Hello. I was notified via email this morning, that a fan of our software, had created a WikiPedia page for AndCAD. I came in this morning, to see what it was, and noticed that it was deleted. I don't have any issue with this, but I am curious as to why it may have been deleted. Is there any possibility to see the content that was published, and (perhaps) get a few hours to go through and remove any of the violating content? I was actually pretty excited about someone taking the time to do this, and since I feel it can be done in a way that mirrors many other related items, I would like to fix it. Thank you very much. Honestly it is nice to see that Wiki is "monitored" in such a way to keep it from being an advertising board. Thank you again. Jwrezinski ( talk) 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm not a fan but just a designer who uses Autocad and has an android phone.
- When I sought an application for viewing AutoCAD files, I hade the pleasant surprise to find this software appears to be unique and, I think, to merit inclusion in our encyclopedia.
- It is normal to quote the developer of the application and so I did for this reason alone.
- Perhaps my formatting does not fit the charter and ; my English is (as you can see) very bad. I would ask you, to be lenient on this point and observe the direction of opening and encyclopedia Wikipedia.
Following the note on your RfA I nominated Ryaniverse for deletion. Thought you'd might like to... sound off... Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You sure showed that bot! :) Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for whatever I did to make you upset on that iPhone page. This is the comment I left on that page and I guess it acts as my apology and goodbye to Wikipedia:
I read the article about all those acronyms and everything and the whole WP:BITEing thing but I don't get what it is you guys are talking about. I'm not trolling, as far as I can tell. These are just some honest points of contention I wanted to bring up and now I feel like an idiot. My friend does a lot of Wikipedia stuff and said the community was really great and a nice place to learn and get to know people. I guess I don't see what she was talking about. I really wanted to help with this article because computers are really neat and I think having a phone-computer is a really good idea. I even have a friend with the older iPhone model and thought I could use some personal experience to build the best page we could. I'm still new and learning the ropes, or at least I was. I'm sorry for whatever I did. Cynthia18 11:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have put up the article David_Thorpe_(writer) for AFD over notability issues. I noticed that you have editted the article multiple times and perhaps you'd like to take part in the AFD. -- Quirex 21:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to make this a better place. Be conservative with them, especially blocking, and re-read the policies if you unsure, and of course, ask if anything's unclear. If you do that, I'm sure you'll be fine. Again, congrats - Taxman Talk 14:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nice one. May I be the first to congratulate you (besides Taxman, of course!)... Good luck with the tools!
The Rambling Man 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I second The Rambling Man. Happy editing and mopping! — S .D. ¿п? § 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
| Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
| DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
I would appreciate it if you would not use profanity when talking to me. I also would ask you if you think a Wikipedia article should be started about a doctor who has lost his license due to scamming? That, of course, is his only notability . According to your standards, that would be fine. Jance 00:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I have one. I will start an article - this doctor actually lost her license, unlike the lawyer whom you seem to think is "notable". The doctor was also written up by the Washington Post, unlike Shapiro. In fact, Shapiro is not "famous" outside his local area and has never been mentioned in a major US paper. I believe I am going to start writing nasty art
icles about every other profession, where there is any local media attention, and see how long Wikipedians think that is okay. Jance 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- The medical journal is of a medical association, which is a lobbying group for doctors. That is not unexpected. And a law professor is surely the right person to be discussing law topics. Neither of those examples prove noteworthiness. I surely don't doubt that Shapiro is "over-zealous". I would say downright sleazy. But that does not merit an encyclopedia article, and the verocity with which WAS defended (and even tried to create multiple like articles) shows how NON-NPOV the purpose was. I did start an article on a medical doctor that was written up in the Washington Post. WAPO is far more likely to be noteworthy than are the examples you cited. Yet I find it interesting that Tyrenius implied that somehow WAPO was less a "yardstick" for noteworthiness than a medical lobbying group in an article on doctors, or a law professor/lawschool in an article on a lawyer. Somehow that just boggles the mind. Jance 02:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I restored the orignal indefblock you set on this account; somehow, he emailed me instead of you to be nasty and beligerent about his block. Given what he had to say, I don't see any reason to permit further disruption. I felt it was important to let you know; should you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Essjay (Talk) 09:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I already saw the message you left him. If you're curious why he emailed you, check out my userpage. Just a temporary bit of WP:BEANS inspired by [1]. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 09:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I'd really prefer you didn't do that, as I'm not really comfortable with the potential implications of this. I've solved the problem on my end for now, but I'd appreciate it if you'd take care of it on yours as well. Essjay (Talk) 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What a pity Essjay stopped your impersonation. (You know, you could still get away with it by redirecting to his page.) Anyway, your idea gave me a "great" one of my own: sig categories! -- tjstrf Category:User talk pages blessed by the input of tjstrf talk 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am still around, you know...I'd appreciate it if these kinds of tips weren't spread around, especially when I'm the one on the receiving end of the harassing emails. Essjay (Talk) 08:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks for your opinion. Travb ( talk) 10:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen this? Apparently you can set your monobook to block that crap out. -- G Rose ( talk) 11:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I wanted to thank you for stepping in with User:Travb's behavior. I stumbled across this whole incident purely by chance following a sock puppet case that involved Virginia. I know neither of the two parties, but the attitude and nature that Travb has taken here towards Mobile01 has simply shocked me by its aggressiveness. As a result, I've found myself drawn into a skeptic and disapproving third party in the sock puppetry article. It was of great relief to discover that someone with a higher authority than Travb, had adopted a somewhat similar view. Anyhoots, I wanted to say thanks for stepping in and making your opinion known. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For Coming To The Aid of The Damsel In Distress Mobile 01 Talk 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. I agree with your opinion on the User cat discussion, [2] but I also think it could give ammunition to these man-haters. Someone might accuse you of not assuming good faith or abusing humor. Just be careful. 70.23.230.180 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Night Gyr, you give me the impression that you are quite emotional about Anshe. Your edit states negatives and accusations against Anshe and her RL husband as fact, while you downgraded positives to the level of personal opinions of her husband. After your edits the whole penis attack section also became longer than the whole rest of her biography. To call her a prostitute we would require a source that proofs that she actually had sexual intercourse with a client. A screenshot of a notecard that somebody claims originates from her in which she is supposed to have offered "mature" services and "love" may be a hint but doesn't proof that she sold sex.
I have cited a source that his daughters were there.
Thanks for your help with the Webroot Software page afd. I'm not exactly sure why they didnt think it was notable as it is a major company. Thanks again -- Mgarnes2 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Beatles audio samples
When speedy deleting a page, make sure that you've also deleted the talk page, if one exists. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! I wasn't sure what to write, so feel free to change that. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Need help with Itanium
last week I tried to unscrew the Itanium mess by creating a disambig. You reverted, but now I don't know what to to.
The story:
- Intel named their first processor "Itanium." we then created Itanium
- Intel name the follow-on processor "Itanium 2". we created Itanium 2
- World+dog refers to the entire product line as "Itanium" and finds the first article, thinking that it refers to the whole line.
