User talk:Keegan/April10-September10

April 2010
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keegan. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. Needz moar lulz, per WP:MOSLULZ.  fetch  comms  ☛ 17:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, would you mind opting in to X!'s edit counter?  fetch  comms  ☛ 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your RfA has been closed as not causing gas. Please try to ignore the suggestions and run again in a few decades. Thank you,  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In ths case
Since another party has engaged in the talk The other party is also a sock of the sock talking to himself.. , Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletions
There are some more of those in that user's contribution history. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done earlier, thanks NawlinWiki. Keegan (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dwayne  was here! talk 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Kudpung (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Inbox
It's full. Recognizance (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

delete this edit?
. It's really scary how some people treat Wikipedia. Tommy2010 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the future, it'd probably be wiser to email oversight or Keegan privately. Killiondude (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thanks to both of you.  Keegan (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Shadow-Fighter
Hi Keegan,

Earlier today you deleted (suppressed) a thread that my son, The Shadow-Fighter, had going on his talk page with Figureskatingfan, wherein he had divulged to her his full name and then went back and deleted it after he told me and I flipped out. I really appreciate your removing this information from his talk page's history so that it is no longer accessible in any way; however, I have a couple questions: (1) Where the heck did you come from and how did you know about this exchange and what its nature was? (2) Figureskatingfan was (is) actually a sweetie pie, apparently, and my son appreciated having her kind words on his talk page, and would like to have them back, if that's possible; I have a feeling maybe it's not, but I thought I'd ask; secondarily, why was the entire exchange removed instead of just the part where he said his name?

Thank you again for your oversight, and especially for protecting our younger users.

AdRock (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the response. Sure, it would be great if you emailed a copy of that thread to him. Thanks again. AdRock (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Keegan, it's the sweetie here. ;) Anyway, I wanted to chime in and thank you for protecting the young folks that come here. As a parent myself, I really appreciate the work you and the other oversighters do in that regard.  I also wanted to assure you that I meant nothing untoward.  I certainly wasn't looking for personal information from Shadow-fighter, so good on ya mate for deleting it.  Shadow-fighter just needs some guidance, and he has good parents who are looking out for him to make sure he gets it.  I've volunteered to assist.  Thanks again. --Christine (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, Christine. It's what we're all here for.  Keegan (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note
You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion, which is referred to in VPR. – xeno talk  14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam vs. Mathsci
Captain Occam appears to be including you in the R/I WP:CPUSH hullabaloo by quoting your emails:. If you're interested or willing to deal with the issues directly, active participation is welcome. A.Prock (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, replied. Keegan (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop making comments like this on wikipedia. If you had checked what Captain Occam - an WP:SPA engaged in WP:CPUSH - had been doing, you would not have made these misguided comments about a user in good standing with almost 8,000 content edits all of which I believe are regarded as fairly high quality and carefully sourced. Please explain yourself unless you want an ArbCom case for misuse of IRC channels. Did it ever occur to you that Captain Occam was misrepresenting me? What on earth have you been up to on these chatlines? Is it standard policy with you to sully the names of good faith contributors off-wiki with your mates and then repeat these frivolous conversations on-wiki? Please provide some kind of explanation and apology, because if you and other adminstrators (or whoever) are making it a habit to have frivolous discussions of this nature about good faith contributors of long standing off-wiki, suggesting blocks or otherwise, I will bring this straight to ArbCom. It is an abuse of the chatlines and even your comment on Captain Occam's talk page is completely out of line. What on earth were you thinking of? You should really have known better. As an administrator you should by now be able to distinguish between different kinds of editor and be a little more careful with what you write on wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mathsci. The content in question comes from email exchanged to the functionaries email list, of which all of the ArbCom subscribes, and not IRC.  Additionally, as I noted, my words are being taken totally out of context and do not accurately portray the meaning of my email, which ArbCom can verify based on the context of the exchange since they've all seen it.  I was not taking sides, I was denying Captain Occam's request, not supporting his position.  You are more than welcome to contact ArbCom for verification of this.  I apologize that you are offended by the improper use of my words.  Keegan (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What were you suggesting that I have done that required a block - "personally I would have blocked Mathsci and I don't approve of the behavior" - and why did you repeat it on wikipedia? Please explain yourself a little more carefully because you have caused a lot of offence. What behaviour? It was what you wrote on-wiki which was misjudged. Is it your habit to write this kind of thing? Please give a better explanation or I will have to take this further. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CO was requesting oversight of your accusations that the user was a holocaust denier. I don't think that's appropriate, but I was denying the request for suppression.  I still don't think those kind of comments are constructive or appropriate, and as I said on a personal level I think it's blockable but I'm certainly not going to block because it's not within the blocking policy and I have a better head than that.  The context of the email that is missing is the comment I made that I was not speaking about you, I made it clear that I was using your username as an example for what CO was seeking clarification for in keeping cool when editing gets hot.  Again, I am sorry that my words are being used against you, and I did not offer consent to publish the contents of the correspondence as a weapon to be used against you.  The quotation is completely outside the scope of the point.  I never intended to slander or cast a pall upon your name.  I hope that helps, and feel free to contact the AC for the text of the correspondence; everything exchanged was forwarded to/sent through the proper channels.  Keegan (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh that's what it was :) It's not what I wrote: I mentioned an off-wiki blog he'd linked to with an article by him about revisionism (a book reviewed in the Daily Telegraph on post-war atrocities against Germans). I didn't mention the particular article on the blog. Anyway this is long past. Captain Occam was also worried about being WP:OUTED but has added his real life name in at least one place on wikipedia. That should probably be oversighted at some stage. Thanks for clarifying things so promptly and clearing the air. I thought I might have used a semicolon instead of a colon in an article somewhere and was going to be banned in perpetuity from wikipedia :) Anyway, thanks again. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it’s important to mention that when I quoted this message, I was not intending it as a weapon against Mathsci. I was intending it as personal encouragement for Varoon Arya, who has quit the project as a result of similar personal attacks from Mathsci, and has felt that the admins were tacitly supporting this sort of behavior from him by not taking any action about it.  I wanted to let him know that this isn’t actually the case: that the admins’ lack of action is because they feel that this type of situation can’t be helped, not because they actually approve of it.  I was not expecting Mathsci to read all of my comments on other users’ talk pages, particularly users who are no longer active, and to have this much of a reaction over them.


 * In my original comment, I also offered to remove the quote from it if you disapproved of my showing it to Varoon Arya. (Who, as I said, is the only person for whom this comment was intended.)  Would you like me to remove it?  I’m still offering to do that if you think my including this quote was inappropriate, but now that Mathsci has re-posted it elsewhere I’m not sure if my doing that would accomplish anything. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Work it out amongst yourselves, folks. I was simply offering advice on Wikipedia.  Please don't use my talk page or my words, anyone, for a battleground.  I don't have any vested interest in this dispute, much less any inkling of taking a "side".  Keegan (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Keegan, I’ve just replied to your comment to me on Varoon Arya’s userpage. Since your comment there was a few days old, I thought I should let you know about this just in case you might not have noticed it otherwise. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► Counsellor of State ─╢ 18:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee
I saw your concern regarding my username at AN. My email is disabled so I'll post here. Keegscee spelled backward is EECS geek. EECS stands for electrical engineering and computer science. I hope this clears up any confusion. 108.102.143.94 (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you.  Keegan (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Hunting
Whatever, Zombie Hunting is awesome. It's totally a valid occupation.

Actually, I'm only dropping you a line to let you know that there was some errant code in your edit that I just took out. Just an FYI. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why on earth did it do that? I've had some major issues with Chrome and Wikipedia since the vector rollout and I switched back to monobook in my preferences.  It loads blank pages, doesn't complete text, sometimes it loads small font, sometimes /div breaks and the globe because the code text.  Sigh.  Thanks, EVula.  Keegan (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I know I've seen that error (random raw URL inserted into the edit) before, but can't remember the context. *shrug* EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to enable Special:Zombie Hunters. Keegan (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Abso-friggin-lutely. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Kraegen
I saw this article and thought of you :-)  Chzz  ►  04:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help founder proposal
A request for comment has begun on the subject of IRC/wikipedia-en-help founder proposal.

This notification was sent to all users listed in the IRC channel as an operator or above, and group contacts.  Chzz  ► 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PELs
Re. the group of ESL students that I mentioned, from some forum thing called "Pels"; their names are;

(Contact) (Site Admin)      (Site/Tech Admin)

See User talk:Chzz/Archive 23

Thus far, I've just 'welcomed' them and spoken to Mr. Validation a bit about ideas, etc.

If you can help at all, that'd be great; I'm hoping that they'll read the welcome and make a bit of a test page and suchlike at first, then I've suggested some basic editing of existing stuff.  Chzz  ► 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FEED - I need help to sort this out
Re. WP:FEED

I think you've probably seen my comments on the talk page, about how we need to restructure the feedback system so that we have one page for each day, we transclude the most recent days on the main page, set up navigation, move the current requests across, add a box at the top showing the 'oldest outstanding requests', etc etc.

This really is desperately needed; the volume of requests now makes for a VERY long page, and archiving is not the best method at all; it can confuse new users, when their feedback 'disappears', etc. With a page-per-day, the links to their feedback would always remain - so we could alert them with a link on their talk page, and it won't matter if they check in 1 day, 1 week, 1 month or 1 year - their feedback will still be there.

I've had a 'demo' of it set up, and got a bit of help with the templates to auto-transclude the most recent days, etc - please look at User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback - please look also at a 'demo' day, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, and the nav page, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navigation.

The demo isn't quite perfect, but to be honest, if we wait until it is, nothing will happen. We need to boldly implement it.

To do that, first of all, we need to clear things.

I'm asking people to help by moving any and all feedback into the archive, and tell the users with a note, something like this one.

The move-over to the new method will be much easier if we clear things down.

I'll also need help actually implementing the thing; please have a look at the proposed redesign, and if you can help out get it live, that would be great. Sorry this is a bit of a long message; I think it's important to sort this out, ASAP - and I need help with it.

If you can enlist any people who can get the thing actually working...please do.

Thanks,  Chzz  ► 03:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Update - This has now happened; there is no need to archive anything, any more. Now there are separate pages for each day, we no longer need to move old requests into a separate archive.


 * The main WP:FEED page will automatically just show the past few days.


 * If you can, please check over everything, because I'm sure there are lots of mistakes that need sorting out. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 12:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday !!
-- Gök han   ' '' 05:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday Keegs! -- &oelig; &trade; 10:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Morris Pert article
Well spotted! I suspect in fact it wasn't copied from The Scotsman, but that both were taken from some kind of "official" biography supplied by the composer or his agent. Part of the text in question speaks of him in the present tense, suggesting that it wasn't specifically written as an obituary. A copyright violation from somewhere, nonetheless. --Deskford (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Deskford. Further information from the correspondent is that the bio was written about twenty years ago and disseminated, as you suggest.  Either way not appropriate content, feel free to rewrite/expand based on the PR version.  Keegan (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding PlaySu***
Following the email I sent earlier this week, I'd like to be informed of any development. The people at Facebook are looking into this matter, and they're taking it quite seriously. I've also notified the publisher of my antivirus. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you refresh my memory? Keegan (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am hoping not to display the full name of the site in public, so here's the altered text of the email I sent:


 * "This is to inform you that www.playsu***.com, a website that advertizes extensively on Facebook, installs adware on its clients' computers which makes hyperlinks to their own website appear in Wikipedia articles, project pages, and even log pages, on the screens of infected computers whenever these computers visit Wikipedia."


 * "For example, I have used the word "casino" in this diff. When my computer was infected, the word appeared as a link to the PlaySu*** Casino in my user contributions list, on the article's prod template, and on this user's talk page, in every case with a pop-up ad that was activated by hovering the mouse over the link. Only by uninstalling the PlaySu*** application from my computer was I able to get rid of these links. A few other words generated hyperlinks to other parts of the PlaySu*** website."


 * "As this would give to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia the impression that Wikipedia is getting an advertizing revenue from PlaySu***, I strongly urge the Foundation to take legal action against the developpers of that website."


 * The email I got in response stated that you're the one who replied to this. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, I remember this. Bear in mind that I am not speaking on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation or its technical support staff. Malware is nearly impossible to stop from a technical standpoint aside from removing it from your computer by anti-virus software of a local system restore. As far as I know, we have no technical means to prohibit this misuse. As far as legal recourse goes, that too is nearly impossible by the viral nature of the internet. If the proper legal documents are submitted to our counsel, by third parties, perhaps he could go from there. I don't see much chance of that happening with any degree of success. It is unfortunate that the popularity of Wikipedia is now making us a target for authors of malicious programs, and one that we will have to deal with with increasing concern and dilligence over the coming years. You should consider emailing wikitech-l AT lists DOT wikimedia DOT org explaining these issues and see if our crack team there can come up with some practical solutions or advice. Keegan (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Although at my end I've taken care of removing the adware (which was rather easy to spot and remove), I still feel something else should be done. Hopefully, having antivirus software recognize it as adware will do the trick. Thanks. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pirates Owners
You may be right, it's just that when the entity itself (in this case, the Pirates) says that they were owned by a particular person, that carries a lot of weight. More than baseballguru.com, IMO. I think bringing this to WP:Baseball, would be helpful as I would like to see some other opinions on this issue. Does that sound good to you? Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User Talk: Jettparmer Page Requested Redactions
Received your e-mail and have redacted references to IP user identity on my talk page, including User talk: 96.237.170.36 's orignal self identification. Note my response via e-mail. Your deletion was the entire string of discussions, please do not delete relevant material to discussion of subject page. Thanks. Jettparmer (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your cooperation, Jettparmer. Keegan (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your involvement. Jettparmer (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture on your User Page
Cool picture on your User page. That thing has Ginormous eyes. :) Rockfang (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rockfang! Tarsier fun facts:
 * Their eyes are the size of their brain, but are immobile. To compensate, they can more their head 180 degrees in each direction.
 * Their feet are as limber if not more so than the human hand, with the opposable first digit being more flexible than humans'.
 * They can fit in the palm of your hand.
 * They are 98.9% genetically related to humans.
 * Keegan (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Flower Tucci
Why remove her real name from the site? A fake name is just that - a fake name. Protecting someone's privacy does not mean concealing their true identity. Its stuff like her home address, social security number and the like (all information on her that is already available!). I am sure that there are a lot of people that have articles about them that would like to use a fake name and not their real name.Republic of Texas (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While we strive to be an encyclopedia containing all of mankind's knowledge, we also maintain a modicum of respect when it comes to issues dealing with living people. Our reputation is bettered by such respect, and reputation leads to the use and growth of the resource.  The article is about the porn star, and she is cloaked in a stage name.  The article is not about the person behind it.  Keegan (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see the difference ("The article is about the porn star...The article is not about the person behind it." As an example, in EVERY article about WWF professional wrestling and the like, while the 'character' name is mentioned, so is that person's real name.  When an article is done about a fictional TV / movie person, such as Superman or Batman, mention is always made about the real name of the person who plays that person.  One would assume that this is done for completeness.  So is it a BLP violation to mention the real names of the WWF professional wrestling when they only go by their character name on TV?  What about those Mexican wrestlers who only wear masks to hide their identities?  Is that a BLP violation?  Of course not.  So why should it be any different than a porn star?  Or is it just because the article is about something sexy?  I do not understand why somepeople with fake names are treated differently then others who use fake names.  As an aside, why can't the article be about BOTH - the porn star and the person behind the name?Republic of Texas (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of respect in conjunction with policy. Keegan (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Saying it is a matter of respect seems very vague and ambiguous. How do you define it? How do you know it is desired?  How is hiding their real name respectful?  Maybe The Big Show and Pee-wee Herman don't want people to know their real names.  Yet that information is out there.  But to me it would be 'respectful' to remove that information from their articles.  I could concede the point if such a person actually & verifiably contacted Wikipedia and ask to have their name removed and could justify it somehow.  But, as far as I know, that has never been the case thus far.  To me, accuracy and completeness are all that matters.  If we delete information from articles out of "respect" for the subject, then what do you think will happen?


 * Realistically, in this day & age, once you get into the business of putting naked pictures & videos of yourself out on the internet, there is no way you can 'hide' your true identity. Someone, somewhere, knows who you are and will make that information available. Republic of Texas (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * She has contacted us. Unfortunately you cannot see the ticket but it is credible with justification for removing the name due to privacy concerns that relate to Wikipedia.  You make salient points, and I agree with them to a great extent.  This is just a different case from the others.  Pee-wee is SAG registered as Paul Reubens.  Again, thanks for you interest in accuracy.  Keegan (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and something else to consider. You said, "Someone, somewhere, knows who you are and will make that information available."  This is true.  The way our licensing system works is that you are the publisher of every edit you make.  This means that you are not protected by the Wikimedia Foundation for what you make public.  Should one want to make private information public (even by public record, the human element is more important to me) that is up to you.  This is the royal you, not Republic of Texas.  So it's best for all if we have some respect for requests of BLPs as long as the encyclopedic content is not adversely effected. Keegan (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While I am not aware of how the Wiki licensing system works, in substance, I would have expected no less. I think knowing that I am a 'publisher' would make my dad proud.  He was always bugging me to go into the family business (he owns a large chain of newspapers in the U.S.).  One thing that I learned sitting at the kitchen table for family dinner growing up is that Truth is an absolute defense to any allegation of libel or slander.  It is the very essence of newspapers to publish information that is private and kept hidden.  So when I post something about a living person (such as their name), my response is - and always will be - "is what I wrote true?  If so, then please stfu."  Like this deal with the 'hubby & wifey' nonsense, and had I known back then that it was them who were engaging in the edit war I would have given them an ultimatum:  Either you two go away and quit trying to screw with Wikipedia's article about you or I WILL POST on every torrent site I can find a pdf document containing your full legal names, dates of birth, drivers license numbers, social security numbers, credit reports, and your current home address.


 * I always believe that if you have to hide or do stuff that you don't want others to find out about - then don't do it! How many articles do we have that contain embarassing or private information about a person?  Thousands upon thousands.  While I would agree that some stuff should not be published (like home address, SSN & DL# and the like), a person's name can NEVER be kept private. Under no cirsumstances as the Public has the right to know.


 * It just seems to me that some people want to treat this matter differently on account of it's about a porno star. Big hairy deal, I say.  If you don't want people to know that are you a porn star, DON'T MAKE PORNO MOVIES AND ESPECIALLY DON'T PUT THEM ON THE INTERNET!!!  Acting any other way about this further stigmatizes those acters & actresses and justifies society looking down on those people when, in fact, they are men and women only trying to make an honest buck.  Not my choice of career.  But then jumping out of airplanes, shooting people, and getting blown up - all far from home and eating bad chow, is not much of a career choice, either.  Maybe my porn name could be Colonel Angus, since I am a LTC in the US Army!


 * I would really like to see what justification there could be for the concealing of true names when that information is readily available and well-sourced. Please tell me what would justify this, and then we can pick the points apart and see where it all stands in the end. Thanks for this fun discussion!  Republic of Texas (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously not Keegan but I wandered by so thought I would say something. Mostly I would say that we have to remember that sometimes things are said elsewhere that just shouldn't be or don't need to be or maybe should be there but don't really need to be here. Just because it is referenced does 1. not mean it is tru and 2. not mean it is necessary on the
 * If the content is likely to cause harm or the subject has legitimate reasons for nor wanting it there AND it doesn't really hurt the article then we should remove it as a matter of principle and respect. Now obviously sometimes there are things that need to be there to make the article complete that subjects don't want there and that argument is always important. That said however I am unsold that not including the real name of a porn star hurts the article much especially when they are known by the stage name (and that is how they got an article).  James  ( T   C )  09:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a thank you for the oversight action. In the future I'll know the keywords for a more appropriate subject-line ("Creation log oversight request" or similar), I was struggling for description there! Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You could have written "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch". No difference in the subject line :)  Keegan (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should be asking for help by quoting Vogon poetry at the volunteers? I guess that might induce some kind of action... ;P


 * That blows my assumptions about your oversight/otrs interface out the window. I was picturing a convoluted bugzilla-esque triage queue (using IMAP and color coding), with the more technical editors picking the database editing tasks, and delegating the P.R. replies to the more people-oriented problem-solvers. (all powered by steam and squirrels). sort of thing.
 * I guess it's perhaps more of an "everyone reads everything until they find a message they can help with" type system? -- Quiddity (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, okay, that's what your point was. You're not far off.
 * We have our many queues, and they do change colors as tickets age before they're answered. There are various levels of access as to who gets what queues to work on, and that is based on capability and that ties into the notion of PR people and problem solvers and photo/copyright people and languages etc.  So when a ticket pops up in oversight-en, only en.wp oversighters have access to the queue and can see it.  OTRS admins and volunteers cannot have access to it unless they are an oversighter.  So when a ticket pops up in that queue, the subject line doesn't matter so much because we have such a narrow focus for that queue.  Us OTRS admins are boring enough to organize queues, process requests, update and work with the software interface, and all the other maintenance of our customer service department.  You can always consider applying if you feel you have the time and skills.  Keegan (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The punishment for a job well done, is another job".[citation (or correct phrasing) proving hard to find] No, communicating clearly, clearly isn't my forte. I tend to write too concisely or too verbosely. Context is everything, and I often overestimate how much context my audience is sharing with me, my first posting here as case in point. I'll stick with whimsical mutterings at fellow-editors and other defenseless animals. Thanks for the description though, I enjoy a good mental-infographic :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversies
Thanks for cleaning up the "Controversies" section on the page for Congressman David Wu. I had concerns about that section as well. You may also want to take a look at a similar section on the page for Congressman John Adler. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Help channel guidelines
I had a chat w/ and, he drafted some guidelines ages ago. So, now, we have 3 bits;


 * User:PeterSymonds/Guidelines
 * User:Keegan/Help_channel
 * User:Chzz/helpdraft

We need to mungle those together, get something workable, get it in WP space, and then anyone and everyone can help develop it...I think? Agreed?

Maybe we just post on WT:IRC with those rough drafts, or...I don't know, so I wanted to ask you how you think we move forwards.

Best,  Chzz  ► 23:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep your "we're not" points, my guideline points, and synthesize them with Peter's prose work. If we can use those to break down the paragraph introduction, the rest will work fine with some minor formatting.  I know you're a fan of the highlighting and bolding but I'd prefer to keep most of that out in the text.  Keegan (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly happy to lose any and all highlighting, with just one request: That, at the very top, we have some big, clear box showing exactly how they can simply click and get help, without needing to read stuff. Somehow.


 * Apart from that...sure; so - how do we go forwards? Are you going to try and merge the bits, should I, or should we just whack it over to Wikipedia space and let everyone have a poke around?  Chzz  ► 01:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My vote is for Wikipedia space. Keegan (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS Personnel
Hey, can you please check the user,Taysin, out if he/she is a member of the OTRS team. I think this edit on the list of volunteers is a vandalism. Thank you in advance. Best regards. — CnkALTDS 13:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit is not vandalism. Thanks for asking!  Keegan (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

LOA
This is to confirm my voluntary suspension of Oversight. Keegan (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Keegan, for the work you have done on the Oversight team; we will miss you during your leave of absence. You've made a difference to the project, and to the people whose information had been inappropriately (or accidentally) revealed - several hundred, at last count. Best, Risker (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, now I'll never beat you. But thanks, use the manual with caution and please publicly release it.  Keegan (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to take this opportunity to say a huge thanks for your wonderful, indefatigable patience and care, helping me personally with oversight queries, above and beyond the call of duty. Your oversight permission will be missed, and I expect I will regularly forget and ask you regardless. But..."a change is as good as a rest", "onwards and upwards", and "out of oversight, out of mind"&mdash;although I may have made one of those up. Cheers, my friend, all the best to you; a new chapter.  Chzz  ► 09:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Helena Christensen
Just following up - your opinion of the article and its Talk, re the OTRS issue? --Lexein (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: BG WP
Hello, you've got a reply: bg:Уикипедия:Разговори. → Spiritia  18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Request assistance: Invasion of privacy (restraining order)
Please refer to Talk:Norbert_Basil_MacLean_III. I have made a formal letter of complaint to the Wikipedia Foundation via FedEx, faxed to +1-415-882-0495 and emailed to: 'info@wikimedia.org'. To date no response. The following section, Biographies_of_living_persons, refers me to the OTRS System. On that page I am referred to you. Any assistance you can provide to handle this issue would be greatly appreciated. My direct email is norb.maclean@yahoo.com.au (Norbert3 (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Your message has been passed up the chain. Keegan (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nashville area?
There is some talk of a Nashville area meetup. Would love to have your participation! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)