User talk:Keegan/November09-March10

Ed Boks
This is just a notice to inform you I have restored this article which you deleted as an author request. Since several other editors including myself have edited it and tried to fix the POV and sourcing issues, it did not seem to me to be a valid candidate to be deleted for this reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Age
Thanks for the help, but what about the other two revisions I pointed out? Is there a reason you haven't blanked them, or is the history log simply not showing you've done so for whatever reason? -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, from my end it looks like I took care of what was needing done. The problem with my interface is that stuff shows up that wouldn't ordinarily ;) Please email me with other diffs if you find them. Keegan (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * E-mailed you. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, deleted the revisions, all done. Thanks!  Keegan (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can still access two of them. I'll e-mail them to you again in a second. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the lot of them. Thanks for all your help. And sorry to keep bugging you about it. I get protective of BioWare sometimes . -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Help
,Anonymous user 119.73.1.27 has put a sockpuppet tag on 1 November 2009 on my page First I have no sockpuppets, secondly shouldent this tag be put by an admin ,third can an anonymous user put this tag , fourth I checked the Spi page for Nov and couldent find my name on this , something seems amiss. What should I do ? Thanks in advance for your help Intothefire (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can place a tag if they have the knowledge of how to do so. As far as I can tell though, you're in the clear. I've removed the sock statement and warned the IP. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, I didn't even have to do anything. Thanks, Thejadefalcon.  Keegan (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Since I know you're online now, would you mind giving me an answer to my thread above? It seems as though it got buried somehow. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Intothefire (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/userfication
^ May have an impact on BLP userfication. Haven't read it yet, though&mdash;not sure what's in there. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiptoety
You missed a revision. Crafty (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's gone now. Killiondude (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You might like this
As you are so popular today I thought you might like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Keegan&diff=329429118&oldid=325797709 --Biker Biker (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap mapping party
Since you have expressed interest in coming to the DC meetup on January 9, and (I think, not sure??) are coming from out of town, I wanted to let you know that the OpenStreetMap group in DC is organizing a mapping party event the next day on January 10. We will be mapping the National Mall and East/West Potomac Park areas (e.g. Jefferson Memorial). I'm not sure if you already have booked arrangements to come to DC? If not or your schedule is flexible and are interested, then I hope you can join us on Sunday too. --Aude (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Super Dimension Fortress
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Super Dimension Fortress. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Super Dimension Fortress (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, bot. Hello, 2006.  I have no vested interest in the article.  Thanks for the notification.  Keegan (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the season!
  Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

May this season bring you joy and cheer Keegan! --<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)



Happy New Year


from RP459 RP459 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-building blocks
Regarding your comments here, I thought it helpful to point out that meta and meatball are not our policy. It's funny you should mention the Enwiki, because - and this is significant - the behavioral guideline of RtV doesn't trump the policy of CleanStart. which states:


 * If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit.
 * That is, you should not turn up on a page you edited, as User:A, to continue the same editing pattern, but this time as User:B—particularly while denying any connection to User:A, or if the edits or subject matter are contentious. You should also not, as User:B, engage in disputes you engaged in as User:A—whether about articles, project-space issues, or other editors—without making clear that you are the same person.
 * Discontinuing the old account means that it will not be used again. When an account is discontinued, it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the 'retired' tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet.

The user in question created a legitimate- according to policy that predate the end of the old account and remains in effect to date - alternate account. There was no "blatant abuse" of anything; no overlap of user edits, no !vote discrepancies and no drama whatsoever. Perhaps instead of assuming the worst, we could take particular note of the Civility pillar of our core beliefs, which enjoins us to assume good faith. This user's account has been forever damaged by this false accusation, as the block record cannot be altered, and any subsequent RfA will see this outing opened like a scab as reason enough to step on the neck of a person who - to everyone's assessment (at least, according to the user's last RfA) - is an excellent editor and a clear positive to the Project. Outing someone means a block for the outer. I also think that losing the mop for a time should serve as a reminder to MBisanz to stay the hell off autopilot while doing their wiki jobs. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  10:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do completely understand your viewpoint. Mine happens to be different, but that's the nature of duscussion so thanks for contacting me.


 * In my view, we have found a perfect storm of a block and policy. By policy, the user should be blocked.  By policy, the user should not be blocked.  It's catch-22 no matter the position.


 * Following that, I hope that my position is clear: it's a fundamental principle of trust. Should the user have carried on without making a mistake, we would have never known.  But it happened, and that's a problem.  Bisanz and I are obviously on the same page in administrating the website, other have a different view.


 * This difference is fine, and has been hashed out in several forums. Basket of Puppies is actually the least upset of all parties involved.  With that in mind, I think we should follow that matter as the primary opinion.  If it's a not a big deal to the user, we should be able to work out an amicable agreement.  I still don't agree with the misuse of RtV as it is written now, but I'm not opposed to the project taking a look at the policy and revising it as need be.


 * Long story short: This doesn't need an arbitration case against Matt or anyone involved, this doesn't need revocation of tools or admonishment. This is up to the project to decide its moral behavior based on stated goals.


 * I hope this makes sense. Keegan (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It does, Keegan. My take is that BoP, being an extremely charitable individual, is not calling for Matt's crucifixion. Matt destroyed any chance of BoP ever geting adminship, and cast this huge cloud over the fellow's past account - a cloud that doesn't belong there and that, according to our block log scrubbing practice, will never, ever go away.
 * It is this destruction of BoP's future choices and your notation of the quandry of policy issues, Keegan, which is precisely why Matt should have taken the matter up with others. He didn't; acting on autopilot. The wiki cannot allow its admins either arrogance or a failure to see the larger issue.
 * I know we disagree, but I firmly believe that this disaster has to come with a price, so that other admins are far more careful in the future. This sort of stupid nonsense happens all the time, and we have to start addressing it. If Matt is the object lesson in what not to do, then so be it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (talk page stalking) No, MBisanz didn't destroy Basket of Puppies' chance of getting adminship, Basket of Puppies did that to himself. He made the decision to lie during the first request for adminship. He made the decision to lie during the second request for adminship. He made the decision to return to editing after invoking his right to vanish without having his previous account pages restored or redirected or putting a note in his user page or elsewhere. It's simply not fair to try to blame MBisanz for Basket of Puppies' decisions here. (I also feel compelled to point out Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam.) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, and I find it disturbing in the extreme that you would advocate a behavioral guideline over actual policy. It's understandable that the user used RtV to leave; he was no more aware of the policy on point than either MBisanz or you were. However, as a longtime user and admin, it was up to you and Matt to be better aware of policy (and not guidelines) before ruining the fellow's account, block log and successful candidacy at RfA. The user submitted a private email to the ArbCom clerk using his previous email address used for the old account. MBisanz' block, calling it "deceptive sockpuppetry" effectively outed the editor and destroyed his future chances to successfully complete RfA. You reinforced that outing by re-instituting the block, and you didn't even check actual policy before doing so. You used a behavioral guideline to reinstitute the block and add yet another line to the user's block log, when "Legitimate Use" policy clearly allows the user to act as they did. No deception was involved. Your reasoning for the reblock fails to consider that disclosing the prior account at RfA would have released the user's real name to the community. Are you actually stating that outing is a requirement for RfA now?
 * BoP fulfilled the criteria under CleanStart, which neither recommends nor commands the editor to notify anyone of the prior account. the user left the prior account in good standing. I would posit that BoP was simply tired of the drama. The editor came back, started a new account and began editing under that account and - by all assessments - is an exemplary editor.
 * I will reiterate: BoP was under no requirement to disclose his prior account (which he could not do without revealing his public identity), either at RfA or at any other point. Maybe he could have advised ArbCom prior to submitting to RfA, but - and this cannot be stressed enough - there is no suggestion or requirement that he do so. I think this might be a good addition to RfA candidacy requirements in the future, but that means that ALL admins will have to submit to such, as well; no grandfathering in. If there are prior accounts, the admin has to submit to a new RfA - no exceptions. If we are going to burn one candidate retroactively, we burn them all.
 * I think that you and MBisanz - considering what would appear to be contradictory instructions - should have followed policy. You decimated the user's ability to be of use to the Wikipedia as an admin, and your continued defense and recalcitrance to admit that you made a bad call reinforces the need for at the very least a block; your behavior outed a user. At most, you and Matt should lose the mop for a period of time, and have to re-apply for adminship; outing users is deleterious to the project and admins are stewards of wiki policy. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly. BoP didn't follow WP:Don't lie, especially when asked about how long they've been editing. If I recall correctly, there have been instances where candidates in an RfA have stated they edited under a separate account in the past that ArbCom has been made aware of, and an arb member vouched that their previous account was in good standing, yadda yadda. Why couldn't BoP have done the same thing in their RfA? At the very least, their answer was deceptive. Killiondude (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I will point out that WP:LIE is an essay, and RtV is a behavioral guideline. BoP followed the standing Legitimate Use policy, and policy trumps guidelines and essays, period.
 * As previously mentioned, the candidate could not have disclosed the previous account to the community without revealing their public identity.
 * Regarding notifying ArbCom, I believe it has already been pointed out at least twice that this is neither suggested nor required of the editor. There have indeed been instances when some candidates have disclosed previous accounts; in no such cases did the revelation constitute a self-outing, where such a disclosure in this case would have done precisely that. Personal umbrage at the user's reticence to out themselves does not constitute "deceptive sockpuppetry", especially when the previous account as left in good standing and policy is followed. Should we require RfA requirements to change, stipulating such a notification? Maybe. Until it does, we judge the editor by the yardstick currently in place. The current policy states unequivocally that the user followed policy while simultaneously protecting their identity.
 * We do not penalize editors for protecting their identity. We do not brand editors in good standing (under any account) as "deceptive sockpuppeteers" without damn good cause. As has become clear, the admins who did the blocking skirted the edge of a guideline while simultaneously missing a point of policy. That there is a seeming contradiction should have given both of these experienced admins pause enough to seek guidance. They didn't do that. They just backed each others' play, and thoroughly screwed the user's block log. That is what would be used by any dick with an axe to grind in future RfA's, driving the discussion away from the actual qualifications of the candidate and towards a discussion which would force BoP to weigh their privacy against their desire to do good work as an admin. And make no mistake, this editor is exceptional, and would be an exemplary admin. Too bad it appears that such appears an impossibility now. If it cannot be fixed, the admins need to take responsibility for it and voluntarily de-sysop. If they won;t, we need to do it for them. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My head is still spinning from the fact you just said WP:DONTLIE is "only" an essay. Do we really need a policy that asks people to be truthful? The reality is that BoP could have kept their previous identity private (with arbcom's help) and still have been truthful. Killiondude (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Killiondude, I was not suggesting that lying is a Good Thing; I was simply pointing out that you were using an essay in an attempt to trump policy. As previously stated, there is nothing in the wiki recommending or requiring RfA candidates to note previous accounts, and being a user in good standing, BoP likely saw no reason to disclose the information - the innocent don't need alibis. The editor certainly had a right to protect their real identity from the community. Are you suggesting that the editor should have used some heretofore undisclosed omniscience to suss out an unwritten recommendation? While we are on the topic, how many admins do you think have had previous, undisclosed accounts? Should we de-sysop them as well, forcing them to reapply via RfA and disclosing these previous accounts? I think we both know how well that bit would go over. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've never used any socks. I think I set up a wifi account that I used once with a disclaimer.  No matter, I stated my opinion on the matter (and RtV is policy, not a guideline) and Arcayne has stated xyer opinion.  I think that's about the best we can do on my talk page.  Keegan (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I submit that RtV is explicitly listed (at its link source) as a "behavioral guideline", not a policy, like Cleanstart. I thought that needed to be stressed, as that is one of the main arguments that this discussion focuses upon. Thanks. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, apologies for my misreading. I'm pretty sure at some point it was policy, but I could very well be wrong.
 * The issue, Arcayne, is that we have one guideline discrediting another, "This is not a right to a "fresh start" under a new name."
 * Once in a blue moon, as of this case, it comes to light. It's really not that big of a deal in the sense of running the encyclopedia.  None of the involved parties have an issue walking away from this, and I would implore you and the Arbitration Committee to not continue this discussion of the users in question and appropriate punishment/admonishment.  This is a meta debate, and guidelines/policies should be discussed and altered appropriately to streamline things.  Just my opinion, we all should drop the stick and work on fixing the underlying issues, not what happened.  While I appreciate you saying that this has sunk BoP's future admin aspects, that's up for the community to decide regardless of this incident, we have two previous RfA's to go upon.  Walk away, Arcayne.  If BoP wants to talk about this (and we have), that's fine.  Your voice has been heard by me and obviously a couple others, and it's not taken for granted.  Keegan (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a footnote, one of the worst ways to respond to someone in a written environment (or real life, for that matter) is "You're wrong." It's like telling someone that's mad to calm down.  Keegan (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean, like suggesting that a user's behavior constituted a "blatant abuse"? I agree, its inflammatory, and largely unnecessary. My point was to discuss the matter with you (as I have hold some respect for your intellect and reasoning), and to point out while we can address the main problem, we cannot forego the collateral damage here. Now that I've said my piece, I'll speak no more of it here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to make a distinction between what's labelled policy and what's labelled a guideline is pure silliness. You're trying to say one "trumps" the other, which is simply juvenile. Even if we were to accept that, CLEANSTART, in bold, states "and so long as no active deception is involved." Lying at a requests for adminship when asked directly above previous accounts seems like pretty active deception to me. If BoP had simply not answered the question or said "I won't answer," he wouldn't have been actively deceptive. Instead, he gave an answer that was active deceptively about his past (his choice, not anyone else's).

If that isn't convincing enough, I think it would be reasonable to say Meta's Right to vanish is global policy, which trumps this project's behavioral guidelines. Though, as I said, playing this policy card game is rather stupid. It's about the principles and the spirit of the policies, not whether someone violated the exact letter (though in this case he did both).

Arcayne, respectfully, you seem far more concerned about BoP's inability to run for adminship in the future than you do about the violation of community trust here. I find that worrying. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You find that worrying, do you? About as worried as I feel about shared Wikistalker results via IRC? If the lad wasn't outed before, he certainly is now. You behavior in this matter has been far from beyond reproach, MZM. If you really want to head down this road, I know you will not fare well. And yes, I think that what you did in IRC was utterly wrong, and you deserve to lose the mop and be banned. Period. You don't get to take the moral high ground here, Mcbride. You've lost any semblance of credibility with me, and frankly, I find your behavior morally bankrupt and represensible. Do me the small kindness of never addressing me again.
 * As Keegan asked me not to discuss the matter on their page any longer, I am respecting their wishes. Maybe you missed that in your desire to have the last word. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You've gone round the bend, Arcayne. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, sir - did I stutter? Outside of an ArbCom discussion, you have nothing to say to me. Now, shove off. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Shhh to both. Keegan (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What I told you about over dinner
Good articles on Twitter. There it is at last. @harej 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Keegan (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)
Thank you Keegan for removing the offensive information. If you still require evidence of identity/knowledge, let me know. Also, could you remove the sources in the reference section? Those references to Stavans and Ozick are part of the problem, as they refer directly to biased info about the controversy. I think it would be much better if the Man of Ashes section didn't exist as part of the biography page, but just part of the bibliography. The Stavans articles are still offensive and are directly connected to the biography of the BLP.Hoolio9690 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've undone your edit and explained why on the talk page. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied, thanks for the heads up. Keegan (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And what's going on now? I haven't seen any progress Hoolio9690 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Hoolio9690
 * We need to wait a couple more days to see if there is any further discussion needed, then we can approach how to include and source material. Keegan (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A 'couple more days' have passed and I see no discussion. I think it would be fair to say that we can act. Hoolio9690 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being impatient, but is something going to happen? Hoolio9690 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion should really take place at the article's talk page, not here, but one thing we are waiting for is a response from OTRS. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you think I got here? I am your OTRS response. :) OTRS does not dictate practice however, so as a simple volunteer my opinion is to fork the article and nuke the bio. Keegan (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have replied at the article's talk page.  Mr Stephen (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Keegan for your continued support in this matter. I'm not sure how I can personally contribute at this stage. If you require any more information from me, let me know via email. I just hope this situation can be dealt with appropriately, as there still seems to be opposition to deletion/renamingHoolio9690 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel quite helpless and redundant. For the last 2 months I've been bashing my head against a wall with this situation. Is there any hope?Hoolio9690 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is hope, but it is rooted in compromise, which we seem to be sussing out. As the axiom goes, "a good compromise is when no one is happy".  Keegan (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If we leave it up to compromise, those that don't understand the situation fully will never agree to delete the page. Considering the information in the email I sent you, why can't we find some means to deal with this quickly?Hoolio9690 (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Before I respond to NeilN, I think you should reread the email I sent you. Can you send me your email via my email? This is far more SERIOUS than you think and the rough compromise just won't do because it doesn't solve any of the problems stated in the email I sent you. Considering the information I could provide to you and my connection to JMR, why can't something be done here?Hoolio9690 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please email me. Look, the only thing that is keeping that page alive is the fact that no one wants to go to AfD and people keep claiming that he is notable. Would it be beneficial for the author to claim that he isn't notable and doesn't want this page, as all it does is make him look bad? Because through me, that's already been expressed. And by the way, wikipedia is ruining my life.Hoolio9690 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how Wikipedia is "ruining your life" over a sourced non-libelous article that isn't even about you. Although Keegan is an admin, even he(?) has to follow community guidelines and policies.  Claims of notability have been made (and sources provided) so that means the article can't be speedily deleted - an admin's hands are tied on this issue. It's best to work in small steps; first, by reducing the controversy section. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a he, and NeilN is correct in the summary of the situation. I don't own Wikipedia, I can't mandate a solution.  Keegan (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cut back the Man of Ashes section. Please let us know what you think. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's ok. The discussion forum looks like a mess though.Hoolio9690 (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked the edit by Dori. The latest version uses the offensive references. Why not have this be a reference for its public acclaim?:

[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoolio9690 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you Keegan. I am very happy with the current version. It seems the situation is now formally closed. It would be nice to archive the discussion page, though. Thank you for your ongoing support!Hoolio9690 (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The thanks goes to NeilN, Dori, and Mr. Stephen for collaborating. Good work, everyone :)  Keegan (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * archive discussion?Hoolio9690 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to have settled down, so I have done that. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Written by  General  Cheese  00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Richie Moran
Hello. Just wondering why in the prose, you changed Mr Moran's time in Japan in the prose from two years to one season, but in the infobox, set his dates to 1988–1990, which appears to indicate two? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, good call, I'll fix that. He emailed us about the errors.  Keegan (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Lonnie Perrin
I changed it because it was wrong. According to Pro Football Reference Lonnie's actual first name is William. I changed it without bringing it up because the person who changed it had a username "lonnieperrin" which i found suspicious and decided not to trust. Jwalte04 (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ice-Cream Headache
Still have that Ice Cream Headache from Independent operability lol!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.46.237 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Living persons task force
|NuclearWarfare suggested I write to you about possible research on WP:BLP.

Here are some ideas:
 * Comparing sourced and unsourced BLPs, to see if either is more problematic (for reasons other than lack of sourcing), or if they hae different types of problems.
 * Looking to see whether certain types of BLP or editors correlate with certain types of problems (random examples -- articles of people in certain fields, articles with x amount of edits, articles with x amount of change in a given period)

This is partly inspired by the blog On Wikipedia.

The people behind that blog pulled some randome WP biographies and queried their subjects about their reaction to the articles.

It's possible that those bloggers, or academics researching WP, might be enlisted to help. Maurreen (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I don't know how much I'll be able to do, but I did start the stats section with a little info from the blog.
 * I do have a little training in stats. But time is a factor.
 * I'm glad you guys are looking at the big picture. The task force seems deliberative and moderate, which is good. Maurreen (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision history of Talk:John Prescott
You may want to have a go at the above too... raseaC talk to me 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, got sidetracked, thanks! Keegan (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Account
A little concerned over this. As the Living People task force facilitator and OTRS volunteer, what would be the best course of action, if any?  fetch  comms  ☛ 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks many. Maybe next time I won't have to bother you :P  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Nithyananda
Could you take a look at some of the revisions from a couple of days ago please? Both on the article and talk page. Pretty much all of them would precede rollbacks or reverts marked with BLP (although many of them aren't oversight worthy). cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy St.Patrick's Day!
<div style="padding: 5px; background:#4AA02C; border-style: solid; border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);; border-width: 2px; border-color:#8BB381; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> <div class="NavHead" style="background: #4AA02C; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);; text-align: center;">Happy St.Patrick's Day! Dear Keegan, i want to wish you all the luck you can get on St.Patrick's Day & Remember to wear green so no one will bother to pinch you. ;-) Written by <b> General  Cheese

Lady Gaga Telephone Cover Discussion
As you have made comments to the discussion previous can you please vote on this non-consensus binding survey. Official Telephone Cover Conflict Resolution.

Thanks Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)