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.
Hi, Linda Partridge is a highly notable scientist and a Fellow of the Royal Society, could you userfy the speedily deleted article for me (I have not previously contributed to it, so have no idea what it actually said) so that I could work on it? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean, I recently created pages for every living female member of the Royal Society which you seem to have speedy deleted. A Fellowship of the Royal Society (FRS) is the highest mark of distinction for a British or Commonwealth Scientist short of winning a Nobel Prize of Fields Medal. An election to FRS automatically implies the scientist satisfies (at least) criteria 1.2.3.5. and 6. of wikipedia academic notablity. Furthermore there are only about 70 living women who are FRS and probably no more than the same number of deceased fellows. So they are candidates for inclusion on rarity grounds also. Please therefore reconsider all your speedy deletions. Best Domminico (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, we had created an article regarding Montessori de Sto Nino which you had speedy deleted :( We have no intention of advertising here at wikipedia but then we were mislead on how and article should be created here. As you can see these article was patterned from other article here at wiki that describes the schools Mission, Vision and Objectives. I had been seeing lots of school article posted here at wikipedia check out List of schools in the Philippines If you had any chance on helping us on how the right way of creating an article at your database w/out breaking any of your terms of service then we would be very happy to do it :) Hoping for your response and more power!
Is there any way we could retrieve our deleted page Montessori de Sto Nino?We havent got any back up in notepad of the codes we made. We had spend almost half a day modifying the article.
Can you take another look at the contribs? There was only one recent vandal edit, and there's been a lot of constructive editing over the past few days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I thought the same thing - there are a lot of helpful edits. However, the IP has been blocked several times for vandalism so I am thinking that a week should put that vandal off, and hopefully whoever is being constructive (I am assuming it is someone else from the same IP) will create an account which I didn't block. I shall add a note saying that an account can be created to the page anyway, thanks for flagging it up. —Sean Whitton / 12:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,Sean. The edit I made to the Cairn Terrier article was not intended to be a joke. I was simply adding what I knew to the article. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.232.201 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend Huggle if you plan on long term counter-vandalism work on Wikipedia. Twinkle is great for on-the-spot actions when you are browsing Wikipedia, but with so many Huggle users, you simply can't get very many reverts in, because they'll beat you to it nine out of ten times. The only thing in your way from using Huggle is a request for Rollback rights on your account. For me, I was told to get 500 edits with Twinkle in before they would consider me, however from what I hear different administrators have different views on where it starts. Hope to see you on the team. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I have always gotten by with just a Word page of customized commonly used warnings which I copy and paste. The automated editing can lead to editcountitis, and there is the aphorism "Haste makes waste." They can lead to inappropriate edit summaries, which lead to further drama. Last time I checked, the automated editing had not been made compatible with Internet Explorer. Edison (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I believe it would be best to remove the list of american terrorists on the page that is supposed to be listing North American Muslims, I was very offended as an American muslim, So it would be nice if you didnt revert the edit. thanks.
I keep getting nasty alerts when I edit the content on the aforementioned Wiki page. I am providing an informative summary of my changes and still the alerts.
This is an ongoing case and is not germane, at the moment, to Russ Martin. So far the accusations are unsubstantiated and continued publication of this misinformation regarding this case, still under investigation, could be considered slanderous and subject to liable.
65.66.121.253 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see a list of (insert religion here)criminals on pages listing famous people that follow the religion, the only one I see this for , is the religion of Islam. By the way call me Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.236.16 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, can you refer me to a more understanding editor, because I know im not the only one who has complained about this list, have you bothered to read this persons post on the talk section of the article-
“
1. The list was derogatory and is not something "notable" about Muslims as a whole, this page was meant for accomplishments and a sense of pride, not to put down a religion.
2. If you want to call those invididuals terrorists then we should open a page of "Christian terrorists" and include Bush, Charlemagne, and many others. I do not want to do this because it would be a POV war, and this is not what wikipedia is about.
3. I will however compromise if you decide to make a "terrorist" list for every other list of North Americans out there, that way we can have a balanced playing field, but to throw out a "terrorist list" on a page dedicated to Muslims in America, is more than islamophobia, it's inciting hatred and not necissary, nor does it pertain to the religion.
Lastly, feel free to make a wikipedia section entitled "Radical Muslims" or "Terrorist Muslims" and list names until your blue in the face, but to slam something like that on a list of American Muslims was very inappropriate. If you have a problem with this, message me. Haramzadi 06:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
”
I think if you people at wikipedia wish to keep this article, it would only be fair to create an article of christian terrorists/mass murderers and such.
Per [1][2], please note that it is not improper page blanking, as your edit summary stated, when a user removes material from his own userpage, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages, which says "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users." If you place a warning, it remains in the edit history even if the user has read it and removed it, and an admin or other vandal patroller does well to look at the talk page history of the vandal. My practice is to restore recent earlier warnings which have been removed when I add an additional warning for new vandalism, to keep the collection together. But I do not think it is appropriate to smack a user, even a vandal with a warning when he exercises the right to remove warnings from his talk page. Thanks for your vandal-smacking efforts! Edison (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User "Wookhistory" not stop update of the information that is not right that she(he) made by oneself many times.
Even if I correct it, they repeat themselves many times.
that is about Harding camel spin,
About the name of a certain one spin, we call it Harding camel spin.
nobody calls it yu-na camel in the world.
However, User "Wookhistory" wants to decide official name the name of the skater of their country for the name of the spin and seems to be unbearable.
I noticed you deleted an article I wrote about Replacements, Ltd. I wrote the article as a customer and fan of this company. Their company history is rich with useful information and tidbits. The article certainly wasn't blatant advertising. There are many companies on this site, including some in the same industry as Replacements, and theirs haven't been deleted.
Please advise how you might suggest that I change the article in order for it not to be deleted.
I think I may need your assistance at the List of Days of Our Lives cast member page. I was wondering if there was any way we could block IP's from editing it. One particular IP, the one that starts with 74.216...has been editing for weeks without sourcing. While I do believe they are good faith edits, they are not following procedure. I keep leaving user talk messages, but it changes everytime, so I do not think they are receiving them. How can we help this person learn the rules if we cannot communicate with them? What are the proper channels to go about getting the page protected? Thank you so much. Rm994 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read your enlightening post about returning to Wikipedia work; it's great to see an admin jump back into things after being gone for a while. I thought I'd mention a resource you might not be aware of - the Editor's index to Wikipedia, and note a couple of other things that have changed since you last edited in January:
the author of the cornish game hen is wrong. they are chickens not turkeys. tell them to go to the usda web site to verify. geez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.244.61 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I'm just as bad as you are. I've always done them by hand. I recently got back from a semi-wikibreak myself, and have only recently started slowly easing back into things. If you find out an automated and easier way, please let me know. Jauerbackdude?/dude.21:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sean,
I would like to know why the article created by me The Free Press Journal was hastingly deleted.I also found this following message
12:14, 27 July 2008 Sean Whitton (Talk | contribs) deleted "The Free Press Journal" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW)
I would like to point out that how can a newspaper that was strated in 1930 will be using the wikipedia for the so called blatant advertising.Can you please explain what made you think that the page you deleted was used only for blatant advertising.If the text was not appropriate then please let me know so that suitable corrections can be made.I would rather request you to re-instate the article back.
The article Sean deleted was blatant advertising for the newspaper. There was no coverage about the newspaper from independent, reliable sources, and there is no assertion of notability of the newspaper. Please read Your first article for more information on these topics. Frank | talk 03:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider it such. True, by blatant advertising we mean what might be more like "primarily promotional," which can be the case for anything commecialr or noncommercial. Further, some of the language in the article "Today The Free Press Journal is a contemporary paper that is rooted in current urban realities. In keeping with the international trend, it has reinvented itself in terms of design, get-up and content. It means different things to different people A platform for the Articulate, A trend setter for the young and a chronicle for the old." is promotional language that is not acceptable. But I think there is a core of descriptive encyclopedic material, and I have verified its existence in the definitive reliable source for the purpose, Ulrich's. [3]. I am therefore undeleting it and editing it accordingly. It meets the basic criteria for inclusion of publications, and if its notability is challenged, it would have to be at Afd. I wait one day to see if there are any objections. It is wrong to delete something G11 if it can be edited acceptably, and the RS criterion has been satisfied. Any objections? DGG (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the AfD tag from this article, and its AfD discussion was closed with a result of "Merge and Redirect". Meanwhile, someone has added material to this article (looks like total OR to me), which was how it came to my attention (recent changes). I'd like to remove that list, but I wondered if you're planning on redirecting, or if I am misunderstanding what is supposed to happen with this article. Thanks! Frank | talk 03:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you closed this as NC, I wanted to bring to your attention that User:Brhannan and User:38.112.25.6, who were in favor of keep (though the IP didn't vote), have edited nothing before or since that AfD, and pretty much blatantly showed they were the same person. They were recently blocked 24h each by SSP, but it doesn't matter much, as they have on other edits on WP of substance. Since they were/are clearly SPAs, I was wondering if you had considered their votes and comments (or not) in your decision. MSJapan (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For all of your fantastic work in resolving the Group Contact-Freenode issue and then clearing the backlog of cloak requests, I award you the Working Man's Barnstar which can be stowed away neatly in Shanel's barn. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Katie Reider. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MSJapan (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is just to let you know that I 'stole' some of your Userboxes and put them on my page (link to it is on my main userpage) for Userboxes. I hope you don't mind. :). I had (and still have) some problems with the formatting of them though, they're all scattered about a bit, but I'm sure it'll get fixed one day. Maybe you could help? Thanks. Isabell121 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why you deleted the reference to our ETC Group? We are a completely legitimate entity and it seems like we have as much right to appear in Wikipedia as your organization. In fact I believe we share some common philosophical background regarding `saving the earth'.
I'm new to the whole wikipedia thing but know that when people look up ETC Group on wiki they should be able to see us as well.
Please respond to mark@etcgrp.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.159.105 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is in reference to a AfD Alejandro Alcondez can you tell me how is this discussion coming along or how can I participate in it I realized that the Notice Box Cannot be removed but I seems to be forgotten. I appreciate your input Thank you for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgomez007 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kept a watch to the BFMV article just as you asked and there are I.P. adresses that tend to vandelize it or they created/add several uneeded sentences that have no facts and cite nothing and there has been a big problem with the fact that many of them beleieve they are thrash metal when this is completely concepted as being not true. I suggest you protecting this article at least for a week. YBK
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Who is back? The anonymous IP? Because that is who I referring to when I said a chief party has disappeared, not User:Natl1. Also, I just noticed that the anonymous IP removed a party to the case on 11 August,[6] that is outrageous.--Miyokan (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You seem to be an impressive individual. Just paying you a compliment.
Stumbled accross your ID and Wiki userpage in view of randomly having an IP address on log on of a previous person who had made some apparent undesirable changes to a Monet entry - to which you took issue with. I have now logged on in my user ID.
As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
Hi Sean, you've speedily deleted American Whitewater. I was just linking to the article and surprised it didn't exist. Then I saw that it was speedily deleted for lack of notability (that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject). I'm pretty sure the organization is notable (more than 100 member clubs, political involvement in whitewater policies etc.). Could you move the deleted article onto my name space, so that I can see what the article already contains and how to expand it? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
I find some of the steps in the process highly confusing. Steps three and four. How do I link them, how do I associate an e-mail address with my master nick, and how the heck do I send a message to the bot? Help would be much appreciated. -- IRP☎23:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your blog is the most unintentionally hilarious thing any of us have come across. It is now the home page on the four computers in the common room. We especially like banal Socrates quotes and statements like "it seems to me that if there is [a meaning of life], we should find out, as it could be quite important." 163.1.208.204 (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you deleted my addition to the Craig Chandler article. Given that the man has now had several run-ins with human rights boards over the same issue (gays and lesbians) it seems important to point this out.
You have clearly been engaged in a recent edit war in the Laura Miller article. I, for one, do not consider the edits which you have previously reverted to be unconstructive or to violate the neutral point of view policy. Additionally, you appear to have violated the three-revert rule (as has the anonymous editor who kept making the edits you kept reverting). Please do not revert again until 24 hours have passed, and then, only if you can provide good rationale for your reversion.
Sean, I emailed you about this issue but have not heard back yet. I am going to revert back to the edit I created yesterday morning, but I will remove the sentence in the first paragraph that you saw as inappropriate (thus removing the necessity of an inline reference). The rest of the new material was documented in the article itself in the new footnotes, so there should be no issues. Thanks.
Thanks for all your work on the wikipedia project! It seems like you are one of the people who really make things happen around here.
I'm writing because you speedy deleted the page on "Trevor Drown, former Green Beret" because of CSD A7. Lt. Drown has recently announced that he will be exploring the office of United States Senator for the State of Arkansas.
Can you please restore the deleted page? If so, and with your permission (see Appendix 1), I will add a link to a Russellville Courier article to that effect, so that it is not in violation of CSD A7.
Thank you,
Liz
Appendix 1. For the sake of transparency, I am a member of his staff. Although I have no interest in editing or tampering with the page in any way, I would hope that people looking for information about this election would be able to find all of the candidates. Our competition is referenced on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizflash (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to double check on the entry I created in the subject line. How does the entry I created differ from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BroadVoice
Is Wikipedia not allowing any corporate pages any more? I can't imagine what I wrote was too marketing oriented.
This particular template is locked on WIKI, and we would like to have the availability to use it on iPed, but I do not know the correct way of getting the code onto iPed.
We do a lot of mapping and this little “gadget” would help out immensely.
I have searched around iPed and have not found anything similar to the WIKI template.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
-james 17:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Why can I not edit a page that is about me, without you reversing it? The content that I removed was of no interest to anyone and was all one persons point of view, someone who clearly wants to show me in a negative way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.201.40 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Guoguo12--Talk--19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I stole your redirect at User:SW, I hope you don't mind. There are no links to the redirect, and I see you haven't been here for awhile, so I think it's safe to assume that you're ok with it. If not, feel free to let me know. Cheers. —SW—gossip23:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sean Whitton! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
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 communityHERE, 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 nameHERE 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.
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted Ames National Corporation with a speedy deletion tag. You did not give me some time to respond on talk page. I have created more than 200 pages with same format as Ames National Corporation is. Please see List of banks (alphabetically). I want to create pages all about all the banks. A bank deal in all country. So thats why i have created pages with some basic information. Please restore the pages.Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!
If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sean Whitton. 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.
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)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyr (Forgotten Realms) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
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.
Hello, Sean Whitton. 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.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Hello, Sean Whitton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosfluxTalk04:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
