This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Dear Sir, we have communicated on and off line regarding my unblocking ( [1]), and some months ago I requested an amendment. I'd like to respectfully request that the unblocking conditions be modified to allow editing of Marvel Comics articles. How would I proceed? Kind Regards Asgardian ( talk) 10:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I got a msg but all it said was you'd dropped me a message! Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah! perfido is not a personal attack but an article written with thanks for improving its composer ;) - As I sequel to Stargazy pie, I translated Dreadstar, - both on the Main page today, when we celebrate 50 years of a church and its music, which included in 2015 a joyous piece premiered in Liverpool, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Worm. You approved my request for access to the AutoWikiBrowser, but when I went to log in, it said I didn't have access. Is there a waiting period after approval for my name to make its way onto the approved list? Thanks. fds Talk 00:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey there! The Co-op has been on a hiatus for a bit, but we are planning on opening up shop again soon. When you're able, please read over and respond to this update on our talk page. We have favorable results from our final report regarding the pilot, and we are interested in seeing who is available to mentor when we reopen our space and begin to send out invites again. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately user:BlueSalix is creating drama again, here, you may wish to check in on him again to nip that in the bud. And no, my editing an article at AfD six months after my previous encounter with him is not some obscure attempt at "revenge". Artw ( talk) 14:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Worm, I read you are willing to be asked for a nomination. So, I would like to do that with you. Am I in the right spot to contact you for that? The self nominating process doesn't seem clearly obvious enough. --Emborion 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC) nikpapag
Oh, it looks like I've got a fair way to go? Ok Worm. Thank you for the 3 tips.--Emborion 20:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! I'm working on a project trying to bring most of the coding on Wikipedia up to the most current standards (
HTML5), and I noticed that your signature is using <font>...</font>
tags which were deprecated in
HTML 4.0 Transitional, marked as invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of
HTML5 at all. I'd love to help you update your signature to use newer code, and if you're interested, I suggest replacing:
[[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]])
with:
[[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]])
which will result in a 215 character long signature with an appearance of: WormTT( talk) compared to your existing 208 character long signature of: WormTT( talk) — Either way. Happy editing!( t) Josve05a ( c) 23:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]])
<b>...</b>
is just as valid in HTML5 as <span>...</span>
. --
RexxS (
talk) 17:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]])
Hi,
I have been gradually increasing my areas I have dealings with on Wikipedia and am thinking of running for adminship. I have noted that you are willing to give advice on areas that may require improvement for a candidate before they run and if you feel they are suitable nominate them for adminship. I would appreciate if you would consider tkaing some time to evaluate my work and let me know of any pointers you can provide, for claritys sake I did request this from another user a while back but due to unforseen cirucmstances they were unable to assist. Amortias ( T)( C) 09:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.
In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.
Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. – xeno talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dave. I noticed that you've closed infobox RfCs in the past and were involved as an arbitrator in an infobox case. Would you be willing to close this RfC? I'm hesitant to do so myself as I was the requester and expressed my opinion. Many thanks. -- Albany NY ( talk) 03:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dave, thanks for taking the time to close the RfC at Talk:James Joyce, but I believe you've misjudged the strength of the arguments, so I'm going to challenge your close. There's no documented mechanism for reviewing RfC closes per WP:Requests for comment #Ending RfCs (as there is for reviewing closes of AfDs), so I thought I'd raise the issue here with you first.
My principal problem with your summary is that by taking into account earlier debates (from 2010) outside the RfC itself, you fail to acknowledge that consensus can change and give undue weight to a five-year-old straw poll, which was a simple vote with (at most) references to a discredited user essay. Further, I simply cannot agree with your assertion that the majority of discussion relevant to the RfC question occurred in the section below the RfD. It didn't. I also believe you are mistaken in dismissing generic arguments both for and against inclusion. ArbCom cannot create policy, and there is no policy that dictates discounting an argument simply because it can be generalised to other articles - in fact, that makes the argument stronger.
Within the RfC, there were at least eight editors arguing for inclusion and only one arguing against. If you want to consider the broader discussions from last month that triggered the RfC ( Talk:James Joyce #Infobox and Talk:James Joyce #Infobox reconsideration, you'll find that Albany NY, Pigsonthewing, RexxS, Choor monster, Littleolive oil, Gerda Arendt, Davey2010, Comatmebro and Ryecatcher773 all supplied arguments in favour of inclusion, while Modernist, Paul August, SandyGeorgia, Malik Shabazz argued against inclusion, or at least in favour of retaining the consensus from five years ago.
