Jump to content

User talk:Pakaran/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Hello!

I am asking your permission to put this into Uncyclopedia, or instead for you to do so yourself. I think it would do very well there. Please reply with your decision here. Thank you. Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means do. I'm not particularly active anymore in Uncyclopedia or Wikipedia, but I would note that a variant of that page is already in Uncyclopedia. [1] It might be cool if the two could be merged together. --Pakaran 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars

Hi I am message you because you contributed a section to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars

Thanks, Travb (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Hello do you think that you could remove everything from my previous username (User:Julian Diamond) so that it just appears as a generic "Former user-#" [2].

The old talk page can already be found on my current talk page. I guess I really don't want my real name to appear anywhere on wikipedia, especially since I often edit controversial articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Anal Stretching

Just to let you know that about three months back the article on Anal stretching was deleted - and I know that you helped start write the article in the first place. The AfD didn't find all that much wrong with the article, and I insist that had they bothered to put up templates to help improve the article, it might have been saved. Anyways, after the deleted it saying that it read like a how-to guide and not being notable, I tried to restore it once or twice and -- well after a long story -- the page has been locked from recreation, preventing any user from recreating the article, even in stub form.
I'm actually not here to try revive the whole shebang -- but I do think that as one of the users that helped start the article, you should just be aware of this all, and maybe if you're an admin you can unlock the article so that the free world can help rebuild it.
One of the great reasons I believe that wikipedia is failing is its high-tendancy to delete articles as a knee-jerk reaction. You get admins that spend almost all of their time just looking for articles they can nominate for deletion, and subsequently delete. Sure, in a great deal of cases articles that get deleted probably should be deleted, but in the case of Anal stretching, someone (like I once did) will come onto Wikipedia and search for it directly because they've read about it somewhere and expect to find something about, and find that it doesn't exist - and wonder why.
Anyways, this is not my attempt to revive this whole incident, but just thought I'd let you know in case there's anything you can do.
Thanks
Rfwoolf 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My contribution is not vandalism - the page itself was vandalism. Just look at mothers rights compared to fathers rights - that is misconstruing facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymum (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:Fract027.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fract027.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT (416) 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Internet Explorer 6.png

Hello, Pakaran. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Internet Explorer 6.png) was found at the following location: User:Pakaran/Kingdom of Wikipedia portal/Featured picture. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For notifying me regarding my admin status. Grant | Talk 09:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Wikipedia

I was thinking about making one of these for fun and somebody referred me to yours. I'm going to make one, but do you mind if I use yours as the basis for mine? It'll be completely different, but if I could use yours as a starting point it'd save a lot of time. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. There's quite a few of them - Uncyclopedia has a fork at [3]. I'm not actively involved in editing any, and don't honestly care that much what is done with them. -- Pakaran 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I've already begun preliminary writing and will have a more expanded version up later tonight. --Hemlock Martinis 04:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deo Volente

Hi Pakaran, your Wikipedia Name like Indonesian words. Have you live in Indonesia? Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Software for calculating π

I have nominated Software for calculating π, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software for calculating π. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Magnus Holmgren (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks! Majorly talk 14:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-evaluation of bureaucrat status

Hi there! I'm posting to inform you of an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal, which is of relevance to you as an en.wiki bureaucrat. The discussion centres around whether bureaucrat status should be considered a 'lifetime' appointment like administrators, or whether bureaucrats should be subject to periodic reconfirmation in a manner more like the stewards. There is also consideration for a separate re-evaluation of the status of those bureaucrats who were promoted in the early days of wikipedia, when the standards at RfB were significantly lower than they are currently, and whether such users still retain the explicit trust of the community.

As an "inactive bureaucrat" (one who has not performed a 'crat action in the past year), we're particularly keen to hear your thoughts on these issues; in particular the following:

  • Do you consider yourself to still be a wikipedia bureaucrat in spirit, or is the flag essentially just a legacy? Do you have any intention of ever returning to being an 'active' bureaucrat?
  • What do you consider your position to be in terms of your 'mandate' from the community, in comparison to more recently-promoted bureaucrats?
  • Would you be amenable to surrendering the bureaucrat flag, or participating in a reconfirmation RfB, if asked to do so? In what circumstances would you consider such an action?