This is the case even though the lead paragraph very carefully states that the article is about the FIRST processor, not the family. The problem is that first processor was a total disaster, so objective statements about it are taken by marketing droids to cast aspersions on the whole family. Marketing droids then add a bunch of stuff about the new processor to the old processor's page.
This just happened again, and I don't know how to fix it within the context of the origional article. My idea was that folks would see the disambig page and then jump to the more recent processor. Would it be OK if we (i.e., you) move Itanium back to Itanium (original), move my old disambig page back to Itanium or make it a redirect, and then I can edit the Itanium page so that is is not a disambig but is instead a short explanatory page about the family? We can then let family-related non-technical stuff clutter up this new "family" page, while the two existing pages can stay relatively technical and objective. If you like this approach perhaps we should put a heads-up on the article's talk page first?
If this is not a good approach, then please suggest a better alternative to unscrew this mess.
Thanks. - Arch dude 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pffff. I had this talk page in my watch list for some reason. Sooo... I thought I'd stick my nose in. Seems to me Itanium 2 should be a redirect to Itanium, then the Itanium article should have all the info. Like
this,
this, and
this. (admittedly, I haven't read any discussion on the topic. This is just a blind observation)
Thernlund (
Talk |
Contribs) 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- This would work, except that Itanium 2 is already big and complicated: It's an entire subfamily and the article is long, so we need to keep the old guy (Itanium) out of the bigger, newer article. Your analogy is otherwise fairly close. The other problem is that many in the industry see Itanium as an unmitigated disaster, and there is a huge amount of money involved: I'm looking for a way to keep the articles as encyclopedic as possible and somehow suppress the advertizing wars. We should probably take this discussion back to the Itanium talk page. I'm here only because NightGyr reverted my move originally, for what I'm sure looked like a good reason. - Arch dude 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey there,
I reverted your blanking. Prior to executing a major change such as this, please discuss your proposal in the discussion area to gain consensus. In this case, the page had not been blanked because SNS and GNSS are not the same thing. We'd love to you have contributing, so please post a note on what your thoughts are for the article. - Davandron | Talk 13:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Help over at CAT:CSD
Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree; currently, sigContract serves no constructive purpose. It's original intent was to attempt to resolve a conflict with Tony Sidaway. -- Where 03:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm commenting on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G8_needs_revision. I didn't really understand how you wanted to change G8, but I think it should be weakened. I'd like to open a larger debate about deleting talk pages. What's your take and would you like to help? Thanks a bunch! Mathiastck 11:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have discovered that List of NCIS episodes links to articles about every single episode (there are many). None establish notability, none have references, all contain (at most) plot summary and quotes (plus a sprinkling of original research-type observations). I tagged a few of them before I thought there must be a better way to go about getting these AfD posted and merged or whatever. I'm not really sure. As you have been a pundit in similar areas of concern in the past I am hoping you might want to take a look at the assemblage and handle it somehow.
- Also, User:MatthewFenton has been removing notability and reference tags and has ordered me to "cease". I'm not sure how to handle this either.
Can you help here? I'm at a loss. Thank you alot. - Shaundakulbara 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the know-how to propose a AfD. I tried yesterday and it didn't show up correctly. I guess I should go ahead and try to master the mechanics of that. I was hoping someone else might do it for me, but I guess I'm on my own. Thanks anyway. Shaundakulbara 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
FrontPageMag.com up for deletion. Travb ( talk) 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
On the presidential trivia afd, I was confused by your vote... the comment seems to say merge then delete, but the bolded text says weak keep. If you mean merge then delete, then please change it. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 04:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my photo. I appreciate it.-- Housed 12:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{ prod}}" template to the article Gun Fu - Animal Fighting Styles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. UtherSRG (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
A user has sent me an email requesting assistance. He says that you banned him indefinately for what he admits was a spree of inappropriate behavior. He claims that he has learned his lesson, but that he has not received any response from you. The user name he said blocked hm was "User talk:Night_Gyr/archive". He may have been using that name to try to contact you. You can see his email and my response on my talk page. Jerry lavoie 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know his wikipedia user name yet. The username you posted looks like it would be someone named "Jason", which is not part of this users' email address or real name provided to me, so it might be somebody different. If/when he replies I'll let you know. Thanks. Jerry lavoie 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but from where I stand it just is'nt good enough, as negitive beheavour has driven far too many excellent editiors away from us. We must deal with this just as that guy Guilliani did in New York. I know we can never get 100% results, but we must try. Even 95% would be a huge improvement on what we have to put up with these days. Fergananim 12:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The article "Medical views on suicide" didn't contain the various medical views on suicide (euthanasia and assisted suicide, for instance), and therefore was misnamed. Its content consisted entirely of intervention procedures and resources. Therefore, I've moved it back to Suicide intervention, and have worked on it further to present that topic better. There currently is no article on "medical views of suicide" other than this one on emergency procedure. The Transhumanist 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no lack of information about warning signs on the web. On google, "suicide warning signs" gets 28,000 results. "Suicide" and "warning signs" on the same page get 774,000 hits, while "suicide and "telltale signs" on the same page get 141,000 hits. The warning signs of suicide are very widely reported. The Transhumanist 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:659 hornet.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the FinnishDefenceForce template obviously lacks enough information to stand on its own, as there is no indication that modification of these works is allowed. All of these images therefore need a fair use tag and a fair use rationale. "Sheesh." — Rebelguys2 talk 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, well, I'll IFD them, then. We don't assume we have certain rights to images, though. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:659 hornet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested to know why you reverted my edit to Hennessey. Are you going to create a page about Hennessey Performance Engineering? Deiz talk 00:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
|
On 27 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jim Zumbo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
-- Yomangani talk 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You screwed up the archiving on WT:A, hiding two pages and half a month of comments. In the future, make sure that you don't lose links when you change between schemes. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 13:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I must have forgotten that two of the archives were named differently. Not sure how that happened. Sorry – Qxz 13:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
(x-posted) Actually, that wasn't the link I intended. I've added the link I'd meant to provide, this one. I think it provides insight into the mind of someone who engaged in this type of credential fraud. - Will Beback · † · 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Night Gyr, I noticed that you removed the link to the current revision of an article in
MediaWiki:Revision-info. I liked it; it's unfortunate it did not work outside of the article namespace. I think, however, that you could change the text to This is an archived version of this page as of $1, last edited by $2. It may contain inaccuracies or errors not present in the <a href="/info/en/?search={{FULLPAGENAME}}" title="{{FULLPAGENAME}}">current version</a>.. It should then work outside of the article namespace. --
Iamunknown 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not a helpful comment at all. If you want to explain why you think the old caption is not NPOV, then we could have a reasonable discussion. But simply to point me to NPOV, when I'm obviously aware of the poliy already, is just a way of saying "it's not NPOV because I say so, dammit, and if you disagree that must be because you just haven't read it." It's very condescending. Next time you leave me a message, please assume I'm aware of Wikipedia policies and simply have an honest disagreement with you about how they should be applied in this instance, and proceed from there. — Chowbok ☠ 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know whose arguments you're talking about, but my arguments certainly aren't that policies should be ignored, simply that nobody has pointed to a policy that applies in this instance. In your case, I certainly don't see why it's not NPOV to say a cow is a potential victim of cow tipping any more than it would be to say that a person is a potential victim of pickpocketing. — Chowbok ☠ 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I created the Wikipedia community article. After thinking it over, it is redundant and is already in the Wikipedia article. I suggest nominate it to merge or just delete it. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/ contribs) 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not know how to start an AFD. Please start the AFD to delete and redirect. After careful consideration, I understand it is redundant information that does not need to be repeated twice. There already is a Wikipedia article. Also, we don't need to write a self-promo ad about the community. Cordially, :) -
Mr.Guru (
talk/
contribs) 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- One more thing. I recommend to delete the histroy or it will be reverted someday in the future. Some people just wanted an article about us. I was one of them. I wrote a promo ad but that was not my intension. I apologize. I am still learning. Thanx. :) -
Mr.Guru (
talk/
contribs) 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would like permission to start an AFD and have a link provided for instructions on starting an AFD. I do know how to do this. Or you could go forward with the AFD process. Redundancy articles do not help our mission. Cordially, :) -
Mr.Guru (
talk/
contribs) 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed in the AFD a lot of people crossd out their votes. I did not know why. I did a some searching. The article survived because of vote canvassing. Take a look at the date of March 8. Here is an example of canvassing for votes. This may be grounds to open a deletion review or re-nominate for the deletion to get an accurate measure of true consensus. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/ contribs) 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would like permission to start an AFD and have a link provided for instructions on starting an AFD. I do know how to do this. Or you could go forward with the AFD process. Redundancy articles do not help our mission. Cordially, :) -
Mr.Guru (
talk/
contribs) 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- One more thing. I recommend to delete the histroy or it will be reverted someday in the future. Some people just wanted an article about us. I was one of them. I wrote a promo ad but that was not my intension. I apologize. I am still learning. Thanx. :) -
Mr.Guru (
talk/
contribs) 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In case you are somehow being pulled into this and don't know the full history, you might want to review this. - Denny 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see that post (or it slipped by my watchlist radar) on the Wikipedia article, since it wasn't posted also to the Wikipedia Community article... I posted this here to help address this. - Denny 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 |
This user is a member of WikiProject Elements. |
Abridged 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
So could that be described as Delete article, move necessary content into article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. A Featured Picture Candidate you commented on, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Killer whale mother and calf, is now in the section for "Older nominations requiring additional input from voters." Contributors have tried to improve it after you commented, and your opinion is welcome as to whether any one of the available versions deserves promotion. I am sending this message to everyone who participated in the FPC. Thanks! Kla'quot 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Night Gyr, I was just wondering what promted you to say {{ Obnoxious}} was inflamatory and hostile - just caught me a bit off gaurd there.Daniel()Folsom |\ T/|\ C/|\ U/|( Can you help me with my signature?)
- I'm not sure what you mean about the tone - but I agree with you on the template name. I originally used obnoxious meaning essentially the same thing as over the top - or overwhelming - but I wasn't thinking about how negative the word was - which is why I changed the text (I mean - who cares what the template NAME is - although should it survive the tfd I would move it)Daniel()Folsom |\ T/|\ C/|\ U/|( Can you help me with my signature?) 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it's impossible to please everyone all the time, but gee... Could you expand upon your objection to User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle? I started it for several reasons:
- To help motivate good editors. I've gotten responses along the lines of I already have a DYK and two FAs...yeah let me get back to you after I polish up a page to GA. If that results in more quality content for the site, so much the better.
- To help identify quality contributors as potential sysop candidates. My hunch is that a lot of the people who could make good administrators are out there writing articles and we don't know their names yet. This may should bring some of them out of the woodwork.
- To motivate problem editors to come back from the brink. What really inspired this was one editor who took up a standing offer of mine: I'll give the Resilient Barnstar to anyone who's been sanctioned at ArbCom (short of sitebanning) and creates a new article that gets highlighted at DYK. A few days ago I handed out one of those barnstars and offered the editor a second one if he raises a page to GA. He thanked me for the challenge and was delighted when I followed up with a special user award that he could aim for. This is someone who's been an editor for over a year but spent most of that time in one terrible editing dispute. For a few months now he's been branching out and becoming more Wikipedian.
I'd thought this award was a warm fuzzy little thing that honors people who deserve our collective thanks. If I've missed an angle please set me straight. Durova Charge! 04:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to first point out when you put the merge template, you forgot to put one up on Israeli new sheqel currency as well. Second $, €, and ₪ are indeed Punctuation marks, see Template:Punctuation marks. Also for instance, Euro sign and Euro currency are two different pages.
Thirdly, I removed the merge template later not because of that but because Sheqel sign will now also include the oringal sheqel currency (1980-1985) ( Israeli New Sheqel and Israeli sheqel) as it had a different symbol as well as the current currency (since 1986). Epson291 13:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
A Something Awful post cannot be a reliable source for an article about a living person. Period. Please read our biographies of living persons policy. This is not negotiable. We have to reliably source it. If you don't like that wording, then the whole thing has to go, because the forum post can't be a source. Thanks. FCYTravis 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you don't understand that it's not negotiable. Forum posts are not reliable sources for biographies of living people, nor are blogs or anything else which is self-published and not edited. This is established policy on Wikipedia, and you can't ignore it because you don't like it. We have a reliable secondary source which is reporting on the controversy, and thus we can and must attribute the reporting to that reliable source - rather than to a forum or blog. Again, read our biographies of living persons policy. Just because he might be a plagiarist and that he's involved in OMGWEBDRAMA doesn't mean we ignore our basic principles. Thank you. FCYTravis 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Something about Nuristani, Kalash, Chitral, and people which think they know, but for real, they don't know
Hello Night Gyr. I want congratulate you for you changes on the Kalasha page. It's a perfect example how to make an article worse, - and, at the end, to discredit the Wikipedia. I'm sure, you intention was "to improve", but unfortunately you make the opposite.
What I talk about? It seems, that there is some fundamental mistake in your definition of an ethnicity and how this concerns to the term Nuristani.
Please note, don’t understand the term Nuristani as a homogeny ethnic group. It’s much more a collective term, a language family, but not a clean 100% purely ethnicity. Therefore it’s not correct to describe the Nuristan Kalash(a) only as Nuristani; it is alike wrongly and inaccurate to explain the Chitral Kalash(a) just as Dards.
Regards -- lorn10 16:20, 13. April 2007 (CET)
There are references and I feel that you added the notability template simply because you feel the game is not "popular" or you just don't like it. As an article identified for inclusion in WikiProject RPG, I have followed their guidelines on creating articles as defined for their purpose. I noticed that your edit summary for adding the template said "no third party sources", which I feel is a conclusion that you can only come to if you didn't actually read the article. Bear Eagleson 13:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry buddy I forgot that it's ok to be a jerk as long as you don't say dirty words like "ISP" :p - Rebent 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Night Gyr,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:5-54-Mark-45-firing edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 20, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-20. howcheng { chat} 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I edited references, so are sources now better? Problem of those are that there weren't really good sources. Lot of blog and such coverage though, mostly spanish and italian, but with those it is hard to say if they are "credible" and most notable like comstock, fleshbot and some russian magazine, but they didn't really said anything usable as reference. That was the reason why i orginally sticked with first hand information from Lust Films site. -- Zache 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleting is constructive if the section is useless. This is a user edited encylcopedia. You don't like my edits, you improve the section. My opinion is the article is best without the section. That's a constructive edit, because it makes the article better. Your method will result only in a glut of useless information. Inutero22222 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see requested edit on Talk:Glock 19. PubliusFL 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed those images. Modernist 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing these guidance suggestions to me: Wikipedia:Non-free content, I'll study them and if there are some images that I can retain, then I will put them back. Thanks again. Modernist 22:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
you'll notice several of the same people doing the same thing here at
Read here for some information about the 4 users that were doing this on the glock page as well as the w22 page. You'll see attitude with them in no problem and SwatJester left a few of them warnings in which they just gave him a "yawn"
Maybe that will shed some light on what's going on with these 4 users that just basically terrorized the Glock_19 article and have now moved on to the w22 article. CINEGroup 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, When you have time, can you copyedit Zile article and remove the tag? Thanks-- Ugur Olgun 09:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The photographer (Birnbaum) gave clear permission to use the low-res photo on Wikipedia. His note is incorporated in the file.
If I specified the wrong category of permission, please state that.
I don't know what you want.
Do you want the photo taken down?
Don't send me another robotic message. It is not understandable. Plain English works for me.
Skywriter 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather that the article be deleted and protected from recreation because there are novice editors who are way too eager to start this over a film that is not guaranteed to be made. There's no director or cast yet, and no production start date set up. I don't think the redirect is necessary because there are already rumors going around for what villains are going to be in the next film, which is only in development. Take a look at the article's deletion log -- it's been deleted as recently as April 17, and there has not been any solid production news since then -- just reiterating that it was in development (which was already first indicated when they tapped David Koepp to write a script last January). — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then take it to RfD. It's not a valid speedy, because a redirect is not an article.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just wanted to let you know that another admin superceded the consensus of that deletion review for Spider-Man 4, and opened the page back up. Their words were "UncleG's page looks beautiful, which makes this all moot". I personally don't believe this is fair, that an admin can ignore everyone just because their opinion of the matter differs, especially when in the hours that followed their unprotection of the page and move of information, there has been nothing but constant rumors, speculation, and vandalism to the page since. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
See the talk page for why I removed the howto tag you placed on the Lucid Dreaming article. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please review the Rat article? The revision history is not visible to non-admins, and the page was moved by a vandal. The page has been moved back, but I cannot review the revision history, or the content. See also:
Cool Blue talk to me 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies on that, learn something every day. Thanks for the heads up, I was trying to be bold and create the correct page. :) Wildthing61476 12:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey!
By way of explaination, Trendy's article has been previously nominated for deletion based on lack of notability. There have also been threats to renominate it. The phrase "He is notable for..." was originally added to the article to dissuade future nominations of that sort. As I'm sure you noticed, the article is protected because it has been repeatedly vandalized. I understand the point you're trying to make. Perhaps the defensive posture on his notability is no longer necessary. Best Regards, Cleo123 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm coming into this one way late, it seems. This is what, the fourth go-round for this? Does the meme have a better name than 'Little Fatty'? that we could move this to? I'm back to the AfD to see if I can be the hero and end this once and for all (yeah, right) :) DarkAudit 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've searched flickr, and couldn't seem to find any licensing information. I've said delete on Commons. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please delete the history of this article, at least for now. I believe Thebainer's close was clear "This is a real no-brainer" on the subject of the unsuitability of the content in the history to Wikipedia. If you dispute this interpretation, please do me a favor and delete the history for now until you've had time to consult Bainer on his close. -- Tony Sidaway 03:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect is an editorial decision, if the content should go, take it to AfD. Unilateral action and surviving DRV are not the way to do it. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 03:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that--remember that I was the person who turned the article into a redirect in the first place so we're back where we were when I started.
- I'm just asking you to consult with Thebainer about whether he intended the history to be undeleted. It seems to me unusual in a BLP case. Usually that's the end of the content, for pretty obvious reasons. If you don't want to delete the history in the meantime, that's not an urgent problem. The important thing to do is to consult with Thebainer. -- Tony Sidaway 03:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the image is from the navy. I though this one was deleted already, since there was a discussion on this before. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposed Micronation Wikiproject
I've published a proposal to gauge the level of interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject, which I thought might be of interest to you based on your past contributions. Comments and suggestions are welcome: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Micronations -- Gene_poole 02:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Is mirrored on my site here. You can direct the family to view that, it's a copy of what Wikipedia used to have. Wjhonson 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
David Mestel( Talk) 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize I could just start another AFD fr Jurassic Park 4 since it was last discussed for deletion quite a while ago, because I didn't know there was a general time span for how long a decision stands in an AFD.To me it kind of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia:deletion review, unless you someone feel so strongly as to contest the decision right away. Rodrigue 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring the BLP issues I raised - the material in the article still has the possibility of hurting the living, making it very much a BLP issue. Phil Sandifer 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's an article about a barely-notable dead child. Keeping it is hurtful to surviving and innocent family and friends. There is no doubt an article to be written about, for instance, Jeffrey Baldwin incident or the name of the reforms passed in his name. But this article doesn't even support the claim of reforms, little yet focus on it. Phil Sandifer 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the original article I created? It's never worth doing the research over. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that's not a redlink any more. Nice start to a needed essay. When I get a chance, I'll see about lending some thoughts to the page. I'm happy to see it was created, though. I had considered doing it myself, but then concluded that I really wanted to wait for someone else to do so, and see what came of it. Thanks! Serpent's Choice 03:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the page was recreated, and then deleted. There can be no discussion if the page doesn't exist. What's going on? I have no way of doing anything about this, as I'm not an admin. Lampman 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems the matter has to be brought before Wikipedia:Deletion review. I believe we're in agreement about the need for an AfD debate. Would you care to bring the matter up to review? As I understand you have administrative privileges, I think it would be better coming from you. Many thanks! Lampman 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, fingers crossed! I'm more than willing to bow to consensus, but the abuse of power by certain admins angers me. Lampman 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- This seems a particularly inauspicious time to be undeleting things that were deleted for apparently valid BLP concerns. ++
Lar:
t/
c 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please keep conversations threaded per my talk page header,thanks. If you'd rather continue at my talk that is fine, let me know. But all BLP is by definition, urgent, once discovered. Undeletion is just not ever a good idea without first understanding the issues. Which I see no sign you did, all you apparently did was undelete. Not on. ++ Lar: t/ c 10:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do want to contact the subject, her father is keeping a close eye on what is happening on the internet. He is Allan Stokke of the law firm Stokke & Riddet, and can be contacted at the company's home page, contact page here. Lampman 08:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, let's definitely not do this right now. Newyorkbrad 14:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted evidence, and raised a proposed finding of fact, concerning your recent actions in restoring histories and articles where the deleting admin had cited the Biographies of living persons policy. -- Tony Sidaway 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This section removed, as it was sparked into an unnecessary conflagration by a post I wrote in the heat of debate that lacked a sense of considered argument. FCYTravis 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Providing or threatening to provide the content of deleted articles to outside persons is a violation of policy, and you'll lose your sysop bit for doing it. Indeed, you could lose it merely by saying you will do it. [5] FCYTravis 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will be listing this at WP:ANI. Corvus cornix 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I don't understand what point you're trying to make, but your actions here have made it clear to me that you should not be an admin. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You've been desysopped now [6]. -- Durin 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Holy smokes, you may want to reconsider remarks like this one: [7] as they are totally unacceptable ways to make points. I cautioned you that undeletion of BLP related matters was not prudent. I cannot say it strongly enough, you must not reveal deleted content, it is a violation of the trust the community places in you. Please think long and hard before you apply for reinstatement++ Lar: t/ c 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: this is only a temporary suspension, when the arbcom is available it up to them to confirm it or re-appoint you. -- Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed: this is temporary. I don't know you and I have nothing against you particularly :) Your edit was ambiguous and as I have explained on WP:ANI, the risks of making a mistake in desysoping you were lower than those of having a disclosure of deleted. I am sure you understand and I hope a bureaucrat will give you back the tools soon. Cheers, guillom 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, don't panic over this. If you meant that you'd send it to the subject only, there no reason I can see why you shouldn't be resysopped soon. WjB scribe 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I'm just amused. I wasn't using it right now anyway. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I saw the edit, went "WHAT ON EARTH", did a headless chicken impersonation and went to #wikimedia-stewards to say I couldn't find a current arb and to ask "WHAT ON EARTH" - Guillom then emergency desysopped and I said I'd find an arb as quick as I could. Which I am doing right now. My apologies if I overreacted (and rereading, I may well have), but jeez, saying that given the current arbitration case on living bios, when you're actually listed in said case ... Anyway, still seeking out an arb as we speak - David Gerard 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just found Fred Bauder and Morven, who are looking at it right now - David Gerard 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Better safe than sorry. No harm done from a temporary thing like this if all is cleared up? Don't you agree Night Gyr? ++ Lar: t/ c 21:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just think it's odd that we'd consider that so harmful when, like someone else said, a user wouldn't be desysopped for undeleting in the article and revealing it to the world, so why for forwarding it to one person? I went back and read the everyking case and the issue there seemed to be more that it would reveal personal information, rather than mere article text. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- When you get through arguing about this and we can depend on you not doing this, or similar things, I think the Arbitration Committee will be happy to resysop you again. Drop us a note when you are ready. Fred Bauder 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Undeletion can be reversed; sending deleted content off-site can't be. That's why doing so is a bad idea, and why you shouldn't if the deleted content could be even remotely controversial.
- Like Fred, I'd support a re-sysop, but only if we can depend on you not doing this or similar in future. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I gather from your note that it was just a misunderstanding. Fred Bauder 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's close, I think. Undeletion can be undone, but if not undone immediately, there's still a risk that someone has stored a copy off-site. The difference here is that an admin is the one guaranteeing that an off-site copy is made. Also, in this case, the admin tools weren't being used to further the encyclopedia's goals, but it was suggested a copy would be sent to a non-Wikipedian, for non-Wikipedia-related purposes. -- Interiot 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well it's done now and no point crying about it, but well, it did seem, looking at this comment on Badlydrawnjeff's talk page, like Night Gyr was just planning to go on a fishing expedition, sending off deleted content to the subjects of articles in the hope that one would say "hey, that's okay, we don't mind you keeping that article." Which kinda misses the point that the article has to pass our standards, and maintainably so. -- Tony Sidaway 00:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's just a reaction to the crowd of people who want to delete articles that meet our standards, but might be offensive to their subjects because they say potentially embarrassing things.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not keeping count or anything, but there seems to be a great spate of endorsements from noted Wikipedians that suggests that the articles somehow fail to meet our standards. It's obviously not just some out-of-control faction at work. --
Tony Sidaway 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you count the reasoning, most of them have something to do with 'it'll hurt the subject of the article.'
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ethics, matey. Same reason a lot of websites have been taking down articles about that pretty pole vaulter. It's a bit more complicated than "will our particular stuff hurt her". --
Tony Sidaway 03:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Right, but an encyclopedic article, like a fair and respectful news story, is not going to be anywhere nearly as harmful as the lewd blogs that are being taken down. Washington Post, CBS News, other papers, all wrote good respectful stories, which is a sign that you can cover this series of events in an ethical and respectful manner.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- What does ethics have to do with the current newspeak mission to remove any mention of their names whatsoever? Doesn't that strike you Tony as a bit overboard? Wjhonson 04:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Where the name of a person isn't necessary to cover the event, it's probably best to remove it. The classic case I'd cite is Baby 81, about a four-month-old baby. This event will be long forgotten by the time the child is of high school age, unless we memorialize it with an article in his name (which is what we were doing before I fixed it). The references still contain the name, and the surname can be inferred from the parents' names, but the child's name is not a search term on Wikipedia any more, and that is probably the right outcome. -- Tony Sidaway 14:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Right, but an encyclopedic article, like a fair and respectful news story, is not going to be anywhere nearly as harmful as the lewd blogs that are being taken down. Washington Post, CBS News, other papers, all wrote good respectful stories, which is a sign that you can cover this series of events in an ethical and respectful manner.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ethics, matey. Same reason a lot of websites have been taking down articles about that pretty pole vaulter. It's a bit more complicated than "will our particular stuff hurt her". --
Tony Sidaway 03:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you count the reasoning, most of them have something to do with 'it'll hurt the subject of the article.'
