User talk:Keilana/Archive2
Thanks!
Hello Keilana. Thanks for the reply. I am still a little confused! I will study about this and probably add a secret string. This topic is quite interesting. Anyway, thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Happy New Year! I will be very happy if you help me with this. If I add secret string, can anyone break it? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I will certainly not add "My middle name is Foo" or similar string. I will add far more complex. Let's say, my secret string has 50 letters and numbers. Can anyone break it? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. This is something that I never thought about. If I face any problem about this, I will contact you. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind message. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. This is something that I never thought about. If I face any problem about this, I will contact you. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I will certainly not add "My middle name is Foo" or similar string. I will add far more complex. Let's say, my secret string has 50 letters and numbers. Can anyone break it? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion of International Worship in English
First, you wrote at User talk:Keeper76:
No problem, I'll undelete it and take it to AFD for a procedural nom if you want. Happy 2008! Keilanatalk(recall) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
And then, fifteen minutes later, at User talk:Davidabram:
Mr. Abram, I must concur with Keeper. S/He said it perfectly, so I don't need to. The article was deleted because it did not assert the subject's notability in the article. If it is a notable subject, the article may be recreated, but you need to show why it should be included in Wikipedia, and reference it with reliable sources. I hope that I am a help to you, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you need help or have any questions. Cheers! Keilanatalk(recall) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources were there and unquestionably alive and reliable. I'll assert the notability by tying IWE to the minitsterial efforts of Templeton Prize winner Kyung-Chik Han and Bill Majors, Honorary Citizen of Seoul--but you have to carry out the undelete as you indicated to Keeper76. I'm in the process of writing an article for Young Nak Church, the direct effort of Kyung-Chik Han, and ultimately, International Worship in English might be merged with Young Nak Church, with a redirect from International Worship in English--but you should carry through with the undelete to allow me a chance to prove the notability of International Worship in English and give International Worship in English its fair day in the AfD sun. Davidabram (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration
You say that I'm unwilling to accept compromise, which isn't true; I turned down the mediation because the narrow scope was unreasonable. --NE2 04:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is not an easy thing to define, which is why the bigger picture is necessary. --NE2 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
From a newbie
Hi Keilana, I 'think' I recognize you. I was really sad when I checked (what I believe to be) your previous username and found you had vanished. The only way I spotted you was that I see you still enjoy playing mediator :-) (If you fear that this might identify you, delete this last sentence). Now that you're part of the all-powerful cabal, you can start pulling your weight - but I, for one, admire you more as a mediator than an administrator. I was going to complain that I couldn't find your RFA, but I see that you passed under your last name. Gimme a quick reply if you can spare the time - and keep up the good work. Eliyohub (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Dear Keilana,
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, post a message on the discussion page or join our IRC channel #vandalproof.
Snowolf How can I help? 15:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ooops already posted earlier ;-) Thought I forgot ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please explain our removal
Keilana, I am having a hard time understanding our companies removal from Wikipedia. We solely want to define our business in this resource for it is a reliable resource for not only the members of our company, but the hundreds of people we service daily. Please help me understand your motive. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidscreenings (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
After looking a little more closely, you were certainly write to remove the db tag. I was a little hasty it seems. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Boot
Thanks for the response! I am still a little confused though because I cited several Hampton Roads newspapers. Are they not considered independent, reliable sources? I think there are a few more that I could add if that would make the article more substantial. I just want this article to be used as a reference for the Hampton Roads community so that they can see what new types of things are happening in our area and then be able to explore the local food movement, along with supporting the local artists and bands that are featured at the boot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan.fro (talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Diffs
previous version revert 1 revert 2 revert 3 revert 4. (I'm not signing in because I"m at the library). 64.178.96.168 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Extraordinary rendtion
Swatjester's refusal to engage in a mediation is perplexing since I believe he is an adminstrator and has thumbed his nose at yet another avenue for resolving edit conflicts. What would be the next step I can pursue to bring some type of finality to the issue? Thanks for volunteering to offer your expertise.--Ccson (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- See RFC for Extrordinary rendition--Ccson (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Swatjester has posted his opinion on the RFC. I thought this and all other avenues were to invite neutral third parties not interested in the dispute to post their opinion. His opinion and mind shouldn't count and that's why the RFC indicates the posting party should enter a neutral statement. I don't thinks his statement as an interested party is neutral.--Ccson (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:Admin Coaching?
