Staecker

heh, it seems you were asking the horse for a citation. Lol, does a person need to cite when they are editing their own biography. http://no-gritzko-here.livejournal.com/52165.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassrat (talk • contribs) 11:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Load of nonsense - Staecker correctly removed Knuth's comments about Wikipedia because the article is about Knuth, not Wikipedia. It's very lame when editors go out of their way to get Wikipedia mentioned in articles that aren't about Wikipedia. Evercat (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

LOLZORZ!!! --Staecker (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Bad lieutenant.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Fpnostalghia2.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa^talk 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Grizzly Man Poster V2.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You said this is not a G8. Then what is it? Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

G8 by my reading is a redirect to a page that doesn't exist. But the target page does exist. I'd say The Illusionist (2009 film) is just a redirect to a page with a better title. Why do you want to delete it? (If you really want to delete it, somebody needs to change all the incoming links, which isn't too bad, but doesn't really seem worth it.) Staecker (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because it's not a 2009 film, maybe at one time it was, but now it's a 2010 film. I was going through the Category: Upcoming films and found this one and another one, which I changed to (2010 film) and CSD'd the (2009 film) one, and an admin deleted it. I'm pretty sure I used the same tag. If it's allowed to use that as a redirect, then I'll leave it. —Mike Allen 02:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: I was wrong. I used CSD R3 on the other one. I don't know where I got G8 from. —Mike Allen 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I personally wouldn't apply R3 in this case- the 2009 title is incorrect, but there's a good reason why it would be (or would have been) considered correct. So I wouldn't call it an "implausible" misnomer. But I also wouldn't be surprised if other admins would disagree- I don't do CSDs much anymore. (I didn't see this on the CSD page- I saw it because I watch the The Illusionist (2010 film) page.) So mark it as you see fit and I won't complain. Staecker (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your continual monitoring of The Shack. Well done. peterl (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to you too- Staecker (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do we look at blocking 41.56.203.237 for their repeated hacks at The Shack? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.56.203.237 peterl (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I say go for it. I assume it's the same guy at Special:Contributions/41.56.199.24, Special:Contributions/41.56.194.253, Special:Contributions/41.56.198.52, Special:Contributions/41.208.234.0. Some other IPs in there too, but these seem to be his most common. Staecker (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stevie Starr, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevie Starr. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DJ (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

FYI, that user has been blocked indefinitely, and I closed the AfD as a speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks- Staecker (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Reading.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed that you keep removing a section of the Wikisky that has to do with the copyright status of Wikisky images. What specific part of section do you find in violation of Wikipedia policy? The references are to external websites. Have you removed the section simply because of the use of the word WIKIPEDIA? There are numerous copyright violations taking place on Wikipedia Commons since most people assume that the default Wikisky DSS2 images are in the public domain. -- Kheider (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The relevant policy is WP:SELF, in particular the section "Articles are about their subjects". This has nothing to do with references- the policy is about writing material about Wikipedia. Since Wikisky has nothing to do with Wikipedia, there is no reason to have such a big section in that article about a Wikipedia issue. A note about the copyright terms of the wikisky images would be notable, but it shouldn't specifically be phrased in terms of suitability for use in Wikipedia. The article is supposed to be about Wikisky, not about Wikipedia. Staecker (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now I see you've edited the section- I think it's much better now. Staecker (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the prompt reply. -- Kheider (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem- and I just realized that I used my WP:ROLLBACK button to revert your edit, which I didn't mean to use. That's typically reserved for vandals, which you certainly are not. I meant to hit "undo" and put a useful edit summary. Sorry- Staecker (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:BigPondWebPortal-Jul07.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Long way has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not appreciate your removal of a question that needs to be asked. Namely, why are we playing along with someone who's asking how to keep the police from doing their job if and when that guy commits a crime of some kind. I've put that question back, and I expect you to leave it alone. Just as we don't offer legal advice, we don't offer criminal advice either. In fact, that entire section should be boxed up as being an inappropriate question on the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The RD is a place for people's questions to be answered. The proper response to inappropriate questions is to refuse to answer them, with a note about why we're not answering (or just delete them outright in clear cases). We don't need to make demands of the asker, especially after the question has already been answered. Staecker (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:Bald screen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

...try to avoid restoring the comments of LC's socks, OK? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seconded. The game that (ab)user plays is to foment dissension among the people who have the genuine good of the RD's at heart. Someone always seems to play along. Franamax (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry- I don't know anything about LC or his(?) socks. It looked like an EC gone bad maybe, since Bugs didn't make any mention of it. (I guess so as not to feed it.) Staecker (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a notorious ref desk troll and sockmaster, who I guarantee you is reading all of this and snickering, because as Fran said, every time the Elsie subject comes up, someone innocently tries to enable him/her/it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey staecker, just wanted to let you know that your bot left quite a few errors on the file pages that it was editing. See this edit for an example. Scroll down through the page to see what I was talking about. Thanks, Tim1357 ^talk 09:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah- did you notice that edit was over two years ago? I believe the errors are because I substed some nested templates, and the templates have changed since then. I'm not sure how to check this, but I'm pretty sure that the page looked good when the edits were made, but changes to the templates since then have made them messed up. Generally all that stuff can just be deleted now, since it's been so long since these files were handled. I'll fix that page- do you see "quite a few" more? Staecker (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Capeman Poster.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you have Fairfield University listed on your user page. You may be interested in adding a userbox there which can place you in the category of Fairfield people. For more details, see Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Fairfield University. —CodeHydro 21:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, your nomination of The Capeman was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:StrugatskyBros.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fpnostalghia1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ikiruscreenshot.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thought Staeker. The fact is I was quoting from one of my bible references (Insight On The Scriptures, v. 1, p. 1188). I often use the word truth because it is a very deep philosophical idea that many choose not to ponder. that being said, I will try to be less demanding of others' consciences. Have a great day! schyler (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Sobeautifulcover.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Staecker, English is not my first language, but I still try to contribute as best as I could. So, what was actually poorly written was your pointed edit summary. You as an admin should have known better.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that's upsetting. I didn't mean to sound offensive- the article was/is poorly written, but that's certainly not an attack on you or any of the other editors. I have no doubt that you and everybody else are doing your best, and I'm doing my best to improve things. Sorry I sounded a bit harsh. Staecker (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I learned something too. Staecker (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your perfect response to the question posted at Talk:2011 end times prediction. Made my day. --MelanieN (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Since you've made a lot of edits to Template:Werner Herzog I thought I should ask for your opinion before I do anything radical with it. What do you think of the idea to change the structure of this template to group by format instead of decade, like the filmography does in Herzog's biographical article? Right now documentaries and fiction films, short films and feature films are all listed in strict chronological order, but I think the template would be more helpful if each type had its own group. I just did a similar change to Template:Abbas Kiarostami where I split features and shorts, so I'm thinking of something like that, plus also separate groups for fiction and non-fiction (in Kiarostami's case that would be a bad idea since he's done a lot of films which are somewhere between the two - which also can be said about Herzog to a certain extent, though his documentaries and fiction films are always explicitly presented as one of the two). Please tell me what you think. Smetanahue (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd leave it as is, though I don't feel too strongly about it. There's a categorized list of films at Werner Herzog which has always seemed unsatisfying to me. With Herzog I don't think there's much point in distinguishing between his fiction and documentary work. And how to decide what's a "short film" vs a feature? He's got several that were made for TV that don't fit well in those categories. (But a "for TV" category is problematic too, since his recent documentaries have been financed by TV channels rather than traditional film studios.) No strong opinion, but I think dates is the cleanest way to present them. Staecker (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the list isn't perfectly categorized, several 40-minute+ movies are listed as shorts, which is quite unconventional, and I should probably change that right away. What other film are you thinking of that could be tricky to determine? The ones I can think of are Lessons of Darkness and The Wild Blue Yonder. Smetanahue (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Pompoko.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just a note to say I do agree with identifying Tipler with Christianity, since that is a major factor of his writings, and the lead appropriately summarizes his focus on it. I just happened to notice the infobox entry designating his religion is not consistent with infoboxes of other academics. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:La double vie de veronique poster.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) 04:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research (KIMEP) has officially changed its name to KIMEP University. Change in KIMEP's Status. This needs to be reflected in the article about the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mquinn.kimep (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Staecker,

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

So a few things about the interviews:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question. I now am (very unusually) laid rather low with hay fever or similar, so my brain isn't even working at its usual, unimpressive level. So I'll reread your answer a couple of days from now. -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem- if you want to ask followups, I suggest Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics. This was really a math question, and you'll get lots more informed answers there (I'm a mathematician, but don't know too much about logic). Staecker (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, but for me it was a "Do I even understand the most elementary laws/axioms of logic?" question. I first came up with prose examples, but they were ambiguous in unwanted ways. I tried to elaborate or explain them, but then realized that this approach was doomed to prolixity; instead of prose examples, examples from very elementary maths should be more compact and yet easy to understand, I thought. But perhaps I merely succeeded in demonstrating that my ignorance of maths is as great as my ignorance of logic. -- Hoary (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I appreciated your edit [1]. I had made a very similar addition to two other articles as well and also re-added them on those pages. Now, someone has again removed my edit [2], [3], though they did not touch the Wheaton college page, probably to avoid your eyes, if you could take care of this I would appreciate it as I seek to avoid conflict. Thank you. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reverted- I'm familiar with Baseball Bugs- I doubt he's trying to avoid me. But I don't know why Princeton Review is being called an unreliable source on these pages. Both pages cite PR elsewhere, and nobody seems to worry. I'll try to watch them for a while. Thanks for letting me know. Staecker (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

What brought UU to my attention was this somewhat snippy comment to Jack of Oz,[4] which is doubly ironic in that (as far as I know) Jack is gay, so UU was being rather "unfriendly to gays" when he said, like some self-appointed nanny, "You think too much." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agreed it's snippy. But surely know know what "unfriendly to gays" means. (That wasn't it.) Staecker (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

They're unfriendly to ALL sexual activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You, being an admin, should know better than to allow a newbie with an obvious agenda to be posting undue-weight stuff like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sure he's a newbie- I don't have the same problem with rednames that you do. As for an agenda, I'm also unconcerned with that. I just happen to think he/she's right on these edits. I've tried to start a real discussion at User talk:Closeapple#Princeton Review LGBT ranking (he seems to be the one that started reverting these). Hopefully we can actually work something out rather than reverting each other over and over. Feel free to comment over there.Staecker (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I had seen the Wheaton College item, but at the moment another editor had already removed that propaganda piece. But these 3 schools have one thing in common: They are private, conservative Christian schools. They would be unfriendly to anyone who doesn't kiss up to their brand of Christianity - and that would include me, and I'm straight as an arrow. And note that they are private schools. They can set their own rules and standards. If someone were to go to a private, right-wing school, and then yelp that the school is "unfriendly to gays", they're probably too stupid to be going to college anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

So what? Of course they can be LGBT unfriendly if they want to. And if they are, they will be described as such by major sources. And if the Princeton Review ranks them as such, we might want to include that in the article. Staecker (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

What are their criteria? And did it occur to them that Christian schools might take it as a "compliment"? Or perhaps more to the point, those schools preach abstinence. So if someone is a "non-practicing" gay, they would probably do just fine at one of those schools. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

All this is irrelevant (and woefully misinformed IMO- ask forcibly celibate gay people to decide if they're doing "just fine"). Staecker (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The straights are "forcibly celibate" also. And like the gays, if they're not "just fine" with that, then what, pray tell, are they doing at that school in the first place? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Still irrelevant. The issue is more complicated than you think, but I'm not interested in having that discussion. Staecker (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, you're just interested in helping a redlink push his agenda. I'm guessing you got your adminship before there were standards for the job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping we could be friendly about this. Please AGF and comment on the text in the articles. Staecker (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2012_April_21#.7E_Need_Solid_Judgement_On_Mathematical_Tools_.7E_.5BNOT_SOLVED.5D Thingstofollow (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

== hey idiot -- make sure you fix this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waist&action=history ==

hey idiot -- make sure you fix this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waist&action=history don't be so worthlessThingstofollow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC).Reply

oh i see, so just because you got a -001 star

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2012_April_21#.7E_Need_Solid_Judgement_On_Mathematical_Tools_.7E_.5BNOT_SOLVED.5D

you go and stalk me and do worthless things and not improving, i see bravo Thingstofollow (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I found you most helpful previously and once again I have run into difficult editors once again trying to delete heavily sourced information. I even used extensive quoting so that editors would not attack me stating they are my opinons, but this failed as one can see by the last of the bully's posts on my talk page. I even went against my better judegement and did try to talk rather than just reinsert my heavily sourced neutral sentences, but that failed. The other users refuse to listen and state that "are deliberately misinterpretating my words", I can not work with such people as they believe I am of bad faith and will not listen to me. I hope you can help me once again, thanks. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Probably should have given you a link to the topical pages...Diablo III/Talk:Diablo III. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

This one I'm really not so sure about. The article right now does address the fan backlash in the reception section, although not subsectioned like in Spore, which was my first thought when looking for a similar situation. This edit in particular seems a bit harsh. The criticism seem to be a reflection of forum-bombing by people griping solely about the DRM, which to me doesn't seem the same as what "poor ratings from users" suggests. Like I said I don't know much about it, but that's my uninformed reaction. Thanks for thinking of me-

By the way it is totally lame for somebody to cite their edit count just to get you to listen to them, and "wikipediot" is a personal attack. It sounds to me like you probably have a decent handle on WP policies about sourcing, but I'm not sure I agree with you in this instance. Staecker (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not a bully, nor do I like being called one. I do not make the rules. I tend to follow them. If a rule said "Add Metacritic reviews to articles", I would. But right now, it says we shouldn't. If you disagree, try to change Wikipedia's policies. But stop bothering me and making me look bad for trying to improve the article on Diablo III. And if you do not like getting warnings, stop your unconstructive editing.