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not keeping count or anything, but there seems to be a great spate of endorsements from noted Wikipedians that suggests that the articles somehow fail to meet our standards. It's obviously not just some out-of-control faction at work. --
Tony Sidaway 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because content got deleted doesn't mean it's somehow a radioactive secret we must keep hidden at all cost and this content wasn't. There was nothing there not already widely and easily available both in online and offline sources. The article content was certainly no worse than that of the Washington Post article. Discussing a BLP article with its subject is often a completely reasonable thing to do, I've done it myself with good results (admittedly not initiating the communication but I don't see why that option should be completely ruled out). I think the desysopping is uncalled for. Haukur 09:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- If someone is the subject of hundreds of news stories in such sources as Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, or the Washington Post, I believe that a balanced NPOV article in Wikipedia will in no appreciable way perpetuate their (perhaps) undesired notoriety. With Proquest or other search engines I can and have dug up content from over 100 years ago. News archives are searchable for any name, and full text articles can be retrieved. The sources do not "fade away," allowing someone anonymity after their 15 minutes of fame have expired, as some seem to think. If the subject of one of these stories is someday a school teacher, or is applying for a job, even a perfunctory search will bring up a wealth of detail including every time they were mentioned in a newspaper or magazine. This recent obsession with a "1984" like expurgation of their names just makes Wikipedia look silly. Desysopping someone for daring to preserve the content of an article that thousands of people have read, and could well have stored a copy of on their hard drive, goes beyond locking the barn door after the horse escaped. It is more like locking onself in the barn, starting a fire and then beating the dead horse. Edison 23:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we can write this article in 2009 or something. We're not a newspaper archive, but we should always be aware that our actions may influence the "notability" of a person who, in two years or so, might turn out to be just one of many great Californian athletes: worthy of a mention, but surely not deserving of the ignominy that would be visited upon her if we gave
undue weight to some horny perverts. Whatever other sites may o do is immaterial. They do not own us, we are free and we will decide what content we host. --
Tony Sidaway 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The piling on which occurred in this case was wholly inappropriate and draws into question the judgment of anyone who participated in it, including Night Gyr. The whole thing was about unwanted, abusive publicity. Fred Bauder 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we can write this article in 2009 or something. We're not a newspaper archive, but we should always be aware that our actions may influence the "notability" of a person who, in two years or so, might turn out to be just one of many great Californian athletes: worthy of a mention, but surely not deserving of the ignominy that would be visited upon her if we gave
undue weight to some horny perverts. Whatever other sites may o do is immaterial. They do not own us, we are free and we will decide what content we host. --
Tony Sidaway 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- LexisNexis has 8 stories on this event. Quoting briefly, Gorgeous Allison Stokke, 18, has become a reluctant internet sex symbol. Almost 200,000 admirers have watched the three-minute clip on YouTube and photos of the teenage beauty have been put up on dozens of sites and inspired an unofficial fan page dedicated to her. But distraught Allison is desperate to shun the limelight and revealed she is terrified of being targeted by obsessed stalkers. (Daily Star (UK)). Is this what Wikipedia aspires to be? Thatcher131 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't take the Daily Star's interpretation as the most accurate. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Would you prefer the LA Times' take? Parry Aftab, a Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y., lawyer who specializes in issues of cyber crime, privacy and abuse, said Stokke's predicament is "what happens when you accidentally reach the popular blogger or luck out and Google catches it just at the right time. Your profile shoots to the top of search engines, and all bets are off." That's not how I would define an encyclopedic topic. or Keith Richmond, chief executive of Break.com, has a term he uses for the instantly famous: "e-lebrities." His site bills itself as an "entertainment channel for guys fueled by user-created media." "It's amazing how quickly someone can go from obscurity to fame," Richmond said. "Most of the time those becoming e-lebrities are seeking the publicity. But sometimes it's accidental." Thatcher131 13:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's her own words: "I worked so hard for pole vaulting and all this other stuff, and it's almost like that doesn't matter. Nobody sees that. Nobody really sees me." [8] So why not help things by presenting a neutral, balanced picture of an accomplished athlete, instead of leaving the lewd pages to be the top hits on her name? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is equally a violation of
WP:NPOV to intentionally help someobody as it is to intentionally harm them. It is wrong to let our editorial decisions be driven by what other media are doing, nor is it our place to worry about hit placement on search engines. --
RoySmith
(talk) 15:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, but when people are claiming 'do no harm' as a reason to delete the article and not even give it a full afd, then you need to consider whether it's really a negative to have it. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- We do (and should) worry about placement on search engines and what other media are doing. It is not a violation of NPOV to intentionally help someone if the way we can help them is by presenting a neutral article. Haukur 08:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- You quote here own words, in which she makes it absolutely plain that she does not welcome this attention. A neutral and balanced article can wait until this blows over. Right now the only people who will want to look at it are those interested in recent events. If she's done anything of note (I hear she broke a few records) there are or should be articles about the sports in which it is conceivable that one could mention the current national record holders, and that would set her activities in a proper perspective. -- Tony Sidaway 03:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I request that you retract or revise your comment about me on AN/I: "Also I'd like to note that Everyking's desysoping came after offering to reveal personal information, not article content." This is not what I did, and I don't want this kind of misinformation spread about me. I offered to post a deleted revision without knowing what it contained that had been deemed objectionable, if anything; the whole point was that, because I could not determine it, I was offering to post it to see if someone else could figure it out. If I had thought it contained personal information I would never in a million years have made such an offer, and moreover people who have looked at the revision since then have disagreed on the actual nature of what it contained. Everyking 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Per AnonEMouse's comment on the Bureacrat's noticeboard, I've restored your sysop bit. Raul654 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nice to know that the main page can live in fear again. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice save on the dodgy link there, thanks. I'd made the same mistake in the main article too - shows how useful a second pair of eyes is. Regards, Bencherlite 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that a checkuser has been completed on the SPAs who supported my RfA, they were sockpuppets of User:Molag Bal. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Night Gyr! I just wanted to inform you that one of your reasons for oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pax:Vobiscum, the sockpuppetry votes, were disproved. They weren't some sockpuppets with a grudge, but rather disruptive sockpuppets who apparently went to WP:RFA and were looking to cause trouble. They were found to be sockpuppets of a banned user, confirmed here. I've saw your other reasons for oppose, but being a neutral user, I just wanted to inform you of that. Thanks! Cool Blue talk to me 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. then it must be deleted quickly if it is infringing on any copyrights... The Legendary RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering, however..if you could email a copy of those images to me at johncoonfox@hotmail.com i won't be reuploading them due to their copyright violation status.... The Legendary RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Jonel | Speak 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
How exactly do I go about contacting someone through OTRS? You indicated that I should do so at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Dailykos_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29, but I was unsure how to do so, and the question scrolled off the page before anyone else responded. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 15:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's kind of my problem. I took a look at the page, and couldn't make heads or tails of it. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- The block text at the top of the page gives a link to the list of OTRS personnel which resides on the meta wiki. What's the problem, how can I help? -- Tony Sidaway 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Night Gyr, I am a student at the University of Dundee and Paul Wilkinson is the Professor at St. Andrews, the parental University. Paul Wilkinson is also occasionally presents lectures at our University, and I have full rights to the picture and Paul Wilkinson himself grant me permission to use the photo as suitable. Thanks,-- Cyril Thomas 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I am the original author of the fusker software, but make no claims towards its notability or lack thereof. I originally published the now-defunct url on a blog called sensible erection (under the username Carthag) 5 or so years ago, and I suspect that's where the idea has spread from since. Seeing as I am involved in the issue, I'd rather not make large edits due to possible conflicts of interest (I try to limit my activities on the page to cleanups and such). Apparently, it has since made its way into a webcomic, urban dictionary as well as various mentions on blogs and other such low-profile sites. Google (while not a real test) claims 379,000 results for "fusker" on English sites that do not mention wikipedia. Bear in mind that given the nature of the use of the software, most of these links are very not work safe. Mikkel 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain what about the DAB was a mess to you. I get the missed wikilinks, but I am not as sure about changing the subsections, which don't seem to correspond with other DAB pages. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for explaining your perspective. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
|
The Current Events Barnstar | |
| I, Sean William, award you this Current Events Barnstar for your excellent work rescuing the article on Jesse Davis from deletion. Keep up the good work! 02:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC) |
- Cheers! Sean William @ 02:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input into the proposed naming convention for baseball players (made either here or here... or both). Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed guidelines. If you get a chance, please review them here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks again, Caknuck 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I realized something upon doing some investigation. The page on Wikigroaning was linked to from
Something Awful, the creators of the term, shortly after the AfD started - I believe that a large number of incoming SA users with conflicts of interest may have soured the results of the AfD. I wanted to bring this up at DRV, but, per procedure, decided to ask you about it first.
