Renesis

Any particular reason that you decided to remove my edits from the page on project management software. Specifically I had added "Primavera Systems" to the list of proprietory software available in the domain of project management software.

BM

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Renesis, judging by your MfD comments I suspect you may have not had an opportunity to read the "Jimbo said" essay. If you haven't done so already you might want to review that essay. Cheers. (→Netscott) 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully I've cleared up what I meant at the MFD. -- Renesis (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed your response at Jimbo's talk page even if that meetup doesnt occur we can still organise a meetup here then anyway. Drop me a note if your interested, or join our discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth you'll be more than welcome and we can also help you with anything you would like to see/do while your here. Gnangarra 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as active at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you are or have been active on this project we feel you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may have a point that insulting revert summaries could incite more vandalism. But frankly, I doubt it. And I also don't see any particular reason to be civil to folks who are obviously trying to vandalize WP. (These examples are not simple mistakes by overeager newbies. They are clearly intentional vandalism.) Nonetheless, I'll try to watch it in the future. Phiwum 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You posted (a long time ago) on this page about it not being sorted by population. Well, I created a table that is hopefully complete and sorted. Before I add in the rankings, I was hoping you could give it a brief look and see if I missed a country or if a country/territory doesn't belong. I don't really know what to do with Indonesia and Malaysia, there's no definite data for those two. Appreciate it. Mahanga^Talk 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Glad to see you're back. ^Khukri 06:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the {{db-bio}} tag you placed on page XL-EasyGantt. It isn't a biography, and appears to contain useful content. I've added an advert tag, so it might improve.--Rossheth | Talk 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Renesis, did you asked for the speedy deletion of XL-EasyGantt? What is the reason for doing so? The content was about an application, how do you view it as different from the other applications listed on the List of project management software page?

Renesis, I appreciate your reply. I would further appreciate even more if you could help explain why are [KPlato], [ManageXPS], and [OmniPlan] notable when there are nothing much in the content that suggest that they are and I could not see how different are them from the rest of the gantt tools. Why are they not deleted speedily?

Excel based Gantt charts form a class of its own comparing to other standalone or web based pm tools because it provides the project managers and adhoc pms a good way to create gantt charts and distributing them to other team members and escpecially the senior executives who may not want to install additional applications on their workstations just to view and reponse to the project plans. It is notable because this is not what other scheduling tools can do easily. Most require the plans to be exported and/or require a viewer or need the application iteself to be installed. By using the popular apps like MS Excel, Excel based gantt tools help to bring project management practices of using Gantt Charts to the masses.

It took us a long time to find something really works in Excel untill XL-EasyGantt. I am a user of this tool. Like many other PMs, I find that it is useful because though there are methods available in pieces here and there on the web teaching some ways of manually creating the gantt charts in MS Excel and some commercial tools that do not work as well, this tool somewhat pieces all things together very conveniently. Thus it is quoted in the list as a reference. Of course if other users have other Excel based gantt tools that are notable we would welcome them to list them in the Excel Gantt Tool section too wouldn't we?

Further, if we want to maintain a listing of software in wiki, then perhaps, that article should have a guideline section, stating, what is the selection criteria for certain software to be listed. Why some software are listed and some are not listed and who made the decision. I believe this will avoid others from thinking that there could be some prejudice in the way the list is being maintained.

Thank you. Vikerbandt.

Hi Renesis. WP:CSD#A7 is for articles about "a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website". Computer software does not fall under this. Neil ╦ 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I came by to say exactly the same thing. Please read the tags before you add them. - BanyanTree 08:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It absolutely does. Are you telling me that a simple bio article that doesn't establish notability needs to go through AFD just because the writer made it about their "software" instead of their company? I think you need to reread the WP:CSD guidelines. "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content" are the exact words, and these software products absolutely are about their companies, and often web content too. -- Renesis (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're extrapolating - "It says A & B, so clearly it must also mean C". "About" is not "is". Given how fiercely the exact wording of the current criteria was fought over, if there was consensus on "Unremarkable people, groups, companies, web content and software" then that is what the criterion would say. Admins have been hauled before ArbCom for using the bit to accomplish what the rules 'should' say. You need a proposal to modify policy. As for your argument that you carefully read the article and then nominated it under an invalid criterion, but that there is another valid criterion that the evaluating admin should have deleted under anyway, I really don't have much to say besides that, in the case of old articles where the evaluator has to ask why the article was never challenged before, the CSD evaluation may include if the nominator shows a solid grasp of policy and their judgment relied upon. I won't even ask why you didn't delete the articles yourself. - BanyanTree 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you recently reverted a move of Danah Boyd to "Danah boyd", which would be the most factually-correct title Wikipedia is technically able to provide for that article. While I don't know danah, I have made use of her research and commentary and so it annoys me that the article on her is incorrect. I'd like to propose once again that the article be moved, and so I'm looking for opinions from those who've opposed or reverted such moves in the past.

I've read through previous debates about the article, and the rationale which has consistently been applied is threefold:

• Some mainstream media sources list her name as "Danah Boyd".
• WP:NAME indicates that proper names should be capitalized.
• Users searching for a proper name will be likely to capitalize it, and would be confused if such a search returned no result.

But there are problems with this:

• First and foremost, "Danah Boyd" is inaccurate; she indicates that she has legally changed her name to "danah boyd", and searching publicly-available records should easily back this up and make it a simple case of verification. There is no online access I could find to perform a search for California name-change records, so no hyperlink to that is available for citing in the article, but the University of California does publicly identify her on her departmental web page as "danah boyd". Additionally, publications from respected academic sources -- papers by danah and papers by others which cite danah -- include the name "danah boyd", not the name "Danah Boyd". For purposes of WP:V, this should trump apparent typographic mistakes in mainstream media sources (in previous debates, it's been mentioned that mainstream news has occasionally identified her as "Dana" -- without the final "h" -- and that Wikipedia has already chosen to ignore such references on the grounds that they are verifiably typos).
• WP:BLP indicates that the highest priority is to "get the article right", and the current article verifiably does not do so. Worse, it propagates inaccurate information against the known, published beliefs of the subject regarding her own identity; this violates BLP. This also seems to be a case where BLP's guidelines for using the subject of the article as a source apply and provide another strong argument in favor of "danah boyd", because there is no reasonable doubt that she is the one claiming her name is lower-case and this information is not "unduly self-serving".
• Search issues can easily be mitigated by providing a redirect from "Danah Boyd" to a more correctly-titled article.
• The explanatory text of WP:IAR indicates that it should be applied when other rules get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Providing factual information about a living person while respecting that person's beliefs is pretty much undeniably an improvement of Wikipedia, so IAR should trump everything, including naming conventions.

If I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know, but as I see it there's no reason why Danah Boyd should not be moved to "Danah boyd", with a redirect for search purposes, and with a note on the final location of the article indicating that Wikipedia's technical limitations prevent the title from being presented in the proper case. And I see several reasons why the title should be presented as closely to the correct lower-case version as possible. Do you know of any other objections I've missed in the above reasoning? Ubernostrum 01:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, we do have a template to indicate idiosyncratic capitalization, as well as a mention in the Manual of Style. k.d. lang. catherine yronwode. e.e. cummings. I have restored the move. DS 02:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for unblocking the user. Vassyana 17:30, 26 June 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/Danah Boyd, 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. --Elonka 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It appears that the mediator misunderstood your initial statement, you might want to point that out to her. - Cyrus XIII 09:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd nominate this for afd, but I'm not sure how in this instance, since it's the second nomination. Would the {{afd}} still work? -WarthogDemon 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. :) Yeah, I do have a problem overlooking simple things like that. Thanks for the help, and if I may also say, thanks for the accidental template edit. I've been worrying about some real-life things today, and for some reason seeing the prod and templates on my talk page made me laugh and lifted my spirits. :) -WarthogDemon 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to remount a non-commercial piece on the good that this company does and its ideas. Is this possible?-Chm2008 12:42, 12 February 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.108.111 (talk)

I've nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Messageboxes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SLSB talk ER 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

In case you didn't notice, I userfied the above page per your request, to User:Renesis/WikiProject Messageboxes. --kingboyk 11:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey! I'm contacting all the members of wikiproject Perth because, I have put in an incomplete bid for Perth to hold Wikimania 2008. Please show your support by adding your name to the list and help contribute by improving our bid which is incomplete and located here - thanks Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess the RX-8 Club does, too, since I'm member there (but not an owner.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.30.130 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re:[1]. I agree, looks much better.cheers --Hu12 (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll reply on my talk page. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Renesis, thank you for being so valiant in your standards of editing. Unfortunately, you have blocked mark58 as a contributor...mark58 is following the former mayor, Brian Olsen's story with much interest. Factual citations are what I'm after. Yet, According to the paragraph alledging Olsen was under iunvestigation in the UHP alluding to something with charges is not correct. The accompanying citation (10) has nothing to do with the statement and is therefore not a source. Just because a citation is listed , you automatically consider it legite? Please review the citation and see that someone else should be blocked for failing to cite a legitimate source. Thank You ....mark58

I have fixed the citation and replied to you at Talk:Eagle Mountain, Utah. -- Renesis (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry. It does not affect most of the pages, and i figured that the user could always undo it if they did not agree. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I that specific example, nothing was changed. box-width=auto does nothing. I do actually look to see what it looks like before I change it, and I attempt to emulate that as closely as possible. The majority of the changes actually make the box bigger, and so there is just more space, nothing cut off. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I never realized that. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'm always happy to explain an admin decision. First of all, there are third party references listed in the references section of the article (the two books). Second, according to criterion 4 of WP:BAND, a band is notable if it has gone on an international concert tour, which the article says Tripod has. Third, it's arguable that Moonjune Records (the band's label) meets criterion 5 of WP:BAND.
I hope this addresses your concerns. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you substantially edited the Tracker (business software) page. This article was already reviewed by admins and approved for inclusion in Wikipedia. It did not contain any promotional language or advertorial claims. The section you removed including a screenshot from each software package, and a list of the included modules. I disagree that this section constituted blatant advertising, as the screenshots illustrated the different user interfaces, and the list of modules (not features) demonstrated the differences between the packages.
However, I can understand how the article may have appeared like a product sheet. In order to minimize controversy, I have restored the screenshots, and abbreviated the package description. If you still disagree with the content, then lets have a conversation on the article's discussion page.
You also removed links to the article from List of project management software. Again, I can understand how this may have appeared to be advertising. However, the three products described in Tracker (business software) are very different. TrackerSuite.Net is a Web based application, and should be listed as such. Tracker Suite and TrackerOffice are both desktop applications, but TrackerOffice does not include functions for issue tracking or resource management. Do you have a suggestion for how else these different products might be listed in that article? Regards, KarsKormak (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to clarify my point, I disagree that a component list of a software package constitutes advertising for that software, any more than a recipe for a cake constitutes advertising for that cake. If it were a list of product features, that would be a different animal entirely. However, we seem to have reached an accord with the current state of the page, and I am satisfied with it. As for the List of project management software, would you object to my lumping Tracker Suite and TrackerOffice as a single link entry in Desktop Applications, and TrackerSuite.Net on its own under Web based Applications? Regards, KarsKormak (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then there appears to be some confusion here. You state that you would not object to a list of components, which is what you removed from the page. The Tracker packages are modular application suites. That is, the client organization could deploy the entire suite of modules, or simply the modules for Time Reporting, Project Management and Personnel Management. The lists you removed were not the features of single application, but the applications within each Tracker product, in the same way Microsoft Office includes Word, Excel, Outlook and Powerpoint applications (which are listed in the Microsoft Office article).

In regards to our listing on List of project management software, your analogy to Microsoft Project / Microsoft Project Server is inaccurate. Microsoft Project Server is not a project management application in itself, it serves to extend Microsoft Project (which is listed on the LoPMS page, appropriately) by providing report storage and Internet capabilities. It does not provide actual project management tools and functions (task management, scheduling, WBS). Again, I understand and agree that multiple links to the same page should be avoided, and if the List of project management software page were structured differently (Perhaps as a grid?) this wouldn't be an issue. However, as it categorizes products by platfrom (proprietary desktop, proprietary Web based), there doesn't seem to be another way to accurately place the links. Regards, KarsKormak (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Template:Oldpeerreviews/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oops, sorry about that. We've been having a lot of page move vandalism lately and the title of the page you last moved looked like vandalism, didn't realize until after I hit the button. Should be all fixed up now. Mr.Z-man 06:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I got this message from you about the Revenge of the Fallen article. I never claimed ownership of the article. I didn't even start it. If it was about me reverting your changes, then you should know your edits WILL be scrutinized. From time to time you may get changes reverted. Note that reverts are also scrutinized by other users. It's the way Wikipedia works. If you don't like that, maybe it is you the one that should consider not making the changes in the first place. The reason for my edit was specified in the edit summary and no other user saw any problem with it. Uker (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I took a look again at your edit, which can be seen here and yes, you removed that 'weasel' sentence, which I could agree with, but that was among a bunch of other edits which were not justified, neither in the summary, nor the discussion page. Guidelines suggest that if you're making a lot of changes, each one for different reasons, you make them in separate edits. Had they been separate edits I sure wouldn't have reverted them all. Uker (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Whoa. That's strange. On an rhetoric note, I'm thinking what would have happened hadn't I cited the link to the diff. I guess things wouldn't have worked out that well. Anyway, glad we could work this out. Cheers! Uker (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

As an editor to Template:Elementary arithmetic, you may be interested in a comment I left there last week. - dcljr (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Googleplexlobby-adjusted.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Googleplexlobby-adjusted.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Googleplexlobby-adjusted.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

In accordance to how you ahve described them on your userpage, I have tagged one of the articles as overlinked and the other to be copy editied. To enable others editors to know what is wrong with and help with this article, what is specifically wrong with Counter-sniper tactics? Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Howtoedit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Renesis,

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 35.9.34.167 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello Renesis. As you're probably aware, your Walnut.png image has been used to illustrate all the policy pages on Wikipedia and Commons due to its inclusion in {{Nutshell}}. Unfortunately, this use violates the terms of the license you have chosen for the image, as there is no attribution or link provided to the image description page. I was wondering if you would consider re-licensing the image under {{Cc-zero}} so that we could continue using the image in the template. Otherwise, we may need to change it to a different image. Sorry to bug you with this red tape, but we need to make sure that we're actually following our licenses if we expect our re-users to do the same. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it looks like it does link on English Wikipedia, but not on Commons.[2] I can add the linking behavior to the template on Commons, or you could switch the license on the file to {{Cc-zero}} (instead of {{Cc-by-sa}}), which would make the link unnecessary. Just let me know which you would prefer. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I know I'm responding to a bot, but for the record I do intend to stay active :) -- Renesis (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Legend3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you have done some editing on the Eagle Mountain page. While surfing Wikipedia I noticed that some cities have a list of notable people. I was thinking of adding a section to the Eagle Mountain page and putting Noelle Pikus-Pace and myself (Daniel Burton) in the section. However, I'm not sure if this is OK, or if someone else like you should do it. Thanks Danpburton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 24 August 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 Renesis.

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

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:52, 26 December 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.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

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

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 08:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are you retired in 2017? I thought you weren't a car guy. zoom-zoom. 88.237.21.118 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 01:00, 1 December 2022 (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 18:14, 3 December 2022 (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 11:43, 23 December 2022 (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 01:38, 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 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 03:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply