Wrp103

It's very cool to see the guy who wrote the classic list I used way back in the day and referenced recently while compiling some game information myself. If you're still a Chrono Trigger fan, I'd appreciate your feedback on a guide I've been working on: http://strategywiki.net/wiki/Chrono_Trigger

I've broken the walkthrough into chapters based on the name of the Save Game File since its an easy reference point, and also because there's a one to one mapping between chapters and endings in all but two cases (the ending where Crono talks occurs in the same chapter as another ending, and two endings can fall on the chapter: "The Masamune" depending upon whether you have Frog in your party or not)

That mapping makes it easy to reference what ending is possible if you beat the game at any point during the walkthrough, and it makes it clear on the "endings" list what the possible intervals for each ending are. I've also tried to map out the one other tricky sequence in the game, The Trial, which is slightly glitched based upon my observation: http://strategywiki.net/wiki/Chrono_Trigger/Walkthrough/Chapter_4

Anyway, you've helped me out (indirectly) in the past, if you can provide any advice or edits to the wiki guide, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks!--BigCow 20:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear from somebody who enjoyed my FAQ. When the PS version came out, I couldn't find my original HTML file - only the text file in gamefaqs. I then used google and found several copies of my original file with other peoples' names on it, so I guess others enjoyed it was well. ;^)

I looked at your wikistrategy entry and made a few tweaks, but don't have much time to spend on it right now. I'll look closer later. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to let you know that when I deleted the spam links, I never meant to imply that yours was, too! I checked the link out and was greatly impressed, and wanted to keep it in there, I just didn't know the protocol. I know I've tried selectively deleting links like that in the pas, only to get hounded by the guys whose links came out on the short end of that stick, so on this instance I took an all or nothing approach. But glad to see it's back up. Keep up the good work. --Bkessler23 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't think you were implying it was a spam link, although me adding it back in could be called that. ;^) I had considered deleting those same links, so I was glad to see that you had done it. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting that; for some reason (dyslexia? didn't know I had it), I misread that as something like "A dialogue of Mormons" or something else that appeared inane. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I was glad to see that it was online, and got a chance to re-read my favorite article: "The Meeting" wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will track down the junior vandals at 207.63.115.2. Also, do you know who to talk to regarding getting the IP address banned, and how to confirm that a logged-in user at a banned IP Address will still be able to contribute? Timdearborn 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations. I was a bit worried there after a couple of the early voters got hung up on the procedure. Sorry about that, but I'm glad you made it through. COGDEN 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all you (and others) have done. In a ironic balance of karma, the end of the process was as confused as the beginning. I am having problems with my Internet connection at home, and am still on a rush program at work, so my start might be a bit slower than I had expected. :-( wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that I wasn't there to voice my support for you, Bill. You clearly are one of those who "gets it", and the project will be helped by your adminship, as you have time. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

congratulations! I know you will do well. I will add you to my "scream for help" list. WBardwin 09:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to thank all those who have participated in my RfA, and invite suggestions on things that a new admin should know, do, or not do. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input and guidance! I am reading the pages that you suggested. I reverted the page back to the edit that the ip user made, also I apologized on their talk page for my mistake. If I am unsure on a page rather is vandalism or not, I will leave it for a more experienced user such as yourself! :) If a user makes an edit to a page, such as "This is the best thing ever!!" what should one do? Should they leave it alone and on the users talk page ask them to please keep it neutral and hope they fix it? Or should one revert the page in good faith? Thanks! :) Also most of the edits I made in such a short period of time were in fact, clear acts of vandalism. Please take the time to look at the list before you accuse me of randomly reverting pages because I don't agree with them! Thanks again! Dillard421 03:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bruce Cockburn is a former agnostic.

"I was brought up as an agnostic... and when I first became a Christian in the Seventies I didn't really know what it was I'd adopted." Faith in Practice: Holding on to the Mystery of Love, by Bruce Cockburn as told to Cole Morton, Third Way, September 1994, page 15. Rambone (Talk) 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the efforts of Visorstuff to resolve the situation at First Vision. I now understand that he was hampered by his past involvement in this article and with John Foxe. No one is editing the article right now, but I believe that John Foxe's comments on the talk page demonstrate that he either cannot understand or refuses to comply with the WP:NPOV policy. I'm trying to gain a consensus on his inappropriate behavior, and I invite you, as a past contributor to this article, to add your comments to this discussion. If you think that my behavior also warrants criticism, I invite that as well. I will be posting this invitation on several other user talk pages, but with your past history on this article you might be aware of other editors who have walked away. Please feel free to let them know what is going on and invite their input at Talk:First_Vision#Time_for_action. 74s181 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/First Vision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Hi, Thanks for that warm welcome message :) I am not a regular Wikipedian, but I have editing experience with other sites which use MediaWiki. I included that link because I thought it would be better instead of listing links to all those drafts within the article's external links. I have started conversation in talk page of ANSI_C.--Avsharath 07:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Question, you reverted an edit today that I had ignored. The editor deleted the phrase similar to LDS having a differnent view of the nature of Jesus Christ. I felt is was a redundant phrase given the phrase before it addressed the doctrine of the Trinity, which I think is the major issue. The impact of Jesus on Christianity, his virgin birth, his crucifixion, his resurrection, and his grace are all similar beteen LDS and other Christians. Where we disagree most is that the Trinity. Do you think there is more about Jesus than I think there is? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

