I can give you. WjBscribe 09:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Why this? [1] There is absolutely no reason to delete this image. The RFU tag claimed it could be replaced by a free image that conveys the same information but the dispute clearly explains why this is not the case. The Parsnip! 02:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1. The image was deleted by Riana, not me.
2. "Dispute" is only your single request, though I suppose it's accurate if you're meaning that in a template sort of way.
3. The image fails fair use qualifications: 3(a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. and 8., Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
4. Deletion Review is available if you'd like to contest the deletion.

Thanks for your concern. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Templates (aka "What's this about a message you left me?")

To the 1,337 users that woke out to discover the Orange Bar of Doom:

A very friendly user by the name of TomasBat decided to leave a lot of people, over a very long period of time, a very large welcome message chock-full of useful tidbits and goodies and information.

He also did what they called "translcusion" (see Subst for more information on this) that is, every time his welcome page would change, every single copy of the template had to be changed by the software as well.

Obviously, this is a Very Bad Thing, because instead of the very expensive computers Wikimedia Foundation has being used to serve informative Wikipedia articles to the masses, it has to go through and re-render his welcome page. Currently, another administrator by the name of Ryulong has it set for the "standard" welcome page, which is what I'm substituting onto your pages. If you'd like the original version of it, it can be found at the old version of that page. Cute welcome graphics and all.

Ryulong's gone ahead and left TomasBat a handy message about why it's important to subst his welcome templates, from what I understand. Please feel free to say that TomasBat welcomed you, as he certainly did notice you editing and take the time to provide you with all that information.

If I suddenly stop working on this, it's probably because either:

1. I fell asleep at the keyboard, considering this'll take another three hours or so to do, or,
2. My fingers fell off and I can no longer click the mouse button.

I hope that explains things. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (Done) Night now ~Kylu (u|t) 10:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Baby 81

Good morning: I thought I would put the following comments here because, though they arose on the Baby 81 discussion page, they are not related to the on-going argument about the use of the child's name. First, not all of us type equally well, and not all of us see equally well. Sometimes, late at night, on my lap-top screen, the black text is not very distnguishable from the blue, and thus, even after several Previews, a typing mistake can remain. Please feel free, if such a typo happens in something I have done, to repair it when you notice it. If nothing else, it would be faster for you than to write out an explanation, only to strike it out almost immediately.

Second, about your signature: I was certainly not mocking either it or you. In mark-up, it is a difficult one to read, with all the brackets and letters that are not usual combinations in English. As I said, I am not much of a typist. Maybe I should also state the obvious that I am not much of a programmer either. I tried copying the signature and was successful in the my first attempt, I thought, but kept losing bits when I repeated the effort in the following comments. I then even tried to get it down to the bare blue, but, oddly enough, thought you might be more upset by that than an honest effort to get your chosen name form right. (It would have been correct, I think now, in the morning, when I can see, if I had not tried to leave out the two letters that follow the name. That's where I kept going astray. In one Preview, the whole of the message following your signature came out hot pink.) There is enough contention on Baby 81's page without simple mistakes being taken for things much more sinister. I will try to do better in future and would be grateful for the extension of WP:AGF for first offenses at least. Bielle 15:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have only just realized that the whole of the paragraph containing the above reprimands is addressed to me. In the interests of keeping matters rational, I have carefully re-read my text looking for straw man arguments and informal fallacy, and have read both articles, but I can't find the source of the comments. I would appreciate your assistance in finding the offending text. If, perchance, these admonitions about logic are directed to all of us in the current discussion, perhaps you would separate them clearly from the comments directed at me. Bielle 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the last paragraph. From "Perhaps this might help" on, it makes absolutely no sense for that section to be pointed at you directly. The idea is to get the people writing (or edit warring, rather) an opportunity to spell out the reasons for inclusion or not of the name. I'll give you a hint: I don't care. Not one lick. If it's in there, fine. If not, fine. What do I care about? Getting people on that page to not edit war over things like that. Really.

Also, while fine, you're new (having only been here since April 15th of this year, I see) but you've managed to get the link correct in the second paragraph, but have yet to correct the first one. I've fixed the separation between the message directed at you and the message to the talkpage as a whole, but User:Ned Scott helpfully decided to delete the section headers that I'd mentioned. Personally, the article has been a royal pain and I wish the people involved would come to some sort of decision, or at least stop jumping the article all over the place like a bloody jackrabbit on a pogo stick. No further input is needed on the matter. Please contact WP:RFPP for unprotection (like above), you may cite this diff as evidence that I have no desire to be contacted regarding the article's unprotection. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Negroid

There is an ongoing discussion about the article you protected, Negroid. I request your input. Muntuwandi 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice there's current discussion on the article's talkpage. This is a good thing. There's no consensus on the subject matter yet, however. This is a bad thing. Having skimmed over the talk there, I'd make these suggestions:

1. Discuss changes on the talkpage, then edit.
2. When the article is ready for unprotection, visit WP:RFPP and request unprotection. Best to note the actual conclusion of the discourse.
3. Preferably, Haemo won't protect or unprotect the page at all. I prefer to simply not use admin actions on issues I'm involved in. We've got over a thousand admins, no really good reason to get involved.
4. Discuss changes on the talkpage, then edit.
5. Discussions that Haemo was abusing his admin-buttons should either be brought to the attention of ArbCom or dropped, especially as I see only one instance of his using them: 23 Aug 2007, to protect the page for three days. See above, also.
6. Those involved on the talkpage are quite obviously not done discussing the issue. Don't ask for unprotection until you're all ready to edit in a constructive manner.
7. The article has been protected numerous times already. Every time, the admin will protect the wrong version. Page protection is not an endorsement of the current revision.
8. Discuss changes on the talkpage, then edit.
9. Until changes to the page have been discussed and a consensus reached, I'm suggesting the article not be unprotected. If you want, I can redirect the page to point to something unacceptable to all involved parties, if it makes you discuss more and reach a better conclusion.

In case the message got lost: discuss changes, then request your unprotection. Until you've all come up with some decision as to the problem at hand, I'm not interested at all in unprotecting the page. Thanks. 04:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see there seems to be a consensus of four editors. In any case a consensus should not be necessary when something is used with to disparage the subjects. I don't believe the prolonged protection of the article will help resolve disputes rather it will just raise temperatures because it gives the impression that the racists have won. Muntuwandi 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes:

Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in. Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page. See also m:The Wrong Version.

During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people. Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page.