Furthermore, what's preventing this content from simply being merged? There's very little more there than a dictionary definition, and I really don't think that the notability of any neologism could be established in less than a month. I know we're supposed to follow consensus and not policy and all that jazz, but it seems like the neologism policy is just being disregarded by the keep votes, rather than responded to.
On a procedural note, I've noticed this being more and more of a problem with neologisms - since somebody uses them, there's always a source, and that (in the eyes of the keep votes) seems to be enough to satisfy the policy's insistence that they be widely accepted. -
Chardish 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I think I'm going to bring this up for DRV immediately, on account of the above and the fact that your membership on the Something Awful forums constitutes a conflict of interest, even though I still believe you acted in good faith. - Chardish 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- There definitely was a pretty good argument to delete, given that the neologism is weeks old and the page was not fleshed out beyond a dictionary definition. However, I'll be the first to admit that there was no consensus to delete. Nonetheless, "merge" is a valid result of AfD discussions [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] - and that's just from closures from the past few days. - Chardish 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the missing text back. I would have done it myself but i don't know how. 86.153.216.204 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
um do you know what the wikicookie is for? And why some are so angry to see it? 8th sinn 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)8th sinn 8th sinn 18:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel( Talk) 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw you made contributions to User:Android Mouse/myg0t, and I think you might be interested to know that the myg0t article is currently on deletion review. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the group's notability. -- Android Mouse 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit the comments of others
- I'm not aware I had; I got involved in a messy cut-and-paste and must have lost something in the process. Sorry. You can see from my edit history that I don't do that kind of thing.
Gordonofcartoon 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see what happened - the quote. I've mended it. Gordonofcartoon 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, is this normal? It did not look like concensus was achieved, and also allegations (now understandable, I just made the connection to one meaning of the TLA SPA) that the Afd was not in good faith is in fact a violation of good faith. I cited official policy. Others cited failed policy attempts as well as the existence of other articles that fail the actual policy. Spa toss 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, just checked, and
Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, and under which of the four items did you speedy close? Thanks.
Spa toss 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- You may respond here. I am still waiting for an answer. Under which of the four criteria did you speedy close. Thanks again. Spa toss 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. It's not that big of a deal really, as long as the page is properly cited, which it is now. So I'm content. Canadian Paul 21:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"numerological coincidences"?! obviouslsy you do not know what a numerological coincidence is... too bad 84.227.48.33 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#what_a_source_is.3F.21
Thank you for uploading Image:Korolev2.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.
Thank you. Alex Spade 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a possible problem with an image of an F-15E that you have uploaded. See my comments at Image_talk:RAF_F-15E_Strike_Eagle_Iraq_2004.jpg. I didn't want to make any changes myself since I am not an experienced Wiki contributor and I do not know what kind of guidelines are in place for that sort of thing.
-- Txtad 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Night Gyr, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. Last time around, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC),
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spear.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
POV tag in nuclear bunker buster
Hi Night Gyr,
it seems you added a POV tag to the criticism section of the article on nuclear bunker busters without stating your reasons on the talk page. That makes it hard to decide whether your concerns have been addressed in the meantime. Could you please take a look at the current version and either remove the tag or briefly state on the talk page why you still think the section is POV? Please keep in mind that a section focussing on criticism is not POV in itself, as long as it merely reports notable criticism that has actually been expressed and does not state the opinions of the critics as facts.
Thanks,
Joriki ( talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Sean Bell family photo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 08:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Original research in Tank classification
Hi. You added a tag to Tank classification with the edit summary "these conclusions seem original", but I can't easily determine which claims you were referring to. Would you please have another look at the article and expand on the talk page? Thanks. — Michael Z. 2008-06-04 02:49 z
Thanks for uploading
Image:Mauser logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
On 7 May 2007, you made a comment about the utility of the {{ Distinguish}} template. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Distinguish template. -- Bejnar ( talk) 01:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Todd Goldman Make Everyone Die.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Night Gyr: I saw that you deleted the template Template:Latest stable software release/Linux, I suppose because of the discussion Talk:Linux#Version number. I think it would be also useful to delete the template Template:Latest preview software release/Linux and only to have templates about the kernel version in Linux kernel, but those don't appear in the article, e.g. Template:Latest stable software release/Linux kernel. I would appreciate your help, thank you! -- KDesk ( talk) 02:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please restore Template:Latest stable software release/Linux. There is a tangled mess (which I am attempting to sort out right now) and a rather heated discussion around all 4 of these templates. I'm not even sure why this was deleted as a T3 when it is still in use and under discussion. Tothwolf ( talk) 04:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please restore
Template:Latest preview software release/Linux as well (which you just deleted). It is currently at TfD and as I
commented there, both templates are still in use. Re the log you left
[19], the discussion on
Talk:Linux has gone both ways.
Tothwolf (
talk) 07:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Night Gyr, per the above requests, I restored those templates while they are discussed. Prodego talk 07:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've untangled the mess with all these templates:
- Template:Latest stable software release/Linux( talk links history)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Linux( talk links history)
- Template:Latest stable software release/Linux kernel( talk links history)
- Template:Latest preview software release/Linux kernel( talk links history)
There is no reason to delete any of these for things to work correctly, and in fact deleting any of these will break the
Linux kernel article (and did before, the article was using hardcoded settings in the infobox because one of the files had been T3'd. Please see
Talk:Linux#Version number for details.
--
Tothwolf (
talk) 10:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Have Blue.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly ( Parrot) 01:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – iride scent 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not re-insert multiple non-free images into articles against policy. The non-free policy is very clear - a minimal number of non-free images are allowed in articles when they significantly add to the reader's understanding of the article. A bunch of game covers and pretty much identical screenshots do not in any way meet those criteria. Thanks, Black Kite 16:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Check_Game is currently up for deletion, along with this and 94 other Price is Right games
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2007. Ikip ( talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have relisted List of one-time characters in The Simpsons for deletion. Apparently this was one discussed before when it was known as List of one-time characters from The Simpsons. Most people have left the project since the list was known by that name. I see that you are still active and wanted to notify you of this posting. JBsupreme ( talk) 17:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 10:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Sources-warn
Template:Sources-warn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Have Blue.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey. You just deleted Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association v. FCC the article my mentee started. It is the subject of an educational assignment. Because of that will you please restore the article and give them some extra time to bring the article up to the inclusion standards. cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 10:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
After seeing your delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Barnett I was very surprised to notice that you were an admin. Are you aware of the INTENT of WP:NSPORTS? (and I know that it's only a guideline) Each sport has carefully assessed at what level of play is it likely that a person would have received significant coverage, and drawn a brightline rule at that point, mainly to avoid meaningless AfD arguements like the current one. Yes, the only refs provided at the moment are statistical, but it is highly likely that there is more out there - and the Googleworld is actually pretty poor at finding stuff from the 1990s compared to more recent or much older material, as it can be a bit of a blackhole due to newspapers deleting old content (or not even being online then) and the scanning of old papers is still mainly from much earlier. It might also pay to check out the editing history of redlinked nominators too before you vote in an AfD - this one is not too flash - three vandalism edits and then an AfD nomination screams out that something is not right. I see from your User:Night Gyr/thoughts page that you have strong views about notability. I agree in general, but I think you've backed the wrong horse in this case. Regards, The-Pope ( talk) 13:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm basing it entirely on the availability of substantial sources. If and when you find the sources, add them to the article and I'll welcome its retention. My opinion in the discussion was conditional on the existence of sources. I understand your desire to keep the article in place, but as it stands, it's actually in violation of
the strict sourcing guidelines for articles about living people. We can keep articles about albums and TV shows according to general standards because unsourced claims in those don't have the same potential for libel, but this article contains a biography with no reference whatsoever.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 17:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you must not have actually read the links provided, as the cricinfo link provides biographical details - and therefore the article does NOT contain "no reference whatsoever". If you disagree with NSPORTS, then start up a RFC to remove it, don't make bad calls on AfDs. I've spent the last year referencing probably about 2000 UBLPs, so I fully understand WP:BLP. The-Pope ( talk) 02:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand that you deleted the article Aqua Sports company. I have bee editing it and was wondering if you could have a look at it and let me know if it suitable to request for it to re-enter the mainspace. If not could you please let me know what would need to be changed. Thanks Oddbodz ( talk) 18:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have cited the article now. Could you please check it again. Sorry to keep bothering you. Oddbodz ( talk) 19:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Really nice job on that page. Seemed like a lot of work. I'm very perturbed that it was up and deleted like that without any conversation about modifying it. :/ -- Paul.irish ( talk) 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Night Gyr,
I am just researching this topic and want to share my findings. I have compared two techniques-native javascript vs libraries like Modernizr; without any bias. They both have their own utilities. I had no intention to promote any commercial product and I will really appreciate if you would reconsider it's deletion for that reason. If you could review it again and let me know your review comments, I will be happy to fix all problems with the page.
Please let me know if it can re-enter the page in mainspace.
Thanks
-- Pasmagic ( talk) 23:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Wuh
Wuz
Dat 16:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association 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. Wuh Wuz Dat 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
like i said before. theres not much confirming it as a stylized form. the only two titles we have is japanese one and that one. Bread Ninja ( talk) 19:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Silk Purse Award | |
| I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your improvements to the The Glorious Resolve article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear into a terrific silk purse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)) |
I notice you removed the {{ db-g4}} tag from UEFA Euro 2020 on the basis that the article had been restored after a DRV discussion. Well, the only DRV I can find that relates to that article only says that the article could be restored to someone's userspace. Since the article was first deleted, there has never been a consensus to restore it to the mainspace. Because of this, I have restored the speedy deletion tag to the article. – Pee Jay 22:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Night Gyr, not that I disagree that the articles, Unbroken (Interrogate album) and Scarred for Life (Interrogate album), should be deleted, but the criteria for which it was speedied, A9, seems to be in error as there is an article for the band at Interrogate (band). If you'll re-add, I can PROD or AFD them, if they don't appear to be otherwise notable. Thanks. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 23:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Revision is accepted.
I'm informing you, because I decided that it will be a blemish on your record as an administrator. I did not inform anybody else (and will not), because I see no gleam of light in their impenetrable stupidity. Best regards. – George Serdechny 12:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI:
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27#last-minute rescue.
postdlf (
talk) 19:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- So much for the "blemish on your record as an administrator" - copyvio evidence has been brought up at deletion review above. Grab some popcorn, settle in, and go read. CycloneGU ( talk) 05:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest. The thread is Need closure of deletion review, copyvio investigation. Thank you. CycloneGU ( talk) 13:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Yattacd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{ di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.
An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 05:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Night Gyr,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.206.39 ( talk) 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Todd Goldman Make Everyone Die.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot ( talk) 04:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lockheed Have Blue.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 09:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The article List of decommissioned ships by year has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- So little here as to be useless. Unsourced. In any event, a comprehensive list of all Navy's would be overly long as to be unmanageable. I would suggest that if somebody wanted to continue with this project, they break it down by nation, with the main article sending users to the individual nation's article.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Safiel (
talk) 20:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level where there is a request for Operation Midnight Climax. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated two articles for deletion, F.Y.P and Toys That Kill, both about the same group of punk rockers in two manifestations, that, a half decade after being tagged as lacking sources, still lacks an sources, despite it being BLP. You were in on the original discussion—one of the only persons still active it seems. Have a look, and express your opinion. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 ( talk) 01:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Brad Dourif may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- |}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Night Gyr. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
- Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
- A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Night Gyr.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Night Gyr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Night Gyr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
Administrator changes
-
NinjaRobotPirate •
Schwede66 •
K6ka •
Ealdgyth •
Ferret •
Cyberpower678 •
Mz7 •
Primefac •
Dodger67 -
Briangotts •
JeremyA •
BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. ( T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. ( T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.
Obituaries
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Night Gyr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Todd Goldman Make Everyone Die.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Night Gyr. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
"Sexually explicit" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sexually explicit. Since you had some involvement with the Sexually explicit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 01:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Briscoe Cain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deer Park High School. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The file File:Gbu15b.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Superseded by c:File:GBU-15 xxl.jpg.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
Minorax«¦
talk¦» 13:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a reminder that established
policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a reminder that established
policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)