User talk:Vary

Archive - Through July 31, 2006 Archive - Aug 06 - Dec 08

You said something about me "formally stamping my comment"... what comment? o.0 -Aguyuno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandal on my talk page :D Matt (Talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help with disambiguating Jason Chong.

PabloZ (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism on my talkpage. Call me Bubba (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vary, I'm not sure if you are still watching the ANI thread or not, so just so you know, I tried to answer your questions about DYK (and why the Next update page is not protected) here and here...I hope that makes things a bit clearer. Best, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the only content author of a page blanks the content, it is considered to be a request for deletion, and should be dealt with by placing a ((db-author)) speedy delete tag, NOT by reverting, as you did at BrightHouse.

Please check edit histories before reverting, it only takes a few seconds using popups.

(please, no excuses about how huggle doesn't allow this or that, you are just as responsible for your script based (huggle/twinkle, etc) edits, as you are for your manual edits) Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the above is regarding a page that I deleted under G7 shortly after the revert in question. Lest anyone should think I don't follow up on script-assisted edits. -- Vary Talk

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Velcro dog, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

dicdef of a slang term; no potential for expansion

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Psychonaut (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting it :D cf38^talk 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I was just using an experienced guess when I told you to look, but i just now did find quite a few.DGG (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kevin Covais. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Covais. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the talk page of the article you are referring to. I AM attempting to resolve the matter peacefully, and you will see my post there pre-dates your warning. If you would care to participate, perhaps even to mediate the dispute, you would be welcome to do so. Rain City Blues (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, before you start throwing accusations, lets try to keep the focus on the topic, not on the people you disagree with. If the best you can manage is a personal attack, I'd be happy to bring in an admin that is not quite so biased to resolve the matter according to wiki guidelines.

. . . had to undo it. Crafty (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C DJ_Pusspuss.2C_Benjamin_Holman.2C_and_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless Ikip (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He continues to make his assumptions on the ANI, and I continue to revert them. Ikip (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not for you to decide. Step off.Rain City Blues (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously participated in the underlying referenced Ottava Rima AN/I.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vary, please don't make changes based on your preferences prematurely. There is no consensus for this at this stage. The discussion is ongoing. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as I outlined on the talk page. And who said anything about my preferences? I'm just trying to bring a discussion that hasn't gone anywhere to a close based on the opinions of those who have already commented. I'd prefer to keep further discussion on this at the article talk page, thanks. -- Vary | (Talk) 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		To Vary: For figuring out how best to say Scott Brown posed nude in a diplomatic, WP:NPOV way. Seriously, good communication, good use of talk page. Well done Malke2010 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the following answer in the help page. It helped me solve my problem:

I'd like to put a comma in the title of an article. Specifically, I would like to change the article Trinidad Sanchez Jr. to read "Trinidad Sanchez, Jr.", to reflect wikipedia's preferred practice. How can I make that edit? Thank you.Hammerdrill (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Help:Moving a page. The title you want to use is currently a redirect with no other edits, so you should be able to move it yourself (iirc). If you have trouble, let me know and I'll take care of it. -- Vary | (Talk) 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I have another question. The article on Mr. Sanchez has one category, American poets. When I click the link and try to find his name listed among the American poets, I can't find it. I think I must be doing something stupid, for which I apologize; but in case there really is a problem, could you please go to his article and click the category link to see? Thank you.Hammerdrill (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dealing with the problem. It didn't occur to me he would show up under the "T's," but I see the sense of it. You had to fix that with a template? Do you mind telling me how to do it? By the way, adding the Slam category was excellent. Having written the article and given it over to the improvements of future editors, I shouldn't have the right to feel grateful, but I do. Thank you!Hammerdrill (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that part. I switched his position on the basis that the rest of the section appeared to imply that he was anti-equality. Total brainfart... I knew something was off. Anyway, thanks. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My advice, from someone who started caring way too much? Stop feeding the troll. Thanks for the support though! :) Doniago (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already said buh-bye to him after the first comment, but thanks. -- Vary | (Talk) 04:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scary/funny thing is that he's still going. Heh. Doniago (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, let him rage, maybe he'll tire himself out. -- Vary | (Talk) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say, though, carefully misworded comments like "A usercheck, whatever the guy called it." are a red flag; at first I thought he was just belligerent and a little clueless about how things work around here, but he's an experienced troll who thinks he's being clever, isn't he? -- Vary | (Talk) 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he'll find his way here at some point...after I thanked the Admin(?) who closed the merge discussion on their talk page, he commented as well. I suspect a block may be in someone's future. Doniago (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that twitter is now an official reliable source? Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus there at all, there isn't even a head count. IMO such a weak situation will create a snowball effect where multiple comments are supported by unconfirmed claims on a site that has only recently been easily hacked to the detriment of comments relating to a bunch of politicians. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Per the current discussion on WP:RSN, as well as multiple past discussions, Twitter is acceptable as a self-published source per WP:SELFPUB, just like a blog or personal website, and an account that can be clearly linked to a subject can be used for basic biographical information on that subject as outlined in our policy on verifiability. Obviously accounts with weak passwords can be 'hacked' easily, but that's true of any service that uses a password. Please continue this discussion on that noticeboard or on the talk page of the article, and not here. Thanks. -- Vary | (Talk) 14:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Arthur Firstenberg. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Firstenberg. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Stephen Colbert article.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vary,

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

So a few things about the interviews:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar

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) 07:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Vary.

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

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

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

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.

---

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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 00:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vary. I note that it's been some years since you've been fully engaged with the project and that some of your recent edits have been in response to the inactivity warning. I can see you make some solid contributions to the project years ago, including some RC patrolling with an early version of Huggle as well as in many other areas. I'd like to see you return. I've put together some resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators that you may find helpful. I'm also happy to chat either on my talk page or via email if there's anything on your mind.

Best regards, UninvitedCompany 17:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, would you please restore Labster to Draft:Labster if it hasn't been by the time you see this? Both of the deleting admins haven't been active this year, but perhaps you get email pings for talk page messages. The rationale is at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Labster. Thanks in advance! EllenCT (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with 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 08:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with 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 00:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with 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 be engaged with 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 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Bahloo, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 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) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]