Kylu

Bug #550

What is Bug #550?--Chili14 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the fix for Bug 550 allows admins to block IPs from edting without affecting logged-in users. Previously, if, for instance, you blocked all of AOL, then nobody from AOL could edit, even if they had an account. See Bug 550 for all the details, if you'd like. 207.145.133.34 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Kylu, thanks for signing up for the Esperanza User Page Contest. The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.

Please drop by the contest page for contest updates and questions. Take care, and good luck! May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Halo nominated me, actually, but thank you! I find it flattering someone thinks my page is pretty enough to win a contest! (Even if I did blatantly steal most of the design from poor Mopper...) ~Kylu (u|t) 07:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Oversight

Hi. Actually, my own request is the first one that I'm seen go through. It should provide interesting insight on the procedure, which should help enrich the Oversight page. For instance, Requests for permissions, the page from Meta, has a seemingly contradictory wording in the header of the section regarding oversight permissions for this Wikipedia: it gives the impression that a user should ask there, and that the greenlight from the ArbCom would be procured only once the request there has been logged. I guess that can happen too, but it is better if one posts there having already secured the "ok" from the ArbCom. Because of the wording situation, I decided to start my request there a few hours after having posted on the ArbCom talk page, thinking that I'd probably get an answer here before a Steward could get around to addressing my request. As it turns out, the Stewards were faster than the ArbCom, so now my request there is in standby, while I'm waiting for an answer from the ArbCom. Redux 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. As you requested, I'm keeping you up to speed. This post on Meta from Voice of All is of the utmost relevance. Still, I'm waiting to see what the ArbCom will say about my rationale. It seems to be the case, however, that oversight rights cannot be requested, they are only given as an "extension" of another tool (CheckUser) or a position (ArbCom member). Redux 21:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think at the moment I'm standing by my assertation that +oversight is presentable to those who are "designees of ArbCom" also (in addition to VoA's information), as there are non-ArbCom members who have +oversight. At the moment, this seems to be the most accurate presentation of the facts, I think. I'll update the page soon. ~ Kylu 207.145.133.34 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Those non-arbcom users are former arbcom users. It was never an extension of checkUser. I talked to about this on IRC to arbcom members. The MediaWiki Foundation created Oversight without warning and told the arbcom to choose who gets it. Giving it to people with CU was a quick way to give it to trusted people without having to go through some sort of lengthly confirmation process. Several arbcom member thought that it could use expansion, but there were not many easy ways to do so. They later agreed to give it to several active Arbcom members (as not all of them had CU) and several former arbcom memebers. Hope that clearifies things.Voice-of-All 23:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the info! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Although it doesn't bear any relevance to your work, I thought I'd give you the final update: the ArbCom has approved my request, and Mark has already posted on Meta requesting the status for my account. Redux 03:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, actually, I've known about that for a while now, but thank you for telling me! It's still good for clarifying approval policy. The scary thing is, I'd rather get this absolutely right, as I notice on wikis it tends to be that when you write a description of a wiki-process, people start pointing to it as policy. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you probably already knew. Just wanted to make sure. About the page, in fact it will be reflecting policy, since Oversight is guided by policy (such as: the ArbCom decides who gets it, and the instances in which the tool is to be used). Interestingly enough, several pages people refer to quite often, although not policy, really started thanks to an initiative from a single user, or maybe a handful of users. WP:BEANS and WP:SPIDER are examples. Originally, BEANS wasn't even in the project space, but it got moved there eventually because people liked the concept so much.
I'll work on the Oversight page with you, and hopefully others will join us. If we can get it to a great level, we can eventually ask that it be linked in the Listusers special page. But we'll cross that bridge when/if we come to it. Redux 04:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, I now have a new username at User:Seivad. Previously I was known as [[User::Abcdefghijklm]]. _{This message has been left for everyone who has left a message on my talk page} . Thanks for your time, Seivad 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Hi. I will be gone from tomorrow until the twenty-ninth of July. Please bear that in mind when sending me messages. Also, your username appears on my userpage. I would like you to replace it with your signature. No timestamp is neccesary. Thank you and have a nice day.Chile14 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So...

