User talk:Kylu/Archive 10

Archive 10

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.

Deathcamps

I disagree with removal of that source; please see here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea. If a deathcamp source is used as a reference, why not leave a title, author, and various info per WP:CITE, but leave of specific link/website name? As I understand, the issue is not not the contents, but who has the right to publish it, so we should be safe when citing the info minus publisher one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A gift

I thought this gadget may be useful on your talkpage; if you like it you may want to move it to the top of the page, under the archiving bot code. The current layout is a bit confusing - seems I posted my previous messages to the header subpage :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

Took me a minute to figure out... I get it, you clicked the edit in the headerbox. Actually, I'll just remove the header link, but thanks! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 04:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta request for usurp

Hi Kylu. While I have a fair idea of the ins-and-outs of steward requests on Meta, I'm clueless when it comes to local 'crat actions. I'm wondering if you can help. Per m:Steward_requests/Usurpation#Alison.40lotsofwikis, I'm requesting rename of the local account m:User:Alison which has only two edits, for usurp under SUL. I've only a handful of accounts left to sort out :) This one, while it belongs to Alison Wheeler, is not her main account; m:User:AlisonW is. She has already assented to have it moved/usurped here. Thanks, Kylu :) - Alison ^❤ 01:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to on Alison's talkpage, partially done (bug moving old username to reserved username)

Anyone else wanting to request renames for mediawiki.org, test.wikipedia, and meta, please request on my meta page, since at the moment I'm (much!) more active there due to SUL rename requests! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 01:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution analysis

I thought you might be interested in m:Dispute resolution analysis group. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The format of that page looks awfully familiar! :D Sure, you'll sign up for mine too, hey? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where I got the inspiration for the format. ;o) Vassyana (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it looks absolutely inspired! The original designer should just get paid for that sort of thing... (I can wish, still.) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation request at plwiki

Regarding the name usurpation request you've filed at pl:Wikipedia:Przejmowanie nazwy użytkownika/MetaKylu - Kylu. Please, report your request on Meta (m:Steward requests/Usurpation), where it may be processed much faster. PL.Wikipedia usually allows up to 14 days for name usurpation of this sort. stv_^ ✉ 12:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I filed that before discovering the pitfalls involved. It'll be easier to just wait for the forced merge, actually. Thanks though! ~Kylu (u|t) 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renames, usurpation, and other such SUL-related trivia

Just a note to anyone who actually visits my talkpage once in a while:

Currently, there are a total of ~~1,041~~ 1,047 SUL merged accounts across the various Wikimedia projects. On Meta, we have converted all the stewards into bureaucrats to assist with SUL account merge and rename related tasks.

If anyone has the burning desire to become a bureaucrat, it may be a good time to do so, even given the recent rash of failed RfB's here. Once SUL is released from "admin only" mode, I think the user rename page here is going to get absolutely flooded. We've got enough potential conflicts between active editors on different projects that it's ludicrous. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you're going to create unified login, please make sure you do your usurp/rename work before you start. Bureaucrats (I'd say "we" but I'm not one on English Wikipedia) can't rename you to the unified login name once you start the process! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Fascism & Religion

Hi, I was adding information not deleting anything, there was information on Sikh Extremism which you may have deleted by accident, please double check.

Also I wanted to include this as the latest form of fundamentalism wrt the topic in question.

Sikh Extremism - 01:18, 1 April 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk • contribs)

There was no article (deleted or otherwise) at Sikh extremism. You'll need to provide the exact name of the article for me to check, as I don't recall a name similar to that nor do I see any obvious candidates in my deletion logs. Sorry. I may be willing to provide a deleted copy of the article to you, but no guarantees that it'll be restored, obviously. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta RfC