I notice you've put in the request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thank you. Now, instead of stating that the protection shows that the "racists have won" (does that make me a racist, because I protected that particular version? would that make me more likely to help you, knowing you're calling me racist?) perhaps you can just wait until a nice, uninvolved, non-racist admin can look at the discussion there and determine if unprotection is called for. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I did not mention any names as being racist, Since this the first time that you had edited the article, I wouldn't pass such judgment on you. However it is frustrating that the same trouble making version is always the one to get protected. This is very frustrating, because it essentially means that the dispute is being unnecessarily prolonged. I don't see why a page should be protected for 2 full weeks over the insistence of a stereotypical photo from a racist era. Should editors spend two weeks discussing one photo. It is my opinion that the protection of the page was premature. Firstly the page was protected by Haemo on the 23rd for three days, when the protection expired I removed the controversial picture. 3 reverts later the page was protected again with the same controversial picture. I believe this was a premature protection. Protection policy states that it is not an endorsement of the current version. It is for this reason protection should not be rushed and if possible should be avoided if alternative solutions can be found. Even though protection is not an endorsement, two weeks of one version is hell of a lot of time. If you had checked the protection log for this article you can see it has been a magnet for racist editors and protection has been used to prevent vandalism and sockpuppetry. Though your protection is not an endorsement it is inadvertently supporting the edits of editors such as User:Phral and User:Fourdee who have been indefinitely blocked for racism and antisemitism. If you check the edit history of the article you will see their support. The system isn't working as it should. Muntuwandi 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that User:Phral was blocked for being a sockpuppet, not for being a racist... am I wrong? Lychosis ^T/C 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Phral was blocked for being a sockpuppet of an editor who was indefinitely blocked for racist edits. [2] for example. Muntuwandi 22:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. Just, maybe if you're gonna call someone a racist, maybe provide some diffs. Just a thought. Lychosis ^T/C 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, other than unprotecting the page (which I already told you, either get WP:RFPP to do or your favorite non-me admin) what is it I can do for you? ~Kylu (u|t) 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

well the last remaining editor involved in the dispute from the "other side", Funkynusayri has declared that he has no interest in the article diff. Muntuwandi 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. Other than unprotecting the page (ask RFPP or a different admin for that, not me. I've said this before and won't repeat myself again.) what is it I can do for you? ~Kylu (u|t) 23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have opened a fresh request for unprotection but since you were the admin who protected the page, I still have to request unprotection from you as well. Hopefully we can then go about our respective businesses. Muntuwandi 23:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to ask me each time. You have my standing permission to ask whoever you feel like for unprotection, just as long as it's not me. Feel free to cite this diff. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you are running away from your responsibilities. Since you protected this page, I would assume that you had some sort of interest in resolving the issue. Simply protecting a page and leaving doesn't solve disputes. Thats like burying the head in the ground. I think that if one starts something, they should make an effort to see it through. Muntuwandi 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, you're absolutely right. I take back my earlier statement. The page shall stay protected until the dispute is resolved or the current protection expires. Any admins doing otherwise will have to spend rouge points to do so: They'll be unprotecting the page against my express wishes. Now, if you're going to start attacking me, I'd appreciate it if you'd do it on your own talkpage, but don't continue it here. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I will respond on my talk page as per your request. I am not attacking you personally but It should be okay to discuss the actions of administrators. Muntuwandi 00:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute here. I think you are being very rude. Maybe I'm reading this discussion wrong, but your first response was to be offended. And your tone continued to be. I see no where someone referred to you as racist, and I do not understand how or why you would think that? As an admin, you should know better than that. Also, letting your offense dictate your judgement is way off base. The dispute is with one person (not you) to 4 with removing the image. Is this your way of holding a grude by saying you will not unprotect the page because you believe you've been attacked? - Jeeny ^Talk 01:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Jeeny. Glad to see you're still watching my talkpage, ready to spring into action. By protecting the page the way I found it, he says I'm encouraging the racists. Not so. I protect the first version of a page in-conflict that I come across. I don't really honestly care whose revision gets protected, as long as the edit-warring stops and they're forced to discuss things on the talkpage instead of beating up the poor servers and skyrocketing the revision history. They're not doing anything productive this way, and when I find a dispute, I simply mark it (via protection) and continue on: If I decided to "get involved" in the dispute, either I'll develop a non-neutral opinion about the situation (in which case the earlier protection would be in dispute) or I might actually really abuse admin permissions. By locking-and-leaving, they're forced to resolve the dispute before requesting unprotection, otherwise the RFPP respondent will simply say "The dispute does not seem to have been resolved, unprotection denied" as Alison did on WP:RFPP earlier.

The "racism" comment, you might've guessed, is just an gambit used to try to pry Mr. Muntuwandi from my page. I'd already said I won't unprotect the page, and to seek out a different admin or RFPP. He asked me again to unprotect the page. I repeated myself. He asked again. If he's not going to listen to me when I'm asking nicely, then there's no reason to bother asking nicely. This way, perhaps Mr. Muntuwandi (who I seem to see a distressing tendency to label "racist" anyone who disagrees with him, have you read his talkpage?) will go ahead and do what I've been asking him to do anyway. See also: WP:BEANS.

Here's a hint regarding the page he wants unprotected: Read the bloody talkpage. It's not anywhere near resolved that I can see. If it were, they wouldn't still be arguing about it, right?

My suggestion to him was to discuss things and then request unprotection. He just wants to go straight to unprotection so he can revert to his version and not have to see the "racist" version there anymore. If he does that, then...yep, you guessed it, someone else will come along and revert it back. Sooner or later he'll get blocked for violating 3RR. If he's blocked, or if he's busy warring over the article, there's no discussion going on.

Administrators are not part of the dispute resolution process. At no point does it say, "when you're in a disagreement with someone, ask an admin to protect it to your version or to block the offender." Recently, I blocked Matt57 because I felt he was stalking Elonka... you know the reason he was unblocked? Because Radiant felt it was a content dispute and not stalking. No tool use for resolving content disputes, we just stop people from trashing the servers. Technical vs. social, see?

This in mind, exactly what role should my judgment play in the dispute? None. I stop via technical means the escalation of the dispute, then those in dispute go to seek resolution elsewhere. I am not WP:RFC, nor am I WP:MEDCAB, nor WP:MEDCOM. They need to work the dispute out, not simply have an admin come along, dictate what the outcome will be. That's not how we work here! :)

Like Baby 81, below, I don't really feel much concerned about the dispute in question: I feel concerned when people constantly revert each other over the content and ignore discussion and instead determine the "winner" by who can stay up the longest reverting the other's edits. That's why WP:3RR was made into policy.

I'm not quite as stupid as I look, Jeeny. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. I hate pink. Anyway, you must think very big of yourself that I have YOU on my watchlist. LOL. It's Muntuwandi, and the Negroid article that is on my watch list. I forgot you even existed until I looked up after I forgot to sign and saw my comments above. So there. ;P - Jeeny ^Talk 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You've forgotten about me already? Man, I feel so used... *sob* Hey, if you can, see if you can get some of those guys into a dispute resolution system of some sort, please? And, maybe, like inject a few quarts of sense of humor and a couple gallons of perspective. You could introduce them to our resident WP:MASTODONS also. You know you want to go look at that link now, don'cha.... ~Kylu (u|t) 02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that I label everyone I disagree with racist. I dislike the use of the overly used term racist and only use when I have exhausted all other terms or to get some attention. The term racist only appears 4 times on my page and it is reference to users who have been blocked for "racism". Specifically those whose edits administrators have labeled as racist. It is wrong to label someone as racist without any evidence. Muntuwandi 02:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny, and I was doing the same thing to you. :) I hope you agree we're all far too oversensitive about some things. Hell, I'm Irish-Japanese-AmericanIndian as my majority races, with the understanding that I could have just about anything I've heard of in there if I look back far enough. Supposedly there's old Scottish nobility, which would make me...er...uh, absolutely nobody of importance. I figure in a few hundred years, we'll all be one color anyway, so why not just write from that perspective instead of worrying if someone else doesn't like me because I'm __________? Anyway, I'm glad you're reading. Maybe now you know that I want you to go to Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution and get things taken care of the way the community intends, and then, perhaps afterwards, someone can unprotect the page? I'm not willing to get involved in someone else's argument just because I stopped the server from going into convulsions. Hopefully next time we meet, we'll be on better terms. Gonna get some sleep (sick as a dog! cough cough hack hack! ... so why am I editing? addicted! sheesh.) so g'night. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • As Kylu said before, work out whatever issues there are with the article then she or another administrator can unlock the page. Since there is still an edit war going on, Kylu is trying to stay a non-party in the dispute, so she can do administrator actions without accusations of bias. She is not here to just ban at someones whim, she is not going to do anything because you specifically ask her to do it. She is using good judgment and I support her actions. As mentioned in the bold above, go to the Dispute Resolution. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:)

