User talk:Keilana/Archive4

From Anon

why am I blocked, if I delete an old link? the link I deleted is no longer available. why is deleting it considered vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.191.138 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swans

Hi, I merely added a simple adjective, edible. Swans ARE edible. I've eaten them myself. I thought the article should reflect that. I wasn't aware that I had to have approval to edit an article or that I had to discuss my edit before hand with others, smacks of 1984 to me!

Fr33kman (not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.138.160 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure

K, I suggest that you leave the thread regarding your closure of the AfD which you archived here on this page for a while longer. Several editors are upset that no reason has been given, and it's likely that you will continue to receive questions over the next day or two about it. It'll be easier for them to find if it's left here.

While we're on it, I also strongly suggest that you rethink your decision to not provide any rationale for your decision. For starters, it was a hotly debated discussion, so providing an explanation is common courtesy. It also will help answer the inevitable arguments at WP:DRV and clarify what policy (or policies) was violated, so similar problems will be avoided in the future. It also goes a long ways towards building good faith, and trust in admins and the AfD process.

I admit that I'm concerned that you expressed your rationale being that "the 'delete' votes held more weight". AfD decisions should be primarily based upon policy rather than a vote of how many users desire to keep or delete, even if that vote is weighted. I may have misunderstood what you meant by that statement, so elaborating upon your rationale would help clear that up as well.

Thanks. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think she meant more weight in terms of policy not numbers. Thats how I use the phrase. Viridae ^Talk 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the admin would have included a detailed--or even a perfunctory--policy-based rationale along with her decision, then we wouldn't be guessing what she "meant," would we?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck

What on earth are you thinking? (1) Cutting swaths of text out of Wikipedia pages with no edit summary is plain vandalism. (2) Talk about a busher move. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the freaken kitchen. Herostratus (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about your removal of text from the Wikipedia page User talk:Keilana, specifically the removal of questions from people unhappy with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination), with no edit summary except "fnord". This page is for furtherance of the Wikipedia's goals and not your own personal web page. Archiving or removal of vandalism or other inappropriate material is one thing; removal of legitimate communications with no reply is rude. If you feel you can't bear to see such things, you shouldn't be closing difficult AfD's with no rationale.

Sorry to be so harsh. I'm concerned lest the close be overthrown for lack of rationale. Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry, really. I'm I guess a bit overwrought by the thing. Herostratus (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your forgiviness. I guess you really did step into a snakepit. That was brave. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings on my part, no. I look forward to working with you in future. Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vin DiCarlo

Hi, I see you speedy deleted this article. Can you please restore it to my userspace. Though I was not a contributor to the article I do recall briefly skimming over it once or twice, and I'm pretty sure it did assert his significance. If not, this can easily be rectified if it is restored as he has been featured in the media numerous times at the very least (just simply from those that I'm aware of). Anyway, I'd like to look over the past form of the article. Thanks. Mathmo ^Talk 07:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closure rationale

Keilana, please state your rationale for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination) the way you did, either here or at the deletion review page. I don't think you'll need to vigorously defend it, but a lot of people are requesting an overturn purely because you haven't explained yourself. As an admin, being communicative is part of your duty. In a large, hotly contested debate like this, many people in the community feel upset and contentious, and an explanation of your decision will do a lot to help the rift heal afterwards. After such a contentious debate it would be absolutely terrible if the decision was overturned simply because you don't explain yourself. Mango juice^talk 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do urge you to offer an explanation - I fail to understand your closure without it, as do many people at the DRV. I see you've been online since many requests, and it's disapointing that so far you've declined to comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its on the talkpage of the DRV. ^Avruchtalk 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind

[1] henrik•talk 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How...

Do I change my username? Asta Lavista, Baby! 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Cruelty

Please help me with this page!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippydog10 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching vandalism to my talk page! Triona (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fight with the best of 'em!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award you, Keilana, with the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in restoring (multiple times!) the correct version of the DuPage County, Illinois page! Mike Vitale 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Clark

Hi, I have a question. Over the course of the past year, I've learned more about how sources about living persons should be those other than self-published ones, particularly in regards to material in the article that may be self-serving. Today I had cause to make some edits to the Corey Clark article, and remembered that a year ago, a user used Clark's own published e-book as the basis for a number of passages in that article. This user's goal was to rewrite the article to remove anything she perceived as negative, and place positive POV material in it, without regard for WP policies, which led to a heated back-and-forth between us. The e-book was no longer available for purchase at that point, and those of us who tried to bring the article into like with policy had to take her word that her transcriptions were accurate. Our disagreement was eventually settled, and I don't want to reignite it, so would you mind looking over the article, and giving your honest third opinion as to whether it merits the {{self-published}} tag? Clark's book is cited as the second source listed under References, and then three other times after that, with footnote links to the relevant passages. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Keilana/Archive4, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, please help me to delete the Template:Distillers page, because already exists one template asigned for the same band, and is the follow Template:The Distillers, i don't want to comite vandalism, on the contrary, i try to delete a useless template, Thnx Maul day (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page revert

I apologize, dear, but I have reverted an attack on your talk page because he refactored some comments and gave you an attack. Normally I would have the same rules, but that didn't go very well. Cheers, —B o L 00:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks dear. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. —B o L 01:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was that vandalism?

He is a convicted child pornographer. You might object on editorial grounds, but it is factually accurate and substantiated within the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.84.9 (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandingo

What's the deal with Mandingo? You undid my edits as vandalism, then reverted back to them without comment... Reyemile (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Awards for Best Actress

Ziyi Zhang definitely wasn't nominated for Best Actress in 2006 (for the year 2005). She was nominated for a globe and a SAG for her performance in Memoirs of a Geisha, but not an Academy Award. By undoing my edit, you're also saying that SIX actresses were nominated in that category for that year. Uh... no. It's been 5 for the past 70 years (give or take). Edhed (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ender's Game.

Me? Edit science fiction articles? Wow, that's new. :P I think you meant to say you read the part on my userpage where I say I'm a sci-fi geek. ;) Sure, I'll help you copyedit the article, and as soon as I read the book, expand it as well. · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help about sockpuppets

There is a guy User:Rws killer, and he has so far produced numerous reincarnations after being blocked for making a teacher attack article: User:Rws killer2, User:Umm killer, User:nku pyrodragon, and his latest, User:Rws killer6. He has been evading blocks all the time, and I think it should be the time to stop him now. Can you hardblock his IP address? STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 15:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Dinesh

Hi Keilana, I just saw your note posted to my talk page about my note to Dinesh. I was answering the question he asked me [2], which was posted directly above your note to me. I worked extensively with Dinesh recently on Western Chalukya literature, and he knows who I am. If you have in fact removed my message to him, I would appreciate it if you would restore it. Nothing sinister is happening here. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No harm done. Don't give it another thought. My best. Finetooth (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

:-) (oops, silly Wiki-coding) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Favor?

Hi Keilana, could you do me a favor and create my userpage please? Something simple like "A" will be fine. Thanks. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's got a bit of flavor. :D GlassCobra 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. :P Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks to you both. :) 74.133.9.95 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'd suggest that you make an account, here's why. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, do you think I was wrong to undo this edit? It does seem like a occasion that could happen, but I wasn't too sure. I reverted just and in case and decided to seek a second opinion. Thanks in advance. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are correct, I have reverted myself and noted that I should be more careful in my edit summary. Many thanks for the speedy reply! 74.133.9.95 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

huugle

I just thought I would tell you that my started working again with 0.6.1 when I copied the configuration here to my configuration page Alexfusco⁵ 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Nerd has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I believe it is constructive Wonderpet (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderpet (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a randon acronym, I did not make it up and it is very well known, even having been used in an episode of the simpsons by proffessor Frink. it is very old, as old as me perhaps. I am 45(thats old!!!) Wonderpet (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=nerd&string=exact Wonderpet (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I found it through a google search, try googling "acronym finder" Wonderpet (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

That thing's wicked fast. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and dangerous. ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Diesel mix up

Sorry about accidentally reverting your edit as vandalism, I ment to revert the vandal's edit, not yours... Whoops CrazyRob926 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey YOU!

stop beating me to reverts! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compwhizii (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good...:) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, who can tell me why the smiley is a frown? · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I am glad to see you came by the Singh article as another Admin also has and others too recently. I am going to take a break since I have had enough personal insults and racial slurs thrown at me that it has left a really bad taste in my mouth. Please make sure the article is not hijacked and taken over for a poltical agenda.

I was really upset and erased all of my contributions to the article but admin Utcursch reverted them back and told me he will also keep an eye on things as well, Utcursch has cleaed up the article and has really done a great job with all the work I put into gathering the information, I really am grateful for his/her effort. I appreciate Admins getting involved because others people like myself can do very little except to add legitimate information, try to put together a neutral academic piece, but their is only so much abuse one can take from religious fanatics with political agendas.

Again Thank you for stopping by and I hope you continue to keep an eye on things.

Gorkhali (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio spammer alert

Stoprev (talk · contribs) —B o L 02:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protected edit

I have requested an edit to a page that you full-protected, Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. While I am not opposed to improving the article in question, I would argue that the warning templates at issue should remain until such time as the article has been improved. Thank you for your consideration. Groupthink (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please tag Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey as protected, which you forgot to do when you protected it. Thanks. Groupthink (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muy Gracias

Thank you very much for catching the vandalism on Mr. Faris' profile. Very much appreciated. Have a good day. PS How do I alter my ID name? Thank you again :) Mc2006 (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darragh

1) Darragh IS of Scottish origin, not Irish origin (http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Darragh) 2) Mark Darragh DOES exist. Fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.139.100 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just discovered that you're the person who finally deleted the longstanding mess/POV magnet that was the adult-child sex article. I just had to say thank you - I wouldn't have wanted to close that AfD myself, but someone had to do it, and as far as I can see you made entirely the right decision. It seems you did face some criticism for it, but I just hope that won't put you off making similar tough, controversial, but correct decisions in future.

Anyway, I don't normally like these things, but I think you deserve this:

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Terraxos (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deprods I made to reprods you made (does that make sense?)

Hello, just wanted to let you know, I'd originally deprodded a number of articles that the vandal Lumberjake had removed the prod tag on before, because technically anyone can remove a prod to contest it. But as it became clear that his deprods were simply vandalism, and he was now blocked for doing it, I undid all those deprods (those articles all do deserve a prod). Just wanted to clear up any confusion in your talk page history. -- Atama ^chat 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coach request

I saw your name on the list and thought you might be a good coach. Interested? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:78.86.13.53

Just wondering why you warned this IP for vandalism (and reverted their edit) following their deleting a PROD tag with an explanatory edit summary ("LSEGP is a highly influential political grouping within national student politics") as is encouraged by WP:PROD.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Yes i do have the proof. it's in these links: [3] Google Project Chanology and click the second link because the website is blacklisted on Wikipedia. --Party! (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Keilana, can you please explain why you have semi protected the page Huma Abedin ? You have stated vandalism which is clearly not the case! Please see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where the matter is being dealt with ! Can you explain your actions ? I understand I am new here but it was one of the first pieces of information i have cont. to wikipedia there has been no decision made, I can not understand your actions !

Having now had the rules for vandalism explained to me I believe you have abused your power as my contib. clearly dosent fit any of the terms ? I ask you to reaccess your actions.

The decision was made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Huma_Abedin_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Its common practice during an edit dispute such as this for an uninvolved admin such as Keilana to semi-protect the page to reduce the intensity of the dispute. In any case, from the tone of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gossip_magazines_as_reliable_sources it seems that semi-protection was the right call to stablize the article while discussion continued there and on the talk page of the reliability of sources. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would question how uninolved you actally are give these messges left on my talk page: And don't worry! You'll be able to edit that page in 5 days! Enjoy! —BoL 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And by waiting for five days is by just waiting and you'll be able to edit the semi-d pages. Don't worry, give Keilana some time! She's offline right now, and so am I. —BoL 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:100%25freehuman"

I intend on asking someone to examine your actions. You clearly statd vandalism as your reason for the protection i would not you made no contibution to the talk page and sort no concensus from you action! I will also ask you to explain you relastionship to those who have sort to remove the information ? I would also like to know why you have changed you id ? thanks I will be adding this information to the talk page and any were else i find help ! I also note you did not add the fact the matter was being listed to protection page to the talk page of the article ?

I did not create the name of the page in regards to gossip mag tittle had you read the info you would understand Hillary Clinton was interviewed for the article.

To request unprotection, please go here Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection. To ask for Keilana to be examined(?) I'd wait for her to respond here, and if your not satisfied, there is the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I leave the personal inquiries for Keilana to answer is she desires to. MBisanz ^talk 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the editor's talk, thanks MB. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how the article was brought to your attention I would also advise you that i have posted this information on the talk page of the article.

Thank you Dear MBisanz, thank you so much for responding to those concerns on my talk page. I've posted on the person's talk, if s/he wants my admin actions looked at s/he can always seek input at AN or (God forbid) through recall. You've been a great help recently, and when you're ready for RfA I'd really like to nominate you, if you've got some space for me. :) Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 06:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz"

and your atual post:

Hello, Sorry I couldn't attend to your concerns earlier. I semi-protected the page (here) because of the reasons stated there. As it is election season in the United States, articles about prominent political figures such as Mrs. Clinton are particularly vulnerable, hence the protection. There was a dispute over the reliability of sources, and I protected the article to cool the dispute. Protection isn't an endorsement of the current version, I have no ulterior motive. (see here for protection policy/information). In general, an admin doesn't need consensus to protect a page when a dispute is ongoing. Is there a problem with my administrative actions? Thanks for expressing your concerns, feel free to ask on my talk page if you have other questions or need something. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 06:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:100%25freehuman"

The information was added to keep record for a complaint add so people reading the page understand why it is copy protected!

Who bought the information to the protect board ? Should not the fact it was brought to the board have been added to the talk page so people could provide information as to why it shouldnt be protected ? I was again note you claimed your reason for protecting the page was vandelism which it clearly is not! How do I request a recall ? Thanks : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 100%freehuman (talk • contribs) 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw to your attention:

IP blocked for 3RR. Eventually. I had to go on IRC and whine a bit first. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you talk to this person on IRC ? Secondly you continue to fail to address the fact that there was no Vandalism as defined and the terms of Vandalism. How can you protect a page for a reason that is not true ?

Once again !!!!

You continue to fail to address the fact that there was no Vandalism as defined and the terms of Vandalism. How can you protect a page for a reason that is not true ?

this will be the last time i ask ! I have grown tired : ( Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keilana" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 100%freehuman (talk • contribs) 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you're trying to sort this mess out, you may want to factor in that the IP 121.220.6.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours and now 100%freehuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making the same point about 19 hours later. Pairadox (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; I must have looked at the wrong tab in my browser. Sorry! Pairadox (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whups! :) Dreadstar † 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this was a mess. Hopefully it's sorted. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have note all the information on my page and intend to lodge a compliant against you and request recall. You yourslef have stated "He seems bent on my protection rationale - not the best," He is a she FYI. Had you read the information on the Biographies_of_living_persons you would see the person making claim clearly has no case and is clutching at straws! I dont understand how stating that something was printed has turned into this ? I dont get why you would get together with people to ban me for fake reasons ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100%freehuman (talk • contribs)

Here Keilana, use mine. Dreadstar † 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

HI,

My case is the following: Yahel Guhan has stalked me over to "Battle of the Trench", an article he/she has never edited before. I asked Yahel to stop this on his/her talk page, but the user deleted my comment. In the light that I was blocked for 72-hours for similar behavior, I ask that Yahel Guhan be told by an admin to stop his/her incorrect actions and self-revert any stalking. Note I'm not calling for a block, even though Yahel Guhan is on a special sort of probation.Bless sins (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall

I don't think you need to go through admin recall, you're a great admin as it is. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$.02: Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean this in good faith - I think you should completely remove yourself from the "recallable" admins scategory for 3 months. It is after all voluntary. You are a great admin, a dedicated editor, a valuable....you get it. But the drama. Oh, the drama. I would support you removing yourself from CAT:AOR until CAT:AOR means the same thing with the same criteria for everyone in it. IMHO, CAT:AOR shouldn't have separate criteria for everyone in it, each to reinvent their own wheel as for what/who/when/why/how to be recalled. In 3 months, I believe that CAT:AOR will either be concrete and consistent or it will be recalled itself (as in community rejected). Until then, maybe just don't be in it? If you really screw up (you haven't yet and I don't foresee it happening ever), there are other avenues for taking your keys away. "Recall" isn't doing anything above distraction. Keeper | 76 16:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that accepting the recall request of a brand new user is a bit much. I think the recall process creates needless drama, and needless recalls doubly so. I find it increasingly difficult to support recall RfAs that were willingly entered into due to baseless concerns. I really think it is getting close to feeding the trolls when some new user can just request this drama and get it. Both your first recall, and this one seem to be without basis. If you keep going through recall you will lose eventually, even if you never did anything wrong.

All that aside, I think you are a fine admin who simply needs to create some clear criteria as to what justifies grounds for recall, because any old thing is not a good policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. recall becomes more dysfunctional, the closer it becomes to a vote. In my view the simplest way to do it is to have anyone wanting recall start an RFC-like discussion (waive the certification requirement if you wish). This should help make it clear whether there's any plausible argument that you've abused the tools. If there's a consensus that you've misbehaved, then you can step down. If there's not, there's no reason to step down, regardless of how many editors vote for it. When RFA produces a wrong result, it's usually because it's too vote-like. We cannot correct this problem with a vote-like recall procedure. Friday (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall, like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, should never be used to troll or harass other editors. This attempt at recall was an attempt at Wikidrama, and we don't really want that do we?? Look at the amount of times Brian Peppers or The Game (game) went up at deletion review, for the sake of drama. Not good. Recall should not be a vote-like system, but rather a full and frank discussion instead. --Solumeiras (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note Solumerias, recall is supposed to be a discussion... and people say RFA is broken. *sighs* · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict.) I don't think recall is necessary at all: if an admin misbehaves, doubtless an RFC will begin (checks RFC: Keilana isn't there), and if it's serious, ARBCOM will get involved. I don't see any reason for the nitpicky, optional, gameable process that is recall. It should be tagged as historical and left alone... but that likely won't happen for a while; in the meantime, I strongly suggest you remove yourself from the said category. Unless, of course, you enjoy being a drama magnet. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keilana, a strong recommendation for you in the future, quietly get some more eyes to look over a recall request before you start a discussion on it's merits, just so you don't get trolled again. I find it disgusting that someone would misuse process in this way, as you are obviously a great admin, but apparently there are some real dicks around here. Triona (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged the admin open to recall processes as {{historical}}, being bold in the process. The recall is a pointless thing, and only serves to increase drama. Triona, your points are very relevant. --Solumeiras (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Here's my two cents on this recall business. I really appreciate the kind words, and your support means the world to me. However, I strongly believe that adminship is no big deal. If enough people think I suck as an admin, I'll give up the tools. It's not good, to have a position of trust when the community does not trust you. I also hate drama, and hopefully the criteria I've set out for desysopping me (i.e. having a small number of editors review the request) will limit the drama but still allow me to be highly accountable. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a fine admin. DFTT. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a good admin. there is no reason to recall Alexfusco⁵ 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, you may mess up some time, but you're good sysop no matter what. If any trolls come in any sysop's way, give me a pitchfork and, yeah, they'll never come back here ever again. —B o L 04:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:AOR

Hello,

I want to first applaud you for your courage in your willingness yo stand by your word, something I had not done in the past with my recall. I've seen your last two brushes with recall. Don't you find CAT:AOR distracting? I would support you removing youself from that category to prevent distraction and disruption. It is far to risky and prone to trolling.~~, especially with your loose requirements.~~ Administrators need to be accountable yes, and need to be able to make the tough calls. There needs to be a balance. I don't see why an editor can't use dispute resolution without resorting to CAT:AOR to pull the tools from you. If you are a stand up person, I see no reason to believe that you would not relinquish the tools if you felt the community no longer trusts you. I believe your would, and would without the need for AOR. Regards, Mercury (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, Mercury. I believe in keeping my word, hence the RfA I went through a couple of weeks ago. Until this editor brought it to my attention, I hadn't thought much about it after making my criteria, honestly. I think that if I were abusive enough to actually have a recall succeed, I wouldn't be able to recognize my abusiveness. Just my thoughts, tell me if they are incoherent. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are coherent. Makes sense to me that someone might not *realize* they are abusing or misusing the tools. But... you don't need recall to tell you that. I don't need recall to tell you that. ;). Continue doing good things, you are a good admin. Think about my recommendation. Regards, Mercury (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will continue to work under the spirit of WP:IAR until I royally screw up. :P. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury's view of the category may be a bit biased, but he has a point. You really should give some consideration to your criteria around who can request a recall and how many people it will take for the petition to succeed... You don't have to go crazy like Majorly did... Majorly's criteria are ridiculously high (because he's not serious about them) but yours... are too low. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- request for unprotection

Thank you for protecting Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey in order to prevent an ongoing edit war. Per the dispute resolution process, I have called for two third opinions on the dispute at hand, both of which support the position that the article in question is in dire need of further work and should be tagged accordingly. I therefore request that you, as the protecting admin, unprotect the page. Thank you. Groupthink (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first opinion was not on the tags at all, and the second opinion was about the notability tag. I disagree with Groupthink's request for unprotection. Dreadstar † 01:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the dispute is not resolved, thus, I will not unprotect the article. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, but not sure why we have an article based on a source that's OR... Oh well, the AFD closed as keep. *sighs* · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is OR? As long as it's a reliable source, it should be no problem unless the Wikipedia article itself is OR. Dreadstar † 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we have a situation where there is one lone voice refusing to go along with the consensus, which is that this article contains notability and verfication issues. How many supporting third opinions do I need to elicit until this "dispute" is considered "resolved"? Groupthink (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think at this point I will take this request to wp:unprotect. I disagree with your decision, but I thank you for your consideration. Groupthink (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre post

Since you might not watch sub-talk pages, I figured I'd let you respond to this very very misplaced comment User talk:Keilana/Recall#unfair deletion MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take care of it. I do have it watched, but I wouldn't have seen it as soon without your message. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unfair deletion

Vipin23 tomar (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Hi Keilana,[reply]
I am a new user in this grand society. Today I tried to post some information regarding my college(page "Janta Vedic College") and it was deleted by u on basis of copy right infringmint. May I know that how are we supposed to put the mission and vision statement of a public domain institute in our own words. The page was deleted inspite of my contesting the deletion.

User talk:NHM

The user in question attempted to use {{hangon}} but didn't get there in time. I am going to confer with the deleting admin and probably send to AfD. Just wanted to let you know. (I also replied on his talk page.) - Revolving Bugbear 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for letting me know. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection of Palestinian people

Hi, coming here from an editprotect request. Was the indefinite full protection really necessary? An alternative would be to warn the one edit-warrior, slap him with an Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions warning and then block him if necessary. Sandstein (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation would be to lift the protection, remove the protection tag, warn the editor(s) that caused the protection request about what they are doing wrong (probably edit-warring), and block then in the event of noncompliance. Sandstein (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. the problem at that page is edit-warring by several editors, not one individual doing disruptive edit-warring. the individual doing it was not treated as or considered a violator by most editors of that article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of consensus is not a problem per se, but edit warring and disruption associated with it is. If that happens, any identifiable offenders should be warned and sanctioned first, with page protection being the last resort. Sandstein (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kailana: Your final edit was to protect the article? don't you say you removed the protection? Sandstein and others wanted you to unprotect i!, However you actually re-protect it now, this way you actually blocked me from restoring my edits. As you know Ed Geis did one edit and that was cutting all what he did not like ( without referencing his action on the article itself or in the discussion page) He violated the Wiki laws that no grave cut should be made without discussion detailed of each ref etc. My understanding is that he is the edit warrior because he re undid what another editor did by undoing his grave removal of my greatly refernced work ( I been working on it for 1 year ) Nothing in my contribution/s is a (Creckpot theory) or Theory . Every thing I added is cut-past to the letter from other Researchers on Dienekes Anthropology web Blog and Rootsweb forum by scientists older and more experienced that new researchers( Dienekes been doing DNA studies in early 90's, etc). I am so confused by your referal to a page to contest your action ( protection) I really don't have time for this. Could you assign somebody to help me in my request including your help sincerely06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Keilana: here is what you did ( 19:08, 1 February 2008 Keilana (Talk | contribs) m (Unprotected Palestinian people: Per Sandstein, User talk:Keilana#Your protection of Palestinian people) You say per Sandstein. Sandstein is actually requesting to unprotect the page just like my request ( actually you protected the page after it was violated by Ed Geis by his grave removal of referenced research, what is going on here?, Again you claim you unprotected it while you actually re-protected it ( protected the attack by Ed Geis) What I did was restoring the page to earlier version when the references ( 100--104) were next to J1 being semitic, and also added more clarifying info that the palestinians don't resemble israelis but differ completely ( is that anti-semitic) as being referenced on all levels of DNA (autosomal, male and female lineages)

but m in your final edit is the sign for protection!!!!

Please reverse this unjustice and let the discussion continue dialogue as it is supposed to do!Ed Geis and other did not present any scientific reference against my references at all just plain talk like ( it is obviously this and that ) "It is obviously" is not a scientific evidence Hi Keilana: I am really bewildered and baffled by your edits:

(cur) (last) 19:08, 1 February 2008 Keilana (Talk | contribs) m (Unprotected Palestinian people: Per Sandstein, User talk:Keilana#Your protection of Palestinian people) (undo) (cur) (last) 19:07, 1 February 2008 Keilana (Talk | contribs) (82,946 bytes) (unprotecting) (undo) (cur) (last) 18:40, 1 February 2008 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) (82,961 bytes) (Per talk request, add ) (undo) (cur) (last) 18:19, 1 February 2008 Keilana (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Palestinian people: Edit warring seems to have started again. Per WP:RFPP [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (undo) (cur) (last) 17:26, 1 February 2008 Ed Gies (Talk | contribs) (82,946 bytes) (→DNA clues - restore sensible previous version, instead of adnanmuf's inventions - are you prepared to vouch for this person's work? Read his writing on the talk page before deciding) (undo) what happened between time 19:07 and 19:08 to make you unprotect and then return back the protection. Is there is a way to reverse your last edit?

and who is Ed Gies? in red ( unknown-unreachable)? is he one of the administrators helpers or one of the secret government of Wiki or just plainly the owner of Wiki and all its information and rights???? It is obviously that you are working en tandom with Ed!? why did you just put pp:dispute as Sandstein request? Can we just say that the wiki encyclopedia is the ownership of wiki administroters et al Helpers and the unknowns like Ed?

Recall criteria

Given the various controversies over admin recall, its become sort of a defacto question in all RfAs, so I've worked up a draft of what my recall criteria would be, if I were to become an admin at User:MBisanz/Recall for your review. I do wish there was some standard process though, all these hundreds of changing permutations among admins is probably the least effective way to handle this sort of thing. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Hi Keilana;

You helped me a few weeks ago with a vandal/stalker and now I am asking your help again. There is an editor who posts on and off who has a very, very long history of stalking and disruptive edits. He also is an admitted meatpuppet, as his wife is an editor as well who does the same things (this is what they claim, they could be sockpuppets but are meatpuppets at the very least). The user, Tfoxworth (talk · contribs) literally stalks my edits or makes a point of undoing my edits, sometimes also labelling them as vandalism.

Here are a few differences to illustrate the point:

"rv stalker" I edited here first, as seen in the page history, and he followed me there. See the page history for more.
[4] For some POV edits, reverted by more than one person
Blanking of sockpuppet tags reverted by someone else
[5][6][7] And again.
[8] Him and his alleged wife with POV reversions.
[9] Removal of my comments, happened twice. A third-party editor warned Tfoxworth
An example of POV, which the user knows is not supported at all in real practice.
Further stalking edits from a while ago (I had a different user name then), all of which were the very first, and in some cases only, edits the user ever made to the articles: [10][11][12] (here, there are very obvious mistakes even restored just to show he was reverting just because I had edited),[13],[14],[15],[16], the next two are also attacks: [17],[18]. This shows that this has been a very long and ongoing problem. Thank you, I look forward to your thoughts. Charles 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, literally as I am speaking this, his meatpuppet wife has just logged on and is reverting more of my edits (some of which have been discussed by others as a compromise to otherwise POV text). The wife is I vonH (talk · contribs). See these differences:

[19] POV reversion, again
[20] Edit against form to push POV (we use different lines of succession for different claims)
[21] POV again, still the subject of a [long discussion].
[22] Consistently inserted, removed by others.
[23] Attack, user never edited here before.
[24],[25] Admission of meatpuppetry at the least, followed by double voting [26]

What disturbs me is how long this has continued and persisted. Is there anything that can be done about these two? If you look at both of their contribution histories, they start first by reverting me and then if anyone else reverts them, they'll revert them as well, but there has been a consistent pattern of following me around for basically over a year. i don't think it is coincidence that one or the other happened upon a number of those talk pages and were surprised to see that I had already posted. These users seem to exist only to push a POV, stalk and disrupt/revert. What can be done? I can't see it stopping. It started almost a year and a half ago and the user has been disputing over and over, and then objecting to reversions of edits which were stalking in the first place, etc, etc. See this page for links and more info, this was brought to attention long ago: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tfoxworth. Can the users be banned once and for all, for the peace of all of us? I am not asking because of a disagreement but because of this stalking. Charles 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can take this to WP:ANI. —B o L 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was on IRC a few weeks ago asking about the case Keilana dealt with and was cautioned by an admin that most of the admins are wholly uninterested in cases where it seems to be one user against the other, even if one user (in this case, two, but essentially one due to sock- or meatpuppetry) is violating policy, believe it or not. That is how I eventually came to post at Keilana's talk page (she was not the admin who cautioned me again ANI though). Charles 05:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's usually offline right now. Give her some time or e-mail her. —B o L 05:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will send her a quick email in the morning, I'm about to go to bed. Thank you though, and good night! Charles 05:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You too. —B o L 05:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BoL, I appreciate the explanation, and I will not be online as much for the next couple of days, but I'll see what I can do. Charles, this is a really complicated situation. First, on the Grand Dukes of Luxembourg thing, you did edit the page first, and it definitely seems like Tfoxworth followed you there. Looking at his contributions, he started editing prolifically last month (January) and started stalking you January 19. He is calling your edits vandalism, which is not prudent. As he's reverted most of what you've done since then - even removing your comments from the talk - I am inclined to block him for a short while for harassment and stalking. That said, he and his meat/sockpuppet are tag-team reverting you and harassing you, which makes me inclined to block both of them indefinitely. For now, I am blocking both of them for 24 hours for stalking, tag-team reverting, and possible meatpuppeting. Hopefully this helps, and stops the situation. They are both clearly in violation of policy, and you've had stalkers after you for awhile now. Please tell me if they continue after the block. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Keilana (and BoL), for your help. There is a cascading effect of stalkers, I've had about three in the past two or so years and they seem to follow closely after the others. Like personalities, I suppose, pick up on similar issues which is why editing royalty articles can be contentious at times. I will let you know if anything else happens. Again, thanks. Charles 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And Keilana: Good luck, on your finals (that is, if you go to high school) or high school apps (that is, if you are currently in the 8th grade) Just a guess... —B o L 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that all of your stalkers are socks of each other, or have some other connection IRL. Just a guess, please do contact me if they start up again, I'll indef-block them. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop stalking ppl dude

how did you know when i made that last edit? seriously get a life rather than stupid RC patrolling

I am omniscient. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Rollback

Thank you. I will be sure to use it only for vandalism. Juliancolton ^{(The Giants Win!)} 23:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast editing

How do you make those reverts and warnings so quickly? Well, I can see that you're an admin, and it's possible that it could be using rollback. I'm just wondering because on the recent changes, you made two user warnings really quickly. How do you do that? SchfiftyThree 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Ah well, you beat me to 20K edits... race to 30K? :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 03:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

If you want to keep a vandalism count, I just rolled one back on your userpage. KC109 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

snake eating tapir

I thought it would be a cool thing for wikipedians to see if they were so interested. Perhaps I should have put the edit in the Anaconda page? --Escapedlunatic (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A passer's by comment

I've also posted a message similar to this to Coppertwig. Keilana, I respect your judegement when it comes to matters regarding me in the past few weeks. You're an excellently-clued administrator and you've always inspired me to go that bit further at CSD. Your support proved invaluable. Regards, Rudget . 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qu'est ce que pensez-vous ca?

Ok, my french is rusty, but this guy: User talk:Styrofoam1994 is requesting an unblock. Since you originally blocked, I thought it prudent to seek your input. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was thinking against the unblock, but I usually patrol CAT:UNBLOCK and I saw him up. I always contact the blocking admins of all people who show up there (except for the anons who claim their "little brother" was playing with their computer... fuck them) and seek further input regardless of my opinion. His unblock request was rather weak, but I couldn't see much to go on, so I contacted you... I was leaning the way you were... Good deal. A bientot... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

157.228.99.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has requested an unblock. I have to say, I see no vandalism in its edit history. What are the specific edits that concern you? Is there an issue I am not aware of? Regards Woody (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, slips can happen, accidental clicking of IPs in edit historys! Lets hope the IP understands. Thanks for responding quickly and unblocking. Regards Woody (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jro201 want his block reviewed yeah baaabbyy!!!

Yeah he wants his block reviewed, thanks. ---96.229.184.69 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. that was not fair, he is a new user.--Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I added the Times Link on the tomato page to back up the other change I made (adding the quote from John Gerard - to show proof he had said it was poisonous) - both changes were to back up the claims a previous Wiki editor had made. Thanks.

The Barnstar of Good Humour

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		Awarded to you for an awesome comment on the help desk, and generally being good humoured and light hearted when dealing with other wikipedians.Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gp75motorsports

Why did you decide to reduce his block? The agreement when Daniel unblocked him last time was that the next block would be for two weeks. He edited outside his restrictions and should have to deal with it. He's becoming a better user, sure, but that doesn't mean we should be giving him leeway now and allowing him to create pointless talk pages of images with just the word "Cute". He needs to learn what is productive and what is not. Metros (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take great offence at his calling of me a Communist on one prior occasion, and to see that he has again repeated the slur against another administrator makes me concerned about this block reduction. Daniel (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banhammer

If the vandalism cases we get are random, then it looks like you're getting all the bad ones - three indef blocks in less than 10 minutes! I am impressed with your skill and grace in wielding the mighty banhammer. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your great anti-vandalism work. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. Nothing wrong with it.

une autre "unblock", peut-etre?

Ok, enough crappy french. User talk:Jro201 is requesting unblocking. I am inclined to unblock them, under the stipulation that they NOT try to recreate the same article again. If they DO recreate it, they will be reblocked. Sound reasonable? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Mark7532222

Hi, Its seems like you're french speaking, I'm not sure if I can speak french to you, so I will speak in english. I recently made a request for checkuser concerning the case of the account Mark7532222 who's been trolling, vandalizing and harassing people for months with different socketpuppets and IP's. It has been confirmed and you apparently dealt with the case.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mark7532222.

But I'd like to have more specifications concerning what I'm supposed to do now it is confirmed: 1. Should I make a request to inform some properly concerned administrators so they can block the range of IPs... or 2. you guys will take care of it and so I don't have to do anything else. If so, is it possible to be informed when this IP will be blocked, because for the moment I'm preventing myself to edit any articles where he's still active, because I know he will make a mess again. Thanks in advance

GreetingsFrédérick Duhautpas (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Arsenicum album disruption

I figured this might be a good time to ask for advice from an admin. Since you seem to be completely uninvolved, would you be willing to take a look? See here for details. —Whig (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]