User talk:Kylu: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:42, 22 August 2007 view sourceKylu (talk \| contribs)9,405 edits →Deletion of []: okay, posted← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:53, 22 August 2007 view source Kylu (talk \| contribs)9,405 edits →Gothic Chess: Archiving section. I'm not sure I'd want to see how the bot will handle the funky indenting and sectioning here.Next edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::: Ah, well, at least they're leaving us ''fair and balanced''. That ''is'' Fox News, right? Maybe I'm thinking of ? I always get those confused. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]\|]) </font></i></b> 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)		::: Ah, well, at least they're leaving us ''fair and balanced''. That ''is'' Fox News, right? Maybe I'm thinking of ? I always get those confused. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]\|]) </font></i></b> 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Gothic Chess ==

	Hello, my name is ] and I invented the game of ]. I would like to say, first of all, thanks for protecting the Gothic Chess page. Furthermore, as the page is currently locked in the state that is correct and free of the vandalism, may I request that the expiration of this lock be extended by one calendar month?

	With my gratitude,

	] 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Ah, well, in order to not give the appearance of favoritism to any particular reversion (I wouldn't want to protect ] after all. (If you don't get the joke, click the link. Really.) so I'd really like to ask you to check in on ] instead, please.

	:I'd like to ask you to, instead of relying on page protection, please talk to the other editors about the dispute instead and try to resolve it. If the issue is actual vandalism, please make a mention on ] instead. Please note that content disputes are not vandalism.

	:I don't want you to think that I'm saying "No, I won't help you," by the way. I'm a firm believer that administrators are there merely to enforce the will and intent of the community, and that we're firmly not arbitrators nor mediators by virtue of the position. I can help content disputes personally, but will not use administrative tools to do so (as that would be abuse of the trust bestowed upon my community here.) I hope that's no disappointment. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]\|]) </font></i></b> 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

	----
	<div class="boilerplate metadata utalk-section" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
	It took me a while to understand the "joke", then it finally dawned on me: each opposing faction will, no doubt, claim their own version of the page is correct, therefore, the one that is '''NOT''' under the umbrella of protection, will naturally issue forth the complaint.


	OK, I can help solve the game of checkers (see http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/thankyou/ ), defeat the World's Strongest Chess Computer back in 1989 (see http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272214 ), write a program to solve a forced checkmate in 268 moves (see http://www.gothicchess.com/javascript_endings.html ) yet I can still miss the obvious sense of humor the overburdened Misplaced Pages volunteers experience after having been beseiged by such "Wrong Version" requests!


	My request to extend this protection has been made based on the recent continued postings to the ] page wherein several users are avoiding pertinent questions I post to try and get to the matter at hand. Basically..

	::'''1. I invented a chess variant that has over 50,000 players playing it right now. Some "new" variant, claiming to be "similar" to mine, is requesting many links back to the page of that game.'''

	::'''2. Both of our boards feature a total of 80 squares, arranged 10 x 8.'''

	::'''3. Of the 10 pieces in the back row, only the Kings are placed in the same location. Everything else is different.'''

	With only a 10% similarity, or, should I say, with a 90% mismatch, I don't see how the game's author can claim they are so close in design. His intentions are clear, he wants to generate publicity from the ] page, and, once links to his own website are in place, he can make any comments he wants to impugn my game there.

	I think a "cool down" period is in order. I would appreciate a one month extension.

	With my best regards,

	] 01:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
	</div>

	:The catch is, this isn't checkers nor chess, nor can logic be applied without social consequence. Misplaced Pages is more like a rather large game of ], and the last stated rule was, "For an extension of page protection, please see ]." Now that you've chosen to ignore the rules of Nomic and apply checkers, I get to modify my rules again.

	:This one goes, "If you want to see an extension of the page protection, contact ] ''or any admin which is not me'', otherwise I'll simply remove the page protection altogether, since you've clearly stated your case that your version is correct. I'll choose to not interfere with the further development of the situation on that page, however."

	:In this giant Wiki game of Nomic, there are few standing rules, but one (encapsulated on the front page, even) is that this is the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit." By extending the page protection and validating that your version is, in fact, The Right Version, we're denying others the ability to exercise the privilege of editing and improving the page.

	:It would be beneficial to converse with the editor you are having the dispute with and resolve the dispute instead of extending it by using unfair methods (''such as persuading an admin that your version is perfect and never needs maintenance''). I'm a bit fond of ] myself, having been a former mediator there. I'd advise you to resolve the dispute before it escalates further, since the ultimate end of the game for a player is unresolved disputes: They invariably end at ] once other methods of dispute resolution have been tried, and in my opinion, everyone that finds themselves in an ArbCom case is a loser: It means they were incapable of resolving disputes themselves and had to be told what to do.

	:'''To summarize''': Find a dispute resolution method and use it first, ask for an extension on ] if you need to lock the article from edit warring during your mediation, and if you still think that edit warring over an article is important enough to chance having yourself blocked from the site forever and ever, then go ahead and file an arbitration case.

	:Meanwhile, please consider improving other articles or doing ] if you're unwilling to budge on that article.

	:I can't make that a demand (I'd like to, but eh...) since the administrators here serve in a technical capability, not a political one, and work to serve the needs and goals of the community as a whole. What would you have done if you arrived at the article and found that the other person arrived first and had (say) an indefinite extension to page protection and nobody was willing to discuss mediation options with you? (No reply needed, I'd much rather you tried to suggest alternatives with the other side of the situation.) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]\|]) </font></i></b> 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

	<div class="boilerplate metadata utalk-section" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

	I appreciate your perspective on the matter at hand. I have taken to editing some stuff about checkers that seemed slightly inaccurate. See ] for more info.

	] 17:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
	</div>

	:Just so you know, I refactored your previous reply because it was long enough that I couldn't find the section breaks easily. You don't actually need to do it every time. :)
	:I'm glad you've found something else to occupy yourself in the meanwhile. There's never a good excuse for letting yourself run afoul of ] and the like. It's just an article. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]\|]) </font></i></b> 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

	== RE: MedCab bot ==		== RE: MedCab bot ==

Revision as of 18:53, 22 August 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Kylu/bot-archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived. For old talkpage archives, see: Old Archives.


Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #223

If you're here to request an admin action, consider using the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard
If you need for me to be the one to deal with it, please email me. I do not expect any situations where I should be personally needed.

Bugzilla 1062

Further to your offer on the Village Pump, it is bugzilla:1062. I don't want to add a new bug, just comment on that one. In this case, I want to point out that the feature being voted on could disrupt the linkage between pages that redirects help to maintain. My point against a feature that allows users to suppress redirect creation when moving pages can be summed up as follows: "unless the software checks for links to the page and alerts people 'THERE ARE 500 INCOMING LINKS THAT NEED TO BE REDIRECTED, SUGGEST YOU DO NOT SUPPRESS THE CREATION OF A REDIRECT', then inexperienced, tired, careless, users and admins will use the feature when it shouldn't be used". You could just add the bit in double quote marks, and say you are posting on behalf of w:User:Carcharoth. I can see it is an old bug, but I also know that things like that can sometimes get implemented really quickly if some developer takes an interest, and I think it needs more thought. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

comment noted. (Shortform doesn't link directly to comments.) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, remind me later: I was interested in putting a "generate password" javascript somewhere. It'd be nice to assist people who do things like use "password" for their account passwords. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, remind you, like this? :-) Thanks for posting the comment. Nice to see that it generated a bit of discussion. I'm reading the thread now. Carcharoth 23:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, shiny!

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ , catch anyone fun yet?

--Kim Bruning 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Haven't played with that yet, looks easier than what I usually do though. Thanks for the link. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 14:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They found Fox News, for one. Did you spot anything yet? --Kim Bruning 11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, at least they're leaving us fair and balanced. That is Fox News, right? Maybe I'm thinking of MSNBC? I always get those confused. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: MedCab bot

Sure! Go ahead and give Misza13 the password, I trust him. My version of the bot is offline. I have totally forgotten what the password is :) —Sean Whitton / 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Forgot to add "please? with cherries on top?" Ahwell. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you tell me what these are and how to transfer . . . —Sean Whitton / 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on Misza's talkpage. I don't know the structure of the filesystem on toolserver or WRT pywikipedia well enough to provide those answers, partly because they still have yet to reauth my account there. Apparently the next round of accounts starts on the 28th of this month, but we'll see if it actually happens. Meh. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Question

Thanks for looking at Vandalism by 63.162.143.21. I've copied from WP:ANI in case you didn't see the questions I left there.

Personal information from Amy Fisher removed from page history. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know that it was possible to edit the page history. 'Tis a good thing. Sbowers3 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Second note: I've looked over the edits and it appears there are at least three users coming from this IP. One, in fact, has done a number of useful edits. It may be worthwhile to contact DHS and ask them if this is a proxy and encourage them to have their users register accounts, especially given the new tools available in the last few days. ~Kylu (u|t) 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Yes, I also thought there were multiple users. Some clearly was vandalism; some seemed useful - but could have been subtle vandalism. I didn't know the subjects well enough to tell if the edits were useful or vandalism so I wondered if there were a way to warn other editors to double-check the edits.

These are the questions I hope you can answer:

Is there some way to identify an administrative contact at that IP site and find an email address? I'd be happy to send a message but I don't know how to find an email address. I will send snail mail if there is no better way.

BTW, what are the "new tools"? Sbowers3 00:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer

jbarrett@dockmaster ~
$ whois 63.162.143.21
Sprint SPRN-BLKS (NET-63-160-0-0-1)
                                  63.160.0.0 - 63.175.255.255
DeptHomelandSecurity SPRINTLINK (NET-63-162-143-0-1)
                                  63.162.143.0 - 63.162.143.31
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-08-17 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
More information:
OrgName: DeptHomelandSecurity
OrgID: DEPTH
Address: 801 I Street NW
City: Washington
StateProv: DC
IP address n021.dhs.gov
TTL Answer n021.dhs.gov. A IN 86400 63.162.143.21 dhs.gov.
TechHandle: JHO28-ARIN
TechName: Hoffman, Jim
NetRange: 63.162.143.0 - 63.162.143.31
CIDR: 63.162.143.0/27

New tool that everyone's raving about: WikiScanner (wired.com article)
Note: Misplaced Pages admins have known for some time that everyone edits Misplaced Pages. Whitehouse, CIA, Fox and CNN employees, etc... this is why the Neutral Point of View policy is so important. We don't discriminate on organization, anyone capable of putting together verifiable information obtained from reliable sources and adhering to the various policies we have on content, including notability is welcome to post. The people at the DHS are human, and when bored there's as good a chance as anyone else that they'll do something dumb. This is not news. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s., For actual permanent deletions of specific revisions, please see WP:OVER. For simply deleting specific revisions, any admin can delete a page and restore all revisions except certain ones. This comes in especially handy when we find violations of someone's privacy, though it's labor-intensive. Sorry for not answering that question. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal comment

It is normal practice to respond on the page of the person who wrote to one, I respond again onmy talk but this is strange bnehaviour let us say, SqueakBox 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the practice of leaving the conversation in one place, as it's easier to refer to after-the-fact. Linkback: User_talk:SqueakBox#Some_trolls. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Exegesis (group)

Rather than delete the page, why cant you just delete the section that you consider spam?

Reinstate it and use the talk page to let us know what you think is spam. Last time I viewed the page (couple of weeks ago at most), I couldnt see anything remotely objectionable.

Stevehawker 10:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While, perhaps, the top of the page could be salvageable, the sections "Graduates of the Exegesis seminar and ex-members of Programmes Limited and Merchants" and "Companies formed or largely staffed by Exegesis graduates and using the material" were indiscriminate lists comprised of only external links.

In addition, the text itself did not did not cite a single reliable source, made no assertation of notability at all.

The deletion of the lists was my main concern, however without the lists you're simply left with a stub with no citations nor assertation of notability, which still would've left the article subject to speedy deletion.

Now, just to clarify, while the speedy deletion criteria do state that recreation of deleted material (G4) is a deletion reason, that doesn't apply to deletions per the CSD's themselves. If you'd like to recreate the page, including asstertation of notability and citations, it may well satisfy the various policies for inclusion. In fact, if you'd like the source for the deleted page, please let me know and I'd be happy to recreate the page in your userspace for your reference.

I hope this was of some help. I'm copying this section to your talkpage (with a handy welcome message full of useful information!) for your convenience. ~Kylu (u|t) 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, I would like to have a go at expanding the Exegesis page that you deleted. Would you mind recreating the deleted source in my userspace? Thanks AnthonyConway 10:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, text is now at User:AnthonyConway as your userpage was previously blank. You may wish to consider moving it to a subpage to work on it, and I assume you'll have no problems sharing with User:Stevehawker? Good luck. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Matt57

Kylu, you invited Matt57 to edit articles that Elonka isn't editing. Which articles did you have in mind? Because to my knowledge, Matt57 isn't editing any articles that Elonka's editing (though she's invited him to do so.)Proabivouac 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: I've posted a an/i thread (link to it is on Matt57's talkpage, I'm sure you've seen it by now) regarding the situation. I realize you're his friend, and it's for this reason that I'm going to ask that you not do any unblocking yourself. Please, ask someone else to do this.

If you're his friend, you've got to see that this really just isn't healthy for either of them. Please, use the 24 hours provided to try to convince him to fixate elsewhere. I'm sure I've relegated myself to the deepest depths of wiki-hell for the sin of blocking a long-time contributor (yes, again, but with much more forethought this time, I promise you) but if there's a chance that just maybe this will persuade him to leave Elonka alone then it's worth it.

I'm really not looking forward to the headache this is going to cause me, but I'm trying to do the right thing here. On that note, I'm getting some Advil and going to sleep before this makes me grumpy in the morning. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks a bit awkward, some information seems to have gotten lost in the delete/restore process. Apologies... ~ Riana ⁂ 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's the private information I contacted you about, it's fine by me if it goes away; It shouldn't have been on here in the first place. Thanks for the help. Gonna go die for a while now, ciao. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodnight, Kylu. For tomorrow, if Matt57 posted personal information which Elonka hasn't disclosed herself, that's a big problem and obviously must be acted upon.

However, as one who's followed this rather closely, at least since the last ANI thread, I can assure you that in my view - and I don't say this lightly - Elonka's behavior has been remarkably underhanded and dishonest at every turn.

What this all boils down to is, so far as I can discern, is her very strong desire to maintain her original research about her relatives in mainspace. Leaving Elonka alone is good, but that can't mean leaving her COI material alone. To threaten users who attempt to bring it into compliance with policy, whatever their motives, is just a continuation of the same conflict of interest she had when she created these articles.Proabivouac 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kylu, what was private about the information I posted? Did you even investigate? That was public information posted on User:Elonka/About. May I ask how you were contacted about this block and what was said exactly? --Matt57 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have examined the circumstances leading to this block, and have come to the conclusion that it is both unwarranted and punitive. Hence, I have undone the block. Please see the thread on the admin board for details. >Radiant< 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have expressed my objections to this unblock in several places. "Unwarranted and punitive" seems a direct failure to assume good faith about your action. Your block had been endorsed by numerous admins at the time it was overturned. Radiant seems to merely have decided his judgment of the facts were better than yours. A poor decision in my opinion. WjBscribe 17:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)