User talk:Splash

Archives
1st August 2005 17th August 2005 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) 26 September 2005 22 October 2005 19 November 2005 5 December 2005 3 January 2006 20 January 2006 5 February 2006 4 March 2006 23 March 2006 3 April 2006 29 May 2006 1 August 2006 16 September 2006 12 November 2006 6 August 2007 24 November 2007 12 July 2008

Deletion of GSEFM

The GSEFM Wiki is not trademark infringement, because GSEFM is a working graduate school im Germany and gsefm.edu is not online at all - please allow for the posting.

The article was copy-pasted directly from the homepage of http://www.gsefm.eu/ and the 'Leadership' page. Furthermore, the GSEFM does not warrant its own article, but should mentioned in the main Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt am Main and University of Mainz articles instead. See WP:UNIGUIDE for further info about how to appropriately formulate University-related articles, but do keep the topic in perspective: I would expect that the length of the mentions of the GSEFM should be only a fraction of the overall article(s) length since it is a very new School and only a fraction of the whole institution. For some general cautions regarding writing articles about one's own organization see here. Regards, Splash - tk 12:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC). If it's not clear, Germany is still as evil as they always were, they simply believe themselves except from any reality other than their own, what is your proof here>?

Deletion of Dna13

Hi - are you able to help me recover a copy of my deleted page and upload it to my user page? I understand the changes I need to make and would prefer to do so without having to start from the start again. Thanks in advance. Dna13 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Dna13

Vice Admiral vs Vice admiral

I notice you have moved "Vice Admiral (United States)" to "Vice admiral (United States)"

I do not understand the process that led you to do this, and although I acknowledge that you might find it tedious to do so, I would really appreciate it if you could explain it to me. (I don't mean the whole process, just that bit of the process which led you to actually make the "move".)

It is my understanding that such actions are only performed after consensus is reached.
This move (and a number of others) are the subject of ongoing long and heated debate, which is NOT resolved, and hence NO consensus has been reached.

Referring to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog, I wish to understand how the process allows such a wholesale set of "moves" to occur when consensus has NOT been reached, (and the discussions are ongoing). Pdfpdf (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I refer you to the following comments and lengthy and unresolved discussions:

• OPPOSE vehemently: This topic has been discussed at great length several times previously, and ALL issues have been dealt with several times. There is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE here that involves hundreds of articles; the general principle should be addresed and resolved rather than white-anting the issue one page at a time. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title
See also:

• On talk:rear admiral:
  • talk:rear admiral#Capitalization,
  • talk:rear admiral#Move to Rear admiral,
  • talk:rear admiral#Move Back to Rear Admiral and
  • talk:rear admiral#rear admiral and/or Rear Admiral, but Rear admiral?
• On talk:general officer:
  • talk:general officer#Capitalization and
  • talk:general officer#Requested move

Also, with respect to your comment (on Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog): All done, but you didn't need to make a specific request for these. According to WP:MOSCAPS, the previous move of the first item was presumably based on a misreading of that page. Splash - tk 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand some of what you have written. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me:

• Why you didn't need to make a specific request for these?
• the previous move - Which previous move are you referring to?
• the previous move of the first item was presumably based on a misreading of that page. - I'm afraid I don't understand this.

I'm looking forward to reading your responses. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I saw the request at the bottom of WP:RM, read the brief discussion on the talk pages (which looked to be essentially identical on all of them), and read the relevant bit of WP:MOSCAP. The MoS seemed unambiguously clear to me that the move request was correct, and there was minimal opposition on talk pages, so I did the move. To answer your bullet points:

• The destinations were redlinks or single-edit redirects, so for a move that was clearly in line with policy there was no need to seek admin assistance, nor really to conduct a big survey. Any more than there is when correcting (mis-)capitalisation on other articles.
• Lieutenant colonel (United States) had been moved previously, to the upper-case version. I've left the edits deleted as they are administrative only and interfere with the current history.
• As I said, it seems to me that WP:MOSCAP is unambiguously clear on the capitalisation to be used. So a move to the upper-case version seemed to be only based on mis-reading that page.

Splash - tk 14:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Splash,

Thanks for the reply, but it's not very informative, and you haven't answered half of the questions I asked you.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret your reply as:

1. There was a request on WP:RM
2. You "read the brief discussion on the talk pages"
3. You read WP:MOSCAP
4. You decided that there was "minimal opposition"
5. You decided to do the move

Is that correct?

I asked:

It is my understanding that such actions are only performed after consensus is reached.
This move (and a number of others) are the subject of ongoing long and heated debate, which is NOT resolved, and hence NO consensus has been reached. I wish to understand how the process allows such a wholesale set of "moves" to occur when consensus has NOT been reached, (and the discussions are ongoing).

There seems to me to be a huge difference between "NO consensus has been reached" and "I decided that there was "minimal opposition"".

I ask again:

It is my understanding that such actions are only performed after consensus is reached.
This move (and a number of others) are the subject of ongoing long and heated debate, which is NOT resolved, and hence NO consensus has been reached. I wish to understand how the process allows such a wholesale set of "moves" to occur when consensus has NOT been reached, (and the discussions are ongoing).

I look forward to a reply which addresses the question I asked. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you asked 5 questions, one of which you have just repeated. I gave you 4 or 5 answers, depending on how you count them, which seems like a fair swap. You did not ask 8 or 10 questions by any stretch, so I did considerably better than "haven't answered half".

In any case, and to be clear, I am now going to (re-)answer the line in your most recent message beginning "I wish to understand ... ongoing)". The process which 'allowed' the moves to occur is the one I described in my previous answer, which you have accurately summarised above. Obviously, I decided that for the set of moves in question, consensus had been reached: there is an unambiguous MoS description of what is correct and there was minimal opposition on the talk pages I looked at. On the basis of the information I had at my disposal, I did the moves. I do not see every page, every dispute, every upset editor on the wiki, however, as I am not omnipotent. Moreover, I was not intervening in your 'dispute' over capital letters - I was merely clearing out a little backlog. Your question as phrased in your last message is clearly rhetorical, so you're not likely to get an answer to it which you find more satisfactory than that. To paraphrase a well-known saying, "Ask a question to which the only answers are ones you will find unsatisfactory, and you will get an unsatisfactory answer". I'm not sure what you want from me, really. I'm not moving the articles back, because then I'd get another complaint about capitals, but there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

On the broader point, if the military wikiproject is having convulsions over capital letters (of all things), then I don't know what they are doing allowing the MoS to contain such language as makes one particular convention clearly the preferred. The project needs to have a centralised discussion to repair that. When doing so, both sides need to remember that 'consensus' is not unanimity, and that the discussion need not be stymied by a relative few who are inevitably going to be disappointed. Moreover, assuming the MoS to reflect some prior agreement (else why does it say what it says?), then the burden of proof lies with those who would change it. This increases the chances they are going to find themselves unable to demonstrate a consensus to alter the convention as Wikipedia is naturally 'sticky'. In that case, the current MoS guideline would remain. Splash - tk 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your reply seems to have addressed all the issues I was unsure of. As you point out, not necessarily the answers I wanted to hear, but never the less, answers which address the issues I asked about. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for going to the effort of clarifying things. Most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAQ

I'd rather reply in a more detailed manner here, and not leave the "right" answer on the talk page. What if I told you that IP was now an extremely constructive user because I offered them a {{2nd chance}} template and unblocked when they responded positively and made an account? Basically, I'd like to see that the candidate knows not to decline their own unblocks (but I'm not going to fault them heavily for this, as I didn't know that until I had some time in the hot seat) and they should be willing to consider the user might one day become a constructive user (as this is exactly what happened). –xeno (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't change my answer, because that's a risk we run with every block (and every protection and every deletion). It would seem fair to say that, if they were going to become constructive anyway, that they'd just get an account, and not be affected by a correctly-configured block. As in - such an non-unblock would presumably make no difference to someone intending to be 'extremely constructive'. Splash - tk 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Just as a follow up, you asked me how it would sway my opinion, it would be especially salient in judging a person with not much mainspace work, i.e. primarily a vandal fighter. I want to see that they still have some AGF left in 'em, and a belief that people can improve or be reformed (sometimes ;>). I'll see about clarifying it a bit, but it's intentionally left somewhat open ended so as to not be a trick question and lead them into the right or wrong answer. –xeno (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(re to new msg) It was a 1 week block, anon only, account creation blocked. So they'd have had to sit out the block unless the admin was willing to work with them. –xeno (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the ACB changes things a bit, and seems probably unnecessary in general for an anon vandal's block. I would probably not have taken that as a 'correctly-configured' block. I hope there is not a guideline somewhere that says this should be the block configuration. And, for all my unforgiving answers, I have in the past unblocked on the back of such a plea. It depends whether they write a believeable-sounding mea culpa or not. This is kind of the trouble with a theory situation, as you don't have the realtime effects in the same way. Splash - tk 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of not blocking account creation for a vandal like this? They'd just create an account and continue right on vandalizing. AO,ACB is the default settings for blocking IPs and the standard, prescribed practice (your last IP block was AO,ACB by the way). –xeno (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point would go along the lines of "...but they might turn out to be an extremely constructive editor who would otherwise have been unable to edit at all". :) For a semi-static IP as described in your original question, I don't think I'd see much difference between ACB or not-ACB as there's only semi-one person on the IP. But for a dynamic IP, I think that ACB for a period longer than a matter of hours (e.g. 24) is wrong in proportion to how dynamic the IP is. In that respect, I should say that the new admin school is definitely not "standard, prescribed practice". It is merely a set of exercises to familiarise the unfamiliar with the functionality and general usage of their new tools. It is not policy, guideline or anything else near to a 'prescription', and in this respect, I think it contains a suboptimal recommendation. I would in general block with non-ACB, since this allows later users through and if they register and then still vandalise they can be ACB'd (and likely autoblocked) then. Not sure what relevance a particular block from my log has to the question being posed on RfAs. I probably just left it set to the possibly sub-optimal default, but I don't recall the situation. Splash - tk 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

AO,ACB is the standard procedure for blocking IPs as you can see by the comments made by HBC AIV helperbot under pretty much every IP block in the history of AIV. I'm not trying to be combative, but this simply is the "de facto" method of blocking IPs. But as you say, this is somewhat off-topic from our original discussion. I'll clarify in the question that AO,ACB was the setting used. –xeno (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Move request of Chinese wén

I'm relisting the proposed move of Chinese wén that you closed as a more open-ended request to gain more input. My previous proposed title might have been ambiguous (hence the disambiguator) but the current title is Wikipedia OR and is in violation of a whole host of guidelines. Please weigh in if you have some specific suggestions as to how to deal with this. I'm open to pretty much any title as long as it reflects a term that is actually used for the currency and not something created out of thin air. — AjaxSmack 02:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to be to able to comment usefully on what is a good/correct name for the series of articles. I was only really able to say that I found the current set up very confusing from a non-numismatist's point of view. I'd be happy to say later if I think that a new outcome is less confusing, and to help with any moves that people reach a consensus should occur. (Although on the former point, I'm obviously not a deciding authority on such things for the same reason of being almost entirely ignorant in the area). Splash - tk 20:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to give me so much information related to the questions I asked. Almost all of it was news to me. I really appreciate you having answered. Sorry for not acknowledging it earlier.

Best regards,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

vapmachado ^talk.cw 17:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to be of help. Splash - tk 00:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

IAET

ello, on the UK budget page the pie chart (which is ace by the way, nice one) shows a budget heading called 'IAET.' Can you clarify its meaning? A quick google suggests it might be improperly accumulated earnings tax but i know nooooooothing! ta x Comrade jo (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like the image — as you'll have seen from the talk page, IAET is "industry, agriculture, employment and training". This didn't fit into the legend in a legible font, so I've added it separately. You may need to clear your browser's cache if the change is not showing up for you. Thanks for the excuse to finally do this! Splash - tk 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection of Lehman Brothers

Hi Splash,

I noticed you unprotected the article on Lehman Brothers stating that "'high traffic' is not a valid reason for sprotection in the absence of high vandalism, which there was not. this is also on the main page atm". While you are 100% correct that high traffic alone is not a valid reason for semi-protection, a simple look back to the edit history on 15 September shows numerous instances of vandalism and edit warring by anonymous users that prompted me to semi-protect the article for a period of four days.

I count four instances of vandalism (one reverted by yourself and one which I just reverted) by multiple users in the eight hours since you unprotected the article, which would normally be grounds for semiprotecting an article. In the interest of not wheel-warring, rather than reprotecting it myself I'd like to ask you to reconsider the removal of the semi-protection. If you'd rather someone else take a look, I'm perfectly fine with submitting it to WP:RFPP.

While I respect that you've been an administrator for far longer than I have, I'd also like to suggest that you should have left a note on my talk page rather than undo my administrative action without discussion. And on that note, I'll apologize for the terse note (wheel-warring is my only real pet peeve) and just say thanks for your consideration! --jonny-mt 06:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, but I just looked at your contributions and noticed that you're only sporadically active (an editing pattern I understand well). In the interest of going ahead and getting this resolved, I've put in a request at WP:RFPP. --jonny-mt 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did of course look at the edit history that day and concluded it was way below the level that would warrant semi protection, most particularly for a main-paged article. It is not wheel warring to make a page editable on a wiki, and that's before we even get into the fact that a mere reversal of one admin action is never a wheel war. Splash - tk 09:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I do realise that the absolute number of poor edits was higher than usual, but so was the number of good edits, and the interest level on the article generally. Moreover, the vandalism was being easily handled. Incidentally, four vandal edits in 8 hours should almost never (imo) result in semiprotection because I cannot imagine why that could not be dealt with by blocks and rollbacks, which are far-better targetted tools and much less damaging to a wiki. Splash - tk 09:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there was a good share of good edits as well, but the absolute number of bad edits from various sources (making blocks unfeasible) is what prompted my semi-protection. Semi-protection is a tool to be employed when bad anonymous edits are numerous enough to be disruptive to the development of the article which, in my opinion, they were.

At any rate, the more important point is that you undid my administrative action without attempting to discuss it with me. It's true that you've been a Wikipedian and administrator much longer than I have, but I was given access to the tools for the same reason you were: because the community trusts me to use them to the benefit of the project. To have the actions I take in that capacity undone without any attempt at discussion undermines my role as an administrator, ignores the trust placed in me by the community, and generally makes it impossible to do my job.

Enough ranting from me. I'm disappointed to see that you declined another editor's request for semi-protection on Lehman when the whole point of my putting in that request was to get an outside opinion, but since I don't see anyone overturning that call I'll simply take this as a sign of tacit agreement and move on. If you run across any of my administrative actions that you think should be reversed in the future, please do me the courtesy of discussing them with me first. Thanks. --jonny-mt 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I declined the other editor's request with the bot-food template to avoid doubled-up requests. I deliberately did not decline your request with a template, and am not sure who/how that moved sections of the page; reinstate it if you like. But consider the vanishing point in your second paragraph: the community trusts you to make protections you say. Ok, then they trust me to make unprotections for the same reason. It's just the natural balance of a wiki. At no point need that get transmuted into a reflection on you, or your 'role' or 'job' — a mere unprotection really isn't such a personalized thing. Splash - tk 00:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:African American ethnicity

Thank you. I tried to engage Therock on his Talk page and on Talk:African American, where most of the discussion of the template has taken place, and he replied by "declaring war" against me on my Talk page. I requested page protection in the hope that it would help force some discussion of the matter. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

You unprotected it to see if the vandals and edit-warriors had given up. Looks like "no", so I reprotected. I've been involved in lots of reverts there...could you double-check that I protected it in the best form of the recent revisions so others don't whine that I an using admin fiat to "win" an edit-war? DMacks (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you unprotected that article, and was about to ask that you reconsider given that your action would likely precipitate an edit war, but then I got distracted and never posted the note. Looks like I was right.

Oh, and DMacks, thanks for your vigilance. I doubt anybody could fault you for protecting m:The Wrong Version in the grand tradition of Wikipedia administratorship. The last protected version should be fine.

I wish there were a form of protection between "semi" and "full" that allowed truly "established" editors to contribute, but not anons or new accounts or single-purpose accounts. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UobArms.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:UobArms.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dusting (inhalant abuse)

Thanks for fixing the mess I made of a simple move.Originalname37 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem - glad to be of help. As you've probably discovered by now, if you use the 'move' button at the top of your screen, the article's history all gets moved along with it, and the 'copyright detection' tools are placated. Splash - tk 22:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of DM Movie

Splash, I'm just getting started with this whole wiki world and some friends asked me to put their movie on wikipedia. What corrections do i need to make to the article to ensure it meets the guidelines for inclusion? Thanks! Tedsmithwiki - (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tedsmith. I'm sorry about your article - possibly deletion is not the most pleasant introduction to Wikipedia! However, you can imagine that Wikipedia gets many articles every day about films that are of either no consequence or, in some cases, no existence. Unfortunately, as the article on your film did not indicate its notability, it got deleted. The general guideline for notability on Wikipedia is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". In the particular case of movies, you can find the guidance on this at WP:MOVIE. See if you can satisfy the descriptions you find there. However, I would suggest from my experience of these things that a new article would not long survive if the movie has not yet received substantial and non-trivial coverage in 3rd-party sources that are reliable and independent of the creators, actors and screeners of the movie. It may be necessary to return to Wikipedia at some point in the future if/when this coverage has been established rather than re-write the article immediately. Splash - tk 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Splash, thanks for taking the time to clarify the "notability" requirement. If/when the movie meets the threshold, we will resubmit. Have a great day! Tedsmithwiki - (talk) 3:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

CryptoBuddy

Hi, Splash, I saw that you recently deleted CryptoBuddy. I removed the speedy tag moments before you deleted it because it's definitely not promotional, and thus does not fall under G11. Could you please undelete this article, which has existed since 2002. I'm planning to expand this article and add references from here. Cunard (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I had meant to add that it was an A7 'no indication of notability of software' deletion, but missed the menu selection unfortunately. It was no stronger in the versions existing in earlier years, when inclusion standards were rather slacker than now. Splash - tk 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A7 specifically excludes software articles. {{db-a7}} specifically states that that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible under this criterion. Please undelete the article so that I will have the opportunity to expand it without having to start over again. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Splash - tk 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the article! I've added a couple references to it. Take care, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just want to note that it would be reasonable to describe the article as promotional since it was apparently created by a user associated with the producer company Research Triangle. Dialectric (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Angry Jerk Page

Hi, upon doing a Google search for my personal website to see who was linking to it, I stumbled across a deleted article for it. I'm not very great with Wikipedia's formatting system, so I'll just post the URL that leads to the deleted page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Jerk

I am the subject of said article. As of late, I've been being hassled by an individual from a forum on the internet. I suspect that this is the same person who attempted to create this article as some form of an attempt to cause grief for me. I don't know Wikipedia's SysOp policies, but if it is permitted, may I be informed of the article's creator's user handle? If it is an IP address not registered to an account, may I simply compare the first few digits from my own site's log to confirm that this is indeed the same person? If this is against SysOp guidelines, I shall understand and press the issue no further.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide.

AJDotNet (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm following up on this message. I did find out who did it, and it wasn't who I thought it was. However, I did notice your name listed on the user's talk page as someone who can obtain deleted articles. If you could be so kind as to provide copies of several deleted pages, I would be very much grateful. Basically, I'd just like all the pages listed on here. I am not the original author, but if required I can have the original author give his consent.

Thanks, looking forward to your reply.

AJDotNet (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding; I have been away for a time. The reasons for which admins will usually provide copies of deleted pages are essentially limited to the recipient having some intention to make use of their content on Wikipedia, or to retrieve material they wrote themselves. As I gather that would not be the purpose of your request, I think it better if I leave this material quietly buried. Splash - tk 18:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So if I get the original writer to ask, can you provide it to him? AJDotNet (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess so, but given the nature of these writings, I will insist that the request come specifically from the account that created the article. On receiving the content, the author should be aware that, if the content ever appears anywhere on the English Wikipedia, I will indefinitely block the account that causes it to appear. Splash - tk 13:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I give AJDotNet permission to have these pages. CTCSP (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There. Now can one of us have the pages? We've done everything the proper way. AJDotNet (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed them to you as CTCSP does not have an email address set. Sorry to have been so slow, I'm just not around on Wikipedia much these days. Splash - tk 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I'll forward them to him as well. AJDotNet (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps on the articles for Complexity and Sociology and Complexity Science

Dear Splash, thanks for the information regarding the appropriate copyright for images on articles. I did as you requested and changed the maps to meet wikipedia standards. I am very proud of the maps, they represents years of research and work. Bcastel3 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME, Mr/MRS. Splash, you have Vandalized the deletion page for Barbara Smucker. Please revert this or be banned for life. Thx.

(I do not know who wrote the above, but please remove it or make your own section and add your name to it. Thanks) Bcastel3 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Barnyard poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Barnyard poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:QPSK.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:QPSK.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. Skier Dude (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Since you are interested in Pomona College you might want to check out this AfD of a professor's bio: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:IndiaGov

Hi, can you restore this discussion? commons:Template talk:PD-IndiaGov refers to it, but the information is removed. There are still some images on Commons from in.gov sources, so knowing the reasons is necessary. --Martin H. (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If I undelete it, soon it will be re-deleted as it is an orphaned talk page. I also see that the comment dates from 2006, and the history of the deleted talk page from 2005, and there was a single non-useful exchange on it. I think you will do better to add a link to the page to the TfD discussion which deleted the template, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 26#Template:IndiaGov. This contains more precise information and more of it than the deleted page does. For completeness, I've pasted below the final contents of the deleted talk page, so you can add a link to this edit's diff to the talk page on Commons if you wish. Splash - tk 12:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

== Public Domain ??? == I read the text of the [[Right to Information Act]] law, but I haven't found nothing about Public Domain for the act of India governemnt. Someone can point me where it say so ? --[[User:Moroboshi|Moroboshi]] 23:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC) : My understanding of the act is also the same. [[Right to Information Act]] is similar to U.S. [[Freedom of Information Act]]. It does not by itself gurantee that the works of the government are public domain. People have the right to know information in government files. That does not imply that any government work could be used by anybody without permission. ---[[User:DuKot|DuKot]] 18:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello from Grünstadt

Hello Splash - perhaps this posting [1]on my paysage blog [2] could be a interesting reading for a wikipedia admin ! best wishes from Grünstadt ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My user pages

Thanks for taking care of that for me, I appreciate it.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. Splash - tk 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Secure POS Vendors Alliance

Hello. I noticed you deleted the secure POS Vendors Alliance under the unambiguous advertising policy. Given that it is a non-profit professional organization, I assume that your issue with the article stemmed from either the external links to or language discussing one of the three corporations involved. I assure you that my intention was purely to create a page for this non-profit, not to drive anyone to the sites of said companies. The external links were included just because they seemed somewhat relevant (I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's linking policies and nofollow), but obviously they can be removed if they make the article a problem. If, however, the language in the article was also an issue, please let me know so I can adjust that as well. Leeatcookerly (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem was the whole tone of the article. Because it was copied without meaningful amendment from the source website, it reads very clearly as writing intended to set the organisation in the best possible (and jargon-riddled) light and not at all as an encyclopedic collection of notable facts. Non-profits are not immune from the tendency to wish to promote themselves and certainly I would in general expect their websites to do so. It is extremely unusual for a copy-paste of a website of any organisation to be acceptable as Wikipedian encyclopedic content whether or not copyright permission has been granted. I would suggest the successful route will be to write an original article from scratch, making citations back to the website and to third-party reports to establish facts. See here for some useful guidelines on how to write about organisations in general and how to establish whether or not an organisation warrants an article at all. If you are associated with the Alliance, there are some general cautions here which may be useful to you. Splash - tk 12:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Greg Edwards (musician)

Hello Splash, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Greg Edwards (musician) has been removed. It was removed by Eta6 with the following edit summary '(Removed Proposed Deletion. Cleaned up article, added information, with links to other wikipedia articles, corrected some false information.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Eta6 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Jody Dunn

Hi there. Back in 2005, you argued to keep this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn. However, Wikipedia has changed since then, and I believe she no longer meets our standards for inclusion. I have re-nominated the article for deletion; your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Adil Omar

We were wondering if you could unblock the creation for the Adil Omar wikipedia page. This artist page was blocked in 2007 when it was created without any references... Since then, he has accomplished a lot more in his field and career, is a notable figure, and we would create a page, professionally and from a neutral viewpoint, with references and reliable sources if you please un-protect it... Do let us know, thanks.

History for Digitally Imported

Hello. I have recreated Digitally Imported, now with sources and neutrality. Could you restore the article history? It is mostly for attribution, since I reused some pieces from the deleted version. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Same thing for Radioio would also be nice. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, finally! Splash - tk 10:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Cobbruth.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cobbruth.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Secret ^account 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bristol meetup

Hi Splash. I'm making a guess that you're connected to Bristol - apologies if not! I'm from Wikimedia UK - the local chapter representing Wikimedia here in Britain. We are hosting a conference in Bristol this weekend - more details here. We want to organise a meetup - WP:Meetup/Bristol_1 - where local Wikipedians can meet representatives of the UK chapter, the Wikimedia Foundation and other chapters around the world as well as other local people interested in Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're interested in coming along! AndrewRT(Talk) 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

2019 Pacific hurricane season

Hi, I'm puzzled why you deleted this redirect. It is one of three being discussed here. If content is not added promptly to the target then they are likely to be deleted but deleting seems premature at the moment. I also don't understand your rationale "xnr to a cat that won't survive" since it was a redirect to an article. Will you please restore the redirect pending conclusion of the discussion? Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Splash - tk 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Neonatal Network

Hi Splash, my page Canadian Neonatal Network has been speedily deleted becuase of a conflict of interest and copyright infringemnet (much of the material used was from a website that I set up using approved language about the network's bachground, mission, goals, etc). Would it be possible for you to reinstate this, as it seems that I cannot touch it?

Thanks. Smackerella (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Neonatal Network

Thanks Splash. Will try another approach. Smackerella (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

It really is Order of St Patrick not "Order of St. Patrick" in proper grammar.

Give me a copy of a page that you have deleted (Chris Danford)

Can you please give me a copy of this page?

74.233.167.162 (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus changes

Hi Splash. In 2005 you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andover Elementary School as 'keep'. The school is still a tiny, insignificant school, there are still no RS that assert notability for it, and the stub has not evolved in that time. Our practice has however since evolved, and currently we merge such items to the school district or to its town or community. If you have no objections, therefore, I intend to merge any useful details to the school district, blank the page, and leave a redirect, thus leaving the history intact. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Very Secret Diaries

Back in 2005, you participated in an AFD discussion this article. It was kept, but I have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Very Secret Diaries (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eric Thomas.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eric Thomas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sterling C. Robertson

I just created Sterling C. Robertson, and there was a note that on October 9, 2005 you deleted a page by this name. This is a courtesy notice of the page I have created. --Maile66 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Article-cv

Template:Article-cv has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gh87 (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

List of publications in philosophy/List of important publications in philosophy

Hi,

I'm asking you to restore the page because sources can be found for such a topic:

• [3]
• [4]

are examples. Thank youCurb Chain (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and just write the article including sources if you can. It'll be far better than what was deleted, which can in fact be found at User:APH/List of publications in philosophy to give you a useful starting point. Splash - tk 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank 'you' for this note. I've made a few edits and admin actions today, so expect that I will retain my +sysop for the time being. Splash - tk 21:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey splash! Welcome back : ) - jc37 23:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it's good to see you're still around! Splash - tk 01:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

QBEX

Er Hello!? Why have you deleted my page while I was actually editing it? Please put it back so I can continue to work on it. Gurnard (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The topic has already been considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QBEX where it was judged not to be suitable for a Wikipedia entry. Now is probably not the time to try creating it again. I did look at the article before deleting it, and I'm afraid I can tell you that there is almost no chance that it would be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Splash - tk 19:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please can you put the contents back in my sandbox? Gurnard (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Notify me tomorrow if you're still waiting for a response. Mephistophelian (contact) 22:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

I'm disinclined to restore this. It was a legitimate speedy tag (so Mephistohelian, I'm not quite sure what your intended outcome was!) of an article that, if it were to appear in the main space of Wikipedia would be a speedy deletion candidate at once since it has already been deleted by AfD. That's before we get to the problems with the images that were included in it. I fear that, if restored and worked on by you and your colleagues, you are only going to be angered when it is again deleted. Please consider reading the notability rules, and judge how you might proceed, if at all. There is a nice piece of advice in WP:AUTO that, if something is worthy of an article, then someone else other than the subjects will no doubt write it. Splash - tk 00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I declined the creation of the article due to the inability to verify its content, and subsequently nominated it for deletion based on the prior discussion, the outcome I anticipated seems indisputable. After receiving the editor’s request yesterday, to recreate the deleted material, my interest was merely to elaborate on the circumstances where I can provide assistance, and why the previous consensus assumes precedence. Although I'm uncertain precisely why you're criticising me, I apologise nonetheless for the apparent misunderstanding. Mephistophelian (contact) 02:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

My reply is mostly to Gurnard. I thought your note was to intend restoration if I didn't respond speedily (I realise I've been gone for a long time, so this is reasonable), but I understand that was not the case. Thank you for the clarification. Splash - tk 20:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi There. I am still waiting for the material to be reinstated in my sandbox. When can I expect this to be done, please? I cannot see how we do not meet the notability criteria, given the number and frequency of contacts and requests to me. Gurnard (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I am still waiting for the material to be reinstated in my sandbox. When can I expect this to be done, please? Gurnard (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I am still waiting for the material to be reinstated in my sandbox. When can I expect this to be done, please? Gurnard (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I am still waiting for the material to be reinstated in my sandbox. When can I expect this to be done, please? Gurnard (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Romnesia

I think the decision on Romnesia should have been closed as no consensus. I am thinking about challenging it in Wikipedia:Deletion_review.Casprings (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Romnesia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Romnesia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Casprings (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi there. There's a question which I have on the Romnesia neologism. Your detailed reply will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC).

Boid for Android AfD

I wanted to inquire as to why you closed this as delete rather than no consensus...it was 2-2 and I understand that it's not a vote, but I disagree with your assertion that the discussion disqualifies the sources. Both Colapeninsula and I refuted what Laura Hale said, so I just wanted to inquire as to your thought process. --Go Phightins! 01:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Reading the discussion of the sources, and looking at them myself, I could not see that that they discuss the notability of the subject, and the case was not made successfully that they do. The point was made clearly in the discussion that mere quantity of sources, even 'reliable' sources, isn't really the notability test; what's needed is reliable sources that discuss some notable aspect(s) of the subject, rather than just acknowledging the subject's existence. In the debate there was reference to WP:NSOFT, an essay rather than policy, but it is clear to me that the article also failed to cross the thresholds suggested there — in particular the "discussed in RS as significant in its field" point. (Minor detail: on the numbers, it's 3D, 2K as the nominator is a delete). Splash - tk 10:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Go Phightins! 17:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

BER plot

Hello Splash: I found your BER plot (probability of bit error) for BPSK/QPSK, 8-PSK and 16-PSK on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-shift_keying and am wondering if I can get a copy of your MATLAB script for this plot? Thanks in advance. My email is isaac_jeng@yahoo.com Regards,

Hello, thanks for getting in touch. In fact, I just used bertool from the command line, rather than writing a script myself. Regards, Splash - tk 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Eric Thomas.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Eric Thomas.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fashion albums

Category:Fashion albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:AM spectrum.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AM spectrum.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Discount window

An article that you have been involved in editing, Discount window, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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) 00:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, 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, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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) 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, 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. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Splash, welcome back! I'm not sure if we ever interacted but I certainly remember your name and am glad to see another old name return. :) Best. Acalamari 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I remember your name, too, and glad to see you still around. When I looked around, I found this page especially a saddening tomb-stone inscribing many names I worked with (or less with!) a long time ago. It is something of a shame they have been historicalised, I think. Tends to encourage one to 'move on' rather than 'come back', imo. Anyway, hopefully, my hypothesis of work being about to give me some time to myself turns out to be a true one! Splash - tk 14:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing CfD

Thanks for closing the CfD on military occupations at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7. Please would you finish this by removing the CFD templates from the category pages, and adding {{old cfd}} on the talk pages? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions. Let me know if you need help. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, now done. Splash - tk 22:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder if you can help me. I have been gone awhile and may not be up to date on automation tools. Is there an automated route for me to do that kind of thing, useful when there's more than a few to de-tag, etc? Splash - tk 22:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, there is WP:CFDWR. As far as I know this is not fully documented because it is still in testing, but it seems to work fine. I think it still only cleans up the category page, and does not add the notice template to the talk pages. – Fayenatic London 13:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Splash - tk 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The big backlog clearance

Hi Splash

Many thanks for closing so many CFD discussions. The backlog had been growing horribly long, to the point that the process was becoming useless, and your efforts have brought things much more up-to-date. It's great to see this happening ... and since closers usually only get feedback only when somebody is disgruntled, I thought that it might be nice for you to get some positive feedback :)

I saw a question you asked above processing the closures, and that you had been wondering if there were automated tools to help. There are a few, but one thing that isn't automated yet is checking for backlinks before removing completed jobs from WP:CFD/W. There is supposed to be a note somewhere about this, but I can't remember where it is.

Anyway, I caught two which you missed in this this cleanout of the speedies: List of towns in Nakhchivan (a cross-namespace redirect to one of the deleted renamed categs), and Category:Accounting journals, which had a see-also link.

It's a bit tedious having to do this manually, but it's better not to clean out the list until the backlinks are checked.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - it's good to know it's appreciated. Certainly, I am more used to people being more ... forthright ... in their deletion closure messages to me!

Good point on the whatlinkshere, I have overlooked that detail and will be sure to check now. Is that also sometimes the reason why the bots (apparently) arbitrarily don't delete a category they have successfully de-populated? Splash - tk 13:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary; I think they delete after a renaming, but not after a merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association

Hi there, in your analysis of the deletion request for this category, here, you said that " I also note that several of the articles mentioned as potential members are now bluelinks, so the triviality argument has not withstood the test of time." However, those new blue links are redirects, and you will find that they redirect to the parent article, International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. As such, they should not be used in an argument to test the triviality of the category. Having been called up by BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) as "nominator didn't do much scrutiny", I am obviously a little sensitive on the subject of scrutiny. Thanks. Nsw2042 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I upset you there. But, it was my thinking only on the nomination argument, not in any way on the nominator and I was careful to express it thus. Splash - tk 23:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

CfDs

BTW, thanks for stepping up and dealing with the backlog. I try and do a few occasionally. But some of the regulars can't close some discussions for various reasons like comments in old CfDs or opinions expressed or... Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It's a relatively light weight way to ease myself back into some occasional Wikpedia-ing. Yes, I see the problem that lead to the backlog. Maybe we can think of something do about that. I am feeling from some of the nominations that CfD's load would be much reduced with a dose of bold editing, followed by 4-day waits for formal speedying. The outcomes would almost uniformly be the same, and CfD should only really be given the workload of dealing with the cases where something crops up in the 4 day window. Splash - tk 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Normally I don't watch you page but did happen to look. At one time we did close at 5 days, I think that was the number. But when AfD went to 7 days it was changed here also. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you check back to 2006 or 7, the volume of CFD business was much much bigger. The development of the speedy process has already reduced the load enormously.

I would be very wary of encouraging bold editing with categories. Category changes are hard to track and revert, which is why it is so important to have consensus before changes are made.

I would also oppose a shortening of the time. 7 days is not long, and it ensures that an editor who can edit only one day each week doesn't miss the opportunity to participate in the debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

On four days, I meant that an unpopulated category is already a C1 speedy after 4 days, so this is current practice. Certainly we would not want to shorten the general CfD timeline, I agree. I just observe that there should be little need for any process to be sort of engaged in nodding through edits which are uncontested and uncontroversial. Really, it should focus on those that need advice and/or discussion. On the other hand, a CfD is maybe the only route to having a bot help if you've got more than a few articles. Splash - tk 08:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your recent help! When you manually deleted these, you forgot the talk pages (now done).

You were right not to let the bot do the deleting, as it would leave an incorrect edit summary after a manual merge. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I specifically had those talk pages in mind while I was processing the merge/delete, and then forgot. Yes, the edit summary thing is why I did them manually, but actually, it would probably be good enough anyway. Thanks for catching the deletes for me. Splash - tk 13:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A hard-earned barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your heroic work in massively reducing the appalling backlog of unclosed CFDs. Over the last week, your efforts have reduced the backlog from 11 weeks to only 3 weeks. Thank you! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! It is good to see the list gradually shrink and get some outcomes from the efforts that go into CfD. Splash - tk 22:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

deletion undo or review, for category:Television program creator

Hi Splash -- I don't terribly mind your taking the initiative, but I disagree with your closure (delete) of CFD on Category:Television program creator at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 29#Category:Television program creators. I'd like to ask for that to be reversed, although I am not completely sure of the protocol, as a bot already went and deleted the category from all articles that used it.

I appreciate you acknowledged that I had some point, but your closure was too abrupt I think. I had given substantive comments in response to editor BrownHairedGirl's "Comment" that might have led her to change from "Comment" to "Keep", and in response to editor John Pack Lambert's "Delete" that might have led him or others to change, too. I submitted the IMDB source as a clear one specifying the credit, and that was not questioned.

And, the term can be substantiated elsewhere, e.g. by reference to Writers Guild guidelines for crediting of "creator", which are very well-defined. I've since developed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Television program creator and included references that clarify how objective the term is. That article will be added to mainspace sometime soon I expect; meanwhile it includes references and discussion that I think clarify legitimacy of Category:Television program creator.

Now, I think wp:DRV terms 1 and 3 apply, that a Deletion Review would be appropriate "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" and "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". wp:DRV also suggests I should discuss the matter with you.

Could you please consider this and reply / give guidance as to what to do next? sincerely, --doncram 03:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think if we reverse the cfd outcome now, we would have the horse before the cart, since the article has not yet passed AfC review. A much more likely stable category could result once there is already an article, whereas if the article is not introduced to main space, the category should rightly be deleted. I think you would have no luck arguing that the closing admin misinterpreted the consensus of the debate, since no one else agreed with you, either before or after your longer reply. New information might be arguable, but only realistically if there is an article to justify it. So, basically, I think you can have an easier time of things if you complete the articled and then return to the category issue. I hope that helps. Splash - tk 13:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There was no activity in the discussion from January 9 until i made two substantial comments at 11:25 and 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC), then you closed it at 22:00 or so. I think you could have waited for some other comment, and your closing summary was not perfectly fair. But no real harm done.

I have been working to clear out a long backlog of cfd, and generally once the 7 days has expired, the debate might close at any time so as to not allow a kind of filibuster by last-moment comments. I realise that's not what you were doing, of course. But it can also be good to close an old debate so that the time for something actionable finally arrives, and the various parties have some clear situation to deal with, rather than an uncertain continuance. Splash - tk 18:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it will be clearer once the article now at AFC is in mainspace. Again i am not sure of the protocol, but can i just re-create the category then. I could do so with an edit summary pointing to the CFD and noting that there is further clarity from the article. I also could notify you and the 3 commenters in the CFD so that one of them could possibly choose to bring it to CFD again, though I think the article and its sources do address all concerns raised, so I think the article and the category would then be kept. Please advise if I should then do other than just re-start the category. Thanks. --doncram 16:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there is no formal established procedure, so really a matter of etiquette. Probably it is wise to let the nominator of the CFD know when you remake the category and leave a note on the category's talk page as to the old cfd and the new circumstances, as you have described above. Good luck, let me know if i can help (especially by reinstating the category page edit history in the event you recreate it). Splash - tk 18:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Three weeks later, it seems that AFC is not operational, they are in limbo / under construction of a new system using the new /drafts space. Could you possibly see your way to simply moving the draft article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Television program creator to mainspace? And you could restore the category (or I could) and then you could restore the edit history of the category as you offered. I ended up revising the list into a section of the intended main article Television program creator. I believe I have well-enough documented the existence of the role, formally, in contracts and guidelines of writers' associations, etc. This would just take the proposed article out of AFC's queue, and get it done. I am under a restriction preventing me from simply creating the article in mainspace myself, would appreciate the favor. No problem if not though; eventually AFC will work. --doncram 23:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Chapter 9 bankruptcies

Hi Splash, I noticed you did away with Category:Chapter 9 bankruptcies as a result of a wp:CfD. Just wanted to mention that it is customary in such circumstances to tag the talk page with an oldcfd template. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But in this case, that would prevent the talk page from redirecting, so I did not add a tag. Problematically, the target category was not nominated at all, so it did not seem appropriate to tag that talk page, either. Splash - tk 16:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Hameaux in France

Hi, thanks for closing the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_20#Category:Hameaux_in_France discussion. Since the Category:Villages in France didn't have subcategories by region and department, I'll ask for a speedy rename for the hameaux by region subcategories, referring to C2C and the merge decision. Since there aren't that many articles that fit the category, we can do without the subcategories by department (a lower level of administrative subdivison) IMO. Do you agree? Markussep ^Talk 13:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Asking for a C2C speedy rename sounds fine, and is anyway harmless since if anyone procedurally objects then it just goes to a normal CfD which will likely lead to the same outcome, just a little more slowly. Splash - tk 15:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Early Commercial architecture

Hi Splash

You closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 18#Early_Commercial_architecture as rename, but didn't process all the categories. Several were listed in the body of the rationale, rather in the usual way at the top. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be off-wiki for a while, so I went ahead and implemented the changes according to the principle of your close. Hope I got it right :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I left the others deliberately to allow a space for someone to object to my choice of rename, and intended to come back a few days later, but unfortunately my Wikipedia editing time has been minimal since then! Splash - tk 13:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Article creation - Warwick Economics Summit

Dear Splash, I'm Francois, from the Warwick Economics Summit. We are a student-run academic conference at Warwick University. Our article was deleted a few years ago. We would like to be on wikipedia as our event is notable as shown by our media coverage and the brand we have. In the last few years we have established ourselves as a major event for economics students in the UK. I was wondering if you would be happy to collaborate on this. Please find my article here: [sandbox]. Thanks for your time. Kind regards, --Fstiennon (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing backlinks after deletions

Hi, thanks for helping at CfD. I noticed that you deleted Category:Fictional, but did not remove the links to it from some category pages, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Fictional. There is no need to worry about the talk pages, but someone seems to have thought it was a good idea to link the word "fictional" to that category in the explanations for various categories of fictional characters, and those red links should be taken out. This is part of the job as noted at WP:CFDAI. Would you be willing to finish tidying up the backlinks to this one, please? – Fayenatic London 08:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Worldwide Universities Network

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Worldwide Universities Network, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Expanded explanation of the pieces of the pie chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UKExpenditure.svg

Is there any? The source 404's, and I'd like to understand what stuff like "social protection" actually means in this context. AngryDrake (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You can look up the relevant Budget or Pre-Budget Report documents on http://www.hmrc.gov.uk. Splash - tk 22:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Worldwide Universities Network

Category:Worldwide Universities Network, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Williams Street Studios series and characters

Category:Williams Street Studios series and characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- GB fan 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, again. Hopefully this edit is enough to mean we will not meet again for a while. And who knows, maybe you will again inspire me to find some time to edit more. Splash - tk 20:49, 7 June 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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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)

Why hello again! Splash - tk 10:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Splash. 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 Splash.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Splash. 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)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Comedy video games has been nominated for discussion

Category:Comedy video games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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) 01:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We should talk more often. Splash - tk 00:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Splash. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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 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, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five 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. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years 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. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Splash - tk 20:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

List of TLA-Dabs listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of TLA-Dabs. Since you had some involvement with the List of TLA-Dabs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Splash. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Vutsemip listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Vutsemip. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Vutsemip redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of IEEE Communications Society

The article IEEE Communications Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable sub-group of notable organisation

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know

You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. IMiss2010 (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)