Hi. :o --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a cake! Where've you been? The guys at MedCab have been bored without you. Kept up on your music like I asked? ~Kylu (u|t) 01:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been away to distant lands, learning the wisdom of the land... or something. I HAVEN'T TALKED TO YOU IN FOREVER. WTF IS UP. WE MUST FIND SOME MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. DO YOU HAVE AIM? (and yes... musicing as always) --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Email me or use IRC. I'm allergic to instant messengers. I hang out on nice public channels where the cabalism is somewhat limited: Instant Messenger clients make it much, much easier to keep conversations secret. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

...exactly? I just want to talk about anything and in private... it has nothing to do with wikipolitics or whatever. and I haven't seen you on IRC lately. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Email me or use irc so we can set something up, then, instead of having every troll on wikipedia stick me on their buddy list? :D ~Kylu (u|t) 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Negroid II: The Revenge of Negroid

There are major problems with the Negroid article in the version you preserved it in. It needs immediately tagged with factual accuracy, disputed, verify source, and original research tag, as none of the four sources I checked say anything that is claimed in the article. No Wikipedia reader should be allowed to see this article as it now stands without these tags in place. KP Botany 17:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed the above section completely, as well as my response to it: Until either the dispute regarding the contents are settled or the protection expires (automatically on the 11th), I have no interest in doing the unprotection.

If anyone wants to either persuade someone else to do the unprotection or have an admin at WP:RFPP do it, that's fine, but I'm interested in ending the edit-war over the article, not solving the underlying dispute myself. That's a job for one of the dispute resolution systems, not admins. Ciao. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're on my watch list. I suggest you ban a few people on that article that are really getting on my nerves. I think that's the only fair thing that can be done. Now can you do that? I'll give you lots of candy, if you do what I say. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, nor have I ever discussed the image. And, Jeeny, don't speak for me, if you can't do so accurately--in fact, don't do so at all.

The other editors refuse to discuss the article at all, so that's out. At long as people keep telling me that if folks edit war about an image, any sort of factual accuracy, outright lies, and apparent hoaxes in a Wikipedia article should be kept, they'll be in the wrong--this should never have gotten into the article in the first place, much less been force kept simply because a group of administrators refuse to read the text while editors are arguing about an image. It makes Wikipedia editors look like incompetent idiots.

But, if you want pure crap, misspellings, lies, and hoaxes to be part of Wikipedia, then it's all yours. But when it blows up for what it really is, pure crap and a hoax that some bigot got away with perpetuating on Wikipedia, just remember that you chose it this way. KP Botany 22:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I was just saying one the talk page that you hadn't commented on the image... they were under the impression that you had... Lychosis ^T/C 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not blocking anyone due to this article. If you want people banned, try Votes for Banning or just drop a complaint on Admin Noticeboard/Incidents. The better solution is simply to (and I know, I should've mentioned this before...) select a dispute resolution procedure... may I select Mediation Cabal perhaps?...and start trying to discuss the problem instead of just arguing the same points over and over. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was frikken joking! Sheesh, what happened to your sense of humour? I was being sarcastic. If you would not unlock the article why would I think you'd ban people I'd suggest. It was a JOKE. - Jeeny ^Talk 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're amused that Wikipedia is being gamed. I'm not. But at least someone is getting some fun out of it. KP Botany 00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about being gamed? Reminds me the most of a Star Wars title. You failed to leave your post in the existing section, you haven't apparently read the admin guidelines (hint: DO NOT EDIT A PAGE YOU'RE ABOUT TO PROTECT), and if you're going to troll, do it elsewhere. Admins also don't block people involved in a dispute unless they really feel like being hauled in front of ArbCom for abuse of admin tools by biased use of said tools.

Quite frankly, if you guys are simply going to argue about the article, do it on the article's talkpage. Don't do it here. I actually do have more important things to do than babysit your article while you FAIL TO USE A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS.. I'm not part of dispute resolution and I already told you guys what the standards would be for me unprotecting the article. If, by your inability to get your act together and even consider going to WP:DR (try it! click the link! seriously, it won't bite!) then I want nothing more to do with you. You're not Being Very Wiki by doing this. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Make it bigger

It's still not clear. :p - Jeeny ^Talk 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I fear you may be right. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Negroid notice

Just a note, now that someone has edited the protection, the protecting admin is User:MZMcBride, not me. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I was teasing you before when I suggested to ban other users. I thought it was funny to suggest the absurd. I was mocking the whole thing, in a sense. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Others have meailed me suggesting it would've been a good idea, in the serious sense. I think, perhaps, that users on Wikipedia sometimes have a fatally flawed (fatally for us, sadly) understanding of what admins actually do sometimes. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanished user

I would like to unblock Vanished user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't think he actually made a legal threat towards Durin, but only to others on the web using his images. I realize he's difficult, but will watch him closely. Fred Bauder 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(will copy this note to my talkpage to make transparency easier)

You've got my trust, unblock as you see fit. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Durin. ElinorD (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankew, ElinorD. Fred wants to both unblock Vanished user and keep an eye on him. Who better than someone on ArbCom? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Section has been modified from original by User:Majorly. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wetz

I have reviewed the article Richard Wetz and put the candidate "on hold". You can see my comments on the talk page. You have seven days to make the improvements according to Wikipedia guidelines. Good luck and Happy Editing!--~ Joe Jklin (T C) 02:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bright orange bar...

...reminding you to take some screenshots of Special:Import :) --krimpet⟲ 06:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done and thanks for the reminder. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam

When you protected this page yesterday, you forgot to add the protection template to the top of the page. Please add it.--Sefringle^Talk 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done When it expires, the first person to edit the page should also remove the tag. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta

Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change m: Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list --Cspurrier 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard Wetz

Richard Wetz has failed its first GA nomination. The article was not improved enough in the given seven days to meet all criteria of a Good Article. Please continue to improve it and renominate it for GA (it really is close, it just needs some more citations). Let me know when you feel all the improvements have been met (I'd like to take a look at it even if I'm not the one reviewing it). Good Luck and Happy Editing! ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. it's good to see you back editing

Oh, I haven't stopped... I just don't do quite as much either on this wiki nor under this nickname. Mostly I either write new articles or expand stubby ones under one of my sockpuppets. Thanks though! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

re List of notable converts to Islam

Hi,

You protected this article recently. Can you please take a look at this section. Here I have argued that Sana al-Sayegh should not be listed as "Forced conversion", esp. since this is only an allegation by Fatah against its political rival Hamas. Sana al-Sayegh is a living person, and I request that you remove her (from this section), and not wait for conflicts to be resolved.Bless sins 05:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is another contentious claim about two living men. The discussion about this is here. Basically the men deny having covnerted to Islam (by saying that their conversion was "not real"). There is also a reliable secondary source (Professor Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, who teaches sociology and history at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) who says their conversion wasn't valid. Yet they are still listed as converts to Islam.

Again I believe that this contentious info about living persons should be removed, given the contradictory accounts. It's better to remove them, than to wrongly list them.Bless sins 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. You may use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask for an administrator to make an edit for you.

I'm sorry to sound so robotic here, but I absolutely do not, ever, edit protected articles. At best, if I get another situation like the one I was put in regarding Negroid, I'll just blank the article while it's protected and let people fight it out on the talkpage. If you can't come to any agreements on the talkpage, I suggest visiting dispute resolution and finding methods of resolving your issues there.

Please, if you read this, be absolutely sure that you understand the following: Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Seriously. I'm really not interested in people trolling my page and saying that I've given my "certified endorsement" of any specific version.

The above isn't your fault, mind, but I've had a few people recently be pains-in-the-ass about wanting a page unprotected when they're unwilling to actually visit the dispute resolution page and try to find a solution to the problem. I am not listed as an option on WP:DR, and if nobody can figure out what the secret message here is. I might just have to spell it out the hard way instead.

You decide. Oh, and unless you've made an attempt at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, please just wait for the protection to expire instead. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki Raja

Hi Kylu, you recently had blocked wiki raja for 3rr. He is at it again. Only this time he's trying to game the system by reverting exactly three times.. and he is doing it across dozens of pages... and he is warring with as many as seven editors of long standing. Please take a look here and do the needful. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Time for the next admin to take a swing at bat. I'm sure I'm "involved" somehow, now. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Substing welcome templates

Hello Kylu. I remembered these comments: [3] and [4], and this huge amount of edits coming from your part; so I substed transclusions of my welcome template made by other users, and I substed transclusions of some other welcome templates as well. But then, I ran into this welcome template and, since that welcome template's level of transclusion wasn't very small, I started to wonder whether all that should be substed, also considering that that template's level of transclusion was less than 500 compared to the over 1300 level of transclusion of my welcome template, that is was smaller, that it isn't changed very frequently, and that the user who created it is more experienced than me (meaning that the probabilities of that user having a logical and valid reason for not substing are higher). So, is it worth the effort? Should I/anyone subst them all? The answer to this question will also determine my future as a "welcome-template-subster". ♠TomasBat 03:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this section (and my reply) to your talkpage. I'm a proponent of the keep-chatter-in-one-place method, but many aren't.

Firstly, without AWB, substing each one of those is going to be a pain. While the note should be substed, it might be easier in this instance to simply leave Andrevan a note and have him do it. If he's unable to, someone else probably can. An additional problem with your template, though, wasn't the sheer number of times it was used (though that certainly didn't help) but the amount of sub-template transclusion that was involved also: Templates using templates using templates, all with one choke-point that could've caused the server to choke were it changed. His is pretty much just text. Thanks for your concern, however. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting

We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Official Thanks

After a recent unpleasant experience with impersonation of me on another Wiki, I've started slowly creating some accounts on various sister sites, and while reading this thread and seeing EVula and Alison's matrix thingies, I asked Alison if I could outright steal that for my own (attempted) use, hopefully being able to figure it out. She noted that you created it for her, so I'd like to just thank you in advance. I've not yet made my own, and I'm hoping my less than knowledgeable tech/coding skills will make it not too difficult, but I still wished to thank you anyway! ^Ariel♥Gold 21:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The matrix thing seems to be spreading! If you need any help, Ariel, let me know.

Just for note, the link to the thread on Phaedriel's talk was outdated. New one supplied.

I made the first one (unless someone else had the idea first, but I hadn't seen one), and Lar copied his from mine, and EVula copied the concept from Lar. I think.

I've made matrices for Krimpet, FloNight, Alison, Redux, Gmaxwell, Riana, Mackensen and Bastique. All good friends and people who work hard for the Foundation. I'm open to requests if anyone has them, though due to the way I write my matrices, I don't use Lar's template thing, even if I do think it's a really good idea!

As a side-note, apparently Jahiegel, Cbrown1023, Timotab, and Herby all have them also. Yikes! We may need to make a list sometime. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

hi

I am Thethoughts user. I like to get in continous touch with you. I want to write, edit articles relating to the UK and Pakistan. I have some questions and need some assistance to use Wikipedia. If you can give me your email? I also have complains regarding the neutrality of some articles. Can you also tell me on how to become a Wikipedia authorised writer and/or to sell articles on other sources and also how to have an email with wikipenida.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thethoughts (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Copying this to your userpage, as well.

Please be bold in editing pages, but don't forget to talk to the other editors here! If you see an article with issues, of course, feel free to correct them to adhere to Wikipedia policies. The welcome message on your talkpage tells you how to find the most important of them.

If you'd like to contact me, go to my userpage and click "E-mail this user" on the left-hand side of the screen (under "toolbox") and write your mail there.

I don't quite know what you mean by "Wikipedia authorized writer", everyone with an account can create new articles if they'd like, the people who are "in charge" of Wikipedia are those who edit the articles. You, me, everyone here is "in charge" as a community. There are a few exceptions to this, but for the most part you don't really need to worry about them until they come up. Basically, as long as you're honestly trying to help the community and you're willing to abide by the policies that the community sets, you can edit as you wish. I don't have a @wikipedia.com email, myself, though, so I really can't help you there. I don't think they give them out freely. :)

I hope that's helpful. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Hey all, I've popped on just long enough to note that I've been gone a few days and may be gone for a few more due to health issues. I'll try to get back and working as soon as I can. Thanks for your patience. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Back. n.n ~Kylu (u|t) 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons protection for en main page

For future reference, commons:Image:BB61 USS Iowa BB61 broadside USN.jpg was already transcluded on to the cascade fully-protected commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page which means that manual semi-protection was not necessary. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"for future reference" doesn't apply, as the image is unlikely to be on the main page again, though I do appreciate the notice otherwise. I'm afraid that I didn't see a cascade protection notice on commons, and between that and Mr. Gustafson having already uploaded over the image (hence the request aimed at me for the semi in the first place) I had no reason to think that the image had previously been protected.

Thanks for the notice though. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

By "for future reference", I meant for future main page images. Other than DYK, it appears Zzyzx11 always transcludes main page commons images on to his cascade protection page. Mr. Gustafson's cute little trick was on a previous main page image which was changed after being added to the main page (which left Zzyzx11 with the wrong image on his page). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'd prefer commons-related chat be left there in the future, if possible? (It'd keep conversations straight, I get unblock requests on meta too for enwiki. Go figure.) I'm also of mixed feelings about cascade protection pages being hosted in userspace, considering they're affecting non-userspace pages, but apparently that's not something the community agrees on as of yet. Anyway, point taken, thanks for input, take care. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I'll contact you on Commons in the future. I rarely check my talk page there and figured you were the same. Mea culpa. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you have a RSS reader, you may be interested to know that you can subscribe to the history of a wiki-page as an RSS feed. I have Firefox and, on my "bookmark toolbar" I've got a folder that says "WMF" with the first few links being RSS feeds of my talkpages for enwiki, siwiki, meta, and commons. Handy dandy. Granted, I don't always pay attention to it, but... ~Kylu (u|t) 01:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas

Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 [5]. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.

As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see [6].

For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.

If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Joined already, 10q. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Revol-logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Revol-logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The new logo was uploaded by another user, so I'm deleting the old one. (For anyone reading, not like the bot's going to reply to me.) ~Kylu (u|t) 18:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I am not sure if you remember who I am but if you do, I return to Wikipedia and see that things are more or less the same. Kingdom of Hearts, Donkey Kong (though it was an awesome game)and Truthiness have all been FA's when really they shouldn't. Just because an article has a high quality of writing it shouldn't automatically be a FA, surely the content and the subject matter should be taken into greater account when picking FA. I could write an incirdable indpeth and detailed article about Jonesville, FL but just because its in depth and written well shouldn't grant it FA status, I mean its a small "town" after all.

Also I don't think Wikipedia is doing its self any favours by have FA's that are on highly controversial subjects like Kinght's Templar and Intelligent design. Ah well this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia loves to create controversy (and loads of political infighting).

Ahh well back to editing U-Boat article's and oddly enough I haven't been blocked yet, amazing eh? Ark Royal 19:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I rather liked Kingdom of Hearts as a game. Have fun, 578. Good luck on your articles. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What do 5 tildes to? 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Six 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)~ Seven 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Eight 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)69.143.236.33 Nine 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)69.143.236.33 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Ten 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Back to four 69.143.236.33 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Regroup!

Betacommand has feelings?

Are you sure? He doesn't seem to care about anyone else's feelings. --GentlemanGhost 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I know Betacommand and he's actually a very nice person. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason he (and others) use the image use bots is because this way they can give the most information to those who have image use problems as well as freeing up the people that did those tasks to do more meaningful work on the project?

People don't like to either get or give those notices, but here's a hint: If you get one of the notices, there really is a problem that needs to be resolved and you could easily correct the problem instead of griping about how all the bots doing the noticing should be banned and blocked and nuked and killed and destroyed. Also, on the notice on your talk page? Yeah, uh, there's exactly one bot that can do deletions: It deletes redirects to blank pages, which really don't need to exist anyway. None of the bots delete pictures, that's us evil megalomaniacal rouge admins that do that.

Anywho, give the guy a break: He's doing his best to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. He certainly does far more than most of us on here. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to hear that he's a nice guy in person. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence of that on Wikipedia. Perhaps he doesn't mean to sound as brusque as he comes across.

However, personality aside, my frustration stems from the fact that, rather than griping, I have added hundreds of fair use rationales to images that his bot flagged, even though I wasn't the original uploader in most cases. In each case, I used a fair use template recommended on the page referenced by the bot (not the boilerplate one) and did my best to justify fair use. Now it seems that even that's not good enough. If it's going to be a constantly shifting target, how do you expect people to hit the mark? --GentlemanGhost 09:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"You" being admins, I'd suggest asking a different one. I don't much care. "You" being me, the same. "You" being Wikipedians, which would include yourself, I'd suggest that if the required material is there, the image shouldn't be left alone: Uploaded images need to have source information and licensing information, and if it's fair use, it's going to require constant upkeep to ensure the presence of the file (since fair use is kept as an exception and should not be maintained unless needed!).

When the community standards for fair use images change, then the fair use images have to be reaffirmed. The solution, of course, is to use as few fair use images as possible, that way the work is kept to a minimum. Keep in mind that when we use a fair use image, it's not a license. It's not something we're "authorized" to upload: We're violating the originator's copyright and "fair use" is our legal defense if they sue us. Many of the other Wikipedias have simply decided, "It's not worth messing with. No fair use at all" and refuse to allow you to upload anything not free-licensed.

Some, even, have uploads disabled entirely. If it's not on commons, you can't use it there. This concept would not move me to tears were it to be applied here, though I think many would fail to understand the concept of original work if it bit them on the arse. C'est la vie. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. In this case, I was referring to admins in general, not you specifically, and also not the entire set of Wikipedians. I do understand the concern about fair use images. However, like you, the last scenario scares me. I hope that we never get so paranoid as to completely remove all non-free images from Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, for the majority of fair-use image for which I have examined the image file (as opposed to passively viewed) on Wikipedia, there is not even a faint whiff of a fair use justification. So, I understand the necessity of Betacommand's project. However, I have been frustrated repeatedly by his implementation. I know that's not your problem, but since you acted as his apologist (not to mention the fact that he routinely ignores me), I foisted it on you. I apologize for that.

However, if you are at all interested, I believe that his bot flagged Image:The_Mummy_Case.jpg inappropriately. Although it cited WP:NFCC#10c as the reason the image why the image was tagged, it's certainly not clear to me why the rationale I provided was objectionable. Granted, using a fair use image to visually identify a work, in this case a book, is not the strongest rationale for fair use. However, unless certain parties have prevailed, I believe that this is still considered an acceptable fair use at Wikipedia. So, the only thing I can think of which might have caused the bot consternation is that the parameters of the template which I had used changed after the fact, leaving one new field blank. This field is used to identify the target article of the fair use rationale. But, I had identified that very article, not once, but twice in my rationale. So, this is one example why I think Betacommand's task is ill-suited to a bot. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong, if you don't agree and feel thusly inclined.

Thanks, --GentlemanGhost 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've no desire to be anyone's "apologist," I more consider myself a Devil's Advocate. Slight difference, mostly in that while I find Beta to be a nice guy, I have no desire to defend him for the sake of friendship, but simply because I feel his position has merit.

Tell ya what, let's turn this around. I'd like you to develop a better alternative to betacommandbot:

1. It has to be just as consistent in its messages and just as informative, each and every time.
2. The new method has to be supported: If you say "we make admins do this" or "I do this", the people thusly targeted need to do the work constantly, continuously, and without complaint.
3. Most importantly, the new method has to be at least as accurate as BetaCommandBot.

The largest problem is the last case. To be blunt, we humans absolutely suck at being accurate. As long as the bot is programmed correctly, it will have a much, much higher accuracy than any human. You can find a few images that were incorrectly flagged by BCB, sure, but what percentage is it? Can you find a human who does that much volume and is more accurate?

If I were BC, I'd probably ignore anyone, also, who simply wanted to gripe about how the image was tagged. It'd be far, far better to give courteous suggestions as to improving the bot functionality. Failing that, mention the image to him or someone familiar with his bot, and ask them what the problem was with the rationale which caused it to flag the image.

