User talk:Keppa

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, ! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan. 15:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. (The other kind of welcome.) :D Ryan 16:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Article listed for deletion
Hi Keppa,

I noticed from the Inclusionist category page that you're an inclusionist, too, so I was wondering if you would be able to do me a huge favor and possibly place a vote here: Articles for deletion/Embarazada. I added a ton to it, citing my sources. If you could, I would be greatly in your debt.

Best wishes,

Primetime 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, my friend!--Primetime 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome! I find it odd, though, that one was nominated by ConDem. Another was nominated by user:Jmanning--a user name created on April 6.--Primetime 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Steps on deleting an article.
Finally, if the prod is removed (even if a vandal removes it, do not readd the prod, as this is not allowed),
 * 1) Basically, if it is random nonsense or clearly vanity, put up the corresponding template, such as db-bio or Nonsense.
 * 2) If it is a bit more complicated, add a undefined template to it.
 * 3. put the page up for deletion by adding a afd template to it. Then, follow the AFD procedure. Mostly, you'll only get to step 1, as thats what most articles are. Cheers, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me! :D  _-M      o      P-_   01:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedies are generally not added to the Deletion pages as they can become very numerous; I think they just make links that administrators can find, or add themselves automatically.  _-M      o      P-_   01:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems MoP has it covered! You might want to check out Guide to deletion and Criteria for speedy deletion. Any more questions, feel free to ask me! Con  D  e  m Talk 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy please
Don't you think you are being a little too fast in deleting an article while it is in the process of being written? We are talking two minutes from creation by me to threat of deletion by you! And then Deletion! I saved the page, and when I saved it a second time, lost text because of your speedy threat to delete the article. And then Deletion. Like you, I am a volunteer. I do not appreciate having to write text twice. Please be more thoughtful and careful. Before threatening another editor's work, perhaps you will investigate other work by that editor to determine the credibility of your threat to delete. skywriter 03:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what article you're referring to but regardless, you're right, I should further look into an article before tagging it and I apologize for the extra work. Probably a misunderstanding; could you let me know which article you're talking about so I can maybe figure out what went wrong? Keppa 03:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are not sure what article I am referring to, that is a sure sign that you need to stop and rethink what you are doing. You can easily determine an editor's contributions by looking at the article history. That is a basic fact you should know before threatening to delete and then deleting within a period of one minute. Please review what you are doing so that you do not again cost a colleague valuable time. Perhaps you should review the directions and timing for this enterprise for which you just today received directions. I can not tell you how discouraging this is that you have done this, and I encourage you to stop and review what you have done and Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you and sincerely. skywriter 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't misunderstand; I did look through your contributions before writing the above comment, and could not find a single article that I had had anything to do with. Am I overlooking something? I would really like to know which article you're talking about so I can determine why I would have made this mistake. I have reviewed Wikipedia guidelines and I can't stop and review what I've done when you won't clue me in as to what exactly it is that I did. If there is a problem, I'd like your help in fixing it, as it isn't my intention to go around getting in peoples' ways. Keppa 04:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you figured out that you aborted the David Levering Lewis page while it was birthing. I rewrote it so it is no longer an issue. What I find perplexing is that you seem not to know that you can look over your own contribution history to answer these questions for yourself. skywriter 06:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being so informative, but actually, yes, I know all about contributions pages. I've edited the David Levering Lewis page exactly once, to correct some minor formatting, and that was after this conversation had started. My contributions page verifies this. I certainly have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you've got the wrong guy? Keppa 06:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You deleted the David Levering Lewis page within one minute of placing the notice on it threatening to delete it. This was less than one minute after I created the page and seconds before I tried to add new material to it. After coming to your page to ask you to stop being so hasty, I then re-created the page, rewrote the material and its links, continued to work on it, and you stepped in and put brackets around the word Pulitzer. That is the full extent of what you refer to as "minor formatting."

Why in the world would you have come to the second David Levering Lewis page if you did not delete the first? Absolutely no one else on Wikipedia was working on this except me.

