User talk:Peter

This user may have left Wikipedia. Peter has not edited Wikipedia since March 7, 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

6 November 2024
From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon? In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them In focus: Questions and answers about the court case Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats? Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hello, Peter. You have new messages at Since 10.28.2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've held up a username change request for a user who wishes to be renamed to 'Peter 2011' for potential confusion that may be created pending further discussion. Let me know if you think that this would not be an issue. See WP:CHUS#Peter 2011. –xeno^talk 02:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. First off I'm abroad at the moment typing on a weird keyboard so forgive any typing mistakes! I'm willing to go with what you think is best, as I trust your experience on this as to whether or not it will cause confusion. I don't have any problem with it on a personal level - though I share you slight concern about possible confusion. Sorry I can't be more definative than that. Peter 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and queried if they could think of a different username; I don't think they are married to "Peter 2011" - probably just the first thing they came up with in order to seek un-unblock. –xeno^talk 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you decided on Bearwood Primary School that there was no consensus, but normally the administrator removes the templates on the article. Please do so. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the first afd back in 2006. The current one has not yet been closed, hence why the templates on the article are still there. --Peter 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I did not note the dates, but the rescue template points to the 2006 AfD discussion rather than the current one. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've just corrected the link on the rescue template. Peter 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Peter,

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 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.206.39 (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to go away for just under a week, so won't be able to do anything related to this in that time. You may have also noticed that I'm not really that active around here (though as you can also see from this reply I haven't vanished either). So if others have chance to do what you asked first then great. Otherwise if I get the chance I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Peter 22:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I came here from the RfA nomination page, of users willing to nominate. I'm not really looking for a nomination (at this point), but more of a review of my previous edits and actions here. If you wouldn't mind, I'd really appreciate it. If you don't want to that's fine also. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 01:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've now taken a quick look at your talk page and a small sample of your contributions. From what I've seen it looks like you're doing a great job. The only remotely 'bad' edit I found was an edit conflict on an admin noticeboard meaning you deleted someone else's message, which someone else then restored so hardly a big deal. Looks like you're doing a grand job of helping other editors, and do so in a friendly way- qualities needed in an admin. I'm not up to date with whatever ridiculously (can you detect my bias there...) high standards regarding edit count/experience etc that are required for a realistic prospect of a successful RfA at the moment but if you want me to consider you for a nomination feel free to let me know and I'll review your contributions in more detail. In case you haven't seen it already take a look at the 'some info' section of User:Peter/RfA reviews. Peter 12:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's not problem that there was a delay, and on the "ridiculous" standards, it seems to me (from the past 5 or so, which was about 2 months worth) to be around at least 10,000 or 15,000 edits, one or two good or featured articles, and 12 months of continuous editing without too big gaps, although that one seems less 'hard' as some have less, or not continuous editing. I hate those edit conflicts so much... Thanks for the review! gwickwire^talk_edits 15:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I enjoy editing articles on WP and started to look at the MOS on Bios of dead persons, and wishing it was more specific with regard to whether a dead person's writings should be discussed in the present tense or the past tense (Aristotle believes..., Calvin teaches... OR Aristotle believed...Calvin taught...). The MOS just says dead persons should be discussed in the past tense, yet many articles are written in the past tense (Aristotle was a Greek philosopher...) and then transition to the present when discussing the dead person's writing or teaching (Aristotle believes...).

It dawned on me that I might want to get more involved. I have written very few new articles for WP, but I have edited many. I usually edit every article I read, mainly for style, grammar and tense, often for neutrality and sometimes just to condense the article. Some people tend to say the same thing twice repeatedly throughout their articles. Other things I edit out are the overuse of transition words, and conclusions and fault that is attributed when the issue is controversial, and should be left up to the reader to evaluate the evidence. I also enjoy editing non-native English speaking articles that need a native speaker to reword things so they sound more natural.

Anyway, would you consider nominating me as an Admin?

Thanks for your consideration, Markewilliams (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it looks like you're doing some good work you do not appear to have done any tasks that would benefit from being an admin. Also your relative lack of experience (at least in edits if not time) means you wouldn't have any hope of a successful RfA at this stage. A quick look at WP:RFA gives a link to Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates which has some good information. Don't let this discourage you from editing :) Peter 11:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you Peter! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Peter

I just found a message from you on my talk page, asking me to refrain from unconstructive edits, with the implication that I had been doing this.

Well I haven't made any edits to main pages at all. On those rare occasions when I think that I have something to add, I go and suggest it on the Talk page. This has happened maybe five times in total. I don't really know what I'm doing, so I reckon that any edits to the main page are likely to do more harm than good. When I make suggestions on chat pages, I am at least trying to be helpful.

I had a similar problem a little while ago. (About six months?) When I was fingered for a vandalism, that again I had nothing to do with.

I'm not sure what's happening, but you're getting the wrong person here.

Cheers

Stevie

81.157.84.124 (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 17:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering what needs to be done so that the page created for Dj StereOtype can be put up and not deleted. He is a legitimate artist that is relevant and deserves a wikipedia page, but you guys continue to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshoney15 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 August 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) 13:08, 23 November 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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Would you please take a look at this improved and substantially different new draft and consider recreating the article "Vaidyanathan Ramaswami". This article had been the subject of a discussion before here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vaidyanathan_Ramaswami_(3rd_nomination) . As suggested during that discussion by one admin: "as still questionably better for any improvements, best deleted and restarted if better later. SwisterTwister", I have rewritten entirely the article wih better structure and referencing. It is available in my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoshanKarki123/sandbox . I will be grateful if you would evaluate this draft and consider publishing it on Wikipedia. Thank you for your cooperation. RoshanKarki123 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hey peter how can i become an admin id love to help the site..zx (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter!

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]