Hi. I will be glad to help. So far my understanding of the situation is that these 2 users are engaged in a conflict, and Uannis was banned in az:wiki for sockpuppetry as result of this CU: [1] Apparently, one of admins (Memty) gave Uannis the access to his account, and Uannis used the admin tools to delete a large number of articles. The CU seems to support this allegation. The result of the discussion at Azerbaijani community portal was to block Uannis indefinitely, and the admin who gave him the access to the tools resigned voluntarily. From what I see Uannis accuses Vusal of being motivated by personal enmity towards him, but the history of these 2 users' interaction in az:wiki needs to be investigated to make any conclusions, however the CU result seems to be a quite strong evidence of disruptive activity by Uannis. Vusal insists that the IP that was leaving the welcome messages were socks of Uannis, and as banned user he had no right to edit pages, so for that reason he replaced the IP's signature. I will ask some questions to these users, and their answers might be useful for understanding of what's going on. Grandmaster (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's a parallel discussion on another page: m:Requests for comments/Azeri wikipedia involving the same users. So the 2 pages probably need to be merged. Someone tried to do it, but somehow later comments did not get included and the 2 pages keep on existing in parallel. It appears that this feud is going on for quite some time. As I understand, one user (Vusal1981) is being accused of creating multiple pages with no content and incivility, and the other (Uannis) of sockpuppetry and using the account of one of the admins to delete pages. Grandmaster (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the newest dispute to that page, thanks for pointing it out. I'm wondering if they'd accept you as a neutral third-party mediator? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. But I wonder what could actually be done in this situation? One of the users is permanently banned, we cannot reverse the ban, only az:wiki community can, so if Uannis wants it reversed, he needs to ask the community to give him another chance, and if the community agrees, he should behave responsibly after that. As for Vusal, all the empty pages created by him need to be deleted, but he should be allowed to recreate any of them, if he adds some content when doing so. I noticed that he made a lot of useful contribs to Azerbaijani cinema articles, and empty pages belong to the same category of articles. A warning to remain civil would also be good. This should be done by admins in az:wiki. But other than that, do you think there's anything that could be done to resolve the problems? It looks like the parties to this dispute believe that the admins in meta can interfere and resolve their problems by taking measures against their opponents, but I don't think the problems could be resolved outside of az:wiki community. People at meta can only give them advises on how to handle the situation. I will comment again and will make the above proposals, let's see the reaction of both sides. Grandmaster (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In extreme cases, meta can do things. Stewards have removed admin rights from abusive admins before, but in this case, I think perhaps az.wp needs to develop its own dispute resolution system. I'm actually working on a Meta mediation group to try to come up with something (voluntary, not arbitration) for wikis who want to resolve disputes amicably. Sadly, while I get a lot of people signing up as interested, nobody seems to be putting any work into it. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, it seems that there's no dispute resolution system at az:wp. I don't know how many editors they have, but it would be good if they created some mediation cabal (not sure if they are ready to create an arbitration committee at this point though). Meta mediation group is a good idea, since some wikis seem to lack the experience of mediation and other dispute resolution procedures, which are well developed in en:wp. But it requires some dedication and time, as it is not so easy to try to understand what happened in a different language wiki. But I will be glad to help whenever I can. Grandmaster (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Mediation planning group - I think the most important thing at this time is to find people who can give other-language support to cases and who are able to be trusted by the involved parties. If you'd like to help me with my project, I think it'd work out well. If we could get some others and get the idea launched, I really do think it'd be a great benefit to all the projects that don't currently hold their own DR processes. Even better, if you know anyone (especially with wide language skills) who's interested and are trusted for their peacemaking skills, feel free to invite them. I assume that most of those involved in the creation of the group will end up being part of it, but at the moment it needs help just being created. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can help out with Azerbaijani and if needed Russian language, or provide any other assistance. Right now, I cannot think of anyone who would be interested, but if anyone comes to my mind, I will let them know about this initiative. As for the dispute in Azerbaijani wikipedia, it seems to calm down, at least nothing has been heard from the parties for a few days. Grandmaster (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:PermissionOTRS-ID

Template:PermissionOTRS-ID has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and commented. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(This had the same section header, removed for easier indexing)

Template:PermissionOTRS-ID has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry for the duplicate notification! (Blame Twinkle!) The difference from last time is that all the old usages have now been bot-replaced with {{PermissionOTRS}}. Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRL Busy

May take a couple days to clean things up, and I won't be very active online. Indiana really fails to prepare for earthquakes.. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, Kylu :( Hope everything is okay with you. {{hugs}} - Alison ^❤ 19:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much... just some pictures knocked off the walls, some broken dishes and glassware, and a large number of cranky coworkers who were shaken at 5:30am. On the upside, I have a good excuse to shop for a new china pattern. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha...I woke up twice during that earthquake. Fell asleep in the middle and woke up a second time. I sure did stay awake once I realized what woke me up, though! (The first time I woke up I thought it was a loud train or aircraft.) Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment by User:Potatoswatter on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of symbols found on electronic equipment

Thanks for your input. I actually began searching for images in the Commons the next day, and I did not find any of the images I was looking for. They are only uploaded to en.wikipedia.org. That is when I decided to abandon the project entirely. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Thanks for the offer, though. I just thought it would be the sort of thing Wikipedians might find useful, but unfortunately it broke the law at the same time. That's okay, though, because I've found a pretty sweet niche in the Twinkle Patrol and the Tree of Life at Wikipedia. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock of BepBot

Hi, since my bot now has been approved and flagged, could you please remove the block from User:BepBot? Thanks. Bep --84.208.95.239 (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~Kylu (u|t) 01:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Re: Mickey Kantor

Yes, lock down is probably best. Though are you a bit surprised that it has no talk page discussion at all? Considering how high this got on Digg and on other blog sites. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iárnvidia

Checkusered, blocked, and cleaned up the sockies :p - Alison ^❤ 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. We'll get more, he'll do moar. Until someone hunts him down and molests him with a cheese grater, we're stuck with him, and... I hear he uses 7 proxies! omg. Thanks tho, Alison. ;) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh - bring it on :) - Alison ^❤ 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He'd probably enjoy it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Image renaming

Hi! I was the first "trusted user" to get approved for this function. Unfortunately, I got sidetracked. Now I want to work on these images but I have never seen any clear instructions for how trusted users go about approving the rename. If a user tags an image with the {{rename media}} template and I check out the image and agree, what do I do?

Also, with BC's bot being banned, what bot is running these tasks now?

Thanks! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, with BC's bot-wrangling abilities firmly under the influence of kryptonite, there won't be any renaming at all. Honestly, you'll have to ask BC for the answer to your questions. I simply don't know. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: My immaturity

sorryies. Regret Tenenbaum (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dis interwebs is serious bizness! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'you think maybe you could lend someone a hand...

Please see m:User_talk:Lar#Usurpations_in_languages_I_don.27t_speak if you have time/interest. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, looks like you only need German, French, and Russian done. No problem. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I honestly thought you'd consider it amusing - or, at best, say "not funny". I did not actually mean to hurt your feelings. DS (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kelly

After 8x edit conflict trying to reply to this user, I've given up. I'd assumed it was a technical issue, due either to automated work (botting) or a server-side technical glitch not allowing Kelly to see the new messages bar. Assuming good faith, I therefore also assume it's some obscure MediaWiki bug or caching problem, though hopefully they don't assign the bug to me to fix.

Hopefully this doesn't result in massive Wikipedia-disrupting drama and the contributors involved can go back to editing normally. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please put an entry in my block log to say that the block was mistaken? Kelly ^hi! 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already placed a "technical problems" unblock there. That is not correct? Also, I tend to block vandalism-only accounts posting penis pictures without warning. You may be thinking of a different user, perhaps. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so your block of me was an error? Kelly ^hi! 04:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's yet to be determined. I assume, still, that there was a technical problem that kept you from seeing the new message banner somehow. If this is correct, then the unblock message (Which certainly sheds no bad light on you) is still correct. If, however, either you continued to perform the edits aware that it was bothering the other user, then the unblock message is incorrect. If the editing was automated, then the unblock message was incorrect. While the block might be characterized as unjustified (and you'll want to develop consensus for this, instead of simply my opinion on the matter) then that could be added, but I'd argue that stating that the message was in error actually is detrimental to your position. Personally, I'd rather have an unblock message that essentially stated, "The block was to resolve a technical problem that affected the user", myself. We used to have users who would accidentally delete large chunks of the page, simply because the browser they used couldn't hold a text entry box over a certain size: the block they received noted that it was a technical issue, and therefore did not reflect badly upon that user at all: It more reflected badly on the design of the browser. This all depends, of course, on what actually happened on your end. Were you editing the pages manually, and did you see the new messages notice and click to view said new messages? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm really curious about is what provision of WP:BLOCK you were using to block me. Yes, I saw your message. That is why I stopped any sort of tagging that left messages on Ryulong's talk page (though that was irrelevant due to his protection , anyway) and started doing non-controversial housekeeping stuff. (Of course, I don't think there was anything wrong with original activity, which is what I'm soliciting opinions about at WP:ANI. Is it normal practice for admins to block editors if they don't immediately reply to talk page messages? Kelly ^hi! 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you saw the message and kept editing files he was already working on, then I'd suggest it'd be the consensus formed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Abu_badali#Wikistalking_Is_Never_Acceptable (later an arbcom case, but the RFC presents precedent), which states that following the contributions of one specific editor is unacceptable. Don't, however, think that I'm insinuating that you were stalking Ryulong: you were merely focused on the upload log of a specific contributor. That's a bad idea, don't do it. (If you do insist on stating that I'm insinuating that you're stalking someone, by the way, I'll ignore you. Seriously.) That in combination of Wikipedia:BP#Disruption, specifically harassing a user by editing solely his contributions even after he's requested you refrain, is disruptive, and the above RFC contains a consensus that can be applied.