You claim I do not assume good faith? After a lengthy discussion trying to explain, after repeatedly saying we really cannot add any user reviews you still went against consensus on not adding user reviews. Just because Metacritic combines them doesn't make it a professional review, it is a as simple as that.

On a sidenote, I didn't mean to come of as a know-it-all. I was trying to point out that I am a little more experienced in Wikipedia than UU, and my advice was - and still is - to slow down and read the guide lines first. My advice, UU? Try to assume good faith yourself. --Soetermans. T / C 11:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will not tolerate your harrasment any longer, if you continue to threaten me with blocks, spamming my talk page with spiteful, hateful driven templates, and falsely claiming my edits are unconstructive and vandalism, I will have to ask that you be blocked for your strong battleground mentality, POV pushing, and personal attacks. I am posting this here to keep it from being deleted and so that this can be under Stacker's view for my protection from you. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not harassing you, I am trying to tell you that your edits are unconstructive. Those templates are designed and OK'd by Wikipedia. You don't like them? STOP YOUR UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDITING. You are being unconstructive, because you will not listen to WP:CONSENSUS. Go ahead, try for a block: I haven't used a single personal attack towards you, I do not have a battleground attitude - whatever that is -, and I'm trying to keep Wikipedia from POV, which still seem not to understand. Sorry UU, I'll have to report you to WP:ANI. --Soetermans. T / C 16:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Time bandit.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fairfield University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Photo 7.jpg, 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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:La jetee criterion box.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Film director of The Congress (2013 film) in his interview says only that some elements of the film are inspired by Lem's. This source is as close to the truth as it can get. Various bloggers were quick in chinese whispers to interpret it as the whole film is based on Lem' s work, which is as far from the truth as it can be. In fact, the plots have no minimal resemblance. Of course, we know that films may mutilate books big time, but this is not the case here. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (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

The article Amator (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS, direct hatnote best in these circumstances, where there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC plus only one more entry

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the PDF I linked; Tor.com had a link on one of their pages, and I figured (reasonably) that they would not be linking what you call "bootleg" versions of the Dune Encyclopedia.

I can still cite the book itself though, right? Using the ISBN code?

Shankarsivarajan (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes you can absolutely cite the book itself. Some would say the book probably qualifies as abandonware at this point, but Wikipedia is (rightfully) pretty strict about linking to copyrighted content. Thanks for contributing in any case- it'll be a good addition with the right sourcing. Staecker (talk) 23:46, 18 June 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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

what was the name of the store that sold the polystation? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Polystation.jpg

I saw this in Aral, Kazakhstan in an outdoor market. Not really the sort of place where you can find named stores. I didn't buy it because it was too big for me to carry back home. Staecker (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:The peoples champ cover.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 11 November 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 Staecker.

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)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.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Template:IEEE societies has been nominated for merging with Template:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Staecker! Thank you for your input. I've been editing the quote after watching all 4 four main episodes and the follow-up episodes as well. The quote varies somewhat between episodes, but the most frequently used include the part about Utah. In my eyes, the most commonly occurring version is the most suitable for Wikipedia. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utl94 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I removed this discussion you participated in [5]. While you did nothing wrong, I do not believe it is appropriate to randomly bring up comments by other named editors made elsewhere without providing any context or at least a wikilink, as the IP did. Especially since the IP presented it as if that comment reflected the editor's POV, whereas a quick look at the original discussion reveals this was clearly not the intention, and further this was already discussed at ANI and on Jimbo Wales talk page before where this misrepresentation was pointed out. There were various other ways to deal with this but if the IP wants to make such comments, I'll leave it up to them to fix it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Staecker, I myself noticed the change and was a bit surprised. I might try putting that into the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.128.212.178 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:25, 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

The article Luden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources. While the source for this information is presumably the books, the lack of any 3rd-party discussion on this element of the Noon Universe implies that there is insufficient justification for this sub-article. Any useful content can placed in Noon Universe.

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. LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article The Office (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Tagged since March 2019.

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. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2020 (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. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Template:Duplicate file info has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

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)

I just wanted to thank you for your comment in the RFC -- even though I disagree, I appreciate your politeness in commenting. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to you too for your cordiality. I agree it's weird that the image doesn't appear at Flag Desecration Amendment, which is certainly a natural home for it. Staecker (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Citi Field Construction 7-14-07 015.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Volcom95 (talk) 18:10, 29 September 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 00:26, 1 January 2023 (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 February 2024.

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 00:19, 1 November 2023 (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 February 2024.

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 00:19, 1 January 2024 (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 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 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply