User talk:Crum375/Archives/2022/May

WP:CIRCULAR
"c. it relies on Wikipedia at least for some of its material, which would make it a circular reference." you made this claim on the elsevier textbook, can you please cite the pages in this where it cites wikipedia?--Patbahn (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out page 385 as example. The problem is that once you know a source relies on Wikipedia for some of its material, there is no way of knowing how much more material is so tainted. I had as example a no-advertising subscription-only aviation safety publication a couple of years ago, which relied on WP extensively for an article, including graphics and semi-complete sentences, yet provided no attribution whatsoever to WP. It was a bit shocking to have to pay money to see my own work, including the graphics. As bottom line, we may not rely on sources which use WP as source. Crum375 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this, very interesting. You might find this blog relevant, having downloaded the relevant report and looked at colors of noise it seems to check out. . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have heard of similar stories too. And lately I have to spend a lot longer deciding if certain sources are "original" or WP-derived. I think this may be just the beginning of a long-term trend. Crum375 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wegman Report is notable in its own right, the plagiarism is an interesting side issue but does raise questions about its reliability. As you say, we're increasingly going in circles! . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No original research
Why do you revert my changes without comment?

In the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position

you protected the following text by reverting:

"The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

Although no conclusion is drawn... "

The second half of the first sentence draws a conclusion. Especially the word "but" signals a conclusion. I don't think it makes sense to show the wikipedia logic with a text example that misses logic.

Regards --Sustainlogic (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You added the comment "This is not really a good example of new synthesis." Such personal criticism should be added to a talk page, not inserted inside a policy page. Crum375 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why did you delete the whole paragraph, and not only this sentence? --Sustainlogic (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sustainlogic (talk • contribs)

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson you say this addition was unsourced so you deleted it. how about doing a little search of your own? it's been in all the papers tonight and the news. would not be too difficult to find multipul sources if you wanted. try to contribute rather, than take away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.176.56 (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on SS Struma. On the face of it, the edit history of the article and the discussion on its talk page appear to indicate that you are acting against consensus. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Victim list on Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907
re. .I saw the discussion at the top of the current talk page, which shows there are plenty of objections to this being included, and the few actual reasons for inclusion given are weak at best. I see no discussion of it in the FA pass, and it was objected to in the initial FA fail, without resolution, so that's no justification either. So, if you had any other discussion in mind, please point out the other specific places/comments where you think this list has had a discussion where a clear consensus has shown it belongs in the article. I am not accepting 'it's been discussed' as your reason for blind reverting, it simply does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOT, it has absolutely no encyclopoedic value. If you can't do that, I'm taking it to an Rfc. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This issue appeared in both the FAC review and the article's talk page. In the FAC review the question was raised and answered, and was left to the other reviewers to decide. None of the other reviewers saw any problem with the list, and the article was promoted to FA with it. There was a subsequent discussion about it on talk, and the end result was to leave it as is. I see no problem with it &mdash; it adds important information, and does not violate any rule. Feel free to obtain more views about it. Crum375 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please note in the Rfc that you had specifically asked  and   to comment. I don't see anything wrong with the requests from the standpoint of CANVAS, the requests were neutral, and as it happens they have not both opined the same way, but I think it would be of use to any closer to know they were specifically asked to comment, and the reasons why (which are not clear to me). MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are both veteran editors whose judgment I trust, and in both cases I had no idea what they would say. One has general expertise on content policies, and the other on FA articles and this specific topic. As it stands, one seems to support the list, and one leans against it. Hopefully this helps. Crum375 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It does, but as said, could you please note it on the Rfc page (identifying which is which). MickMacNee (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary. Crum375 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I do. Put it this way, if you don't note it, I will, but it would look better if it came from you. This Rfc was advertised in many places, as you know, so it is a simple common courtesy to the closer to note this extra solicitation, even though no rule has been broken. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel feel to do it if you think you need to. Crum375 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done . MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

2009 Manaus Aerotáxi crash
The Aviation Herald has updated its coverage of this accident, based on the Final Report by CENIPA (in Portuguese). Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for David Warren (inventor)
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty please ?

 * Featured article candidates/British European Airways Flight 548/archive2 Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What about writing together a book on gravitation?
Crum, it just occured to me that the best solution to the problem of creationists trying to get themselves into science using for this purpose severely underinformed in area of gravitation physicists, might be two of us writing a book on gravitation and splitting any possible profits 50:50.

As you might have noticed I already started writing something of this kind called "Gravitation Demystified" which shows (as you might have noticed as well) my severe lack of any literary and even linguistic skills. But I hope you have them and hopefully I understand gravitation at least as good as Einstein (possibly better) and also better than Feynman, which seems to be not that bad a combination. This way we may become minature Landau and Lifshitz and most important, to contribute to prevention of infiltration of science by creationists through the completely unguarded back door of cosmology which in my opinion is something that is going on while we talk (please notice that the only contemporary cosmological theories are metaphysical - with "creation" of metter. BTW, I hope you are not a theist?)