Premature blockings

Hi Kylu. I've just spent the last few minutes reading through various talk page and ANI discussions about the incident with Kelly, Ryulong and your block and subsequent unblock of Kelly. One of the things I read on this talk page that you said was "I'd already decided that the block was rather early". I see from your archiving edit summary on this talk page that you consider the matter closed, but do you think you could possibly make a commitment (on this talk page, for example) to not block so early in future? ie. Give people a bit more time to respond and to consider whether it is worth blocking over the specific issue in question? My thinking is that if you did make a commitment like that, then that might help put some of this behind us (as a community) and we could move on. Would you consider that? Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've seen you, Carcharoth. I certainly intend to avoid both early blocking and these sorts of disputes in the future, even if only for sanity's sake. I do hope the other involved parties are contacted and come to similar sentiment. Thank you for your attempts at defusing the situation. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kylu. Maybe you could contact them and say what commitments you would like to see from them? Or would you like someone else to make that contact? Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already informed Ryulong that I feel his talkpage protection was improper, and he agreed with my opinion at the time. I'd rather prefer to let you or someone else suggest this to Kelly, however. My own suggestion on the matter was dismissed without comment, as far as I can tell. I'd go so far as to prefer to avoid the user and suggest the user avoid me, in order to minimize conflict. If this seems unreasonable to you, please feel free to offer alternative suggestions, though I feel the need to state that I have no intention of contacting or interacting with said user in the future if I can help it. What I'd really like to see from the user, however, would be a commitment to refrain from posting notices on user talkpages if the user requests them to stop doing so, either by discontinuing use of the tool that mandates it, or alternatively simply not editing images uploaded by that user. There are always other users that can do those edits, if need be. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point this out and ask Kelly to post at User talk:Kelly if they want to. Hopefully that will help resolve any lingering bad feeling. Though on second thoughts, I think some of the misunderstandings are being repeated, as Kelly says that the talk page notices did stop. I think your point is rather that the editing of image from the upload log continued, and Ryulong felt that rather than he and Kelly working as a team, that Kelly was getting in the way. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Updated 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of the situation sounds reasonable to me. I'm afraid I had similar feelings while actually attempting to clarify things to Kelly yesterday: I had a rather nice paragraph written explaining the situation, how to best avoid such issues in the future (though I didn't include technical details such as disabling one's scripts from writing to the talkpage of the other user) and an apology that I felt it was needed. After nine edit conflicts in a row (!) trying to save the note, I gave up in frustration and decided to invest time in some friendly online casual gaming instead, as it's just best to cool down in those situations. When I returned, the user had already taken a rather needlessly aggressive stance on the situation and I was no longer inclined to offer assistance. I'm simply content to avoid the user at this time. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like the peaceful overtures below have overtaken this thread anyway (for which I am very glad). It would be nice if everyone involved, plus those who read the ANI thread, and those in IRC, were aware of the olive branch thread. It is nice when things do end with apologies all round like this (well, when I say "all" in all round, I think you know what I mean - all is sometimes an unattainable ideal). In general though, much as I like ANI for focusing attention on a problem, it seems real progress is often made later by e-mail, private messaging, or on user talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI subpage (see very last comment on the page, this revision). Someone else may comment later, hence permalink. :)

Anyway, thanks again for all the work you do to try to keep heads level and tempers calm. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm curerntly trying to link to User talk:Kylu#Olive branch, but the way your talk page is set up, it seems difficult to do that (can't link to sections in old versions either). The only other time I encountered something like that was User talk:FayssalF, where the collapsed boxes makes it impossible to link to discussion sections in real time or in old versions. Deliberately done, I suspect, but still rather annoying. Is your page set up something similar or am I missing something obvious? Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. It works now. Strange. Carcharoth (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing too terribly esoteric on my talkpage, and I promise I didn't change anything between your edits. :) ... on diffs, though, as long as the #tag comes after the revision id, it should work fine. If you figure it out, let me know in case anyone else has the same problem, k? ~Kylu (u|t) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block information

Kylu, just to make things a little more out in the open, can you make it clear what is the role of IRC in these events that led to the block, your reprimand there to Ryulong, etc. The less avoidance of giving an actual answer there is in your response, the better. Thank you. --Irpen 01:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've always had a bit of a militant dislike of IRC, our previous history regarding the issue, and the nature of the ending of your request, I'll give you a straightforward answer: No, but someone else with no bias towards the issue can ask, however. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, since I was in IRC right after the incident, maybe I can phrase it nicer; Kylu, what role, if any, did Ryulong's comments/requests on IRC related to Kelly's tagging his talk page play in your subsequent decision to block of Kelly? MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, MBisanz:

Note: I won't quote anyone other than myself, as I don't have the permission from that individual to do so. If they give permission, I can add exact quotes, but it won't add anything meaningful.

22:49:58, Ryulong asks for help (to the general channel, not to anyone in particular) to persuade Kelly to leave his uploads alone until he had the opportunity to do the work himself.
22:53:06, Krimpet asks which Kelly.
22:53:12, Ryulong specifies. (At this time, I go peek.)
22:53:29, <kylu> I didn't think that was kelly martin
22:56:47, <kylu> left a message
21:56:51, <kylu> tell me if she ignores it. (Note: Ryulong never did.)

(See Kelly's block log for the events in this timeframe)

23:06:37, <kylu> hey ryulong? unprotect your talk please. (I tell him in private that this was "completely unacceptable".)
23:06:49, Ryulong asks me to do this for him.
23:09:10, MZMcBride states that I've blocked Kelly.
23:11:41 * kylu shrugs to MZMcBride. "Her new message bar was broked."
23:14:48, <kylu> (note for the IRC watchers: while ryulong brought it to general attention, I haven't chatted with anyone regarding blocking Kelly, so keep that in your logs when you go tossing them to arbcom...)

Related, but much later:

00:17:47, you (MBisanz) on IRC asked me why I didn't simply disable twinkle in Kelly's monobook, where we had the disagreement of which did the least harm. I'd prefer to not modify code that ran on someone else's computer (javascript or not), without that user's permission. We agreed to disagree, I think.

