User talk:Keeper76

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

---

Instructions for using the Keeper-pedia/WikiKeeper as written by TCari & friends Embrace the edit conflict, for happen it will. Leaving a comment for Keeper doesn't mean that it will be Keeper who answers it, although he'll try. See #1. Make new friends you will. Save the drama for your mama. Everyone (mostly) gets along here. If American, you must be a baseball fan. Doesn't matter which team(s) as it's almost guaranteed someone will razz you on it. May apply for all sports If you have edited here at least 10 times, you are a talk page stalker. Especially if you've edited here at least 10 times responding to another stalker instead of to Keeper. Be prepared for unexpected topic changes. "Has anyone noticed that only on this page can you begin talking about creating a Geo list and then start talking about....lets see- we have gas prices, ancestry, pants, pant sizes, mean names, weight, metabolism, obesity, and all the rest? Wow!! I would say more, but I'm about to die of laughter." --Dusti Somewhat related, you may, at times, feel as if you are tumbling down a rabbit hole... It will eat your watchlist, but that's a far more pleasant sight than drama and AfD arguments and other debates. Feel free to add more instructions/rules here for Keeper-pedia...

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 C: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 – iridescent 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)

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 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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

Simple request

I'm sincerely curious who's watching this page (I've heard it's several people, but I'm not sure who). Not for my ego's sake, but for my curiousity's sake, would you please add four tildes (and nothing more) if you are reading this message? Thanks! Keeper ǀ 76 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• You all are pathetic! Don't you have any lives? Oh, wait... ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
2. I would never watch this page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
3. o hai ! –xeno (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Not a chance. Wait..... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Aleta ^Sing 00:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
7. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Who, me? Enigma ^message 00:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
9. The paranoia is strong in this one...and a double ec to boot! Shot info (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Useight (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
11.  – iridescent 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
12. --Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
13.  Frank  |  talk  00:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Tequillas say whatnow? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Hello, I represent the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and I am here to bring...oh, wait a second, wrong door. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
17. KojiDude ^(C) 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Umm... obviously? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
19. me, life sucking up wiki time but always watching and playing catch up. TravellingCari 03:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
20. RyRy Public (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
23. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Well I wasn't, oh wait I probably was after my dustup with Dorftrottel Everyme, but then I get this voice of reason telling me to unwatch all user talk pages to avoid getting sidetracked into more wikidrama...and then I comment on someone's page and there they are on my watchlist, oh hang on, yours wasn't but must have been the above thread from OM's talk page where witticisms are oft exchanged for chuckles...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

    Weren't you neutral on Keeper's RfA? LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

    Hey! He was!!!!!. I forgot about that! I've decided that Casliber cannot be trusted. Unless he admits how completely wrong he was. Actually, he was one of three sane people that contributed to my RFA. One other neutral, and one opposer included....Keeper ǀ 76 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

    oh yeah...glad my paranoia was misplaced then...happy to be wrong Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

    And that said, OM, if you really want to pass RFA, do it in January. Nobody cares about anything other than staying warm in January. Hell, I passed then. So did a sockmaster, and unanimously at that.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

    Do you notice that the same usual suspects vote on almost every RfA? Occasionally, a group of editors such as myself come out of the woodwork to support or oppose a candidate (and get taken to secret tribunals because of it...ooops, I promised MC I'd not mention that ever again). But I am proud to say that I voted support for a sockpuppet/master. I even helped the guy get a couple of articles to GA. I was pissed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

25. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
26. :D GlassCobra 06:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Gazimoff 06:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
28. From time to time; locating the dram. Synergy 06:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
29. I recently unwatched all non article pages (you should too!), but I'm watching now because of the Kurt crap just below. —Giggy 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
31. Pedro :  Chat  09:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
32. nancy ^talk 09:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
33. You're on my watchlist —— RyanLupin • (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
34. +1, but sorry I got there late ;) Alex Muller 09:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Talk page stalkers unite! Vickser (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Protonk (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
38. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
39. How the hell did I miss this? Tan ǀ 39 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
40. It's like ANI, but more entertaining. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Actually, your talk page was not on my watchlist, but I'm very susceptible to peer pressure. Seeing 41 names here convinced me to add it. Otherwise I figure they're probably all talking about me. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

    In your second sentence, you basically just summed up exactly what is wrong with RFA. Keeper ǀ 76 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

    Well, I was going to say there was something wrong with MastCell. But yes, the RFA too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

    LOL @ MC and agree with K76 - but it's nice that admins are popular :-) Shot info (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

    41 people can't be wrong. It's called democracy, son. Or have the terrorists already won? MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

43. Per MC. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
44. Avb 01:43, 20 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 :-)--KojiDude ^(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. – iridescent 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. – iridescent 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)

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.--KojiDude ^(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 Editorofthewiki^{[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)

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)

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.--LAAFan 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)

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)

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: [2]. 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)

Roll up for the Paris Hilton energy plan AfD discussion

You can't make these things up. Fortunately, it is in AfD: [3]. 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)

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)

RfA thank you

Keeper76, 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

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)