User talk:ArnoldReinhold

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Moved to Talk:Vernam cipher

I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

The above also applies to my contributions to articles on transportation topics.

Changing the redirect was a better fix. Thanks

Your return to the Martin Meehan discussion page and the one sentence matter would be appreciated.

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

I am now owner of a TUSC account

Dear ArnoldReinhold, excuse me for IP-based block evading at your page, but I've been left no choice to communicate with my fellow editors. I am going to ask you to consider unblocking me. I've been blocked for close to two years on a charge of sockpuppetry. I simply didn't do it. I cleanstarted (WP:CLEANSTART) for privacy reasons. You use your real name here and I suppose you're comfortable with that. At times online, I've come into contact with argumentative sorts, even "creepers," that are fond of Googling their adversaries and finding them on social networks and so forth, posting what they find to make their targets uncomfortable or perhaps embarrassed (say, by a picture from Facebook that was only intended for friends). You made a different call, but I wanted a Wikipedia account in which the snoopy sniffers could not so easily track me off Wikipedia. My former account was vulnerable to that, so that was why I switched to this: Colton Cosmic. Anyhow, Timotheus Canens without warning, diffs, or discussion, permanently blocked me as a sockpuppet. Somewhat insultingly I find, he merely gave me a link to "WP:ILLEGIT." After that what seems to me to be an immense volume of blockamaniacs started following me around, suspicion-mongering and haranguing and so forth. They sabotage any effort I make to be unblocked. Most recently at my RFC/U: [1]. That tells the whole long terrible story of Colton Cosmic, if you've got 15 minutes to spare. My long-time critics plastered a lot of negative comments there. Do not assess those "outside viewpoints" necessarily as people who routinely participate in RFC/Us, rather it is my habitual critics that watchlisted my talkpage over my objections and followed me to the RFC/U to criticize me some more.

Arnold, I don't know if it was actually what prompted Timotheus, but I did slip up on civility and say to Nomoskedasticity that he or she was a provocateur whose Wikipedia activity consisted of tattling on editors for this and that at WP:AN/ANI and racking up an high personal score of victims. While in substance I think there's some truth to that, there may or may not be another more constructive side to Nomo. and I shouldn't have spoken so sharply. Fair enough. But an instance of inordinately sharp criticism doesn't mean I should be blocked forever. Which was exactly what Wormthatturned told me in email, he said my remark showed conclusively that I am WP:NOTHERE "not here to build an encyclopedia." With no apparent consideration to my constructive edits and articles I created he seeks to distill my Wikipedia participation to a single edit where I stepped over WP:CIV line: [2] (the "provocateur" part). What's not evident there is the backstory: I had a couple days earlier read Youreallycan complain of being wikihounded by Nomo. for a time period of no less than two years, partly explained here: [3]. Youreallycan made a "please just leave me alone" plea that had a plaintive quality to it. And then there a day or whatever later, is Nomo. calling for Youreallycan to be blocked at WP:AN/ANI. I viewed myself, right or wrong, as confronting a cyberbully.

Anyhow, why'd I come to you? I picked a name randomly from the list of administrators, well I actually meant to pick one from under "B" but for some reason I clicked you. I then checked that you were recently active. That's about it. I did look at your homepage that you link, though perhaps we might have common interests but I didn't notice any. You're Jewish, I'm not. It seems like a fascinatingly complex religion to me. I get Hebrew National hotdogs, haha! I like kosher foods because to me that means "rules" and I like those that make the food I eat to have rules in preparing it. On a darker note for some reason I wanted several months ago to find out what a "mamzer" is, so I explored that aspect of Judaism briefly. I don't know if I care for the rules governing mamzers as much, they seem kind of harsh. What else? Your interests in old computers we sort of share. I am more interested in computers of the vintage where they resembled what they are today: computer, keyboard, and monitor. Atari 800 and so forth.

I'm running too long again. Sorry for putting all this verbiage on your talkpage. If you'll unblock me, great, but you'll get flak from those editors and administrators that view me as a menace. Honestly, they make me feel like Hannibal Lecter sometimes, and I'm like "why?" If defending me is too much of an undertaking, no offense taken of course, but do consider leaving a viewpoint at the RFC/U. This is Colton Cosmic.

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
Wishing ArnoldReinhold a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Ezra Cricket (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi ArnoldReinhold! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § X in fiction IX on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ArnoldReinhold. Thank you for your work on Solar canopy. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henrietta Swan Leavitt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andromeda Nebula.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed—agr (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi ArnoldReinhold! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ArnoldReinhold,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more. ​

Best regards, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society, I'd be honored.--agr (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]