User talk:Keilana/Archive7

Please delete the paragraph of Requestfill, this is posted by mistake, and it does not make sense to leave that whole paragraph there!!!

Please delete it ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.120.215 (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keilana. You have new messages at -Midorihana-'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks! Midorihana^~iidesune? 01:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Keilana. I've created User:Moonriddengirl/Admin with the thought that it may be easier to "watch" this conversation there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 2 votes in that RFAR not 3. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone fixed it already. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to tell you the same thing, no problem. ;) — Save_Us † 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Keilana. I read the discussion between you and User:Moonriddengirl. I have a great respect for both of you. I would also like to become an admin someday. Can you help me? I don't want any 'formal coaching'. I just want some useful tips. By the way, you know me as an editor. How do you rate my performance? Your comment will be very helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks, i was talking to AndonicO on MSN and he told me to withdraw the FAC but not to delete the FAC page. I don't know anything on cannons or where to look about them.  Sunderland06  19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Interstate 85 in North Carolina (talk | history | start review) • Rico Krieger (talk | history | start review) • Maisi (talk | history | start review) • Andhra Pradesh (talk | history | start review) • 2024 Men's T20 World Cup (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Alabama (band) • Ed Jew • Little Orphant Annie • Edson Chagas • Dynasty Warriors 4 • Precipitation • Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho • World Chess Championship 1972 • Green Lantern (film) • Cú Chulainn • Electric vehicle warning sounds • Vampire folklore by region • Henry VIII • British Library • Mikhail Gorbachev • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Thank you for your reply. Right now, I work on articles. I have created over 100 articles and made some contributions to another 100 articles. If I face any problem, I will contact you. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might wanna check WP:WBFAN for your name in the near future; the FAC is going quite well. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping ;) Bernie passed too, so one of my noms got listed there. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Editors are being outed and accused of sock puppetry. —Whig (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to personally thank you, Keilana, for your support in my recent RfB--and no, you do not need to samy more, you have said more than enough; more than I could expect :) . I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little dissapointed with your decision in deleting my page. I wasn't trying to use a wikipedia as a marketing tool, I just thought it would be easy to keep my fans updated using wikipedia. I believe I have enough notability based on the big named people that I am connected/working with but your right I'm sure 1,000's of pages like mine are created daily. I'm not asking for anything, I just wanted the respect in being able to clarify myself. By the way, I guess by association you guys deleted one of my producers wikipedia pages, but he is a producer for Omarion, Marques Houston, Mila J, Keri Hilson.. His name is "Cory Bold" and his sources are on the album booklet's when you purchase the album's he produced for. The problem is a lot of you guys are ignorant and don't know who is notable or who isn't. Taking guesses and assuming they aren't before doing some research is a bit ridiculous. You said wikipedia is going downhill, and yes we are part of the problem, but don't you think you guys get on power trips and do silly things too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.177.72 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In regard to your blocking of the forementioned address 67.52.216.5, I would like to inform you that it is a high school network IP and is full of vandalising kids. With that said, I would like to advise you to permanently block all editing from this IP.

Americanvlad (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, do you have any info on this User_talk:MBisanz#Adoption_request_Re:_Incomprehensible_article between when I explained the content here and now? Like, has it developed to a point where you want me to give it my blessing :)? I really should pull that tag off my user page, since I've decided to focus more on coaching and less on adoption (I really have no idea how to adopt someone). MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keilana, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

It is my pleasure to inform you that your request to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks template, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You are also encouraged to join the Committee's internal mailing list; please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it. If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations!