Protip: I ain't that person. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the change in {{non-free media rationale}}, it was changed within the last few months, But that was only to bring the template into compliance with policy that has been around since July 2006. what BCBot looks for is very simple, is the article name where the image is used in the image description text, (IE WP:NFCC#10c note the C) β^_command 03:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ears burning, BC? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope just Eyes In The Sky β^_command 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That phrase usually makes NRO personnel paranoid, y'know. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

who says Im not NSA?? β^_command 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Who says I was talking about you? Besides, if you're NSA, you won't mind sending me a email with your DDN number so I can give you a phonecall, right? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

here is my direct line 24/7 UOKUTLLEJQMXAWXBVWPMWPVWAXNCILKZNDWMIWHUJ (its my cell) β^_command 04:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, Kylu. Thanks for the tip, Betacommand. I think everything is satisfactory for the moment. --GentlemanGhost 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

KYLU I HAVE A ARTICLE READY TO BE DELETED. PLEASE SEE IF THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE ON. THANKS. Patrick Nolan (Fox 4 News Anchor) THE SPECIAL GUY: VOVOVARUN 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay... uh, deleted. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A ghost speaks

Still active, I see? :) Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mopper!

I'm kinda semi-active. Mostly I give opinions on things on IRC and email, do the occasional research or OTRS work. BTW, your Template:User Community Justice is missing on your userpage. :)

Glad to see you're around! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-active is better then active! :) I felt guilty about relying on Wikipedia for about 95% of my school projects because I wasn't contributing, so I decided to lurk around a bit and see if I can edit more often. And I noticed about the template... my lack of action is a combination of laziness and also me forgetting HTML code. Blast. Anyway, glad to see someone has a faint idea of who I am! :P Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see something absolutely terrifying: m:User:Kylu. Zomg. o.o;; ~Kylu (u|t) 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy Sysop, Batman... Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep busy. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

August 2006 block of Giano

Hi Kylu. A question has come up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop#Block record of Giano account about a block that it seems you made. See User talk:Giano II/archive 5#Blocked (48 hours). To cut a long story short, the block log seems to have gone missing. It doesn't seem to be in your logs or in Giano's (note that the Giano talk pages were moved to subpage of the Giano II account). Can you shed any light on this? In particular, can you confirm that you personally remember making the block and seeing it recorded in logs? Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was a block on the User:Giano account by me, but it's certainly missing from the logs... I do recall making the block, and it did show up in the logs... in fact, I seem to recall seeing it in the log during the last Giano/Tony Sidaway kerfluffle. It was 31 Aug 2006 at roughly 0130 to 0200 UTC somewhere? I don't recall the block message, sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Giuliano

Hi, this article's been fully protected for over 4 months. Is it now OK to reduce or lift the protection? WjBscribe 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not! All pages on this Wiki need and deserve my love and protection, they're like my little text-based babies, more precious than life itself!

...anyway, it's back to normal now, thanks for the heads-up, WJB. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Relatedness of certain IRC channels to Wikipedia

Yes, I was aware, that's why I cited a CVN channel as example ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

...and work picks up yet again

Apparently, we got some new toys ("Misty" if you're into the biz) to oversee, and are currently playing "let's make our employees work nonstop until they're up and running".

I prefer to think of it as "our budget was overrun, so let's blame the people that didn't have anything to do with it".

Anywho, reply may be infrequent, but I'm certainly still reading this page. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The real question is...

Are your eyelids blinking up and down properly now, and are your pegs healthy? Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but my eyes are perfectly pitched now! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Various MFD's

I've read the notifications and have responded on 68.39.174.238's talkpage, Solumeiras. I'm sure that your not leaving a courtesy note to the IP editor in question was merely an oversight. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I used Twinkle, and it left a note to you. BTW, I was not thinking straight when I nominated it - I was vandal-fighting and doing a fair bit of vandal-reversion yesterday. Apologies to 68.39.174.238 and Kylu for this nomination, it wasn't a bad-faith nomination, I just wasn't thinking straight. Sorry to you for this. --Solumeiras ^talk 10:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NP. Lots of people mistake '238 for an "average" IP anyway. He's our special, favorite IP. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CHU

Thanks! I've put in my request today. Stay tuned... Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Just start out slow. In fact, I'd say read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#soft_on_vandalism.3F, since it concerns someone who perhaps was trying to use rollback as a stepping stone to adminship, and in doing so shot himself in the foot. Just find something here you like doing, and do it well. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

meatball:IdentityOppression

This rocks! Why did I miss it before? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You've read meatball:PersonaTourism right? That's a concept that I think modern psychology really hasn't caught onto quite yet, and society simply fails to recognize that it exists. Terribly intriguing, however. Makes me want to try it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that article is even referenced! Cool beans! --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC freenode

Hi Kylu,

Please check your memos.

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 15:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read 'em. We'll keep your request on file in case we need any more cvn ops. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

From me. Acalamari 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

...well, shit. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Acalamari. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Acalamari 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible repeat vandal

Hi, Kylu. You recently deleted an image uploaded by User:Lisamodel. I believe that this user may be a reincarnation of the vandal User:Belginusanl (see evidence of rampant sockpuppetry here and here, with some discussion here), but right now it's just a suspicion. I know that I've seen the image in question before, but it was a while back. Is there any way for you to check the deleted images uploaded by those accounts (particularly User:Tattoogirl21) to see if I am correct in recalling that it was this vandal? If such a confirmation is made, then it would be evidence that this new account may be a new sockpuppet. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, I looked through the records of this vandal and found what I was looking for. Image:Childwithtattoo.jpg was uploaded by the sockpuppet User:Girlfriend60. Different picture, but obviously the same girl. I'll be keeping an eye on the new Lisamodel account to see if future edits continue to match the vandal's pattern. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, same kid. I'm having this sinking feeling in my gut that says this is not only not the kid in the picture, but perhaps we should watch inter-child interactions closely for a bit... ~Kylu (u|t) 00:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Afd, Luka Magnotta

Admirable decision, and cogently argued. Much respect. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the promotion. This will make my task easier. --NERIC-Security (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it was ten seconds well spent. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

SailorAlphaCentauri (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Kylu/Archive 9 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

--Nadir D Steinmetz 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The cake is moist and delicious! ~Kylu (u|t) 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're still alive for another year! ;-) \o/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Brethren Court

Hi! I noticed that you're redirecting the article; my issue is that I'm not quite satisfied with the List of Minor Characters; if I edited some of the codes (changing headline texts to section breaks), could I copy and paste the article (er- backup of the article) onto the List of Minor Characters article? In short, can I copy and paste one article into another with edited wiki-coding? Thanks for taking the time to read this. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The preferred method would be to make a section "Brethren Court" on the List of Minor Characters page, then give each of the Brethren Court characters their own subsection. Obviously, make sure you follow the same style as the rest of the page, and a glimpse at WP:MOS would be quite helpful. Also, I'd suggest skipping "fair use" images entirely. They won't be.

I hope that answers your question. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does. Thanks! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please create a page with all the Brethren Court code at User:Therequiembellishere/Brethren Court so I can thin out the character sections and move the to the redirected page? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but I'll email it to you. Enable your wp email and validate it and request again. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm not really sure what you mean, sorry. I can give it to you: (redacted by kylu) . Hope this works! Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll send it, but perhaps we should talk about how to set the email thing... ~Kylu (u|t) 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, alright. Have people been harassing others? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, do you want to be the first to have problems, though?

Anywho! Go to special:preferences, fill in your email addy, click save. It'll send you a confirmation email with a link, click that.

Now, while anyone could email you something now (as you've made your email public and all, but hopefully they won't dig very well) anyone can mail you from within Wikipedia once that's set by going to special:emailuser/Therequiembellishere ... and they won't know what your email is. Unless you state it publicly or something silly like that... c.c ~Kylu (u|t) 03:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Okay, thank you very much! Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did that a while back, but I forgot to enable emails. Oops. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't have access to special:userinfo or I'd have been able to figure out the problem earlier, myself. C'est la vie. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To-do: Empire Football League

... when I've got more time and patience.

• 2008020110004207
• remove edits by 67.38.15.241

Well, could be worse... ~Kylu (u|t) 08:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops,  Done by Mecu! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood

Please review the history of edits before applying "discretionary action." ChrisO made a number of unilateral edits based on his views; I reverted, asking for further discussion; he reverted back to his version and then went running to you to impose the restriction. Given that ChrisO insists on gutting the article to a meaningless version, I am inclined to put it up for deletion, anyway. This is a contentious topic, and the only way to avoid the appearance of taking sides is to investigate a matter before taking admin action. --Leifern (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to admit, I'm unable to grasp the concept of being belligierent to a complete stranger who is trying to keep involved parties abiding by arbitration remedies, especially those that may well result in blocks.

The 1RR restriction is for your own good: Without it, the Israel-Palestine related articles will likely have edit-war flareups and with it, numerous long-duration blocks and possibly longer article bans.

So, I feel a few notes are in order:

1. I don't know ChrisO from Adam. Really, to my knowledge he and I have never had a single interaction before now, on-wiki or off-wiki. I am not one of his "buddies on irc" and resent the implication. I am in no way interested in your view of the veracity of this statement, also, so feel free to keep your view to yourself in this regard.
2. The enforcement applies to all editors of the article, including ChrisO. How that's taking his side is beyond me.
3. The entire point of the enforcement is that it's a contentious topic. That's why it gets enforcement in the first place: If you don't grasp how the article is related to the Palestine-Israel arbcom case, please ask a different uninvolved admin for an explanation.
4. If you'd like the action reviewed, take it to one of the admin noticeboards, where I'm sure you'll get more attention on the topic than I'm both willing and able to offer.
5. Happily, I can say I did in fact review the edits before applying the enforcement. Oddly enough, I'm not in the habit of going to random articles and applying random arbcom enforcement rules to pages. Go figure.
6. I noticed that the most questionable edit is Chris's. Don't you think the 1RR restriction, therefore, actually hinders him more than it hinders you?
7. Before ever, ever reverting again, read Help:Reverting. I don't mean for "how to revert", but for reviewing the cases where reversion is appropriate. Notice the "DO NOT" section, and where it says "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." His edit was not vandalism, it was a dispute between you two on article content. Let me rephrase this: "If you revert a non-vandalism edit (as determined by the blocking admin) on this article, you will be blocked for a minimum of 24 hours."

Now, as far as your deletion suggestion goes, if you can point to someplace in our various deletion guidelines where the deletion is anything other than bad-faith, feel free to nominate the article on articles for deletion, but recall that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good-faith nomination reason.

This reply is posted to both my talkpage and yours, along with your original edit. If you think it incivil, please suggest resolution, but otherwise, I'll thank you to kindly go about productive editing instead.

I hope that clears up the matter. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, my comment to you was intended as friendly advice. I have several times seen truly uninvolved admins wade into these articles, thinking that by decisive action will calm things down and stabilize them. And before they know what happened, they find themselves entangled in a mess they probably wished they'd stayed far away from. This is one of the reasons I don't think I've ever asked for admin assistance on any contentious issue, with the possible exception of blatant sockpuppet vandals. Even the arbcom has made this mistake on several occasions that I've witnessed. So I wanted to make you aware that ChrisO's call for help was blatantly self-serving. I'm reassured when you say you caught on to this fact. But I have to say that your condescending tone is both uncalled for, unproductive, and inappropriate given your role in this. --Leifern (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct on the uninvolved admins staying out of these sorts of issues due to getting mired into debates that they have no desire being dragged into, which is why I attempted to explain every facet of the situation and was trying to discourage any response.

I've dealt with undesired situations before and while your desire to assist my naive self is appreciated, it's also unneeded and seemed itself slightly condescending. Now, while I'm absolutely sure that you didn't intend that tone, I'm also sure that I have nothing to do with your dispute on the article, other than to review the edits to the article and place the action.

You used the revert function to revert a non-vandalism edit. That is verboten, forbidden, not allowed. It's an abuse of revert and the reason I placed the limitation, and is completely in the spirit of the restrictions placed by ArbCom as well as the reason that reversion is available to begin with. I'll explain again: Do not revert non-vandalism edits. That's it.

I know that ChrisO had his own interests in mind when he placed the notice, and that's exactly why I put the restriction (1RR/7d) on the article the way I did, as well as notify the both of you regarding the restriction. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I'm blind to the subtleties of Wiki-politics, either yours or his.

I expressly asked you to not reply to me so that I can stay out of the situation. He asked for a restriction to be placed on an article, I notice that the restriction is applicable (it fits the case), and added it.... then you decided to deny my request by ignoring the fact that I asked you to not reply.

If you dislike the tone, please stop talking to me. I'm usually a very kind, civil person (really), but I gritted my teeth and growled while adding the restriction because I knew someone was going to make a big deal over this, I knew someone was going to get uptight over editing restrictions. Congratulations, you're the one who decided to make my job difficult this time, not ChrisO.

If you dislike the enforcement decision, leave a note on WP:ANI asking for it to be lifted. I'm not going to do it, I'm not having anything else to do with the situation at all. I want a different admin, each time, to perform the blocks. I want a different admin to remove the 1RR restriction at the end of 30 days. Hopefully, with the work distributed, no single admin has to deal with more than a small amount of headache with these situations.

I have no further interest in this situation. If you feel my attitude towards getting involved in a situation that even ArbCom feels is a massive headache is inappropriately negative, then feel free to file an Request for Comment on the matter. I simply want to get on with the next task and be left alone. Have a nice day. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So many ways to respond to this self-contradictory rant. Although I have no obligation to respect your request, I will as a gesture of the kind of good will you're obviously unwilling to extend to me. Wishing you a good day and an even better tomorrow. --Leifern (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AE on ANI

You may want to take note of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:ChrisO gaming WP:AE. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Read and replied. Thanks Tariqabjotu. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to take a look at my reply, which I hope clarifies some of the background to this. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I was wondering if you would grant me rollback rights. I have been doing some recent changes editing and have come across a lot of vandalism. This feature would be of some great help. Thanks and Happy Editing, Dusti^talk 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Happy Editing, Dusti^talk 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

np ~Kylu (u|t) 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Decorum

Hi. Listen, you need to place greater efforts at maintaining decorum, even on IRC. Thanks in advance. El_C 03:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, though I maintain that reminders such as this should be performed in the venue in which the incident occurs. Assuming you're referring to the chatter mentioned on the IRC arbitration page & the wp:drama thread, I'll keep it in mind. If you're discussing a different event, I'd appreciate private contact. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your birthday

What day is it? Mine happens to be the 30th of January :) — Werdna talk 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

reply ~Kylu (u|t) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

Aww, thanks! I already saw that bit — that's why I asked! — Werdna talk 04:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ringmaster

I highly recommend a longer block, preferably an indef one. Check his edit history, every single one of his edits has been vandalism (even vandalizing 8 times after receiving his final warning). It seems to be a vandalism only account and 12 hours is basically a slap on the wrist. TJ Spyke 04:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, okay, I was feeling overly generous. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

#countervandalism

Do you still visit that channel? I vaguely remember saying I would get back to you, but now it has almost been a year for some reason. Quite the turn of events, one might think. - Zelaron (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

#countervandalism (and the #cvn- channels) are run by the Countervandalism Network which collaborates with, but is not part of, the Wikimedia Foundation. CVN also manages projects such as the Small Wiki Monitoring Team, which in association with the Wikimedia stewards help combat vandalism on all the small-community wikis such as my current "home" project, Sinhalese Wikipedia.

There is a rather bureaucratic hierarchy of management for CVN, relatively centralized in power versus that on Wikipedia and related projects, and is ultimately managed by a group of senior staff, of which I am one of the four members. Most of my CVN-related time is spent in discussions with the other staff (including senior staff) regarding personnel issues, channel management, project coordination, and other such trivia.

If you don't see me in #countervandalism, feel free to ask a staffer if I'm available, or (if CVN-related business) leave a note on my Meta user talkpage, but preferably not here. (English Wikipedia can be hostile to non-enwiki related business at times, whereas Meta is more accommodating of non-Wikimedia projects that are beneficial to it.)

If you have any other questions, let me know. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (Betacommandbot and MickMacNee talk page)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand's use of bot on MickMacNee's talk page. Not strictly needed, but as I mentioned you there, I thought you would appreciate a note. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm sticking to my assertation that we use RfC, as there are no admin-specific actions that can be taken in this matter and far too many people seem to think the admin noticeboards are part of the dispute resolution system. Blocking, obviously, would be punitive at this point and therefore against blocking policy. I don't envy you trying to calm the situation. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 03:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Aww! :D Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mad wikitables

Thank you so much, Kylu. It's awesome :) Needless to say, I grabbed it and installed it already - Alison ^❤ 05:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottawaman/Neutralizer

Awesome. Thanks [7]. :) Sarah 01:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw your note on the talkpage. Typically, he'd have gotten away with it due to expired contribs, except that the checkuser page had his old IP ranges to work with. Let me know if I can help with anything else. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hell house(cover).png

Thank you for uploading Image:Hell house(cover).png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I'll fix that right away. Thanks, BetacommandBot! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 03:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Toolserver query

All pages on en.wiki that have less than 3 revisions; are less than 10 bytes; haven't been edited after December 31, 2007. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: This reply contains lots of lots of funky thinks, so I'm DIV'ing it.

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM page
WHERE
  page_is_redirect = 0
  AND page_namespace = 0
  AND page_len < 10;

Returns 10 pages.

SELECT CONCAT('[[', page_title, ']] - ', page_len) FROM page AS P
JOIN revision AS R ON page_latest = rev_id
WHERE
  page_is_redirect = 0
  AND page_namespace = 0
  AND page_len < 10
  AND rev_timestamp < '20071212000000'
  AND (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM revision WHERE rev_page = page_id) < 4
ORDER BY page_title;

Returns "empty set" (no results) EXPLAIN on the prior query:

+----+--------------------+----------+--------+------------------------+----------------+---------+-------------------------+--------+----------------------$
| id | select_type        | table    | type   | possible_keys          | key            | key_len | ref                     | rows   | Extra                $
+----+--------------------+----------+--------+------------------------+----------------+---------+-------------------------+--------+----------------------$
|  1 | PRIMARY            | page     | range  | name_title,page_len    | page_len       | 4       | NULL                    | 195702 | Using where; Using fi$
|  1 | PRIMARY            | revision | eq_ref | rev_id,rev_timestamp   | rev_id         | 4       | enwiki.page.page_latest |      1 | Using where          $
|  2 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | revision | ref    | PRIMARY,page_timestamp | page_timestamp | 4       | func                    |      2 | Using where; Using in$
+----+--------------------+----------+--------+------------------------+----------------+---------+-------------------------+--------+----------------------$
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)

Doesn't look like there are any pages that match your specifications. I hope that's of help. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your updated request:

• Remove redirect exemption (- page_is_redirect = 0)
• Add template exclusion (+ tl_from IS NULL)
• All namespaces (adding namespace: to concat, removing namespace restriction page_namespace = 0)

Results in a moment. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

+----+--------------------+---------------+--------+------------------------+----------------+---------+-------------------------+--------+-----------------------------+
| id | select_type        | table         | type   | possible_keys          | key            | key_len | ref                     | rows   | Extra                       |
+----+--------------------+---------------+--------+------------------------+----------------+---------+-------------------------+--------+-----------------------------+
|  1 | PRIMARY            | page          | range  | page_len               | page_len       | 4       | NULL                    | 316624 | Using where; Using filesort | 
|  1 | PRIMARY            | templatelinks | ref    | tl_from                | tl_from        | 4       | enwiki.page.page_id     |      2 | Using where; Using index    | 
|  1 | PRIMARY            | revision      | eq_ref | rev_id,rev_timestamp   | rev_id         | 4       | enwiki.page.page_latest |      1 | Using where                 | 
|  2 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | revision      | ref    | PRIMARY,page_timestamp | page_timestamp | 4       | func                    |      2 | Using where; Using index    | 
+----+--------------------+---------------+--------+------------------------+----------------+---------+-------------------------+--------+-----------------------------+
4 rows in set (0.01 sec)

I was going to just append the results, but it looks like this one's going to keep running for some time. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Kylu, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And for the offwiki support. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you decide to run for anything at all on here, I fully expect you to let me know. I'm in shock you didn't make bureaucrat, especially given that the oppose was mostly based on your assuming good faith with Kelly. You're easily one of the kindest, most helpful, and most savvy Wikipedians around, and frankly I think not giving you the tools you need to help more only serves to damage the project. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Hi Kylu, thanks for the note, I use the nick "Addhoc" on IRC, but haven't registered a cloak. In fact, I'm not even sure that I've registered the nickname. Probably best not to give me any operator privileges just yet. Addhoc (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Say when. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot activity

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that KyluBot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz ^talk 06:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor kylubot lost her flag due to lack of use! Poor bot! ~Kylu (u|t) 18:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayesh Rajyaguru

Actually, the tag should stay The article was created by him, and he blanked the page, and according to G7 he is requesting deletion. I have put the tag back on the page. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Eeeenteresting. That's what the deletion log shows, but not what the history looked like when I checked. I recall the first edit being by Springnuts. Odd. Thanks for the correction!

Sure. Actually, you saw Springnuts as the first contributor because you did not click the "Next 50" link. That would have led you to the guy who blanked it as the first contributor. Well, mistakes happen :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

c.c;; I blame lack of sleep! ~Kylu (u|t) 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)