←Archive 9 ( 401 - 450) | Khukri's talk archive 10 (451 - 500). Please do not modify | Archive 11 ( 501 - 550)→ |
Template:Uw-mos3 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. Marcus Qwertyus 07:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
I'm new here, please clarify me - What did I do wrong? - Why you deleted my changes? From my point of view: - Terms "MAC OS" and "Windows 7" etc. are "Operation System's". - For term "software" fits better "application ". If it is true, please restore my changes. Thanks in advance Gennadi Gblindmann ( talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I edited a page on wikipedia which you appear to have "undone". The specific edit I made was authoritative. I have absolute (physical and printed) proof of the accuracy of this. I can take this to any degree of audit and reference checking in the scientific community. Yet I find that you deleted my edits from wikipedia.
I can provide more details on my questions, but before I do that, how or where do I get to know WHY you removed my edits? Is there an explanation somewhere on wikipedia before someone removes another person's edits?
Thanks Nmehta0 01:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Nimish Mehta Nmehta0 01:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmehta0 ( talk • contribs)
Nmehta0 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Nimish Mehta Nmehta0 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
I'm puzzled. Earlier I added external links to the wiki page about CERN's Large Hadron Collider. I got a message saying that my content belonged to the wiki page " Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider", so I added the links to this page instead. Also, I added some text. However, my text and my links, you deleted. After corresponding with Otto Rössler regarding the safely of the LHC, I wrote the articles I linked to, and I consider them to be a valuable contribution to the debate. Why did you delete them?
I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks.
All the best, Stefan Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.116.4 ( talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi again,
May you please look at here and check it. I am suspicious that this is case of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Regards, -- Verman1 ( talk) 19:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
Regarding Tsitsernavank Monastery. Some editors are trying to show this monastery inside country that is not officially regocnized by any country. Officially this monastery is situated in Lachin, Azerbaijan. I ask you to take some actions as an administrator, in order to prevent such misleading edits in Wikipedia. Regards, Verman1 ( talk)
Hi Khukri,
Can you please have a look here [1] and see if you can resolve this matter, as I think that current version of the article is obviously one-sided. I am trying to do my best to show good will in order not to begin edit-warring, but many facts in the article are simply unacceptable. Regards, -- Verman1 ( talk) 05:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
/hi/ is it acceptable for Verman to never capitilize the first letter of the word Armenian, when he capatilize it for every other language and ethnic group? tks. Vidovler ( talk) 14:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
Could you please comment on the following:
Thanks in advance. -- Ashot ( talk) 17:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Template:Uw-npa1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Island Monkey talk the talk 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi K, In the revision history for Global warming you may have noticed that I admonished you to read the revision history accurately. Passing by it again myself just now I suddenly realized....... I'm the guy that read it wrong. Sorry! Dopey me. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Posted by User:SunKing2 on Portal:Current events/2011 July 23 * CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produces notable fluctuations in search for Higgs Boson particle. (BBC News) 99.56.122.17 ( talk) 08:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanx for the Talk:Watts Up With That? comments ... specifically at Talk:... Why Richard A. Muller ... May 25. 2011 Scientific American. I've added at hat/hab. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mossevans.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Taken from talkpage Hi there, I've reverted your the inclusion your new article Health crisis into all the article that you recently added it. There are a number of the issues with the new article that other users have been put on the main page, which I suggest are resolved prior to linking it to well established article. It should also be noted that a lot of the articles you targeted have a very tenuous link to your new article, and the mass addition of your article into the see also could be seen as trying to promote it's notability, via what links here. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to get in touch. Regards Khu kri 14:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty shocked about the number of attacks on the person who made the nominations, especially that the initial comment was a pretty clear ad hominem attack by User:Saravask which went almost totally unoticed. And the number of people who commented but don't appear to have even read the nominators rational, or the red text on Template:Cquote which clearly states not to use for quotes, and the number of editors who (from their comments) haven't even bothered to find out what a pull quote is.
Yes, editors have a right to create new style protocols through consensus, and I think the deleted nomination was misguided. What is really disappointing is that nobody had the balls to say "hey, I was adding the template because it thought it looked good and trying to make the article I was working on look great, I had no idea it was supposed to be only for pull quotes.." - but I'm long in the tooth enough to know that this is the explanation for many of the good faith additions of this template.
The argument that this article ( Pull quote) is "confusing and difficult to understand" doesn't hold any water - it's just another example of "not my fault - I can't hear your arguments" mentality where every error is someone elses fault.
At some point editors need to find out just how unacceptable their behaviour actually is in real life - the original comment by User:67.101.5.104 is essentially vile, sarcastic and cowardly. quote: " the editing community would be better off if Gadget850 spent time improving the short and reference-free article on pull quotes, so that editors and readers alike could be enlightened by his proscriptive understanding of the topic." That's a personal attack - essentially a taunt using sarcasm. Any real person can see that/
If you can propose a way of demonstrating to these people that impolite behaviour (on the internet) is just as bad as doing it in real life (without sinking to their level) - I'd would like to hear it. I'm sick of having to read the disfunctional crap people spout (more often than not in !vote opportunities). I don't want to insult people, but I don't want to be exposed to people acting like total asshats either.. (Sorry for the rant) Imgaril ( talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello there,
I noticed that you removed my speedy tag for Rober Haddeciyan as seven minutes between creation the tagging was insufficient. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this -- are you saying that seven minutes is too long a time for it to be eligible for speedy deletion? If so, could you please direct me to the WP article that states this rule? I did look over WP:SPEEDY, but did not find mention of such a rule. Also, if this is the case, what is the "time limit", as it were? Thanks. – Richard BB 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
While the ejection point from the SPS protons is below the BA4 building on the French side ( 46°14′55″N 06°04′08″E / 46.24861°N 6.06889°E), this map shows the target chamber where we get the pions & kaons and the decay tunnel all located at the Swiss side. I think it is fair to say that the CNGS facility, like much of CERN, straddles the Franco-Swiss border. -- Lambiam 15:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
I wanted to let you know that Steven Walling and I have been running some A/B tests on user warning templates used by Huggle, to determine whether changing the content of their message has an effect on the recipient (read about it in more detail here and here). We've done two rounds of testing with the level 1 vandalism warning and are getting ready to move on to all level 1 Huggle warnings. Our redesigned draft templates are here:
As the creator of a substantial number of the current default user warnings back in 2006, I thought you might be interested in this project and have some useful feedback for us. I'd also love to talk to you about those original templates – how did you design them? Were you using anything as a model or aiming for any specific effect? Looking at their revision history, it's surprising how little the content of most of them has changed in the past 5 years. I'd be really interested to know what you think about that. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, shoot me an email, or ping me on IRC (my contact info is on my user page). Thanks, and looking forward to hearing from you! -- Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 19:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Khukri.You've seen my latest comments. I'm working hard (from the community side) with the WMF to develop improved new user reception and page patrolling. I think it may be time to revitalise the project and perhaps send a newsletter to the project members, and perhaps to some of the more prolific participants from here. I used to participate quite rgularly but due to rather a lot of lacklustre comments (some bordering on hostile), I also tended to pay less attention to the project. I'm more than willing to help out on this, and feel that my own RL experience in cross-cultural work could eventually be useful. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested in taking a look at the above SPI case, as your name has been mentioned. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 03:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 17:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia_Is_Getting_Worse_As_It_Gets_Better called my attention to [2], which suggests that user warning templates are driving away new contributors. I've added some other criticisms at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Uw-npov3. Sorry, but I've never liked the way that newbies get hammered with these nasty bot comments, and I think it might just be time that people are ready to take a stand against them. Wnt ( talk) 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
←Archive 9 ( 401 - 450) | Khukri's talk archive 10 (451 - 500). Please do not modify | Archive 11 ( 501 - 550)→ |
Template:Uw-mos3 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. Marcus Qwertyus 07:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
I'm new here, please clarify me - What did I do wrong? - Why you deleted my changes? From my point of view: - Terms "MAC OS" and "Windows 7" etc. are "Operation System's". - For term "software" fits better "application ". If it is true, please restore my changes. Thanks in advance Gennadi Gblindmann ( talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I edited a page on wikipedia which you appear to have "undone". The specific edit I made was authoritative. I have absolute (physical and printed) proof of the accuracy of this. I can take this to any degree of audit and reference checking in the scientific community. Yet I find that you deleted my edits from wikipedia.
I can provide more details on my questions, but before I do that, how or where do I get to know WHY you removed my edits? Is there an explanation somewhere on wikipedia before someone removes another person's edits?
Thanks Nmehta0 01:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Nimish Mehta Nmehta0 01:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmehta0 ( talk • contribs)
Nmehta0 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Nimish Mehta Nmehta0 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
I'm puzzled. Earlier I added external links to the wiki page about CERN's Large Hadron Collider. I got a message saying that my content belonged to the wiki page " Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider", so I added the links to this page instead. Also, I added some text. However, my text and my links, you deleted. After corresponding with Otto Rössler regarding the safely of the LHC, I wrote the articles I linked to, and I consider them to be a valuable contribution to the debate. Why did you delete them?
I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks.
All the best, Stefan Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.116.4 ( talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi again,
May you please look at here and check it. I am suspicious that this is case of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Regards, -- Verman1 ( talk) 19:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
Regarding Tsitsernavank Monastery. Some editors are trying to show this monastery inside country that is not officially regocnized by any country. Officially this monastery is situated in Lachin, Azerbaijan. I ask you to take some actions as an administrator, in order to prevent such misleading edits in Wikipedia. Regards, Verman1 ( talk)
Hi Khukri,
Can you please have a look here [1] and see if you can resolve this matter, as I think that current version of the article is obviously one-sided. I am trying to do my best to show good will in order not to begin edit-warring, but many facts in the article are simply unacceptable. Regards, -- Verman1 ( talk) 05:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
/hi/ is it acceptable for Verman to never capitilize the first letter of the word Armenian, when he capatilize it for every other language and ethnic group? tks. Vidovler ( talk) 14:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Khukri,
Could you please comment on the following:
Thanks in advance. -- Ashot ( talk) 17:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Template:Uw-npa1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Island Monkey talk the talk 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi K, In the revision history for Global warming you may have noticed that I admonished you to read the revision history accurately. Passing by it again myself just now I suddenly realized....... I'm the guy that read it wrong. Sorry! Dopey me. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Posted by User:SunKing2 on Portal:Current events/2011 July 23 * CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produces notable fluctuations in search for Higgs Boson particle. (BBC News) 99.56.122.17 ( talk) 08:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanx for the Talk:Watts Up With That? comments ... specifically at Talk:... Why Richard A. Muller ... May 25. 2011 Scientific American. I've added at hat/hab. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mossevans.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Taken from talkpage Hi there, I've reverted your the inclusion your new article Health crisis into all the article that you recently added it. There are a number of the issues with the new article that other users have been put on the main page, which I suggest are resolved prior to linking it to well established article. It should also be noted that a lot of the articles you targeted have a very tenuous link to your new article, and the mass addition of your article into the see also could be seen as trying to promote it's notability, via what links here. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to get in touch. Regards Khu kri 14:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty shocked about the number of attacks on the person who made the nominations, especially that the initial comment was a pretty clear ad hominem attack by User:Saravask which went almost totally unoticed. And the number of people who commented but don't appear to have even read the nominators rational, or the red text on Template:Cquote which clearly states not to use for quotes, and the number of editors who (from their comments) haven't even bothered to find out what a pull quote is.
Yes, editors have a right to create new style protocols through consensus, and I think the deleted nomination was misguided. What is really disappointing is that nobody had the balls to say "hey, I was adding the template because it thought it looked good and trying to make the article I was working on look great, I had no idea it was supposed to be only for pull quotes.." - but I'm long in the tooth enough to know that this is the explanation for many of the good faith additions of this template.
The argument that this article ( Pull quote) is "confusing and difficult to understand" doesn't hold any water - it's just another example of "not my fault - I can't hear your arguments" mentality where every error is someone elses fault.
At some point editors need to find out just how unacceptable their behaviour actually is in real life - the original comment by User:67.101.5.104 is essentially vile, sarcastic and cowardly. quote: " the editing community would be better off if Gadget850 spent time improving the short and reference-free article on pull quotes, so that editors and readers alike could be enlightened by his proscriptive understanding of the topic." That's a personal attack - essentially a taunt using sarcasm. Any real person can see that/
If you can propose a way of demonstrating to these people that impolite behaviour (on the internet) is just as bad as doing it in real life (without sinking to their level) - I'd would like to hear it. I'm sick of having to read the disfunctional crap people spout (more often than not in !vote opportunities). I don't want to insult people, but I don't want to be exposed to people acting like total asshats either.. (Sorry for the rant) Imgaril ( talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello there,
I noticed that you removed my speedy tag for Rober Haddeciyan as seven minutes between creation the tagging was insufficient. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this -- are you saying that seven minutes is too long a time for it to be eligible for speedy deletion? If so, could you please direct me to the WP article that states this rule? I did look over WP:SPEEDY, but did not find mention of such a rule. Also, if this is the case, what is the "time limit", as it were? Thanks. – Richard BB 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
While the ejection point from the SPS protons is below the BA4 building on the French side ( 46°14′55″N 06°04′08″E / 46.24861°N 6.06889°E), this map shows the target chamber where we get the pions & kaons and the decay tunnel all located at the Swiss side. I think it is fair to say that the CNGS facility, like much of CERN, straddles the Franco-Swiss border. -- Lambiam 15:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Khukri,
I wanted to let you know that Steven Walling and I have been running some A/B tests on user warning templates used by Huggle, to determine whether changing the content of their message has an effect on the recipient (read about it in more detail here and here). We've done two rounds of testing with the level 1 vandalism warning and are getting ready to move on to all level 1 Huggle warnings. Our redesigned draft templates are here:
As the creator of a substantial number of the current default user warnings back in 2006, I thought you might be interested in this project and have some useful feedback for us. I'd also love to talk to you about those original templates – how did you design them? Were you using anything as a model or aiming for any specific effect? Looking at their revision history, it's surprising how little the content of most of them has changed in the past 5 years. I'd be really interested to know what you think about that. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, shoot me an email, or ping me on IRC (my contact info is on my user page). Thanks, and looking forward to hearing from you! -- Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 19:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Khukri.You've seen my latest comments. I'm working hard (from the community side) with the WMF to develop improved new user reception and page patrolling. I think it may be time to revitalise the project and perhaps send a newsletter to the project members, and perhaps to some of the more prolific participants from here. I used to participate quite rgularly but due to rather a lot of lacklustre comments (some bordering on hostile), I also tended to pay less attention to the project. I'm more than willing to help out on this, and feel that my own RL experience in cross-cultural work could eventually be useful. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested in taking a look at the above SPI case, as your name has been mentioned. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 03:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 17:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia_Is_Getting_Worse_As_It_Gets_Better called my attention to [2], which suggests that user warning templates are driving away new contributors. I've added some other criticisms at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Uw-npov3. Sorry, but I've never liked the way that newbies get hammered with these nasty bot comments, and I think it might just be time that people are ready to take a stand against them. Wnt ( talk) 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)