What would you say?

Jim (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad reasons for not writing a book about gravitation
Crum, sorry to bother you but it is only because your neither reason is a legitimate one. If you never want to write a book on gravitation I stop to bother you. But at least learn why your reasons ain't legitimate.

Your first reason: "I am busy with RL commitments, and can't afford to take time off for book writing."

The book is not that urgent that it can't wait. Not many people are interested in gravitation. Acording to Feynman it is not interesting enough to curious characters. Especially not to Feynman who believed that worldwide only "126 dopes" are interested in it and none of them worth listening to and some of them plain idiots. I believe him since I've been waiting with ready Einstainian explanation of cosmological redshift for over 25 years and even in my university nobody cares about reading this stuff. Gravitation is boooooring. So there is no big rush. I doubt someone writes such a book within next 50 or 100 years. It is already nearly 100 years since Einstein discovered physics of gravitation and no one even explained it well enough to regular physicsists so they would understand it. And I'm talking only about regular so called "gravitational force" which every physicists should understand and yet they asked about it fall silent and say that they heard something about Einstein explaining it but they are not sure what it was.

When I were explaining gravitation to physics professors during the breaks in their lectures (it takes under 15 minutes, well fitting their break) all except one who said "of course" (he is a relativist) laughed at me and said "it's not possible since if it were so simple I'd have heard about it". So you may see the a need to learn gravitation is there but no interested readers. Who needs Einstein's gravitation? Even NASA can manage without it and doing quite well with Newtonian. Only cosmology suffers since without Einstein's gravitation they are like "drunk children in fog". But cosmologists are probably happy since they may invent surrealistic theories and no one corrects them even when they introduce creationism to physics. On the other hand it might be their purpose and by writing a book we may interfere with their purpose. But it would be also a bad reason for not writing this book. After all they are paid from our taxes and so far doing no useful job.

"Second, I am not sure I know enough to be able to properly critique your material."

That's an argument for participating in writing this book. Nobody knows enough. Einstein didn't know enough to critique creationist, but within these 25 years of discussions with cosmologists I found out enough to tell you what you (and Einstein) don't/didn't know to be able to argue with creationists like LeMaitre and and Wheeler. Gravitation turns out to be real simple (see the above opinion of 100% of physics professors).

You say also: "But I do think, as I noted elsewhere, that you should try to convince one respectable physicist of your theories and/or interpretations, after which everything will be much easier for you."

It might be if such a physicists existed outside your imagination. Unfortunately this only professor (in about 100 that I mentioned) that understans Einstein's curvatures of spacetime and knows how simply the gravitational force is generated believes that energy may be created and God might exist, what he said at conference "Physics and Faith" organized by him and three other theist at Warsaw University. According to my experience it is impossible to convince a grownup who believes that God controls the universe, that there is no evidence of it. Especially when his faith is suported by creationists whom he takes for legitimate physicists or mathematicians.

It seems that the only reason why any physicist is interested in gravitation is because of the Big Bang and their hope that it proves existence of God. It might be why gravitation attracts only creationists, and that's why only creationist theories (with creation of matter) exist in cosmology and Einstein's theory has been derailed by Wheeler by keeping secret the fact that that Einstein maintained "that the spacetime metric tensor must be non symmetric" and that even in Newtonian gravitation in static universe there is the the same as observed in our universe amount of cosmological redshift. Otherwise why only creationists work in cosmology and teach students all over the world that creation of energy is OK? Jim (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Three reversions in under 17 hours.—DCGeist (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Please do not template regular editors"? I wish someone had templated me the other sleep-deprived morning to warn me that I was on the verge of violating 3RR, just as you are right now. Do you really think your behavior does not constitute edit warring?   Of course it does. And when you write, "I believe there are plenty of other editors who understand this point", what point exactly are you referring to? That you feel at liberty to ride roughshod over our policy and norms concerning consensus and maintaining status quo while a dispute is being discussed? That's the point that you seem to be awfully shaky on, though plenty of other editors do manage to get it all over this great encyclopedia of ours.—DCGeist (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * DCGeist - You're pushing too hard here. Warning users like this is not the way to win a content dispute.  Please stick to issues, on the talk page there.
 * Crum375, please don't actually 3RR on the article. You know that, and I assume you don't intend to, but just to keep things as painless as possible...
 * Thanks, both of you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your fans are calling
Your fans are calling at wp:nor re wp:att. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Note
The RFC has been closed as consensus to remove. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that this is a poor way to engage in discussion. I've never been involved in the underlying dispute, but I see a large number of reverts on that page from you.  It's obvious that you disagree very much with removing the section, but edit warring about it is not a reasonable response regardless of the sincerity of your feelings on the matter.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC ping

 * Featured article candidates/Sutton Wick air crash/archive1. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again: Featured article candidates/1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash/archive1 Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability
Hello, Crum. As a follow up of your suggestion about C. Johan Masreliez on my talk pagerecently, I opted for a test article on Masreliez’s theorem, which immediately attracted attention of RE, the No 1 Masreliez watchdog, questioning notability. Could you please advice as to the reasonable number of citations or secondary sources required in such a case. / Kurtan (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

1950 Tete de I'Obiou Crash unnamed source
I got the source from an e-Mail. It was from the nephew of Flight Attendant Helen Mahar. He told me his aunt was missing for weeks until found in a crevasse in the mountain. --707 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your advice is needed
This editor HXL has been committing a number of personal attacks against me in the discussion page of article Inner_Mongolia. He used words such as "faulty logic" in, "you tard" in , "pests like you" in. Also he threatened me that he "can be brutal" here in. Please advise whether such a treatment of fellow editors is acceptable? If not acceptable, then what actions are taken to repair the situation? Thank you in advance. ༄༅།།གང་ཐུ་ཡཱ།། (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My RfC
I never have closed this RfC I posted on myself in June 2007, in part because several of the issues involved have continued over several years. Before I consider possibly closing it (I feel I'm the one who should close it since it was a self-RfC), I was wondering if you would like to reconsider your endorsements of SlimVirgin's and FloNight's summaries. If so, please strike through your endorsements. If you still stand by them, please consider adding an additional statement at the bottom the front page of the RfC. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V
Your wording leaves me wondering if you were labouring under a misapprehension there. The WP:V proposal is not about removing "not truth" from the policy, but about moving it to a separate section, and explaining it. Was that clear to you, or did you misunderstand the proposal? Cheers, -- J N  466  15:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:V RfC
You were mentioned here in passing, and you simply may not care, but I think there is a principle at stake. I have already responded. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Some facts about Arrow Gander DC-8 accident
I was the president of the Arrow pilots union at the time and I have some facts that were never discussed or questioned. I knew the entire flight crew and can attest to their proffessionalism. Please contact me if you interested in some truths and some very unusual event in the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbrodeur (talk • contribs) 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Scuba diving
Scuba diving has been protected since 2010. That's a long time, Should it not be unprotected and see how it goes? Its on my watchlist - I will let you know it it becomes a problem. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Bonaire-sunset.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify Civility Policy?
Hi Crum375 - Could you please help clarify WP:NICE in this AN/I discussion? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Daphne Gail Fautin
Hello! Your submission of Daphne Gail Fautin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JuneGloom   Talk  00:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Daphne Gail Fautin
The DYK project (nominate) 00:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:AvjetAspenPlate.jpg listed for deletion on Wikimedia Commons
An image or media file you uploaded or altered,, has been listed at Commons Deletion requests.

You can read and participate in the if you are interested or do not wish the file to be deleted. Thank you. 50.100.189.29 (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Twa-529-linkage.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Twa-529-linkage.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Continental Airlines Flight 1883 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Continental Airlines Flight 1883 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1883& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

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)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
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
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg 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.
 * 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.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bahia Miracle Girl.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Bahia Miracle Girl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SC-213.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SC-213.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Struma-letter.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Struma-letter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Struma-poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Struma-poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Chris Froome
Hi, sorry to bother you, but I have to log off and work. Can you protect the article as it's under pressure at the moment. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Nastar Action.jpg
You uploaded, File:Nastar Action.jpg, where you either stated or implied that you had permission of a third party to upload it; or that evidence of such permission would be provided on request.

Wikipedia currently needs the permission to be explicitly proven at the time of upload, and recorded in the OTRS permission queue.

Please read Requesting copyright permission, which advises on how to confirm the permission you obtained from a third party.

It is also advisable to ask the third-party what source attribution they desire, as opposed to marking the image as having been "sent personally". ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
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 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You asked why
... Barcelona is linked, and Paris not: we don't link to current countries and their capitals. Some other places will also be well-known, so not needing a link, but I don't know for Barcelona. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2345 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Brendan Kavanagh
Hi, I just promoted your hook to Prep 5. Please add a line about Dr. K to Nelly Ben-Or's article for readers who wish to pursue the info in the hook. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Brendan Kavanagh
Vanamonde (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC) (Belatedly posted by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC))

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Maxine Dunlap Bennett
Hello! Your submission of Maxine Dunlap Bennett at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Maxine Dunlap Bennett
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Article protected []
Today I was reading this article and noticed it was fully protected after only 1 desruptive editing from a newly cretated user. Is it ok? Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , your first step should be asking the admin who performed the protection, assuming their rationale is not clear to you. Crum375 (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
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. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
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)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)