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, 20th and 21st centuries needs work. I think that's the only thing left to work on... just don't have the time. :( I'll try to get a bit more done over the weekend. · AndonicO ^Hail! 08:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is practically ready, with 20th/21st lagging behind slightly... we could probably take a shot at FAC tomorrow or so. · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wouldn't let me edit the page, because the url I removed was blacklisted. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are. · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll try to work on cannon a bit later today. · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining this close? Are you saying keep just because they are bundled? I did that to keep from flooding AfD with a number of related non-notable articles and thought centralized discussion would be a good thing. I ask because I don't see a single valid keep argument and huge COI among the !voters. What's the benefit in taking them immediately back to AfD? Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SwordSearcher. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - it's been on hold for three weeks now. Will ^(talk) 23:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the first discussion, your input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Removing topic ban on Blow of Light would be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in on the Ronald Reagan article. I am trying to get folk to take a bit of a breather before continuing. Take a look at the Discussion page and let me know if I am going about it in the right way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that might no be necessary. Maybe just saying that, 'hey, this cat has the right idear. Give that a try' will be all thats needed to get people to go get a tall beverage break and relax. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Reason: some editors can't edit the page for WP:COI reasons. They seem to want to expand the same restriction they're experiencing to other editors. Those who have no COI involvement should be able to edit the page. The remedy is to take those editors out who don't respect talk page discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keilana,

Please could you explain the rationale behind your closure of the above AFD? My feeling is that it should be relisted, because:

• Discussion was halted after an unusually short time by a non-admin
• The closing non-admin's rationale (that the article meets policies, including notablity) is at odds with the article as it stands (which has no secondary sources)
• The eventual admin closure provided no rationale

I think the first two are sufficient for a deletion review, but hopefully you can help me with the third issue. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Percy. There's not much I can do about the non-admin closure, considering that it halted debate I would now say it didn't get a fair run. If you don't want to send it to DRV or renominate it for AFD, I will, as it needs a fair judgment. In closing this, I was on the fence between calling it "no consensus" and calling it "keep". I went with the latter because it's more clear as to what happened to the article, though saying "no consensus - default to keep" would have been best. There wasn't an agreement, really, about what to do with the article. Both "sides" cited valid policy and had solid rationales, and I didn't see a consensus one way or the other. Does that help? I can go into further detail if you need to. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that makes sense. Thanks. Which do you think makes more sense - for me to list it for DRV, or for you to list it, or to renominate it? Frankly, I'd be happy for it to be reopened and then immediately closed as 'no consensus'; that seems a fair result, and requires no further action, but doesn't set the same precedents. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply to the very nice message you left on my talk page. I haven't been at my desk (and my static IP) for over a week. I have many admins as 'Wiki-friends'... and I am very happy to add you as an ally in our efforts to build "Wiki" into, hopefully, being a "pedia" some day. I am a very hard-nosed editor who, after 4 years, is impatient with the negatives of Wikipedia and my AGF is thin for editors whose contributions hamper what is being attempted here. I emphasise quality over quantity... content over cruft... but most of all community and consensus that are the only "user" descriptions that I think make Wikipedia a positive experience. Community = friends and I hope we can be friends in our future efforts here. Again... thank you for the very kinds words and have a nice day!

PS my nickname is Libs... a name that many wiki-friends have dubbed me with since I abandoned my user account for the "purity" of being an anon. I work in a Library... go figure :D Feel free to refer to me as Libs whenever we cross paths again. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of History of For Better or For Worse. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sorry Keilana, but I had to file this one, as I think it might set a worrying precedent. Black Kite 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently tried to add Brandon Vedas's last words to the article, with an edit summary stating thus, and you reverted it almost instantly as being "unconstructive". What makes you think so? As I just stated in the talk page, if anything, these words are more representative of his incredibly intoxicated state before losing consciousness, and thus I think they are an important addition to the article. 203.59.61.170 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your well-written support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. Your support was a great surprise, as I had expected any comments to die off by day five. I'll keep on doing what I'm doing, since, without even preparing for an RFA, I was apparently admin material. Thanks again, and I'll be sure to wield the mop of justice only in times of need... or if I'm bored. :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire when ready. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	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)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Keilana.

I'd like to inform you about an impostor on the Irish Wikipedia who's chosen your name. If you'd like to usurp this account please contact Kwekubo. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Keilana. I am just simply following the directions at the requests for page protection, unprotection requests and asking you if you could now lift the protection off of the Ronald Reagan article? The issue has been worked out on the talk page and we have come up with two new paragraphs that should now be inserted. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Happyme22 (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Even with me using Huggle, you're still beating me to some of the reverts! Nice job! Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably interested in another impersonator... BoL (Talk) 05:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I forgot to mention is I strongly suggest getting accounts on other Wikis that haven't registered yet to prevent impersonation, a list can be found here. Cheers, BoL (Talk) 04:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Under the guidelines you have set for an anime convention to be listed there is an exception IF the convention is the only one in its state (we are the only on in NH) and has a date set for the third consecutive year (we do, it is posted on our website and listed at animecons.com). Also, we can use the convention report at AnimeCons.com as a noteworthy article about our convention, as well as two other blogs. THese three things should have allowed us to post a wiki, and if there was something missing, we should have been notified and given a chance to update or fix whatever was missing. Automatically deleting our wiki just on the basis that Patrick D does not like us and has fought our wiki since day 1, and it has been deleted before is NOT fair to this convention. Our convention now meets your criteria and therefore should be given an opportunity to exist. We are not trying to circumvent rules, or ask for anything other than a fair determination on our status. THe staff work very hard to provide a great convention experience for attendees, and I take it personally when our validation seems to be in the hands of someone that holds a personal grudge against us for no reason. In our history for deletion Sean Orange stated that when we had our third year listed that he would support us, so I ask you to discuss this with him and please get back to me at lisa@anotheranimecon.com. Thank you for your time and I hope we can discuss this reasonably and fairly.

LIsaSUss —Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaSuss (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open your card >> >> >>

Happy easter you guys! Sorry if the picture looked crappy, but it's the best I could do on such short notice. Sincerely, BoL (Talk) 04:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Credits: This card was inspired by BoL, an administrator/bureaucrat and head designer of Codesnippets. Join the community today![reply]

I didn't vandalise any article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.143.174 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of IMPACT- Charlottesville. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Community service (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished your brilliant coaching page, I enjoyed it very much I thank you. Since you are my coach I await your review. Thanks again. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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) 07:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please can You confirm that ga:Speisialta:Contributions/Keilana-en is You, many thanks in advance, best regards, --birdy _{(:> )=|} 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done for ga.wikt, best regards, --birdy _{(:> )=|} 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your first FA. Well done Keilana. :) · AndonicO Hail! 12:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are so spammy... maybe a just a standard, non-template invitation would be better. I'll say the same, that's the first collab in which I haven't been the only one collaborating. :P Great fun, twas. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the word out is a good idea; feel free to do it yourself (I'm tied up at the moment...—not literally though, thank goodness ;) ). I'll never burn out... but the pile of books that I have to read somehow seems to grow exponentially, so I'll not be very active for a while. · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've got Waterloo for June 18, or the Somme which began July 1. Then there's the Fall of Constantinople on May 29, or anytime between December 16 and January 25 for the Battle of the Bulge. I think those are the most important times cannon were used that are covered by the article. · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June. I'm patient, but not that much. · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals always lose. ;) Where do you check those stats? We probably got that many views because of the immense activity on the page; I mean, over 750 edits in a month... More than a few people have that watchlisted, I'm willing to bet. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19K views in December, 29K in January, 34K both February and March. So the collab has increased the page views by about five thousand... December is always slow anyway. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, its not exactly my area, but I will try as much as possible.  Sunderland06  21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keilana/Archive7! Thank you for your participation in my RfA (87/3/3). I truly appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Even though you did not support me, your comments are nevertheless appreciated, and I will look to keep your concerns in mind in the future. Thanks for voicing your opinion! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of FOR EVER for Wheel warring. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Tiptoety ^talk 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Keilana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I've agreed to unblock you, but only if you'll agree to unblock my sockpuppet accounts and delete Jimbo's article. MBisanz talk 02:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Request handled by: MBisanz talk 02:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Keilana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