Your thoughts on these, and any other comments you may have, would be very much appreciated. We have set up a section on the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal#'Crat comments, for such responses.

Many thanks in advance, Happy‑melon 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Did you recently request to be added to the crat mailing list? I sent an email to someone who is purporting to be you, asking for onwiki confirmation before I add them to a confidential list, but I've seen no reply - by email or onwiki. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia Pakaran. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia where anyone can edit the articles. This means that other people who know more than you on some subjects can edit without fear of bureaucrats such us yourself interfering through use of automated applications that revert their edits in order to correct mistakes in Wikiepdia, or clarify information it already contains. What does this mean for you?
If you want to continue editing Wikipedia, you are highly encouraged to take your brain out of the automatic setting it is currently in, and read books written by real experts, talk to other people instead of sitting in front of robot configuration screens, or just get out more. :) We, the IPs of the World for whom Wikipedia is created, and who make no small measure of contribution to it look forward to your continued participation in improving its content by attending Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations.
Best wishes --58.164.28.19 (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We great minds think alike.

I went ahead and blocked him. All he was interested in doing was to post his neologism. Thanks for watching my back.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Something like Huggle, except for Mac OS X

Hi there, I noticed you're an admin and you've been active recently so I figured I'd just drop this question on you. I used to monitor recent changes often and used Huggle when I was using a PC with Windows on it. Now I mostly use a Mac, and was wondering if there are any similar utilities for OS X. It's a lot harder to be effective doing it "by hand". Cheers! - XXX antiuser 07:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I've actually found one that looks like it'll do the job. - XXX antiuser 07:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anirudh Prabhakar

This edit was not vandalism and shouldn't have been reverted. The point of Proposed Deletion is that anybody can remove the template for any reason. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


sorry

i am so sorry whats your name about ruining your page,_i_am realy damn sorry what can i do to make up for it 11nniuq (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 11nniuq (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 11nniuq (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 11nniuq (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC) 11nniuq (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC) this is fun 11nniuq (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Hopefully having a cig will help, but this edit summary is completely unnecessary. 2help (message me) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

irak world cup 1986 template

i don't wanted to make vandalism, i edited because you should know that iraq used a yellow shirt in the tournament http://football-uniform.seesaa.net/upload/detail/image/Iraq-86-adidas-uniform-yellow-yellow-yellow.JPG.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.85.195 (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC) thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.85.195 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

ps: in the article the addition is not random, the light blue shirt was used too (in the matches against belgium and mexico i know ):http://football-uniform.seesaa.net/upload/detail/image/Iraq-86-adidas-uniform-light20blue-light20blue-light20blue.JPG.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.85.195 (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

help me

this user (81.84.77.116 )is revrting my edits without a reason. i wanted only colour the national team templates to match their kits, and him menaced me to kill myself can you block him? thanks --79.44.76.127 (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

block user please

this user above is mass-editing without reaching a consensus in the discussing pages. you must warn him of the rules or block him if he does not follow the wikipedia book 81.84.77.116 (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

World of Monkey Island

I do not see how they were un-constructive. I was adding the new Islands and re-arranging the old islands based on the new info from the new game just released yesterday.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Jake RFA

Why did you close this a whole day early? I don't know about when you became a crat long ago, and I know you haven't taken many crat actions in a long time, but when I became a crat last summer, I was given these guidelines: User:Rlevse/Tools#Rule_of_thumb_for_closing_RfA.2C_RfB_early by another crat. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad, my arithemetic was wrong. Sorry, looks only 3 hours early. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you were right the first time. It's almost exactly a day early. Given this, I assume Pakaran miscalculated a day. No harm done, it's not like it was close. Majorly talk 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
From here: "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted with thanks. — Jake Wartenberg 01:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)" to here "01:22, August 24, 2009 Pakaran (talk | contribs | block) (67,391 bytes) (successful.) (rollback | undo) " it's only 1 minute or so early. Looks like this is a difference in the accept time and time posted to the RFA page. This has happened before, so I just always try to check those when I close. And Majorly is right, it wasn't close. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to take a break from closing RFAs for the time being. Incidentally, the real problem is I trusted the "time left" posted to the bot at WP:BN. Which I was of course wrong to, but should that be fixed? -- Pakaran 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Prob good to fix it. We should ask a bot person to look into it. I'll do so at WT:RFA. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, in any case, I was wrong not to do more hand-confirming. When I was last really active, things were such that you could close in 5 minutes - clearly there's a lot of subtle gotchas now, and I regret that. I think I'll take a week or two break from RFA - I have enough to keep me busy handling OTRS and CHU stuff. -- Pakaran 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I read the RfA itself - it says 23 instead of 24. Majorly talk 23:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, just chuckling with you here. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#RFA_closing_time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What, to be honest, surprises me is that you were the first to spot this. -- Pakaran 23:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, Pakaran. You have new messages at Taide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See comments at Timmeh's page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww 3 - Bureaucrat discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion

I've opened a bureaucrat chat in relation to this RfA as I don't think the outcome is particularly clear cut. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your input. WJBscribe (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

explain to me, please

I saw that Basket of Puppies had a clear majority for approval. Can you explain why we even bother voting, if someone os going to close it without respecting that consensus. - Hexhand (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has ever used the same criteria to evaluate the RfA's of sitting administrators. I am not suspecting you of wrongdoing, Pakaran; I am suggesting that when a particular applicant who isn't liked by one or two admins, they don't make it in. I was neutral in the RfA itself, but think that there was a lot of unfair hammering of the applicant on crap very few admins themselves would have survived.

"It would be a worthwhile study, a comparison of vote percentages compared to post-approval behavior. Were I better at stats, I'd do it. - Hexhand (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion for Juliancolton RfB

A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. Please come participate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Pakaran! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Marjorie B. Kellogg - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

stop your senseless editing

You fool, who do you think you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.211.18 (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

you changed my last edit, but it is in fact correct

Neil Young and Lady Gaga are siblings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.40.86 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Bureaucratship

Hi, Pakaran. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

User Jtdirl

Hi could you unblock user:Bill_the_Bear he has been unfairly been accused of being a sockpuppet, the person that I am allegedly a sockpuppet of has been unblocked. The one edit that I have made has since been shown to be accurate but this admin abuses his power to block users.

So are you going to unblock me?

Uh-huh

I love you. I don't!

Action potential

Action potential has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Thanks for your RfA Support

Pakaran/Archive 4 - Thank for your decision to promote me in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party page protection...?

Why? Timeshift (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of sheer curiousity, yes please. Email me if you wish. Timeshift (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

4chan. They like to make threads in which they decide which pages to vandalize, and I was protecting the targets briefly before they could get there. -- Pakaran 04:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What a pack of tools. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher

No idea why you unprotected this article; it's a perpetual vandal magnet. Maybe indef-semi was too long, but there have been several vandalisms since you unprotected it; therefore, I've semi'd it for another three months. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber discography

Hi there. Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) indef protected this article, and a few minutes later you unprotected it. I've now protected it again for three days after a request at RPP. Was your unprotection solely because it was an indef block? If not, please let me know if you think this article should be unprotected, and I'll review my action. Ta. GedUK  09:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Username Change

Good Evening. I'm here to request a name change. Please could you change my username from Gsorby to GSorbyDesroid please? That would be great. Thanks, --GSorbyDesroid 18:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

BAG Request

Can you help me on the Page WT:BAG? I need an approval from the BAG about fixing an API on an inactive bot, Article Alert bot, I got an OK from the user who is currently operating it. I need an OK from a member of BAG for toolserver. More Details can be found here WT:BAG#Taking Over Bot --Joe Gazz84user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 20:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging Accounts Global Login

Hello Pakaran. I want to merge my calfaro account that I have on the english wiki with the one by the same name in the spanish wiki. I have access to the english one, but I can't remember the password for the one in spanish wiki (it's also possible that I didn't create the spanish one, but I think I did). Anyway, can you help me unify both accounts?

Calfaro (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:User legal userboxes, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User legal userboxes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User legal userboxes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

edit article "Cold Fusion" Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes

In this I hope to improve the article 1) Wiki needs to view it a science. 2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.

I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.

Query to the Scientific Community:

To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science?

2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?

4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?

Pakaran,

P>S>

1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this?

2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?

Thank you for your time,

Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702--Gregory Goble (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been pursuing a degree in physics in a very long time (changed my major away from it in 2004). Also, I don't intend to be involved with the cold fusion article. I'd suggest, though, that you look at the history in terms of describing it as pseudoscience/pathological science; this is something that has been gone over many, many times. -- Pakaran 00:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Pakaran,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary

Wishing Pakaran/Archive 4 a very happy bureaucratship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you :). This was a pleasant surprise when I logged in. -- Pakaran 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Webcam-1125110672.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Webcam-1125110672.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Username Change

Hi! I have answered your concern regarding my username change. --Tow talk 02:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for your reply. --Tow talk 04:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Philip of Castile (archbishop)

Hello. I was on Wikipedia:Translators available and notice that you were on the list for Spanish to English translators and wondered if you could be interested in translating es:Felipe de Castilla to Philip of Castile (archbishop)? There is a lot of interesting information still left untranslated. Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Username change

Hi! I'm Gregcaletta (Mr G) Responding to your question: "Are you aware that this username exists on several other Wikimedia projects, and would require usurps there in order to unify your single unified login on Wikimedia projects?" I am aware and was hoping there might be such a thing as a "single unified usurpation". If not, I am still keen to go ahead with the name change on en.wikipedia, and also on as many other Wikimedia domains as possible. Thanks! Mr G (Gregcaletta) (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to change my name to "Mr G" (which I already use as my signature) instead of "Grg". I hadn't thought of that when I applied for the change. The old "Mr G" account hasn't made any edits since 2005. His only edits are 6 edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Balson. It would mean significantly less usurpations on other Wikimedia projects, since the name exists on less than 5 other projects and each has 0 edits. Mr G (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a new idea: "Mr Grg" is not taken on any of the Wikimedia projects so I think Ill use that. Is there a way to change my whole SUL at once? Mr G (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will cancel my request for usurpation and instead do a simple name change. Mr G (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Crat statement draft

Hi Following the drama at BN, I'm trying to come up with a statement all Crats could agree to. Please take a look, below. I am quite content to do this onwiki -we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do.

  1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
  2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
  3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
  4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
  5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
  6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed [crat sig] Lmk what you think. Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess you saw the notice on the noticeboard. Well, I was waiting for a while. I tried to post this earlier, but it didn't let me because it said I wasn't autoconfirmed (you changed my username while I was editing) Wikipedia probably needs a bureaucratic backlog. Thanks, Surfer (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)(my new signature!)

Hello, Pakaran. You have new messages at Surfer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Username change

Can you please change my username? Link → Vijay [talk] 21:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Recently deleted User:Pacty/sandbox

Please undo the deletion and delete it under the right criteria. The subject of the page was identified as a minor, was being displayed in a negative manner, and was entirely negative without any sourcing. Deleting it under G13 gives the option of having the article restored (which the admins at REFUND typically rubber stamp) whereas deleting under G10 indicates that there is a serious content problem that the admins are less likely to restore. The page did come to my attention through searching for G13 eligible articles, but that is not why I nominated for CSD. Please reconsider your actions. Hasteur (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Sysop flag returned

Thank you! --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Need to look at

[4] Leaky Caldron 23:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd seen it, but there's no proof that it's not an innocent user framed by the account that posted there (which is already blocked). Pakaran 23:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bad close

In regards to this close, it's not the creation date but the publication date that has to be before 1923 to make the file free, and that's not what is shown. Because the only publication date that is affirmed is 1999, we can't assume it is a free photo yet. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Need an Admin to Close a Group Photo Deletion Request

Appreciate your decisiveness concerning the Jelly Roll Morton photo's trivial deletion-request. Similarly, I need an admin to clarify and possibly close yet another photo deletion request by User:Stefan2. Below is a link to another discussion concerning some proposed deletions of historic photos which had received written permission from their source, the San Francisco Public Library. The discussion is about 7 days old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_March_1#Terrific_Street
It seems that of the 3 photos which were recently tagged with Deletion Requests, the below photo has still not had its templates modified to any extent to reflect the result of that discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terrific_Street_Facing_East_1913_San_Francisco_Pacific_Street_A1.jpg
The other 2 photos of that single deletion request have had partial adjustments to their deletion templates and I have to wonder if they are still unresolved (see links below).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spider_Kellys_Dance_Hall_with_Little_Egypt_1911_SFLibraryCode_AAB-1265_mono.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dancehalls_of_Pacific_Street_Facing_West_San_Francisco_1909_SFLibraryCode_AAB-6692_CropA.jpg
Please give it a look when you get a chance. Thanx. James Carroll (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 1#File:Jelly Roll Morton and friends (1918).gif

You closed this as kept because you claimed that there now is evidence that this was published before 1923. Can you specify where it was published? User:James Carroll suggested that it was a personal snapshot, which suggests that it very likely is a previously unpublished photograph and therefore not published before 1923. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the file information page states that the photograph was published in 1999. A photograph taken before 1923 but first published in 1999 is copyrighted until the end of 2047 or until 70 years after the death of the photographer, whichever is later. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As a personal snapshot, as he went to on to say, the copyright most likely was never renewed (even more so if it was never published). I don't see any reason that my close result was incorrect, even if the rationale was wanting. Pakaran 20:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The renewal should be submitted 28 years after the first publication if the first publication was before 1964. If the first publication was after 1964, for example in 1999, then no renewal was needed, and besides 1999 was less than 28 years ago, so even if renewals had still been needed, the renewal wouldn't be due for submission until 2027. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson, and sorry for the mistake. I'm reverting my close now, and will make a comment linking to my talk page to inform the discussion moving forwards. Pakaran 20:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

title ambiguity

Hi Pak -

If it's not a big deal, would you mind shifting your ANI title to explicitly point out that only one editor is effected, rather than a general prohibition? I know it should be obvious given what section it's nested in, but in skimming everything I saw your section header and thought "wait, completely forbidding all interface editors from using their buttons on ENWP seems like an overreaction to this." Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand, and for the sake of clarity, I've made the edit. Hope you weren't too worried. Pakaran 21:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for fixing it, I just had a temporary moment going wait what. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thank you for your humorous, but relevant contributions to IRC Office Hours last week. They were much appreciated. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, Would you mind moving the RfC for pending changes to the project page so that the talk page can be used by others to comment? Hobit (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Malin Byström

It's not clear why you changed the DYK hook for Malin Byström. Your edit summary was "Less misogynist, perhaps?", from which one might reasonably infer that you were far from certain that the hook was misogynist. And how would it be misogynist anyway? That hook was reviewed, went to the prep area and then the main page without any such issue. And then you changed it to something very dull. Did you to discuss this with anyone first? Why have you not notified me or the reviewer? Edwardx (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It looked misogynist by referring to a living person, even in a direct quote, by a description of her body. I can't believe that we'd call an athlete a "well-h*ng hunk" on the main page. As such, while I'm not sorry for making the change (I still feel it was warranted), I am sorry for not notifying you, and for not being fully conversant with policies in DYK, which isn't an admin area in which I frequently work. Pakaran 23:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Alas, I am unable to see anything misogynistic in the quote, "a svelte blonde beauty with the figure of a dancer". It is largely an aesthetic judgment, and as a regular opera and balletgoer, I can assure you that sopranos rarely have the body shape of ballerinas. Your "well-h*ng hunk" is a spurious analogy, as that phrase unambiguously has sexual content. Indeed, your use of an asterisk in the mild epithet "hung" suggests puritanism. If you will excuse my attempt at levity, perhaps you are "hung up". Also, by inference, if the chosen quote is misogynist, then I'm (a) misogynist, as is the reviewer, Hafspajen, and the admins who oversaw the hook's journey to the front page, where it remained for over six hours until your edit. Edwardx (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

