User talk:Ilyanep/Talk Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ilyanep's Talk , Archive 1 , Archive 2 , Archive 3 , Archive 4 , Archive 5 , Archive 6 , Archive 7 , Archive 8 , Archive 9 , Archive 10

[edit] Reply

While I have a lot of respect for you personally (and was actually intending to vote strong support before I read your statement), the measures you advocate simply don't work - and in my opinion, have been making things a lot worse in recent months.

There seems to be a perception among some people that bans are unenforceable, yet I really don't see how this holds up under scrutiny. There's been a couple of examples of people who evaded their bans (Skyring for one), but really not that many, and for the most part, banned users have simply left us alone and found something better to do with their time.

In contrast, these "targeted bans" protect the articles from bad users, but leave them free to hang around and cause chaos on the community side of things. If you have a look through the recent "Bill of Rights" and "Arbitration Code of Conduct" nonsenses, virtually all of the participants without fail are people who have a) been sanctioned by the committee, but not banned, b) are mad as hell, c) are doing absolutely sweet bugger all in terms of work on the encylopedia, and d) are quite keen on getting revenge for having been stopped from messing up their pet articles. Now that they've been stopped from messing up articles, a lot of these guys are instead spending all their time playing wiki-resistance-fighters.

Having these people around does nothing for the encyclopedia, and is helping to make the community side of things a damned sight more poisonous. That, I'm afraid, is why I had to reluctantly vote oppose. Ambi 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself quite clear. As I stated in my questions section, I meant that we need to use topical bans at first. I think that in some cases it helps good editors calm down and focus on something else, but if that fails, then we need to use hard bans.

The problem is that using hard bans right away might make good editors go away as well, if they've been caught in an unfortunate dilemma. Also, it doesn't seem like many of the trouble makers were assigned to mentors or anything, which might help as well.

In any case, you are entitled to your vote. Thank you for explaining. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and there are quite a few cases where that does hold true, but it's a fine line. If there's a history of good contributions, then by all means do that (I can think of a couple of examples where this has worked well). Preventing some POV-pusher with an obsession with one particular topic from editing said topic, however, just makes them angry, and I really must oppose not getting rid of those types completely without further misery. Ambi 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well I see where you're coming from as well. Nice talking with you and thank you for replying. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom recall

Meant the question about deposing ArbCom members by a vote. You were perceptive enough to see that the question was really about Kelly Martin, but more generally I see it as a bad move toward organizing campaigns of outrage against people whose decisions have pissed someone off. I'm not even sure how an arbitrator can be so bad that removal would be an urgent necessity (keeping in mind that they don't have any real power by themselves, and can't do anything in secret; at worst they can be a consistently unreasonable dissenting voice)... but if they go blatantly insane, I trust Jimbo to remove them. Otherwise editors should just learn to get along with them. I really don't have much sympathy for people who would rather denounce ArbCom than edit articles; 99.9% of all such disputes I've seen have been pointless wikilawyering. ←Hob 04:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, my vote was more about lack of experience - just wanted to mention the above. And my opinion of recall elections is probably biased due to living in California... :-) ←Hob 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. I think that if in most of these cases it came to a vote that bluntly said 'do you want x off of the ArbCom' we wouldn't see a majority voting to take them off. For example, the Kelly Martin case; I think that most of the people there opposing either just support userboxes or want Kelly to apologize, no more. Agreed on your other points though. —Ilyanep (Talk) 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As per lack of experience; I've almost been here 3 years, do you mean an issue with my age? —Ilyanep (Talk) 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Er... just read back through the candidate pages and realized I was thinking of someone else, on "lack of experience". Eep, sorry. However, on rereading your questions page and recreating my train of thought - yeah, your age was slightly off-putting (though it makes your work very impressive), but mostly the statement about voting bothered me. Another one that did, not exactly related but indicating a philosophical difference, was the claim that ArbCom should reject all requests that haven't been through mediation; this just isn't practical in some cases that involve a large number of articles or truly egregious patterns of behavior. From what I've seen, ArbCom is acting appropriately; the only real change I'd support is to reduce their workload by adding more active members. ←Hob 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you for clarifying and responding. Hope to see you around :) —Ilyanep (Talk) 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to add my response to your further comment above, on voting. I agree that it's unlikely any members would really be deposed that way. But I think the process would be illegitimate - basically an unpopularity contest, based on an unrepresentative sample of editors, i.e. those who follow ArbCom closely - and more importantly it would divert energy away from conflict resolution, toward conflict generation and politicking. ←Hob 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom election

