User talk:Kylu/Archive 7

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.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Your service to Wikipedia is most deserving of this barnstar. Good job! Sharkface217 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: This conversation is getting too hot to handle! Back off!

Hi - awesome answers. Your nom statement made me worry that you hadn't thought it through (:like my offer of marriage...:) or perhaps half-hearted. Turns out you're the best of the lot! Good luck - you have my vote. Rama's arrow 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do know you're going to be voting for each candidate separately, right? I hadn't registered an account when it happened last time, but I was watching the elections, and it appears that Jimbo wants us to use the same voting procedures this time. Anywho, no, I figure you really should look for a nice girl on your own hemisphere perhaps. It'd certainly make performing your marital duties easier. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do know about the voting, but I certainly wish you'd get the job. And I'm sure we'd figure a way out if you'd give it a shot... but it looks like its 0-1 on my scorecard, with 999 more to go. I know I'm a rookie, but a first ball - first strike always hurts. Rama's arrow 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have any intention of marrying anyone. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living in sin is fine with me. --Ideogram 09:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just fooling around - I apologize if this was inappropriate. I have the utmost respect for Kylu and wouldn't dream of making improper/indecent comments or behavior against any living/non-living being. At the same time, I can't prevent half the men in the world from feeling desolate after reading Kylu's response... Rama's arrow 13:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once insulted a rather mean rock... I probably shouldn't have. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 19:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (General answer) Rama's Arrow: calm down, man. :) I'm not insulted or anything, somewhat flattered, slightly embarrassed, but it'll pass. Ideogram: I'm really not surprised. :D CakeProphet: Did you ever find the rock and apologize? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that user? She seems to have just appeared out of no where and has commented that she knows you. Does she? (I only ask this because she gave me a message on behalf of you, see my talk page if you don't know what I'm talking about.) Cbrown1023 02:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know her very well, Cbrown1023, and trust her implicitly. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Cbrown1023 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I ask is because I've learned not to trust the internet. A person could state they are are 9-year-old girl but really be a 43-year-old man. Cbrown1023 03:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where Men are Real Men, Women are Real Men, and Little Girls are FBI Agents, right? (author unknown) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. yeah. You like quotes, don't you? Cbrown1023 03:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That specific one always yanks a giggle from me. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was either withdraw, or serve two masters. :-) I stumbled across a biography of someone in my field (not a BLP -- he passed away 10 years back) I never would have expected to have been written the way it was, and realized I couldn't be a WP:BOLD editor and a distant, balanced Arbitrator. Some people can do that -- I can't. I'd end up being too close to the metal. :-) Maybe once some of those things are all cleared up -- like ArbCom elections 2052? -- QTJ 07:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, at least you decided this before taking the job, I'm hoping that those who win the ArbCom seats have given this as much (if not more) forethought. Good luck! ~Kylu (u|t) 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As my step-father used to say, "There's no such thing as good luck, only good judgment." Um, and now it appears I need some of that. ;-) can I ask for a "random act of kindness"? The situation is this: I know a lot of people. Some, alas, have biographies here. (As seen on my Q&A during my short lived ArbCom bid thingy.) As it stands, am now feeling very awkward, and in the spirit of keepin' it real ... I want to pre-emptively diffuse the situation. In short: I was asked if I knew if a User was an IRL who is also my friend and who has a biography here. My response to that is here. (In short: "I donno the IRL of that other user and I don't care to speculate. That's not what I'm here at Wikipedia for.") But now this. As the user who asked me this question is currently the subject of an open ArbCom case (oh man, this place is so complex -- are we there yet, are we there yet? -- oy) -- I do not want things to escalate in any way. Is this a case where an AMA member might be able to provide a neutral buffer between me and this situation, due to the clear conflict of interest I might be seen as having (but in fact don't -- but whatchagonnado?) Thanks for any insight that might help me keep this at arm's length without totally going silent so that I appear to be (egad, appearances!) evasive. Cheers. -- QTJ 20:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's okay with you, I'm experiencing a significant amount of QRM at the moment and will have to retry later. At first glance, it appears though that there's a play being made for WP:AUTO. I would assume that, as long as the changes to the articles in question by the subject of the articles follow WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV (the last being the most important in this case) then there's not a whole lot to dispute except for details. Will ping you later. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the meantime, I'll be chill and try to keep my sense of humor about life. Cheers. -- QTJ 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked at it again, and ... er, how do you get into these messes again? Anywho, advice: Contact your favorite AMA rep, preferably someone who already has ArbCom experience. Since this is dipping into ArbCom's territory, and I'm still an active candidate, I'm hesitant to give you direct advice. I'm going to suggest that you just contact an arbitrator who is a friend, or at least someone you trust, tell them everything that pertains to the situation, and the two of you together work on a draft response. You tell what you think the advocate needs to know, the advocate culls the wheat from the chaff, and hopefully you're left with something approaching an appropriate, honest, and concise response to the questions. If you end up in a situation where you're feeling undue pressure by a troll, pov-pusher, or other unpleasant character, don't feel you're forced to answer immediately, if at all. Chat with your advocate, get some outside opinions, and reply when calm. I wish you luck. 73. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um .. how? By being open? ;-) Thanks for the tips. Good luck with the race! :-) -- QTJ 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¡Olé! -- QTJ 20:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a confirmed sock puppet used to violate 3RR, shouldn't User:NewfoundlandLad be indef blocked? Or, at the very least, not be given a block message that encourages him to return in 24 hours? Kafziel ^Talk 14:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually something Daniel Bryant asked me earlier. I looked over WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy, WP:3RR, and WP:BP#Guide_to_blocking_times, and only on the WP:BP page do I find that "sockpuppets used for violating policy should be blocked permanently." The question is, is the sole purpose of the account to violate 3RR? They're currently under the 24-hour block, and if people think that the sock is for abuse only, then as it currently stands the block can easily be changed to indef. I took that into account, I have no doubts that the user knows that what he did was incorrect, and therefore left the block message open so it could be clarified later. As is my usual statement, my administrative actions are quite open to discussion and reversal/modification by any other admin, and I'm open to being swayed by others also.

Short form: It can be changed by anyone else, or if you'd like, just tell me what you think I should do. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always understood SOP to be that the socks are indef blocked. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Dealing with violations supports that. And the {{sockpuppetproven}} tag (which should be applied to NewfoundlandLad's userpage) doesn't really leave any wiggle room as far as blocking goes. The 24 hour block for Cjk91 (for violating 3RR) seems appropriate, but we don't need to let the sock keep operating. He'll always be able to create new sockpuppets, but we can still indef block the confirmed disruptive one he's already used. Kafziel ^Talk 18:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your help! Kafziel ^Talk 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

de nada. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, saw this on my watchlist – thought Kylu got blocked for 3RR. :P — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on that one, Nick. Haven't found anything worth getting blocked for yet. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection of LostNav was utterly unwarranted.--Blue Tie 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I'm afraid I disagree: I count five revert/counter-reverts on that template (Template:LostNav btw for those following at home) in a span of four hours. While there is no 3RR involved, there is apparently unresolved dispute which you need to work out on the talkpage. Once this is done, please feel free to contact any admin and ask them to unprotect the page. As you feel the protection is unwarranted, I'll avoid modifying its protection status in the near future, Please note that frequent changes to templates cause all transcluded pages to have to update, which means that edit wars (even small ones, on templates) can bog down the Wikimedia servers. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... first of all the reverts were on different matters, not the same matter. Second, the "dispute" if there is one (that is yet to be seen) is in discussion on the talk page -- prior to your protection. It's a bit heavy handed to protect when the people are working on things and the reverts are not for the same things. --Blue Tie 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Just a note to myself on the situation: [1],[2]) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! :-D I'm sure there's a story behind the vandalism, something about the particular image the vandal was using, but hopefully we'll never know what it is. Cheers, FreplySpang 23:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's just really excited that they're publishing his life story? ~Kylu (u|t) 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I was actually wondering why the vandalism stopped; just noticed the block. Thanks; I was assuming I'd have to wait for the next bit of nonsense and go to WP:AIV. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no prob. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be helpful in the IT/CS topics around here, but only if it doesn't require the kinds of heavy reworks I've ended up doing, and isn't purely e-paper-pushing. Any suggestions? Places I could go for suggestions? Maybe something really, really non-political, like replacing double spaces with single spaces? ;-) -- QTJ 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science yet? ~Kylu (u|t) 01:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well! There we go! Am now! :-) Thanks. -- QTJ 01:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I lifted your protection on Nancy Pelosi. It's not clear to me how BLP is being applied. Is there a concerted effort by anonymous users to add libelous content to the article? --HappyCamper 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a request by a non-admin who was doing rcpatrol: Apparently during the elections, people kept putting in such things as her being Speaker of the House when she was not yet so (e.g. Blnguyen's revert). While I doubt Ms. Pelosi would bring legal action (it's not exactly libelous information, even if incorrect) it was still annoying enough that I added semiprotection. As always, I'm 0ww/0own and any admin that wishes to may feel free to lift article protection, etc... Okay, well, unprotecting WP:RFO might get you into trouble, but not by me. Anywho, have a great night! ~Kylu (u|t) 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylu: I agree with your having asked John Reid the same questions he asked everyone else - but I think you might have overlooked that Carcharoth already asked him the same three questions and they were answered several hours ago. For that reason, you might want to delete them as duplicative. I would have done it myself, but I hate to tamper with a candidate page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, you're absolutely right! I asked John Reid if he was going to post the same questions to his own candidate questions (User talk:John Reid#ArbCom elections: Your questions and candidacy) and he said... well, you can read his response. I honestly just made a mistake and didn't realize that Carcharoth beat me to it. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that was exactly what happened, and didn't want it to become a big deal. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La viola Mak (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voila, une viola! Merci beaucoup mon ami! J'aurai ceci bientot... ~Kylu (u|t)

Crap! Stupid finger-dyslexia! Mak (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

n'est ce pas une problemme. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (Reference: Leçons de tenebres (Couperin)) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, thanks, I just saw it here :) Mak (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for services as Coordinator of the (possibly nonexistant) Mediation Cabal. Awarded by Addhoc

Hey, thanks! :) I wonder how many people are going to take a few seconds before they get the "possibly nonexistant" part. *snicker* ~Kylu (u|t) 20:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that it might not achieve the effect that is intended. Well, I think most importantly is that all the topics will follow in a line, although I haven't tried it. Just a surmiss.100110100 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just something to keep people talking and civil. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be closed. Sorry for not doing it myself. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to on David.Mestel's talk page. 207.145.133.34 00:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Item 2; The parties were not informed because I closed the case due to the copyright Geo. 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied to on Geo.plrd's talk page. 207.145.133.34 00:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. So are you saying that I should change the case status on the page listing all the cases, but not on the page that actually discusses the particular case? HeBhagawan 11:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o.O;; Replying on user's talkpage. 207.145.133.34 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an indef.blocked user still caring about Wikipedia. I am not using sockpuppets to evade my block, because I prefer the straightforward way.

User:Williamwells, a friendly newbie, previously replied to my initial posting on his talk page here, telling me to "please respond when you have a chance". Despite that, user:Jakew has been reverting me several times from Williamwells' user talk with what I feel is the (in this case) lame excuse of "banned editors may not edit". Lame, because I believe Jakew has a keen personal interest in preventing communication between me and Williamwells, because Jakew falls into the WP:DE category to some extent. My question to you: Is it ok to just revert edits (admittedly made by a banned editor) from another user's talk page, especially when the other user has clearly stated interest in discussing with me? I'd esp. like to warn Williamwells not to feed the "creative troll".

Likewise, the admin that blocked me (for insufficient reasons in an out-of-process personal vendetta) has reverted another non-trolling posting I made here, with a similar illicit intention of keeping people uninformed and separated. Coincidentally, those two users are good wikifriends.

And please mind this, and maybe also this. Whether a non-blocked user wants to talk to me on his user talk page, is irrelevant... fair enough, but nobody has been reverting the many minor typo edits I have been contributing since I was blocked...

Funny things are happening. And while you are aspiring for an ArbCom seat, I figured you might want to take notice of some of those things and maybe even comment. If not, just delete or leave this, I really don't want to bother innocent people who are not discreetly working against Wikipedia from within. Mind you: I am not trying to get unbanned. I am basically doing what I have always done as a Wikignome: minor copy editing here and there. And I'd still be happy with that if it weren't for my relatively new insight into some of the darker aspects of Wikipedia. 84.44.172.126 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Jakew even went so far as to blatantly lie to Williamwells. 87.78.146.7 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as admins aren't ever required to perform blocks, nobody's required to revert edits (banned user or not). More to the point, unless they're obviously harassing me, I don't particularly feel inclined to revert or ignore users who post on my talkpage, banned or not. 578's posted here more than once, and seems nice enough once you get past the whole vandalism thing. They may well have a good point. Anyway, while points are the subject, let me get to mine: If you'd like to provide an email address, I can leave a note for Williamwells to contact you if you'd like. Obviously, I'm not going to pass notes along to everyone, but if it's just your desire to leave someone a method of getting in contact with you, no big deal. Anywho, there's not much point in trying dispute resolution if you're indefbanned from Wikipedia, as you tend to be seen as pariahs. Oh, a note to visitors: Please don't revert edits from this talkpage unless they're vandalizing it or harassing me. I'd appreciate it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. The email issue has been solved, as another editor posted quite the same thing I wanted to let Williamwells know to his talk page. -- FYI, I have been talking to user:Joshuaz here, because he also reverted my comments from that talk page. Turns out, he is quite a nice guy. Maybe you can find the time to go over my discussion with him, concerning my block as imposed by Jayjg. I would love admin position on this, as I think (I also told JoshuaZ this) my being blocked was not a non-negotiable admin action, but instead depended on Jayjg's judgement over some childish actions I committed. But he ignored the majority of non-controversial contribs I made as Subversive_element. -- As an update on Jakew, concerning what you said about blocked editors are not required to be reverted, see this edit summary, and concerning his false accusations against me concerning alleged removal of his comments from user_talk:Williamswells this ANI entry he made. 87.78.186.200 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a deep and inherent misunderstanding of what Wikipedia Admins are by many people (not saying Jakew or anyone personally, as I'm not completely versed in the situation), but I think in this particular instance the issue is more a matter of variance in meaning:

1. Admins are, like you and William and JakeW, volunteers here at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation. As far as I'm aware, the only people who are required to do anything are the members of the Board of Directors (they annually have to give a statement and appoint people to do Foundation taxes, amongst other things), Officers, and User:Dannyisme (who is User:Danny in his role as a salaried Foundation employee). Everyone else, from one-time-posting IP contributor, through registered users like you and me, to the Stewards who flex their powers from the mysterious land of Meta, are all volunteers. I have, as trusts, the ability to delete pages, block users, protect pages, and change the interface as is needed for the benefit and at the direction of the community. I have the trust to read Foundation emails and access the underpinnings of part of our complex network and write tools to help the community be more efficient. With each position of trust comes responsibilities, but so far all my responsibilities involve not doing things. (Don't block people who haven't done anything, don't go deleting random pages, don't give out the contents of Foundation emails, and don't delete Wikipedia in its entirety from the servers.) With the exception that with no or little use, such trusts can be revoked, I have no actual obligations to continue any of these activities: If I'd like, I can pack up and walk off the project and nobody would have cause to complain. (I can, in fact, think of a couple people that might celebrate. Have a little "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" party perhaps?) I am libre, free, to do nothing if I'd like.
2. On the other hand, certain functions (say, if the community wanted to delete Fleshlight) require the assistance of an Admin to perform, simply because they have the capability to do so where others don't. Part of the choice in selecting new admins is the question, "If we give you these tools, will you use them? Will our selecting you give us someone to direct as needed to those tools that our trust in you provides?" Now, while if I wanted I could've just sat on my arse after my RfA and not done anything with them at all, part of being promoted means that you're agreeing, informally anyway, to actually use the tools once in a while for the benefit of those who don't have them.

As far as Jayjg's block is concerned, my advice is this: If you want him to remove it, don't avoid the block by posting via IP, just ask him to please reconsider the block and, if that's not to his liking, either ask on WP:AN or one of its subpages (whichever is appropriate) or ask ArbCom for review of the block. Generally, though, continuing to post after being blocked is simply grounds for an extension of that block. Personally, as long as the poster isn't abusive, I don't care if they want to start a conversation with me on my talkpage or not. (Oh, User:578, if you're out there, yes, I got your message and passed it on to Tawker. He's really a nice guy, you should give him a chance.) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your reply. As I pointed out to JoshuaZ, my attempts at entering any kind of communication with Jayjg have been in vain and have been judged to be "harassment" by Jayjg himself on user_talk Amerique here (more on that later). I have reason to believe that he has indeed some personal vendetta going against me, for attacking his pro-circumcision protégé. But his block really doesn't hurt me that much. I keep doing what I have been doing long before that Jakew episode, mainly minor typo edits and that sort of stuff. If I were to decide between taking the long and winding road of procedures to get myself unbanned (with more than doubtful outcome) and evading my block for the purpose of minor edits, I'd take the latter. The reason I initially posted here was the outrageous obviousness of what Jakew tried to do by deleting my comments from user_talk:Williamwells. Ironically, it is living proof that I was right there's a war going on -- this inconsiderate statement of mine being all the excuse Jayjg needed to indef.block me once again. As I told JoshuaZ, I once went so far as to try and contact an AMA member (aforementioned Amerique), and Jayjg wasn't above instantly deleting my posting from that user talk page. -- I figure trying to get myself unblocked would be a time-consuming, arduous and ultimately useless effort, so why try? Would be nice, sure, but it's not going to happen and I still can do my beloved typo and grammar edits from IP. 87.78.157.93 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kylu, for being a wonderful role-model. Rama's arrow 03:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Er, I mean, thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this real!?! Geo. 20:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It was real. You are a little late. --Ideogram 20:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia talk:Esperanza: Notice: Due to the nomination for MfD, the entire Esperanza organization is under a major overhaul. All members are encouraged to express their opinions here., Kim Bruning closed the discussion as No consensus. I'd suggest, if you like Esperanza and want to keep it, that you first read through the MfD debates, figure out what things are the most disruptive to Encyclopedia-building, and correct them in the various Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul subpages. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?--Chili 01:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic goal of Esperanza is just fine. I don't think that Wikipedia needs such distractions as a games lounge on Wikipedia. Every edit we make should go towards making this project better. I've thought about it a bit, and personally I think I'd prefer to have something similar to what Esperanza is now, maybe even adding Java/Javascript games and such... just not on here. While some of the Wikimedia sites start getting close to be community sites instead of projects (Say, Meta and Enwiki) I think I'd encourage perhaps community.wikimedia.org or perhaps just move it to a Wikia instead, where the traffic will help Wikipedia and still allow people to just have fun when needed. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please semi-protect Taiwan. Anonymous IP's are revert-warring. --Ideogram 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect Portal:China and subpages Portal:China/Categories, Portal:China/China topics, Portal:China/Did you know, Portal:China/Intro, Portal:China/Related portals, Portal:China/Selected article, Portal:China/Selected biography, Portal:China/Selected picture, Portal:China/Subportals, Portal:China/Things you can do, and Portal:China/WikiProjects. User is making large-scale changes without stopping to resolve objections to previous changes first. See Portal talk:China for details. --Ideogram 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not done. Honestly, it looks like you've got a dispute regarding the portal with AQu01rius. Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Uses for cases when page protection is appropriate. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What do you want me to do? Start an edit war so it can be protected? Make more arguments that he can ignore because I am not edit-warring with him? Give up and let him take over the Portal? --Ideogram 02:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want the two of you to stop and talk to each other. Bold, Revert, Discuss. If he makes a bunch of terrible decisions, revert it and discuss. If he doesn't want to discuss, get another member of the community to discuss it with him. If he ends up being disruptive, he'll be blocked for that, and you have another chance to discuss. If someone doesn't want to discuss things, they really don't need to be editing at all. Personally, I think if it continues, you should give the dispute resolution process a try: Even if it doesn't work, since you're a Mediation Cabal mediator, it'll give you valuable insight into the process from the eyes of an involved party, and therefore be worth it even if the DR process fails to satisfy. Sorry. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks =)

For your second comment, I am not online 24/7 after all. I'll start listing out in detail about the situation in Portal talk:China. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal note: dispute is up for discussion primarily at Portal talk:China#For readers.

AQu01rius: as long as there's no edit war going on, I'm inclined to treat this as any other content dispute. I'd ask, as a personal favor, that you and Ideogram discuss things before making massive changes, since he feels strongly about it. Being sensitive to the editorial opinions of others can only help things. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already saw the notice I put up. I was going to remind you but I forgot. Thank you!

I would appreciate if you'd to remind Mr. Ideogram a little bit about the WP:OWN policy. Thanks again! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She already has. --Ideogram 07:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently when I attempted to get a more recent version of Xchat2, my IRC client decided to die on me. I tried reinstalling it in different areas, uninstalling multiple times, resetting computer, etcetera, but apparently Xchat2 has left me. Do you have any other recommendations of a client I could use? :/ Cowman109^Talk 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chatzilla will at least do you in a pinch. pschemp | talk 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Chatzilla - it gave me contact with the IRC world! :P I have absolutely no idea how, though, but after downloading an older version of xchat2 (again, I could have sworn I tried this earlier and it didn't work), I no longer have any issues.. so I guess I'm back to where I started. No idea what happened, but thanks! :P Cowman109^Talk 19:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, this kind of problem can be solved by removing the configuration folder. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer IrcII, BitchX (yes, that's really the client name), and my little hodge-podge of half-working code. I'm rather surprised the last actually connects, sometimes. Winsock programming sucks. :) (Feel free to keep up the convo if you'd like. I find this interesting!) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, Trillian and GAIM both pretty much suck for IRC and mIRC is cool but evil and not free. BitchX is an awesome name though. pschemp | talk 00:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for BitchX, I'd be surprised if that ran on Windows, especially the GTK front-end (which I've never seen on either platform). I've always wanted to write an IRC client just because I'd have a cool name for it. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ftp://ftp.bitchx.org/pub/BitchX/binaries/Windows/ (said bleary-and-squinty-eyed, since kylu's sick and should be in bed, but had to check email one last time, and then maybe someone posted a new question, and...) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be more helpful if he would've mentioned which page contained the error. A diff could be even more helpful, though it might be embarrassing if he'd mentioned it were in a brand new article and there were no diffs available. Problem is that he'd corrected it to point to United Kingdom when, in fact, I was using the ethnological context which was only found on the disambiguation page. Translation: The wikilink now makes less sense, since the page United Kingdom doesn't include the ethnological use. Back to bed for me! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was going to say. British is the only place the adjective use is defined. pschemp | talk 01:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi-protect. --Ideogram 07:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'kay ~Kylu (u|t) 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylu - I request you to please check out User talk:65.110.153.102 and his edits on Talk:Allama Mashriqi, where he issued a legal warning/threat. I've blocked him for 1 week as of now, but I request your input on the proper course of action in this regard. Cheers, Rama's arrow 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - on top of a false alarm, I made a mistake in blocking this editor. The threat was a quote from a website being discussed. Rama's arrow 17:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.. ignores everything I say and won't slow down his editing. Your advice is requested. --Ideogram 17:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you're correct above that I've mentioned WP:OWN to you (sorry readers, but that was when I was trying to be discreet and mention it to him on IRC, no diff. IRC-haters please note that it'd be the exact same situation if I'd have mentioned it in E-Mail instead.) I think perhaps what AQ has forgotten is that the policy applies to him as well. Since neither of you own it, you need to have a chat and/or bring in the Wikipedia community at large to make some sort of decisions. When people stop talking to each other, that's when nasty things such as arbitration and blocking occur.

Now, suggestions: Bring this up on WP:RFC, see if anyone goes for it. I notice that Ideogram took my advice and mentioned it on Talk:China, but nobody seems to have replied there yet. At the moment, this is a content dispute, so please don't go nuts and post anything on the Admin Noticeboards: It doesn't need admin intervention yet, since there's no blatant needs-blocking activity.

Please, AQu01rius, if you read this, at least try talking things over with Ideogram, okay? The Wiki isn't going anywhere soon, it won't hurt to talk things out before making changes. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ideogram, Portal talk:China. That's what I've been doing for the past three days, where did the "ignore" came from? :S That was a one-sided opinion. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the matter is resolved. --Ideogram 12:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently having an argument with another user about redirecting pages. He just blanks a page and redirects it to another page without discussion. He says that all his redirects are based on WP:NOT and WP:FICT, but he is technically "deleting" the content from the pages without an WP:AfD or other type of consensus-bring discussion. He also believes that this is okay because the other versions are still preserved in the "history", but that is the same case as with vandalism... I'd really like your opinion on this (please also note that he is not an admin and does not have deletion powers). A copy of our ongoing discussion is located at User talk:Cbrown1023. Thanks, Cbrown1023 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This is over Princess Melody, which was a short article that didn't have actual information beyond The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea (a merge is nonsensical, as the exact same information is already present) and Andrina, an overly minor character. Both are useful as redirects; if I desired to annihilate the articles, I would have simply prod'd them and nobody would be the wiser. Interrobamf 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sighs... This is not over; how do you know that it was those that I was referring to (it wasn't) and please do not just state that something is over on my behalf. I am asking for her opinion on this matter, not yours (I already know yours). Cbrown1023 20:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I have stated before, the issue is in the fact that you are doing this without discussing it and without following policy (the term policy is in dispute between you and I and that is pretty much what I am asking here). Cbrown1023 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doing it for your benefit. Furthermore, what is this over, then? You whined about the Creeper article. The ones I redirected after your message were those Mermaid articles. Then I get another complaint. I asked you to procure some actual policy, which you utterly failed to do. Interrobamf 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is seeing if there is a policy. I discuss things when I am unsure. Cbrown1023 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC) This is about all of your redirections (not really a word). The Creeper article brought my attentin and then I saw your other contributions and just asked you to disucss first. Cbrown1023 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there information on the article in question not present in the article being redirected to? If so, can the information be placed into the directed-to article? Is the redirect to the specific character's section, or does it just point at the article in general? I have no problem changing an article to a redirect if it's an unexpandable stub, but if you've wiped out information, or (alternatively) others have complained (which seems to be the case) then it certainly can't hurt to bring it to AfD. Also: the {{prod}} tag is for noncontroversial deletions (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion), and if half the people involved disagree, then don't use prod. At the moment, it looks like half those involved disagree, so take it to AfD before turning any more pages into redirects please. Oh, and Interrobamf? Please re-read WP:CIVIL. You whined about the Creeper article. ain't it. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you unblock my talk page, please. SosoMK 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed by CBDunkerson (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) [3] ~Kylu (u|t) 02:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylu. I've granted the bot flag to your bot, per Voice of All's final approval [4]. Have fun :) Redux 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahaha! Er, I mean, thanks... ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When do we vote, and how?--Chili 04:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006 (various placing)

• The next elections to the Arbitration Committee will start on 4 December 2006 and will run for 2 weeks.
• In order to vote you will be required to have had an account registered before 1 October, 2006 and 150 edits on en.wikipedia at the start of the vote.
• Jimbo favours running the elections in the same way that they were run last year, that is:
  • All candidates with more 'support' votes than 'oppose' votes were eligible for the ArbCom. If there are more approvals than seats available, Jimbo will either expand the size of the committee or choose among the community approved candidates. Jimbo appointed candidates mostly in the order of the percentage of approval in the community.

If you'd like, you can read the votes from the January 2006 election, which should give you a bit more idea of what to expect. Also: Wikipedia Signpost articles about the January 2006 ArbCom election, Wikipedia Signpost articles about the December 2006 ArbCom election. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NRen2k5, you appear to have obliviated the header :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad - didn't see it above the shading. Sorry, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make it a point to not hang around the Wiki on Thanksgiving, since I'll be far too busy stuffing my face and trying to break the 100 pound / 45 kilogram mark. What joy that our Wikipedia is staffed by editors and admins from around the world, so that when one country goes on an all-you-can-eat binge, the rest of the world can pick up the slack!

So, for one day, someone else do their best to make people think it's Valentine's Day instead. That's what I try to do, every day! :D

Happy Turkey Day!
~Kylu (u|t) 07:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love you. --Ideogram 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a happy one!!!--Chili 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*hugsboth* Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving, Kylu!!
- if you happen to be Canadian (like me), just ignore this :) --lovelaughterlife♥ (user|talk) 22:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just relocated, which means we celebrate twice a year. Surefire way to gain pounds, I wager! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you make your user page. I would love to copy what you did (the fold up boxy thingies) on my userpage. 334double084 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Kay! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone made you a nice banner like FloNight has? If you have one, can you stick it on my talk? (My userpage is not a safe place at the moment.) Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure it has a lot of PINK in it! (and hearts) I'm not sure actually using these is a good idea but it would be funny. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick search, it looks like User:Gurch has one made up. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just like high school. :) (that's my US cliche, anyway...) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a great idea! (having jumped on the bandwagon) :) pschemp | talk 05:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

n.n <3 ~Kylu (u|t) 05:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one at the top of my talk page. pschemp | talk 15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, but are we sure that that won't somehow hurt her? Isn't it kinda like changing people's votes (like how you are not allowed to really announce your nomination for RfA or something)? (I love Kylu, she's awesome, but just want to make sure this isn't gonna hurt her later...) Cbrown1023 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, don't use it. Certainly anyone with a brain can see that we put it there of our volition and weren't coerced, therefore anyone who assumes otherwise is not really using AGF. Not to mention that its a simple statement of support, unlike someone else's that says "save Wikipedia from ruin" or something like that. Kylu didn't initiate it or endorse it, therefore she cannot be held liable for other people's actions. pschemp | talk 22:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as long as it's not going to hurt her. (I do like it though.) Cbrown1023 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this "bumpersticker" is a bit more the sort of thing that would peeve most people. I just wish he'd either seek some sort of dispute resolution or let it go. Tell ya what, though... the one Gurch made up really does fit my style! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one here. pschemp | talk 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. And to all those people who stole it without asking, yes, you can use it :) – Gurch 02:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They just have to remember to give you credit. GFDL and all, y'know. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my userpage is in the public domain (see the box six boxes down from the Kylubox), so they don't have to (or ask me for permission, for that matter). I decided it's simpler that way, as it means people can have things like the "is this edit vandalism?" box, which I think is on about six different pages now :) – Gurch 03:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're Just That Cool, then! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ready? MedcabBot is broken again. --Ideogram 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added the eggs and beat for ten minutes, but when I put the server into the oven at 350 deg F for 60 minutes, it stopped working! And there's all this foul smelling black plastic on the bottom of my oven now... In other news, apparently the cake I made is booting into Ubuntu now. Quite odd. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just asked me for a summary of the Starwood Mediation. I assumed it was the new mediation. But I see we have no new mediation. Do you know why I got this message?

Matisse, could you summarize the issues in this case. Geo. 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who this person is? Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's User:Geo.plrd, the original mediator. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it did not end up on his user page but somewhere else. I looked on his page and it's not there. He had disguised his signature and my "summary" went someplace else. He never answered my messages during the mediation. so I don't understand what is happening now. Perhaps I should not have been so dumb as to answer it in good faith. Now I don't know what my summary is being used for and I feel very uneasy. Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it too terribly much in his case. I don't think he means any harm, but ... well, I also don't think that mediation is really his forte. Give him a good sounding title and a project that he can direct his attention on and he's fine. People burn out of MedCab pretty quickly, after all, since you're trying to solve people's problems and basically getting yelled at for doing it wrong. :D ... speaking of which, wanna mediate a case? ~Kylu (u|t) 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be O.K. if I removed it from the page its's on, since it is not his page but another? It's on User talk:Geo.plrd/Esperanza and I don't know what that even is. Please, as I do not want such messages of mine around like that. It will cause trouble for me. May I remove it? Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert the page and remove it. It looks like a crackpot page and I never meant for it to be there. This is going to cause me trouble I fear. Thank you. Mattisse(talk) 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try User talk:Geo.plrd instead, Mattisse. I'm...not really terribly fond of having signatures not link to userpages and/or talkpages, but his seems to link only to those. Don't worry too much though, okay? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He never answers messages left there. Have you looked at that page? People asking if he is missing in action and such -- offering to send out a snowmobile to look for him, pleaing with him to answer. I reverted the page (hope I broke no rules) but it was a crackpot page with crackpot messages on it. (I have to learn to be more wary.) As for you (humorous) suggestion that I be a mediator -- I can barely last here as it is. My thanks and respect to you for hanging in there and even attempting mediation! It's not going to work for the Starwood Festival problem though, unless you have some big, big guns. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected User talk:Geo.plrd/Esperanza to User talk:Geo.plrd, as apparently well meaning people (such as yourself) seem to keep trying to talk to him on that page. OMG, rouge admin action. Ahwell, I'll just have to take punishment for it, if it makes Wikipedia a better place. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I am going to retire from Medcab, although I will help by closing cases where Mediation is not viable. My signature is unique and was purposely designed to be so. Unless the link in it, has been messed with, you should be taken to a page with all relevant links. Thanks for all advice, Geo. 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the signature isn't actually you really, it's just that people tend to think that when they click a user signature, it takes them to that user's userpage. Then, clicking "talk", they expect they're on your userpage. Sadly, that page was never checked, people were leaving you messages, and therefore the concerns they had were going unanswered. I changed the comments into a redirect, and therefore if someone else mistakenly tries to leave a message on that talkpage for you, they'll be directed to your talk instead. See? :) Anywho, as far as medcab goes, please just work on the cases that you have already accepted, then when you're done with all those, we'll all sit down for a chat and see how you can assist further. Again, please don't accept any new cases, even to close cases where mediation isn't viable. Ciao, Geo. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am not sure that person ever answers his talk page messages, but he does seem to respond to messages here, I have to ask a question. He left a message on my talk page that he put my message under a new heading so I could find it easier. Where did he make the new heading? Does he mean in the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival or on his talk page or on the disguised name page? I don't see it any of those places. I think I am going nuts! Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you're worrying far too much about this. At the very worst, you could look at Special:Contributions/Geo.plrd and check the (diff) links on that page to see the individual edits he's made, and use that to find the edit he said he made, right? ~Kylu (u|t) 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He only made six edits today, two of them to my talk page, one to yours, and three others to Humbolt County, Chiropractic. and Eureka, California. Do you think he put it there? Or am I missing something totally? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The redirect has already been removed by an anonymous IP. It's a crackpot page anyway. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I officially give up. Now he is telling me I should only post on the case page. The redirect is gone. I think no one is telling the truth. I'm out of here -- blowing this kool-aid stand as they say. Better to fight it out on the streets than this. There is no new heading. He has to be making this up. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recently removed mediator from Starwood Festival just left a message on the Starwood Festival creator's page: hi Rosencomet, if you give me a list of the folks you want to create articles on, I will help with finding external sources. Geo. 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the person from whom I whom I cannot get a straight answer.

Here is a copy of the summary I sent to him at his request that has disappeared under his "heading":

• (his request)

Matisse, could you summarize the issues in this case. Geo. 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• my reply (copy):

In general the issue is User:Rosencomet and his suite of articles that promote his festivals:

• Starwood Festival
• WinterStar Symposium
• Association for Consciousness Exploration

User:999, User:Hanuman Das and User:Ekajati have been protecting him and reverting pages back to spam. User:Timmy12 removed search engine links within these articles [5] and seems to have been driven away from Wikipedia by the harassment and many complaints filed against him by the above users.

Many of us are concerned with links in the articles:Check Rosencomet linkspamming.

Also, all the internal linking Check on performers at Starwood Festival.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival was opened. Almost immediately Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse was filed. If you look through that you will get an idea of the scope of articles involved and the amount of energy they are willing to put into harassing someone.

We were hoping an out-in-the-open discussion of what constitutes following WP:V, WP:RS etc. as well how to decide issues of notability. Now it is WP:OWN and WP:STALK as people who attempt to do anything to these articles get harassed. I saw a comment by User:Kathryn NicDhàna somewhere that summed it up as she is starting to experience it over a current AFD on one of the protected articles.

BostonMA is better at explaining than I am. Please ask him. I am still intimidated by all the harassment and discouraged. Hope this is what you meant by a summary. If you wanted something else, let me know and I will try to do better. Mattisse(talk) 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo.plrd is the original mediator. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked before I was removed. I made a new heading so you could find it easier. Geo. 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean new heading as in this messages heading? If not could you explain further. Geo. 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the Esperanza page, then i must apologize. From what I can gather, someone made that page, probably by accident, all messages can and should be left at User_talk:Geo.plrd All messages on that page will be moved to my talk page. Then that page will be deleted. Again, sorry for the foulup Geo. 02:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the above. Please post all case comments on the case page. Geo. 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The case is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival, if this isn't what you are looking for then please explain what I was going to create a heading for. Geo. 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know there are two Esperanza pages, one contains links to my talk page, and my signature links to it. The other one should not exist. I wasn't going to make any new headers, except for the one at the top of this section. Geo. 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• (my feeling now)This whole thing appears very corrupt and explains our frustration. This appears like deliberate sabotage of the mediation. Now we are all exhasuted. I don't think anyone is interested in participating in mediation again, So once again Rosencomet and his span etc. has won the day. So much for anything. (Even I am surprised that Wikipedia is this infiltrated.) Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 03:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The comment from [User:Kathryn NicDhàna]] was on the mediator's talk page - unanswered of course -- an now archived, I believe. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 03:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Mattisse and Geo.plrd, both of you pay attention to this:

1. For the love of Pete, learn to use links and diffs! I really don't need the whole bloody page, which I'm rather familiar with already, copied to my talkpage. This isn't helping and it's just going to confuse a third party who would like to understand what is going on, but this sort of mass copy-paste deal is just going to bollocks it all up.
2. Please understand that Geo is no longer mediating this case. Period. He has nothing to do with it, has been removed, please do not talk to each other about the case, nor give advice on what to do about it.
3. Mattisse: Please read and understand WP:AGF and, before clicking any other link on this page, visit Hanlon's razor. I prefer, in this case, to rephrase "stupidity" to ... oh, "lack of familiarity with the subject" perhaps. But don't say that he's corrupt and a saboteur please. Wikipedia:No personal attacks while we're at it, please!
4. Now, given that 1. Geo is removed from the case, 2. simply never acted in the first place, and 3. you're taking this all very personally it seems, I'm going to recommend that you close your browser, get away from the computer, and take a break for the night. WP:TINC. There is also no conspiracy about the case, nor is there any sabotage. There is simply a mediator who has a well documented history of not ... well, doing any mediation.
5. Geo, read the Mediation Cabal page again. View the Suggestions to Mediators please. Finish the mediations you currently have selected, then do not take any more cases. Now, I know you mean well, but ... you have this tendency, I think, to like to accumulate titles and bureaucracy around you. This isn't constructive to building an encyclopedia, and, in fact...
6. Wikipedia Is Here For Building An Encyclopedia. See WP:NOT. Some people like to do administrative tasks. That's fine, someone's got to have the crap jobs. Some like to write FA's. Some like to mediate disputes. All of these things contribute, either directly or indirectly to The Encyclopedia. Everything else on here is simply tolerated at best. Go write some articles already.

なぜ互いに素晴らしい人々公正場合もないか。~Kylu (u|t) 04:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have offended you. I am at a lost for words over what has happen. Just leave me out off mediation from now on and I will desist. As I said, fighting in the streets I now see as preferable. So good night and goodbye. Sincerely Mattisse(talk) 04:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using the links and diffs. That does nothing to help or clarify. Perhaps you have more useful suggestions and I will reconsider. I and others have put much work into this for no reason. I just wanted someone to hear, since your mediation deep-sixed my efforts and that of others. I apolize since you do not want to listen. Do you have a suggestion as to how we can be heard, since mediation just buries us. Thanks. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not trouble me with this issue again. Since you are willing to make statements and give suggestions and advice without looking into the issues -- your archiving your talk page is an elequent statement of that -- I request that you leave me out of all future mediation considerations. This is an irresponsible enterprise in my opinion with no supervision. I am unwilling to be part of something I do not respect and that does not provide for minimial safety of participatants. Furthermore, the mediatiors appear unethical. Thank you for (hopefully) honoring my request. Today has beeen one of those very bad days on Wikipedia. When that happens I forever more stay clear of the badness. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 05:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered you, yet you didn't like my answer. I don't recall having troubled you in the first place (I've placed exactly one note on your talkpage ever, mentioning the name of the former mediator. [6]) , but apologize if you felt that I did. Your problems were with former mediator Geo.plrd, who is no longer mediating. I consider that problem closed and await for the involved parties to suggest an alternative mediator or other constructive ideas. Please, take a break from editing, and don't feel compelled to reply further on my behalf. I'll archive this section later to keep it in-context with the rest of the conversation, hope you don't mind. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at my talk page history I realized that the User talk:Geo.plrd was editing my page and using your signature, just as he has on User talk:Geo.plrd/Esperanza See:

If you want to leave a message for Geo, please leave it on his talk page here: User talk:Geo.plrd. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I am deeply sorry for being crazy and having you experience that. As it was your signature I thought it was you. I guess I did not learn the lesson that you have to check the code beneath the signature before ever responding. He edited 8 of the last 10 edits on my talk page -- I realized it wasn't you. I am deeply sorry and regretful and I did not AGF. Please accept my apology and my deep committment to do better. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk)

Will you please explain to Matisse that I did not use your signature. After you placed the comment I removed all the messages, in prep for the redirect that I replaced your comment with. Geo. 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've explained that just fine, Geo.

I think, Mattisse, you may want to try picking a "diff" in the future, then stepping foreward and backward through the page history to determine who wrote what. On a wiki this can all get quite confused at times, and it's difficult to determine who added what and when, simply because of the way it all works. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former mediator is threating to block me. He left this message on User:999's talk page. 999 is involved in the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival:

Would you be kind enough to look in my talk archives, 6 and 7, and tell me if Matisse's comments (to me)are rational? Geo. 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to determine if the comments to me show that this person needs to be blocked Geo. 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, read what he's pointing out and determine if you made what could be considered a personal attack (see WP:NPA) and, if so, apologize in a sincere manner. While Geo.plrd is not an administrator (and has no access to the block button, and anyway admins aren't supposed to block people they're in dispute with anyway), there's always a possibility that he might find a sympathetic admin who feels that you crossed the line. If you make a personal attack or are being incivil (see also: WP:CIVIL) then there's always the possibility that you could be blocked for disruption.

HOWEVER, that said, the likelihood of being blocked for such is quite low and blocks for civility/personal attacks are typically based on the fact that such behavior is disruptive (WP:BP for that). If someone apologizes and changes their tune, they'll typically be left alone, or at worst warned that such behavior is unacceptable. The easiest way to not fall afoul of the policies, however, is to simply try to do what you want to do in good faith, believe that what you are doing is what is best for the project, and try to be nice (or at least, don't be a WP:DICK to others). If you make a mistake, acknowledge it, apologize if appropriate, and move on trying to avoid that mistake in the future. It's really pretty simple if you can do that. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do the things listen unter WP:CIVIL, unless you think I do. I get confueed and I am not technical. And I get scared because of this same group harassing me for so long. I was a pest to you but was I uncivil? Tell me if I was, as I need the feedback. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can improve how they treat others, like many things it's a "road, not a destination" type thing, and it just takes practice. I try to (and usually succeed at) typing what I want to say first, then pausing and reading over what I typed to make sure it doesn't sound offensive. Seems to work well so far. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try that. Things happen so fast around here. My apologies again. Now he has signed an RFC against me Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse which spun off from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. It is wierd. I must have done something to really anger him. It's easier for me to see how I can be a pest and irritating than incur a rage reaction. Today is the first day I learned about "diffs". So thank you for that. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived the Geo-Mattisse stuff with the hopes that it's over. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologised to him deeply. I hope he understands. Thank you. And I am glad you cleared my mess away. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 03:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're having fun with MedCab co-ordination :) Anyways, could you just have a quick glance at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-25 Email Harrassment over a disagreement about a fact posted on here and make sure everything is in order? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your position looks good, though I don't think they'll have any clue what we're talking about regarding checkuser. I have a suspicion that Julie's probably already deleted the emails, though, which makes the entire case moot, but we'll see what turns up. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gag title, see if you can work out the reference sometime.

I've a bit of a cold, so will work on work (when I have to) and sleep (when I'm not working) to get rid of it. Be back soon. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidates aren't allowed to get sick! Oh well, here's some echinacea to make you feel better. Sorry, I can't afford real medicine, not even wikimedicine. Get well soon!--Joe Jklin (T C) 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylu,
We are having some queries regarding wiki mailing lists at Sinhala wikipedia. Please visit si:Wikipedia:කෝපි කඩේ and let us know whether this is a place where you can help us. --Lee 09:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can help with that. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kool! Thanx Kylu. :-D --Lee 11:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for the late "thanks", here are many brownies for all the lost time. Regards, --Dami 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, brownies. o.o;; Yum, thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first, and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really "arbitrated" anything, as I haven't been an arbitrator. I typically prefer to find solutions which are acceptable to all the parties involved. Obviously, this will change if I'm elected. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be shy - this sounds exactly like what I'm looking for. Would you have an example or two? Personally, I especially value instances where people were so stubborn that finding a solution was very hard. — Sebastian (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the latest post on the mediation page. Three parties who were never part of the mediation are attempting to do an end run around the process and end the mediation. Can they do that? —Hanuman Das 02:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is always voluntary. There can be no mediation if any interested party does not agree to it. --Ideogram 02:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylu, Hanuman Das seems to believe you are the mediator for the case: User talk:Ali-oops#Consensus. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the mediation coordinator, none of my current cases are quite this contentious. :)

Anywho, humor aside for the moment, Ideogram does have a point in that we can't force anyone into mediation. If they want to "run around" the case and move to arbitration or another form of dispute resolution, that's up to them. I'd highly encourage them to seek a mediation solution, however, as arbitration rarely ends up with happy endings. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no one has attempted to end the mediation, though I and others have been questioning whether mediation was ever really the best approach in this particular situation. There is also frustration as there has never actually been a mediator working the case (As you well know, Geo didn't really participate and then was removed). I think what Hanuman Das is referring to as "an end run" is this questioning of the process and the RfC. As there is no mediator, and everyone we have asked to mediate instead recommended RfC or far more extreme interventions, one of the editors started the RfC. If you have a better idea, please, we'd welcome the help :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I was out when you messaged me. I think I have said all I need to say and made the votes I need to make, I see no reason to stick any more fingers into the election pie. However, I will bring up this issue of a clique of biased editors gang-reverting me at the Village Pump for general discussion. --Ideogram 12:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that a simple "Oppose" is enough. I'm not terribly fond of people putting reasoning next to the vote when it's an election like this and not a discussion like DRV or AFD are. Personally, even if I were voting, I wouldn't vote oppose on him: I have to trust that he'd leave personal politics alone when doing duty as an arbitrator and recuse from any cases he was involved in. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the cookie!

Here's a nice (Starbucks) Mocha Frappuccino ... (cream based, no coffee in it :P) (extra-chocolate in it)

• hands Frappuccino to Kylu*

- Ricksal0224

Oooh, extra chocolate! How did you know? Thanks! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my username changed from Chili14 because I wanted an age-neutral name, which was not what I had before. I am now known as CJ King. I hope your campaign for ArbCom is not stressing you out too much.--Chili14 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm quite happy with how it's turning out. I ran because I felt that I'm very familiar with the dispute resolution process (although not as a party) and that if I was one of those elected, I could help be an approachable member of ArbCom. If I'm not elected, however, I don't want it to be a result of block/clique voting (which I'm seeing quite a bit of) but because other, more capable and trusted Wikipedians are winning. So far, those who are in the lead are significantly in the lead, and they have clear support from a supermajority of Wikipedians. This is actually my ideal outcome. I'd much rather lose a race for a "position" because those who win are better suited for it. I guessed wrong on the results on some of the other candidates (I expected Blnguyen and Geogre to do better than they are, for instance, but am pleasantly surprised at how well Daniel Bryant is doing) and apparently others aren't finding Giano's statement/questions to be as offensive as I do, but otherwise it seems to be turning out fine. Interesting username, by the way, hope it suits you better. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you do all the work at the coordination desk, I figure it should be up to you if you think that we should give it the boot. It might make more sense to have people with questions about their cases to see the cabal as a whole at the Medcab talk page, not just us wee folk with superficial positions. What do you think? :) Cowman109^Talk 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's still a use for the coordination desk: Matters that the coordinators themselves should handle, such as not retaining mediators who have less than stellar performance *ahem* or handling passing on cases to ArbCom officially, or handling the role of "representing" MedCab. Simple questions regarding the status of cases or questions regarding them should go to the MedCab talkpage. Alternatively, we could just bring up the matter on the MedCab talkpage and give the community and (especially) our mediators some input into the situation. I'm a bit averse into unilaterally restructuring the organization. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good point. I like the idea of giving mediators in general more input into the situation just in the interest of including everyone rather than a select few people - perhaps I could add more encouragement for people to seek help on the main medcab talk page unless for some reason something requires the coordinators. I see what you mean by the necessity of some sort of representation, though, in the event of a mishap. Cowman109^Talk 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your involvement in the administration of the MC should not be a bar to seeking mediation from one of them who is not a close friend of yours; there's no reason someone must necessarily be biased simply for having worked with you in that capacity. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 13:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Hesperian 05:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --bainer (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, thank you. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!!! I was involved in really tiring tasks lately, and was complaining that nobody noticed my efforts here... so, you see, I was a bit silly! Bye and good work. --Attilios 07:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and the guys above you on this page all do tons of work and get basically no recognition. I'm just glad you don't feel completely ignored now. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 08:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kylu and thankyou, although I would say that I am rather lazy at maths and physics. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the Silberstein might need a bit of fattening to make it irresistable. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'll see what we can do. Took me a bit to figure where you hid this comment on the page! I'd like to suggest taking a peek at Richard Wetz also if you would. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well and truly ready with a pic as well, if you have a blurb. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sports barnstar is next for you, y'know. ~Kylu (u|t) 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That barnstar was really nice on your part, and immensely appreciated.

Thanks a lot!--Aldux 13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a writer, but I do try to appreciate those who do the work when I can. Thank you for building our encyclopedia! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I Joe award The Barnstar of Good Humor to "our imōto" for this deletion... 00:15, 11 December 2006 Kylu deleted "Виталькина писька" (CSD G1, Russian:"Vitalic, one day you may become as well known as your penis.: Joe Jklin (T C) 14:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thats classic!--Joe Jklin (T C) 14:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, thanks, but the humor belongs to the original author. I simply helped it along to its appropriate place in the Encyclopedia. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the downtime. References converter is now back up and running. About a week ago the hard drive in my server crashed. Luckily it stayed together long enough to allow me to pull all the data off onto a new hard drive, but I still had to go through the process of installing Linux on the new hard drive, installing all the necessary programs, and loading in all of the old data from the server. I got all of my essential services up within two days (CVS, Apache, Wiki), but I kind of forgot about web scripts, which I finally got around to fixing today. Everything should be fully functional again. If you see any bugs, just send me a message. You are receiving this message because you are on the spamlist. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, simply remove your name. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schon! ~Kylu (u|t) 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing mediation between Djackl and Itake involving this page. If the issue has been resolved already, please let me know so I can close the case. If not, do we want to continue the case, or have the parties become disinterested? ~Kylu (u|t) 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the parties have become disinterested. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'est la vie. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was likely that the mediation would be closed as inactive, what with one thing or another, but I don't see where it was requested to be closed - if you tell me where then I'll close it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Scherf on the Gracenote case. Sorry. If you still want to try mediating... and granted this is possibly an extreme step, you could consider contacting Gracenote's PR department directly and ask them if they'd like to discuss the situation. I imagine they have people familiar with Wikipedia editing already. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He left that two weeks ago, before I agreed to mediate. His request for withdrawal was based on the fact that no-one would apparently be willing to mediate, and since I was, that request seems to be obsolete.

Due to the lack of activity, however, I will be asking him if he feels that it needs to continue. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie, thanks for being so thorough! ~Kylu (u|t) 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is 578 are you on right now? If so leave a message on this IP's talk page. Regards. For the RC'ers that are sure to check this post, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS AS THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT, I SIMPLY WANT TO HAVE A WORD WITH KYLU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.212.186 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 December 2006

Hey 578. Nice message. :D Sorry, wasn't on earlier, but feel free to poke me on here or on IRC. (omg, willing to chat online with a known vandal! burn the witch! burn the witch!) Alternatively, you can just use one of your socks to Special:Emailuser/Kylu if you want. I didn't get all of them yet, did I? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left IRC. I just didn't feel like dealing with everyone today. Handy place if you need to ask a question in a pinch, not so handy place to concentrate if you're trying to edit Wikipedia, or if you need sound advice. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a respondent in this case? Alan.ca 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talkpage. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (Short version: No, I'm doing administrative tasks as medcab coordinator, not part of the case)[reply]

I have been advised by Xinoph that there is no dispute. I did read earlier that the cabal doesn't intervene in disputes of user misconduct. How should I proceed? Alan.ca 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MedCab can mediate in any case it likes, actually, as long as both parties agree to the mediation. Heck, if there's a dispute about the color of a user's userpage background, you can mediate that, as long as the parties agree. Unlike MedCom, we're wide open as far as what our "jurisdiction" is, by virtue of the fact that we're a completely informal process. Now, if the other party doesn't want to agree to mediation, and it's a conduct issue, then my suggestion (without having read the case already) would be to close the case and ask the user to post on WP:AN/I (the Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents) to determine if they might want to take a look at it. If this is rejected, then sadly we seem to be stuck and it's likely that your requestor will have to file an arbitration case. This is one of the reasons people keep suggesting we create an "ArbCom Jr" of sorts, to handle minor cases that don't quite fit AN/I nor mediation, but really don't need the full attention of ArbCom. Hope that's of help to you! Oh... uh, mind using shorter topic names next time please?~Kylu (u|t) 05:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this point of voluntary involvement, but do we make referrals to other processes? Do we assist the user in making their application to another process? It would seem to me, that if it's obvious the user is being mistreated and the respondent refuses to cooperate with solving the problem, it would be appropriate to file with the complainant at the next level. Alan.ca 06:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the downside to being informal. You may assist others in making application to other processes, however this would potentially damage your neutrality as a mediator. What you may want to consider, instead, is offering to assist both sides in requesting AMA advocates. Advocates may walk their client through the dispute resolution process, whereas we're part of that process. That's the official line.

The request from your coordinators, however, is that you refer the user to the AMA and pass on providing further assistance with the case. I realize that this sounds a bit cruel, perhaps, to simply cut strings and let the user deal with handling the dispute and acquiring an advocate themselves, but if people started thinking that MedCab is simply going to take someone's side, we lose our perceived neutrality and it will hinder any future mediations we may take. The most important thing we have, after all, is our reputation for friendly, yet impartial assistance to both parties to come to an amicable solution.

I hope that helps. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kylu! thanks for putting this article up; it's nice to see some new articles on Beethoven's compositions (or anything else ... sometimes I get the sense not many people are actually writing anything any more... odd...) Only mystery on Zur Namensfeier for me is why it never gets played, because it really doesn't. Even the Ruins of Athens and Consecration of the House get lots more air-time than this mostly forgotten piece. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, though I imagine leaving a comment accusing me of actually writing an article will have more than one reader falling over in either shock, laughter, or possibly both, resulting in a dangerous facial expression that might be difficult to be rid of. Fortunately, they can feel better by knowing that I merely translated the article from the French and there was nearly no original thought in my version. I'm going to have to dig up some notes on it and (sadly) replay it so I can recall what it sounds like, that way perhaps I can gain some insight into why that is; With work, it might even verifiable and with reliable sources enough to incorporate it into the article! Anywho, if you can add anything to it, I'd be most grateful. Even if I'm really not much of a Beethoven fan. I'm more a Bach girl. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... well, if that's the case, do you take requests? I'm pretty sure there's good stuff on the Frenchipedia we could use, especially in the Baroque era articles (they have some really good editors over there, who have visited us on occasion; I've translated a bit, but my French is slow and embarrassingly inaccurate) :) Antandrus (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a to-do in User:Kylu/sandbox, though I've been a bit slow to fill my own requests. If you've got articles that need brought to enwiki from frwiki, please feel free to list them there, perhaps with a star or other note that shows it's a request and to be taken seriously, instead of my own work which tends to crawl? I will translate from other sources as well: Any major language is fair game, though I'm terrible at Semitic languages (Arabic and Hebrew for instance) and not too great at the various Cyrillic-based languages. I know a teensy bit of Russian, but the rest of them seem to smear together and it just looks like "funny nonsensical Russian" to me, sadly. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I see you have quite a list there! Here's one that pops out right away (after touring a few pages and categories on fr:) fr:École française d'orgue. Right now its alleged English equivalent is just the list of French organists. I'm happy to copyedit any of these when you bring them across ... I seem to remember doing this a time or two before (Couperin? Titelouze? someone like that...) Fun! Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it was François Couperin, I imported Concerts royaux (Couperin) and Leçons de tenebres (Couperin) back in November. I really, really need to get off my duff and work on this list more. Pas maintenant, I've got a dinner I simply must go to, and I've only a couple hours left to make myself presentable! It's not such a chore as it sounds, I'm supposedly passable in dim lighting even without makeup. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-09 Serial Box, please semi protect the article Serial Box as it has resorted to anonymous link inclusion and no response has been received by the requestor for the mediation. Alan.ca 16:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protected for now (see protection log for the page). I typically am only around in evenings, so if it's a situation requiring swift action, you might get a better response from Requests for page protection. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kylu, the mediation doesn't seem to be progressing as the requestor hasn't responded. I will most likely be closing the case. Do we leave the protection on or withdraw it when the case is gone? Alan.ca 06:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I or someone else will lift it once the case is gone, assuming there aren't any other problems. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the case is closed now. It seemed that article was getting link spam, so if you want to leave on the protection I'll leave that up to you. Alan.ca 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page unprotected. If you would, please leave a message regarding the case closure on Talk:Serial Box and links to any appropriate policy pages (WP:EL, WP:SEMI, and WP:FULL come to mind) reminding users when we may and may not link to external sites and when to ask for page protection. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 19:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, Kylu! Wishing you a very happy holidays, full of laughter and good times! Hope you have an awesome beginning to 2007 as well! Best regards! --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How pretty! I'm a Yule person myself, but here's wishing you the very happiest of holiday seasons to you too! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you get lots of these things.--CJ King 23:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Yule to you too, CJ! Hee, I'd be happier if I could just sleep in, but certain people want to be up quite early to unwrap gifts. Ahwell. I can survive it one day a year. n.n; ~Kylu (u|t) 00:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to ask you to do something for me. I want you to semi-protect this and this. You can protect them all the way if you want to. I just don't want anybody ever using that account again. Thanks.--CJ King 04:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happily enough, WP:SEMI allows for no-particular-reason semiprotection of userpages. I might suggest you replace the protected pages with redirects to your new username, though you'll be glad to note that just because the userpages are deleted, it doesn't put the account itself up for grabs again. You have a significant editing history on that account, so it's quite unlikely that it'll ever be recycled. My protecting the page is the least of the protections against this. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Yule Kylu :) Dionyseus 06:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank yule! ...er, thank you! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kylu, it's been a while since I've talked to you, and I just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and say that I'm very impressed with where you're at now. I remember we pretty much went through the "adminship school" together -- you had your RfA about a week or two after mine -- and now you're way ahead of me (yeah, I know, I've been on permanent semi-wikibreak since, it seems). Best wishes, happy editing, and merry Christmas! theProject 06:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm a Christmas person myself, but Happy Yule to you just the same. :-)

Where I'm at now? I don't follow, sorry. :(

Anywho, thanks for the Merry Christmas! I don't mind people wishing me such, it's nice of them to think of me enough to say it. :D Merry Christmas to you too! ~Kylu (u|t) 00:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kylu, I appreciate all the guidance you have given me as a MEDCAB mediator. I have my own mediation request Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12_Judy_Marsales_exclusion_of_content and a new mediator has taken the case. I appreciate his interest, but he immediately took my side in the dispute and I don't know how helpful that will be in resolving the dispute. The mediator may need some guidance. Thanks. Alan.ca 05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, though this does give you an ideal opportunity to offer another compromise solution. Look at what you want to place into the article, determine if you can "really live without it", then see what the other side has that you'd be willing to compromise on. Take those items off the table and there are far less things to actually debate about. I imagine the best course of action regarding the mediator, however, would be to talk to the other party and determine if you'd both rather have another mediator, try to work things out between yourselves again, or see if perhaps simply use this case to train another mediator.

Ultimately, your best solutions are those that the two parties agree to. If you both agree that this mediator is fine but need training...that is, you're both willing to help him with mistakes and the like...then please do. If you want me to remove him from the case, let me know. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm quite frustrated with CJCurrie. The article lacks sources entirely and he doesn't want me to include any cited facts. I tried posting a list of alternative sourced info on the woman, but he hasn't commented on that at all. Alan.ca 21:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is starting to sound like you should consider WP:RFC to get the opinions of others. Unlike some forms of dispute mediation, Mediation Cabal cases can be ongoing while you're requesting the comments of the community without closing or suspending the case. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of my essay user:Geogre/IRC considered, I provide a link to your sandbox essay. If you move your essay or don't want the link, feel free to change it/remove it. It would be good if all who want to take up the challenge of devising best practices for the use of IRC were linking together so that we could have many individual points of view. Geogre 03:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually I'll put it into its own place, though I'm half tempted to make a category (IRC Essays perhaps?). Thanks for letting me know you linked, once I move it, I'll update. Oh, unrelated note, Alla Pavlova needs a Cyrillic version of her name, other than Ghirla (he's unavailable at the moment) do you know a Russian-speaking editor that wouldn't mind dropping off the translation? Thanks! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an editprotected tag on {{Ent}} and {{Rf}} for a week now. These templates do not function properly when the tag name has a preceeding space. Furthermore, Ent has an odd initial closing div which makes this form of ref/note not respond to the standard uses of the footnotes-small class. (One would have to use an extra div to counter-act the odd closing div at the start of the Ent template.) You can see these bugs at Infinity. (Link goes to a version, because when I explained these bugs on the Ent talk page, an editor changed the article rather than the template.) Click on the "1" in the lead; it doesn't link to the note at the bottom. Likewise the note at the bottom does not link to the ref in the lead. Same goes for ref/note "2". This article also attempts to use footnotes-small, but it has no effect.

One fix for the preceeding spaces is straightforward, but responses from WP:EPP are not prompt. WP:EPP will be increasing quite a bit now that all main-page related templates are full-protected.

I've tested replacing the div with span over at the test-wiki, and it seems to allow appropriate self-contained span tags while not giving extra lines. (A div with ending closing div generates extra blank lines.) I can't guarantee the span change will have no other collateral damage because nobody has responded about any other pages to verify. I would really like this change made, and you're the only admin I semi-know. Gimmetrow 05:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected, please leave me a note when you're finished so I can reprotect. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, edits in. I had the updated template text on the talk page. I suspect there will be some articles that did special things to counter-act the odd div nesting. Gimmetrow 05:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reprotected. If you could please view the "What links here" for both templates to ensure that the template edits work properly, I'd greatly appreciate it. Anything to lower the amount of "screaming-at-kylu"ness. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. {{Rf}} is used on > 350 pages, so I can't check them all. One thing jumps out though - articles with more than 1 note don't have an automatic line break between notes now. Testing... Gimmetrow 05:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say when you need unprotect/reprotect again. Or just tell me what the edit needs to be to save time. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding an easy fix that leaves the articles identical. (Not surprising given the open div tags left by the form before edit). The ref/note system has the same behaviour. Is there a way to find all articles that transclude a template more than once? Gimmetrow 06:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to change {{Ent}} to:

</div><div id="endnoteQ{{{2}}}">^{<small>[[#refQ{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}]]</small>}

Quite a few pages seem to be written with the odd sequence of divs providing a line break. Gimmetrow 06:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any tricks to determine which articles transclude a template more than once, though possibly you could use a query (either query.php or SQL) to do so. Easiest way in my mind to do this, however, would be dump the linked output from "what links here" from the template to a text file and write a short program to read the text file, line by line, wget the source for the page and do a search for the above code (obviously, the html code for the page is going to show the transcluded template's code, not wiki-syntax). If it finds that code more than once, you've got a match. You could potentially put an esoteric bit of syntax simply adding the newline, though that's pretty much just re-adding a bug to handle pages which were working around the buggy template to begin with, which is not Best Practices. :)

If it's a problem tomorrow, tell me and I'll whip up a program to do that if needed, though to be honest I'd really rather not. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for the help. I was most bothered by the backlinks not working, and that's fixed with (AFAIK) no collateral damage. The close-then-open div bug isn't a priority, you don't need to code up anything. Thanks again. Gimmetrow 07:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylu, I'm caught in my first complicated case on MEDCAB. The Aly & AJ case was progressing along until user:Switchfo0t813 broke off talks with no remark and just started reverting the article again. Any chance you can advise on how I might get them talking again? I posted a note to Switchfo0t813's user page. Alan.ca 21:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just try asking nicely. Read the "Suggestions for mediators" page again for hints and see if any ideas strike you. If not, talk to the other parties. If the user continues, you may have to suggest the other parties escalate the case to MedCom or possibly ArbCom, though hopefully that's not the case. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parties reached a compromise. I have just closed my first successful mediation. Thanks for your guidance! Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Aly & AJ Genre Classification is now closed based on a compromise being reached. This work is very rewarding. Alan.ca 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Don't let cases that stall or block get you down, just remember that you're more creative than a simple personality conflict, and each "stall" is simply a knot waiting for you to unravel it. Ultimately, every conflict on Wikipedia gets corrected one way or another, we're just here to make sure it's the one that produces the least headaches to all involved. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]