Since you're my friend a highly respected admin and all... I was wondering if I could use you to my advantage ask you nicely for something.

Can you undelete these pages that I db-author'd? Pretty please?

• User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake/Organization C
• User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake/soapaward
• User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake/cheeseaward

Thanks. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

My dear Kylu

My dear Kylu, now that I'm back from my Wikibreak and the flurry of most deserved congrats has slowed down on your Talk page, it is the perfect moment for me to drop by and congratulate you myself. Your extremely kind words to me are very special and they mean a lot, because I so value the person who spoke them. I was confident you'd make it; good and valuable people have been turned down at RfA for a number of reasons, but sometimes, just sometimes, there is justice in this world and the right thing happens. We all love you, Kylu, because we see the great goodness in you, and your incredible will to help and work hard. Please, remember that if your faith ever fades away again. With a great, BIG hug, your friend now and always, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 10:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Now DSL's out...

I don't want to edit much from here (being careful to ensure I'm logged out after I'm done here!) so I may be missing until the phone lines at home get fixed. Yay. :P

• Cake: files undeleted. :)
• Chili: sig added, thank you. :)
• Phaedriel and Misza: *hugs*

~Kylu (u|t) 13:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: When undeleting pages, don't undelete the version with the speedy deletion tag on it. ~Kylu (u|t) 15:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to Cake: it's fine if you refer to me as a friend, I don't mind. ~Kylu (u|t) 15:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So, now DSL's back up again, but slow. I think it's retraining the line. c.c ~Kylu (u|t) 19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, please take a look at this change -- has your name on it. --Yurik 06:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just bloody lovely. If you'd like to indefblock for impersonation and vandalism, I'd be quite grateful. I'd be willing to bet $5 that's coming from IP 216.164.203.90. Any takers? 207.145.133.34 15:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re WP:OVER

Hi Kylu. This edit from my user talk page is from you, right? I posted on the talk page explaining the changes. This one specifically is because the "user4" template provides a link to the user-specific Special:Emailuser page. As far as Oversight is concerned, the links to the Admin logs of the users didn't appear to be relevant for the page, whereas providing the visitor with links to the users' talk pages (which the "admin" template does) and to email (which the "admin" template does not provide, and which was key to my thinking that "user4" was better suited for the page) is essential, since people visiting the page may well be looking to request Oversight intervention, and they'll want to contact a user with the permission — noting that email seems to be preferred by those requesting that the tool be used, most probably because it is private, ie, it is not registered in Wikipedia, since the situations where Oversight may be necessary are those where people are concerned about private, sensitive information about themselves having been exposed on Wikipedia when it was not their desire to share that information.
Thank you for adding my name to the list. Actually, I hadn't forgotten about me: when I was editing the page, I had not yet been given the Oversight bit, since we had a little difficulty finding a Steward online to carry out the request (it took a little more than two days for it to happen). Coincidentally enough, it happened soon after I had edited WP:OVER. If you hadn't done it already, I'd probably be there right now adding my name. So thank you again for taking care of that. Cheers, Redux 01:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Aha, didn't think about that with user4, good point! Anyway, I was mostly teasing with you forgetting your own line: I sure wouldn't forget if I were waiting as long as you had. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems

Please see WP:DATE on your date renumbering [...] Please use this time to review the appropriate policies (WP:DATE and WP:MOS) if you'd like to make the most efficient use of your time. When you've returned, please feel free to continue editing, but be aware that you must continue to listen to the opinions of others while here: Wikipedia is not run by one person alone but the whole community. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you yourself did not read those documents, otherwise you would be aware that they say what I am saying.

See you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.44.85.64 (talk • contribs) .

I've read them, and to be honest, the arguing about it all and continuing to perform the changes while in discussion about whether it's proper or not while evading a block is the part that got me. Once you're blocked, that's fine, continue to discuss the changes. If you change usernames or IPs though and continue to edit so the block doesn't inconvenience you, that's unacceptable.

Please, continue to discuss the changes with the appropriate people, but until the block finishes, please also don't keep editing pages. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They blocked me indefinitely (at the first offence, if this does matter). How could I discuss?--Brunetti 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can still post on your talkpage when blocked, plus you can email the admin in question (go to their userpage, click "E-mail this user" on the toolbox) to continue the discussion. The part that I think I've failed at getting across is that...and this is important...if multiple people are asking you to stop editing, there's probably a very good reason why. The best thing to do is to stop doing what you're doing, point out the appropriate policy page (which you did, very good) and then wait for them to respond, then you discuss the changes before continuing. While Being Bold gets you a lot of mileage on here, there's also a time to stop and listen. That's the part you were failing at, and why you were being blocked. If you can work as a community, then we welcome you to do so. If you can't, then perhaps you'd be better to write elsewhere? ~Kylu (u|t) 20:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"If multiple people are asking you to stop editing, there's probably a very good reason why." Probably. The fact is that nobody, even you here and now, cares about the content, but everyone, you included, care about the form.

And, maybe, trying to change things for better is harder that receding, but in the end means something that going away does not.--Brunetti 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The content changes, the content will always change, hopefully for the better as it evolves by being edited by people. That wiki, the process itself, is the driving force behind the continual improving of the content here, not a single editor (even Jimbo himself!). If you want to improve the content, do it in a wiki manner. There's an established cycle here: Be Bold, revert, discuss. The problem is you didn't discuss, you simply continued to edit in the manner you wanted and ignored the pleas of others to stop editing and try to discuss. Wikipedia isn't going to fall out of use in one day because date formats were incorrect. We don't have to worry about making the publication deadline for Wikipedia. Again, When someone asks you to stop, Stop Editing. It's really that simple. Then you can talk things over, determine who's wrong or right or whatever you'd like to do, but first you have to stop and discuss. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand you miss some pieces. My point is here, end of the page. Best regards.--Brunetti 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read this and sympathize, but I still have to insist that without collaboration, without discussion when a dispute arises, we can't get anything accomplished here at all. I wish you luck in whatever you do in the future, but if you somehow take part in Wikipedia again, please keep in mind that there are always avenues for discussion. You could even, possibly, contact me. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk

Go ahead and remove them. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

'kay, thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin!

Congratulations on achieving admin status!

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

silliness spotted...

(01:20, 25 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:JD UK (removing gobs and gobs of NPA's)) I think it's actually removing gobs of PA's under our NPA policy. Snicker. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

y'know, I thought of that, and then realized that if I said PA's nobody would know what I was talking about. NPA in that case wasn't quite correct, but was more understandable I think! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I am quite silly at times. Did I tell you my sister got bit by a llama once? ~Kylu (u|t) 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

you, silly? I Did Not Know That!^TM You'll have to tell me how your sister actually managed to get bit by a llama some time (I've been spit on by a llama, and bitten by a lamer but...), or was that actually your evil twin sister who looks just like you? ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It was my evil twin sister, the one that steals my accounts to perform all those mean blocks and tacks people with warning templates and does rollbacks. I'm the one that makes constructive edits and protects things and is all around nice. Oh, yeah, I've got more information on that bridge I was going to tell you... very nice, painted orange. Next time we're both in San Fran I'll show it to you... ~Kylu (u|t) 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am no longer in the market for bridges, a nice man sold me this one (pictured). Orange is so last century anyway, and besides the Mac is a bigger bridge (as well as being painted in my fraternity colors!!! how cool is that?). But if you're angling around for a free trip to SF... um, let's talk. Just not here. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

o.o;; ~Kylu (u|t) 19:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(→silliness spotted... - bridges? now to go hide under one!)... ZOMG are you calling yourself a Troll? ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

At least I have complete regeneration, unless wounded by fire or acid! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(See, the gag is that while lar was talking about trolls, I was talking about trolls instead! Nyuk nyuk! Just don't think I'm trolling okay...?) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not funny if you have to explain it. --Ideogram 01:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon ami! That's the funny part, the explanation! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

MedCab

Hi, Kylu. No apology was needed. You did nothing wrong: you just got caught in the middle of a mess. Best, Sandy 19:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mm, thanks, but considering I'm supposed to be helping run the place, you'd think I'd understand what was going on there. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

That took forever. o.o; ~Kylu (u|t) 07:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Worth doing? I wonder if they realise they don't get to select the sample set, some people they didn't invite might take it and some they did might not... ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

They do ask for your username, so they may well vet the answers for criteria matching first. I'd rather assume the guys at PARC were bright enough to know if they needed a double-blind set or not. Actually, during the survey, I was getting the feeling that instead of asking about specific instances of conflict that they were more interested in how Wikipedia mediators gauged conflict in a once-over, likely comparing our results against eachother to determine how we varied in our graduation and detection abilities.

Actually, they've made me think a bit... if you could mark conflicts in a history (perhaps give admins a "this revision qualifies as ...." as opposed to simply marking it deleted or oversighted or not) it'd definately help review of a mediation or arbcom case. Interesting concept. I'm quite curious how it turns out and what results and metrics develop from this. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, that case. Hopefully it will develop as you want it to, but that's the approach I try to use most of the time. I'll try to be available to discuss it with you tonight. Oh, and the PARC folks didn't want my opinion - because I'm not on the cabalist list. CQJ 21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Medcab

Conservatism

Kylu... sex, politics and religion, how did you pick ours? Anyway, thanks for doing so. When might I expect a reply from you on yesterday's questions?--Scribner 20:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm not ignoring this, it's just that while I'm at work I've got limited time to do anything. I'll take a closer look and see what can be done.

As far as "how did I pick yours" it's mostly just good luck :P 207.145.133.34 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Request

Would you be so kind to use your fancy new admin powers and put these poor orphaned images out of their misery. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] [7] Thanks!--Joe Jklin (T C) 09:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: User talk:89.32.1.82 wants a talkpage archive. 207.145.133.34 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism

Hi. I'll try to help with Conservatism case as possible. I hope we won't run into a conflict - and if there's something controversial, please post on my talk page, so we don't confuse other participants.

P.S. I'm a little overloaded at the moment and the case is complicated, so expect me to jump in tomorrow or day later. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, I'm going to wish you luck... there's plenty there that's already conflict and controversy. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I meant the controversy between us - in the ways of mediation. I'm going to somewhat press the matter to get it solved. Currently I'm almost done with disputes, but I'll take a small break to cool the head. Anyway, I'll try to resolve it shortly. Also, from the beginning of August I'll be free to help with anything, and will surely get everything sorted out. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 02:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get the "controversy in the ways of mediation" bit. I assume you mean styles of mediation, though quite frankly I don't really care who "gets credit" or the process that it's done by, as long as they get along at the end of it all and have contributed positively to the project. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just about styles. BTW, could you help a bit with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict? What happened is that I asked to stop removing links in question for time of mediation, and currently one of the participants accuses me of advocating keeping these links. I hope sharing your opinion or suggesting a different temporary solution could somewhat convince him. His talk page is User talk:Denis Diderot, and the links are listed on the case page. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 08:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out to him that he violated 3RR actually, and have encouraged him to join in the mediation and not continue to violate 3RR, (see [8]) Violations: 08:20, 26 July 2006, 08:27, 26 July 2006, 08:43, 26 July 2006, 23:12, 26 July 2006, 08:07, 27 July 2006, and non-violation reverts (but still a but much) at: 16:16, 27 July 2006, 00:45, 28 July 2006, and 01:21, 28 July 2006. As it's mediation and I've already posted a warning (as 3RR concerns an offense which he hadn't been warned about, and with no warning he might get blocked by a different admin!) I'd like to recuse myself from the case as mediator, but be available to offer opinion on the matter to either side if it comes up, as well as offer un-mediator-related suggestions, as well as not act in the role of Coordinator as regards this Mediation Cabal case except in the technical roles related to such. Sadly, if he continues to violate 3RR, I may be forced to block him, and I'd rather not as he's clearly trying to follow policy and help Wikipedia. I can't ignore it if he continues the trend though. Don'cha love all the legaleese disclaimery stuff? Makes you want to RfA too, huh? :D ~Kylu (u|t) 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, and I think you were right not to block him immediately, so he can reconsider his means. I hope it's enough for him to see that he also doesn't have a perfect understanding of policies, and to consider compromises. I'm not asking you to directly help in mediating the case, just keeping an eye on it for violations would be enough. After all, if I were a sysop, I anyway wouldn't try to combine this role with mediator's at the same time... it's sometimes surprising how often people prefer to assume bad faith in every action, though I hope it will eventually change. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I figure, if at some point I take it for granted that I've got all these funky buttons, it's time for me to go do something else instead of continue to annoy people on Wikipedia. Anyway, I'd really rather just keep it all within policy and using non-profane language. If I can do that, I'm happy. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 00:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, about the case itself... I've read all the materials and discussions, and for a few days tried to think out some approach which could possibly work. Nothing. Normal mediation works well when all parties have some respect for others, or, at the very least, for the policies, and it this doesn't seem to be exactly the case. Michael has an inflexible opinion: "Criticism sections should be removed on sight, along with "trivia" sections and other token nonsense." His attitude towards the mediators, let alone opponents, is also, at least, irrespectful. I guess we need a more ugly, but stronger way. The easiest thing that could work is just making a poll about whether criticism sections belong to the articles and bringing enough editors so he can see his attitude is (not wrong, as it's a hard belief) not supported. Without asking for editors to agree to be bound by decision, just to make a RfC (directly and briefly about criticism sections, just mentioning the specific article) and then point to it. What are your thoughts on this?

P.S. Rick Norwood case is against him personally, not about the article. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(deindenting so this conversation stays on my monitor...) I'm unavailable for long periods of time, so asked CakeProphet to take over the case, that and the fact that I'm making no headway. If you'd like to pop on RfC and ask, go ahead, though I've noticed that RfC tends to get ignored as of late. I can see it going into "Politics" "MoS" or any number of categories. Worst case scenario, we "appeal to the gods" for a direct ruling: Post a request about it on Jimbo's talkpage, which is heavier traffic than many other pages, and see what help/interference we get. If you RfC, I can try to beg others to go take a look and try to develop consensus from it on irc also. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Phaedriel's RFA

Is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phaedriel 2. Just a note to self to keep on top of this... I think we may find ourselves a WP:300 WP:RFA finally, and nobody deserves it more. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 06:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And now I'm going back to bed, hoping I don't have to call in sick tomorrow. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit here

was really really sweet :) - Glen 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not kidding at all. I bet I can find 10 admins that would happily give up their own +sysop to give her one. I'm one of them. (Kylu) 207.145.133.34 14:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm in that category too, I am thinking that probably won't be necessary, Kylu... so don't go pulling a Sean on us, hmm??? ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, poor Sean... anyway, no, I don't think it's needed either, I'm just saying that if it did come down to it, I'd give up my own to ensure her seat. Heck, I'd support her RfB with no reservations if we did it immediately after. I've had enough contact with her the last few months (some on-wikipedia, mostly on irc) that if she came to my door, I'd have no problem lending her my car and credit card to pick us up some pizza. Probably a good thing for WP that I'm a lot more careful with the property of others (such as my wikipedia login?) than my own property. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 18:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please help me...

With working out why my user page doesn't function correctly in IE? For some reason, it doesn't seem to operate in the correct manner when you click "show", leaving some ugly effects. I notice you don't have that problem, so I was wondering if you could look at my user page code and see what's stuffing up? Cheers, Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a looksie when I get home, okay? :) 207.145.133.34 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oho, okay, I see now. Basically, I just make my sections longer by adding stuff until the effect goes away. c.c; ~Kylu (u|t) 02:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't understand any of that. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I blatantly stole my design from User:Master of Puppets, I just know that the div'd sections don't work unless they're longer. Hope that helps? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

But did you read the "warning" -- it was meant to be humour? I wasn't really concerned with getting the right "target". Jkelly

Ohyeah, I read it! We actually need to consider making it a template. :D I really could use a "Please use common sense. Leaving your common sense at the door something-something-something." 207.145.133.34 21:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Meeting

The next meeting is at 0430. Please bring all necessary material. PVN NTRAG 01:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Case documents already on site, enwp-specific code is in transit. 7L3M. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New users

Hi. How do you tell when there are new users on Wikipedia? I would love to be involved in some sort of welcoming committee around here. Thank you and please reply on my talk page.--Chile14 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I generally find my new user template recipients when looking thru the history of a page etc, then checking the talk page just to have a look that everything's going smoothly. If they haven't recieved a welcome message yet, give them one :P. Or, I guess, you could use the Special:Log/Newusers page. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, we'd be glad to have you as a member! I use a custom welcome template at User:Kylu/welcome and just subst: it onto the page of the user I'm welcoming. Watch for both new users who've put things on their talkpage and those who are actively contributing. If you do the subst: thing, always try to take a moment to look at what they're contributing to and what they have on their userpage, and see if you can incorporate that into a custom greeting. One line is enough, but if you're actually interested in what they're doing, they'll more likely remember you if they run into any questions, and then your welcome is that much more sincere and useful to them. :) 206.246.160.221 05:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Oh, that was me, sorry. Was not signed in. Mou. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

just because!

I think this page doesn't have enough flowers. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you lar! very pretty. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I love

Your welcome's on the talk page. Very pink. Troubleshooter 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I need to welcome more people actually. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh no problem :) Troubleshooter 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

CPR Search

Check out CPR page history. Someone keeps adding CPRsearch...is there something an admin can do? I don't know what to do; we all keep removing it, it's getting silly. JamieJones ^talk 03:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, when you remove the link, you should really leave a note on the person's page telling them that the link is undesirable (and why), then if they ignore your requests (and eventually, warnings) then you bring in an admin (usually by posting at WP:AN/I or similar) to have the person blocked in order to minimize the damage, or otherwise semiprotect or protect the page (if the vandalism is coming from multiple sources) Hope that helps. :) (Oh, and I'm taking a peek at it, yes) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I did, on one of them; but it's an anon ip address. More help would be appreciated as I obviously don't know the process. JamieJones ^talk 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I popped a few {{subst:spam}}~~~~'s on the talkpages for a few, and it doesn't look like they've posted again since. The catch is, they may have no idea that they're not allowed to do this until someone warns them. The IP's seem to change, but are held for long term. Special:Contribs for 66.180.98.211 shows related "spam" edits from 19 July to 1 August, up until I put the spam warning template on its talkpage (which was left unwarned for almost a half month?). If it continues, just escalate as you'd normally do for IP vandalism. Now, if they continue past the warnings, then we can do more.

As far as process goes, typically what you do is warn the username or IP, stepping through the test templates (See Template:TestTemplates) in order, then when you hit test4 and have explained what, exactly, the problem is and why it violates policy (see WP:EL for external link policy), then you post on WP:AIV and an admin comes and gives the person a good spanking. :) You may want to take the time to look over the Admin Noticeboard also, as it has many subsections (especially WP:AN/I) which would be handy to remember if there's ever something that needs admin attention. You can also post to me, here, obviously, but if I'm gone (which is often) you may be better off posting there: Someone's always watching AIV and the noticeboard, and typically they've been admins for much, much longer and know the most efficient way of handling a given problem. I try to learn from these guys. :) Oh, I've rolled a few uncaught instances of vandalism back, by the way. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

is/isn't

"(When linking to categories, please prefix with a colon. Essjay's talkpage isn't a fair use image. :))" True. But it's prettier than some of them! As is yours. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: thanks for your astute answer to the question raised on my talk... before I could even get to it! You're so darn efficient! (and nice...) Hugs. ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mew. o.o; Uh, you're welcome! ~Kylu (u|t) 00:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations you have won the Userpage Award!

Congratulations Kylu! It is our honor to inform you that you've won Esperanza's Best User Page Award! Here's a token for your efforts. Banes Tdxiang May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) Fir0002 tariqabjotu (joturner) Computerjoe's talk Thε Halo Θ Andeh

And here is the actual award to put on your userpage, or wherever you want. :) All the best -- Banes 13:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! nicely done! ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work! Congrats. --Bhadani 14:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I support your RfA, rate your userpage the highest, what more could you want? :P.--Andeh 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, can I have a pony? :D ~Kylu (u|t) 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here you go... Was there anything else? ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you guys are good... o.o;; ~Kylu (u|t) 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all! I still am a bit surprised that people like the design at all, much less think it's award-worthy! Thank you very much. n.n <3 ~Kylu (u|t) 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)