User talk:Keilana: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:56, 6 January 2008 editDureo (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,168 edits →Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Keilana: erm !vote ;P← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:25, 6 January 2008 edit undoGiggy (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers30,896 edits →Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Odyssey Number Five: lol ChipNext edit →
Line 177:		Line 177:
	*Sorry Keilana, but I disagree completely with this RfA: you had a name change, nothing more. You should not have to re-run because of a name change. This RfA is unnecessary, seriously. I won't oppose it, but seriously, it's not necessary. ] 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)		*Sorry Keilana, but I disagree completely with this RfA: you had a name change, nothing more. You should not have to re-run because of a name change. This RfA is unnecessary, seriously. I won't oppose it, but seriously, it's not necessary. ] 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	**I'm concerned the RfA will bring too much attention and end up invasive, which is sort o' the antithesis to RTV. I'm a changed man for 2008, because I care. Haha. ] ] 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)		**I'm concerned the RfA will bring too much attention and end up invasive, which is sort o' the antithesis to RTV. I'm a changed man for 2008, because I care. Haha. ] ] 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
			*** :O ] ] 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 04:25, 6 January 2008

I have been known under a previous name, but changed names under the Right to Vanish. Please do not mention that name on my talk page, I would like to keep it private. Welcome to my talk page! If you are requesting my recall, please look at this first.

I will respond to messages here.
If you have a grievance with me, please remain civil and be kind, and I will respond in kind.
Please post new messages at the bottom.
Thank you!

Archives

Archive 1

Thanks!

Hello Keilana. Thanks for the reply. I am still a little confused! I will study about this and probably add a secret string. This topic is quite interesting. Anyway, thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! I will be very happy if you help me with this. If I add secret string, can anyone break it? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will certainly not add "My middle name is Foo" or similar string. I will add far more complex. Let's say, my secret string has 50 letters and numbers. Can anyone break it? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. This is something that I never thought about. If I face any problem about this, I will contact you. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of International Worship in English

First, you wrote at User talk:Keeper76:

No problem, I'll undelete it and take it to AFD for a procedural nom if you want. Happy 2008! Keilanatalk(recall) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And then, fifteen minutes later, at User talk:Davidabram:

Mr. Abram, I must concur with Keeper. S/He said it perfectly, so I don't need to. The article was deleted because it did not assert the subject's notability in the article. If it is a notable subject, the article may be recreated, but you need to show why it should be included in Misplaced Pages, and reference it with reliable sources. I hope that I am a help to you, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you need help or have any questions. Cheers! Keilanatalk(recall) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources were there and unquestionably alive and reliable. I'll assert the notability by tying IWE to the minitsterial efforts of Templeton Prize winner Kyung-Chik Han and Bill Majors, Honorary Citizen of Seoul--but you have to carry out the undelete as you indicated to Keeper76. I'm in the process of writing an article for Young Nak Church, the direct effort of Kyung-Chik Han, and ultimately, International Worship in English might be merged with Young Nak Church, with a redirect from International Worship in English--but you should carry through with the undelete to allow me a chance to prove the notability of International Worship in English and give International Worship in English its fair day in the AfD sun. Davidabram (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

You say that I'm unwilling to accept compromise, which isn't true; I turned down the mediation because the narrow scope was unreasonable. --NE2 04:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not an easy thing to define, which is why the bigger picture is necessary. --NE2 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Volume I, No. 3 - January 2008

December issue | February issue

Project News

There are now 3,301 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. With 1,789 current featured articles, that brings the total of good and featured articles to 5,090!

The most recently promoted articles are: Hurricane Daniel (2006), Tarbosaurus, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Wicca, Seth MacFarlane, Stanley Internment Camp, Hurricane Karen (2007), Interstate 155 (Illinois), Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007), Brian Sings and Swings, Winston Churchill, Mzoli's, John Kefalas, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!

The oldest unreviewed articles are: Attachment disorder, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium under the Angeloi, Wowowee, Tyrone Wheatley, Mina (singer), Jon Burge, Mercury Hayes, William Lowndes Yancey, and Toni Preckwinkle.

