Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kylu: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:56, 4 September 2007 view sourceKylu (talk | contribs)9,405 edits →DannaShinsho: copy of post to Fred Bauder's talk← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:37, 14 October 2024 view source Jonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors374,416 edits Fix Linter errors. Fix misused inline markup. 
(571 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Not around|3=November 2011}}
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Kylu/bot-archive--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
<div align="right"><small>], ].<br> Sections are archived at 3 days automatically.</small></div>
<div style="margin:2em 1em; padding:1em; border:2px solid #000;"><center>'''Do not ask me to help resolve disputes (see the ]). Administrators are for immediate technical help ''only''.'''</center></div>


__NOINDEX__
If you're here to request an admin action, consider using the ]. If you need me in particular to deal with it, please ]. I do not expect any situations where I should be personally needed.
{{nobots}}
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT EDIT ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE, THANK YOU -->
<!-- {{User talk:Kylu/talkheader}} -->
{{wikibreak|Kylu|once Tartarus cools sufficiently.}}
<span style="display:none;"></span>
<!--
*******************************************
* *
* Hello, Editor! *
* *
* I'm not active on Wikimedia projects *
* so please don't leave any messages *
* here. Please contact someone else *
* instead. *
* *
* Personal question? Use the *
* Special:EmailUser link instead. *
* *
* Have a nice day. *
* *
*******************************************


<!-- PLEASE DO NOT EDIT ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE, THANK YOU. ACTUALLY, DON'T EDIT BELOW EITHER. -->
==]==
There is an ongoing discussion about the article you protected, Negroid. I request your input. ] 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


== Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago ==
:I notice there's current discussion on the article's talkpage. This is a good thing. There's no consensus on the subject matter yet, however. This is a bad thing. Having skimmed over the talk there, I'd make these suggestions:
{{User QAIbox
:# Discuss changes on the talkpage, then edit.
| title = Awesome
:# When the article is ready for unprotection, visit ] and request unprotection. Best to note the actual conclusion of the discourse.
| image = Cscr-featured.svg
:# Preferably, Haemo won't protect or unprotect the page at all. I prefer to simply not use admin actions on issues I'm involved in. We've got over a thousand admins, no really good reason to get involved.
| image_upright = 0.35
:# Discuss changes on the talkpage, then edit.
| bold = ]
:# Discussions that Haemo was abusing his admin-buttons should either be brought to the attention of ] or dropped, especially as I see only one instance of his using them: 23 Aug 2007, to protect the page for three days. See above, also.
}}
:# Those involved on the talkpage are quite obviously not done discussing the issue. Don't ask for unprotection until you're all ready to edit in a constructive manner.
--] (]) 06:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:# The article has . Every time, the admin will protect ]. Page protection is not an endorsement of the current revision.
:# '''Discuss changes on the talkpage, then edit.'''
:# Until changes to the page have been discussed and a consensus reached, I'm suggesting the article not be unprotected. If you want, I can redirect the page to point to ] to all involved parties, if it makes you discuss more and reach a better conclusion.
:In case the message got lost: '''''discuss changes, then request your unprotection'''''. Until you've all come up with some decision as to the problem at hand, I'm not interested at all in unprotecting the page. Thanks. 04:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see there seems to be a consensus of four editors. In any case a consensus should not be necessary when something is used with to disparage the subjects. I don't believe the prolonged protection of the article will help resolve disputes rather it will just raise temperatures because it gives the impression that the racists have won. ] 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

:From ]:
::''Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in. Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version. Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page. See also ].''
::''During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of ] or libel issues against ]. Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is ] for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page.''
:I notice you've put in the request for unprotection at ]. Thank you. Now, instead of stating that the protection shows that the "racists have won" (does that make me a racist, because I protected that particular version? would that make me more likely to help you, knowing you're calling me racist?) perhaps you can just wait until a nice, uninvolved, non-racist admin can look at the discussion there and determine if unprotection is called for. Thanks. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

:: Firstly I did not mention any names as being racist, Since this the first time that you had edited the article, I wouldn't pass such judgment on you. However it is frustrating that the same trouble making version is always the one to get protected. This is very frustrating, because it essentially means that the dispute is being unnecessarily prolonged. I don't see why a page should be protected for 2 full weeks over the insistence of a stereotypical photo from a racist era. Should editors spend two weeks discussing one photo. It is my opinion that the protection of the page was premature. Firstly the page was protected by Haemo on the 23rd for three days, when the protection expired I removed the controversial picture. 3 reverts later the page was protected again with the same controversial picture. I believe this was a premature protection. Protection policy states that it is not an endorsement of the current version. It is for this reason protection should not be rushed and if possible should be avoided if alternative solutions can be found. Even though protection is not an endorsement, two weeks of one version is hell of a lot of time. If you had checked the protection log for this article you can see it has been a magnet for racist editors and protection has been used to prevent vandalism and sockpuppetry. Though your protection is not an endorsement it is inadvertently supporting the edits of editors such as ] and ] who have been indefinitely blocked for racism and antisemitism. If you check the edit history of the article you will see their support. The system isn't working as it should. ] 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

::: I was under the impression that ] was blocked for being a sockpuppet, not for being a racist... am I wrong? ] ]/] 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: Phral was blocked for being a sockpuppet of an editor who was indefinitely blocked for racist edits. for example. ] 22:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. Just, maybe if you're gonna call someone a racist, maybe provide some diffs. Just a thought. ] ]/] 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:Okay, so, other than unprotecting the page (which I already told you, either get ] to do or your favorite non-me admin) what is it I can do for you? <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:: well the last remaining editor involved in the dispute from the "other side", ] has declared that he has no interest in the article . ] 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
::: You haven't answered the question. Other than unprotecting the page (ask RFPP or a '''different''' admin for that, not me. I've said this before and won't repeat myself again.) what is it I can do for you? <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: Well I have opened a fresh request for unprotection but since you were the admin who protected the page, I still have to request unprotection from you as well. Hopefully we can then go about our respective businesses. ] 23:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: You don't need to ask me each time. You have my standing permission to ask whoever you feel like for unprotection, just as long as it's not me. Feel free to cite this diff. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 23:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Sounds like you are running away from your responsibilities. Since you protected this page, I would assume that you had some sort of interest in resolving the issue. Simply protecting a page and leaving doesn't solve disputes. Thats like burying the head in the ground. I think that if one starts something, they should make an effort to see it through. ] 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::: You know, you're absolutely right. I take back my earlier statement. The page shall stay protected until the dispute is resolved or the current protection expires. Any admins doing otherwise will have to spend rouge points to do so: They'll be unprotecting the page against my express wishes. Now, if you're going to start attacking me, I'd appreciate it if you'd do it on your own talkpage, but don't continue it here. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 23:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: I will respond on my talk page as per your request. I am not attacking you personally but It should be okay to discuss the actions of administrators. ] 00:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Wait a minute here. I think you are being very rude. Maybe I'm reading this discussion wrong, but your first response was to be offended. And your tone continued to be. I see no where someone referred to you as racist, and I do not understand how or why you would think that? As an admin, you should know better than that. Also, letting your offense dictate your judgement is way off base. The dispute is with one person (not you) to 4 with removing the image. Is this your way of holding a grude by saying you will not unprotect the page because you believe you've been attacked? ]&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:::: Hiya Jeeny. Glad to see you're still watching my talkpage, ready to spring into action. By protecting the page the way I found it, he says I'm encouraging the racists. Not so. I protect the first version of a page in-conflict that I come across. I don't really honestly care whose revision gets protected, as long as the edit-warring stops and they're forced to discuss things on the talkpage instead of beating up the poor servers and skyrocketing the revision history. They're not doing anything productive this way, and when I find a dispute, I simply mark it (via protection) and continue on: If I decided to "get involved" in the dispute, either I'll develop a non-neutral opinion about the situation (in which case the earlier protection would be in dispute) or I might actually really abuse admin permissions. By locking-and-leaving, they're forced to resolve the dispute before requesting unprotection, otherwise the RFPP respondent will simply say "The dispute does not seem to have been resolved, unprotection denied" as ] did on ] earlier.
:::: The "racism" comment, you might've guessed, is just an gambit used to try to pry Mr. Muntuwandi from my page. I'd already said I won't unprotect the page, and to seek out a different admin or RFPP. He asked me again to unprotect the page. I repeated myself. He asked again. If he's not going to listen to me when I'm asking nicely, then there's no reason to bother asking nicely. This way, perhaps Mr. Muntuwandi (who I seem to see a distressing tendency to label "racist" anyone who disagrees with him, have you read his talkpage?) will go ahead and do what I've been asking him to do anyway. See also: ].
:::: Here's a hint regarding the page he wants unprotected: Read the bloody talkpage. It's not anywhere ''near'' resolved that I can see. If it were, they wouldn't still be arguing about it, right?
:::: My suggestion to him was to discuss things and then request unprotection. He just wants to go straight to unprotection so he can revert to his version and not have to see the "racist" version there anymore. If he does that, then...yep, you guessed it, someone else will come along and revert it back. Sooner or later he'll get blocked for violating 3RR. If he's blocked, or if he's busy warring over the article, there's no discussion going on.
:::: Administrators are not part of the ]. At no point does it say, "when you're in a disagreement with someone, ask an admin to protect it to your version or to block the offender." Recently, I blocked ] because I felt he was stalking ]... you know the reason he was unblocked? Because ] felt it was a content dispute and not stalking. No tool use for resolving content disputes, we just stop people from trashing the servers. Technical vs. social, see?
:::: '''This in mind, exactly what role should my judgment play in the dispute?''' None. I stop via technical means the escalation of the dispute, then those in dispute go to seek resolution elsewhere. I am not ], nor am I ], nor ]. They need to work the dispute out, not simply have an admin come along, dictate what the outcome will be. That's not how we work here! :)
:::: Like Baby 81, below, I don't really feel much concerned about the dispute in question: I feel concerned when people constantly revert each other over the content and ignore discussion and instead determine the "winner" by who can stay up the longest reverting the other's edits. That's why ] was made into policy.
:::: I'm not quite as stupid as I look, Jeeny. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 01:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well, I don't know about that. I hate pink. Anyway, you must think very big of yourself that I have YOU on my watchlist. LOL. It's Muntuwandi, and the Negroid article that is on my watch list. I forgot you even existed until I looked up after I forgot to sign and saw my comments above. So there. ;P ]&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::You've forgotten about me already? Man, I feel so used... *sob* Hey, if you can, see if you can get some of those guys into a dispute resolution system of some sort, please? And, maybe, like inject a few quarts of sense of humor and a couple gallons of perspective. You could introduce them to our resident ] also. You know you want to go look at that link now, don'cha.... <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: It is incorrect to say that I label everyone I disagree with racist. I dislike the use of the overly used term racist and only use when I have exhausted all other terms or to get some attention. The term racist only appears 4 times on my page and it is reference to users who have been blocked for "racism". Specifically those whose edits administrators have labeled as racist. It is wrong to label someone as racist without any evidence. ] 02:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Funny, and I was doing the same thing to you. :) I hope you agree we're all far too oversensitive about some things. Hell, I'm Irish-Japanese-AmericanIndian as my majority races, with the understanding that I could have just about anything I've heard of in there if I look back far enough. Supposedly there's old Scottish nobility, which would make me...er...uh, absolutely nobody of importance. I figure in a few hundred years, we'll all be one color anyway, so why not just write from ''that'' perspective instead of worrying if someone else doesn't like me because I'm __________? Anyway, I'm glad you're reading. Maybe now you know that I want you to go to ] and get things taken care of the way the community intends, and then, perhaps afterwards, someone can unprotect the page? I'm not willing to get involved in someone else's argument just because I stopped the server from going into convulsions. Hopefully next time we meet, we'll be on better terms. Gonna get some sleep (sick as a dog! cough cough hack hack! ... so why am I editing? addicted! sheesh.) so g'night. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

**As Kylu said before, work out whatever issues there are with the article then she or another administrator can unlock the page. Since there is still an edit war going on, Kylu is trying to stay a non-party in the dispute, so she can do administrator actions without accusations of bias. She is not here to just ban at someones whim, she is not going to do anything because you specifically ask her to do it. She is using good judgment and I support her actions. As mentioned in the bold above, go to the Dispute Resolution. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

== Not ] ==

Good morning: I thought I would put the following comments here because, though they arose on the ] discussion page, they are not related to the on-going argument about the use of the child's name. First, not all of us type equally well, and not all of us see equally well. Sometimes, late at night, on my lap-top screen, the black text is not very distnguishable from the blue, and thus, even after several Previews, a typing mistake can remain. Please feel free, if such a typo happens in something I have done, to repair it when you notice it. If nothing else, it would be faster for you than to write out an explanation, only to strike it out almost immediately.

Second, about your signature: I was certainly not mocking either it or you. In mark-up, it is a difficult one to read, with all the brackets and letters that are not usual combinations in English. As I said, I am not much of a typist. Maybe I should also state the obvious that I am not much of a programmer either. I tried copying the signature and was successful in the my first attempt, I thought, but kept losing bits when I repeated the effort in the following comments. I then even tried to get it down to the bare blue, but, oddly enough, thought you might be more upset by that than an honest effort to get your chosen name form right. (It would have been correct, I think now, in the morning, when I can see, if I had not tried to leave out the two letters that follow the name. That's where I kept going astray. In one Preview, the whole of the message following your signature came out hot pink.) There is enough contention on ]'s page without simple mistakes being taken for things much more sinister. I will try to do better in future and would be grateful for the extension of ] for first offenses at least. ] 15:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

:I have only just realized that the whole of the paragraph containing the above reprimands is addressed to me. In the interests of keeping matters rational, I have carefully re-read my text looking for ] arguments and ], and have read both articles, but I can't find the source of the comments. I would appreciate your assistance in finding the offending text. If, perchance, these admonitions about logic are directed to all of us in the current discussion, perhaps you would separate them clearly from the comments directed at me. ] 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

::Please re-read the last paragraph. From "Perhaps this might help" on, it makes absolutely no sense for that section to be pointed at you directly. The idea is to get the people writing (or edit warring, rather) an opportunity to spell out the reasons for inclusion or not of the name. I'll give you a hint: ''I don't care''. Not one lick. If it's in there, fine. If not, fine. What do I care about? Getting people on that page to not edit war over things like that. Really.

::Also, while fine, you're new (having only been here since April 15th of this year, I see) but you've managed to get the link correct in the second paragraph, but have yet to correct the first one. I've fixed the separation between the message directed at you and the message to the talkpage as a whole, but ] helpfully decided to delete the section headers that I'd mentioned. Personally, the article has been a royal pain and I wish the people involved would come to some sort of decision, or at least stop jumping the article all over the place like a bloody jackrabbit on a pogo stick. No further input is needed on the matter. Please contact ] for unprotection (like above), you may cite this diff as evidence that I have no desire to be contacted regarding the article's unprotection. Thanks. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


==:)==
Hi. :o --]] 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:Wow, a cake! Where've you been? The guys at MedCab have been bored without you. Kept up on your music like I asked? <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 01:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::I have been away to distant lands, learning the wisdom of the land... or something. I HAVEN'T TALKED TO YOU IN FOREVER. WTF IS UP. WE MUST FIND SOME MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. DO YOU HAVE AIM? (and yes... musicing as always) --]] 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:::<span class="wtf?" id="Dispelling-irc-cabalism-myths">Email me or use IRC. I'm allergic to instant messengers. I hang out on nice public channels where the cabalism is somewhat limited: Instant Messenger clients make it much, much easier to keep conversations secret.</span> :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::...exactly? I just want to talk about anything and in private... it has nothing to do with wikipolitics or whatever. and I haven't seen you on IRC lately. --]] 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::Email me or use irc so we can set something up, then, instead of having every troll on wikipedia stick me on their buddy list? :D <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

== ] II: The Revenge of Negroid ==

There are major problems with the ] article in the version you preserved it in. It needs immediately tagged with factual accuracy, disputed, verify source, and original research tag, as none of the four sources I checked say anything that is claimed in the article. No Misplaced Pages reader should be allowed to see this article as it now stands without these tags in place. ] 17:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:I think you've missed the ] completely, as well as my response to it: Until either the dispute regarding the contents are settled or the protection expires (automatically on the 11th), I have no interest in doing the unprotection.

:If anyone wants to either persuade ''someone else'' to do the unprotection or have an admin at ] do it, that's fine, but I'm interested in ending the edit-war over the article, not solving the underlying dispute myself. That's a job for ], not admins. Ciao. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 22:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::Hey, you're on my watch list. I suggest you ban a few people on that article that are really getting on my nerves. I think that's the only fair thing that can be done. Now can you do that? I'll give you lots of candy, if you do what I say. :) ]&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not, nor have I ever discussed the image. And, Jeeny, don't speak for me, if you can't do so accurately--in fact, don't do so at all.
:::The other editors refuse to discuss the article at all, so that's out. At long as people keep telling me that if folks edit war about an image, any sort of factual accuracy, outright lies, and apparent hoaxes in a Misplaced Pages article should be kept, they'll be in the wrong--this should never have gotten into the article in the first place, much less been force kept simply because a group of administrators refuse to read the text while editors are arguing about an image. It makes Misplaced Pages editors look like incompetent idiots.
:::But, if you want pure crap, misspellings, lies, and hoaxes to be part of Misplaced Pages, then it's all yours. But when it blows up for what it really is, pure crap and a hoax that some bigot got away with perpetuating on Misplaced Pages, just remember that you chose it this way. ] 22:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::'''Note''': I was just saying one the talk page that you hadn't commented on the image... they were under the impression that you had... ] ]/] 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not blocking anyone due to this article. If you want people banned, try ] or just drop a complaint on ]. The better solution is simply to (and I know, I should've mentioned this before...) select a ] procedure... may I select ] perhaps?...and start trying to discuss the problem instead of just arguing the same points over and over. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I was frikken joking! Sheesh, what happened to your sense of humour? I was being sarcastic. If you would not unlock the article why would I think you'd ban people I'd suggest. It was a JOKE. ]&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're amused that Misplaced Pages is being gamed. I'm not. But at least someone is getting some fun out of it. ] 00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

:Who said anything about being gamed? Reminds me the most of a Star Wars title. You failed to leave your post in the existing section, you haven't apparently read the admin guidelines (hint: DO NOT EDIT A PAGE YOU'RE ABOUT TO PROTECT), and if , do it elsewhere. Admins also don't block people involved in a dispute unless they really feel like being hauled in front of ArbCom for abuse of admin tools by biased use of said tools.
:Quite frankly, if you guys are simply going to argue about the article, do it on the article's talkpage. Don't do it here. I actually do have more important things to do than babysit your article while you ]. I'm not part of dispute resolution and I already told you guys what the standards would be for me unprotecting the article. If, by your inability to get your act together and even ''consider'' going to ] (try it! click the link! seriously, it won't bite!) then I want nothing more to do with you. You're not Being Very Wiki by doing this. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

===Make it bigger===
It's still not clear. :p ]&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:I fear you may be right. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

==] notice==
Just a note, now that someone has , the protecting admin is ], not me. Thanks. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:Just a note, I was teasing you before when I suggested to ban other users. I thought it was funny to suggest the absurd. I was mocking the whole thing, in a sense. :) ]&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
::Others have meailed me suggesting it would've been a good idea, in the serious sense. I think, perhaps, that users on Misplaced Pages sometimes have a fatally flawed (fatally for us, sadly) understanding of what admins actually ''do'' sometimes. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

==DannaShinsho==
I would like to unblock {{Userlinks|DannaShinsho}}. I don't think he actually made a legal threat towards Durin, but only to others on the web using his images. I realize he's difficult, but will watch him closely. ] 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(will copy this note to my talkpage to make transparency easier)

You've got my trust, unblock as you see fit. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:37, 14 October 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Kylu has not edited Misplaced Pages since November 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.


Kylu is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages once Tartarus cools sufficiently.

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Categories: