User talk:Keegan/May-June 07

Missed follow-up

Howdy ... please see Re:Brian Brinkley for my reply to your recent post. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Query

I see you've deleted ABCpdf. I don't think this is right because it makes sense in the context of List of PDF software and the pages that this page links to eg Amyuni, Foxit Reader. Or do you feel that the whole concept of List of PDF software is wrong within the context of WikiPedia? NB I posted this last month but it got archived before a response was given. 203.198.29.63 02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, I replied on the talk page of your last IP address. I deleted the article for several reasons: lacking notability, promotional, and having no content that asserted notability other than the fact that the software exists. I am certainly against such lists, and I would nominate the list for deletion if I had the time or desire. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that's certainly what I believe such software articles are. Not everything gets its own article, even if it is sourced and verifiable. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not just a catalog of what exists. Hope that helps. Teke 16:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Deletion Query

I see you've deleted Big Brother Generation. Your "neologism" comment reflects a dilettantism. I initiated this because (a) The term is in popular use (maybe not on your side of the world) (b) It is being used as a descriptive term in academic research (c) Is being used in commerce (refer to the references provided). I may be new to creating a entry (this entry was still in progress) and I must admit that the speed and zealousness with which this entry was deleted speaks volumes. So much for Wiki being an open community! marsupial_tiger 17:32, 13 May 2007 AEST

Reverting help

Thanks. --User:EndoExo

Re: Just a note about AIV

“ Hey there, thanks for keeping a lookout. Just one thing about AIV and how/when to report/issue blocks.

You reported 198.30.16.3 and 75.162.15.20. The problem with those two accounts is that the last vandalism was over a month ago for the first, and sporadic for the second. Warnings older than about 48 hours are dated to an extent, as the IP could be used by a different user who has never seen the old warnings. Also, the IPs hadn't rapidly vandalized and stopped after one edit apiece. So, the warnings worked, and thanks for bringing the IPs to attention, I'm watching both. However, neither account meets the criterion of the blocking policy at the moment.

Keep up the good work, and I hope that explains a few things! Teke 05:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

”

198.30.16.3 has precisely three non-vandal edits (his first three, actually) ([1]).

He received a third level warning during his spree in April ([2]), during which he also also used one of his vandalisms to directly attack an editor who had warned him ([3]).

Today he posted another vandalism ([4]), and seeing that he had received a level three warning (and been officially notified, per WP:V standards, that he would be blocked if he did not cease and desist) and then continued to vandalize, I reported him to AIV.

75.162.15.20 has an equally short but fruitful career as a vandal ([5]).

Received a vandalism4im on his very first edit([6]), proceeded to vandalize past his final warning several times (without being reported), until he vandalized again today ([7]) and I caught him.

I am uncertain as to where I could have conceivably erred in either of these cases. They both entirely meet the warning standards and practices of WP:V, which mandates only that the user be properly warned (in no particular order), and reported if they continue. In practice, most are given 3 or 4 warnings before being reported. You appear not to have noticed (based on your tone), but while I'm certainly not a long-timer on the WP:CVU, I also didn't start yesterday. I'm well aware of both the official procedure and the general procedure for the process. I've also never had a block request rejected, and with that in mind, are we sure we're reading the same policy here? If I'm missing something in the text I really need to know it. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 06:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand completely, and I apologize for being strident. Based on my experience as a rank-and-file anti-vandal, I'm personally of the opinion that vandalism is Wikipedia's biggest problem. And since 3/4ths of Wikipedia's vandalism comes from repeat IP vandals, we would do well to eliminate a lot of the red tape in the warning and blocking procedure. The whole point of the warning procedure is to WP:AGF until it's obvious they're not clueless newbs, at which point they should be blocked. I'd say 80% of the reverts I do are on obvious IP vandals with a warning/block history, who's faith is proven to be bad right from the start, yet I still have to go through a massive procedure in which I politely ask him to please stop repeatedly trashing The Project, or I just might warn him again.

There needs to be a clearer, segmented organizational system where the obvious vandals can get stepped on with a quickness, but the clueless newbies get gently nudged back towards the light. There are certain situations, sneaky subtle vandalisms on historical articles, or semi-plausible libel in WP:BIO articles, for example, in which I think the vandal requires an immediate block. These two are the most potentially dangerous to Wikipedia, as I see it, and should be treated as such.

I'm not trying to go WP:IAR here, but my goal is to protect the Encyclopedia, and if anything is going to endanger Wikipedia, it's sure as heck not going to be being unduly stern with the IP vandals who create things like Seigenthaler for the world to see. In any case, thank you for your thoughts and I apologize again. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology

No problem, Keeg. I hope to keep giving as much as before. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 01:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

DoD TechMatch page gone

I created the DoD TechMatch page back in January. You had deleted it then, I appealed and you re-posted it, however, I have not been back in a while and tried to look at the page, but it is no longer there. Can you tell me what happened to it? Thanks Mpizzuto 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Hi, Teke – when closing AfDs, the {{afdtop}} template and your closing summary should go above the section header, not below it. If you put them below the section header, the bot that updates Articles for deletion/Old won't mark those discussions as closed, causing havoc and handwringing everywhere. :-)

I've corrected the two AfDs on which you did this [8].

I did the same thing until User:Sam Blanning explained the process to me, so I'm passing it on. Have a great day! KrakatoaKatie 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Teke, you make Abbie proud :-)

Curran (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A7/Prod/Nonsense confusion

Hey there. Just a quick question regarding The Religion of ZK as an A7 article, it did say something like "This religion is practiced by celebrities such as ...." is that an assertion of notability or not?

It might just be me misunderstanding the criterion slightly, but I've deduced from multiple discussions on WT:CSD that there is no criterion for in-jokes and coherent violations of WP:NFT or similar which make claims to fame, however farfetched or unreferenced. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 01:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, cheers for your response. I'm by no means contesting the article being deleted, just trying to understand the criteria as fully as I can, particularly A7 which I've been extra-careful about using in light of all the discussions on notability as of late! Thanks once again and have a nice day - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re. Your work with other users

Hi Teke, cheers for your kind words. What I strongly believe is that there are many users who get themselves into trouble here but that have great intentions with regards to the project, discussion is far better than banishing them. It's something that we as a community have to try harder with - we're one big team not against each other. Anyway, enough of the rant :-) Thanks again, it was much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

AIMPRO Deletion

Hi Teke - you appear to have deleted my entry for AIMPRO. If I understand correctly, the reason for the deletion was that the article was viewed as promotional. This I don't understand - AIMPRO is an academic software package for physicists and chemists doing molecular and solid state structure calculations. My entry for AIMPRO was no different (as far as I can tell) from many other entries for similar software packages. Can you please explain further? Thanks.

Jphagon 12:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy Rocco

But he was blocked for an extra two months for taking off that template, only one month for sockpuppetry. And his one month block ends in a couple days, but can't you just archive that page and protect it and give him back his talk page. --Kkrouni 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please respond?--Kkrouni 23:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More On Cowboy Rocco

Raul for some reason extended the first block on Cowboy Rocco because he tried to remove a template on his page that HE put on there and it clearly said REMOVE THE TEMPLATE at the bottom of the template. I am a close personal friend of Cowboy Rocco and I saw what happenend to him. You can even check his user page and see that the last sentence at the bottom say's remove the template and you can check the history and contributions on Cowboy Rocco and see that removing the template was the only thing that triggered the extension. Having Cowboy Rocco's banned extended is a horrible injustice. He did admit to sockpuppetry, but the ban extension was not deserved because DID NOT do anything to deserve it. PLEASE help out Cowboy Rocco because he is a case of a common wikipedian being pushed around by an abusive admin. He would be so happy if you would help him out and he would always have your back if you ever need help. Wrestling Dougie

Ah, more puppets? Please don't use my talk page to farm. I don't need "Cowboy Rocco" to "have my back" if I need help. That's what users like Raul654 are for. Taking this to checkuser. Teke^talk 04:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion query

Can you explain your reasoning behind deleting the Zeligsoft page? This is a new account because I have never previously needed one to make edits and the last time I created a new article was years ago, but that doesn't make the article I put up today wrong.

The Speedy Deletion Guidelines say, under G11: Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well.

Could you tell me what the inappropriate content was, or how the article was unencyclopedic, or how it would need to be rewritten to meet these guidelines?

Could you also explain what it was about the Zeligsoft page that made it unacceptable, while the PrismTech page (a similar page about a similar company from a similar user account, in the same business, that I used as the model for the Zeligsoft article in the first place) remains acceptable?

I'd be happy to make any changes required, but I really do need to know what those changes would be since I see other articles, near-identical to mine, that are obviously acceptable.

Thanks,--JohnRIT 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd like to rephrase my original query: Since the one I was using as a template obviously doesn't meet the criteria, could you direct me an example of a company page on Wikipedia that does meet the guidelines for inclusion? I have, frankly, no horse in this race beyond knowing how MediaWiki coding works, but I'd like, both for my own edification and so I can show it to the writer, to be able to show an example of what *would* meet the guidelines.--JohnRIT 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been contributing in small ways for years, actually, I've just never needed an account before since I can make edits without one and the last time I contributed a new article, I didn't need an account. I'm certainly not prolific, though. I mostly just tend to fix typos and obvious factual errors when I'm surfing for things I need a quick refresher on.

I do enjoy the place - my main complaint is that I think Wikipedia deletes too much, too freely, in areas where the admins doing the deleting don't have a knowledge of the article's subject and so aren't properly able to judge notability. After all, it's not restricted to a print medium with space restrictions, and bandwidth is cheap on the scale we're talkiing about. Why *not* have an article about a webcomic that gets only 2K hits per month, but that has been going for 5 years without missing an update and is considered the height of the medium by guys like Scott Kurtz, Scott McCloud, and Randy Milholland?

Anyway, I digress. Thanks for the explanation, it does explain your reasoning quite clearly. I do think there might be a notability claim to be made, especially for anyone looking for and knowledgeable about SDR stuff, but I'll be sure to rewrite the article to make that claim much more clearly, with explicit sources, if I'm going to resubmit it. I'm guilty of monkey-see, monkey-do on this one, since I just copied other existing articles to make mine. --JohnRIT 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Signal Mountain photos

Hi Keegan, I saw your image adds to Chattanooga and Lookout Mountain and wanted to ask if you could also add one to Signal Mountain. There's a photo listed on Talk:Signal Mountain, Tennessee, but based on the Lookout Mountain entries, the existing Signal Mountain, Tennessee article should be the city stats, while a new Signal Mountain article should contain the whole mountain info, history and photos...is that correct? I didn't want to create anything till I was more clear...I've been in a couple of edit wars with myself this week, and it's getting embarrassing.:) Thanks. Flowanda 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The short squatty one of the bunch, that's for sure...I have always suspected a conspiracy behind the bulldozing of Cameron Hill...those insecure Lookites couldn't stand any competition. Maybe the Conner Tollhouse or the W-Road might be other photo options, but Brady Point still seems to be the standard Signal "view"...along with the space house, of course. You might also try Stringer's Ridge or a safe pulloff along Corridor J (or the road up behind Red Bank School on Mtn Creek) that frames Signal against Raccoon. Flowanda 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rfa

Just dropping by to say "thank you" for supporting me in my recent my RfA. I passed the vote, and am now an admin. It will take me some getting used to with the new tools, but I thank you again for the trust. Have a good one, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk17 05:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello, Keegan/May-June 07, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I promise I won't erupt all over this nice Wikipedia, and I will try very hard to live up to your expectations. Please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or drivers such as Paris Hilton.

"Butting in" on my talk page

Just a quick note to say thanks for "butting in" on my talk and please continue to provide helpful comments in this fashion in the future. Cheers --Pak21 08:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Signal Mountain

Keegan, I was wondering if you could find a different picture to use for the Signal Mountain, TN entry. While Signal Mountain IS in the background, the foreground is Red Bank. I was wondering if you could either crop the image or locate a new one. On the talk page, there is an additional photograph taken from Edwards Point on Signal Mountain which shows the Tennessee River, Chattanooga, and adjacent Raccoon Mountain. I'm new, so I'm not good at adding images. Thanks! CommonSense101 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record Task Force

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Hi Keegan,
I'm looking over the broad range of your recent contributions and wondering if you might be interested in the new task force several editors have started--we need people who are interested in policy, natural history, business, and so forth. Please come by and have a look!
Cheers,
Cyrusc 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at CW's RfA

Good comments. No one will listen to you, but saying it is important anyhow. There are a number of non-supports for more reasons than the TOR. I support her simply because she does at least listen to the lone voices most of the time and rides with the common sense wave in spite of her other faults, whatsoever they may or may not be. KP Botany 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied.

Replied. Acalamari 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Dreamstime article, please advise

Hello, I have noticed the deletion of Dreamstime article on the CSD G11 rule "Pages that exist only to promote a company, product, or service." I don't wish to rewrite this article just to make the same mistake again and to have it deleted again on the same grounds but I would like to bring some arguments that may put the mentioned article in a different light. The excerpt was not referring only to Dreamstime but also to the stock industry as a whole, it was not promoting this company since it provided links to the Wikipedia articles describing the other microstock sites thus showing the global picture and not just a spotlight on Dreamstime. In support to my explanation I would like to bring an article from CNN money that focuses on microstock industry and it's importance in todays world Photo wars: A $2 billion business gets rough

Thank you for taking your time to answer this, Nikitu 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Archmage (computer game)

Hello, I recently noticed that you have deleted the article about the computer game Archmage: Magewars. There was no AFD article that I could find, but you noted in the deletion log that the game's only claim to notability was Game of the Month in MPOGD. I believe that this comment is due to the fact that unfortunately, as the game has been defunct for quite some time, many of the articles and information about it are no longer accessible.

This does not however mean that it was not notable. More than 20,000 people played the game at its peak, and the code for the game was recycled for use in the newer game The Reincarnation, which is an almost exact replica of Archmage. In fact, the wikipedia article on The Reincarnation has a (now broken) link to the article on Archmage.

If you do wish to find out more about the older game, there is an article on The Reincarnation's own wiki, at http://wiki.the-reincarnation.org/index.php/Archmage . If you read this article, you will see that the game did indeed have a rich history, and was in fact notable enough to draw the ire of TSR due to alleged copyright infringement. I hope you will change your mind and undelete this article.

Uniqueuponhim 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply from Liqih

[Thanks]