User talk:Kephera975

Welcome!

Hello, Kephera975, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jkelly 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages and autobiographical articles[edit]

You may not be aware of this, but Wikipedia articles cannot have slashes in the titles, due to technical restrictions. See Wikipedia:Subpages. You'll need to put your new article somewhere else. -999 16:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Stella Matutina[edit]

There was already an AfD discussion for this article in the past, and it was showing up when you made your AfD for it. I properly moved your nomintation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Stella Matutina (2nd nomination). Easy enough mistake to make, don't worry about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kephera975 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs[edit]

You can't vote twice. Your nomination is a delete vote. Please refrain from ballot stuffing. IPSOS (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I understand. I was unaware of this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kephera975 20:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put your money where your mouth is[edit]

You said that you would also nominate Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega for deletion as well. Well, go right ahead. It is not protected from editing, only from page moves. You can nominate it any time. IPSOS (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucian order of the A + the O--I find the AfDs hard work to create so won't myself, but I don't think that page would pass an AfD. The org claims to be 'the golden dawn, but 100s of orgs claim that and none has direct succession.Merkinsmum 21:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put my money where my mouth is? User:IPSOS is not being very nice.. ;-). Ok, I'll be right over to Rosicrucian Order of A+O. :) Kephera975 21:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly we have different opinions of what "nice" means. I mean, abandoning a polite discussion on Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, first to baseless accusations and second to a series of WP:POINT motivated deletion nominations seems even less "nice" to me. IPSOS (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply following the Wikipedia guidlines you yourself were emphasizing. Kephera975 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

It is considered extremely bad form to argue with everyone who disagrees with your opinion in an AfD. You are supposed to state your position, clearly, once when you nominate the article, and then let others discuss the merits of your nomination. You are not supposed to continue to argue your case on the AfD page. On the AfD talk page, maybe, but not on the AfD itself. IPSOS (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your antics[edit]

at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. are amusing. But they are doing your position more harm than good. By all means, carry on. (Chuckle). GlassFET 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

You should add an email address to allow users to discuss things with you off-site! Coldmachine^Talk 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. How do I do this? Kephera975 04:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to my preferences at the top right there's an option to enter an email there. Coldmachine^Talk 07:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've confirmed it now. Kephera975 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

those AfDs[edit]

Hi I had lost track of the Herm Inc afd and only just read the result. Just to say that they all were originally listed for AfD on the main Afd page, that's how I came across them. I think you did well and got rid of some non-noteable pages. Thanks I perversely enjoyed them!:)Merkinsmum 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Merksinsmum. There was something perversely delightful about that, wasn't there? :) Kephera975 04:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

An article you nominated for deletion has been closed, and the deletion decision taken by an administrator has now been passed to deletion review. I am passing on this note as a courtesy to inform you. Coldmachine^Talk 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your courtesy. Kephera975 17:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image size[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images. Image size is generally supposed to be left default for reasons explained there. IPSOS (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. I'm just experimenting and I had wondered if there was some kind of guideline. Kephera975 03:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked, because evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 has shown that this account is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:Frater FiatLux used to circumvent Wikipedia policies. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Akhilleus (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2007 (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).

Kephera975 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet of User:Frater FiatLux. Please examine my IP and compare it to their IP or whatever other information you need. I have no idea who that person was. I thought that his editing was uncivil. I did not agree with his behavior. My own behavior, I feel, has been as civil as possible. In cases where incivility was brought to my attention, I either corrected the issue or apologized. However, I believed that these articles should be unbiased and I did back him up when I thought that things were going towards a bias on behalf of one party who seemed to gang up on him. I do not agree with his behavior, however. I stopped editing with Wikipedia because it appeared that things were peaceful and that there was consensus and then I noticed that things, from my view, were getting skewed in one direction or the other so I got interested again. I have nothing to hide. I will give you any information necessary to clear my name from this falsity. Perhaps my fault is in fighting for what appeared to be the underdog, but I always felt that Wikipedia should represent the different POVs fairly, in this case, regarding the contemporary golden dawn orders. I am not the same person, though, and I have never communicated with him. I apologize if anything I did was considered disruptive by policy, but I am not sure what that could be since I felt I read the policy as best as I could. Having looked over the case made against me it all looks like purely circumstantial evidence. I may have agreed with this editor at certain points, but that does not make me the same person. I had been watching the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article for some time, and noticed that there was a lively discussion and that drew my attention to the talk pages, and that is all. As far as some diffs, here User:IPSOS, obviously upset that I am checking if himself and others with a similiar POV had a connection themselves tells me how to set up a case correctly: [2], then later claims in the case against him that I retaliated as well as in the case against me. ( see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JMax555 ) This is false and appears to be an intentional lie. In reality, User:IPSOS retaliated as can be verified by the time stamp on his case against me. As can be verified, I had created a case first. This was not in retaliation, as I feel that is immature and disruptive. It was to check if any of those who had, in my opinion, very similiar POVs could be the same people or related to User:999 who created alot of these articles. Kephera975 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with the reasoning at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. — Sandstein 12:49, 25 August 2007 (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.