I'd very much like you to review your closure in the light of the above. If the sheer number of editors who commented favourably on the inclusion of an infobox isn't decisive, then I still believe that if you summarise all of the arguments pro and con, then the weight of argument still falls squarely on the pro-infobox side of the RfC. If you're unable to revise your closure, the perhaps you can suggest a suitable venue to take the dispute? Either WP:AN (as it hosts WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure) or WP:DRN (as this is primarily concerned with content) come to mind, but I'm happy enough to be guided by you per Requests for closure. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 11:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You say, it is more important to discuss an infobox's merits to a specific article. In this case, the debated utility of the infobox stands against the debated aesthetics and flow of the article
. But that is a recurrent theme; indeed, it had been debated at
Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#Infobox, another infobox RfC that you closed as "... there is consensus that there should be an infobox". I'd be interested to hear what factors have made the inclusion of the infobox in Beethoven's article appropriate, but not here.
Alakzi (
talk) 15:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dave, would you mind looking into adding Useight to the process at WP:INACTIVE. Mkdw talk 22:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Especially for you one of the better DYK ... that Prince Nikolaus Esterházy, who commissioned Beethoven's Mass in C major for his wife's name day, found it "unbearably ridiculous and detestable"? The discussion on the talk is one of three on my parole. Today I found a new word on my talk, "ArbCommed", made me smile, but I will not use it. We - the team on the Beethoven mass - are working on merging The Creation (Haydn) (partly done) and The Creation structure. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) for
WJBscribe
(talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You commented on the tp of this project two years ago. The idea has not been pursued since - yet. Now that you have been both an arb and a 'crat since then, your opinion may have changed. I would welcome your up-to-date thoughts there. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you aware that instead of reducing that block you have inadvertently extended it? -- Epipelagic ( talk) 07:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
:D I ran out of beer though. Sorry. Cheers.— cyberpower Chat:Limited Access 11:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi WTT - fix that formatting error unless someone beats you to it pelase, I'm a bitamazed I had thehandeye coordination left to get here. SOrry about that. TEaches me to want to getinthe last thoughtIcurrently hae mmediately. Best, a very twilight sleepy, Kevin Gorman ( talk)
Looks as if there may be an ominous trend developing here, specially concerning blocks of Corbett. First Sandstein, then GorillaWarfare, then Keilana. It's going to arrive at the point where no one is going to risk blocking him irrespective of how purely correct and procedural the block is. Perhaps Risker or Bishonen or MelanieN should do the next ones - there will be more... -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, WTT! Over here you said you'd be happy to check if I could get a nomination for the bit. If you're not too busy, would it be possible for you to check if you could nominate me? Thank you. APerson ( talk!) 15:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, I think your lack of peer reviewed "content creation" would significantly hamper any attempt at an RfA. I'd recommend have a go at creating a couple of good articles. Find a subject that you're interested in and put the effort in - it will significantly improve your chances at passing.
fair, I'm reasonably certain that the community will look at my technical contributions as well as my content ones and decide I'm a WP:NETPOSITIVE. I had been following Liz's RfA pretty closely even before you brought it up, and it doesn't look like her low number of articles created is a big issue. Would it be possible to move along with the nomination anyway? APerson ( talk!) 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you nominate me for adminship?
Ejaz92 ( talk) 08:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
More dramah than media in the discussions (about, you guess right) on Rod Steiger, a Media and drama good article. I stay out. The word respect has been mentioned, probably without blushing. - As so often, I would like to know who pays respect to the interests of the readers. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Please see this thread on WP:ANI. A user with a long history of edit-warring and unsourced edits who you granted courtesy vanishing is continuing to edit in the same areas with the now renamed account, which I believe is against the spirit of WP:Courtesy vanishing. Thomas.W talk 11:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, this is still the unsuccessful RfA with the most support comments, and this the withdrawn RfA with the most support comments. WJBscribe (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) for
WJBscribe
(talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I share the concerns recently stated by you at the RfA. However, I see it in reverse also, ie: the level of support is so high as to be peculiar. There are some in that mix who have practically come out of semi-retirement. The entire thing has been a mess and I do feel sorry that Liz has had to endure what must surely be one of the most divisive RfAs of recent times.
I also never thought I'd see the day when I disagreed with so many people whom I respect, which includes you and your fellow nominators. Saying this here because I don't want to clutter the main RfA page still more. No need for a reply. - Sitush ( talk) 09:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I think people can overestimate the oddity of "coming out of retirement" comments. I remember when I left Wikipedia for several months back in 2009 that I would still sign in to read wikipedia and take a look at what was going on. Seeing familiar people at RfA/RfB prompted me to participate even though I wasn't really making any other edits at the time ( Jan - Mar 2009 contribs), but no one approached me to tell me the RfXs were happening. WJBscribe (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I've also been surprised that supports seem to be generally accepted by the community even when they do not give a meaningful rationale, but opposes are expected to provide such. All this said, I'm not a regular haunter of RfA stuff: I turn up when I already have a fair amount of dealings with the nominated person. - Sitush ( talk) 12:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As you are one of the joint proposers of WP:BARC and very invested in reform, I would appreciate it if you take a look at a recent draft of an alternative proposal for de-sysopping that I've written at User:BU Rob13/RfC for Administrator Re-election. Your thoughts, whatever they might be, are very welcome on the talk page. I'm trying to determine if this is a feasible RfC to run. ~ Rob Talk 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Gooday. Thanks for your deletion of an unspecifed reference. I have taken another screenshot and added to the COIN file I am preparing; to this end I had already established a dedicated email address (at a time when I am trying to finish with Wikipedia, I am having to learn 'new' stuff, involving much down-time). This sequence is connected with a recent SPI and subsequent unblock with specific instruction from the Admin/CU/Oversighter not to edit unlogged-in, with penalty of permanent block (two admins, both of whom I requested should be available in the future, due to the BF of the Master/Sock - so far, I have resisted the temptation to ping them). I have been trying to identify further socks in the draw (and will continue), hence the two IP addresses which have suddenly deleted historic content - I am unconcerned about the actual article reference itself (which is clearly BS, and the adding editor has been noted and screenshotted) but the actual details contained therein are highly-poignant. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agljones/Archive, [10]
Already, I have identified another Master/Sock pairing and taken advice from a CU, who wants a new SPI. IMO, this is unconnected, as the sock is used for promotional purposes and is presently inactive, so just sitting on that one for a bit until I learn how to do it (further advice from CU was assured).
I really shouldn't have gone this far publicly, but I feel somewhat-justified, as I regret that you've concluded " an immense amount of bad faith" on my part, when I have always tried to be low-key and respectful of WP:OUTING where this individual is concerned. The edit summaries were intended to be firm and informative for the controlling Master (too late for politeness), trying to force a known-editor, who has failed to respond to COI-delaration request (98% single-topic area), to log-in and request a permanent visibility reduction from an admin/oversighter. Obviously, you've had a private message leading you to this Manx Pound article, so think about it - particularly if there is a subsequent oversight sequence relating to the same reference. I hope you are now less confused! I became superficially involved with this in May, 2014 note the edit summary, with more since June 2015 and obviously still ongoing. After you've digested the gist, you can reduce the visibility of this message, but - again - I would request that you be available in the future (I added a bit more to the original draft). Assume that both my talk page and contributions are being surveilled.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 14:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Sunshine! | ||
Hello Worm That Turned! Bhootrina ( talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst: User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{ User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bhootrina ( talk) 13:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hello. Recently I have been thinking about running for adminship; however during the past two or three months I have been very busy in real life. Now that I have more time to edit again, I am seriously considering the idea. Please, would you review my contributions? I would definitely appreciate some advice about whether to go for it. Thank you, BethNaught ( talk) 13:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.
“ | Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "
Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity
[1] for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at
meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.
|
” |
To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.
If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. – xeno talk
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious about this flurry of vanishing editors...is this typical? I remember it being quite rare and now there are several today. It's always a bit sad to see even if it is understandable.
Hope all is well with you,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I've received your notification (I didn't realise it had been a year!) and I'm just confirming that I'm still alive and around. KaisaL ( talk) 11:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please change my name to user392819? Regards; Have a nice day. -- HakimPhilo ( talk) 19:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm organising another Editathon, this time at Clitheroe castle Museum. The details can be found here Wikipedia:GLAM/Clitheroe Castle Museum. Would be great if you could come. Jhayward001 ( talk) 15:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking at potentially requesting adminship for Wikipedia. I have been making / editing articles (particularly in the Bio-Sciences and Medical fields) for nearly a decade now. I feel like I have a good grip on not only the syntax/nomenclature but also the rules for editing articles, and I am wondering what I would need to do to take the next step. You mentioned that you would be willing to take a look at potential admin and give advice (and potentially nominations). Either would be appreciated! FrozenMan ( talk) 00:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I have filed a Request for clarification of Remedy 2.2 of WP:ARBRAN, concerning a topic ban placed on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Since you were a member of ArbCom at the time, any insights you may wish to share about the committee's thinking would be welcome. Thanks. BMK ( talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
First, you moved Cassianto's badgering to the talk page, and then deleted it completely. If that was a deliberate bureaucrat's action, and not some mix-up, then I would heartily thank you for this bold move. The badgering was annoying, and the whole thread was useless and rather uncivil on Cassianto's side. I think your action has set a useful precedent for future RfAs. There's now only the question what to do with the notices that the discussions have been moved to the talk page where they are not anymore. Kraxler ( talk) 14:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:
Thanks! Mike Peel ( talk) 17:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For all the hard work you do! MarkYabloko ( talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hello Dave! Quick question for you. Does being an administrator on en.wikipedia.org transfers your privileges automatically to wikipedia.org in other languages? MarkYabloko ( talk) 14:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MarkYabloko
Thanks Dave, that was quick and insightful. MarkYabloko ( talk) 15:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MarkYabloko
Sorry I shortened the diff. The Nikolaikirche where the Monday demonstrations began is pictured on the Main page on our National holiday, DYK? Time to celebrate, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any reason why I should not re-block Reguyla for immediately breaking his unblock conditions. [11] -- NeilN talk to me 16:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
There is also discussion on Reguyla's talk page at User talk:Reguyla#One of the restrictions not clear requesting clarification of the restriction about the specifics of the Reguyla's limited ability to interact with administrators. Some specifics regarding that would be welcome. John Carter ( talk) 18:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_Reguyla_.28Kumioko.29_reblock. I echo John's sentiment. The unblock should have been raised at a noticeboard. -- NeilN talk to me 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You said you would answer all criticism in the morning. Speaking for myself, someone who in general is one of those idiots who almost always will give someone one more last chance, I guess I have only one thing to say; Next time, seek community input before acting. I can't trout you for trying to redeem an editor who has been valuable, even one who some might see as being as far gone as this one, but I hope that if you ever find yourself in this situation in the future you at least get some idiots like me who never learn about giving too many last chances in for input and to be able to help back you up in advance before acting. John Carter ( talk) 22:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Cheer up! During times of difficulty animals provide some of the warmest and unconditional comfort. If you don't have one, well then you can always settle with a chat with an old Wiki friend, if you need! Either way, one mustn't feel any blame for being a decent administrator - indeed, a decent person - for assuming good faith and giving someone another chance. You stuck your neck out, and I'm sure, you'll get it back. You've got the respect of the community Dave!
—
MelbourneStar☆
talk 08:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I won't bother commenting on the pros and cons (plenty of others are doing that, and there ARE plenty of both to be found); but I do appreciate the efforts you put in here. Hope next week goes better for you. — Ched : ? 11:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You said you'd post answer(s) in the morning...
When I find myself in times of trouble Mother Mary comes to me Speaking words of wisdom, let it be. - Paul McCartney.
P.S. would you mind unblocking me after my forthcoming "copyvio" block? NE Ent
I mentioned your name over at the AN thread regarding some contact I have had with Reguyla and something which came to mind to me based on that contact. I would be very grateful, particularly knowing you are probably sick of this discussion by now, regarding your opinion of my comments and proposal there. John Carter ( talk) 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice work. Now do the decent thing and follow his example. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
For ALWAYS assuming good faith and reaching out civily to others, even those that don't necessarily deserve it KoshVorlon 11:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
Apparently this article Olkhovska Iryna was previously deleted as Iryna Olkhovska, but Derek R Bullamore ( talk) and I are unable to track it down. This woman is not notable, and over a hundred inline citations will not help the article. Can you help us?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ayub407 talk 19:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ayub407, I haven't got it. WormTT( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello there. Given that you recently warned Mdann52 ( talk · contribs) over warring, I wanted to let you know that Mdann52(alt) ( talk · contribs) is using a bot to mass-tagging airline destinations articles for deletion. Please also note that no valid reasons have been provided. I started a thread regarding the matter at WT:AIRLINE. You're welcome to drop some lines to the discussion. Thanks.-- Jetstreamer Talk 16:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Long overdue. pablo 12:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I like today's Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you CU me and email me the results including the raw data returned?— cyberpower Chat:Online 14:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I saw your message on my page. I won't be able to check my email until lunch (I also contribute at work). I see you reverted me, don't worry, I won't touch it, I have an idea why that happened. I wasn't saying exactly what could have happened, but I get it , it was removed per WP:BEANS. I'll be able to read the email away from my desk, you've probably provided a clear rationale for this, as always. Thanks! KoshVorlon 13:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dave,
As you performed the original unblock of Peter Damian when his ban was lifted, would you mind also unblocking Renamed user 4? I've sworn off using the block tool directly, as you may recall. I've already lifted protection and removed the ban templates.
Cheers, — Scott • talk 11:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC).
I would appreciate an unblock of the renamed user account, as that was clean at the time of the August 2009 ban, and had been renamed as a courtesy long before that. Peter Damian ( talk) 20:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
could you point me to the meta discussion regarding passwords? Thank you. — Ched : ? 10:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your good advice, coincidence or not, someone just entered to Kafka: "faced by bizarre or nightmarish circumstances, unfathomable social-bureaucratic powers, and experiences of helplessness or despair". -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the mis-understanding in the Arb page regarding Neelix's desysop. I struck my comments are re-worded to be more clear on what I was saying. I realize you weren't saying you didn't support a de-sysop for Neelix. (Lack of coffee on my part! ) KoshVorlon 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Worm That Turned, I was pointed to your thought-provoking essay on ArbCom by Gerda Arendt, and I thought I would take you up on your invitation to ask you some questions. Before I get started, though: you did specifically ask for emails on that topic rather than talk page conversation. Is it all right if we do this on your talk page, or do you have a strong preference for email? — GrammarFascist contribs talk 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
You invited me to the Teahouse a while back when I first joined Wikipedia. I just discovered this feature, and wanted to send my thanks (as well as test out what happens after I send someone WikiLove). So thanks again! Hayden.L ( talk) 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC) |
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Dear Sir, we have communicated on and off line regarding my unblocking ( [1]), and some months ago I requested an amendment. I'd like to respectfully request that the unblocking conditions be modified to allow editing of Marvel Comics articles. How would I proceed? Kind Regards Asgardian ( talk) 10:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I got a msg but all it said was you'd dropped me a message! Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah! perfido is not a personal attack but an article written with thanks for improving its composer ;) - As I sequel to Stargazy pie, I translated Dreadstar, - both on the Main page today, when we celebrate 50 years of a church and its music, which included in 2015 a joyous piece premiered in Liverpool, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Worm. You approved my request for access to the AutoWikiBrowser, but when I went to log in, it said I didn't have access. Is there a waiting period after approval for my name to make its way onto the approved list? Thanks. fds Talk 00:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey there! The Co-op has been on a hiatus for a bit, but we are planning on opening up shop again soon. When you're able, please read over and respond to this update on our talk page. We have favorable results from our final report regarding the pilot, and we are interested in seeing who is available to mentor when we reopen our space and begin to send out invites again. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately user:BlueSalix is creating drama again, here, you may wish to check in on him again to nip that in the bud. And no, my editing an article at AfD six months after my previous encounter with him is not some obscure attempt at "revenge". Artw ( talk) 14:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Worm, I read you are willing to be asked for a nomination. So, I would like to do that with you. Am I in the right spot to contact you for that? The self nominating process doesn't seem clearly obvious enough. --Emborion 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC) nikpapag
Oh, it looks like I've got a fair way to go? Ok Worm. Thank you for the 3 tips.--Emborion 20:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! I'm working on a project trying to bring most of the coding on Wikipedia up to the most current standards (
HTML5), and I noticed that your signature is using <font>...</font>
tags which were deprecated in
HTML 4.0 Transitional, marked as invalid in 4.0 Strict, and are not part of
HTML5 at all. I'd love to help you update your signature to use newer code, and if you're interested, I suggest replacing:
[[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]])
with:
[[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]])
which will result in a 215 character long signature with an appearance of: WormTT( talk) compared to your existing 208 character long signature of: WormTT( talk) — Either way. Happy editing!( t) Josve05a ( c) 23:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="color:#060;">talk</span>]])
<b>...</b>
is just as valid in HTML5 as <span>...</span>
. --
RexxS (
talk) 17:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]])
Hi,
I have been gradually increasing my areas I have dealings with on Wikipedia and am thinking of running for adminship. I have noted that you are willing to give advice on areas that may require improvement for a candidate before they run and if you feel they are suitable nominate them for adminship. I would appreciate if you would consider tkaing some time to evaluate my work and let me know of any pointers you can provide, for claritys sake I did request this from another user a while back but due to unforseen cirucmstances they were unable to assist. Amortias ( T)( C) 09:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.
In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.
Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. – xeno talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dave. I noticed that you've closed infobox RfCs in the past and were involved as an arbitrator in an infobox case. Would you be willing to close this RfC? I'm hesitant to do so myself as I was the requester and expressed my opinion. Many thanks. -- Albany NY ( talk) 03:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dave, thanks for taking the time to close the RfC at Talk:James Joyce, but I believe you've misjudged the strength of the arguments, so I'm going to challenge your close. There's no documented mechanism for reviewing RfC closes per WP:Requests for comment #Ending RfCs (as there is for reviewing closes of AfDs), so I thought I'd raise the issue here with you first.
My principal problem with your summary is that by taking into account earlier debates (from 2010) outside the RfC itself, you fail to acknowledge that consensus can change and give undue weight to a five-year-old straw poll, which was a simple vote with (at most) references to a discredited user essay. Further, I simply cannot agree with your assertion that the majority of discussion relevant to the RfC question occurred in the section below the RfD. It didn't. I also believe you are mistaken in dismissing generic arguments both for and against inclusion. ArbCom cannot create policy, and there is no policy that dictates discounting an argument simply because it can be generalised to other articles - in fact, that makes the argument stronger.
Within the RfC, there were at least eight editors arguing for inclusion and only one arguing against. If you want to consider the broader discussions from last month that triggered the RfC ( Talk:James Joyce #Infobox and Talk:James Joyce #Infobox reconsideration, you'll find that Albany NY, Pigsonthewing, RexxS, Choor monster, Littleolive oil, Gerda Arendt, Davey2010, Comatmebro and Ryecatcher773 all supplied arguments in favour of inclusion, while Modernist, Paul August, SandyGeorgia, Malik Shabazz argued against inclusion, or at least in favour of retaining the consensus from five years ago.
I'd very much like you to review your closure in the light of the above. If the sheer number of editors who commented favourably on the inclusion of an infobox isn't decisive, then I still believe that if you summarise all of the arguments pro and con, then the weight of argument still falls squarely on the pro-infobox side of the RfC. If you're unable to revise your closure, the perhaps you can suggest a suitable venue to take the dispute? Either WP:AN (as it hosts WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure) or WP:DRN (as this is primarily concerned with content) come to mind, but I'm happy enough to be guided by you per Requests for closure. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 11:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You say, it is more important to discuss an infobox's merits to a specific article. In this case, the debated utility of the infobox stands against the debated aesthetics and flow of the article
. But that is a recurrent theme; indeed, it had been debated at
Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#Infobox, another infobox RfC that you closed as "... there is consensus that there should be an infobox". I'd be interested to hear what factors have made the inclusion of the infobox in Beethoven's article appropriate, but not here.
Alakzi (
talk) 15:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dave, would you mind looking into adding Useight to the process at WP:INACTIVE. Mkdw talk 22:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Especially for you one of the better DYK ... that Prince Nikolaus Esterházy, who commissioned Beethoven's Mass in C major for his wife's name day, found it "unbearably ridiculous and detestable"? The discussion on the talk is one of three on my parole. Today I found a new word on my talk, "ArbCommed", made me smile, but I will not use it. We - the team on the Beethoven mass - are working on merging The Creation (Haydn) (partly done) and The Creation structure. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) for
WJBscribe
(talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You commented on the tp of this project two years ago. The idea has not been pursued since - yet. Now that you have been both an arb and a 'crat since then, your opinion may have changed. I would welcome your up-to-date thoughts there. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you aware that instead of reducing that block you have inadvertently extended it? -- Epipelagic ( talk) 07:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
:D I ran out of beer though. Sorry. Cheers.— cyberpower Chat:Limited Access 11:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi WTT - fix that formatting error unless someone beats you to it pelase, I'm a bitamazed I had thehandeye coordination left to get here. SOrry about that. TEaches me to want to getinthe last thoughtIcurrently hae mmediately. Best, a very twilight sleepy, Kevin Gorman ( talk)
Looks as if there may be an ominous trend developing here, specially concerning blocks of Corbett. First Sandstein, then GorillaWarfare, then Keilana. It's going to arrive at the point where no one is going to risk blocking him irrespective of how purely correct and procedural the block is. Perhaps Risker or Bishonen or MelanieN should do the next ones - there will be more... -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, WTT! Over here you said you'd be happy to check if I could get a nomination for the bit. If you're not too busy, would it be possible for you to check if you could nominate me? Thank you. APerson ( talk!) 15:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, I think your lack of peer reviewed "content creation" would significantly hamper any attempt at an RfA. I'd recommend have a go at creating a couple of good articles. Find a subject that you're interested in and put the effort in - it will significantly improve your chances at passing.
fair, I'm reasonably certain that the community will look at my technical contributions as well as my content ones and decide I'm a WP:NETPOSITIVE. I had been following Liz's RfA pretty closely even before you brought it up, and it doesn't look like her low number of articles created is a big issue. Would it be possible to move along with the nomination anyway? APerson ( talk!) 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you nominate me for adminship?
Ejaz92 ( talk) 08:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
More dramah than media in the discussions (about, you guess right) on Rod Steiger, a Media and drama good article. I stay out. The word respect has been mentioned, probably without blushing. - As so often, I would like to know who pays respect to the interests of the readers. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Please see this thread on WP:ANI. A user with a long history of edit-warring and unsourced edits who you granted courtesy vanishing is continuing to edit in the same areas with the now renamed account, which I believe is against the spirit of WP:Courtesy vanishing. Thomas.W talk 11:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, this is still the unsuccessful RfA with the most support comments, and this the withdrawn RfA with the most support comments. WJBscribe (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) for
WJBscribe
(talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I share the concerns recently stated by you at the RfA. However, I see it in reverse also, ie: the level of support is so high as to be peculiar. There are some in that mix who have practically come out of semi-retirement. The entire thing has been a mess and I do feel sorry that Liz has had to endure what must surely be one of the most divisive RfAs of recent times.
I also never thought I'd see the day when I disagreed with so many people whom I respect, which includes you and your fellow nominators. Saying this here because I don't want to clutter the main RfA page still more. No need for a reply. - Sitush ( talk) 09:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I think people can overestimate the oddity of "coming out of retirement" comments. I remember when I left Wikipedia for several months back in 2009 that I would still sign in to read wikipedia and take a look at what was going on. Seeing familiar people at RfA/RfB prompted me to participate even though I wasn't really making any other edits at the time ( Jan - Mar 2009 contribs), but no one approached me to tell me the RfXs were happening. WJBscribe (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I've also been surprised that supports seem to be generally accepted by the community even when they do not give a meaningful rationale, but opposes are expected to provide such. All this said, I'm not a regular haunter of RfA stuff: I turn up when I already have a fair amount of dealings with the nominated person. - Sitush ( talk) 12:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As you are one of the joint proposers of WP:BARC and very invested in reform, I would appreciate it if you take a look at a recent draft of an alternative proposal for de-sysopping that I've written at User:BU Rob13/RfC for Administrator Re-election. Your thoughts, whatever they might be, are very welcome on the talk page. I'm trying to determine if this is a feasible RfC to run. ~ Rob Talk 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Gooday. Thanks for your deletion of an unspecifed reference. I have taken another screenshot and added to the COIN file I am preparing; to this end I had already established a dedicated email address (at a time when I am trying to finish with Wikipedia, I am having to learn 'new' stuff, involving much down-time). This sequence is connected with a recent SPI and subsequent unblock with specific instruction from the Admin/CU/Oversighter not to edit unlogged-in, with penalty of permanent block (two admins, both of whom I requested should be available in the future, due to the BF of the Master/Sock - so far, I have resisted the temptation to ping them). I have been trying to identify further socks in the draw (and will continue), hence the two IP addresses which have suddenly deleted historic content - I am unconcerned about the actual article reference itself (which is clearly BS, and the adding editor has been noted and screenshotted) but the actual details contained therein are highly-poignant. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agljones/Archive, [10]
Already, I have identified another Master/Sock pairing and taken advice from a CU, who wants a new SPI. IMO, this is unconnected, as the sock is used for promotional purposes and is presently inactive, so just sitting on that one for a bit until I learn how to do it (further advice from CU was assured).
I really shouldn't have gone this far publicly, but I feel somewhat-justified, as I regret that you've concluded " an immense amount of bad faith" on my part, when I have always tried to be low-key and respectful of WP:OUTING where this individual is concerned. The edit summaries were intended to be firm and informative for the controlling Master (too late for politeness), trying to force a known-editor, who has failed to respond to COI-delaration request (98% single-topic area), to log-in and request a permanent visibility reduction from an admin/oversighter. Obviously, you've had a private message leading you to this Manx Pound article, so think about it - particularly if there is a subsequent oversight sequence relating to the same reference. I hope you are now less confused! I became superficially involved with this in May, 2014 note the edit summary, with more since June 2015 and obviously still ongoing. After you've digested the gist, you can reduce the visibility of this message, but - again - I would request that you be available in the future (I added a bit more to the original draft). Assume that both my talk page and contributions are being surveilled.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 14:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Sunshine! | ||
Hello Worm That Turned! Bhootrina ( talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst: User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{ User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bhootrina ( talk) 13:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hello. Recently I have been thinking about running for adminship; however during the past two or three months I have been very busy in real life. Now that I have more time to edit again, I am seriously considering the idea. Please, would you review my contributions? I would definitely appreciate some advice about whether to go for it. Thank you, BethNaught ( talk) 13:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.
“ | Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "
Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity
[1] for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at
meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.
|
” |
To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.
If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. – xeno talk
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious about this flurry of vanishing editors...is this typical? I remember it being quite rare and now there are several today. It's always a bit sad to see even if it is understandable.
Hope all is well with you,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I've received your notification (I didn't realise it had been a year!) and I'm just confirming that I'm still alive and around. KaisaL ( talk) 11:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please change my name to user392819? Regards; Have a nice day. -- HakimPhilo ( talk) 19:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm organising another Editathon, this time at Clitheroe castle Museum. The details can be found here Wikipedia:GLAM/Clitheroe Castle Museum. Would be great if you could come. Jhayward001 ( talk) 15:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking at potentially requesting adminship for Wikipedia. I have been making / editing articles (particularly in the Bio-Sciences and Medical fields) for nearly a decade now. I feel like I have a good grip on not only the syntax/nomenclature but also the rules for editing articles, and I am wondering what I would need to do to take the next step. You mentioned that you would be willing to take a look at potential admin and give advice (and potentially nominations). Either would be appreciated! FrozenMan ( talk) 00:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I have filed a Request for clarification of Remedy 2.2 of WP:ARBRAN, concerning a topic ban placed on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Since you were a member of ArbCom at the time, any insights you may wish to share about the committee's thinking would be welcome. Thanks. BMK ( talk) 21:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
First, you moved Cassianto's badgering to the talk page, and then deleted it completely. If that was a deliberate bureaucrat's action, and not some mix-up, then I would heartily thank you for this bold move. The badgering was annoying, and the whole thread was useless and rather uncivil on Cassianto's side. I think your action has set a useful precedent for future RfAs. There's now only the question what to do with the notices that the discussions have been moved to the talk page where they are not anymore. Kraxler ( talk) 14:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:
Thanks! Mike Peel ( talk) 17:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For all the hard work you do! MarkYabloko ( talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hello Dave! Quick question for you. Does being an administrator on en.wikipedia.org transfers your privileges automatically to wikipedia.org in other languages? MarkYabloko ( talk) 14:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MarkYabloko
Thanks Dave, that was quick and insightful. MarkYabloko ( talk) 15:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MarkYabloko
Sorry I shortened the diff. The Nikolaikirche where the Monday demonstrations began is pictured on the Main page on our National holiday, DYK? Time to celebrate, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any reason why I should not re-block Reguyla for immediately breaking his unblock conditions. [11] -- NeilN talk to me 16:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
There is also discussion on Reguyla's talk page at User talk:Reguyla#One of the restrictions not clear requesting clarification of the restriction about the specifics of the Reguyla's limited ability to interact with administrators. Some specifics regarding that would be welcome. John Carter ( talk) 18:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_Reguyla_.28Kumioko.29_reblock. I echo John's sentiment. The unblock should have been raised at a noticeboard. -- NeilN talk to me 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You said you would answer all criticism in the morning. Speaking for myself, someone who in general is one of those idiots who almost always will give someone one more last chance, I guess I have only one thing to say; Next time, seek community input before acting. I can't trout you for trying to redeem an editor who has been valuable, even one who some might see as being as far gone as this one, but I hope that if you ever find yourself in this situation in the future you at least get some idiots like me who never learn about giving too many last chances in for input and to be able to help back you up in advance before acting. John Carter ( talk) 22:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Cheer up! During times of difficulty animals provide some of the warmest and unconditional comfort. If you don't have one, well then you can always settle with a chat with an old Wiki friend, if you need! Either way, one mustn't feel any blame for being a decent administrator - indeed, a decent person - for assuming good faith and giving someone another chance. You stuck your neck out, and I'm sure, you'll get it back. You've got the respect of the community Dave!