Hi,

My apologies that the election guidelines, with their warning against "disendorsements" (the term remains unclear to me) forced me to keep my comments terse. My votes in the Arbcom election were shaped by my dislike of expansive interpretations of IAR (which I have long held.) It is your misfortune that the Martin RfC arose right before the election, and some of your endorsements there caught my eye as disagreeable, and dangerous for an ArbCom member to hold. I have all but left WP as a direct result of what I feel is an unsatisfactory result in that matter (for which, see Nandesuka's talk page), and intend for these votes to be my final edits. I hope the election will yield an ArbCom less permissive and/or diffident on the question of unilateralist contempt for the processes of open dialogue that I strongly believe are essentially to any meaningful consensus. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your answer

Thanks for your answer to: "we should have a secret vote" <-- Why?
I wonder to what extent secret voting is an artifact of paper ballots and the pre-electronic world. Can we adapt to a new mind-set for voting in the electronic age? Maybe there are advantages to having total transparency in the workings of a wiki. Maybe it is better for people to know how (and why) everyone has voted so that there can be discussion and a chance to attain a meeting of minds. --JWSchmidt 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it has potential in a truly harmonious wiki community, but the problem is that we're looking at a possible disendorsments disaster. I really wish that we could have an open vote with no negative consequences, but I suppose it might just be human nature. —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

I don't know if this is how it's been done before, but I've dummied up a draft in one of my sandboxes so you can have a look at it. Leave any comments on my talk page. -- Essjay · Talk 18:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Check it now, I added a background. Once we settle on a theme, I'll do a similar one for your talk. -- Essjay · Talk 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "month-long wikibreaks"

Per your conversation with Nickptar, you should probably actually edit your user page to say that there will only be one wikibreak, when it will be, and why (and without using the unexpanded acronym "IRN", as non-IMSAns won't understand it). Though I'd love to see the conversation with CNS: "can I get an exception? I'm an Arbitrator on Wikipedia...." ;) /blahedo (t) 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha...that'd be nice. I'd love to see the expression on their face. Also, I plan to go home on most weekends so I'll have time then. Thanks for the suggestion :) —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bringing to your attention

Thanks for the notice! If they haven't been taken care of yet, I'll do it now. Also, note that there's no official rule prohibiting you or anyone else from doing it (though as a candidate, you probably should stay on the conservative side). Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I try to stay out of it because I'm a candidate and I don't really want to mess with that. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double Vote

I didnt know that. I guess I should have just gone through the whole list one time, rather then split it up as I did over two sittings. Thanks for pointing it out though. It was just a mistake on my part. Davidpdx 23:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) Thanks for replying. Ilyanep 23:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted user and talkpage

You are an admin, so I thought that maybe you could help me with a little problem? I wanted to leave a message to a user:Davenbelle but I then noticed that his userpage and talkpage had been deleted. As an admin you should be able to see who has deleted this page, and I would appriciate if you could share that information with me, so that I can contact the person who did it, and hopefully find out what is going on...? -- Karl Meier 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I somehow suspected that it was like that... But, anyway, many thanks for taking the time to look into this issue and responding so fast. I appriciate it. -- Karl Meier 18:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Puppeteer

Can you help? There has been some recent creations of users that have been calling themselves sockpuppets of each other and I feel that "The puppeteer is an inappropriate user name.

1. The_Puppeteer (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
2. reeteppuPehT (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
3. ATeppup (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
4. BTeppup (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

These are the list of "Puppeteers". ATeppup has been vandalizing and the others have just been editing their user pages. Are they against Wikipedia policy? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 19:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied. — Ilyanep (Talk) 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll keep an eye on it if any thing else occurs. And sorry about the spoof "new messages" box, but hey, I thought it was funny. :-) SWD316 ^{talk to me} 02:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It was kinda funny, after I noticed it wasn't really my talk page ;) — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Internet is big. Actually it's huge.

Just saying "hi". By the way, electric or acoustic guitar?

-Velli-

Yeah, ain't it? Electric guitar mostly. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi right back!

Always a pleasure to hear from you. I'm just tired of the vandalism here. So, I'm resting a bit and I may come by once in awhile to edit something else. - Lucky 6.9 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You messaged me

So you want to go to IMSA? I'm an IMSA alumnus from 2005 (currently a freshman at Harvard College). Though I'm obviously living in Cambridge at the moment, I grew up in Homewood, Ill. and my parents now live in Palos Heights. Send me an e-mail at pbhayani@imsa.edu or pbhayani@fas.harvard.edu. I'd be happy to talk to you about IMSA and I could put in a good word for you with many of the people on the committee.

[edit] The congratulations template for new admins

Hi. Thank you for adminning Fropuff, a great user. I have a comment though about the template you used for that, at user talk:Fropuff. I find that choice of colors to be not very attractive, and above all, I find the black banner to be awful (sorry :). I would think one would use a black bar on white surroundings only for obituraries or something like that. In case you don't feel strongly about it, is it possible to change it to something else, say make the banner white or some other light color? :) Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: hehehe

I'm such a thief *whistles* ;). That's the sort of thing I do when I get bored :) --james °o 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, well it's nice that you liked my templates. I suppose this is what happens when open licensing is involed :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 06:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You think that's bad, check out my javascript :) --james °o 06:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Reform

• cough* You might want to transfer your comments to the project page instead of talk ;-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (was Congratulations)

Thanks for promoting me to a sysop. I was browsing my locally cached copy of my watchlist and I'm thinking, "Hmm... what's with all these Block links..." Then I see the edit to my user talk page :-D. The I'm happy I got to be the one to promote you really made my day (especially, after a bit of digging, I discovered it was not a standard part of your congratulations template). I feel honored. Thanks! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehe No problem :) Have fun (but not Too much fun) with your admin powers ;) — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Are You a Wikipediholic Test#Rewrite

Whatever happened to "tomorrow"? :) æle ✆ 16:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Teehee whoops ;) — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows "Vienna"

Hey can you help me move Windows Blackcomb to Windows "Vienna"? I moved it before, but the Windows "Vienna" page needs to be deleted for me to make the move. Thanks in advance! By the way, the new codename is official. — Alex 02:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Oops.. sorry about that Ilyanep. I didn't know you were making any changes to the Wikiholic test. Although I am wondering why you have questions that are repeated on there? (i.e. the last 6 questions are repeats of themselves.) SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Oh, Well, what ever you decide to do with the organization of the test I'll surely like. :-D The only thing wrong I see with the test is maybe we should remove the redundent ones that give out nothing, or (0) points. Also, maybe we could make a limit for the number of questions on the test. When I first took it in August there was little over 200 questions, now theres 300!. A limit sound good?SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! Cheers! SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA reform

Since your RFA reform subpage is now bogged down in a bureaucratic discussion about how to form a committee that will create guidelines for instating a poll to consider the possibility of revising RFA (or something similarly instruction creepish that will take over a month to do anything), I'm simply posting this to your talk page (and Linuxbeak's) for comments. Most of this could be implemented within days if the 'crats are willing. In particular for point three, throwing up an experiment is far more useful than debating it once more. Imho.

• 1. Strict suffrage limit for voters (in addition to sockchecking if necessary). WP:AAP suggests something near one month and 100 edits. Also, semi-protting all RFA subpages wouldn't hurt.
  2. Strict suffrage for the nominees. E.g. two months and 1000 edits. Simply because anything below that is a snowball anyway, and may result in a negative pileup. We have lost editors that way. Technically this is instruction creep though, I realize that.
  3. As suggested before, start with a couple of days for only comments. Then allow voting. Reason is, you can't really omit voting because it'll give rise to accusations of cabalism. But, early voters tend to be unaware of later comments. And it's always good to discuss first, as in WP:FAC. Comments should be in the form of concrete, diff-supported arguments why candidate X should or should not be an admin.
  4. Strike the standard questions, because they're cliche and haven't been getting meaningful answers in a while.
  5. Since many people in the WP:AAP suggested that standards should be higher, the 'crats may want to consider being less lenient about the % support necessary.

Radiant_>|< 12:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Good idea, looks nice. I wonder who'd be keeping track of whether or not someone has suffrage though. And would we just strike non-suffraged users?
  2. I would think about reducing that to 500 edits, but sounds good as well.
  3. I originally proposed this idea on Linuxbeak's page, so obviously I support it. All we need to figure out is how long for each. Also, I suggest making people use diffs in order to back up comments (and not necessarily for votes)
  4. Good.
  5. Well, I don't know what to say to this one. Adminship is supposedly no big deal.

— Ilyanep (Talk) 15:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• 1. I think adding a note under their "vote" (this user has 20 edits) will suffice. I also think, judged on experience elsewhere in the Wiki, that if at the top of RFA you make a clear note of what suffrage is, then random other users will start pointing out the people falling short, of their own accord.
• 2 / 3 / 4. Cool. Let's do it. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Draft.
• 5. True (although of course the counterargument is that not being an admin should not be a big deal either). I guess you could read over the user comments at WP:AAP regarding the topic "standards for becoming an admin should be higher" and consider for yourself if you want to take that into account in the future or not.
• Radiant_>|< 17:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• • So, should this go life within a week or so? Or do we have more to discuss? Have you heard from Alex about it? Radiant_>|< 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I haven't heard anything from Alex, and I would discuss first. — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm back now, so let's get started. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Let's go — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your *Vandalism*

Hey I SAW THAT!!. Sorry but now I have to list you on my list of vandalism accounts on my pages.

Oh and I better do this right.

<nowiki>*Cough Cough*</nowiki>

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Sorry, I had to do that. At least you reverted out of guilt! lol. Don't take this too seriously, it's meant to be a joke. Cheers! ;-D SWD316 ^{talk to me} 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP:MIND

Sure! Here's how I usually write the questions. First, look over the archives and see if you can draw any inspiration. Then, go to your sandbox and brainstorm - write (well, type) down anything that comes to your mind. Let it all flow - thoughts about problems, any thoughts about your article, etc. Then try and form cohesive questions from your thoughts. Let Wikipedia be your inspiration - what do you find funny about Wikipedia? Your article? Craft it into a question! Also try and integrate your article's theme into your questions. Browsing online pages can also be good; you can "steal" some of their ideas. I hope this helps - if it doesn't, let me know, and I'll try and help you with actual question writing. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, take your time. I'll post some updates on the announcement board soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

[edit] User:Ohnoitsjamie's RfA

I really appreciate your support for my admin nomination, especially with me being a relatively new user. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking guidance

I am seeking your guidance and advice on a particular issue. Mahuri page on wikipedia was initiated by me, and I have contributed to the page from time to time. As per policy of the wikipedia anyone can use the contents of wikipedia, but I understand that use of such contents should indicate the source, that is, the wikipedia. The contents of the page Mahuri have been used in the site mahurivaisya without giving any reference to wikipedia - though I am glad that they have used our contents. In this case, a problem may arise at a future date if that website takes a stand that the contents of page Mahuri on wikipedia have been copied from that site and thus violates copyrights. In an alternative scenario, a user here may tag our Mahuri page with copyright violation under the impression that our contents have been copied from that site, reference to which was given by me long back as an external link when that site was not active and having only a welcome page. Although I am not aware of any such issue, which wikipedians may have encountered in the past, I believe that such a situation may have arisen earlier too. I seek your advice and guidance to deal with this issue, which you are requested to kindly post on my talk page please. I also utilize this opportunity to say Hello to you. Thanks. --Bhadani 13:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Taskforce

The article on The Robot Ate Me, an indie rock band, has been added to your desk. It is currently a bare stub. If you are interested please look at it and see if it can be expanded or if the taskforce should just close the problem and leave it as a clean stub. (Or pass it to someone else). RJFJR 04:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes siree, I will look at it. Thanks. — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Babel

Hi there! First of all, I need to point out that the two sentences you provided convey different meanings—the first states that Russian is user's native language (=ru-N), and the second implies that while Russian may or may not be user's native language, people would not notice the difference anyway (=ru-4 or, although not as likely =ru-N). Second, the original sentence simply cannot be written in active voice and retain its meaning. There is just no proper active voice Russian equivalent to the English phrase "This user is a native speaker of Russian". Third, the verb "говорить" refers to user's ability to speak the language, which is quite irrelevant for Wikipedia, where reading and writing skills are more important. I replaced you version with another one (correcting the grammatical and spelling errors along the way), but the corrected sentence still sounds a little unnatural (even though that's the version Russian WP uses).

Hope this helps. May I ask you what do you need this for?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

You are invited to take part in Wikipedia_talk:Changing username#Dropping inactive user names. Ems2 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] can someone please tell me that I am doing /something/ right?

You are doing lots right! Still need some tweaks though :-) Have a nice day!

An Audacious action barnstar, for your attempts to reform RFA

"Where's voting? I don't see voting! Where? Let me kill it now! — Ilyanep"

That made me smile :-) Kim Bruning 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks :) That really made my day — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6'1? Moderate?

Gosh I feel very short now :-( --kingboyk 04:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well moderate refers to my political leanings, as I am quite tall for my age (and for any age I would think) :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info for you

Devanagari deeptrivia (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...suppose I should have looked for it here. After all we're an encyclopedia :D — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relicense

Is there any way that I could twist your arm to relicense your Audio Wikinews files to Public Domain? It'd be nice to keep them all the same license. Thanks! --Mrmiscellanious 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh...I figured that since it was for Wikinews it would be CC-by 2.5, but since they're all PD I really don't mind relicensing. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sorry fpr the late reply

Thanks for welcoming me, it was very nice of you, sorry for the late reply i have been very very busy, when you can please tell me how i can make a new page/ article for wikipedia, i do not remember how. Mrmattkatt 01:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway because you helped, by theway i ment a non existant aricle to be creaated like lets say i wanted to create a (don't quote me because i'm just making this up) page about sholder bones. Mrmattkatt 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, do the same thing. You'd go to, say, Human skeleton and/or Human anatomy and find a suitable place to add [[Shoulder bones]]. Then you'd make an article that followed Manual of Style, and became a featured article ;P — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing is (and I do understand you made up a random example) that Shoulder bone would probably have information that just belonged in Shoulder. So be careful of those sorts of situations :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok i get it now i'ma gona go try on a diff wiki so i don't have to go through prossess of deletion. :) Mrmattkatt 02:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh :). — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: /haha

Yeah, I removed the haha page. I'm now considering putting it back up but so many people hated it! Someone actually voted against me on my RFA because of it! Oh well, if I ever pass an RFA, it will be a miracle. ;-) I'm sure my personal problems will be solved; I actually set up a date to end the personal problem. February 14th. ;-) SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well good luck with that :) If you ever have an RFA tell me and I'll vote in support :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, talk to you later. ;-) SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yikes!

That's me! :o

Adrian Lamo ·· 06:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

... *audible blink* Adrian Lamo ·· 04:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again

I hope you don't mind but i used your template for the babel thing on my user page but changed the links, and is it a good thing to what i signed up for under the babel? Mrmattkatt 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind since it's not mine per sé...but I don't understand the latter part of your question. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I ment was that is it ok that i signed up for anti vandalism and recent changes patrol or do i need permission to do them, if so tell me i don't want to get in trouble. Mrmattkatt 23:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's okay as long as you actually signed up for the CVU, and RC Patrol simply means that you often watch RC for vandalism. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the greeting

Always nice to find a friendly fellow user. Best wishes! - Poetlister 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Right back at you :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need an en-N help on a tricky 2nd-person (whether rewording needed and how)?

npuBET :-) I'm in a need of a native English speaker to have a look at Talk:3D Monster Maze#2nd-person language and express an opinion on the matter. I find it a bit tricky because the text is referring to in-game 2nd-person messages text, and, when transposed to 3rd-person, becomes sounding a little less smooth than it is. If you have time, please hop over and help. At the very least, could you please just say which of the two variants there sounds better to your taste? TIA, --BACbKA 17:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I commented on the paragraphs. Glad to help. — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's reworded accordingly now! --BACbKA 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ilyanep's Talk , Archive 1 , Archive 2 , Archive 3 , Archive 4 , Archive 5 , Archive 6 , Archive 7 , Archive 8 , Archive 9 , Archive 10