The entirety of my decision to issue a block was based on the premise, at the time, that either there was a client-side or server-side error causing Kelly the inability to know that there was the start of a warning thread. Obviously, I could've left a warning for each of the images, but if she didn't see them, then they'd be nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse anyway.

Basically, other than bringing the problem to the attention of the channel in general, and asking me to unprotect his talkpage, Ryulong made no requests for anyone to block Kelly at all. IRC is not the problem in these situations, it's those of us who make ill-considered actions. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a kosher use of IRC to me, and exactly what I would expect from a trusted administrator. , thanks for clearing up the part from before I logged in. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch

Hi, Kylu - hope you don't mind me posting here after all the unseemliness recently. I've had some time to do some thinking, and I'm really sorry that I came here before with such a confrontational attitude. I had never been blocked before, so the block got me upset - but in retrospect, and with the advice of other users, what I really should have done is gone off and had a nice cup of tea until the issue was resolved. I felt about one inch tall when I read above that you were already planning to apologize before I arrived waving a flaming sword demanding an apology.

I want you to know I'm completely over the hissy fit I had, and I'm really sorry about the whole thing. I hope we can work together in the future - please let me know if there's anything I can help you with in the areas of images or copyright, which I hope to be able to return to sometime soon.

Best wishes to you - Kelly ^hi! 03:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was...ah, frustrated (ahem) while trying to reply to you there and basically said "sod it all" and left after that insane edit-conflict spree. Perhaps with less polite vocabulary. :)

Anywho, I understand, and was hoping to make the block log entry as pain-free as possible, though any entry is worse than no entry at all, of course. I saw your continued editing and failed to see that you actually had been changing what, specifically, the edits were, and assumed from there, which is the cause of these troubles. I do sincerely apologize for the action and the misunderstandings that caused it.

Please, if you would, note that neither Ryulong nor the "Evil IRC Cabal" had anything to do with my decision, and I'd like it very much if you and Ryulong could work together in the future also. Later, someone asked me, "So, you and Ryulong felt that Kelly was interfering with Ryulong's work, rather than Ryulong and Kelly were cooperating on the images?" and it occurred to me that I'd been assuming bad faith all that time without realizing that I was doing so. In fact, I'd been persuading myself that I was assuming good faith beyond average when in fact I'd been doing the opposite. Ugh!

I appreciate the gesture, and I think it's a great quality that you're actually able to try to make amends with those you've had conflicts with: I'm ashamed to admit that lately, I'd rather simply avoid users I've had conflicts with rather than try to bury the hatchet.

Thanks for both the apology and giving me the chance to do likewise. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to bury the hatchet with you. :) I am happy you have accepted my apology, and I am happy to accept yours. Do people still use IRC? I hadn't thought about IRC in ages - I used to use it years ago (back around when Al Gore invented the Internet), but I thought it was an obsolete technology now. Guess not! Anyway, your advice is welcome - I don't see any need to interact with Ryulong in the future, since his uploads have already all been reviewed, and several people have now sent me e-mail now that it is not safe for ordinary users to interact with him anyway - I didn't realize what I was getting myself into. It looks like this was all just a misunderstanding, though there are definitely things I have learned about improving my own interactions here. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there and, in my opinion, a useful collaboration tool. The really big catch is to make sure you don't conspire against others there (which I think is Irpen's big issue with it, see above) and that you always remember that you're the one responsible for your own edits and will be the one to take the flack for them. The "Giano Incident" of my own history is a direct result of my naiveté regarding this. For the antivandalism people, there's a nice IRC based feed of "suspicious" recent changes, which often include vandalism, that can be reverted by those who join the correct channel: Most of the reason I bother staying there is to help manage those channels. See meta:Meta:CVN for more info. I still hope that someday, you'll feel more welcome to interact with Ryulong. Other than the odd interests, he can be a nice enough guy. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've had conversations with Giano and Irpen also. I understand. Kelly ^hi! 04:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For coming up with the brilliant name for a new Toolserver server, I award you this. Soxred 93 04:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty, thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

I was checking wikipedia for the first time in a year, and I am enthused to see that you are still holding on strong! I don't plan on sticking around, but I send my best wishes your way! --Keitei (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aiee! It's a ghost! ... just kidding, glad to see you're around. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOAH! <waves too> --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peak uranium

Thanks for letting me know. I was not aware the categories caused problems in a sandbox draft.Kgrr (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop access at commonswiki

Removed. Hope to see you back in action. Cheers! Wpedzich (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long time :)

User furry...? -- Heh, that was one of your first messages to me. Glad to see you are still around :) --A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda sorta, winding down my participation in the various projects a bit. I think I'll hang around on meta a bit more, since I can do nice, useful, non-confrontational and non-critical tasks. ;) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*nods* I know the feeling, though I am going the opposite direction, I am becoming more active again. --A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers for Kylu!

Tiptoety ^talk has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBisanz ^talk has smiled at you because you are a great person. I've really enjoyed working with you over these last couple months and all the neat stuff you've taught me. Consider taking a quickie break and coming back charged and ready to go! Cheers.

Because I can

		The Original Barnstar
		Given to Kylu with the reason of: because I can, per IRC MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, watch that "per IRC" stuff, or the anti-IRC cabal will come after you! Thanks for the thought, though. Kylu (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagetec

I noticed that you removed "IMAGETEC" from wikipedia and I am really struggling to understand why. We simply wanted an article like any other notable company. Nevertheless our article is gone and if you are going to remove us can you also look at/ remove Impact Networking. It is a rival company to us and their article is the exact same format and their same company information. We are just trying to get our information out there, but even after changing the article to be simply facts it still is getting deleted.

Please give me something so I know you at least got this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iubobby (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 July 2008

Have you seen your talk page? It tells you that the notability of the organization is in question. I made a note to the last editor who worked on those pages as to why writing information on your own company is a bad idea and also noted that they were written in a style that suggested advertising instead of an encyclopedia. While in the Brittanica, you may discover entities such as IBM or the East India Company, that's because they're history-making endeavors and not Jilly's Lemonade Stand (which you'll notice does not exist). Companies falling between these two extremes must prove that they're notable: See WP:CORP (Corporate notability guidelines). There was also concern that the article was not sufficiently neutral in point of view, but having already been deleted by that time, the claim had no rational need for inspection.

Also, in the future, you may wish to both sign your notes to people using four tildes (~~~~) and add a section header. I nearly ignored your note as part of the boilerplate text on my talkpage before I realized I didn't have any boilerplate text on my talkpage. Make sure you read the corporate notability guidelines I linked to above, hey? I hope that's of some help to you. Kylu (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC

Thanks for the response. The company is notable due to the fact that they have been recognized by Toshiba and various newspapers from the chicago area. I dont know what else to do really in order to get the page restored. Take a look at the article titled Impact Networking, becuase if we are not considered notable (we have been around longer and have a higher anual revenue than Impact) then please delete their page as well and we can both move on. Thanks again for being so helpful. Iubobby (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a new section if you can just reply in the same one. Use colons (:) to indent your reply one level. Check the source of this section to see what I mean. Anywho, perhaps you should consider creating the page in your userspace (User:Iubobby/Imagetec perhaps) and trying to establish notability (and sources!) there before asking to have it moved to article space. Make sure you approach the issues raised in WP:CORP in the article and not to users; Simply telling me that Ben Franklin was a notable guy is useless, his notability would have to be established in that article for it to stay, see?

As far as deleting the pages of others goes, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Basically, saying "This has an article but doesn't meet these guidelines either!" isn't a driving force to get volunteers (like, say, me) to be forced to do anything, either by allowing your article or deleting the other. You may well be right and they're some fly-by-night nobodies, but someone else will have to look it over. :) If you'd like to mark that company's page as non-notable (and you're sure that it's correct), then go ahead and do so, as long as it's in good faith that they don't belong in an encyclopedia and that they meet none of the notability guidelines. (See WP:DELETE for how.) Every action on-wiki of yours should be guided by the principle of making Wikipedia beter, not to better place your company in the market or harm a competitor. I hope that information is of some use to you. Kylu (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the page under my user page or whatever that is. I just need to know now what to add so it can become a article again. We have won awards from toshiba and others that is one source. Most of our business is with small to medium size companies throughout Chicago so I do not know how to site that. Also the image of our logo will not show up and I dont know how else to word it that we own the rights to our image and would like it on the page.12.107.120.242 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first don't let the title "administrator" fool you, I'm more a Wiki-Janitor. Users mark pages as "Please delete this" and I go around and delete those pages (amongst other duties). I don't actually get to decide what is and isn't acceptable, I only (at times) get to decide if the opinion of the person requesting deletion matches what the community has already decided it does or doesn't want. If you'd like to recreate a page, you'll want to visit Wikipedia:Deletion_review#IMAGETEC (created by the below user) and try to persuade the community that the entry is worthy of inclusion into the encyclopedia. That's the easy part.

Now, the logo image is the hard part: While we've got a number of logos included by being "grandfathered" under old rules, the fair use criteria has tightened up rather a bit, and ... and you won't like this ... to be uploadable, it's either got to be a defensible claim of fair use or it's got to be free media:

For a defensible claim of fair use, it has to match the non-free content criteria (see the link right above this) which would enable Wikipedia to keep using the logo, even if the page were changed and locked in a way that your company hated and would beat up our poor legal counsel with lawsuits: We can't host an image as promotional, with permission granted to Wikipedia only, because our content is mirrored by other sites due to our liberal content license.
For free content... and, frankly, I would not expect any sane company to license their logo this way... it needs to be a free graphic:
- Wikipedia's goal: Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.
1. Unlimited distribution: People (including other companies) can distribute the media (logo, in this case) freely.
2. Unlimited modification: People (including other companies) can create derivative works freely, which themselves are free content.
3. Unlimited application: People (including other companies) can use the either original or derived works in any way, commercial or noncommercial, freely.

... Frankly, if I were a company, I'd laugh if someone asked if they could get a free content license for my company logo. Fair use is as close as it gets, and ... honestly, is there a really valid reason why the entry has to include the company logo? It's an encyclopedia article. It can just be all text regarding the company history, if that's what the writers decide to do.

When writing the article, if you're going to do it anyway and the DR process (see first paragraph, this entry) agrees with you, I simply ask that it be made to look as far from an advertising job as possible. Include facts. I have a button on my toolbar that says "Electrocute user" and am not afraid to use it if I see words like "paradigm" or "synergy." :) I'd suggest looking at AT&T and IBM and modeling your article after those. If there have been significant negative events in the history of your company, don't be afraid to speak plainly about them.

I'm not part of the anti-company-articles militia or anything, I just want to remove anything that looks (or walks or quacks) like an advertisement of any sort. If your article stays, congrats. :) Good luck to ya! Kylu (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for IMAGETEC

An editor has asked for a deletion review of IMAGETEC. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 12.107.120.242 (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link leads to deletion review, but to no discussion. Turns out you wrote the DR request on the talkpage, so I moved it to the correct "side" of the page for you. This rather does make me wonder how many DR requests have gone ignored simply due to improper request placement. If, in the future, you would like to make another such request, it would be preferable to either create an account and perform the function while logged in, or request a logged-in user request your review for you. Users not logged in are unable to create new non-talk pages on Wikipedia. Kylu (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moar Imagetec

Hey I dont know what happened to the page where our conversation was but I see what you are saying about the Logo and we can just go without it, but I still dont know where to start about getting the article back. I just need that link again or whatever to get people to agree or disagree Iubobby (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry... I thought we were done. The previous conversation is at User_talk:Kylu/bot-archive#Imagetec, but if there are additional things to discuss, please don't edit that page: Instead, please add the conversation in this section. Archive editing is a don't-do. Kylu (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUL Thanks

Thanks for the SUL change and the notification here. Frank | talk 11:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no prob. :) Kylu (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for helping with the switch between the two titles for Commutation theorem. It was unclear how to make this switch which had been requested on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That wasn't a template, by the way: That's just how I type. Kylu (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks again for solving/explaining this conundrum. :) Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range check

Hi Kylu. Quick rangecheck shows it to be absolutely clean - no socks whatsover - indeed, the only edits are from 166.190.32.161 - Alison ^❤ 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it! Thanks! :D Kylu (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bcl.wikipedia

I can't edit this and block this. --Filipinayzd (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Filipinayzd.40bcl_Wikipedia 207.145.133.34 (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been granted adminship until 13 Oct 2008. Kylu (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 16th 2011

That was a tough call, I really did not know what to tag it as. I've been doing some digging, and I think it is based on this rather surreal forum thread. Anyways.... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion patrol is an interesting gig: You run across some of the most ... er, interesting ... articles ever, here. Kylu (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help on meta

I appreciate the quick and friendly service. I’d leave you a tip; but 20% of nothing is nothing. Thanks, though.
— Ford (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...wait, we don't get paid? DAMMIT! Kylu (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

Thanks for protecting my talk page. Is it at all possible to delete those edits? I find the edit summaries rather disturbing to see in my watchlist. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same happen to me. Hold on and I'll delete them - Alison ^❤ 03:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and

Done :) - Alison ^❤ 03:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was on IRC dealing with the same twit there. Allie, the irc guy is 69.94.211.130. (4x edit conflict!) Kylu (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Crossposted to User talk:Green Squares, complaint references Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law

I posted Hangon and you Speedy deleted anyway, a clear violation of the rules. Please post the Appeal link on my talk page, so we can have the article placed back and you can post an +afd and you can try to build a consensus. Remember, book burning was done by Nazi's, it is against the principles of Wikipedia to delete a valid article without first building a consensus. 01:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Squares (talk • contribs)

Reverted your removal just now. Check out the actual text of {{hangon}} by the way:

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this page's talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime. Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template.

See the "this request is not binding" bit? Yep.

You haven't yet mentioned why you think the book is notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion (does it meet the book notability requirements? Not from what I've seen...) nor why you don't possess a conflict of interest in posting information on a book you claim to have written. As it was written at the time of deletion, it was a pure ad for the book written in Author POV.

If you disagree with the opinions of myself and the tagging user, please feel free to request community input at deletion review. I'll copy this to your talkpage as well.

Oh, and, really, don't compare people to Nazis simply because you can't have your ad on the encyclopedia. Bad form. Kylu (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither the author of affiliated with the publishing company. You are in clear violation of the rules. Green Squares (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which rules? Please explain why you're writing a page for an encyclopedia with phrasing such as this:

We have tried to avoid the complex abstractions with which the Income Tax Act is replete. Our language is as simple, concrete and non-technical as our capability and the nature of the subject permitted. Obviously, a lot of detail is unavoidable, but the minutiae of the subject are avoided or, where they are necessary for accuracy, are relegated to footnotes. Difficult numerical examples are avoided, although simple numerical examples are used from time to time to explain a concept. The book is designed to be easy to read.

It seems you're either one of the authors or copying from a site or page, written by them, describing the book. Please explain. Kylu (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...you're probably not going to apologize for the Nazi thing either, huh. Kylu (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_21#Principles_of_Canadian_Income_Tax_Law_.28closed.29 closed as deletion endorsed, for future reflection purposes. Kylu (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osmosis

Nope, think I got it. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing my request for Adminship

It's o.k. you have opposed my request for adminship in Sinhala Wikipedia. It's your judgement; it's your decision. But, some statements you have made are totally false. For example you have mentioned "I've tried to discuss Student.IRQUE.UOC's uploads with him but I don't think he sees the notes on his talkpage."- This is totally false; you never tried contact me over this issue. As a matter of fact I open my account every day and read my talk page. Please clarify this and please note that your comment may have affected the decision of others tooSrimalpunchi (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you very drastically misunderstood that whole section. The person with the oppose vote is Lee. I merely left you a question that was directed at you. By "him" I meant the UOC account. If you check the UOC talkpage, you'll see the numerous notes I've left him (as in UOC) regarding these uploads. I wasn't talking about you at all, and I still expect you to look over the situation and leave an answer explaining how, as an administrator, you would deal with that situation. :) I'll cross-post this to the relevant si.wp pages also. Kylu (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely sorry about this "drastic misunderstanding". May be I will have to sharpen my English; May be its inferior upbringing. I sincerely wish that Lee would have "understood" your comment without any pitfalls. Regarding posting a comment on Lee's user page, sorry about my ignorance. It was there for about three hours and I transferred it to his talk page yesterday itself. However, it seems to have exposed my inferiority. So, I have decided to quit this request for Adminship. I will continue to be a normal user and help Sinhala Wikipedia grow in whatever manner. By the way, if you have felt that 5 Administrators are enough for Sinhala Wikipedia, as you have promptly indicated to Lee at the very inception, you would have boldly said so instead of commenting in "difficult to understand" English.Srimalpunchi (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMAGETEC

I only have two days left of my summer internship and one of my big projects was to get the company on Wikipedia. With constantly getting deleted I obviously failed in this project. I have been waiting and looking but still this page is down. I took out all the one-sided verbage and made it simply facts. It is modeled just like Impact Networking, a competitor of ours, and I figured if that gets to stay why not this version of Imagetec. After I made the changes It was up for a few days but after I tried to upload our logo it got removed. I am just wondering if there is anything you can do personally to fix this. Create the page for me or something. I am just frustrated and out of ideas and would like to see this done before I go back to college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.120.242 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 July 2008

I've tried to explain, previously, that simply not everything is going to end up on Wikipedia. I'd be a bit more understanding of the situation except that it seems the original version of the article was copied directly from CareerBuilder, it's been recreated multiple times without attempting to make it more neutral, and your current article sadly still reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.

I'd like to make clear that I have absolutely nothing against your company, and that I have not (and do not intend) to look at the article of the competitor. Frankly, the existence of other articles has zero to do with the existence of this one.

If the company ends up in the news for some reason or otherwise becomes notable under the corporate notability guidelines (WP:CORP, which I've linked to before) then I'd even be willing to help make the article with you, but I'd insist we continue to adhere to the policies and guidelines that Wikipedia requires.

I am a volunteer, similar to you editing here except I've happened to have been around longer and made a few more edits. My first "article" was an article on a company that, frankly, I didn't like. I wanted to see if I could write something neutral on a topic I held a strong opinion regarding, and it worked well.

I don't stay here to delete articles and ruin peoples summers: I stay here because I want Wikipedia to be better. I like some of the article writers and enjoy reading what they've written. I'm not so great at article-writing myself, though I regularly defend the articles of others by removing vandalism.

If you want to make an actual impact here, hang around and learn how things work. Get a handle on what kinds of articles are regularly deleted and what articles stay and get improved...

...if you just want premium ad placement in an encyclopedia... well, go elsewhere. Sorry. Kylu (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bok bok chickon

wikipedia is so ridiculous. i cant even create one page without five thousand restrictions and deletions. im closing my account because whats the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenbopeep (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 August 2008

Quite. I'm sorry to be the cause of Wikipedia's demise because I felt that "Bok bok chickon" shouldn't be an article. Me and two admins who deleted this multiple times:

“

Bok bok chickon (bawk-bawk-chick-on) is a slang term, originating from Southern Ontario, Canada, meaning "to bask in the sun." Its creators are said to have no idea how they formed the saying but do recall screaming it loudly while in highschool classes.

”

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Kylu (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to remember that one :p --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cheers...

...for the protect. I was just gunna let them have at it (musta pissed someone off, eh?) but the orange bars were getting a little distracting =) –xeno (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]