User talk:Kesh Archive Jun2007

Sixheads radio

Hi - keep a close eye on that AFD (if you are so minded) - in those kinds of debates, all sorts of interesting new editors tend to pop up. --Fredrick day 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'm willing to AGF on the two employees, but sock puppets happen. I'm more concerned about the conflict of interest presented. -- Kesh 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity

Why thank you for your nice note! Herostratus 17:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Mandrake of Oxford AfD

It's a transparent attempt to bias the AfD in his favor. If you feel it must be reported, WP:ANI is the correct place. Leaving it in is even more damaging to the integrity of the AfD than would be the case if the allegations had any basis, which they don't. IPSOS (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be the case, there appears to be bad faith on both sides which is biasing the AfD. I would prefer it be closed as No Consensus and reopened after the AN/I was completed. Once we have sorted out who's who, and what's going on, then we can have a proper discussion in AfD. -- Kesh 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APOLOGY

Hello Kesh. Thank you for your message RE: The Scary Guy and regarding the posting of neantbrice's initial email. I wish to apologise. I posted it. Not Scary. I never considered copyright etc and understand your point. My Apologies. Whatevernext 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We all do things like that from time to time. :) -- Kesh 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thank-you for simplifying stuff down for me for my question!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronkiakama (talk • contribs) 03:31, June 15, 2007

You're very welcome! -- Kesh 03:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also thank-you for the message, you're very nice. Not many people are like that. Consider yourself very unique and special.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronkiakama (talk • contribs) 03:39, June 15, 2007

Thank you for saying so. :) I think you'll find there are a number of helpful Wikipedians around, even if it doesn't always look that way. Oh, and don't forget to sign your comments by typing four ~ signs at the end! -- Kesh 03:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, and thanks again...I hate to say it but I'm not really that smart...and you really did help me out. heh...guess I should stop bugging you now. Kuesai 03:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you were smart enough to figure this much out. Give it time, read over some of the links in the welcome message, and you'll get the hang of it. Feel free to ask me a question here anytime you need help! -- Kesh 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixer Jaëxx‎

Nice job trying to explain things to the IPs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixer Jaëxx‎ but I feel bad that you're wasting your time there. It will be obvious to any closing admin that the IPs are simply zombie fans of the subject. If you look at his website forums, he is even personally campaigning for meatpuppets as though that will make a difference. Marking SPAs and unsigned is good but trying to explain Wikipedia policy is clearly a waste of time so do yourself a favor... WRK (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think it's ever a waste of time to point out policy in contentious discussions, even when it's a crowd of IPs. Some of them may look back and learn something in the process - which may lead to useful new editors down the road. (When it's a deletion debate over a non-notable musician with a fan base, that's kind of unlikely, but you never know.) Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm just glad T F (aka Tronikfunk became polite at the end, even if he just didn't get the reasons why policy exists. I'm not going to "fight the man" when I fully agree with the guidelines! -- Kesh 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I agree in general but poor Tronik was repeating himself to the same person over and over and kept getting the same response. My experience here over the last couple years is that a lot of people are here for a single purpose and Wikipedia - esp. adhering to its principles - is not that purpose. Peruse CAT:CSD for a while and you'll be amazed how many people are here for self-serving purposes only. WRK (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know... I think my deleted edits would be rather impressive for all the time I've spent speedying stuff - I've said many times that without the guidelines, we'd have 10 million articles here, about 90 percent of which would be spam, garage bands and content along the lines of "lol kenny iz gay". But, I still think that, especially in an AFD, it's important to lay out what policies and guidelines are important, even when it seems to be bouncing off a brick wall. It's just the right thing to do, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D&D wiki project consensus

A call to all members of the D&D wiki project. We are currently having a major dispute that needs to be settled by all members of the D&D wiki project. The dispute is as follows. 1. Should we put disambiguation tags on D&D articles preemptively or should we wait until there is an article conflict with some other Wikipedia article. Vote on preemptive or wait.

2. What should we label these tags? Example "child's play (module)", or "child's play (adventure)" and at this point we are taking all suggestions.

email me at email removed or post on the D&D wiki project talk page—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm2ortiz (talk • contribs) 15:44, June 12, 2007