Please stop taking up my time about this. And please be careful about the timing between when you place a threat to delete a page and its actual deletion. Pay attention to who is working on a page before you delete it. Take the time to look up whether the editor is productive, or merely a vandal. You apparently did none of these things when you deleted the David Levering Lewis page and began this cycle of demands that I respond to your requests for my guidance about what you did. I can see from your user page that you have just yesterday received shiny new instructions on how to delete pages and you are excited about using this new toy. May I point out you are over-using it, and I am your victim. Now you are doubly victimizing me-- by taking up my time-- and not acknowedging that in your haste and failure to pay attention to what you are doing, that you deleted a page that ought not to have been deleted. And then you claimed you did not know that you deleted this page. And then you keep demanding that I explain what you did. If you can not explain and account for what you do, please stop right now. I will now take this discussion to the person who sent you the directions for how to delete -- with the caveat that the instructions provide insufficient guidance to prevent over-enthusiastic deletions. skywriter 11:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * May I ask you to please stop accusing me of something I did not do? I did NOT delete your page. Excuse me for wasting your precious time but when someone makes an allegation like this I like to get to the bottom of it. I have had nothing to do with that page except the minor adjustment I mentioned. While searching your contributions I came across that page, noticed the subject had one too many apostrophes around it and that Pulitzer Prize was not linked, and corrected this. That is all. You've taken this way too far as I am completely innocent of what you accuse me of, and there is proof if you check my contributions. Please stop with these allegations as they are insulting and untrue. Keppa 17:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not know your name if you had not tagged the original page for deletion. skywriter 18:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I tagged it, I didn't delete it. There's a big difference. You've already received an apology for any work you may have lost, but I did not delete the page. I don't know what else you want from me. I don't mean to be rude, but please stop, you're now wasting my time. Keppa 18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you several messages ago to stop demanding answers from me. I don't handle deletions and have no knowledge of how to check who deleted what. Therefore I do not know who deleted it but I do know I lost work. I feel you are keeping this alive by contacting me. If you are going to tag pages for deletion, then it seems it should be your duty to find out how and who deleted pages. That's why I suggested you go to your mentor, the person who told you just yesterday how to do deletions. skywriter 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Keppa! Don't worry too much about this. There is nothing wrong with tagging a page for deletion if it is in line with deletion criteria. As skywriter says, people need to be careful, but there is no way you could have speedily deleted a page yourself, because you are not an administrator. An admin, by the way, would also have to agree that the page fitted the criteria for speedy deletion before deleting it. So, obivously they might have been a little too hasty as well. Either way, if it was in the least controversial, it would have had to go through the AfD process, and a consensus would have had to be found. Skywriter, if you're reading this, please try not to bite the newbies! Any more questions, ask me! Con  D  e  m Talk 18:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing disambiguation links to Solo
(Copied from the talk page, want to make sure you see it so you don't have to do too much extra word) Don't unlink them! Sorry for the exclamation, but I don't want you to do too much work going back and making the links. The appropriate link is to the article solo (music). If you take a look, it does discuss a solo career/album briefly. However, you do bring to attention that the disambiguation entry does not do a good job of describing that, which I will correct. -- Nataly a 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Schlacks
Hi there. I noticed you put some speedy deletes in on Schlacks' nonsense pages. He made some other edits, and judging from the edits I do understand I don't trust htem. Could you have a look? I think they're in Tagalog. Sorry if I'm directing you to profanity... -- Steven Fisher 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for investigating. -- Steven Fisher 00:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy reversion
Saw your question about reverting speedies. They can be reverted because they say they shouldn't be removed, and there's a tag you can use on the user talk pages of people who remove them. It's probably best to only do that on obvious nonsense, though. --Jamoche 23:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Keppa 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * if you look at my contributions, you would have to retract your claim. perhaps you mistake me for someone else. unfounded accusation -- no evidence cited. --Ghetteaux 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your edits to ninja, which I (and I'm not alone in this - hence your edits are constantly reverted) mistook for vandalism. A page like "ninja" gets lots of vandalism, and so I jumped to conclusions, and I apologize. Maybe you could add some additional information so that your contributions are more clear. Keppa 01:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Voice Male
An article you started, Voice Male, is being considered for deletion again. It would probably go a long way toward keeping that article if you know of a few good references that could be added. -- Bigwyrm 07:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Octappella
A tag has been placed on Octappella requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ridernyc (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Day of Celebration for deletion
The article Day of Celebration is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Day of Celebration until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)