User talk:Keegan/September 06

Level Seven

Very well - I've responded accordingly. Please consider what I have written.
Thanks, --Naylor182 21:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing a discussion

I need your help in closing a poll that has closed. If you could please assist us in closing the voting inthis poll , I would greatly appreciate. Also, please protect the section from being edited by anybody other than an administrator user. Thank you very much. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You know that you don't need to make a decision just close it right? Just making sure. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing of debate for Afd on Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Gameplay

I am at a bit of a loss how you came to no consensus on this discussion. By my count, I see 7 votes for delete, 1 for a transwiki, 1 for a transwiki or a redirect, 1 for a redirect, and 2 for a keep. Now, a transwiki is a vote indicating that the user does not believe the information belongs on wikipedia, yet feels it could go elsewhere. This is still a vote to remove the information from wikipedia. A redirect finds the information to have some value, but does not deserve its own page. If one considers a transwiki as similar to delete and a redirect as similar to a keep, which seems logical under those circumstances, then you have 8 to delete, 3 for keep, and one person that could go either way. Now let us be generous and say the one who cannot make up his mind wants to keep the information. Now we have an 8-4 vote or 66% saying the information does not belong on wikipedia. I guess I am not counting the one who voted userfy, but that person clearly believed the article was against policy as it currently stood and hoped that userfication would allow something to be salvaged.

Now, AfD is not a vote as some admins like to say (usually only when they rule contrary to the vote count), but the policy clearly states that it is a process of achieving consensus based on policy. Now, my initial nomination pointed to a policy concern, namely, that the page was a video game guide as clearly prohibited by WP:NOT. Four of those who voted delete concluded the same thing, that the article violated policy. The person who voted to transwiki believed the same thing, for there would be no reason to transwiki if the article was fine where it was. Of the keep votes, only one person made the arguement that the article actually fit into the policy. The consensus certainly seems to be that the article is a game guide and violates policy, with a 6 to 1 finding to that effect. Even one of the other keep votes, made by the creator of the article himself, appears to concede that he inadvertently violated policy and then gives alternative grounds for why he believes the article should be kept.

Of course, you closed, and admins are given some discretion in how they close. I do have to ask though if you really believe their was no real consensus in arguements based on policy in this debate first of all and second if you really believe personally that this was not a game guide. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then there is not much more I can say, though I will still believe the decision was not the right outcome. If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it really appears the page should go. Indrian 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm more than happy to explain my closing as no concensus.

Accounting for the votes that give reasoned explainations, the AfD was split between Keep and Delete.

I discounted comments that WP:NOT a game guide; the article is not such. A game guide explains methods of advancement in the game (Get A and B, follow X for Z results), the article discusses actual game play. I'm not a fan of such articles, I am obliged by the deletion policy to follow the community. This AfD had no concensus for deletion. Please let me know if you have any true problems with this, thank you for notifying me. Teke ^(talk) 04:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)""

• You do not believe the article is a game guide. I think you are wrong. What we have here is a dispute as to an interpretation of policy. Get a lot of people together, and there is going to be a lot of dispute on policy. I can probably not convince you (though I could certainly try, even if we assume that your above definition of what constitutes a game guide is the test all articles must pass) and you certainly cannot convince me, so we have ourselves a discussion and see what the community thinks. In the community, five people clearly thought it went against policy, and one person clearly thought it did not. Ignoring those who thought it violated policy because you personally believe it did not is not following consensus, but taking your own personal stance on an issue. I may be misunderstanding what you are saying and will not jump to a conclusion, but it sounds like you may have let your personal view on policy get in the way of seeing a consensus view on policy in this particular case. Indrian 04:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think you are guilty of bias, and I also think you were fully within your discretion as admin. I personally would have come to a different decision on how to close, but who's to say which one of us is right, certainly not I. I probably will relist at some point, but not right away. I hope I have not offended with my messages; I just like to poke and prod at the admins a little bit when I see a decision contrary to what I would have done and like to see what is going on in their heads. Happy editing to you as well. Indrian 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Michael has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

A. J. Allmendinger move

Hi. Not sure I follow your logic to moving Talk:A. J. Allmendinger. Shouldn't verifiability and common usage trump the exception-riddled WP:NCP? The 10 or so places I checked were not only quite reliable and clearly had no space between initials but they didn't even say that A. and J. were his actual initials. We have AJ Roach and AJ Auxerre and AJ Carothers, and the more notable B.J. Surhoff. Are we going to make B. J.'s Wholesale Club next? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to be tongue in cheek, but I wouldn't be opposed to making B. J's Wholesale club. Back to the point: I found the move to be innocuous and tidy, so I did it. Some pages I did not move, such as W.T. Cosgrave because there were about six editors there opposing the move. I like to think that we're making progress in standardization for initialed names slowly but surely. With that said, I have absolutely no problem if you want to move Allmendinger back to where it was. I'm not sensitive about the admin stuff I do, or the admin stuff that others do over mine (i.e., I don't wheel war). Part of the fun of wiki to me is that things can be done and undone as concensus shifts. So, if you'd like it back where it was, be bold and go right ahead! Thanks for messaging me about it. Teke ^(talk) 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not interested in undoing anything - just a little confused about the explanation. No biggie. I'm trying to stay away from this initials issue except in clear consensus cases (like you're saying) but I'm starting to lean away from these sweeping naming conventions that leave no room for necessary exceptions (like NASA, IBM and BJ's Wholesale Club). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

New person editing

Hey there Teke. Congrat’s on your new role as admin! I hate to bug ya, but there is a new user that seems to be disruptive and looks like a sock. His first edit appeared in an AfD and his second edit looks suspicious. I want to assume the good faith, but it don’t look kosher. Most newbees on the up-and-up don't show up first at AfD's (at least from what I have seen). Could you check this? Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, it is this user who is the suspected sock. I need some rest! JungleCat talk/contrib 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the matter. I really was not concerned if the article was deleted. But more than that, it seems worth watching those who participated (not that I am paranoid :-). JungleCat talk/contrib 01:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA

I'm glad I could win you a buck. Congrats on becomming an admin- you definitely deserve it! -- 168.122.222.185 02:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC) User:Kicking222 (on my girlfriend's computer)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 05:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yah. Congrats!!! :) alphaChimp ^laudare 05:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indefenate block

Hello teke, please could you place an indefinate block on the user Buttered Bread's account, it is apparent that he has died.

Thanks --Maxasus 16:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

ps: Please support my RFA!

• I saw him on Missing Wikipedians long ago. I don't need to indef block, especially if the user has died (edit) with no conclusive proof. As for your RfA, I refer you to WP:SNOW. I've never run across you as Joshuarooney that I know of, but I read up on your history and the RfA will fail. Good luck with constructive editing, and I'll see you around. Teke ^(talk) 19:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My signatures

Actually, the signatures are embedded in the box...take a look [1]. Some of the other editors in here helped me make it work out that way. It is a great deal cleaner than having the signature outside the welcome box. Thanks for your concern, and happy editing. Kukini 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No problemo! I appreciate vigilance on the site. Best, Kukini 21:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

t3h awesome

I just wanted to let you know: Image:Abbie majesty.jpg is an awesome image. (Captures the smug assurance and catliness underlaid with a wee bit of fear wonderfully). Upload more! --maru (talk) contribs 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Closure?

I'd say it needs to be closed, but still needs to be protected. There is a lot of disruption going on at the talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean just Pt. 1 right? There is a Part 2 and 3 still. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JPD's RfA

Thanks, Teke, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. (I don't drink wine anyway, so I can't disagree with you.) JPD (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Move requests

Hi. Just a friendly reminder that, when you close a move request, you should also remove the {{move}} tag from the talk page - and optionally record the results in the talk page as well. The move tag puts the page into a category which has a tendency to become extremely cluttered with old move requests. Thanks!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks kindly, Teke. It's kind of addictive ;-) Fracture^Talk   05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Abbie

Is she anything like Ceiling Cat? O_O --§hanel 20:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rory096

I just noticed that you put a 15 minute block on Rory096. I just left a note on WP:AN/I about his recent contributions. However, after noting his response to me on his talk page and your short block, there appears to be some joke that I'm not aware of. Can you please explain it? -- Gogo Dodo 04:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Reading WP:AN/I and the talk pages of everybody involved, I think I have pieced together what happened. It was just a strange sequence of events when seen from my point of view (without IRC): Here is somebody doing bot-like edits with a big bot-like stop button on his user page, then makes some admited and signed vandalism edits intersparsed with bot-like edits. You come along and block him for a short time after other admins have blocked him for short times over the year with unusual block comments. Since I don't have the context and past history, it looks like the admins are playing jokes (hence my "very disappointing") comment on WP:AN/I. I hope you didn't take that comment as an insult or anything. -- Gogo Dodo 05:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Block of Rory

I'm presuming this is part of the continuing IRC joke. Can you please not make joke blocks? All they do is distract people on ANI who think something is going on when it isn't and/or create autoblocks that need to be dealt with. This second one is particularly a concern in this case since Rory has in the past edited from a dynamic or shared IP. JoshuaZ 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pek squared

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable Pete Gilbert

Hi Teke. In what way does Pete Gilbert not fit CSD A7? I ask as a novice in the page deletion stakes, so I'd genuinely like to know your opinion. He seems to be totally non-notable, and I can't see that there is more there than the A7 criteria demand. SiGarb | Talk 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat!

File:Ireland 37 bg 061402.jpg

Hi there, Keegan!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you, Teke, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Keaze-picture problem

You see, that glupi OrphanBot tagged my image (The pendant.png)! I hope you can do something about that cause I went through a lot of trouble to make that picture. Thanks. (Oh, and its licensing is "Single comic book panel", pic is taken from here) Keaze 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! What's New? September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly! Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Userpage

Please full-protect my userpage now that I am leaving Wikipedia. Sugarpine 03:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect my usertalk page, so people who want to say goodbye can still edit? Sugarpinet/c 03:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather just leave it as is without semi-protection; trolling and/or vandalism shouldn't be an issue for your page. Best of luck to you. Teke ^(talk) 03:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I'll still be on simple English Wikipedia. Might come back here someday. Sugarpinet/c 03:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you add a simple english link to my userpage? Sugarpinet/c 03:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you want there? Teke ^(talk) 03:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a simple link. simple:User:Sugarpine. User:Sugarpine (logged out)

You know, there is no such user on simple. Mak (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw that after I got the link to work; I figured the page would be there amongst all the other usernames that are floating around related to ForestH2/Sugarpine. I'm gonna leave the link for posterity's sake in case the user does make a page. The situation with the user is a big mess for a small deal. Teke ^(talk) 17:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My Name Is judy

The reason I made the edit in the featured article was because at the very top of the page it said My Name is Judy, You can even check.

Thanks,

DK08

20:38 September, 28, 2006

Move request

I'm writing to ask you to reconsider the decision not to move Jallianwala Bagh Massacre to Amritsar massacre. Process is important, and it was moved to its current location without any discussion. Since the move was disputed, it should have been moved back to its original location (Amritsar massacre) and then consensus should have been sought for a move. Although I posted this point a number of times in the discussion, for some reason I was ignored (none of the administrators in the discussion even tried to respond to it). Everyone got too caught up in the cultural clash to pay attention to the lack of process which was my main reason for requesting the move in the first place. It's true that there's no consensus for the article to be at Amritsar massacre, but there's also no consensus for it to be at Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. So shouldn't it be at its original location until process is followed? Kafziel ^Talk 12:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for contacting me. While the article cut-and-paste that occured was wrong (I'm fixing the article histories in a moment), the article wound up where it was and the discussion that took place there did nothing to solve the naming issue. I see what you mean in the survey taking place at the original page name; but there still would have been no consensus so by default the page would have been left at Amritsar. RMs allow for four to five days discussion before backlogging, but once it's down a couple days into the backlog it has to be cleared. Editors all need to work together now on the talk page to rationale out what name should be properly used, the RM didn't end up allowing for enough time. Plus it also puts pressure on editors to try to "win" the discussion as opposed to a nice talk. Remember that in closing the discussion, I said "for the moment" and I will be more than happy to review the move again. Teke ^(talk) 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and something incredibly odd happened in making the move, and the page and talk page aren't fixed yet. I'm working on finding the proper history. Teke ^(talk) 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There we go, histories are proper now. Teke ^(talk) 17:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. That's a good start. Kafziel ^Talk 17:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Phi Sigma Sigma

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that there has been a revert war going on in the Phi Sigma Sigma page by several anon users who are adamant in adding non-verifiable info to the article. They are not cooperating and have even personally attacked me. Is there anyway there can be page protection on this page? Where do I go about requesting a page protection. Thanks! --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 14:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)