The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).

The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 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!

Reviewer of the Month

Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Misplaced Pages since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!

Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:

Member News

There are now 166 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of December:

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!

GAReview Template

Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.

To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.

GA Sweeps

After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.

At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.

Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.

Did You Know,...

... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that there is a bot (StatisticianBot) that gives a daily report on GAN?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?

From the Editors

Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.

OhanaUnited

Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Misplaced Pages again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!

Dr. Cash

Contributors to this Issue

Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor)
OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps correspondent)

Improving Misplaced Pages one article at a time since 2005!

WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages.
Nominations: Pete Astudillo (talk \| history \| start review) • 2022 Fife Council election (talk \| history \| start review) • New England Revolution in international competition (talk \| history \| start review) • Swim School (talk \| history \| start review) • Chennai Super Kings (talk \| history \| start review) Reassessment: Boron • Khandoba • Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England • 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

From a newbie

Hi Keilana, I 'think' I recognize you. I was really sad when I checked (what I believe to be) your previous username and found you had vanished. The only way I spotted you was that I see you still enjoy playing mediator :-) (If you fear that this might identify you, delete this last sentence). Now that you're part of the all-powerful cabal, you can start pulling your weight - but I, for one, admire you more as a mediator than an administrator. I was going to complain that I couldn't find your RFA, but I see that you passed under your last name. Gimme a quick reply if you can spare the time - and keep up the good work. Eliyohub (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Dear Keilana,

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, post a message on the discussion page or join our IRC channel #vandalproof.

Snowolf 15:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooops already posted earlier ;-) Thought I forgot ;-) Snowolf 23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain our removal

Keilana, I am having a hard time understanding our companies removal from Misplaced Pages. We solely want to define our business in this resource for it is a reliable resource for not only the members of our company, but the hundreds of people we service daily. Please help me understand your motive. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidscreenings (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A Barca do Sol

After looking a little more closely, you were certainly write to remove the db tag. I was a little hasty it seems. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Boot

Thanks for the response! I am still a little confused though because I cited several Hampton Roads newspapers. Are they not considered independent, reliable sources? I think there are a few more that I could add if that would make the article more substantial. I just want this article to be used as a reference for the Hampton Roads community so that they can see what new types of things are happening in our area and then be able to explore the local food movement, along with supporting the local artists and bands that are featured at the boot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan.fro (talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

previous version revert 1 revert 2 revert 3 revert 4. (I'm not signing in because I"m at the library). 64.178.96.168 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendtion

Swatjester's refusal to engage in a mediation is perplexing since I believe he is an adminstrator and has thumbed his nose at yet another avenue for resolving edit conflicts. What would be the next step I can pursue to bring some type of finality to the issue? Thanks for volunteering to offer your expertise.--Ccson (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin Coaching?

Hi Keilana! Thank you for your kind offer to be my admin coach, but at this point in time I have already contacted another editor and I am waiting for his/her reply. If that does not work out, I'll be sure to let you know. Thanks again, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your close of True Blue

Hi... I'm not sure I totally follow your close on this one. In reading through the AfD it seems that just about everyone agreed that the musician currently written about at True Blue (producer) fails WP:MUSIC pretty handily. (whether evaluated as a musician, a re-mixer, a DJ, a sampler, or whatever), except for Mr. Blue himself. It seems to me that the article itself should have been deleted outright and the mention of it removed from the dab page. Did you intend for the article to remain in existance at the end of your close? Thanks! (you can answer here, I'll watch) ++Lar: t/c 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(refactored from my talk per my policy) I'm not quite sure what happened there. Should I change the AfD outcome? Keilana_(recall) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the outcome as stated is ok, but the implementation isn't quite what the outcome says... If I understand how things were before the AfD started, way long ago we had a normal dab page at True Blue, then hiphop98 copy/paste moved his True Blue article on top of it, and moved the redirect to some other name... making a right mess of things as per usual when copy/paste moves are involved. Is that history right? After the AfD you put the redirect back to the primary True Blue page (satisfying the "revert back to dab" part), but didn't actually delete True Blue (producer) (not satisfying the many voices pointing out the article fails WP:N badly ). What I THINK should happen is that True Blue (producer) also goes away completely (deleted) and the dab page doesn't mention it at all any more (since it's a deleted page, why mention it?). That seems the "right" thing to me and in line with what I think consensus was saying in the AfD. Perhaps we need a DRV to be doubly sure, but if you're comfortable with that, I'd say go for it. Or if you want to do a DRV as a double check anyway (you can open a DRV on yourself if you want to, it's not a faux pas or anything) I'll be happy to chime in. I don't think this is an issue of fault, the DRV would just be to double check, mind you... there was quite the mess with these pages made before the AfD started. What do you think? (you can answer here, I'll watch, but if you answer on my talk, I'll continue there instead of here... ) ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bwk news channel

I notice that the Brunswick News Channel page was delete. Please let me know what I need to do to have the page un-delete. Thanks, bwk news channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwk news channel (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Question

Hi. I have a question about vandalism, but I'm not sure how to proceed. I have an issue with the user UpDown. This disagreement is minor, but they seem to have a history of disregarding the input of others and the accepted conventions of Misplaced Pages in favor of his own ideas. I have no desire to get into an edit war with them or report them, but they seem unreceptive to resolving the matter by debate or vote. It strikes me that users like this are corrosive to the ideas at the heart of Misplaced Pages. What should I do? Thanks in advance. --Dr Fell (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Coaching

No other offers yet. You probably know a lot more about this than I do. I would be more than willing to accept the offer if you're sure you want to make it. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but I made a small change to a link in your post. Dreadstar † 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks for fixing that. Keilana_(recall) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly as I know it sounds, I don't know that I know enough to ask any specific questions at this point. I've always kind of ruled myself out of consideration, so I haven't actually learned enough about a lot of things to generally even be able to ask reasonable questions. I've seen the virtual classroom page, and I guess will review that before I give any ill-informed answers to you. Probably will be able to come back with something more intelligible on Monday or Tuesday. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, I was just wondering if you became an admin after changing your username or before? (I can't find any RfA under this name). I'm struggling to comprehend how folks can have a right to vanish and a right to retain the sysop bit... --kingboyk (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is allowed because it has been policy for some time in WP:ADMIN. 1 != 2 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad answer. X is so because X is so. I'm glad you don't contribute to the Reference Desk.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems a little needlessly hostile... GlassCobra 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I would like to recommend that you do not re-run for adminship as you offered. It will prove little and most likely result in pointed(unreasonable) opposition. Even very good admins with their reputation laid out before them can fail RfA for nonsense reasons.

I came back as an admin under a new name after nasty harassment and several nosy parkers started asking me who I was and demanding that I re-ran for admin. I did not accept these demands as these are not reasonable requests as it is long standing policy that it is allowed for admins to come back under a new name for privacy reasons. If people wish to challenge this they can go to WP:ADMIN and propose the removal or change of the rule. 1 != 2 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy is the issue as far as I am concerned; it doesn't follow that because there is such a policy any objections to it are automatically unreasonable.

I kind of wish I hadn't mentioned it now (sorry about that), as it's certainly nothing personal against Keilana. I agree she has no obligation to restand under the current rules and would therefore also advise against it. --kingboyk (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keilana, I don't think anyone suggested you should undergo RfA again, and I believe it would be a waste of your time and the community's time to do so (you would easily pass). The thread here is more about people who abandoned their old account and got a new one, complete with admin privileges, which you did not do--thus your name should not have been mentioned; I think that bit on your user page about the "right to vanish" confused the OP--and myself as well. By contrast, I am far less comfortable with admins with completely inaccessible RfAs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all for your replies, I did interpret what some people were saying as a veiled request. Keilana_(recall) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Help

I need help regarding the reports i filed here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/UzEE and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/UzEE. I filed the reports there but i want to know that do i need notify Administrators through Administrators' noticeboard, so they can see my request? Sarmad (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RFPP

You do know that you can use {{RFPP|nea}} instead of just {{RFPP|d}} and manually write out the "not enough activity to warrant protection" etc text ;) Spebi 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

O rly? I'm going to search through your monobook now ;) Spebi 22:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of Twinkle ages ago (not popups, cannot live without popups) although there are some parts I've been meaning to re-install... it kept mucking around with my other tabs like the ~~admin vision tab~~, I mean, purge tab... *shifty eyes* Spebi 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Spebi 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes

I resigned adminship sometime last month. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! You actually caught me at a great time -- I have logged in again for the first time in over a month! MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 22:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm

Hey Keilana. Would you explain your rationale for this close for me please? Thanks. I (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Odyssey Number Five

You mind if we withdraw this? There's a stack to do, and I don't really want to be rushed into doing it...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means, go for it if you're willing - I personally wouldn't have the time/patience/etc. Btw. No NME reviews, a short EW review. No NYT and no Time. Not sure where else to look for US reviews...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Just saw the WT:RFA stuff. In all honesty, I think you should re-run - if nothing else, to shut up those who doubt your capabilities...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I was thinking the same thing. Even if it fails, I think it's best to restore the community's trust in one "anono-admin." I'll get back to you in a bit, let me mull it over. Keilana_(recall) 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Keilana.— Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Accepted, I'll answer the questions in a moment. Keilana_(recall) 03:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Keilana, but I disagree completely with this RfA: you had a name change, nothing more. You should not have to re-run because of a name change. This RfA is unnecessary, seriously. I won't oppose it, but seriously, it's not necessary. Acalamari 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm concerned the RfA will bring too much attention and end up invasive, which is sort o' the antithesis to RTV. I'm a changed man for 2008, because I care. Haha. the_undertow 03:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  - :O — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Keilana

Hello Keilana. I repect you a lot but I really really want you to reconsider your reconfirmation RfA you are about to go through. There's a number of issues here, firstly, it's pointless - I know your old username and am fully aware of the circumstances that you had to leave your old account. You are here in good standing and there's no reason to change that here. Secondally, we haven't got a full knowledge of contributions to guage how you deal with problems with this username - yeah, of course your admin logs talk for themselves, but we don't have much to go on with repsect to your pre admin actions. No user can be expected to fully evaluate your candidacy without knowing exactly your past movements, and for obvious reasons, this isn't possible in this case. All in all, you really don't need to do this, and it seems like a waste of resources given that you clearly left your old account in good standing and there's no reason to suggest that you shouldn't be an administrator - people could be doing more constructive things. Please reconsider and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan. It is pointless to stand for reconfirmation when you haven't done anything wrong. — DarkFalls 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asked by a community member in good standing to be reconfirmed, and I will honor that request. Keilana_(recall) 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But how do you honestly expect the community to fully evaluate you? You don't want your previous account name know (which I fully understnad) - but you're asking for a position of trust that contributors should have full access of information to. This really isn't going to work, especially when a lot of users will vouch for you. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all in my contribs. Keilana_(recall) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but not many people know your old account - if they did, there would be no need for the RfA. Please please don't identify yourself, but this RfA simply won't work when most users don't know the full story. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to can find out if they need to. Keilana_(recall) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in total agrement with Ryan...I hate to see you going through this. I highly recommend that you tighten up your recall criteria...for all our sakes...voting can be exhausting...;) Dreadstar † 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your RfA is unnecessary, and it bothers me that its existence makes the discovery of your previous identity inevitable. I hope that you don't view my comments as an attempt to out you, as has been suggested. They were intended to argue that the RfA is unnecessary and that you enjoyed extreme support in your successful RfA and have done nothing to warrant a different result since. 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I voted support in your first RFA and though there were some issues involved and a different name, you're the same person, and I also feel the reconfirmation RFA pointless... though I'd still support. Dureo (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)