OH, but that hook was a citation, and it was nothing Edwardx wrote. I think that it was a good hook. And very true, my friend who is singing opera by now is not beauty with the figure of a dancer any more as she was when she was 20. Probably this is what it makes it different, and notable for the journalist who wrote it. And beauty, what is wrong with beauty? She was very much judged in that article for her voice and performance. I don't think anyone was seeing her as an object. I don't think that it was a real sexual objectification of a women, as you feared. On the contrary, she is a skilled artist. And, ... how about the lists with world sexies men and such things... Hafspajen (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear Pakaran,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

PC2

Hope your weren't misinterpreting my comment as an attack on your closing approach or anything like that. I'm actually very happy to see the way you and jc37 are talking about the close and thought processes. I wish I kept my last sentence as "I know the closers have a difficult and thankless ( thanks btw ) job and very glad to see serious thought about the issues." as I originally wrote it before trimming my reply. PaleAqua (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If I can get in on this thread ... if you'd rather reply more privately here than on the RfC talk page, that's fine. Can you elaborate a little bit on why you'd prefer to pull out? - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to pull out, honestly; I'm in this for the long haul. As I've mentioned onwiki in some of my old user page history, I do have some psychological concerns, including anxiety. I'm doing fine, receiving treatment, and benefiting from it, so I hope nobody's concerned for me -- in the scheme of things, I'm fairly healthy. However, when under stress, I do tend to at times second-guess my own judgement, and if I had been proceeding on a misunderstanding of policy, I felt obliged to make the offer. I'm not the most active of administrators, and I wanted to be sure I was not in over my head. Pakaran 00:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
How's it coming now? I can offer to step in if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Jc and I have both published closing statements at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014/Closure‎. Is there anything you'd like to add, or have us change? - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I went inactive in large part because I was ashamed of not having taken greater part in this, despite my promises to do so. I don't necessarily agree with every sentence in the statement, but after this much delay (nearly a year since the RFC ended, and nearly half of one since the close), I'm just glad to have given input during the process. There's nothing that I feel a need to change, or reconsider; future RFCs will happen, and will be a much better tool for determining the community's perspective than anything I added now. Pakaran 02:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Pakaran and the PC2 close

Pakaran has one edit since April, and he's talked about some problems he's having, so I've offered to step in (if I can be helpful) over on his talk page. DP and JC ... any thoughts, any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 11:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be active again before the end of the long weekend. I was waiting for the closer page to pop up on my watchlist; I thought that having expressed my opinions, waiting for the other closers to react was reasonable. Sorry for any role I had in the delay; I acknowledge that the earlier (feb-march) delays were largely my fault. Pakaran 01:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I'm sorry to hear my edits to the page missed your watchlist. (As of this timestamp, I was the last to edit the page.) If there is any section you would like more thought/comment/discussion/clarification from me, I'm all ears. Just edit there with the request and I'll be happy to : ) - jc37 01:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Workshopping bureaucrat activity requirements

(Message to all bureaucrats)

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. –xenotalk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: bureaucrat discussion opened

Message to most bureaucrats

A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. –xenotalk 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion notification

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

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)

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion notification (Liz)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

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)

Implementation of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements

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.


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. –xenotalk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Review "Bunto" article

Hello Pakaran,

can you review my article "Bunto", please? I want to move it to the main namespace soon.

Thanks a lot.

Suriyaa Kudo (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Pakaran. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Pakaran.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pakaran. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pakaran. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat

I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pakaran/Archive_4&oldid=1143214822"