User talk:Keegan/November11-July12

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Many

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

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

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 - T P 16:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A kitten for you!

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

You've got mail!

Hello, Keegan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Close of Genesis creation narrative RfC

Hi Keegan. Thank you for reviewing the RfC and coming to a decision. However, editors have asked at AN (and on the talk page) a few times for a 3 admin close. This is a contentious issue that has been going on for some time, and I believe having multiple admins look it over is important. Could you reconsider closing the RfC yourself? Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you responded at AN already. I'll keep the issue there. Thanks — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just typing that. Keegan (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded 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). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Move

Can you please provide your full and complete rationale for your close based on the reasons based on policy, sources, and common sense present in the discussion. (placing it in the same section as the close) IRWolfie- (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really planning on editing that page again. It's not a healthy place. Anyone is welcome to take what I've said and place it where appropriate. Just maintain attribution and it's all good. If you'd like to take me out of context again for this purpose if you feel necessary, go for it. It's a wiki. If you're looking for me to repeat myself for the nth time just so there is more to disagree with, no thanks. I'm not going to change my mind here, nor am I going to tell you what you want to hear. This is what happens on Wikipedia when you have a stake in an article and you ask for an impartial viewing of discussion: you get a result. If you do not like the result, there are more processes you can go through to have it your way if the community agrees then that it is correct. Let's move on and you can work to continue your cause or maybe do something else. Again, it's a wiki. I appreciate your passion, and happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For bravery in the line of duty and taking heavy fire in closing the RfM on Genesis creation narrative. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 04:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Weal

Please explain why you restored the edit history for the Jordan Weal article. The article was speedy deleted in 2008 because of valid BLP and notability issues, and those edits should not have been restored. Dolovis (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for asking.

Generally, when moving/working with a page that was previously deleted, barring any serious issues like potential libel/defamation, I'll restore the page history completely to fill in the whole in the deletion log. It was deleted, but now it's here. Why? If someone is curious, they can see what was there, when and why it was tagged and deleted, and how the subject is notable by our standards now. I think it is a nice presentation of how Wikipedia works: an article can be removed, but it also can return when criteria is met. If you have strong feelings toward the history, I can remove it back to the administrative logs. Keegan (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used revision deletion to hide the text of the edits from 2008, I hope this is sufficient. Keegan (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Keegan (talk)

Hurricanefan

I believe his 24 account was a legitimate, declared, alternate account of his 25 account, which was formerly his main account.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the main account is blocked now as well. I'll lift the sock block when the situation with the 24 account is resolved (or someone else can, no matter to me). Keegan (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Deng, please see my comment on the main account's talk page. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'm not very observant.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You observed the block :) Obviously things are afoot with the account. No worries, happy editing. Keegan (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hi Keegan,

When you closed the RM at Genesis creation narrative in opposition to my position a couple months ago I was incredibly rude to you and you did not deserve it. I questioned not only your logic but your abilities as an admin and I am ashamed of my behavior. I was so upset at that point that I CSD'd my previous archives and created User:Saedon as a browsing account, never expecting to use User:Noformation again. In essence, I partook in behavior that I have railed against in the past. It was the first time that I had argued for something on Wiki so vehemently and not had it go at least partially my way, and I didn't handle it well. I acted incredibly immaturely and I would like to apologize to you. I'm sure I don't need to say it, but you are a damn fine admin and my reaction was completely my fault: I'm sorry for the way I treated you. SÆdon ^talk 09:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you for such a graceful, thought-out apology. I appreciate it, consider it accepted. I never held any ill-will towards yourself or any other participant in that conversation; it's a wiki and we can change things as we go. That mindset and a thick skin will keep you around for a long time. Thanks again, happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:I'm her man.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:I'm her man.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi Not sure how to correct this, but Brest Fortress appears to have been vandalised. My a/c doesn't usually work from home, and I won't be going in to work anytime soon. I didn't know where to report it. I'll try the village pump too. 101.162.17.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, thank you. Keegan (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Research project relating to the Wikimedia Strategy Process

Dear Keegan,

My name is Gordon Mueller-Seitz and my colleague, Leonhard Dobusch, and I are currently engaged in a research project relating to the Wikimedia Strategy Process that took place in 2009-2010. Our key interest is to explore how this strategy process actually unfolded.

In this connection, we started with interviewing WM personnel and promoters such as Eugene Kim in a first step. By now we want to broaden our insights in a second step and we would like to kindly inquire if it was possible to make a short telephone interview with you concerning the WM strategy process? If yes, we would very appreciate it if you could suggest a date/time that would suit you and the telephone number we could reach you from April onwards.

Thank you very much for a brief reply. We look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,
Gordon and Leonhard

--
Dr. Gordon Mueller-Seitz
Freie Universitaet Berlin, Chair for Inter-firm Cooperation
School of Business & Economics, Dept of Management
Boltzmannstrasse 20, 14195 Berlin (Germany)
Tel.: ++49 30 838 56359, Fax: ++49 30 838 56808
89.204.155.71 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four million

Thank you. I am also proud that I knew you. Best wishes. --Meno25 (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I resigned in good standing (without controversy) because I don't have that much free time to contribute to Wikipedia nowadays. --Meno25 (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight policy discussion re AFT5

Hi Keegan, you might like to weigh in on the discussion regarding requesting Oversight for AFT5 posts: Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Guidelines and associated project page. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]