Hi Keilana! Thank you for your kind offer to be my admin coach, but at this point in time I have already contacted another editor and I am waiting for his/her reply. If that does not work out, I'll be sure to let you know. Thanks again, Corvus coronoides talk 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Your close of True Blue
Hi... I'm not sure I totally follow your close on this one. In reading through the AfD it seems that just about everyone agreed that the musician currently written about at True Blue (producer) fails WP:MUSIC pretty handily. (whether evaluated as a musician, a re-mixer, a DJ, a sampler, or whatever), except for Mr. Blue himself. It seems to me that the article itself should have been deleted outright and the mention of it removed from the dab page. Did you intend for the article to remain in existance at the end of your close? Thanks! (you can answer here, I'll watch) ++Lar: t/c 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- (refactored from my talk per my policy) I'm not quite sure what happened there. Should I change the AfD outcome? Keilanatalk(recall) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think the outcome as stated is ok, but the implementation isn't quite what the outcome says... If I understand how things were before the AfD started, way long ago we had a normal dab page at True Blue, then hiphop98 copy/paste moved his True Blue article on top of it, and moved the redirect to some other name... making a right mess of things as per usual when copy/paste moves are involved. Is that history right? After the AfD you put the redirect back to the primary True Blue page (satisfying the "revert back to dab" part), but didn't actually delete True Blue (producer) (not satisfying the many voices pointing out the article fails WP:N badly ). What I THINK should happen is that True Blue (producer) also goes away completely (deleted) and the dab page doesn't mention it at all any more (since it's a deleted page, why mention it?). That seems the "right" thing to me and in line with what I think consensus was saying in the AfD. Perhaps we need a DRV to be doubly sure, but if you're comfortable with that, I'd say go for it. Or if you want to do a DRV as a double check anyway (you can open a DRV on yourself if you want to, it's not a faux pas or anything) I'll be happy to chime in. I don't think this is an issue of fault, the DRV would just be to double check, mind you... there was quite the mess with these pages made before the AfD started. What do you think? (you can answer here, I'll watch, but if you answer on my talk, I'll continue there instead of here... ) ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Bwk news channel
I notice that the Brunswick News Channel page was delete. Please let me know what I need to do to have the page un-delete. Thanks, bwk news channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwk news channel (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Vandal Question
Hi. I have a question about vandalism, but I'm not sure how to proceed. I have an issue with the user UpDown. This disagreement is minor, but they seem to have a history of disregarding the input of others and the accepted conventions of Wikipedia in favor of his own ideas. I have no desire to get into an edit war with them or report them, but they seem unreceptive to resolving the matter by debate or vote. It strikes me that users like this are corrosive to the ideas at the heart of Wikipedia. What should I do? Thanks in advance. --Dr Fell (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Coaching
No other offers yet. You probably know a lot more about this than I do. I would be more than willing to accept the offer if you're sure you want to make it. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind, but I made a small change to a link in your post. Dreadstar † 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- No prob. Thanks for fixing that. Keilanatalk(recall) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Silly as I know it sounds, I don't know that I know enough to ask any specific questions at this point. I've always kind of ruled myself out of consideration, so I haven't actually learned enough about a lot of things to generally even be able to ask reasonable questions. I've seen the virtual classroom page, and I guess will review that before I give any ill-informed answers to you. Probably will be able to come back with something more intelligible on Monday or Tuesday. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- No prob. Thanks for fixing that. Keilanatalk(recall) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Adminship
Hi, I was just wondering if you became an admin after changing your username or before? (I can't find any RfA under this name). I'm struggling to comprehend how folks can have a right to vanish and a right to retain the sysop bit... --kingboyk (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is allowed because it has been policy for some time in WP:ADMIN. 1 != 2 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bad answer. X is so because X is so. I'm glad you don't contribute to the Reference Desk.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Advice
I would like to recommend that you do not re-run for adminship as you offered. It will prove little and most likely result in pointed(unreasonable) opposition. Even very good admins with their reputation laid out before them can fail RfA for nonsense reasons.
I came back as an admin under a new name after nasty harassment and several nosy parkers started asking me who I was and demanding that I re-ran for admin. I did not accept these demands as these are not reasonable requests as it is long standing policy that it is allowed for admins to come back under a new name for privacy reasons. If people wish to challenge this they can go to WP:ADMIN and propose the removal or change of the rule. 1 != 2 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The policy is the issue as far as I am concerned; it doesn't follow that because there is such a policy any objections to it are automatically unreasonable.
- I kind of wish I hadn't mentioned it now (sorry about that), as it's certainly nothing personal against Keilana. I agree she has no obligation to restand under the current rules and would therefore also advise against it. --kingboyk (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keilana, I don't think anyone suggested you should undergo RfA again, and I believe it would be a waste of your time and the community's time to do so (you would easily pass). The thread here is more about people who abandoned their old account and got a new one, complete with admin privileges, which you did not do--thus your name should not have been mentioned; I think that bit on your user page about the "right to vanish" confused the OP--and myself as well. By contrast, I am far less comfortable with admins with completely inaccessible RfAs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Help
I need help regarding the reports i filed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/UzEE and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/UzEE. I filed the reports there but i want to know that do i need notify Administrators through Administrators' noticeboard, so they can see my request? Sarmad (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
RFPP
You do know that you can use {{RFPP|nea}} instead of just {{RFPP|d}} and manually write out the "not enough activity to warrant protection" etc text ;) Spebi 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- O rly? I'm going to search through your monobook now ;) Spebi 22:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I got rid of Twinkle ages ago (not popups, cannot live without popups) although there are some parts I've been meaning to re-install... it kept mucking around with my other tabs like the
admin vision tab, I mean, purge tab... *shifty eyes* Spebi 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)- Go for it. Spebi 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I got rid of Twinkle ages ago (not popups, cannot live without popups) although there are some parts I've been meaning to re-install... it kept mucking around with my other tabs like the
Yes
I resigned adminship sometime last month. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome! You actually caught me at a great time -- I have logged in again for the first time in over a month! MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 22:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Keilana. Would you explain your rationale for this close for me please? Thanks. I (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You mind if we withdraw this? There's a stack to do, and I don't really want to be rushed into doing it...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- By all means, go for it if you're willing - I personally wouldn't have the time/patience/etc. Btw. No NME reviews, a short EW review. No NYT and no Time. Not sure where else to look for US reviews...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ouch. Just saw the WT:RFA stuff. In all honesty, I think you should re-run - if nothing else, to shut up those who doubt your capabilities...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, I was thinking the same thing. Even if it fails, I think it's best to restore the community's trust in one "anono-admin." I'll get back to you in a bit, let me mull it over. Keilanatalk(recall) 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keilana.— Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly, I was thinking the same thing. Even if it fails, I think it's best to restore the community's trust in one "anono-admin." I'll get back to you in a bit, let me mull it over. Keilanatalk(recall) 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ouch. Just saw the WT:RFA stuff. In all honesty, I think you should re-run - if nothing else, to shut up those who doubt your capabilities...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Keilana, but I disagree completely with this RfA: you had a name change, nothing more. You should not have to re-run because of a name change. This RfA is unnecessary, seriously. I won't oppose it, but seriously, it's not necessary. Acalamari 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm concerned the RfA will bring too much attention and end up invasive, which is sort o' the antithesis to RTV. I'm a changed man for 2008, because I care. Haha. the_undertow talk 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- :O — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm concerned the RfA will bring too much attention and end up invasive, which is sort o' the antithesis to RTV. I'm a changed man for 2008, because I care. Haha. the_undertow talk 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Keilana. I repect you a lot but I really really want you to reconsider your reconfirmation RfA you are about to go through. There's a number of issues here, firstly, it's pointless - I know your old username and am fully aware of the circumstances that you had to leave your old account. You are here in good standing and there's no reason to change that here. Secondally, we haven't got a full knowledge of contributions to guage how you deal with problems with this username - yeah, of course your admin logs talk for themselves, but we don't have much to go on with repsect to your pre admin actions. No user can be expected to fully evaluate your candidacy without knowing exactly your past movements, and for obvious reasons, this isn't possible in this case. All in all, you really don't need to do this, and it seems like a waste of resources given that you clearly left your old account in good standing and there's no reason to suggest that you shouldn't be an administrator - people could be doing more constructive things. Please reconsider and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Ryan. It is pointless to stand for reconfirmation when you haven't done anything wrong. — DarkFalls talk 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was asked by a community member in good standing to be reconfirmed, and I will honor that request. Keilanatalk(recall) 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- But how do you honestly expect the community to fully evaluate you? You don't want your previous account name know (which I fully understnad) - but you're asking for a position of trust that contributors should have full access of information to. This really isn't going to work, especially when a lot of users will vouch for you. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's all in my contribs. Keilanatalk(recall) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- True, but not many people know your old account - if they did, there would be no need for the RfA. Please please don't identify yourself, but this RfA simply won't work when most users don't know the full story. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's all in my contribs. Keilanatalk(recall) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- But how do you honestly expect the community to fully evaluate you? You don't want your previous account name know (which I fully understnad) - but you're asking for a position of trust that contributors should have full access of information to. This really isn't going to work, especially when a lot of users will vouch for you. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was asked by a community member in good standing to be reconfirmed, and I will honor that request. Keilanatalk(recall) 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think your RfA is unnecessary, and it bothers me that its existence makes the discovery of your previous identity inevitable. I hope that you don't view my comments as an attempt to out you, as has been suggested. They were intended to argue that the RfA is unnecessary and that you enjoyed extreme support in your successful RfA and have done nothing to warrant a different result since. Avruchtalk 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There was no need to do this as I stated elsewhere. People should not have been so nosy. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much effort into persuading Gurch, the joke neutral was one thing, but I've pretty much given up on addressing his issue now. --Charitwo talk 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm sorry you've had to go through this, I was just asking a question about what the policy was and using your name as an example of someone in this position because I saw it on your user page when I was going to ask you a question about something else. I wasn't casting doubt on your past conduct or current right to be an admin, I'm sure you do a fine job and, as you know, I didn't ask you to go through this RfA. I'm sure the overwhelming support you've generated will be heartening anyway. Neither was my question prompted by our little spat over that olympic athlete, I get into quite a few discussions and that was just par for the course. Best wishes Nick mallory (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Page diff
| This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
Hi, I may need your assistance
Hi Keilana/Archive2, how are you. I think I may need your assistance again. See here, User:Smsarmad is back again and filled a case on me. Since we go to the same college, he is using it to his advantage. The shared college IPs 66.206.x.x and 203.135.46.x (which I also reported with my checkuser case) are now turned against me. I believe they are the IPs of my college, from which I also log in on my account, and so does he. Now I didnt get informed of this case before, so when I checked it was already processed. Now please dont tell me that I would be blocked due to the request of a user who was previously a confirmed Vandal. Thanks. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Mediation
Thank you for the offer. I accept the offer. Thank you -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, what I am after is what to say to the parties involved, as well as general "how-to-involve-myself-in-mediation". If you can reply, and add yourself to the case, that would be nice. Thanks again! -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Re. My Rfa
You're not bothering me at all. :-) I've replied to your comment there. Best regards (and good luck), Húsönd 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review
I have listed Ghost Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you speedily deleted, at deletion review. Please also see the comments by W.marsh concerning inappropriate speedy deletions in the oppose section of your RFA. Should your reconfirmation pass, please do not continue to inappropriately delete articles. John254 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Vpmi Article - Fourth Request for a Reply
Keilana, if you are going to delete an article, you owe it to the author to provide a response to my challenge of your assessment. Otherwise you are not acting in good faith as an administrator on this site and are abusing your rights. If you are going to take on this responsibility you must account for your decisions. I have been requesting this reply from you for almost a month so my patience and tone are in a downward spiral. This is my fourth attempt to get a reply from you on your decision to delete the article for Vpmi. I am writing to request that the article for Vpmi be restored. You identified it as blatant advertising. I am concerned that administrators on Wikipedia are more focused on deleting content than on working with content providers to make the content valuable and appropriate for this online encyclopedia. If you feel the article has blatant advertising, please give me the opportunity to revise it so that it meets Wikipedia standards. This article was built using the Microsoft Project template as an example. I believe the software is notable as defined in the Wikipedia:Notability section where it says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Should you disagree, I think it would be reasonable to ask why the sources listed do not qualify for notability. Furthermore, I think it would be prudent to do the same critical review of all software solutions listed on the page List of project management software. I read through many of these and would argue that based on your justification, none of these should be included. The language used in writing the article was taken primarily from 3rd party articles in relevant technology publications about the Vpmi solution (see reference section of article). In addition, the software is referenced and talked about at length in two books that are currently used by classrooms across the country for educating graduate students on project and portfolio management (also included as links in the reference section of the article). In light of this, your feedback regarding exactly what needs to be changed is greatly appreciated. Please reply as soon as possible.--Tilleyg (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keilana, I am going to add Vpmi back to Wikipedia in a format that mirrors that of an approved project management software solution AtTask, Inc.. Although microsoft project includes a gallery of screenshots, I have opted to not include these in an effort to remove any impression of advertising. This is simply a listing of a notable software solution. I appreciate your feedback and comments.--Tilleyg (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
RFA
I left you a question. Regards, M-ercury at 11:08, January 7, 2008
Re:Virtual Classroom
Hello Transhumanist! I was wondering if there's anything I can do to help in the Virtual Classroom. Thanks! Keilanatalk(recall) 20:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes!
- See the VC Lessons info box (posted near the top of the page above). It includes links to the coaching pages of the current students. Please look over as many of their contributions as you can find time to do so, and post your advice on how each of them can improve their performance as editors. Try to keep it in theme with any plans provided on their pages so far (some are being assigned editing tasks, others have progress to administrative tasks, for example).
- LaraLove is working on a new lesson called User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/LaraLove, on Good Article development (and mentioned she will try to complete it this week). We need proofreaders/copy-editors to go over it and polish it.
- To monitor for new edits and vandalism, etc., please watchlist the Virtual Classroom and all of its subpages. (I'd appreciate it if you'd watchlist the User Page Design Center as well).
- Thank you for offering to help. I look forward to working with you.
- The Transhumanist 11:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I can't start immediately; I'm a little busy both on-wiki and IRL, so can I take you up on your offer this weekend, when the whole recall mess is over? Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anytime you can participate is fine. The Transhumanist 02:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I can't start immediately; I'm a little busy both on-wiki and IRL, so can I take you up on your offer this weekend, when the whole recall mess is over? Thanks, Keilanatalk(recall) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Improper speedy deletions
I have also listed Cyril Walker (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at deletion review, as your speedy deletion of this article was inappropriate, in a manner similar to the deletion of Ghost Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) described earlier. It appears that you may have improperly deleted a large number of articles based on misapplications of CSD A7. John254 17:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Want some Info regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/UzEE
Hello! i want to know that what is going to happen now about this case, Aren't you or any other administrator is going to take action against the Vandal?Sarmad (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was asking because the case has been moved to the archive, giving an impression that no one wants to act upon the findings of the checkuser. --Sarmad (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Why RfA again?
Hello Keilana. How are you? Your user name is quite sweet. Can I ask you a question: Why RfA again? You are already an admin. Anyway, I supported you. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are a trustworthy person. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Just popping in...
Hi,
I'm sorry for whatever trouble that necessitated the username change -- You're a kind person, and a good admin, and shouldn't have been subjected to any difficulty in your work.
I'm about to go support your RfA (although the support is hardly crucial!), but I did want to mention that I'm a bit concerned about some of the speedy deletions brought up by W. Marsh. My qualms don't rise to level that I'd bring the matter up at the RfA, but I would ask you to please be more careful in applying CSD A7. There's never any harm in bringing close cases up for discussion. Almost every day, I see an article that I thought was hopeless redeemed by clever sourcing at AfD.
Bearing that in mind, I know you'll be very helpful to the project, and I'm glad to see you with the mop firmly in hand. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
A dispute with which you may be able to help
Check the last two sections of User talk:PeterStJohn and also the second-to-last section of Talk:Quackwatch. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Help
Consciousness causes collapse has a number of pseudoscience promoters trying to argue that general consensus is not seen for the fact that this idea is pseudoscientific. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
More help needed
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:ScienceApologist ScienceApologist (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment on Administrators' noticeboard
Hello Keilana. How are you? You wrote on the Administrators' noticeboard that "Pseudoscience is a delicate matter, and we should tread carefully to achieve our end—a fair, unbiased encyclopedia." Well, pseudoscience is false. And, that's not POV. That's a fact. We cannot afford to be 'nice' to pseudoscientific theories. I would like to know your views on this subject. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with you. I should be a little careful regarding these issues. Anyway, thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
CIDO-FM Deletion
Hi, Keilana. You speedily deleted the CIDO-FM, Creston Community Radio article, and I would like to have the opportunity to prove notability of same, if you are willing to reconsider your decision. Also, I understand it was a speedy deletion, and notification is not required, but I do feel that I deserved at least a message from you saying you were deleting the article, just as common courtesy. I am not trying to give you any grief; I'm sure your deletion was well intentioned; but it gave me no time or opportunity to improve the article (which I would have attempted to do had I known it was sub-par.) Thus, I think it was rash and heavy-handed on your part. I include this PP re: deletions, which I feel would apply in this case: "Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." I look forward to hearing your reply, and thank you for your time. Kootenayvolcano (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply- I don't want to request undeletion, it seems disrespectful to you, you obviously felt it had problems, but would like to work with the original article and improve it. Is there a way to access the original article I wrote?- I do not have a copy of it.Kootenayvolcano (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again, Keilana, I have worked on the CIDO-FM article which you deleted earlier in January, due to lack of notability. I believe I have made a better case for the notability of the topic and hope you will agree with me. Thanks for your time. Kootenayvolcano (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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) 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:Keep It Simple
Hi
Would you be interested in continuing helping to make labels? and in making the alternative labels more known to the community ? Your help was greatly appreciated and helped to advance the project, we miss you at WP:KIS 
Thanks ℒibrarian2 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Complaint about a stalker
I have felt that a stalker, Use Charles, who has written to you some while ago (above), has stalked me occasionally several times.
As example of stalking, when I had been on 2 January 2008 reading material about White Rajahs of Sarawak, and participated about some discussion there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Brooke then User Charles on 3 January 2008 had seemingly followed my edits and left his mark on talk page of one of those White Rajahs, Edit history
I have felt already earlier on many occasuons that User Charles has apparently stalked me.
Stalking made by User Charles has got also more serious firms, as he has, however mistakenly, tried to get to know my identity, or to trace me through an assumed contact. In the following diffs User Charles is asking for identity:
tries to get to know my identity
I hereby make this complaint of the said stalker. Henq (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Keilana, funny this should show up in my watch list (clear out user talk pages every so often). You can very clearly see in the White Rajahs edit history that I edited *before* Henq even showed up at the page. Note this exchange: [1]. It's actually proof that he has been following my edits. As for the mention of Saxe-Altenburg, etc, in that exchange, I don't suffer from memory loss, so of course I am able to recall which users have been trying to engage me in a dispute. As for the message board postings, it was called into question linking to a very new post in an inactive discussion regarding the very subject. If it wasn't Henq, that is fine, but to have a discussion directly linked, when it is new and aligns with the users few, it does call into question WP:OR and admitting one's own "research" for the purposes of inserting one's point of view into an article. Sorry, but I am not a stalker. I didn't go out looking for anyone's name and the evidence shows that you have been following my edits. Just so I don't get accused of looking up Henq's contribution history to stalk him, here is what showed up in my watchlist:
- (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR; 07:41 . . (+642) . . Slakr (Talk | contribs) (→Archiving Redux - ++ comment)
- (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Unschool; 07:39 . . (+1,248) . . Dorftrottel (Talk | contribs) (→Recombinant text - cmt)
- (diff) (hist) . . User talk:Keilana; 07:29 . . (+92) . . Henq (Talk | contribs) (→Complaint about a stalker)
- (diff) (hist) . . Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex; 06:46 . . (+33) . . 82.178.141.42 (Talk) (interwiki)
- (diff) (hist) . . Anne, Princess Royal; 06:23 . . (+13) . . Joeldipops (Talk | contribs) (→Kidnap attempt)
- I'd have to be comatose to think it wasn't about me. That Henq is pushing this matter where the fault is clearly evident (not me) is slightly disturbing. Charles 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- (This will be posted to both talk pages.) I must say first of all, that as I'm looking through the evidence, Henq does seem to be following Charles around. At the talk page of Charles Vyner Brooke, User:Charles edits the page before Henq does, first at 4:55 UTC on December 27. He later edits the page again on January 3rd (at 22:06). About 45 minutes later (22:50), Henq shows up at the talk page for the first time. That looks really suspicious to me, seeing as (A)Neither Henq nor Charles has actually edited the article in question, and (B)Henq had never touched the discussion before Charles showed up there, and Charles had contributed to discussion before. Therefore, it is likely that Henq followed Charles to the page. (By the way, the comment about the identity was meant to be sarcastic, if I read it correctly.) As I look through the contribs, some encounters may be coincidental—people with the same interests sometimes show up in the same place. Nevertheless, though, it's clear that Charles is sometimes being followed by Henq. Best, Keilanatalk 14:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This again shows that User Charles is stalking me. He keeps this user page in watchlist - and appears here less than two hours after I posted my complaint. If I had been stalking Charles in the start of this, I would have seen that he had approached Keilana with an accusation against me (and I would have had some possibility to answer before that questionable blocking made by Keilana). However, I do not stalk User Charles, contrary to what he is doing. I have been reading several times about White Rajahs of Sarawak - there is my edit in discussion about another White rajah, before User Charles appeared to that page. Generally, I have some same interest fields, which is why I occasionally edit same articles and participate same discussions. However, in this thing, Keilana, very unbecomingly to anything which is needed to be impartial, seems to have chosen her party. (And surely User Charles appears soon to stalk me and stalk my comments.) Henq (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many people keep others' pages watchlisted, and comment on issues that may affect them. I do it, many other editors and admins do it, and apparently Charles does it. If I see a comment on someone's talk that may affect me, I go look at it. It's a common practice, not stalking at all. Yes, in some places it has to have been coincidence because I know that the two of you have a common interest in royalty. However, in several instances, you (Henq) appeared behind Charles at a place that you had never edited before, sometimes within an hour of his edit, to express a contrary opinion. What exactly do you feel is wring with your block? If you felt it was unjustified, you should've posted an unblock request, and another admin would have taken care of it. I do appreciate that you came to me with your concerns, but in any case, I think the block was justified. Best, Keilanatalk 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Rudget!
support you
you are good user. i saw this when looking to ur edits closely. that is why i think you should become an admin, really. i hope you get the position and you have my strongest support! Shojaijekhi (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please answer the question on RFA
Please answer the question on your RFA.
8. If someone were canvassing, whether for a RFA or something else, how long would you block the editor for? 1 month? Forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfufu (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- She is currently offline - please give her time. Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Recall RfA
Congrats. — DarkFalls talk 09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto. Dreadstar † 09:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- There was never any doubt. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- True. Great work. And thank you for your words of encouragement, they really helped. :) Best, Rudget. 14:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you all, now I can get back to work. ;) Best, Keilanatalk 16:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- All the best... welcome back. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you all, now I can get back to work. ;) Best, Keilanatalk 16:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- True. Great work. And thank you for your words of encouragement, they really helped. :) Best, Rudget. 14:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:)
Yet another attribute. That really was quick. :D It's quite strange though, these "Agueybana bots" seem to come online on Sunday evenings at 18:00 (UTC) - A connection maybe? Best regards, Rudget. 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
you are admin now
you are admin now and that is very fine you deserve it i am happy for you very happy hope you will be very happy as admin hope you do good for wikipesjoa and everbudy likes you as they liked you before and everybody be happy and sing everybody joy joy fun yeah! spread wikilove on you and on everybody is shall go and edit agin.
will you help me to find a member who is from iran, from the province of kermansha (kermanshahi-irani) so that i can discuss certain aspects of culture in that province with him\her and talk about geographical locations? thanx in advashe,
Shojaijekhi (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)