User talk:Keegan

Please note: If you are here because of a block I imposed or if I have deleted or protected a page you are involved with, please read my administrative desk. If you still need me, go to my talk page.

Archive:

• 2006
• 2007
• January-April '08
• May '08-April '09
• May '09-June '09
• July '09-October '09
• November '09-March '10
• April '10-September '10
• October '10-October '11

Deletion review for DJ Many

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DJ Many. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Huw Jenkins - Protected

Hi Keegan,

Back on the 15th April 2010 you protected Huw Jenkins' page to prevent vandalism at the request of Hugh McKenna, Huw's PR agent. I work with Huw at BTG Pactual and Mr McKenna has asked me to help make some changes to Huw's page. Can you please relax the protection on Huw's page so only some registered users are permitted to modify the page? Ideally myself and Mr McKenna (Although Hugh McKenna does not have an account with Wikipedia yet).

For more info the history of Huw's page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huw_Jenkins&action=history

Many thanks for your time.

Regards,

Colin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmerton (talk • contribs) 10:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I can reduce protection to registered users only or remove it all together. As I explained to Mr. McKenna last year, Wikipedia is a free, collaborative online encyclopedia. This means that anyone can edit Mr. Jenkins's page as long as it is encyclopedic and neutral in point of view. I highly discouraged Mr. McKenna and I will you as well from editing the article. There is a close tie to the subject, and a Wikipedia biography cannot be controlled by outside influences. If you would like to work on the article, I can remove the protection but suggest that you discuss edits you'd like to see on the discussion page first. For more information about how Wikipedia operates, have a read over this. Keegan (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Keegan, please adjust the security setting of the page so only registered users can edit. I am getting the proposed changes from Mr. McKenna and will post them on the talk page. Cmerton (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Keegan, I have updated the discussion page with the proposed edits. Please take a look and if you are happy unlock the page so I can make the edits. Thanks, Cmerton (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected from editing by new and unregistered users. You should be able to edit the article directly. Thank you very much for using the talk page. Keegan (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks for your time. Cmerton (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for your browser!

Hello, Keegan. You have new messages at Kaldari's talk page.
Message added 06:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Many

Just in case you're interested... Peridon (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh, not really. Thanks though. Keegan (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	"Only in our bureaucratic nightmares did I dream we'd be discussing whether or not this is the appropriate noticeboard for the notice and not discussing the contents of the notice" Thank you for pointing this out. I had the same thought but you expressed it pretty well. v/r - TP 16:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

109.231.203.194

Hey Keegan, I stumbled across User:109.231.203.194 a minute ago—did you mean to indef the IP? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. That IP is the underlying one for Bell Pottinger's socks that we've been working on[1]. I indeffed it until the community worked out how long the block should be, since the IP is unlikely to be re-allocated. Feel free to reset the block for a time when you think appropriate- indef is a placeholder. Keegan (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My experience of indefinite blocks of IPs is that they tend to be forgotten about, so I've given it an expiry (albeit one a fair way in the future), just in case it ever is re-allocated. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Carolina–Clemson rivalry

I'm through trying to explain Wikipedia policy to this user.[2] Article was protected, things seemed to settle down for a few days, but despite your warning to take further disputes on the addition of contentious content to the article's Talk page, this user seems to feel that isn't something that should apply to them and returned to continue edit warring and POV pushing. I'm fed up with someone who clearly doesn't seem to care about the policies here (other than to use them in threats) and I don't want to violate 3RR/edit warring myself, even though this user is doing their level best to bait me into it.[3] What can be done about this? Repeated requests by myself and your request to gain consensus through discussion on the Talk page and follow NPOV policy are ignored out of hand, and this user seems to think no edits and no opinion but their own are "relevant". Again, this article was remarkably stable for quite some time, despite volatile subject matter, until this user showed up and began this disruptive behavior. I'd like to see things return to that level of relative calm, but don't see any way forward until someone with some authority takes a look at what's going on here and insists on policies being followed. Please help! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hello, You deleted a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Noah Pyzik. This page was still being reviewed for creation. Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzpyzik (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. The article had been reviewed twice three times, and declined twice three times. The subject is not currently notable for Wikipedia. Keegan (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole

Please could you alter the heading there, since I didn't request a checkuser in this case (it only involves IPs). [4] The rest of your statement seems to be in agreement that these IPs are all Echigo mole. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoety fixed it. My apologies, I thought it was in a different section of collapsed boxes all muddled together with subpages and whatnot :) Keegan (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Killiondude (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Keegan. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Ebann

There was a reason the article was semi-protected, and that user ignored the protection and vandalized the page anyway. If that user vandalizes again, I'm re-blocking. I've blocked six users who went around the semi-protection to vandalize the article within a 20-minute period. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's understandable. In my experience, I would not immediately indefinitely block someone's account that has made a handful of edits over the past few years for a silly edit. I'm certain a simple "hey, don't do that" that wasn't a template would do a nice job communicating with these users. But that's just my opinion. Keegan (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)