User talk:Keepscases~enwiki/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

RFA question

Answered. Rudget. 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Question

You wikistalker you, actually bothering to read my user page... :-P. You wouldn't happen to go to UMBC yourself, would you? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A good call indeed. Your secret is safe with me. And the rest of the RfA, I guess... :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Larson

Thanks for supporting the non-deletion of the article. This all started when I wanted to see what wiki had to say about her, and I'd've been content to find the article that I ended up writing. Some of those other editors can be a bit stodgy and prescriptivist when they should remember wikipedia ought to be descriptivist, eh? If you ever need some back up on a valid point you're making somewhere, let me know. By the way, Larson's star meter on imdb is up 26,640% since I added her imdb link to her wikipedia page. How obviously non-notable she is. JesseRafe (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

your question

I've replied to your question in my RfA. Aleta ^Sing 02:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

	Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»» Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

clarification

Is this RfA question serious, a polite joke, a mean joke, a protest regarding how many questions there are or another reason? I just want clarification. Thanks and cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

my RFA

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KnightLago

I have answered the question you posed in my above RFA. If you have more questions or needed further explanation please let me know. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for supporting me. I'mOnBase 12:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA Question

I've answered the question you posed at my RfA. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's RfA

Keepscases...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA Questions

It doesn't really help the process at all to add joke questions to an RfA. It was more or less established here that those type of questions shouldn't be asked, and if asked they should be removed (See Bureaucrat comments here and here. If you have any questions, go to User talk:WjBscribe.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support and interesting question in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA

AHHHHHHHHHH ha ha ha ha. I just read that and found it HILARIOUS! Thanks for your comments. Carter | Talk to me 14:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I just recovered. I've been laughing hysterically from this support, and I had to look at what it was referencing. Exquisite, Keepscases. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for your pithy :) support of my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you spam

Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. Thanks also for the question you asked. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question=

Please do comment on my haiku. ffm 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvis Ojeda. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Beeblbrox (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA neutral

Good evening. I just wanted to remind you that my RfA ends later today. Could you take another look and see if I've either addressed your concerns or done something that swings you into oppose? Thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My RfA

I hope the other kids at school play with me...

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

 Frank  |  talk  14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA questions

Please make sure that questions you ask RfA candidates are necessary and related to their fitness to serve as administrators. It is unfair to treat candidates as a captive audience expected to answer any question it may amuse you to ask them. Many find the process stressful enough without also having to answer frivolous questions. I have removed your question about Chimpanzees from Excirial's RfA. WjBscribe 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you received this warning from WJBscribe, but you still added these inappropriate questions to RFAs: [1] [2] [3]. Please stop. And consider this your last warning. –xeno (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a block for 12 hours would stop disrupion...Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to block as these questions are sometimes helpful, do try to tone it down a little from those examples. –xeno (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sinebot probably won't harass you so much if you include a link to your userpage in the lead-in. –xeno (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Keepscases, I think you have a great sense of humor. Your questions are funny! RfA is very stressful. Your questions can help to reduce stress. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding questions to RfAs that are offensive, inappropriate and irrelevant, such as this. Prodego ^talk 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, I do not get all of that from the question. Mind you, its an odd question, but one thing its not is offensive. This is now a topic on WT:RFA. Synergy 19:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What Synergy said.  Frank  |  talk  19:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I found this one somewhat less offensive and somewhat more relevant than the last one. (Persons who are deceased should have their accounts blocked from editing, out of respect and to prevent abuse) –xeno (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And you continue. Seriously, please stop wasting candidate's time with pointless questions; this isn't a game. - auburnpilot talk 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You've done it again here:[4]. Please STOP. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please remember that the questions asked are completely optional. I have strong doubts that not answering one of these less serious questions will cause any 'oppose per' votes, and I can imagine that for the majority of administrators a light-hearted question is something that can make their RfA experience less stressful.  Asenine  14:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, what was the point of that? That adds absolutley NO VALUE to this project? Are you here to make this project better or are you here to cause drama? Based on your actions I am tended to believe you are just trying to cause drama. You have been nicley asked to refrain from asking such questions by several members of this community. You continue to ignore the requests by posting absurd questions. Please try to respect the other members of this community by addressing their concerns. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: it appears to consist of a computer-generated captcha text displayed during Wikipedia account creation, and therefore suggests you created this account with little care as a "throw away account". After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

• If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
• If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
• You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. SingWale (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My contributions will show that I've been editing for well over a year, and this is the only user name I use. Shouldn't that have been enough to alleviate your concerns? Regardless, I am impressed with your noticing this. CAPTCHA text happens to be exactly where I got my username from. But the fact that you are the very first person who has ever brought this up likely demonstrates that my username is not in violation of the policy. Keepscases (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem! The fact is though, that "captcha" usernames are almost always throw away accounts used for vandalism, but with you that is obviously not the case. SingWale (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think "Keepscases" is a cool username. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

A Thank You Card!

Dear Keepscases, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best. Please take care. G.A.S 05:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the article Religulous

You made this edit to this article on 10 October. It was discussed on the article's talkpage under a new subsection here Talk:Religulous#Caveats_on_reviewers. Two other editors unanimously agreed that this is inappropriate. Yet you added this info back in, with the exact same edit summary, without participating in the talk page discussion about this. Please contribute to the talk page discussion if you feel this should be included. Otherwise please respect the consensus already present on the article's talk page not to include this. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have now added this info back into the article a third time. I think this is inappropriate behavior, especially when taking into account the consensus on the talk page not to include this in the article. Please self-revert your change. Cirt (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Religulous, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your continued reverts on the article which are against consensus on the talk page. Please do not continue to revert against consensus, as it is considered vandalism. Terrillja (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mufka

Your question here will no doubt draw fire again, I just wanted to let you know that you have my full support in posing such questions, especially since such questions are optional, and I have massive doubts that not answering one will draw 'oppose per Keepscases' question votes', or at least only as a joke in the support section. Which would a candidate rather have, I wonder, a trick question, or a light hearted question designed to stop the massive 'THIS IS A HUGE DEAL' aura around RfA. Keep up the good work. — neuro^(talk) 23:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your question on Addshore's RfA - can I just say that I love your questions? They're always odd, but in a good way; and I really find they often draw interesting and revealing responses. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what mazca said. Oddball questions are the best defense against "robot" or "admin mill" candidates. Gotta give them something they can't have prepared for...something fun. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 07:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

RFA for Adolphus79

This was uncalled for. It's just this side of a personal attack. Please consider striking your remark to limit the damage to your own reputation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Updated: Now that you explained it I retract the uncalled for remark, but next time, be clearer so you don't sound like a personal attack. I still think it's irrelevant to the job but at least I can see your point of view on it. I also don't see Children use Wikipedia and look up to administrators; as being relevant - see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare‎

Your comment about atheism comes across to me as religious prejudice. I urge you to support or oppose the candidate for reasons more appropriate to Wikipedia, rather than the editor's profession of religious beliefs or lack thereof. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much...

		The Special Barnstar
		The ability to stand up for your convictions is a talent that is deserving of respect and commendation. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is too easy for people to misunderstand what others are trying to say. In concept, being able to write everything out should make communications easier. In reality, however, it appears this is the worst way to get messages across. In this medium, we are lacking a face, a voice and an organic give-and-take that comes in real life/real time conversation, it is too easy to misconstrue a message. Likewise, not everyone is a sterling communicator and ideas can easily get garbled or points left out, which can result in confusion or worse. (I have expertise on that front.) Since most messaging here is limited to one, two or three sentences (especially in the RfA forums), there is no real conversation as we know it in the offline world. And if you add the controversies that inevitably swirl around religion or politics, you might as well just open your gas tank and toss in a burning match – you’ll get the same effect, but faster and without having to run a spell check first! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your user page

This caused me to LOL, It took me far too long to figure out why my user name was red and not blue.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Errrr

What was this about? If you're posting nonsense just for the sake of posting nonsense, please don't do that. Friday (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Please don't post nonsense to RFAs. RFA is for evaluating candidates. If you can't resist using it for some other purpose, don't participate there. Friday (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Friday; humor can be had in the RfA process, but posting such obviously ridiculous questions on day 1 of an RfA is a bit much. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Every time you post a silly RfA question, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility warning

"You could see a therapist about it or something" is unacceptable. I urge you to redact, and in particular be aware that continuing rudeness is disruptive.
brenneman 01:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

happier if people would just relax

Me too. Just trying to point out how futile the current drama feels to me. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your participation on my RfA (which passed 70/7/3). With all the brouhaha about your RfA questions, I thought I'd let you know that the question you asked me was pertinent, showed that you read my user page better than I did, and was much appreciated! Thanks again. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Hiya Keeps. You said "really good answer" in the latest RFA; one answer in particular, or all of them? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My Apologies

Ooops, I struck my comment at Amalthea's RfA.... I didn't see the UB that you were refering to.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose rationales

I've seen you opposing at RfAs either because of some userboxes on the candidates' userpages or, more recently, their age. Can you not make the decision based on what they contributed, instead? -- Mentifisto 21:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, How is this "advertising... in a disrespectful manner?" Sorry but I completely disagree with you here. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Keepscases, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the support

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your !vote on Groovedog's RfA

If you have a moment, could you please clarify your reason for your support at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GrooveDog? RfA is not only a vote, and given that you are somewhat known for opposing many RfAs over what some editors view as trivial things (I'm not making any comment about that), it would be helpful if you could explain why you are supporting this one—otherwise I fear people might think you're just being intentionally contrary.

Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA flirtation question

In case your ears were burning, I asked a question at Ktr101's RFA talk page that is directed at you. tedder (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RfA - Alan16

I apologise unreservedly for suggesting you were anti-atheist. However, I would like you to know that I removed the userbox before I considered a RfA, and that I realise it is an inappropriate userbox. I have never acted with contempt, and if you knew about my background outside of Wikipedia, you'd realise that I could never be considered elitist. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your response, and I am sorry that you feel that my displaying of that userbox in the past outweighs all my merits and faults displayed whilst editing Wikipedia. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

August 2009

Please refrain from attacking other contributors, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alan16. Continued personal attacks may lead to being blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your incivility and soapboxing are under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Incivility_and_soapboxing_by_Keepscases.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Keepscases as I think that's more appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:ANI

Sorry about backing out like that, but I frankly started to empathize with how you must have felt during those discussions at RFA. Unfortunately I don't have the energy to defend myself against so many questions and accusations like you seem to. It didn't seem I was going to make any difference in any event. If this gets elevated past ANI, I'll probably get involved, but apparently this community has more tolerance for bigotry than offbeat RFA questions and I'm not in a position to change that. Bleeding Blue 04:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to numbered points

Just a technical heads up, numbered lists need to start with the pound sign (#) as the first character on the line, or the numbering breaks. A few of your comments have broken threading in the oppose and support columns. While the ordering isn't strictly necessary, it is nice for editors to be able to review the list at a glance. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes, RfA etc.

I think we're kind of talking past each other here and I'm getting edit conflicts all over the place, so I hope you don't mind me coming over here to leave a message. My concern is not whether or not you oppose - the specific example I gave was calling another editor "pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful". That is not simply opposing. I agree that userboxes can be offensive and should be dealt with, which is why I asked what you had done, short of simply opposing, to have these userboxes discussed in the community.

Let me put it this way, if you had said "Oppose. Concerns with editor's judgement and how they will interact with other editors" instead of "pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful", I wouldn't have a problem in the world. Can you understand why the difference between those two approaches matters? Being offended - no problem, opposing because you are offended - no problem, concerns about suitability because of userboxes - no problem, attacking and name calling - problem. Shell ^babelfish 06:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keepscases. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)