—
MelbourneStar☆
talk 08:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I won't bother commenting on the pros and cons (plenty of others are doing that, and there ARE plenty of both to be found); but I do appreciate the efforts you put in here. Hope next week goes better for you. — Ched : ? 11:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You said you'd post answer(s) in the morning...
When I find myself in times of trouble Mother Mary comes to me Speaking words of wisdom, let it be. - Paul McCartney.
P.S. would you mind unblocking me after my forthcoming "copyvio" block? NE Ent
I mentioned your name over at the AN thread regarding some contact I have had with Reguyla and something which came to mind to me based on that contact. I would be very grateful, particularly knowing you are probably sick of this discussion by now, regarding your opinion of my comments and proposal there. John Carter ( talk) 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice work. Now do the decent thing and follow his example. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
For ALWAYS assuming good faith and reaching out civily to others, even those that don't necessarily deserve it KoshVorlon 11:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (
User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help
Apparently this article Olkhovska Iryna was previously deleted as Iryna Olkhovska, but Derek R Bullamore ( talk) and I are unable to track it down. This woman is not notable, and over a hundred inline citations will not help the article. Can you help us?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ayub407 talk 19:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ayub407, I haven't got it. WormTT( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello there. Given that you recently warned Mdann52 ( talk · contribs) over warring, I wanted to let you know that Mdann52(alt) ( talk · contribs) is using a bot to mass-tagging airline destinations articles for deletion. Please also note that no valid reasons have been provided. I started a thread regarding the matter at WT:AIRLINE. You're welcome to drop some lines to the discussion. Thanks.-- Jetstreamer Talk 16:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Long overdue. pablo 12:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I like today's Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you CU me and email me the results including the raw data returned?— cyberpower Chat:Online 14:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I saw your message on my page. I won't be able to check my email until lunch (I also contribute at work). I see you reverted me, don't worry, I won't touch it, I have an idea why that happened. I wasn't saying exactly what could have happened, but I get it , it was removed per WP:BEANS. I'll be able to read the email away from my desk, you've probably provided a clear rationale for this, as always. Thanks! KoshVorlon 13:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dave,
As you performed the original unblock of Peter Damian when his ban was lifted, would you mind also unblocking Renamed user 4? I've sworn off using the block tool directly, as you may recall. I've already lifted protection and removed the ban templates.
Cheers, — Scott • talk 11:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC).
I would appreciate an unblock of the renamed user account, as that was clean at the time of the August 2009 ban, and had been renamed as a courtesy long before that. Peter Damian ( talk) 20:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
could you point me to the meta discussion regarding passwords? Thank you. — Ched : ? 10:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your good advice, coincidence or not, someone just entered to Kafka: "faced by bizarre or nightmarish circumstances, unfathomable social-bureaucratic powers, and experiences of helplessness or despair". -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the mis-understanding in the Arb page regarding Neelix's desysop. I struck my comments are re-worded to be more clear on what I was saying. I realize you weren't saying you didn't support a de-sysop for Neelix. (Lack of coffee on my part! ) KoshVorlon 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Worm That Turned, I was pointed to your thought-provoking essay on ArbCom by Gerda Arendt, and I thought I would take you up on your invitation to ask you some questions. Before I get started, though: you did specifically ask for emails on that topic rather than talk page conversation. Is it all right if we do this on your talk page, or do you have a strong preference for email? — GrammarFascist contribs talk 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
You invited me to the Teahouse a while back when I first joined Wikipedia. I just discovered this feature, and wanted to send my thanks (as well as test out what happens after I send someone WikiLove). So thanks again! Hayden.L ( talk) 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC) |
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias ( T)( C) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)