Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kylu (talk | contribs) at 20:45, 9 November 2006 (→Protection of LostNav: tyvm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Kylu/talkheader

Barnstar

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

Re:questions

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

• (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)

Aquene

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

Thanks...

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)

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)

3RR block

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 14:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well, I've always understood SOP to be that the socks are indef blocked. Misplaced Pages: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 18:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your help! Kafziel 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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)

Protection of LostNav

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

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)

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)

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