That phrase sounded like something that many Anti-Mormon folks say (including my brother, who I hear that from regularly). Most traditional Christians believe that Jesus always was God, and that he is totally different than us. Our belief that Jesus is literally our elder brother is quite upsetting to them, although the concept that Heavenly Father was like Jesus at some point is even more upsetting.

I reverted that deletion because there was a {{fact}} tag, but the date was July 2007, which meant it hadn't been there that long. I was assuming the tag was because of the "fundamentally different" phrase that had been deleted. I added a welcome message along with a note on User talk:Ohahl to inform the editor why their change was reverted. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have submitted a request for arbitration with the Arbitration Committee. You are listed as a party. The arbitration process requires that all parties listed in an arbitration request must be notified. You have an opportunity to comment on the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. 74s181 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was uncomfortable when I wrote that; the emphasis is the 1838 vision rather than the less complete, prior accounts. Do you have some alternative language that would work?

On one hand I was comfortable with it because of the few times God the Father and Jesus Christ have appeared jointly to man; I think it is unquestionable that it is significant. On the other, it just does not sound right, there is something that makes me uncomfortable, which I think is where you are at. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't thinking about which account was being quoted, but whether the First Vision can be considered "the most significant" vision. As we have discussed, during Smith's lifetime, his second vision was considered more significant. If you are going to quote sections from the first vision, the 1838 account is the logical one to use (at least from the LDS perspective) since it is considered canonical. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You've received multiple requests to expand on your input at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julia_Murdock_Smith. Not that you have to, but I just thought you'd like to know. –SESmith 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

How many pages do you currently have on your watchlist? --Trevdna 00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good question:

1,295 pages watched not counting talk pages.

Many of those are users who have vandalized other pages on my watchlist. Every once in a while, I will go through the list and remove any user accounts that have been blocked indefinitely. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, and thank you for the reversion. I usually do so, but the top five articles in my watchlist were in the midst of a vandalism chain, so I was editing a bit more quickly than usual. Being more careful never hurt anyone though, right? Point taken. Thanks again! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Warp103 --You recently undid a "bot" revert of a recent edit. I would urge you to reconsider and look over the material involved. Some of the potentially deleted/changed material has long been in the article and has been heavily discussed. Much of the material removed or altered presents aspects of Smith's life that are open to criticism so, IMO, removing the material reduces the article's neutral POV. If I were to choose, I would revert back to my edit on August 18th. Best wishes. WBardwin 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I undid the bot revert because it looked like a good-faith edit. I don't see how a bot could determine it was a bad edit, and therefore should not have reverted. I'm guessing the bot reverted because no edit summary was provided. As to the actual content of the edit, I wasn't taking sides. Feel free to revert that edit on content grounds. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then I will revert back to my edit on 18 August. There has been a lot of activity on the article in recent days, and the accumlated changes need to be reviewed and edited, I think. I have placed that opinion on the JS,Jr. talk page. If you have time?...... More below. WBardwin 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you are an admin, this article Heñor looks like a speedy delete to me. Best....... WBardwin 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am swamped at work, so you might want to tag the article and see what happens. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to build a case for another arbitration request. The last request failed because it was perceived to be a content issue. I intend to submit a more narrowly focused complaint this time. I think that allowing plenty of rope may increase the odds of success. I'd appreciate your help with this over the next few days. Thanks! 74s181 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will continue to monitor the article and attempt to maintain a NPOV article. I am taking my grandson to college on Sat, Sunday is more busy than most, and Monday will be my first day back from two days vacation, so don't count on my for too much help. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 08:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate and agree with your efforts to improve the article, but when you do a full revert of JF's edits the case I'm trying to build about his incremental reverts becomes less clear cut. My original posting was a bit cryptic because I suspected that he might be lurking, it was a mistake to try to hide my intent, sorry for not being more clear. 74s181 13:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am not interested in trying to trap anyone or help anybody build a case. I am interested in improving the article in spite of Foxe's efforts. Foxe is a person who will continue to behave in the manner that he believes is right. He has already ignored attempts at mediation and arbitration, and has scoffed at a number of Wikipedia policies. I'm not sure if he truly doesn't understand (or accept) WP:NPOV, or if that is just the excuse that he uses. I am just trying to work around him. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I understand. I also believe that JF is unable or unwilling to understand WP policies, but I'm tired of trying to work around him. Progress is possible, it just takes 10 times as much effort, that's why I'm going to try sanctions. 74s181 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bill,

The WP:AN3 page is specifically designed and intended for 3RR violation reports. Your report does not indicate a 3RR violation, as multiple incremental edits by an editor only count as a single edit. Everything else you mention may well be true, but does not impact the 3RR violation. Please adhere to the 3RR format next time you report someone. Thanks, Crum375 03:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I looked back on some of my welcomes, and they are confusing with the warnings that have been placed, I am truly sorry for all the confusion that may have been caused. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 13:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know that I can be very annoying. My experience has been that the longer people know me the more annoyed they become.

Here on Wikipedia that usually isn't as much of a problem, but I've been so focused (obsessed?) on the FV article that I worry that it may become so. I really don't care if some editors are annoyed with me, but you are not one of these, I don't want you to be annoyed with me. Please let me know if I have become annoying to you, and if so, what it is about my behavior that is annoying so that maybe I can change it. Thanks, 74s181 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I would prefer to let you fix the 1830 allusion statement. I'm afraid that if I fix it, JF will just revert it. If you think it is ok the way it is, well, I don't agree, but I think there are much bigger problems with the article right now. 74s181 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't recall anything you have done that might bother me. Don't worry about it. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Considering your involvement with historical LDS pages, I would be interested in getting your input HERE. Thanks. Rich Uncle Skeleton 09:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

For more info, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John Foxe.

One other person needs to certify the RfC within 48 hours or it will be deleted. More information 74s181 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, you didn't look at the page before you added this comment. I had already signed it about 2 hours before. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great summary on the RfC, I agree with everything you said and I think it will be much more effective coming from you than from me. My biggest worry has been that others who take a quick look may perceive the situation as nothing more than a personal feud between John Foxe and I, or as a POV dispute between two religious fanatics. I think that your admin status and your involvement with many other articles outside of the First Vision may influence other editors to take this dispute more seriously. I thank you for all of your time and effort! 74s181 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since you just took your grandson to college, I know that you, like me, are over sixty.--John Foxe 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Very astute. Sherlock Holmes would be pleased. ;^) Of course, the fact that this is not my first marriage can skew your deductions. I could have married an older woman who had a child very young, who in turn had a child very young. So, your logic is a bit flaky, but your conclusion is correct. (I am 63.) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

In other words, my conclusion is WP:OR and WP:POV but true ;^)--John Foxe 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ummmm, one other incident directly above your message definitely does not constitute "fairly often". Please WP:AGF before calling someone out. As for the FFXII thing, that can legitimately be called vandalism because of that user's edit history ([1], [2], [3], probably more via IP). He has repeatedly tried to insert his POV into the article using weasel words ("many fans") and trying to twist the words of the citation. In addition, he has been reverted at least twice by different people, indicating that there is, at the very least, opposition to his edits. It also shows that he has ignored it several times, finally falling into the vandalism category. Axem Titanium 17:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

While it is true that you can delete messages on your talk page, it is considered by many to be bad form. Some even consider it a form of vandalism (or, more properly, a method of concealing vandalism). A more proper action would be to archive messages rather than delete them.

Deleting messages from the talk page can be seen as an attempt to conceal a dispute. It is not uncommon for others to restore the deleted messages to the talk page. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I rarely delete messages from my talk page unless they're inconsequential, originated by bots, or tendentiously offensive.--John Foxe 11:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interested parties who voiced opinions on this in the past, read all about it - the raging debate on moving the article on the Church of Jesus Christ (a.k.a. Bickertonite, or not) has flared up again, at Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ#Requested_move.2C_take_two. Come back for more fun and games if you care to - thanks for playing... - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 05:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey its true about the 'half gorilla, half human', well sort of. He features in New Zealand, but not openly. He's not really half gorilla, half human, he just acts it out. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes45 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the admin help. Hey do you want to put in a good word for me? Please?

Thanks for the admin help. Hey do you want to put in a good word for me? Please? Wes45 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your note about citations regarding my recent contribution to Memory Leak.

Rather than respond to your comments here, I've added some notes to the discussion on that page, as I'm sure other people should have the chance to get involved if they wish.

Cheers Dominic Cronin 22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for repositioning my entry to the Lock (computer science) article. I'm new to Wikipedia and took for granted the most recent on top was been the norm. But then I wonder why isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andahazy (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Treasure chest (video games), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Treasure chest (video games) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treasure chest (video games) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Treasure chest (video games) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Miremare 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

From the BOA article:

• Joseph Smith may have received the account by revelation, rather than a standard "translation" of text from one language to another, in a process similar to his translation of the Bible.^[1] Critics note that the existence of the “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” shows that Smith did attempt a direct translation.^[2] Others note that the revelation theory contradicts Smith's own statements that the Book of Abraham is a translation as described in the original handwritten manuscript of the book as well as in other church documents.^[3]

That's what I mean when I say that the Criticism of Mormonism is still POV. Apologist viewpoints are easily available, but not present in the article. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bill-

Thanks for your comment on 'My Talk', it is nice to see people around here who care enough to leave a message and make Wikipedia a better place.

I have an unrelated question, what do you do in cases such as these? I recently undid a change by this dynamic IP and wonder if it is pointless to try to even do anything about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.125.110.223

Are you a member of the LDS faith?

My gratitude, Dylock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylock (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! :P. I do have to figure out how I want to arrange it, though. Enigma ^msg! 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are right, sorry for not including a comment when editing the article. :)

After I edited the article, I saw there is more discussion about that paragraph, so possibly someone will revert it again in some hours/days. It is hard to prove wheter the paragraph is correct or not (I would have to search for a good reference), my point was that such kind of statement should have a more solid reference and should not be in the introduction.

Over the years I have seen too much fanatism about classic VB. It is right that it is still very used on some old environments and countries; however, it is not competing anymore with modern languages (like its successor VB.NET).

212.183.248.25 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

yo bro my bad i thought i was in the sandbox so i was making every name italian because i was studying for my italian test.

                         DA biGgEsT iTaLiAnOoO (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)JimcenzoDA biGgEsT iTaLiAnOoO (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bill, I apologize for not putting references and citations to my edits. It was a simple mistake, I thought I did but you were right. So with that said, in the future I hope you will notice my citations and references from prominent scholars and past presidents and leaders of the church from church historical books and documents.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szabo56 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Final Fantasy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

{{adminhelp}} Hi I was wondering if I could apply to become a moderator for the pages concerning the New Zealand Cadet Forces. I am a cadet myself and I have noticed that the pages are not updated frequently, or incorrectly. I am willing to contribute to this. Please send back a message. Thanks Wes45 (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Already answered this at your talkpage. Please only use help templates on your own talkpage. Cheers. //roux   04:23, 26 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 Console role-playing game. 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/Console role-playing game. 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) 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Wrp103! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 322 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Gioacchino Livigni - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. John Leventhal - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Wrp103,

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is a note to let the main editors of Final Fantasy know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 18, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 18, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

 

Final Fantasy is a media franchise created by Hironobu Sakaguchi. It centers on a series of fantasy and science fantasy role-playing video games (RPGs), but includes motion pictures, anime, printed media, and other merchandise. The first game in the series, published in 1987, was conceived by Sakaguchi as his last-ditch effort in the game industry; the title was a success and spawned sequels. The video game series has since branched into other genres. Although most Final Fantasy installments are supposedly independent stories with different settings and main characters, they feature identical elements that define the franchise. Plots center on a group of heroes battling a great evil while exploring the characters' internal struggles and relationships. The series has been commercially and critically successful; it is Square Enix's best selling video game franchise, with more than 100 million units sold, and one of the best-selling video game franchises. It was awarded a star on the Walk of Game in 2006, and holds seven Guinness World Records in the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2008. It has also introduced many features now common in role-playing video games and has been credited with helping to popularize console-based RPGs in markets outside Japan. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2012 (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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Body integrity identity disorder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Galbraith. 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) 11:40, 25 October 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) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (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 Wrp103.

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 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for pointing this. I have not been signing into Wikipedia when using my tablet. I will try to remember to do so in the future. I assume that since I have contributions from my account, it will not be changed. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 10:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I noticed that you were the most recent person behind me to edit the ^[4] page. Reading that article felt like a hot mess of 100% press kit, do you think the page should get a Tone tag? Thanks in advance so much for your time! Nicole. Evening Scribe (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Material you included in the above article back in 2015 appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.goanews.com/news_disp.php?newsid=5544. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed and some was paraphrased. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:21, 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

  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 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walt Longmire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:19, 3 November 2019 (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 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

StarM 13:52, 26 March 2021 (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 00:06, 1 November 2021 (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 several days.

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:01, 24 November 2021 (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 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 00:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply