User talk:Keeper76/Archive 12

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 •18 •19 • barnchive •

Leaving

Doubt I'll have many messages during my break from this place, but can people over here watchlist my talkpage and respond to anyone with a problem, please? Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I've been doing already for almost 20 minutes. :) Best, RyRy (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Go easy on yourself F. In the last several weeks, there has been a longwinded editor that has muddied up many issues while attempting in good faith to be helpful. He hasn't been helpful, just longwinded. You, unfortunately, stepped on a landmine, sorry 'bout yer leg. Please come back when you have your prosthetic leg working, it will make an excellent clue-bat. Keeper ǀ 76 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Keep here. I stepped on the same landmine, Fritz, and trust me, it passes. ^S._D.Jameson 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

'a longwinded editor that has muddied up many issues while attempting in good faith to be helpful" – do I feel my ears burning? – iride scent 14:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if you lit them on fire your-fine-self. Wasn't talking about you this time. I use IRC for that anyway. Keeper ǀ 76 14:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the thread in question on WP:AN. I'm concerned that it's driving an editor away, and I'm hoping that I'll be able to take some of the preassure off you for this. It's unreasonable for you to be facing the accusations you have been, and I hope I've gone some way to clarifying general opinion on the matter. Hope this helps. Gazi moff 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman has issued a warning as well, which hopefully will reduce the attacks. ^S._D.Jameson 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, I woke up and read this thread, and without having read the AN thread or knowing anything about this, I guessed who the user was. Tan ǀ 39 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's basically the essence of what I just wrote on the "mystery users" page. The reputation of the user precedes the user. For transparency reasons to those that aren't inclined towards the obvious, I'm talking explicitly about User:Abd. Keeper ǀ 76 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you were spot-on in that post. Tan ǀ 39 15:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to all concerned, but especially SDJ

Don't worry in the least about any threats of an RFC. An RFC created by a WP:SPA with a clear conflict of interest (the "Inventor of delegable proxy", more than 50% of whose mainspace edits have been to articles on voting systems and a proven history of off-wiki canvassing) will be laughed out of (metaphorical) court by anyone who reads it. (I do feel the urge to point this out though...) – iride scent 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What an idiot that Malleus Fatuorum is. I mean, really! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what you get for voting early. You should wait until more friends add there opposes. I'm of course, joking. We've disagreed on other RFAs in the past, most notabily Malleus Fatuarum #2 (I was a supporter).... Keeper ǀ 76 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The way to evaluate an RFA is (editors age) > (number of diffs given in oppose section) = Support, (editors age) < (number of diffs given in oppose section) = Oppose. – iride scent 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Irid. I have posted an email (with permission) at Abd's page that Fritz sent to me regarding this situation. ^S._D.Jameson 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If the disruption continues, I wasn't bluffing about indefblocking. Hopefully it won't come to that. – iride scent 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just my two cents, SDJ, I don't think posting the email was really necessary; the issue isn't that Fritzpoll left - that was Fritz's decision, and we can't really hold users responsible for making other users quit/feel bad/etc. The issue is the larger one of consistent disruption and drama-mongering, and that is what should be focused on in these discussions. Tan ǀ 39 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see Fritz's leaving as a direct result of the two issues you cite as problems, which is why I posted the note with his permission. It's just further evidence of what happens when Abd is allowed to harrass people like he does. ^S._D.Jameson 16:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know your intentions are good, SDJ, but sometimes it seems you respond to drama with drama, which doesn't really help things move along. Tan ǀ 39 16:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? When? I intentionally try to deescalate drama (see my recent participation at a particularly contentious AfD, for example). I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to with this last bit. ^S._D.Jameson 16:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Still going. Posted again at Fritzpoll's page, bringing up a past-deadminned administrator, as an example of what might happen if FP didn't admit he was wrong--which he wasn't. ^S._D.Jameson 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SDJ, I've left you a post on your talkpage. Keeper ǀ 76 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded there, and won't respond again here, per your request. My apologies. ^S._D.Jameson 16:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking, as an outsider (in more ways than one) looking in with no history to the conflict: What the hell is all of this about? I am reading this and I cannot understand any of this. Why in the world is Fritzpoll allowing this character to upset him? And, for that matter, why is anyone here upset over that Abd guy's babbling? Does anyone know him personally? Does anyone respect his opinions? If he is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies, deal with him accordingly and move on. If not, don't fuel his fire by giving him more and more attention. You can't have a drama queen without a spotlight, and all of this attention is the spotlight that this individual is craving. I genuinely feel bad to see good people getting upset, but at the same time I don't understand why they are getting upset. C'mon, is this what we are all here for? Ecoleetage (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset in any way shape or form. Babbling is fine and good, but when it drives off other users, after repeatedly being labelled "incompetent", its disruptive, and needs to be addressed. Other than that, see Rule #3 of this talkpage above, everyone :-) Keeper ǀ 76 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To be honest, I don't know nor care what this particular saga is about. What I do know is that every controversial page you visit lately – from Talk:Barack Obama to WP:RFC – contains at least one comment from this character, generally laced with assorted personal attacks and with what appears to be a WR-inspired "stick up for the underdog against the Evil Cabal" outlook. From an established editor this could possibly be overlooked; from a de facto SPA (more than 50% of all mainspace edits to pages he has a direct vested interest in) I have no inclination to give the benefit of the doubt. – iride scent 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd has just accused Fritzpoll of being Frederick Day. This guy just doesn't get it. –xeno (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Any more idiocy like that from him and I'm blocking him and letting ANI sort it out. This has gone past "differing views" into "sub-Awbrey wikilawyering". – iride scent 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's another deflection. He's trying to bloat on about SDJ also (and thank you for showing restraing SDJ). F-day follows Abd around the wiki, quite unfairly, making snide comments. Anytime anyone questions anything about Abd though, they are usually then accused of being f-day shortly. I imagine my turn will be next. After all, the F-day IP just told Abd that he was "fishing", shortly after I posted a long analogy comparing his trolling to the "trolling" you do when you're fishing. Sigh. If Fritzpoll is fredrick day than I'm a monkey's ass, and I'll file for for a username change at CHU. Keeper ǀ 76 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem "restraining" myself here, Keep. I have popped some proverbial popcorn, and am watching the festivities with interest, while I attack a recently-deleted, userified article that I'm trying to save. (Not American Assembly, but Colby Cooper.) It's all good. ^S._D.Jameson 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm eating some (nonproverbial) Sun Chips. Let me know if you need help with the articles at some point (like deleted versions or what not, except copyvio of course) Keeper ǀ 76 19:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Neil already userified the Colby Cooper stuff for me. I'm kind of new to this "saving deleted articles" thing, so we'll see how it goes. Feel free to pop in if you want. ^S._D.Jameson 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been sitting with my bottle of tequilla all morning. This drama is good. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll consider my day complete then. My work here is done, I've been able to suitably entertain a drunken Queerbubble... :-)in all reality, I wish you could somehow zap summa that teeq my way... Keeper ǀ 76 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just given a very firm rebuttal on AN. I am hoping that will bring a halt to the deflections. If there is a problem with my logic, please let me know. Many thanks, Gazi moff 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While obviously, using the off-wiki history of a WP editor is A Bad Thing because you can't verify that it's the same person, there's certainly some nicely wriggling worms in this can (read the cached versions). Dear oh dear, he's being stifled by The Cabal. I was hoping for something more exotic. – iride scent 21:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny?

Hi Keeper, hope your doing well. I'm not sure, but would this be able to be added to your funnies? Basically, if UK people are directed to the sandbox, they go to the sandpit instead. :P -- RyRy (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just read that, that's pretty funny. Feel free to add it :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

no problem

No problem - I'll just get on with some editing. Also I wasn't trying to suggest that Abd was "wrong" to catch me - since I was a blocked user (and am now a banned user it seems). --87.114.149.224 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The moral of the story really, is that your problems and history with Abd has nothing to do with the ANI post, and your post was entirely unhelpful there. I have no interest in blocking your current IP, not that you asked (it will change soon enough anyway, I hardly see the point). Thanks for being so agreeable. Keeper ǀ 76 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, too late, I blocked while you were posting. MBisanz ^talk 19:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. His IP has changed hourly in the past - I'm assuming you didn't indef? :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

1 week hard block, I know it changes, and thats why I'm moving up the leaderboard for blocks, lulz. MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, Matt! If you ever need a recommendation or anything, you know, for permissions, or some foundation things, I'll happily write one up. Oh, wait...Keeper ǀ 76 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

give me some credit - do you think my account edits off the same ISP as my communication posts? --193.35.132.149 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You knew that was coming, right? Please just go back about your business, Fday. Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got it - Abd thinks the IP was quoting from Abd's talkpage, so the "my" is the giveaway, because Abd hasn't gone through to the link the IP gave, which is a link to that quote on my talkpage. Finally figured it out, huzzah! Fritzpoll (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I just replied to ABD with that exact sentiment (RL postponed it). If Abd really thinks about it, why would the IP refer to "the 11kb" post if quoting from Abd's page? Abd never self-referenced a "11kb post". Silly misunderstanding. Keeper ǀ 76 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My feelings exactly - just a silly mistake. Hope he realises it sooner rather than later! Fritzpoll (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I just kind of feel bad that he's wasted another 11kb (and probably more), trying to justify and reason out his baseless accusation against you. It is a deflection, similar to his "lecture" to SDJ, to avoid what Barneca just now posted at the bottom. He used a lot of words for what I simply call: "What is the common demoninator to these otherwise unrelated Wiki-issues?". I keep coming back to Abd. Keeper ǀ 76 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I may have one or two apologies to offer in this veil once I feel able to remove that template from my user pages. Incidentally, saw your reply to Gwen re: blocking. Not going to comment there for obvious reasons, but I think that, for the moment, I agree with your position. My opinion on blocking (which I would never express in that conversation) will probably depend on Abd's next response. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As will mine. I gave, I presume, a pretty definitive way for him to avoid a block from an (as far as I know) outside looksee from Gwen Gale. Keeper ǀ 76 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, sent a response over at WP:N/CA to your chat with the editor formerly known as SynMag Fritzpoll (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, NCA. Makes me wanna cry, those days seemed so much simpler. Of course, I was already a bombarded admin then (I closed the instigating debate, 'member?), and only later did I drag you towards my fiery impending doom. Sigh. I'll happily go read that....Keeper ǀ 76 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fondly remember our first encounter, and one of my early barnstars! Fritzpoll (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I just bluelinked you to a whole new pile of steamy over there, re-linked here for your convenience...Keeper ǀ 76 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd's reply doesn't look like he's listening. That pile of steamy is tricky in the context of WP:N/CA, and will need some consideration Fritzpoll (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read his reply on AN and his talkpage. I think I've read enough. Gazi moff 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You weren't alone. This was wasting far too much time for far too many people, for the sake of an editor with virtually no valid contributions (but plenty of off-wiki conspiracy-theorist rambling). – iride scent 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I just endorsed your indef block. Sad. Keeper ǀ 76 22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed that it came to this. Glad that it might be over. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh silly Fritzpoll. :-) So sadly far from over, unfortunately. In brighter news, if you come through this (you aren't the first to be so ridiculously barraged (in terms of KB of wiki-space)), any future "conflicts" should feel like cakewalks instead of firewalks...glad to see you keepin' on. Enjoy the parts of wikipedia that you enjoy. Ignore the fucking admin buttons for a while, they are more aggravating than they're worth in most cases, sorry to impinge them on you in any case. Keep on keepin on, good editor. Keeper ǀ 76 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah - certainly staying off AN and AN/I unless dragged there. I think I've solved the last problems on the RFK FAC, so fingers crossed. Then....Beer? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why drink beer when Whiskey is so much more efficient??? Keeper ǀ 76 22:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's sad, yes. But in the end, he dug his own hole and refused to climb out. Such is the way of things. Gazi moff 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

and he keeps digging... where are all these admins that he said supported him in off-wiki correspondence? –xeno (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I just posted in response to his latest. I really do feel bad for the guy. Keeper ǀ 76 22:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

i'm taking my leave of the whole situation. can't be arsed to read his lengthly posts and we've apparently made him a willing martyr, in his eyes. also, i'm pretty sick of his condescending "take your time, no rush" edit summaries. best of luck. –xeno (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I left about 1:00pm PDT today to fly to Dallas, and I missed a ton of this. Good block, Iri. Tan ǀ 39 03:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bachman

Fine, I have stopped watching that page, and the deletionists will get their way regardless of what I say, so don't try to suggest that my comments will have any effect on the process. Ya know, I do not suffer fools gladly, and I get really, really annoyed with the deletionist mentality here. "OMG! A news story! We have to squash this before it spreads!" In essence, it's the "wikipedia is paper" mentality. There is no way anyone opposing this story can have any clue on how it will play out. And if it turns out to be nothing, they could then argue for deletion. But God forbid they should have to show any patience, i.e. to wait a few days. "Stamp it out! Stamp it out!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagreee with you, in essence. The very fact, though, that you are editing an AFD (of al the inconsequential pages possible) while this "upset", proves to me that my "friendly warning" on your talkpage was not without merit. I simply asked you to stop posting there, tis all. Trust the admins to find consensus. Trust the community to find consensus. If, at the end of the debate, you feel that the communtiy/admin has it wrong, bring it here! Or bring it to DRV directly after talking to whichever admin decides to close the debate. Responding to every single person in any afd is the opposite of productive though, BB. You should know this by now. It merely leads to others "digging in their heels", and in some cases, leads to an admin closing a debate while dismissing your otherwise cogent responses. Choose your battles, yes. But also, fight them well. Stop flailing. Keeper ǀ 76 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that the user Rwiggum issued a similar warning to Davumaya. [1] I don't see anything in Davumaya's entries that look like a personal attack. What I'm seeing now is Rwiggum trying to intimidate anyone who dares to stand up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No taunting or I'll block you again

Although the Twins are nailing the coffin shut, I don't want any mean-spirited comments directed to my friend. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Mean-spirited taunting towards Yankees fans at the moment is not appropriate. Sympathy cards might be. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

LMAO, thanks Brew. Yankees are nailing their own but it's not over until they're eliminated and they have, I believe, 6 games remaining against the Sox and Tampa. Tampa is going to struggle with the losses of Longoria and Crawford and the Sox are hitting the same skid. Get the 'pen back on track, kick Kennedy's ass to the curb and get some decent coaching. Yankees can pull through, they have the ability to do so. At this point I don't know if they care enough. That's what's killing me. TravellingCari 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

so would this be a bad time to say "Go Tampa!"? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You can root for the Bucs, they don't play my other boys I don't think. Rooting for the Rays is fightin words but in line with Rule No. 4 TravellingCari 04:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL I'm a bucs fan to the bone... no matter which way you spell it... Not really much of a D-Rays fan though, just hometown pride (and maybe a little stoke of the fire)... ;) - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, been to Tampa, I think, know I've been to St. Pete and Clearwater. Nice bunch of cities, I'm much less of a football fan -- and the only buckeyes I care for are in the shape of balls. :) Neither my undergrad nor grad schools had a football team (and in the case of the latter, much of any athletics to speak of -- Go Violets!) so I'm somewhat immune to college sports mania. On that note, it's bedtime for this bozo where I shall dream of '96 and '98. TravellingCari 04:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Next step in dispute resolution?

Another discussion on removing the LGBT talk page template has arisen at Talk:Larry Craig. We are at another standstill, and we're arguing because policy does not address these questions that keep coming up. Namely, the following:

Does a WikiProject have the freedom to tag any article it finds in its interest?
Does a talk page template violate BLP?
What steps do editors need to take to remove a WikiProject template from a talk page?
Does tagging an article talk page have anything at all to do with WP:OWN?

What is the next step so we can get community-wide input on this? ArbCom? I've never taken anything to dispute resolution. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going offline very soon (maybe another hour), but I'll certainly read the pertinent discussions, and make a comment or two tomorrow, you have my word. Your four questions above are absolutely intriging and profound to me, Moni. Something I couldn't (and wouldn't) say mere weeks ago. I haven't forgotten the issue, I've merely been distracted. Thanks for posting here, you'll here from me within 24 hours. Be well, Keeper ǀ 76 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your point 1, this was discussed at length regarding a tagging spree by WP:CHICAGO a couple of years ago, leading to some fairly foul-tempered exchanges at TTT's RFA (see Q10 for a brief summary of it). If I remember right, there wasn't a consensus reached and everyone just gave up fighting out of sheer exhaustion. – iride scent 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Still reading along here Moni. I've read thru T:Larry Craig and have been reading thru WT:LGBT (when I'm not busy deleting it, sigh, don't ask (but look at the talkpage's deletion log, where my name will also be ASS-ociated with the "guy that deleted the talkpage of the LGBT project. Such a Hater...)) Keeper ǀ 76 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that happen yesterday. Dalbury, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, blocked himself yesterday as well. A banner day for admins, no? --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been so tempted to sysop protect everything I own and block my account indef. Of course, I've been compiling a list of who I'll be taking with me to the loon....Keeper ǀ 76 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff's memorial page

Many comments. It's a testament to this community and how damn good Wikipedians can be. It seems to have helped his family as well which is the most important aspect. Sadly, it didn't stop some people at Wikipedia Review having a general jab that the initial reaction on his talk page was out of line, filled with drama mongering and generally inappropriate (although some defended it as well). You can't please all the people all the time I guess. Pedro : Chat 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I never read WR, and this won't be where I start. What a shame that no one has anything better to do but sit on a different website and bitch about this one. Monday morning quarterbacks are the worst kind, rarely helpful, and usually plain old wrong. (the Americans here will understand that reference, I fully expect Iridescent to slap a "translation" tag here). Keeper ǀ 76 21:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like to delve into the cess pit over there once in a while. It seems rarely positive. Of course as Friedrich Nietzsche argued (to paraphrase slightly) "That which does not kill me makes me stronger". Of course, one can only assume Nietzsche never received a kick in the bollocks or he'd never have made that comment... :) Pedro : Chat 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche? I thought that was Kanye ? –xeno (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One hopes not! Pedro : Chat 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A lot of what's said on WR is valid. Sure, their conspiracy theorising is nuts, but some of the editors there (notably Greg Kohs and Kelly Martin) are very good at spotting genuine errors and issues (I will freely hold my hand up to rewriting Paper at Kohs's prompting, for instance). Remember, these are people who do nothing but study Wikipedia. – iride scent 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree Iridescent, (hence my italicising of "some" above) that many people over there are working with good intentions. But my opinion (and only mine) is that ~~the number of cowards who lurk there outways the good given by many others~~ the number of contributors who have nothing positive to bring outweighs those who do. Pedro : Chat 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, their thread on Jeff seems remarkably respectful given where it's coming from, aside from a truly crass comment by Milton Roe. – iride scent 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the term "coward" is unnecessary and unhelpful hyperbole. What does disagreement on this site get you? A redlinked #RFA to be opposed on sight. So who are the cowards exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Irid, I know you enjoy WR, and I'm actually glad you're in there, at least I know there's one sane person there. I refuse to click on the links, I much prefer my head in the sand, where the air temp is a very pleasant and constant 64 degrees fahrenheit. Let me know if anyone decides to take me to task on anything. I can't image what at this point, but I can work on that. Keeper ǀ 76 22:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm off on one and it's not fair. After all, I'm hiding behind a pseudonym. Pedro : Chat 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh. You are? I figured your name was Pedro Chat. Keeper ǀ 76 22:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn. Got me. And User:SonOfPedroChat, User:WifeOfPedroChat and User:ChildOfPedroArrivingOnAugust26Chat. If only I was a Highlander we could be the mighty clan McChat. Pedro : Chat 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On a serious note I've refactored or struck some of my comments. They're unfair to the many who do good work. Apologies. Pedro : Chat 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination

...is now a featured article. Thanks for your copyediting, and the same goes to Malleus, who, in the interests of brevity, I will also thank here! By the way, as my talk page attests, I have sheepishly returned to work... Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I was worried about the lack of pictures all along, and then when each and every pic that was there was questioned as to their tags, I thunk the worst. So glad to see it go through. Very impressive, I remember exactly where that article "used to be" before you grabbed it. Very impressive! Keeper ǀ 76 13:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

n00b

n00b, is this your first time breaking a section? Normally you'd break it when there's already a wall of text to break into two, or maybe you're changing the direction of the conversation. epic failure. –xeno (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, I was simply being ironical....Keeper ǀ 76 18:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can haz full sentence? –xeno (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're a bastard. You seriously just follow me around pointing out my mistakes, don't you? I'm glad I can give you many easy pickings. My pain is your entertainment :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  - well i actually really just wanted to know where that sentence was going =) –xeno (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed how that WT RFA thread ended... HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA epic lulz ! –xeno (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Our announcer just jinxed the pitcher....

apparently he "never" gives up HRs. Let fun round two begin :) TravellingCari 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

and they're now obsessing over 3 walks v. his average of 1 per game. RedSox and Rangers are playing football. TravellingCari 01:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

t the risk of a jinx, A-Rod = about.damn.time. Gardenhire's walk of shame there, I felt for him. If they blow this, you'll hear me scream from there. I had been flipping between here and the Olympics and turned it back on just in time to see Mo give up the bomb. I have to say, if a Twin is going to hit you, should be Mauer or Delman Young. TravellingCari 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I stayed up way to late to watch that one finish. Good game. I'm not a big fan of Matt Guerrier, haven't been for months. I miss Pat...Keeper ǀ 76 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You think it was way too late, remember I'm an hour ahead. Still was a good game, hoping today's will be as well. It's always funny when you go past the closer. It's a question of "now who?" TravellingCari 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping they wouldn't use Nathan, because I knew Guerrier would be close behind if the Twinks didn't score in the bottom half of any given inning...today's game, by the way, started about 20 minutes ago :-) (1:10pm EST gametime) Keeper ǀ 76 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Crap, missed it :( Though I see from my POV I didn't miss much. Hope an off day helps. TravellingCari 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OH NO YOU DIDN'T. YOU DID NOT JUST TELL ME THE RESULT OF THE GAME. I'M AT WORK, DAMMIT ALL. OH NO YOU DIDN'T. Keeper ǀ 76 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

AAAAAGGHH! You did! I couldn't resist, I had to check. What am I going to do tonight, watch the Olympics??? For cripes sakes....:-) Keeper ǀ 76 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I figured you'd be on Gameday, same as I would have if I hadn't been in meetings. And yes, although I don't know what events are on tonight. I flipped between the two last night. TravellingCari 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

With my luck lately, it'll be water polo, beach volleyball, and women's gymnastics (excuse me a minute, I need to go vomit...) Ok, back. I'll survive. Actually, I'll probably watch the game anyway, its recorded, and now that I know exactly who scores what, and when, and how, I can impress my wife with my psychic powers....Keeper ǀ 76 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just reread what I wrote there. I have no explicit problem with "women's" gymnastics, and didn't mean to imply that I did. I equally abhor "men's" gymnastics. Keeper ǀ 76 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For someone my age and gender, women's gymnastics and beach volleyball is quality TV.--Koji Dude ^(C) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent, colon farm. I actually prefer women's gymnastics to men's and men's swimming to women's. Flipping between it and TLC. Don't know how to record a game but psychic powers sound good :) TravellingCari 03:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up

[2] FYI really. I'd have prefered he was never blocked but I'm not sure the rest of the communities good faith and patience are going to extend to the unblock request rationale. Pedro : Chat 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sigh. Does Nancy know? I know that the block was really upsetting to her, as it was quite obvious from her talkpage (and yours) that CG was a "reformed sock", not a "sock". Someone came barrelling in, chest puffed out, and said "A ha! You're a sock of Chris!" We already knew that, but before anything could be said, he was indeffed and flamed out. I'll watch it for now, and I would definitely support an unblock. (Feel free to use this diff). Keeper ǀ 76 14:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an unblock to keep him from just reprising as another incarnation. However is unblock request is basically untrue - the account edited a month ago, not two months, and he didn't put up a wiki break notice that he was on holiday - he put one up mentioning "personal issues". So if he's trying to claim the account was compromised that doesn't gel with the placement of the break tag in his timeline. Hmmm.... I'll ponder. Pedro : Chat 14:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Like Pedro I am saddened by the apparent dishonesty in the unblock request (although how did the community reward him when he told the truth? - it blocked him - so I suppose one can hardly blame him for reverting to his old ways.) Despite this I would support an unblock however I'm not sure how long it would last, after the fuss at AN/I last time I would imagine he is a marked man. I wonder whether the best advice would be for him to quietly go off, create a ~~block evading sock~~ new account and start with a truly clean slate. If he really is reformed then all well and good, if not he'll be blocked soon enough. nancy ^talk 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that he will eventually "get caught" with his new account. They've been relatively easy to find if I recall correctly. It would really be asking him not to contribute in areas he likes to contribute. Once "caught" again, sympathies for him would be even less, no? I think we need to call him out on the unblock, get the truth, and we "three admins" can go back to guiding him, as CG. Thoughts? Really, my only problem with him at this point is the untruthful unblock request, but like you say, can hardly blame him. Keeper ǀ 76 14:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your note on his talk - thanks Keeps. Sorry, I'm likely to be away from a PC for a while now, but I would say that if all three of us agree an unblock - on the preventative grounds of not having yet another sock puppet, then I can't see any drama coming forth. Pedro : Chat 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, I'm more than happy to resume mentoring duties. nancy ^talk 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock was just declined by a checkuser/admin. We'll see where it goes. Keeper ǀ 76 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't go well. No one's fault other than Chris's. Keeper ǀ 76 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Been out tonight so only just caught up with events. Thanks for your efforts on Chris' talk page Keeper if in vain - the outcome had a predictable inevitability about it. I'm still somewhat irritated at the whole episode as whilst Chris didn't do himself any favours this evening we should all remember that it it wasn't for the earlier quite unnecessary, unjustfied and somewhat unedifying witch-hunt at AN/I he wouldn't have been backed in to a corner where he felt his only option was to lie his way out. nancy ^talk 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, hence my first post there, where I asked him to come clean. I even posted to the checkuser/admin's talkpage to make sure he was aware that three admins were working with CG prior to his latest block. Sigh. Chris has not done himself any favors, and at the same time, I have no doubt in my mind that he has several other accounts, perhaps sleepers, that will appear shortly if not already. Once discovered, they'll be blocked as well, with no chance of convincing the community otherwise. I really really wanted CG to come clean, but he didn't step up to the plate. Keeper ǀ 76 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that generally worked out badly. However I have to say I've lost my patience on this. If the guy had been more honest (and heck both Keeper and Nancy you both gave him enough chances) I'd be more able to humour him. Now we get to play whack-a-mole with User:Please employ me Jimbo and User:SpelentologyGeek socks instead. Joy. Pedro : Chat 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated, Peds, but why is your talkpage "admin only" at the moment? I assume you have a good reason, no need to post it here, I was just surprised to see that is all. Keeper ǀ 76 22:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Check my recent contribs to a User talk page. Possibly related to this, much more likely unrelated and linked to past abusive emails sent to my private email. Short term measure so I don't meet a sea of Orange tomorrow. Pedro : Chat 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Understandable precaution in that case. I assume it is the user that starts with S. What a nutcase. See you on the otherside, let me know who you need me to block. Keeper ǀ 76 22:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. S for Sock I feel. anyhow, RBI without the R or the B as it goes ;) - I'm off to find the vino plonko in a mo - I'm allowed a glass a night, as I might suddenly need to drive despite planned events in 13 days. Pedro : Chat 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you did it just to wind me up. Bar steward! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, got to keep the article writers in their place you know. Oherwise they'll be asking for the ability to move over redirects etc. and it will all end in anarchy :) Pedro : Chat 22:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page templates

Sure. I'm out of town helping my father move, so I won't be able to formulate something complex for a few days. I'll take a crack at it tomorrow or the next day. Thanks for the request. Protonk (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a crack.

It is my opinion that the LGBT project tag is applied to republicans who are rumored to be gay. Through the various conversations on the Larry Craig and Charlie Christ talk pages, I feel that this particular view has been confirmed. I also feel that BLP applies to talk pages as well as article space. given those two priors, if LGBT tags are applied to republican politicans in the event (and largely only in the event) that they are dogged by rumors of homosexual conduct or orientation that the project tag itself presents as an informal imprimatur on those rumors. Since BLP implores us to be exceedingly cautious about possibly damaging rumors, I feel that we should err on the side of caution here.

I see a few main counterarguments (where I say 'LGBT' I mean the 'LGBT project' except where otherwise noted):

Project tags denote only interest from wikipedians and not some 'shadow category' of article subjects.
LGBT should be as free as any other project to tag articles of interest, regardless of real or imagined perceptions (or, alternately, LGBT should be allowed to do so because it has no impact on real or imagined perceptions of the subject)
LGBT should not be forced to justify each and every step they take in tagging articles for the project
The reason the subject is of interest to the project is not due to the rumors around the subject.

There are other good arguments against my position. I don't think a short summation could do them justice as they are powerful and have been argued powerfully. Banjeboi, Moni, Agne and others have been patient and kind throughout this discussion. I have made my responses to the above points in various places about these discussion but I'll summarize the responses it asked. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Protonk. I'm mulling right now. I can see both sides of the river here, and I can also see a potential bridge being built. Sorry for the cheesy analogy. I'm mulling your thoughtful response. Keeper ǀ 76 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Says Moni: Hi, Keeper and Protonk. Just to write out my thoughts while I was thinking them, I constructed what the introduction of this issue might look like on a hypothetical dispute resolution page, in my sandbox. This is what I came up with:

WikiProject LGBT has for a while now experienced some frustration with other editors who remove the talk page template indicating that, for whatever reason, the LGBT template is inappropriate for a particular talk page. This has so far occurred on Jack Kerouac, Charlie Crist, Jesse Helms, and Larry Craig (from the top of my head). With each instance members of the project must justify why the tag is there in lengthy, repetitive discussions. Discussion regarding Jack Kerouac, Charlie Crist, and Larry Craig, removal of template from Jesse Helms.

These discussions are not resolved because Wikipedia policy is unclear about the issues that continue to arise. The following questions need to be clarified and addressed, because the ad nauseum justifications are tiresome, unproductive, and they make Wikipedia unfun in the extreme.

Does a WikiProject have the freedom to tag any article's talk page it finds in its interest?
Does a talk page template violate BLP?
What steps do editors need to take to remove a WikiProject template from a talk page?
Does tagging an article talk page have anything at all to do with WP:OWN?

My personal input regarding these questions:

WikiProjects should be able to designate any article they have an interest in under their scope. When non-members remove the talk page template, editors are essentially stating that the article is not of interest to that WikiProject, and that the WikiProject in question is not allowed to botwatch the articles for assessment and accuracy.
The question of the template violating WP:BLP arose at Charlie Crist, where the subject has been rumored to be gay or bisexual. WP:LGBT has two good reasons to consider Charlie Crist under its scope: if the rumors are true, then the most accurate information about Crist's sexuality should be in the article with immaculate reliable sources. If the rumors are untrue, members of WP:LGBT are interested in making sure that accusations such as these are not used on Wikipedia as political leverage. It has been documented that Congressional staff members were editing their bosses' pages to unduly praise them, and editing their opposers' pages to their disadvantages. We do not want to see Crist's sexuality made to be a major campaign issue, or somehow affect his political future. Like all Wikipedians, WP:LGBT is interested primarily in accuracy. Those who assume the talk page template is placed there to insinuate that the subject is gay, and our only interest is painting him in a lavender light, are misguided and quite frankly wrong. Furthermore, the template does not state the subject is gay, is not referenced in the article: it makes no statement about Crist's sexual orientation, and to my mind, is completely divorced from issues of WP:BLP in the article.
Should editors who disagree with a template present on a talk page feel that it should be removed, the issue should be addressed at the WikiProject talk page. I don't know what else should happen, because this is such a grey area. When policy about WikiProjects is clarified, editors can get to the business of citing policy in anagrams, as we so love to do.
The issue of ownership arose on the Larry Craig talk page. I was quite frankly baffled by it, but to clarify, the talk page template does not imply ownership of any kind. Simply, that the article is within the scope of the WikiProject's interests. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

While you were typing this, I posted a massive missive on Protonk's page. Hope he's got some coffee :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I read that. The TLDR issue doesn't phase you, does it? When I tend to go on I remember that film A River Runs Through It, where the kid writes an assignment and his father takes a red pencil and crosses out half the page as being unnecessary. Btw, adding another name, John Nathan Turner, posted yesterday: banner will be removed because the editor doesn't feel it's necessary. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got back into town. Responding to the ZOMG long post on my talk page. Anything REALLY spectacular I'll just copypasta here. For some of the above comments, I don't see why the Jesse Helms tag was removed. The rationale there was pretty obvious and no real claim could be made about that article...hmmm. This also seems to be leading to the same sort of question over at WT:ARS, I asked there if tags could be removed in good faith and enter into the WP:BRD cycle. Effective consensus from the project members there was no, but I'm not sure that is universal. More later. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. So here's my thoughts on reconsidering this issue:

I think I was wrong in general. Project tags don't represent a defacto confirmation of rumors in all cases, nor do they create a 'category'. Or, if they do (as the articles do become categorized by nominated topic and subtopic at GA and FA), the benefit to the project of free categorization might outweigh the potential problem of assumed categorization. I also understand the unique pain in asking the LGBT project to do their job without being 'too obvious'.
If and when a good faith disagreement about a project tag occurs, I think it should be entertained. We can refer back to discussions like this one and one on the village pump to illustrate that general consensus might lean toward the project, but we should probably not take the point of view that the only editors who 'should' add or remove project tags are members of the project.
I think that project LGBT should create some sort of internal informal criteria for tagging BLP's. Nothing too strict, but it would help eliminate the suggestion (again, in a WP:BRD situation) that a tag was applied without due consideration. Likewise, it might help to tag a few more republicans for reasons other than rumors of their homosexuality.
I don't know if a strong conclusion can be made in general about these project tags (following off #2 above). I won't oppose their application anymore, but I can't support a strong statement that their application is always appropriate or may never reflect upon the subject.
I think that any impact on the subject due to the application of the tag is exceedingly minor (in comparison to placing a rumor of their sexuality in articlespace) but that it may not be zero. I think that this might be the case in instances where the rumors are all the press has to go on. For people like Larry Craig, the toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube, but another republican (or in some districts, Democrat) could be damaged by the assumed 'confirmation' of the rumor by the project tag application. Again, I think this impact is very small when it is not zero.
Project LGBT is probably going to have to deal with this crap for a while. Some of the responses are bound to come from people who aren't comfortable with the idea in general. some of the responses are going to come from people like me who saw "LGBT Studies" and figured that sort of tag belonged on something like Karl Heinrich Ulrichs or Boy Scouts of America v. Dale--things that would be of interest in an LGBT Studies course. I don't have a solution to those problems. Like I said on the Larry Craig talk page, wikipedia isn't a social force for good, like it or lump it. I strive to make wikipedia a better place than the outside world tends to be, but that isn't the purpose of the encyclopedia.

So that's my 2 cents. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Knock knock...

Camp has a full-fledged computer lab :p. Any chance of that black ribbon on my userpage? I heard right before going to dinner on Saturday. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to copy the code. Not sure who's page I took it from. Let me know if you want me to do it for you. And go outside, freak! You're at camp! Keeper ǀ 76 16:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do it for me. And why does the camp have a full computer lab, Guitar Hero and Rock Band? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage now has the flag. And I'm convinced now that you aren't at camp, but merely an extended daycare. The "camping" that I recall from my younger days involved campfires, chasing girls around, and shitting in the woods, trying to use leaves that were not poisonous. Keeper ǀ 76 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But remember....we used to be allowed to play in the dirt then. Now kids must be bubble wrapped. Dirt and playing could kill them. TravellingCari 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they'd be fine, as long as they never took off their bike helmets....Keeper ǀ 76 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And knee and elbow pads. I don't know how some of these kids move they're so bundled. On the bus this AM a woman had her kid on a leash. Now I've seen these for toddlers but this kid was at least higher elementary school level. Oy. TGIF! Summer Fridays (work 'til 1) are wonderful. Catch ya Monday TravellingCari 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

<--Keeper, shut up :p (sorry, didnt mean to offend you). We still chase girls. Butt despite having indoor plumbing, the bathrooms suck. And i have to clean them tomorrow. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are being discussed ...

... here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

heh. Keeper ǀ 76 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Longest single post in the history of the project?

I have a historical question for you. Could this possibly be the longest single post in the history of the project? ^S._D.Jameson 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe [3] taking AN from 228,830 bytes to 257,665 bytes is the largest non-vandal post I've ever seen. MBisanz ^talk 14:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good GOD! Where do people find the time--or the concentration, for Cripes' sake!--to contruct such verbiage?!? ^S._D.Jameson 18:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

TL;DRis clearly lost on these folks. –xeno (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved on from all this, is it still going? Sheesh. Keeper ǀ 76 14:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because I missed you

Haven't talked to you in awhile babe. How have ya been? The BF and I broke up, we're friends now, had a WILD NIGHT last night, getting ready to start the fall semester in a week. Working at Wal-Mart as a cashier. Not much else to say. How have ya been? Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there D-man! Wal-Mart cashier eh? I use the self-checkouts, personally. Sorry 'bout the BF thing (although it doesn't sound like your too "sorry" yourself). Been good mostly, mostly behaving myself. Mostly. Keeper ǀ 76 14:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Server lag record?

remember the discussion a couple of weeks ago. Was it here? In any case I do believe Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 12381 seconds might not be shown in this list. may well be a new record. EEk. Is that the servers' way of saying go get a life? TravellingCari 18:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yours are always bigger than mine. :( A mere 10,901 for me. Just like last time. Enigma ^message 19:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Slowly coming down, Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 11000 seconds might not be shown in this list. TravellingCari 19:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

9,981. Slowly catching up to pre-meeting watchlist. TravellingCari 19:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 13164 seconds might not be shown in this list. –xeno (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood

You may be interested to see this and the the discussion with the reverter here. An editor persists an saying that Bollywood referred to the whole industry which is inaccurate. Rather westerners ignorantly thought it referred to the whole industry chiefly because they wer enot aware of its other industries. It is not factual just a viewpoint. If you look at it from an Indian perspective it never was used to refer to the whole industry. Bollywood is Bombay cinema always been Hindi cinema, always will be not "Indian cinema" which includes all the other Tamil, Telugug, Malayalam, kannada, bengali etc industries. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a copyedit there, the article is now on my watchlist. (I realize I could put it on my watchlist without making a copyedit, I just really wanted to make the edit that I made. Nothing major). Keeper ǀ 76 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes that and Shadrukh Khan seems to attract a lot of attention. As you can imagine in a country which has 1 billion + people these attact a high number of Indian IPs and editors. I had tried to patiently discuss the problem with the editor but rather than discuss fully he thought it better to keep reverting before we had finished a discussion ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem like he finally "got the point", was he blocked or did it work itself out? Besides his NIFTY EDIT SUMMARIES, his discussion seemed "okay". Anyway, I'll keep a passive eye on it, let me know if anything blows up beyond reasoned discussion. Keeper ǀ 76 15:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Duty to God deletion

Resolved

– without keepervention, unless Tan wants me to slap some people around on his behalf, his fine self included...Keeper ǀ 76 14:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Keep. Can you review this discussion, and either slap me upside the head for unabashedly deleting a worthy article, or support my decision on my page? This would be cut-and-dry if it weren't for apparent support for the article from Eustress. Any other TPSers, feel free to do the same - slap or support. :-) Tan ǀ 39 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing that article before it was deleted and I would say you were correct -- it failed WP:RS. But even though I agree with you, can I still slap you upside the head, in tribute to my patron saint? Ecoleetage (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the discussion there it sounds like you made the right decision, if it was a promotionally-phrased article with no non-LDS sources. That said, I can't see the article with my lack of adminly powerfulness, so I'm just going to slap you on principle. :D ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you and any future reviews wouldn't mind posting your opinions on my talk page, that'd be great. I'd like Eustress and DavidBailey to see them (and they should be aware we are discussing this here). David has a link to the article in his userspace in one of his statements. Tan ǀ 39 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The only userspace link I see is itself a no-history redirect to the deleted mainspace page... I may be missing something. I don't really want to comment over there til I've actually made my own evaluation of the article. :) ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the article text is missing -- I was working from memory. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan, I don't see the article at this point, so I can't comment at all about how it was actually worded, but I'm leaning towards is being arguably notable--assuming it's related to the LDS Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America). LDS youth make up the biggest single religious component of the BSA, and that there would be associated religious support/promotion groups is not at all surprising. I'd encourage the dialogue to continue, and if the article gets back userfied again, I'll be happy to help the editor clean it up. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion; you may want to run this one past Useight, who will probably be in a position to advise on this one. – iride scent 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've offered to rewrite the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I rewrote it: Duty to God Award. Eh, what was the big deal all about? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Challenge

I challenge you all to not edit Keepers talk page for 48 hours. Take his talk page off the watch list and off the editing agenda. All those wikipedians who can contain themselves will be a given a lovely plate of cookies and a cuddle from Mr Bigglesworth, Sound good? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds Good. Oh. Bugger it. Pedro : Chat 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh. My talk page has too many template-only messages on it as it is. I can do without cookies.--Koji Dude ^(C) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How about some C - O - O - K - I - E - S then? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sign me up! I'm busy editing some Argentinian futbol articles. I can make it to 8:45 PM Eastern time Saturday. ;) Enigma ^message 00:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You've worked up quite a challenge here blofeld. So far, myself included, only about a dozen Wikipedians have posted here since your challenge, with what, about a day to go? That's several million cookie templates for all those wikipedians who can contain themselves and not post here. Hey, if anyone can do it though, Baldy can do it....I just feel bad for Mr. Bigglesworth and all the grubby little hands that are about to grab him....Keeper ǀ 76 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Aah I apologise if I have temporarilary relieved you of your amigos!. Wow are there really that many people who watch your user page. When I left a note left night I couldn't believe that you had 4 different messages in 4 minutes The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably not worth a permanent move to Funnies, but I needed to share it with someone. Besides, I haven't shown my face here today.

Most idiotic tagging ever – iride scent 00:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just laughed out loud, here in my hotel room. I dunno, there's hidden genius in that, if the intent was to be funny ;-) Tan ǀ 39 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it – iride scent 00:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's great and yes, it has earned a spot in my funnies. –xeno (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I can think of a lot of things I'd enjoy less with <5 fingers, and a lot of things I'd enjoy more with >5...Keeper ǀ 76 14:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I wanted to know if you help me figure something out over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology (2nd nomination). You can read the nomination process yourself, but basically, an article that groups various diseases together was nominated for deletion because the creating editor was trying to use the article as a mini-research project. Currently, though, he's out of the picture, and the article does not at all assert anything that constitutes a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, which, now that I notice, are actually the same violation. Anyway, about 15 or so editors voted for deletion, I voted against that and placed a kind request on the talk pages of all of the editors who voted to revisit the debate and either actively maintain or modify their vote based on my argument, which for some reason was absent. One guy came and neutralized his delete, another one to two are now engaging me in a healthy, civil debate over the newly presented arguments, another maintained his vote without any explanation and the rest have yet to revisit. Are there any avenues for me to take, as it looks like the article will be deleted without merit just on the basis of the 15 or so votes that are all apparently mimicking the nominator's faulty argument. Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. It does look like that will get deleted, and any sane admin (that doesn't want a good shit-stir, forgive my language) will close it that way unfortunately. I think you've made a very strong case for inclusion though. The main obstacle, as I see it, is the technicalness of the article's subject. Closing admins aren't medical people, generally, and articles that use that level of med-jargon tend to be the last ones to close, because most of us don't know what the hell they're about :-). Again, though, you've made a strong case, and if/when it is deleted, let me know. I'll provide a userfied copy for you so that you can, if you wish, continue to work on the article to remove the concerns (several of the early "delete" votes have come back now to say "I still say delete") that have been raised. Basically, I think the "original research" tag is coming in because it is a group of "notable diseases" that seems to have been rather arbitrarily grouped together, perhaps better as a category of diseases rather than an article. But if you have sources that reliably (and regularly) group these specific diseases together, there is no reason we couldn't that I see. Keeper ǀ 76 15:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock - I'm tired

24.252.132.198 (talk · contribs) keeps reverting my edits on other pages (National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards) and has now created an account: Xxxfilmproducer (talk · contribs). BTW, they are all the same person and constitute the sock puppet of non other than ComingPresident (talk · contribs), who has been blocked recently. He now vandalises many pages, including your userpage. What else can be done? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, sorry for the trouble Shahid. WP:RBI comes to mind. Revert, block, ignore. Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Update, the new account (and the IP) have been blocked. The new account is indef, the IP is 55 hours (its almost certainly a reassigning IP). Keeper ǀ 76 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem - reassigning IP. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't I know it. The Wikimedia Foundation tends to frown on admins that block entire countries. Until they let up on that rule, I'm afraid RBI is the best we've got. Don't get too frustrated, the article always ends up right in the end with enough of the "good guys" like you and Blofeld around. Don't leave, then they win. Keeper ǀ 76 17:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and happy birthday! (just saw your posts at BoS's page) Cheers and good wishes! Keeper ǀ 76 17:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeper the user who I brought your attention to above appears to be User:Xxxfilmproducer who you blocked anyway. The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

?? Is there someone left to block? XXX... is blocked, the comingpresident account is blocked, the IP changes probably hourly, Bollywood is semi-protected from IP edits. Is there something left to do here? Keeper ǀ 76 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Thats what I mean -they turned out to be the same person. Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you friend for the wish! Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't allow banned editors to post

Nuff said. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

oh my god. You are being so fucking ridiculous. Stop with the drama-mongering already. Let it go ^TM. Keeper ǀ 76 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, calling me ridiculous is supposed to magically alter my perception of the situation? How about you try that again, Keeper? This time, put a lot more civility into the reply. Better yet, take your thoughts to the WP:AN, where I have asked for input. Too much emotion and nowhere enough common sense. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You tell everyone, in several places to "ask an admin" and "I'm telling on you". When admins come and and tell you that you are being ridiculous, the first card you'll play is the civility card? Good god, what have you done so far that has been "civil?" Fuck, I'd block you right now, but you'd cry that I'm "too INVOLVED". Unbelievable. (and before you post it, I will tell you right now what you just thought to yourself as a response: "block me for what??? Threatening admin action is admin abuse!!!!ZOMG!!!). Keeper ǀ 76 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, please take a very deep breath and calm down, Keeper. You must see that you are reacting to this situation far more emotionally than either is appropriate or necessary. Not once have I called you any names, nor insulted you. My caveat to ask an admin was to encourage you to get some outside input and gain some emotional distance, as you are clearly distraught by the situation. Threatening someone with a block in an article where they have taken appropriate action is unwarranted.

Perhaps you can explain why, given our rules about posting by banned users, you feel that IAR is appropriate to apply here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 17:59, August 15, 2008 (UTC)

This is getting posted in too many places. My place or yours? I just posted to your page saying I was not "distraught" or "emotional". Keeper ǀ 76 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I opt for yours, Keeper. When I keep getting edit conflicts on my own talk page, its time to move the convo elsewhere. I will await your response. Maybe we could move the bald one's comments to above, so we can continue the convo in chronological order? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several people laughing right now that my talkpage is perceived to receive "fewer" edit conflicts. :-) I just posted on AN (in response to MastCell) that I do indeed need to step back and cool off. How about tomorrow. I'd very much like to tell you exactly where I think you are wrong, and for you to disagree, and for me to then tell you again. Tomorrow? (and I moved blofeld's comments). Keeper ǀ 76 18:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you give yourself too little credit, Keeper - you might be able to convince me in one post. :) I can wait for tomorrow, though I might be on call; the Chicago Air Show is this weekend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to tell you what I think, and in fact I already have on your talk page. To quote: your behaviour is "un-fucking-believable". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Of course I do not deceive myself that my opinion is worth that of any admin, but neither should you deceive yourself that it isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well you're wrong their Malleus. Your opinion is generally far more valuable than a good many editors, irrespective of a +sysop flag. Pedro : Chat 20:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary, my world went red ... and then I saw what you'd written. To be serious though, I do think this is a great sadness, and something that wikipedia can't be proud of. I am deeply disappointed in Arcayne's behaviour here today. I will say no more. We ought to be thinking of Jeff, not this wikilawyering nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather glad I was not online to see it unfold. It is disgusting behaviour, pointless and without merit. Arcayne should apologise to the community - and more importantly to Jeff's family. I saw your note on his talk Malleus, and I support it totally. His pathetic "I'll report you to admins" comments were beyond beleif. Anyone that can't understand that without the community we don't have an encyclopedia simply baffles me. Anyone that plays hard-ball with policy over human emotions isn't really worthy of comment at all. Pedro : Chat 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That AN thread is absolutely horrible :( Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree Tombomp, and I regret contributing to the insanity that it is. Keeper ǀ 76 18:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this sensationalism is ridiculous. If it's not TFA it's a memorial page. Give it a rest, Arcayne. –xeno (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In ref to above thread:

LOL. I've lost count of how many times I've thought that at various ANI and AFD discussions The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, could you clarify your meaning? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not referring to yourself as I have no idea what it is about but I abide by user:Nishkid's motto. "Make articles not wiki drama". A great deal of unnecessary drama seems to be created with certain ANI discussions when people could be helping me translate all those spaniards into english!! Best regards and happing editing. Adios The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Chop Suey

Eh, I can't blame a majority of folks 'round these parts for not getting me... I haven't exactly been an angel. My brand of humor tends to work better in person; I write exactly how I talk. I should have a warning label on my user page that should warns people to take me and my comments with a grain of salt. As for any impending RFA, oh, it's been cooking in my brain for some time. I mean, I'm realistic about it, but never say never. right?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdan (talk • contribs) 17:50, August 15, 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Keeper, you are the most! --Endless Dan 19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, man. You can't leave that like that. Keeper, you are the "most?" Most what? You realize how many people are reading this, wanting to add a few adjectives and nouns after that adverb? Dammit...Keeper ǀ 76 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That may or may not have been by design, Keep. --Endless Dan 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NICE! I coulda went with the chick's anus, but I couldn't resist the hairy ass on this guy. Wait... what'd I just say? --Endless Dan 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If your dad has been reading my recent postings on child rearing in the reference desk, then maybe I am to blame. --Endless Dan 20:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Welcome

Hello again Keeper! Don't worry, i'm not going to hide my past. It was all unfortunate, but I feel i've grown as a wikipedian because of it. Seicer was right to do what he did at the time, I can't believe I went that far to defend a troll. I took a few months to edit as an IP (mostly vandalism reverts on All Grown Up! and other articles related to it). After a while I thought it was time to let Twinkle help me again. With Graham87's help and blessing I was soon back on top form with a fresh new outlook on wikipedia. Now, i've been adopted by xenocidic! My interests on wikipedia now are reverting vandalism and helping out. I want to keep everything simple (notice the lack of a user page), i'm here for the project now and nothing more. As I said to xeno, honesty is always the best policy and I never wanted to hide who I am/was. May I ask when you worked/found out who I was? -- Anyway, it's great to be back and i'm really touched that you still trust me after everything that happened! You're a true friend :-) John Sloan (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I identified at Kurt Webers April fools thread at WP:AN. Again, thanks for believing in me. I've really enjoyed my "re-birth" here at wikipedia and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the community for many years to come! John Sloan (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I might join you :D -- On another note, I just found this user while on new user patrol. Does his username and userpage count as promotion? I glanced at WP:UNP, but it was'nt very clear. Thanks John Sloan (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty blatant. I'm feeling rather nice today though, and left a username warning on his talkpage, which was still redlinked. He may not even know how to create an article, and inadvertently created it in his userspace instead of mainspace. It's very possible (and probable) that the future film isn't yet notable (and may never be), but it's a new user. See his talkpage for my message that I left, I'd appreciate you keeping your eyes on it as well (I'm also watchlisting) Keeper ǀ 76 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do! I knew usernames or userpages relating to company's were against policy, but I was'nt sure whether usernames/pages about films were or not. Thanks John Sloan (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet an admin paycheck that the user will end up indef blocked, the userpage blanked and/or deleted, and the article nonexistent. But still, we have to go through the steps to arrive there. I'm just really glad you're back, you always struck me as someone with the right level of clue to handle this place. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco

Yo, stalkers: there's some major moving around going on at tobacco. I've tried a bit to make some sense of it, and improve things, but the editor who's doing the moving and shaking seems to prefer IRC, and doesn't look to be making any changes in a sandbox first. Any opinions or suggestions? Frank | talk 21:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Frank, you're the devil. I've had a horrible edit day today, and the only thing I want right now is a cigarette (I quit over a year ago, you'd think my brain would realize that). Abstain abstain abstain, personally. I can't even click on that bluelink, I'd be damned if I did....leaving it to the TPS....Keeper ǀ 76 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what...I quit almost 12 years ago and I've never looked back. Keep your chin up; it's worth it. As for the link, it's a mess, but it does include many of your old friends, so go ahead and skip it. Frank | talk 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Grand Lodge prods

Question as to your removal of my prods on several Grand Lodge articles... because this is becoming an issue with many similar articles. Several editors who are very familiar with the deletion guides have opined that Grand Lodges are not inheirantly notable... that you need coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. These articles were completely unsourced, which means that there is no indication that they are notable (or even that they exist). If that is not what A7 is for, what is it for? Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove a single prod, I removed 3 speedy templates. I don't believe they are speedy candidates. They may very well end up deleted, but the 3 I removed the speedy tag from all at least asserted notability (two as the "grand lodges" of US states, one as the "grand lodge" of a country). I think perhaps, if you seriously think these grand lodges are not notable, that a mass afd may be most appropriate to gather community consensus regarding the issue. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 21:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I used the wrong term. Just so you know... I am not upset that you removed the templates... I only want to better understand why you did so. Did you look at the articles, or did you just assume notability because of the title?... for example, the Grand Lodge of Alabama article says nothing about being the "leading chapter" or anything like that. All it talks about is when it was founded and who the first Grand Master was. It did not assert any claim to notability (which is why I thought it qualified for A7 speedy). As for the Grand Lodge of Spain... you can not assume notability from the name... were you aware that there are multiple Grand Lodges in Spain, all claiming jurisdiction over the country (and that the one I put the template on isn't the largest by anymeans). Would knowing this have changed your removal?

I am asking because the Freemasonry Project is currently weeding out articles on Grand Lodges that do not assert a claim to notability under WP:ORG... it would be nice if we did not have to go through a seperate AfD for each one. I had hoped that I could speedy at least a few... those with no sources, no verification, no claim to notability at all. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, I understand your frustration, really I do. These are not speedy candidates, in my interpretation, because they all assert notability. If that notability assertion proves to be false, or lacking, an AFD will show that. It is possible, as I stated above, to do a "mass" AFD for the articles you wish to be deleted. I don't agree with you in regards to your "speedy" rationale", but that does not mean that I think the articles should be kept. If you do decide to nominate them for deletion, via AFD, I will vow right here and now that I will not participate in the deletion discussions, nor will I close them, to show you how very little I care about the topic at hand. I was merely clearing out CAT:CSD, something I do daily. It wasn't personal, had nothing to do with you. I saw an assertion of notability, tis all. If you feel differently, I encourage you to take it to the next step. Be well, Keeper ǀ 76 22:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry... I didn't take it as personal... I really am trying to understand what the assertion of notability is, because I didn't see any assertion. In other words... I am trying to understand your thinking, not complaining about it. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre coincidence

Came to ask you this and this thread was already here; as someone more experienced in AfD than me, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gran Logia de la República de Venezuela and see if you think I'm being too pig-headed in rejecting CSD A7 here? As far as I'm concerned, "Grand Lodge", by claiming to be a national body, is in-and-of-itself an assertion of notability, but it could probably do with more opinions. Pre-emptive note to anyone considering this WP:CANVASSing – this page is one of the most watched talkpages on Wikipedia, and this is an open invitation to anyone coming here to take a look – iride scent 15:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that the Freemasonry wikiproject would be A7'ing any Grand Lodges. Just my opinion, but the notion that we should be excising Masonic lodges of any variety from Wikipedia is a head-scratcher for me. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I already gave my two-cent deposit for Keep -- that article should not have been brought to AfD, let alone put up for Speedy Delete. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also a somewhat related discussion on DGG's talk about this issue with the same folk. It's not a forum if it's user talk but it still smells of forum shopping to me. TravellingCari 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Need a bit of help with a potential problem user

Resolved

– all edits reverted, user blocked, no keepervention

Wasn't sure if this rose to the level of AN or AN/I, so I'm bringing it here. This user's contributions came to my attention when they inserted some problematic material into the Drew Barrymore article, which I watch. I went back through the contributions linked above, and found nothing of value. I either undid or rolled back each contribution that hadn't already been fixed. The user seems to be mostly concerned with inserting information about "chain smoking" into articles, and even started a spurious article entitled "Chain Smokers", in which he listed and linked several BLPs. I moved that "article" to userspace, and would appreciate any help that might be forthcoming from the TPSers in watching this user's contributions for further problematic editing. ^S._D.Jameson 19:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. If they want to contest it and prove they can be a valuable contributor - a la Xeno's second chance template - they are free to do so. Good catch here, SDJ. Tan ǀ 39 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You might want to take a look at the "article" I moved to his userspace. I already removed the problematic BLP stuff from it, but it may be worth speedying anyway. ^S._D.Jameson 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, speedy delete it. It's not adding anything to the project and from what I see, never will! John Sloan (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What an odd contribution pattern. You do wonder what's going through the user's head at times like these, heh. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's several I've come across that were like this guy. Who knows what motivates them? I'd say perhaps it's just a desire to raise a response, but a couple of the edits I rolled back or undid had sat for awhile in the articles, so that's not it. It's just a mystery, I guess. ^S._D.Jameson 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Keeper. Thanks for your comments at my RfA, and I understand it was at a difficult time for you. I wanted to let you know that prior to the RfA I had read over some of your interactions with Dusti and found it useful and informative. I see you as level-headed, and generous in your willingness to help. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Heh, you may be one of the very few that sees me as level-headed, but I'll take it! Keeper ǀ 76 14:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reagrding Agama Yoga Article - Deletion Issue.

Dear Keeper76,

You have deleted the article "Agama Yoga" in the opinion that it is an advertisment and a subject that lacks notability. I Would like to ask you to review this decision based on the following.

- The Article Written was a stub, it is not meant to advertise a Yoga school but my eventual purpose was to present the Difference in the style of yoga practiced by this school, as i wrote in the article: "The Agama Yoga style of practice focuses on energy movements and concentration of the mind (rather than physical fitness) in order to attain states of meditation and spiritual realization",

- Agama Yoga is a school of yoga with a unique way of practicing yoga as it combines elements from the Daoist tradition, the Natha Sampradaya, The Kaula Tantra, Kashmir Shaivism & Esoteric Christianity. ("Agama Style Yoga". Yoga World 3, 22-26. ISSN 11099763 )

- Also from a technical standpoint it differs as it uses techniques such as Laya Yoga, & Music Meditation (I am waiting on a reference on the Music Meditation issue which is really a unique issue)

- As i wrote before i have 3rd party sources for writing this article, however at this time they dont cover all the subjects (such as the music meditation issue) which is why i left many issues out of the article to prevent "Original Research".

- Regarding notability, i am on the opinion that the school is rather notable, as it is an international one, the head teacher traveling the world on lecture tours, and articles being written in many countries and languages. including a documentary on the school, and apearance of the head teacher in a documentary that has appeared in numerous world festivals. the schools notability is only growing.

I would like the article be Restored, if changes need to be made i would be happy to make them, and of course i would like to add the details which define the Agama Yoga not just as a school of prqactice but as a different style of practice, as the style of practice and the depth of yoga defined by it does not reflect in the articles about "Hatha Yoga", or "Asana", or "Pranayama" in their regular sense. but i do not want to do this without the proper 3rd party refferences.

I would appreciate your response Tomeryogi (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be responding shortly on your talkpage, in case you are not watching this one. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 14:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Have sock, looking for drawer

Matthew 8965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He admits its a second account, I'm thinking deleted=blocked. His edits also don't seem typical newbie. I have a loud suspicion but nothing to confirm, I'm going to poke MBisanz toward here. ANyone else have any ideas? TravellingCari 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure deleted necessarily equals blocked - he may have forgotten his old username and just assumed his old account would have been automatically deleted or something. He certainly seems to have some big holes in his knowledge of the operation of Wikipedia, so I don't see a reason to be necessarily suspicious at the moment - though of course, acting clueless is often a good way to troll. Keep an eye on him, though, definitely, but I'm not personally too concerned at the moment. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 18:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm suspicious by the immediate interest in protection, made me think of repeated unblock requests and getting his page protected. I could be wrong, but there's something fishy here. That and the video game focus. Who copies articles to user space and block info? TravellingCari 18:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, by all means I agree that he's acting pretty weirdly, but we have a lot of well-intentioned users that behave weirdly. It's quite possible he just doesn't really know what he's doing... although certainly I'll also be watching for him doing anything visibly malicious. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking he's 10. Maybe 11, based on spelling and "what worries him the most" (making friends, etc). Harmless in his annoying-ness. TC and Mazca watching, shouldn't be too much trouble. Rinse, repeat. Keeper ǀ 76 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rabid baseball fan needed

Special:Contributions/75.85.82.78

This guy keeps changing the teams in articles about various baseball players. Some of them are I know incorrect, but while I follow baseball some, I don't know many of the teams' players' names. Can someone look and see if you know if any of his other contribs are erroneous? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pickle. there are good changes mixed in with some obviously bad ones. I check ESPN for basic stuff like roster and apearances. I'm not even sure what his pattern is. about 60% of the changes I looked at were accurate. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Like Protonk. I see some good and some bad. Headed out so can't do in depth at the moment. Honest mistakes? TravellingCari 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  - One or two definitely were. One was a team name change for a player who had been added to the minor league roster of the Pirates but had not yet been brought up to the majors (following a trade). The IP added the team name change and was reverted but several other users warred in slow motion over the name so I consider that a good faith mistake (or difference in interpreting consensus on when a team name changes). Other changes are less explicable. Protonk (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    - What's really bizarre here to me is that he seems to be self-reverting. Almost like he's sandboxing. Maybe he just wanted to see what the page would look like if Francisco Rodriguez was a yankee. (that was one of his changes, quickly changed it back to LAA). I checked four or five today. Bizarre, yes. Unproductive certainly. But seems quite harmless, I'm guessing it's a fairly young user that is "worried about getting into trouble with MLB" if he messes around too much...Keeper ǀ 76 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      - Must be a Dodgers fan. Anyway, I made it 3 and a half days without posting here. :) Enigma ^message 16:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Need Assistance Please - BLP

User:Waccolon is stating that he is Willie Colon and continues to add unsourced info to the article. I lack the patience, finesse, experience, to tell him exactly whats going on with that. Can someone talk to him please? Thanks! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 10:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's definitely touchy. It reminds me I need to go back and check on someone that was "openly" updating his own page and claimed to be the subject. Cripes, I need to remember his name. The fact that he refers to his page as "his resume" is troubling, but likely an innocent misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Your link is to a disam page, but I'm assuming your talkinag about Willie Colón. One place you could read is the COI noticeboard, perhaps post a note there that this user is claiming to be the BLP subject, just to get more eyes on it. He shouldn't be blocked, by any means, but rather encouraged. If he really is our friend Mr. Colon, then he is a subject matter expert, (not necessarily just in himself, but in his work, his colleagues, etc). He might have an extraordinary wealth of sources that he would be willing to make available to improve our articles - photos, offline sources, etc. I agree with you that he cannot just say "I'm Willie Colon" and continue editing without sources. So there you go. I rambled, but there are some gems in there :-) Keeper ǀ 76 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've hit up the BLP talk page and Caribbean HQ's talk page (she's a big wig of the boriquen articles), but I'll definately leave a note on the coi page as well. I want to give the dude the benefit of the doubt... but one just never knows. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. And it really is better to be safe than sorry. How many B-grade movies have someone walking into a room saying, "No, I'm the real <insert good guy here>!" That's all we need is to start letting this user add what-the-hell-ever, only to have an IP show up later, claiming the same, and saying "what the hell is all this junk? I've never been arrested for blah-blah-blah...." Also, I saw your note on the user's talkpage. Well said, encouraging and all that, but still clear and direct as for what is required of him. You get a gold star. Keeper ǀ 76 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for not returning word that I have been convinced that this article does not possess merit -- it was the last argument provided, in respect to this being too large a category of quite unrelated diseases, much like a list of asphalted-streets in NYC. So, yes, I have given up and decided not to continue on. Thank you so, though, for your efforts in saving a copy for me to edit, as well as for your efforts at large. I only came to you because I knew I could count on you for assistance. :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For knowing what to do, how to do it and doing it! (and then explaining it all to me :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk \| Contribs)} 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey -- I was wondering if you could check this out and let me know what you think about me putting it on people's talk page as a kind of welcome, when applicable. I did it a bit informally about 20 times, to great reception, and figured it would be nice to let people in on some of the culture. Let me know if you think I should modify it at all in terms of content/vocabulary/style/etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Man with a tan

Um, Keeper, that page was created on May 16th and the user had been vetted by checkusers and granted IP block exempt [4] and did notice some good contribs in there. Maybe a note to User:Sam Korn asking how thoroughly he investigated the guy before granted IPBE, since our methods of granting it may need to be revised. MBisanz ^talk 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote on ANI: A userpage with "I am a man with a tan!" underneath an image of an African American politician warrants a deletion and a block, regardless of who reported it, or somesuch. I don't really care when it was created either, it's blatant racism. YMMV. Keeper ǀ 76 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okey, I'll de-flag the account and notify Sam then, since obviously this one slipped through the checkuser review. MBisanz ^talk 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

anon IP at it again on Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

Hi. Back on July 4th, you sprotected this article. The editor who was causing the problems is back again, and even though he finally gave a source - which has been incorporated - he still refuses to stop POV-pushing and using weasel words. We cannot leave messages for him or discuss this, since his IP is different each time he edits. If you could please restore the sprotect, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

looking into it, dyanega, give me ten minutes Keeper ǀ 76 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Same stuff, new month. Did two months this time, I hesitate to go further than that. User:David in DC did a nice job trying to integrate/translate some of that weasel-y stuff. Changing the heading to "controversy" again, after the IP's info was, in substance, kept, was the last straw for me, and enough of a headache for you and everyone else. Keeper ǀ 76 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dyanega (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec, but replying to Keeper76) This has got to be the most obscure article on Wiki, and now you're watching it, thanks to me. I feel that the world is in balance. So tell me, how much do you know about endangered fish on the Upper Colorado River???? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: Where's Colorado? Keeper ǀ 76 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're asking me? I'm not an admin (genuflecting once again). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

you online?

Hi Keeper76. I need an admin's help/advice with a confusing page move issue. Can you help?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Where? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Where? (I'm online for about another hour)Keeper ǀ 76 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, an admin moved a page but left the corresponding talk page orphaned, and I don't know how to fix it. But the admin who performed the confusing move is online, so I should try to reason w/ him first. Will seek a 3rd opinion if we can't agree (though we rarely have in the past!). So disregard for now; sorry to trouble you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's not online after all (I can't tell time). I have a birthday party to go now, so I'll just wait a day or so for Uther to reply to me. But in the meantime perhaps one of you can answer: If someone moves a page but doesn't move the corresponding talk page (which contained all of our discussion and compromise!) along with it, what happens then? (btw, if you're wondering why I went to you out of all admins--I checked the deletion log to see who had been active in the last few minutes). Thanks, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a talkpage should move with an article page move. Generally speaking. Again, you aint' gonna find an admin willing to make a blanket statemtn such as you're searching for without a specific diff/link to a specific article. Enjoy the birthday party in the meantime........Keeper ǀ 76 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A favor

Hi Keeper, i'm going on a wikibreak for a few days. Any chance you could keep an eye on my talk page? Just in case someone needs my help. I don't really expect anyone will need me, but you never know! Thanks John Sloan (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done! Enjoy your break....Keeper ǀ 76 01:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! I'm looking forward to the rest :-) John Sloan (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Birawer

Well, this is not how I expected to spend my evening, but...I sandblasted Michael Birawer, removing the unreferenced text portions (including a potential bit of copyvio), added proper references (had to pay to get the old St. Paul Pioneer Press articles -- hey, it was a good weekend at the racetrack, so why not share the bounty?) and did the whole template and tag routine. The guy's notability is marginal, but I cannot see it being axed in AfD. Feel free to add or subtract further. Thanks for thinking of me. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow, sweet. I owe you $2.95 for sure. Seeing as I'm an "all-powerful" admin, and because I'm f-ing broke, couldn't find 3 bucks in my couch cushions if I tried, I will consider my admin tools completely at your disposal. Let me know who/what/when you need something blocked/deleted/protected, and I will do it without question, hesitation, or grumble! I'm going offline for about 12 hours, I'm hoping you find something for me to do! Thanks for your efforts in this (marginal) article, Eco! Keeper ǀ 76 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I paid for two articles, so whatever $2.95 times two is...mathematics is not my metier. And rather than block or delete someone/something, how about unblocking someone requesting help or closing an AfD article or two as Keep? You know, like they said in the musical "Camelot," might for right? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, if you're being serious right now, you're officially the best admin ever.--Koji Dude ^(C) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's always nice seeing someone save an article from AfD before the debate begins. Perhaps I can share the payback with Keeper. Oh no I'm too cheap to purchase any articles myself, that's why I got User:EJF to do it for me. :) --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Malleus has been blocked Fritzpoll (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Malleus Fatuorum. GlassCobra 11:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking you out to the woodshed

This comment was whiny, wimpy, and weak. And if I could find another disparaging adjective starting with "w", I would. :) First of all, if you nominated someone for admin, I'd support, all things being equal, that's how much I trust you. And with respect to SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs), your nomination would have killed at least one of the ridiculous opposes. I don't watch RfA's as carefully as others, but I always check out who nominates an admin. There are some who have ulterior motives. You nominate for good reasons. However, the two individuals you did nominate lost, not because of you, but because of valid reasons. And some dumb ones, I realize. Anyways, don't stop nominating. Or I'm going to have kick your ass. Well, at least I'll tell someone to kick your ass, since I'm a wimp. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, "Taking you out to the woodshed" just sounds... dirty.
I'll also echo OM's non-dirty comments, though. You're definitely one of the good ones 'round these parts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c re to OM) Wow, did I need to hear that. And the "W" you are missing is "wuss". I'm a total wuss. Although, let me say, the two users that I last nominated, User:Finalnight, and User:Gwynand, were superb candidates. They should have passed, and depending on the mood of the rfa regulars, would have passed. It's all in the timing. I wouldn't have nominated otherwise. The problem, as I see it through my jaded glasses, is that I nominated both of them during a "full moon", also known as a ridiculously negative week. It's all in the timing, hence I told SheffieldSteel that "he has a good window right now" (most RFAs were passing when I told him to kick it in gear and self-nom). I appreciate your ass-kicking though, OM. I really do. I probably still won't nominate anyone for the foreseeable future (why would I put a good editor through hell myself, when I can merely support them and not have to deal with the stress of effectively "removing" a good editor from Wikipedia?) Both Gwynand and Finalnight have retired or disappeared, and both were damn fine NPOV editors. Both were editing and improving the encyclopedia quietly, effectively, and without bias. I'm still a bit heartbroken over both of them leaving disallusioned post-rfa, and wish they'd both come back. But really, thanks for your vote of support. In case you don't recall, I posted to your talkpage, eons ago (in wikipedia terms, months ago), stating that I couldn't understand why I had such a "negative view of you" and your contribs. It was bugging me, so I found it. You and I had a dispute on User talk:Wikidudeman, over an RFA. (If you look there or not, I told you to "go away and unwatchlist" and you accused me of (gasp!) being a psychologist) . Heh. :-) If it makes you feel even worse, I was one of the "admin coaches" for Dihydrogen Monoxide, and was going to be one of his nominator's had he waited long enough for me to get a co-nom in there before he transcluded the RFA. We won't ever agree on everything OM, but I'm extremely glad you are here, extremely glad that you have no personal arbitrary editing restrictions. This place would be much worse off without you and your expertise. Again, thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 23:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhh. WDM. Yes, NOW I remember too. Not to dig up old graves, but a lot of us were right on him. He had a spectacular meltdown after the failed RfA (since he probably had it in the bag). His edits to Stormfront were just not acceptable. Oh, look what you've done. Now I'm all annoyed about this. Your fault. I'm truly going to have to kick your ass. As for the woodshed--exactly how far in the gutter is your mind? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How far in the woodshed? Your first mistake is your assumptiont that I've ever left the woodshed. find a happy place, find a happy place, find a happy place.... Keeper ǀ 76 23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Did they do a full background check on you before making you an admin??? I still think you're a shrink. LOL OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've said many times, it is an absolute fluke that I'm an admin. Stars aligned. I began editing in aug. 07 (a year ago last week). I became an admin during a cold, dreary January 08. No DYKs. No GAs. No FAs. Minimal article contribs. In fact, you'd likely oppose my nom if it were to happen this summer, and rightfully. But still, I'm an admin. I can delete things, and protect things, and undelete things, and block people. Completely unfair, and as pennance, I have vowed to do my best to protect those that actually help make this a better encyclopedia. I'm pretty good at dispute resolution, turns out, and I'm pretty good at adding "enlightening" commentary (read:sarcasm) where needed to help people see just how ass-faced and wonky they are being. And there are hundreds of people that watch this page, (I'll prove it in the next section), and ask for/covet my advice. I'm just as baffled as you are, honest. I'm not a shrink. Promise. I'm not even that good a peacemaker. Keeper ǀ 76 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And I have 20,000 edits, I've pissed off half of Wikipedia (and probably annoyed the other half), and I have no shot of ever being an admin. Actually, I want to be one, not to clean up this place, but I get annoyed that I can't make simple article moves to pages that already exist. For example, OSU College of Medicine is the incorrect title for the university. It should be moved to The Ohio State University College of Medicine, but because the latter article exists (as a redirect), I can't do anything about it. And to get it moved, there's a 500 step process. If I were an admin, i could do it without controversy. Oh, and I can block you at will. But that's just a bonus. And I heard you guys make big money too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have over 15000 edits, not including my admin actions (like 3000 deleted spam pages, etc). I just moved the articles you referenced above, as a consolation. The former is now a redirect to the latter, as is proper. I agree 100% that you should be able to do that yourself, and I'm a huge proponent of abolishing RFA and replacing it with a piece-meal approach, meaning that the "admin tools" are separated and separately applied for and granted by other admins. In other words, if someone is excellent at SSP/AIV, they get the block button. If someone is an excellent article builder, they get the PROTECT button and the MOVE OVER REDIRECT button. If someone is versed in deeltion discussion, they get the DELETE button, and so on. If it ever comes to that, I'll be a hearty supporter of yours, at least for the Move/Protect issues. (What do you expect, you just threatened to block me!!!) :-) Keeper ǀ 76 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You are vengeful. I would only block you for 3 weeks at most. It's not like I would indef you. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

←BTW, thanks for fixing the articles. There's no way to get Move/Protect tools independent of admin status? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Thera should be, but no. Your easiest method, at this point, is to send me a talkpage message, regarding what you want moved, and where. I'll do it within minutes if it's legitimate. Consider me your personal bot/admin. :-) Your only other option is rfa, and we both know how that would go. (I'd be a supporter by the way, although the final count might be 1-187-5)....Keeper ǀ 76 00:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be closer to 2-197-1. Unless I can vote for myself. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? RfA boils your brains, best to stay away from it. Just look what it's done to Keeper. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL !!! Minor aside - OM at least you would be remembered for one of the greatest # of opposes at RfA. Make sure you nominate for AOR so I can vote for you ;-) Shot info (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to shoot high. I'm going for King of Wikipedia. Then I will make Keeper76 bow in my presence. And then I will give admin tools to only Syracuse University grads. Then I will create a policy that fine Scotch (at least 50 years old) is delivered to my office on the monthly anniversary of my first edit to Wikipedia. Then I will only pass FAC's that mention my name personally. Oh sorry. I'm drunk with power.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh: Wikipedia:Requests for kingship/Orangemarlin. Tis a shame that's still a redlink. I won't bow, but you already stated before that you'd only block me for three weeks. Once that is "time served", I'll gladly share your Scotch, not only to get drunk with power, but merely to get drunk (with you). Keeper ǀ 76 23:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt

Can I just ask why you gave him access to the ACC flag? The access mods to the account creation tool decided not to grant him access for a number of reasons, so you giving him the flag is extremely pointless. We give users the account who regularly hit the 6 per day threshold, not users who haven't got the ability to create accounts. Please remove the flag. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could know what those reasons are. The one cited on his page is a little off... Fritzpoll (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dusti has AC rights but Kurt Weber is being denied? I mean, no offense at all to Dusti, but c'mon. Tan ǀ 39 00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Kmweber#ACC Tool, no point repeating arguments. –xeno (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Not much substance there, either. Tan ǀ 39 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Ryan P, so many edit conflicts, so little time)...I gave Kurt the rights because Kurt has been here for years longer than most of us, myself and you included, and he wouldn't dare abuse them. What are the reasons that the "access mods" denied him? You say there are "a number of reasons", what are they? Have I personally broken Wikipedia, or is this political? Honest question. Keeper ǀ 76 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we have to deal with new users who often don't have a clue about the purpose of Wikipedia and wish to create accountswhich completely go against our username policy. When they do this, the members of the ACC tool send them a friendly reply and ask them to choose a new name, offering advice about how to choose an appropriate username. Unfortunately in Kurt's case, his actions on wiki and off wiki (mostly off-wiki after being banned from Wikimedia IRC channels) have put a serious concern into the minds of the access mods about his ability to engage with new users without attacking them. Given the ACC tool is an off-wiki tool, and his off wiki activity as been extremely dubious (especially when dealing with newer Wikipedia users on IRC), his access was denied. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See? Now why couldn't you just say that in the first place. I had no idea that the ACC tool was an "off wiki" tool", to use your words. I hate (let me rephrase that...hate) off-wiki anything in regards to Wikipedia. I don't do email, or IRC. It's all bullshit, and creates more drama than it solves and has nothing to do with making a better encylopedia, in my honest opinion. I'll remove the rights from Kmweber's account myself. It is certainly not a big deal to me, I'm not a "huge fan" of Kurt's, I merely wanted to see at least one bit of drama go away into that good night, where I felt drama was unnecessary. Sorry for my intervening. Keeper ǀ 76 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Keeper, I'm not an access mod to it - I do work on the tool, but I had to do a bit of digging before I could respond. I thought the reasons for denial would have been stated, but obviously not. I hope that made it clearer. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Clear as mud, Ryan. Clear as mud. Keeper ǀ 76 00:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan (or stalkers) - did I miss the link which showed where the discussion was in which it was decided not to grant this request? I'm following this in at least two different places, so I may have missed it. Frank | talk 00:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed privately with the access mods. He was told the exact reasons privately as well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, if this was all discussed "privately", how was I (or anyone else) supposed to know what to do in this situation. Here we have a long time user, Kurt, requesting ACC access, mysteriously being denied, and now I'm being flamed for granting the userrright on Special:Userrights? I'm still lost it seems....Keeper ǀ 76 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Because, you have no say in who gets granted ACC tool access on the toolserver which is required to use the flag. You're not getting flamed for it, just informed that the ACC flag is only to be given when people have been granted access to the ACC tool. Not all users who get access to the tools have the ACC flag - you need to get granted access, then regularly hit the limit for the ACC flag to be given. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

THE ACCESS MODS HAVE SPOKEN. I've got you covered Ryan :-)--Koji Dude ^(C) 01:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know WTF an "access mod" is, nor do I care to know. kmw is a solid user, wants to help out in a new way (helping new users create accounts), but whatever. I'll concede my update of userrrights (I've already undone my upgrade of Kurt's account). WTF ever. Keeper ǀ 76 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just another example of why so many of us are becoming thoroughly pissed off with the thoroughly misguided WikiPolice. One day, perhaps soon, the WikiPolice will have the place all to themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipolice??? It was pearlers like this which show that Kurt is in no way suitable for access to the ACC tool. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I could really care less what a Wikipedian says off wikipedia. So Kurt doesn't like Scarian. So the fuck what. I like Scarian, I think he's invaluable and dedicated to the success of Wikipedia. What does that have to do with ACC??????Keeper ǀ 76 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

that's exactly what he's like off-wiki all the time. It's conduct like that which means he's banned from Wikimedia IRC channels. He's insulting and attacking off wiki, and ACC is an off-wiki tool, so he can't be trusted for one second not to bite potential new users. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never been on the WP IRC channels and never will, so can't say what he's like there, but I've never seen him be rude to or about a newcomer on or off-wiki – even on WR, where rudeness is par for the course. He's rude about Scarian, Majorly, myself etc but we're big enough to take it – has he ever actually been rude to any newcomer other than obvious Kohs/Awbrey socks? I'm not saying he hasn't; I am saying I've never seen it. – iride scent 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, one of the major reasons why he's banned from the IRC channels. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"One of the major" requires a citation, not just your possibly biased opinion. It's my opinion that the IRC channels ought to be banned. Unhealthy places that spread malicious rumours and undefended accusations. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in your opinion of Kurt's suitability Ryan, only in the apparent secrecy of the process by which he was denied access to some trivial tool just because he holds unpopular views. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

)e/c reply to ryan P)You're proving my point. I couldn't care less "what he's like off-wiki", and neither should you. I didn't know he was banned from Wikimedia IRC channels. Since when is ACC an off wiki tool? I have always perceived it as being an explicitly on-wiki tool, seeing as it is merely creating on--wiki accounts for others. I'm still lost, you're still mud. To me, anyway. I'm very and explicitly willing to be wrong, either from you Ryan, or others. I removed the ACC bit from Kurt's Userrights, pending this discussion among others. I'm going offline in about 30 seconds, I'll revisit this in the morning. Keeper ǀ 76 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan - I'm trying to think of a good analogy which refutes this logic, but so far the only ones I've come up with aren't quite right. Suffice to say that we're talking about apples and oranges. Like many editors, I find Kurt to be trying, but to question his integrity, dedication to the project, and suitability are really not in line with what Wikipedia is really all about - nor what Kurt is about. We may disagree 90% of the time, but Kurt is consistent and principled, and I've never seen him do a smidgen of harm to the project. I'm not concerned about his criticism - either off-wiki or ON - because he is entitled to each of his opinions (even if I believe some of them are wrong) and because he is not capricious. (Well, check that - he can appear capricious, but it's predictable and harmless and therefore not really capricious.) We are not about censorship here, and we aren't about only one point of view. There are other projects where that is acceptable - and I won't insult Kurt by naming them here because he is here, working for this project, not those others. I am neither supporting nor opposing any request for particular access for Kurt. But what I am asking for is an open discussion of the matter where opinions can be aired and recorded. The project deserves no less, and I daresay Kurt deserves it as well. Frank | talk 02:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think that the issue that is cited here is really a valid one. I've created 55 users on the ACC tool and not come across a single username that would be disallowed per policy. Even if I did, there is a button to click to send a boilerplate response - no personal interaction required. –xeno (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's conversations like this that convince me of the pervading elitism growing on Wikipedia. As a member of ACC, I find it appalling that Kurt would be denied something so trivial and relatively simple to use. It requires a modicum of thought and the urge to do something helpful. I don't see the potential harm in Kurt having this particular "bit". Like Xeno, I've not come across one username that would have required delicate communication or interaction - and even if I had, I have no doubt that Kurt could write an email saying "Your username is inappropriate, please choose another". Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's elitism so much as WikiFossilism. There are so many like Ryan stuck in their old ways that anyone like Kurt stands no chance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't trying to single anyone out, it was just the conversation itself that irked me. Fossilism is an interesting way of describing it. Drama is so ubiquitous nowadays. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who disagrees with the WikiFossils gets knocked down. Just the way it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's beware of going down that path. It's one thing to disapprove of what's going on here (which I do — at least the method), but let's not use it to then generalize, which only creates more drama. It's always about the encyclopedia. We don't have to categorize people - we just have to do what's right for the encyclopedia. Frank | talk 04:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try and be aware that the project may be being held back by the WikiFossils, who are driving many good contributors away. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but... As a honest-to-god fossil – I just hit 75000 edits and 1800 deletions today, and as some of you may be aware have had it explained at very......great......length this week exactly why I embody the Evilness Of The Cabal – I can see the problems but not the solutions. (I don't think "split the tools" is a starter, since I can't see any situation where I'd trust someone to delete but not block, or protect but not perform page-merges, etc). I find it hard to see how to junk the bad parts of open editing without junking the open environment which makesWP work while Citizendium, Knol, MyWikiBiz et al disintegrate; while I loathe #en-wp-admins and everything it stands for, "free to everyone" includes "free to the IRC members". Personally, I would bring in an auto-sysop for anyone with an arbitrary set of high-but-not-too-high criteria (GA + 10k edits with a clean block log, for example) with the RFA process as an alternate process for users who don't meet the automatic criteria, but Who Am I To Judge? I'd be tempted to make admin status expire after two years with at least a six month gap before one could reapply, to keep the system shaken up – but that would never go through. – iride scent 04:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that in a heartbeat, although it's beside the point of this discussion. I've mentioned recert or reconfirm; the resistance to it speaks more about how adminship is a badge or trophy than any amount of words to the contrary can refute. I hadn't thought of your mandatory break in adminship - sounds good to me. I'm not stickler for the details here; 1 year on, 3 months off...18 months/4 months...whatever. I'd be OK with reconfirm and NO time off. But just to be reevaluated would be a Good Thing. And automatic expiration would also be a Good Thing. Frank | talk 05:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The day I see the turkeys voting for Xmas I'll also be expecting to see a full squadron of flying pigs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I've never seen any of Kurt's alleged IRC meanie poo-isms when I've been online. Either he likes me or he waits until my back is turned before being nasty to the newbies. —Giggy 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- ... or someone is being economical with the truth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  - No! Who would do such a thing? —Giggy 10:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell, it's amazing what you can stumble upon on the web these days. ACC is really, really and one more time really not a big deal. It's so hard to screw up on the tool that I imagine it'd be hard to abuse even if you were trying to. Most new users created by the tool are welcomed automatically through bots, if they're not then someone else will no doubt stumble across the custom welcome at some point in time. I've never seen Kurt be unwelcoming to users on-wiki and him being an arse to some of you off-wiki is completely irrelevent to how he treats new users. People are constantly looking out for Kurt to make a wrong move so that they can bust him with it, and the chances are this would traslate into ACC too. If he is unkind to new users, he can be removed from the tool. He should be granted access rights. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 14:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Keep. Wanted to let you know I'm still alive... I'm certainly not as good as most at keeping the wikiworld informed of my status. To be brief, the last 30 days for me have involved a major family funeral, a two week vacation, and wifey going back to work. Somehow I've become even more active in raising my son, now we are both waking up in the middle of the night on weekdays. I think I noted somewhere... Fritz's talk... that admittedly my activity was possibly waning because of my confusing RfA experience, which really just means I probably wouldn't have made as strong an effort to work on the project while on vacation... and I didn't, although that surprised me. I've always detested dramatic "farewells" and retirements, just wanted to let you know that I'm no where near that point, just going through a kind of adult "loss of innocence" summer with first child and funerals and shedding some of that 18-23 its-all-about-me phase. Exhausting, amazing times. I'm sure I'll pick up my activity in the coming weeks, can't wait to plop down and get some work done on Jack Daniels. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

God, are you a sight for sore eyes. The drama, the drama. You've missed exactly nothing, except Fritzpoll got an FA. I got someone else to do a DYK for me, that was fun too, I almost broke a sweat:-) Glad you're well! Keeper ǀ 76 14:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be the laziest editor ever. You can pay me, and I'll write an article for you. Sheesh. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed to be anything better than lazy. And the editor did it for free. Trust me though, you don't want me writing articles. I can barely tie my shoes. Keeper ǀ 76 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I "borrowed" your idea :). Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 15:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Projectivity article deleted - could you please restore it? it is open source!

Hi

I am part of the community of developers who developed an open source software called Projectivity.

Since it is an open source project (released under the terms of GPLv3), we want to let the world know that is there and free to download, use and distribute.

Wikipedia holds several articles about open source projects (also commercial open source) such as SugarCRM and Alfresco.

I would like you to consider restoring the article.

Thanks in advance,

(Ujibang (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

No, I won't undelete it. It was blatant advertising for your upstart. If you can show me how exactly Projectivity is notable (being open source alone is not it), I'll reconsider. SugarCRM has several references and reviews. Yours did not. The Alfresco article is unsourced and should probably be deleted as well, thanks for finding it for me. Keeper ǀ 76 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seem to be back ..

I seem to be back, for now at least. Just wanted to thank you for getting Epbr123 off my talk page. I'll not assault your senses by offering my opinion of that editor here. I'd like to thank Tan for his support today as well. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That was by far the closest I've come to blocking another admin. Glad it didn't come to that, I don't need the ANI grief, neither do you, neither does Epbr. SandyGeorgia gave good advice, that I am heeding, that we all just need to avoid each other. Honestly, I thought that was already happening, but I couldn't help but respond when he conveniently showed up on your talk page to poke you once blocked, and not before, and not with in regards to any article building or encyclopedic importance. His motivations were quite clear to me, and I found it disgusting. That's the last I'll say about it. Malleus, please don't lash out on silly pages like WT:DATE, or wherever it was. A completely inconsequential page, bickering over minutia really. Back to work for everyone I hope. Ironically, I've been doing article work since my last post on E's page, either deleting garbage or salvaging new, perhaps hopeless, but also perhaps hopeful, articles. I'm no where near smart enough to get an article through the wringer, but hell, even I can add a category.... Cheers, glad you're back up and running. I seem to have developed a reputation as your "rescuer" (Fritzpoll posted here when you were blocked). Stop giving me opportunities to throw the life-ring, eh? Keeper ǀ 76 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. BTW, you were very naughty being so cruel to me. ;-) Words almost fail me, but I'll keep them to myself. Thanks again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I 'bout put my fist through my screen. I'm very glad there's an ocean where there's an ocean. Keeper ǀ 76 20:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Adam Telle

I don't believe it was appropriate to tag Adam Telle with a speedy delete. When I looked at C7, I see it says To avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. (Emphasis added).

The fact that Telle is a spokesperson to a high-ranking U.S. Senator is in itself a reasonable indication of notability. I understand that I may not have provided enough information "to prove that the subject is notable", but his position and accomplishment meet the "reasonable indication" threshold. If there were doubts about proof of notability, a more appropriate solution would be to ask me to add or to include additional verifiable information about Telle to confirm his notability.

While I realize you have to deal with cranks and nonsense in your administrative role, Mr. Telle is not such an easy call. At the least, his inclusion in Wikipedia should be placed up for discussion or this author should be given the opportunity to make the needed improvements. Hashmarks99 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Being a spokesperson for a US Senator, is not a "reasonable indication" of notability, although it is certainly more notable than what I do for a living :-) I appreciate your note here, and I'll work with you. Is there anything else that Mr. Telle has done to indicate notability? Can you show me evidence (I don't edit political articles, generally, too, er, political) that other Senators' spokespersons have articles here as precedence? Do you have any independent references that are written about Mr. Telle that indicate that he is notable or unique in his role as spokesperson? Again, I'll happily undelete, I just need a bit more from you. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

COuld somebody sort out the 1000px size infobox. Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. That's a big map. Is it an issue with the infobox template, or the svg image? Keeper ǀ 76 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a good look and couldn't see anything wrong with the image or the infobox code - eventually I purged the server cache on the page and it fixed itself. My guess is that it was some momentary fart in the SVG processor that somehow got cached on the page... no idea. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good. I thought I was going crazy. I couldn't find a diff where anyone altered the (longstanding) image. Consider this done! Keeper ǀ 76 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not the first time purging the page cache has fixed things like that for me... Wikipedia seems to be more than capable of messing itself up without the help of its contributors :D ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for that: I can tell you, the slightest sign of trouble brewing and I'm away like a shot! Man with a tan (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive Branch

		Olive branch
		The issue that I had with you and other editors a couple of months ago was not necessary. (I hope you remember, as I do not wish to bring it up again) I finally have acted (and learned), and I hope you will accept my apology for the incident. The only thing I can hope is for editors to regard me by my edits. Cheers.--LAA Fan 15:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I have no idea what it was. That's certainly a good thing! Onwards and upwards, Keeper ǀ 76 15:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that was my sock, except there's no way in hell I'm a LAA fan. Never. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

...Which makes it even more suspicious...if I wanted to have a sock that no one new was me, I'd make sure it was User:Ima Yankee Nutter even though they suck. Keeper ǀ 76 14:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

BOOOO, HISSS, Yankees rule! From a real NYer MBisanz ^talk 14:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Let me check the standings. Oh yes, The Rays are leading the division. And the Yankees are where? Just saying. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Suspension Training - speedy delete denied

You declined speedy, on the basis of a claim of notability. However, I tagged it as spam - like the other contributions of the creator is promotes a particular manufacturer, with no other meaningful content. Could you take another look? Thanks, TrulyBlue (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm looking for sources. I found a New York Times article that seems to profile (and not necessarily positively) the concept of "suspension training". I did delete the other article that was more spammy, but as a general concept, it may be notable if it is getting coverage. Help me out with my web searching, the article purported that the subject (suspension training) has been covered by reliable, independent sources, one of which I've been able to corroborate. I could still be very wrong, it's nothing personal to have a speedy declined, happens all the time. Have you looked for sources? Keeper ǀ 76 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked for sources and found nothing to justify its presence here. That is pure, undiluted spam. I put the article up for AfD: [5]. Keeper, if you want to keep your offer from yesterday (after I helped out with that St. Paul artist article), I would recommend closing that AfD as a Speedy Delete and getting Suspension Training off the site. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Eco, I never in a million years thought you'd cash in your chips to delete something instead of keep it! :-) What about the NYT article that I linked above? Not legit? Seems to be completely about "Suspension Training". (something I've never heard of). Keeper ǀ 76 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but I've just added a ton of sources to the AfD. I think the topic should pass WP:V and WP:N now, although the article badly needs a cleanp. But that's not what AfD is about ;) Gazi moff 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Those are some serious sources. What do you think Eco? I'm thinking that perhaps Wikipedians, as a general rule, shrink away from gyms and physical fitness similarly to vampires at sunrise. Desk jockies we are. We don't even have a category called Category:Physical fitness...heh Keeper ǀ 76 14:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Keeper, today's lesson is "Never make an offer unless you are going to follow through with it." :) I really don't care about the article, one way or the other. And, trust me, I am not holding you to that impulsively generous promise! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satgas Atbara looks like its not getting non-partisan input. Can someone else take a look at it and ensure that it gets the attention it deserves? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Grr. I have to abstain from that one. I'm not currently the article creator's "#1 fan" a la Malleus' talk page yesterday, and he's not mine either. I'd hate to shitstir anything else up if I suddenly showed up at an AFD of one of his articles...Keeper ǀ 76 14:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Keeper76/Archive 12, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
— JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

I still say these three signatures (2 noms and nominee) are creepy together. Just me though. Congrats, well earned - Keeper ǀ 76 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nathanael Greene Elementary School

Hi...Umm...not wanting to criticise an administrator.....but are you sure the redirect you put on this article is correct ? I'd change it, but since it went to AfD, I don't want to get my hands slapped :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Those are the kind you can change without fear of block :-). Articles, generally speaking, shouldn't redirect to themselves. My mind was elsewhere. The funny thing is that I was lamenting in the AFD that there was no Education section for that city's schools to do a section redirect, so I made an outline for one. Just never sent anything there, apparently. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 14:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article of luke murray mcalister

Why?
my article.
it got deleted
i cannot comprehend why?
i wrote it on myself
i played soccer for liverpool
and new zealand as well so,
please undelete the article you deleted please,
i wrote this in haiku form, you requested,
so i willingly put effort in and definately obliged.

please undelete my article please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy11 (talk • contribs)

I'll be on your talk page shortly, skippy. Keeper ǀ 76 14:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ariakon SIM-5

While I'm here, perhaps you could offer an opinion...the above article is for a paintball marker (aka gun). To me, this looks like blatant advertising at worst, non-notable at best (the article even includes details of the price) - yet, there's a whole slew of articles, with their own template widget thing (sorry, I can't rememeber the term for that box at the bottom) which seem to have no 'real world' citations, references etc. Do you know if some decision was made to allow these to (apparently) violate WP:N, WP:RS etc, or do consumer products pass notability automatically ? WP:OUTCOMES seems to have nothing, so I'm at a loss to understand why no-one has removed them - or at the least, heavily edited out the advertising, speculative comments, and general opinions... I raised this at WP:EA, and the one response I got (so far) was to propose for deletion - but with so many articles involved, that would be a possibly contentious step. Any thoughts would be appreciated :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh. That's a lot of articles about paintball and paintball accessories. Who knew? It is definitely intimidating to start plodding through a box full of hundreds of bluelinks, and I can almost guarantee you that you'll run into obstacles and accusations of contentiousness. Reminds me of the Great Camera and Cell Phone Debates. Go look up Nokia, and Nikon for some examples. We have several articles that say "Nokia ABC-123-5000" is a phone made by nokia. It replaced the ABC-123-4000", and was available for one month, in 2002". Good luck trying to get rid of them though, the ABC-123-5000 has several die-hard wikipedians protecting it, as I'm sure the Ariakon SIM-5 does. Sigh. WP:PRODUCT might be useful to you as well, if you haven't found it already. Keeper ǀ 76 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit Request

Hi. I've been looking for a copyedit for the Strawberry Fields Forever article, and I just realized now that LOCE is gone! Oh the good ole days! :-) I was wondering if you could work up a ce for the article, which is heading for FA Candidate in the near future. Thanks. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fun article! I'll try to take a look through it today. Any specific issues? What's your timeline? Keeper ǀ 76 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a copyedit for good prose and any general mistakes. Nothing big. As to the timeline...sometime before I die, hopefully (so hurry up!) ;-) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that song used in the last episode produced for "The Beatles" cartoon series? They did a wonderfully psychedelic number to go with it, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Eco, if you'd like me to delete Strawberry Fields Forever on the basis of non-notability, just say the word, I'm at your command. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And for those who can see YouTube videos: [6] Groovy! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...

I requested page protection for Stephanie Tubbs Jones but I think this is gonna have to be an immediate request thing. Too much confusion... dead/notdead. *sigh* Too many people dying today, Keeps. Too many. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Someone else saw it too, i figure. Thanks anyway. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 18:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well! Friday protected it, I support the protection (and would've done the same). I made a comment on the talkpage. Until the sources have it right (they're all over the place right now), we are not in any hurry. We'll get it right when they get it right. They are the news, we are the history of the news. Who else is dying today? I never click "current events", maybe I should.... Keeper ǀ 76 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

LeRoi Moore (I'm a major DMB fan), some 147 folks in Madrid, and my ex stepbrother-in-law just might be joining them in a few. He had a run in with some fine folks in NYC and after being mugged, got his skull bashed in. Not a good day all around. Upside? I heart lemondrops (the drink, not the candy... and oddly enough it doesnt have an article. One should not write a new article whilst bombed... words to live by). Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

mm lemon drops. QB, sorry to hear about your ex step bro in law, hope he pulls through. Wiki while wasted... mmmm... TravellingCari 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agama Yoga.

Dear Keeper.

I would be happy to send you all the information i have, all the refferences i used and some which i didn't use as well (i will send the explaination with them), do you wish me to continue this correspondace here or via email ? if you wish me to continue it here, please inform me how you wish me to relay my scanned copies of the articles to you. Thanks Tomeryogi (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't use email for Wikipedia purposes, and I never will. If you have sources that show how Agama Yoga is notable, you can link them here on my talk page. If they are not online (linkable), but instead scanned copies of something or other, I will unfortunately have to decline your offer, and hope that one of my talkpage watchers will respond here, or on your talkpage, with a valid email and willingness to help you out. Thanks for your message, Tomeryogi. Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, emailuser me and I'll respond with my email, alternatively, upload them as images and Keeper can review them. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Myself

My first mistake was editing at Treaty of Tripoli in a section that didn't deal with an edit war but kept getting lost during an edit war, and me being blocked for it. My second was swapping "portmanteau" for "blend" or "compound word" where applicable and someone decided it was vandalism (I reverted them a once times across more than five pages pages) and blocked. Then blocked for claims that my writing a letter to the foundation about the attitude an admin gave me would be a "legal threat". Then I tried to keep people from changing a policy until consensus was reached (3 times in one day :), blocked. Then for arguing. Then for seeking help. :) I never once cussed, called someone stupid, or the rest. I wish I would have, those kinds of people seem to be given a pass. (Malleus! :P ) I have over 50 admin now that I have regular dealings with (in the same way that a violent neighborhood may have police patrols :) ). I think I have the longest block log for a user that could be considered "in good standing". Its kinda sad when you think about it.

But its kinda for the best. Having all of that negative attention allowed me to turn it into neutral attention, and then parley that into using some of the most capable people on Wikipedia to help me flesh out articles and the rest. Now, the page in question (that you mentioned before) is Samuel Johnson. And, to make this completely without focus - I don't think you've ever done something to upset me, and I don't think I have a bad impression about anyone here except for two people. I've even had wonderful conversations with some of my blocking admin. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a freebee edit to Samuel Johnson (for whatever reason :) ), just click this, and convert "Plan for a Dictionary of the English Language" into ''[[A Dictionary of the English Language#Johnson's preparation|Plan for a Dictionary of the English Language]]'' Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. I did the edit you requested. As for your blocklog, I'm sure there are several admins (likely, the blocking ones) that would tell their own versions. I call it all bygones. Glad you're here, in other words. And glad you are willing and capable of making the important part of Wikipedia (namely, the encylopedic part) a better place. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying I didn't deserve to be blocked. :) I'll be working on the encyclopedia portion for as long as I can. Even if its posting the material on my talk page from behind a block. I still have at least 80 more important works (poems, books, etc) and a long list of biographies that I have to do. I also take requests. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Your Comment

I left a response on my talk page. You might want to add it to your watchlist, so we can leave all the comments in one area and not get confused. Thanks! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, and no worries! I figured there was a logical explanation for the ambiguity. I asked a brit, namely User:Rodhullandemu, the same question that I asked you. :-). I'm watching your talkpage, I usually do whenever I post somewhere. Cheers, and thanks for your hard work! Keeper ǀ 76 02:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh

There could be trouble in paradise. The "per Ryan" crowd is beginning to appear. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 04:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Paradise indeed. In big situations, as in these small ones, improvements are at first painful and difficult to get used to. That's ok, as long as the improvements occur. At my expense or the expense of a few rigid ideas, as long as we grow, it's all worth it. --Moni3 (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Que sera sera... I wish more took your tack. To me, this place is a fun hobby. Some fly kites, some collect baseball cards, and I edit this damnable project. Unfortunately, for others the project is life, it seems, and advancement within it is to be guarded against intrusion from the likes of those who only write. Sad and unfortunate, but indeed, as you say, small. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 04:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to unwatchlist that RfA. The opposes there get more colorless and green by the moment, and I need to sleep furiously. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 06:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes we per ryan editors have found it. Fear us

. Synergy 06:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't find a lot to giggle about, when it's at all possible that a great editor like Moni, who has continually demonstrated her ability to work collaboratively on the actual project, could possibly not be promoted. No, I'm not giggling much at all about that... ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 06:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you've got to let it go before it gives you a heart attack. It's the same old shit. If the editor doesn't spend time on the drama boards or in AfD, he/she can NEVAH learn to be an admin. If the editor doesn't have 15 GA's then "don't they know we're here to build an encyclopedia?" I just let it go. At least it is better than watching TPH's RfA. :| Protonk (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, its a giggle because I haven't taken offense to being lumped in with the per Ryan crowd, even though there really isn't anything terribly wrong with this, a post notifying Keeper is laughable. You don't think he can find WP:RFA? I concur with Protonk, let it go. Synergy 06:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True enough, Protonk. I felt it was quite odd for Synergy to feel the need to pop over and prance like he seemed to be doing, but to each his own, I guess. I wasn't going to rise to the bait and flame him, but I felt it needed to be said that giggling about what's going on over there's just a bit uncouth. As for your last, Synergy, check the timestamps. I posted my initial post long before you posted yours. And you're free to oppose whatever wonderful, cool-headed editors you like, for whatever reason you like. You're also free to come here and try to bait me into getting angry. It's not going to work. I'm disappointed in how it's going, but I'm not angry. As Moni said in her post here, it's not worth it, really. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 07:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, that wasn't me baiting you. But I stand by my assessment that bringing this to Keeps attention isn't going to solve or help anything. A joke is a joke (I use them to lighten the mood). Synergy 07:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Clearly you felt dropping by with the note you wrote was both humorous and appropriate. I disagree on both counts. I guess that's where it will have to be left. And, for the record, I wasn't "bringing this to Keeps attention", I was just dropping a note at his talkpage with regards to the situation, as I am wont to do about various things. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 07:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The joke was clearly in relation to your comment about those who are opposing per Ryan, and has nothing to do with Moni3 as an editor or a candidate. I fail to see how its inappropriate to comment in a joking manner, expressing the fact that it doesn't bother me that you said it (never mind the fact that timestamps differ, I saw this not only after I opposed). Oh and this: And, for the record, I wasn't "bringing this to Keeps attention", I was just dropping a note at his talkpage with regards to the situation... - how is that not the same thing? Honestly, if you are that easily bothered by silly comments, I'd advice you to take this talk page off your watchlist. They happen rather often here. XD Synergy 08:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh for sure, there are threads here that are quite silly. This wasn't one of them, but it's all good with me. You have every right to leave whatever comment you want wherever you want to leave it. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 08:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Good lord, will you two get a room? And not mine please, "watching" isn't my fetish. Keeper ǀ 76 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, then. My apologies Keeper. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And I still confident that it will pass. I wasn't expecting a smooth ride... knew that she'd get opposes for the reason that she is... and like I said, if it wasn't for my knowing her, *I* might be in the oppose category...but I've been watching her for 3 months now, and know better. I put communication and inter-personal capabilities ahead of other stuff. The tools can be learned and I trust her no to delete the main page (or at least not to do so twice.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Luke Murray McAlister

one thing i forgot to mention in the thing was the fact the it was liverpool reserves, but i will get an email from gary ablett, the now coach, and forward that to you, confirming —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy11 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be on your talkpage shortly, Skippy. Keeper ǀ 76 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we trying to kill the bot?

Really? We're that verbose? oddly I can't take "credit" for much of this batch, unlike mid May. TravellingCari 14:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I'm not even sure that I responded to all those, perhaps I should slow m-bot down...of course then, I won't be able to load my usertalk on my ridiculously slow PC...perhaps that's a good thing. Go twins! Keeper ǀ 76 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, when I got my new toy, it was so nice to be able to read talk pages like DDG's. Yes, go twins. Go away :p Nice to see Matsui back last night, good oomph. Today will be fun, company outing. Private tour of New York City Waterfalls and then a beach BBQ. I need a vacation. TravellingCari 14:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Stalker responds

Etana? Hey, I lived in South Africa -- I know the company. Besides, I enjoy playing with your stub. (Insert Paul Lynde-style smirk and laugh). Ecoleetage (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't play with the stub too much though, it might grow into an FA. You get to decide what FA stands for. I say featured article. Wherever your mind just went, I'm sure you can think of something...Keeper ǀ 76 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

Thanks for so vigorously supporting my nom, but I think it'd be wise to let this aspect of the discussion tail off before it becomes dramatic... :-) --Dweller (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely (and actually, I think I stopped posted there yesterday for that very reason?) If not, I'll stop now. Cheers and good luck! Keeper ǀ 76 22:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry - I just kind of commented there. I totally agree Dweller's a great guy but I don't know - I need to be more "convinced" at RFB than RFA. I'm probably wrong. I'll ponder (if I get a chance - things are a little busy :)). Pedro : Chat 22:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was honestly surprised to see you in the oppose section Pedro. Are you opposed to Dweller being a crat, or opposed to the idea of "more crats" in general? If the latter, I think at least a neutral would be more appropriate. Great editor, great admin. Nothing controversial to see or Dwell on (couldn't help myself :-). If the former, I think you (and I'm only picking on you because you posted here) should probably find a reason to oppose other than "I think Dweller's a great guy, but"...Keeper ǀ 76 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think that we need plenty of 'crats to dispell the myth that being a crat is somehow so incredible - which lies with the whole "being an admin" thing as well. However the community does seem to feel that getting crat buttons is a way bigger issue than it should be. That is what it is. My fundamental issue is that in all areas outside of RFA the crat buttons are pretty valueless (after all the username thing was merely a technical handover from years back on allocating a usergroup who could deal with renames - it was never ever seen as an access level and was a cock-up in terms of the devs in a well-meaning fashion just deciding to restrict the right to bureaucrats). As I also noted in the discussion Dweller's admin actions activity is pretty low (by my standard). At RFA I take the "so what if you're not going to use them" line in respect of the tools. At RFB I have another approach I'm afraid - and only past history, not fine words, can demonstrate that commitment to me. Informative debate though, and again nothing personal to Dweller. Pedro : Chat 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Roll up for the Paris Hilton energy plan AfD discussion

You can't make these things up. Fortunately, it is in AfD: [7]. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep: I thought all viral videos were inherently notable and encyclopedic? MastCell ^Talk 00:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep: I'm in love with Paris. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
OMG. There is more discussion on this bullshit article than on real ones. I need to find that graphic that someone has somewhere that has Wikipedia information divided amongst stupid articles (say Pokemon), and 1% dealing with important issues. Jimbo must wonder what he created. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Co-created, actually!!!. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I love this graphic. I'm stealing for my own nefarious purposes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on....

User:Andy Oakers. He's a new account, and I have a feeling that he and User:Man with a tan are somehow connected. Oakers is not getting off to a good start. Something looks and smells fishy here. Just a hunch. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who smells like fish, did you know it is rude to talk about people behind their backs? I'm unsure who you think you are to be honest, sticking ur nose into other people's business, it's rather disgusting. Andy Oakers (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've rolled back some of his changes to other user's pages. One was blatant vandalism and the other was clearly nonconstructive. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(re to realkyhick) Yeah, I still think Man with a Tan and the IP are the same person, or perhaps two people in the same room. Andy Oakers is the same person of at least one of them. Sam Korn needs to be notified of this, he knows a bit more backhistory. I merely stumbled into it yesterday. I'm ready to reblock the lot of the them. Good faith only goes so far. Keeper ǀ 76 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Block 'em all. I think it's justified. I suspect there's more history here than I realized, having just tripped up on this through new-page patrol. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting the office pool now. I give the IP, Man with a Tan, and Andy Oakers about 20 minutes of "active" editing left in their tank (s). Any takers? I won't block any of them myself, outside eyes are necessary at this point (I blocked Man with a Tan yesterday or Monday indef, unblocked yesterday with conditions). Conditions as far as I can tell are not met (userpage is offensive again, knowing the history of that image, and creating spam/borderline attack articles). Keeper ǀ 76 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit more than 20, only because WP servers seem to be slow today. Oakers left a mildly-attacking message on my talk page just now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was just there gettin' it gone. Keeper ǀ 76 18:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well please be my guest and run a CU or whatever. I have no idea who that IP is but it looks totally different to mine (91.108... as per the huge rangeblock). That Andy Oakers chap merely found my page because he was stalking the guy who deleted an article of his, who just so happened to be deleting one of mine too. Also, what was wrong with the image I put on my user page? I am aware that it once appeared on Christopher Paul Neil because that stupid had inserted it there, but it's out of context on my userpage so not offensive right? (I only found the image because I was reading through the IP's edits. Like I say, I am nothing to do with either of these villains, so please feel free to run a CU so I can clear my name (why would I be advocating a ban of my own account anyway?!?) Man with a tan (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't put the image back. In fact, it should really be deleted. Don't call others' "twats" (you just did it again in your last post on your talkpage). You said on my talkpage that you would not respond to anything anymore or let the IP get you riled up. If the Ip posts to your page again, revert it without response or fanfare. Don't feed the trolls, its what keeps them going. I'll block the ip if needed, he's really close to being blocked. Rise above it. Keeper ǀ 76 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How has Andy Oakers not been blocked yet? He hasn't had a single positive contribution. GlassCobra 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Although, he hasn't had a single contribution of any kind in about 2 hours. I'm watching him, feel free to block if you feel its appropriate. I think he might be about 10 years old. Called someone a poo poo head, and meant it. Keeper ǀ 76 20:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm definitely not going to put that image back. Naturally I have a lot to learn, especially since it really took me by surprise how quickly my article on "Jamie Manderson" got deleted (seems I need to get a bit more familiar with policies first). I'm sorry for rising to the bait with that IP but it is getting to me. If I have permission to revert the rubbish he's writing on my talk page then I'm grateful for that (I was just a little confused as I got told off for reverting the threads he started on me at ANI). Anyway thanks for your patience with me, I know I'm being hard work! Man with a tan (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Update Man with a Tan got indefinitely blocked again. I can't say if it was justified, as the edits in question are not accessible for us tool-free types. Though I can say the admin who did the block poured on the sarcasm in making that call. Like we say in Mozambique, A luta continua... Ecoleetage (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, any plans on unblocking him again? Ecoleetage (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh, just saw this here, didn't notice that he was reblocked. I'll go investigate a bit. Keeper ǀ 76 15:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, won't be unblocking. I am able to see the deleted diffs. His current contribs (now deleted) include, amongst other questionables, a new redirect page, called Lulz in Vietnam, redirecting to a BLP that was arrested and jailed for child rape. Most of his other edits are either creating substandard redirects (many deleted), questionable unsourced additions to the page of the BLP itself, and a new page (now deleted) of a guy in England that "got arrested a lot". I feel bad for him, he is definitely getting trolled. I'll watch the IP as well, although I have a hunch that he/she will disappear if Man with a Tan stays gone. I don't believe the "Andy Oakers" account is related, simply stumbled into it, probably a young person. Not exactly productive either, but manageable without blocking. I agree with you though that the blocking admin could've been much more tactful. Keeper ǀ 76 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've offered him a 2nd chance, but he doesn't seem to be using it that well. Just a couple of minor changes to a couple of articles and nothing really significant. Disappointing really. Any further thoughts or guidance from yourself? Gazi moff 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He was already on his second chance (I blocked, then unblocked him once this week already). He agreed to not let a trolling IP, this one, get the better of him. The IP needs to be watched closely, if not blocked already. These are two people that know each other in real life, I'm relatively convinced, but not checkuser/SSP convinced. If the IP just randomly happened on this "Man" account, I feel bad for the "Man" account. So I would say, leave "Man" blocked, see what "IP" does in the next few days. If "IP" leeches onto another account and starts up with spurious accusations, etc, then we can look at an unblock of the "Man" account as an "innocenet victim". Sounds harsh really, but neither of them was doing anything worthwhile anyway notwithstanding the bickering. Keeper ǀ 76 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Trenton

Hi. I was wondering if you could copy edit the Battle of Trenton. I saw you prefer American English and this article is written in American english. Thanks.-Red4tribe (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What's your timeline? I'm not really motivated right now it seems, mostly dinking around with meta-stuff, and I've stalled with my earlier request. Are you going for GA or FA with it soon? Is it a stable article? Keeper ǀ 76 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You ought to pitch that assignment at Tan -- the American Revolution is his area of expertise. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan yes, although I'm not sure if he does a lot of copyediting. Subject matter yes. Malleus may like to take a stab at it. (he's reading this I'm sure). User:Epbr123 comes to mind as well, has tons of good CE/FA/GA experience, although we're not exact BFF...Keeper ǀ 76 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking requests right now, so I would submit you to the tender mercies of Epbr123. May God protect your soul. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your suggestions.-Red4tribe (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Another favor

Hello Keeper, can you please semi-protect my two subpages? User:John_Sloan/Archive and User_talk:John_Sloan/adoption. I would ask this at WP:RPP, but I would probably still be waiting this time tomorrow! :D - Thanks John Sloan (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) John Sloan (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one that could do with semi-protection, User:John_Sloan/userboxes. As you can see, I don't like the idea of IP's having access to my personal space! Cheers :-) John Sloan (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. No problem at all JS. Keeper ǀ 76 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre question

Having outed myself as a TPS due to the "simple request" above, I guess I can simply post to ask a question. I have a great deal of respect for Keeper and the TPSers of this page. Was this diff beyond the bounds of reason? Or was it just WP political suicide? Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that what Jimbo said didn't match up with what BLP1E does. I lent my support at the AfD. I'm to wikipolitically naive to know if WP:TROUTing Jimbo for cause is political suicide or not, but it seemed appropriate to me. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What's that glistening in the sun? It appears there are two items, they looks metallic almost...I need a closer look. Wait, what? Are those balls of steel???. Yep, they sure are. NO worries JimMillerJr, there are no rules, written or unwritten, that say you can't post your thoughts or concerns towards any other editor that you disagree with in a discussion. That's why we have discussions and not votes. Jimbo, if I know his personality at all (and I can only go by what I see, I've never chatted with him), will think nothing of your post. Some of his lackeys/slackeys might take offense, but those are merely the same people that thought that spending recess hanging out with the teachers as a "helper" were going to get better grades. They shoulda gone out and played instead. Keeper ǀ 76 14:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI I named you as meine proxy Keeper. –xeno (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
And I removed it. I won't speak for anyone else, or allow anyone else to speak for me. Not there at least. I'm not participating at all in any of that. Keeper ǀ 76 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Given that it is a self-mediated, self-judged and non-community process, I won't be participating at all. Including the naming of proxies. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Keeper76, I hope you will consider participating, i.e., serving to advise me, so that my actions here are more effective, in a good way, and less disruptive. The Proxy Table is intended to be a standing one, not just for one particular incident. It's "self-judged" because the purpose is to advise me, and if I want bad advice -- I don't -- then, of course, I'd control it badly, that would be, I presume, obvious, and the whole thing would be a waste of time, especially for me. The only difference between this and standard Talk page advice is that it's organized so that one question is considered at a time (which is standard deliberative process, and Wikipedia's disregard of this is a primary reason why our process breaks down as often as it does. We get easily distracted by irrelevancies.)

Serious charges were made against me. I suspect that if the community looks at these charges, they will be seen to be preposterous. However, it's quite possible that I did something different that made, for example, the block justified, but, then, was I warned about this different behavior? I have only a few reasonable choices: Do what I'm doing, in my own user space, which should minimize disruption, or pursue DR with a host of individuals, and the latter could be very disruptive. In my user space, with WP:Delegable proxy possibly helping (or, at worst, being harmless), just a few participating users could find consensus, for consensus is much easier to find in small groups, that's classic. Consensus is what I seek, but true informed consensus, not defective consensus, defective from either participation bias or lack of information. This whole affair began with such a defective consensus at AN/I, over a topic ban for Wilhelmina Will, together with administrative action by Fritzpoll. Issues were raised that apparently reflect broad disagreement in the community and unclarity of guidelines. But I can't get to that while the charges stand that were detailed in the original warning by Jehochman. Then, beyond that, there was the massive warning of me by various administrators. I can only deal with these one at a time, and not while there is a lot of shouting! So I'm starting with one very simple question: was that original warning proper? Was I doing what I was warned to stop doing? Can I stop doing what I wasn't doing? If the answer to the first two questions is Yes, then the rest becomes largely moot, and I should apologize to the community, and drop it, move on. But if it is No, then the rest of the process will need to be examined, since, in particular, I wasn't blocked for those original reasons, even though that warning was the one cited. One step at a time.

By the way, are you aware that the community, in the affair over which I was blocked, ended up ratifying, unanimously, what I'd been asking Fritzpoll to consider doing? That if he had not gone to AN over the issues I raised -- but then raised them incorrectly, i.e., without regard to the actual objections I was making -- I would have then asked an independent administrator to review the situation, and, in fact, was already considering Carcharoth, the same admin chosen by Fritzpoll when he did the same thing later? In other words, if Fritzpoll had taken me seriously in the first place, the whole mess could have been avoided, and it all resolved with minimal fuss? And that if he had simply done nothing, likewise? Fritzpoll is not the center of my RfC, I am; but there is a present focus on the warning by Jehochman, which, it seems to me, was so totally improper and disruptive that it should be examined further in a standard way; but I'm not going to do that unless advised by the community. Or unless the community ignores the issue and blows it off, in which case I'd simply have to make the decision on the next steps on my own.

From your comment so far, on my Talk pages, I would really welcome your participation, and, because of the action by Xenocidic, whose considered opinions would also carry substantial weight for me, it becomes even more significant if you so choose. There are some very simple questions asked at this point in the RfC, and it is not necessary to review my tomes to answer them, precisely because the focus has been kept narrow. Just one fairly long comment that I made on my Talk page, given that this specific one was the basis for Jehochman's warning. But the more general behavior is laid out at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block/Evidence so that it is relatively easy to see. The RfC will work if there are two participants, and it looks like there will be more than that. I'm going to take is slow, because I'm aiming for accuracy.--Abd (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I made my one, and only, reply on your proxy table page. Happy editing, Keeper ǀ 76 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how Abd just continues to not get it, isn't it? He's been told – repeatedly and in no uncertain terms – to do something directly useful for the encyclopedia instead of inventing new processes to promote his experiments in democracy. His response is to invent an elaborate pseudo-RfC process under his exclusive control that has been bent and tortured so as to incorporate (for no apparent good reason) his experiment in democracy. I like how his response to your refusal to participate contains an implicit threat to be disruptive, along with an insistence that you play by his rules in order to avoid being named in his proxy game: [8]. (In other words, to avoid having your name attached to his ridiculous table, you have to go to Xenocidic to have your name removed, thereby acknowledging that his proxy idea actually carries some sort of weight. It's sick.) No doubt he will leave me a response here or on my talk page mentioning his various essays and the horrible injustice of it all. I advise him to save his time, as any response will almost certainly fall into the tl;dr bin. But of course he'll want to grandstand anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to click on that link, 10OAT. I fully expect that he has moved my invited thoughts as not conforming to his apparent "structural" accuracy. I also fully expect that he has undone the removal of my name next to Xeno's. Xeno, I decline to be your proxy, whatever the hell that means. Apparently to Abd, that means I don't trust you, or some other tripe. Xeno, I trust you. I trust you to remove my name as your proxy. Keeper ǀ 76 16:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, keeps. I made you my proxy because I figured your response to this business would be inline with how I would respond, only a little more diplomatically. And I was right. =) –xeno (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to remove my name from his usersubspace? I don't want even a perception to exist that I somehow endorse his wonkery, or the fatally flawed idea of delegable proxy. Keeper ǀ 76 16:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[9] is a hidden comment acceptable? –xeno (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't be clicking on that diff, but I trust that you did what you felt to be reasonable. (And yes, I can see irony here, proxy wise...:-) So, to use this even further to my advantage, in an unrelated thread, if I'm your proxy (or vice versa, I don't even know how to word that), you need to revist an RFA that you are neutral on that you should be, in my opinion, which is your opinion, supporting. Read the discussion happening on that particular RFA's talkpage. Whenever I see a profoundly capable, civil, and dedicated editor getting opposes for, basically "you don't post to AFD enough", it makes me feel incredibly guilty and undeserving of my admin buttons, and angry at the injustice of having been granted them. Keeper ǀ 76 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I was going to tell 10oaT to be nice and just let this fizzle out by itself until I saw that edit summary. This is...absurd. Not like "oh my, look how absurd that is" but more like "Why is that panda drinking tomato juice out of Gary Busey's hat?" kind of absurd. When I see those userspaces all I can think of is Kafka. I don't really know what he intends to do with this but I can bet that it won't be helpful to the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's not absurd. This is absurd: [10]. When it comes to misplaced off-key dramatic overkill, Abd can stand to take a few lessons from Rosalind Russell. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd hasn't had an article edit in over two weeks, and the amount of time he and other editors have wasted on his meta bullshit is astounding. Tan ǀ 39 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, Abd has put himself on "topic ban", resricting himself to only editing in his userspace, in order to be less disruptive. The irony abounds, seeing as the only way anyone will perceive him as being "non-disruptive" is to stop editing his userspace and go back to editing. He just doesn't get it. Hell, I'm no article writer, but I think I at least "get" it. Keeper ǀ 76 17:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, we don't really have a 90/10 rule like conservapedia. I think that the right answer is to ignore the bullshit rather than denegrate him for it. In most cases this will limit the impact he has on everyone else. Protonk (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the overwhelming response he is getting to his request for participation that he has spammed onto several talkpages. A resounding "No." Keeper ǀ 76 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(sniff) I feel left out becuase I wasn't invited in the canvassing. How will I ever get involved in the Wikidrama now?! Oh, wait... 1) I'm on vacation, and 2) I have more articles to write. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have replied in a similar vein, but in my own style. Many thanks, Gazi moff 18:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're more diplomatic than I am, Gazimoff. I simply let him know I felt it was a sham, and wouldn't be participating in any process he held sway over. I've had my fill of the sturm and drang he leaves in his wake. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On the talkpages that I watchlist (Abd's isn't one of them), I think it has been rather unanimously rejected (and Gaz's was by far the most polite way of saying "bugger off" yet :-). SDJ, I'm glad Abd invited you to participate, and fully expect you to not participate, just please don't get too hung up about it anymore. Same for me, same for Jehochman, and everywhere else I noticed Abd getting shot down. Keeper ǀ 76 18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've washed my hands of Abd. He managed to make some insinuations about my "history", and remind me that I am "banned" from his talkpage one large tear rolls slowly down my cheek, but I've simply been removing his further messages with a ... "explanatory" (not rude or profanity-laden, just honest) ... edit summary. Glad to see that his apparent sociology experiment is turning into little more than an echo chamber. That will be for the best, I think, as perhaps he will then reexamine his editing patterns, and attempt to contribute to actually building the 'pedia. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I was being diplomatic. Firm and concise, yes, but not particularly diplomatic. Gazi moff 20:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Using more words than others did is certainly, by definition, diplomatic. You should run for office. That was the longest "no" I've ever seen :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I can think of someone who could probably come up with a longer one... – iride scent 21:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

heh. Keeper ǀ 76 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I could always have stated that I was disinclined to acquiesce to his request... Gazi moff 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Luke Murray McAlister

I read the athlete guideline and it does not fit the criterion so i will withdraw my request for un-deletion. thank you. P.S. nice user page i am still sad though but i will accept it hit me back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy11 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep working and practicing, move your way up the ranks, and not only will you have a Wikipedia page for yourself Luke Murray McAlister, but I'm afraid you'll also have to deal with fame, glory and riches as well. Until then, feel free to contribute to any other articles you'd like to edit! Keeper ǀ 76 14:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

RfC - I tend not to go into such areas. I believe that things should be handled at the personal level, and if not, run away very quickly. :) However, I'm in a strange situation. I know everyone involved. I have friends on both sides. And I am the one of the root causes for this. Since you know the situation, I need advice on if I should participate, how, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I to assume this has something to do with Abd's self-rfc? If so, I've made my one and only post on his "proxy table" page. He may move it or remove it of course, but it will be in the edit history if it disappears. Do whatever you wish OR, you are under no obligation to participate and you are under no restriction not to. In my opinion, lifes too short, Wikipedia too barebones encyclopedically, to waste precious kilobytes on that nonsense. Keeper ǀ 76 14:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should go back to carrying only about people who have died over 100 years ago? At least their work would be in the public domain. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)