User talk:Keeper76

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
userpage | talk | dashboard | rfa | contribs | subpages | freqtemps | afd/o | archive

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Great to see you around, StarM has been lost without you :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
How did you know I was thirsty? And for future reference, for liquid refreshment, I prefer stouts and porters. Keeper | 76 18:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

For your amusement[edit]

[1] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yikes. Have fun with that. :-) Keeper | 76 18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello. Please see the template's editnotice (which I presume you overlooked). Thanks. —David Levy 04:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. Rules, yeah fine okay. Thought it was fairly obvious that Biden will be added, figured I'd pull an old school IAR. But rules.... I'd go on about instruction creep and such and yada yada, blah blah, but really it doesn't even matter, does it? Carry on. He'll be there after enough consensus-ites have their bolded supports counted. Keeper | 76 04:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'd expect this nomination to have only a remote chance of being successful. He was, after all, only a state AG and a possible gubernatorial candidate - if it wasn't for the last name, it would have no chance. His death has just been nominated, so we'll find out soon enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
As you seem to be under the impression that WP:IAR is a license to override a consensus-backed process with which one disagrees, I encourage you read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. —David Levy 05:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
As per usual, icy tones win out over collegial discussion. Jesus, David. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
How, in your view, are my messages "icy"?
In the first, I pointed to an editnotice containing instructions that Keeper76 didn't follow, and I noted my presumption that this was an oversight.
In the second, I implicitly expressed my view (with which you're welcome to disagree, of course) that Keeper76 misapplied a policy, and I linked to a page containing a relevant explanation. This was not intended as an insult or attack; it was constructive criticism of a perceived error and advice on how to avoid repeating it.
Unlike Keeper76, I didn't engage in name-calling or write an edit summary along the lines of "blah blah". To be clear, I wasn't offended (and don't mean to suggest that Keeper76 committed any sort of infraction on this talk page), but I find it curious that you regard my tone as "icy". —David Levy 08:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
My very favorite thing is when admins blue link me. Please sir, do continue to blue link me. (By the way, this is sarcasm. <----- and this is irony.) I said "carry on", and you seem to be takiing that in the very literal sense to mean to just carry on with a conversation, when in fact, I thought I clearly meant "carry on" in the sense of go away. Oh, gasp, I edited a template before the 6 or so Template Police editors could circle jerk over it. Ban me now. And please, blue link me some more. I've only been here 8 years. Keeper | 76 17:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
When I arrived at this page, I could have typed a sarcastic message regarding the insufficient prominence of the giant yellow banner with a red heading and blinking "stop" symbol, which you either ignored or disregarded when you edited ITN. I could have condemned your apparent belief that you know better than the community (which, incidentally, rejected the proposed item) and are entitled to bypass its processes whenever you feel like it. I could have engaged in name-calling and mocked your inability to follow simple instructions.
I did none of that. I said "hello", pointed you to an information page, stressed my assumption that you acted in good faith, and thanked you.
Evidently, you took great offense. How dare I question your flawless contributions?! You've been a Wikipedian for eight years, so you must be all-knowing and infallible. What a jerk I was to contact you after you wandered onto the site's most visible page and used a tool with which the community entrusted you to address an egregious omission on the part of the editors who bureaucratically abide by the five pillars instead of deferring to your infinite wisdom.
Clearly, you ascribe a great deal of significance to the act of "blue linking" – to the extent that you regard your non-linked invocation of IAR as materially different.
I could have replied with "Oh, gasp, I've only been here 10 years and participated in the establishment of IAR's current (and longstanding) version. Obviously, I'm grossly ignorant of its magical power to justify any and all edits via a mere mention of its initials and the dismissal of a consensus-driven process as 'instruction creep'."
Instead, I conveyed my view that your interpretation of the policy is inaccurate and pointed you to a page on which the topic is addressed. Egad, that entailed "blue linking"! Ban me now. —David Levy 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keeper! How are you? Regarding snotty back and forth sniping: The only winning move is not to play. Regarding baseball: Mariners and Red So suck so far this year, Twins seem to be in the hunt though. Regarding editing ITN: Yeah, it's not like the old days. That's good and bad, mostly bad. Regarding blue-linking: I hate that too, but it could have been worse, it could have been a template. Regarding missing the glory days of WP:AN/K: I still do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Keeper's all good. Just having some lulz.  :-) Yeah, you are def right - usertalk templates are worse than usertalk blue-linking. (is blue-linking a template therefore the worst?  :-) ). Except those beer ones, I like the beer ones....I seem to have gotten in Mr. Levy's craw, so I'm going to go back to my cave. Was hoping he'd at least thank me for not edit warring. Oh wells. Keeper | 76 13:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi my sports loving friend[edit]

I'm even less active around here than I used to be - but we can't let a sports season pass. Here's to meaningful foosball in MN and NJ StarM 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not football season yet! Amazingly, miraculously even, it's still baseball season up in da woods, and it's almost September! Craziness. Nevermind the 4 game sweep at New Yank. bygones. Keeper | 76 04:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
YOur twinkies jinxed us - not sure we've won since. :) StarM 02:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Is that the Vikings at 4-2? Holy crap, it's almost like there's a little light at the end of the tunnel. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

this season is insane. We goign to have playoff foosball? StarM 03:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

VIkings 8-3? What the H? I don't even know what to think, other than they have a brutal last 5 games. Strong chance of finishing at .500. Keeper | 76 22:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry dude. That was brutal. StarM 22:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Brutal isn't the word vikings fans use for heartbreak. "Expected" is more apt. 2 months to spring training.... Keeper | 76 03:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)