ZOMGWTFBBQ? Wheel warring? Sounds fun... :P Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nuh uhhhhh. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Best decline rationale ever :D Equazcion •✗/C • 03:19, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Keilana (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ooh, {{unblock}} spam...I seem to be in a state of quantum superposition...both blocked and unblocked at once. :P Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please provide a coherent reason for being unblocked. Continued unblock requests will result in your talk page being protected until your block expires, which should take a while. Mangojuice^talk 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hey, you cant be editing! I have blocked you! Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*is impervious to blocks* Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.....damn.....now what *think, think, think* Tiptoety ^talk 03:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your userpage (as April Fools is over), feel free to remove all these templates from your talk page as you wish. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done so. Happy April Fool's! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your decision to delete worthless cabals but I feel you should not have deleted User:Basketball110/Mr. Potato Head Cabal. It had a purpose that was helping the encyclopedia through the random article contest, fun facts challenge, and the league, all intended to improve wikipedia. The other cabals were worthless and I believe that all worthless cabals should be deleted. Thank you.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the cabals I listed. For example: Why is this kept?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I plan to DRV all of those cabal deletions you did. -- Ned Scott 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You even deleted User:Diligent Terrier/Nerd Cabal, which one user noted in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Cabals was actually working on articles. I understand and respect your opinion that these are timesink, but the community makes this call, not you, not a thread on AN/I. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like other users have started a RfC, so I'll just see how that goes. No hard feelings about this, either, I just disagree about this particular situation. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What ANI discussion? I don't see an ANI discussion. Not to mention you grossly misinterpreted WP:IAR. Consensus is always a mitigating factor in deletion, discussion or otherwise.--WaltCip (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keilana, I see that you are no longer "indefinitely blocked". Hope you're doing well! --Kyoko 16:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just noticed you deleted my 42^nd cabal that was a sub page of my user page. I understand that there has been discussion in the past on whether cabals add to wikipedia and also if it matters if it is on a user page. I only request to see the discussion on its deletion which I did not see, and in the future to be notified that it has been put up for deletion on either my talk page or via e-mail, both are accessible on wikipedia, and I check my talk page and e-mail everyday(often multiple times). I ask that your response as to when the discussion for deletion was, where it is archived, and how long it was, is put on my talk page so the record it on wikipedia and not just in my inbox. Thank You for your time--Pewwer42  Talk  20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN#Cabals, part 2. There's an RFC in the making. Just notifying you in case you don't check AN, as I'd like to have the entire community (or at least a lot of opinions) in this. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, don't worry, nobody's actions are up for review here. I just used a user comment as a basic template and mutilated it into a form that served the needs of the discussion. So no worries. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore this, to my userspace if need be. I want to view it, it is linked from this discussion. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're mean too, now. LOL. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll try to help tomorrow. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the criteria, it's too short. I'll find us some new sources to expand it tomorrow. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just judging by eye... maybe try a word count though (I believe a tool is linked on Template talk:DYK). I've got to go, I'll make sure to help out tomorrow; good luck in the meantime. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a while ago, some of my idiot friends screwed around with my userpage, and now i can't edit my userpage anymore, I see that you have disallowed me from doing so and I'm wondering if i can get the privilege back of editting my own page

Thanks, yeahbutnobut92

Hello, I noticed you recently put a strike against the A Moment's Worth page that I have been editing. I still have many things to add in terms of accomplishment to warrant their being on this site. Can you please give the band the benefit of the doubt, it's only fair that their listing is complete before it is deemed unworthy. I'd appreciate it greatly. In terms of keeping the internet up to date - I have received numerous messages from publicists requesting a clean interface to access biographical information for press purposes. I'm sure you know how bombarding the rest of the net can be! Take care! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfishinny (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That was a good faith edit. I accidentaly reverted the wrong page. If you look at my contribs, you should see alot of reverting from mainly March 30-31. Only 1 of them was a mistake. Well, you don't have to give it to me if you don't want to. Please ask me for more info. Thanks.--RyRy5 talk 02:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to do better if you let me try again. If I sound too enthusiastic, I'm not. I just would like to try again. I will try to watch my reverts alot better. I hope I'm not getting you annoyed, or even angry. Thanks, and I would appreciate it if you allow me rollback again.--RyRy5 talk 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]