User talk:Master Jay

 Please add signature after every post


 *  Return to user page 
 * Click here to leave a message
 *  Archives  | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Proposed deletion of Chromia (Transformers)


The article Chromia (Transformers) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Minor fictional character for whom no notability is asserted, or any third-party sources or coverage are included.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BT 0304.gif
Thanks for uploading File:BT 0304.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Buddy-Rich2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Buddy-Rich2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Master Jay,

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 Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Canadamapleleaf.png 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) 15:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 11 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)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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 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.

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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 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 15:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Brampton 01508.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Brampton 01508.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Brampton dv0lf.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Brampton dv0lf.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BT GMDD T6H-5307N 400px.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BT GMDD T6H-5307N 400px.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BT New Flyer D40S.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BT New Flyer D40S.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BT OBI Orion V 05.501 .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BT OBI Orion V 05.501 .jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BT OBI Orion VI 06.501 .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BT OBI Orion VI 06.501 .jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Btbusmci.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Btbusmci.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:29, 19 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) 20:33, 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

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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&#32;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 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 18:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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&#32;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 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux  Talk 00:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Resysop
In case you are unaware, given your very limited number of edits over the years, your resysop request at BN is generating a bit of discussion. If you have email notifications turned on re: posts to this page, you may at least get a ping. Personally, I'd be very grateful if you would reconsider your request but I realise that the rules do not require it. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I second this sentiment from Sitush, Master Jay. You were given the mop back when standards were ridiculously low. Wikipedia, as a community, has moved on since then. You'll note that some at BN are either claiming that you've been gaming the system or that they, themselves, will not resysop you and would not ask under these conditions. If you were serious about doing adminny things, I think you ought to remove your request and submit to RfA, which would not go well for you. Really, if you want to help Wikipedia you ought to find satisfaction at being an editor, rather than holding a position of authority. But as Sitush and others have mentioned, you would do well to actively participate in the discussion about you at BN to help explain your inactivity and your goals for the future. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I understand your concerns. I am eligible to return, have been granted this request and intend on resuming my duties to the best of my ability as my time permits. -- Jay  ( Talk ) 04:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding at BN, although I think you need to say much more. You might also want to revisit your user page - "frequent contributor" is significantly overegging the pudding, methinks. Obviously, it is your page and you can say what you want there but, well, it isn't a good look. Frequent is subjective but I doubt anyone would consider your last 8-10 years here as qualification to use it - I've made something like 230,000 edits in that time and am around most days, barring a couple of months' breaks for a period of ill health. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in a similar situation last year when I suggested that someone swinging by after years and "asking for return of the banhammer" would not go down well, it was me who was admonished (by at least one of the same editors who has vehemently attacked you!) Apparently it was the expression "swinging by" which upset some butterflies. Just goes to show how inconsistent the community can be! What is said about scrutiny of your activities is accurate, you will be hounded for any mis-step. Be careful. :) Leaky caldron (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not me, guv. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not you. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have restored your administrator status
I urge you to read the discussion at WP:BN carefully and understand that you are on very shaky ground. Your understanding of current policy is seriously questioned and your actions will be scrutinised by many Wikipedians. Please take time to become more active and ensure you are familiar with norms before starting to wield the tools. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting that you probably overlooked GMG's query over here and I would esp. like an answer for the first part. Regards, &#x222F; WBG converse 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Context - it was during a hectic time (to say the least) in Iran. | The user erroneously put a death date on the biography of Ahmadinejad and I temporarily put the bio on pending changes due to vandalism. Many pages are protected, semi-protected, etc. especially during large news events and especially biographies of living persons. In my own judgement this remedy was reasonable. | The protection was only temporary and in line with policy. It was especially timely and sensitive given the nature of what was happening at that time. Given the high visibility and media attention, I checked on things from time to time and no other administrators had an issue or reversed the call I made at that time. I blocked the anonymous user (once again temporarily - not permanently) due to vandalism (death threats, etc. on bio pages). The block was for 90 minutes. Given the nature of what was occurring at that time I felt that was an appropriate remedy to prevent further vandalism on other pages. No issues reported after that. -- Jay  ( Talk ) 03:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. For the record (and feel free to ignore this if you did so at the time) any time you see death threats in the future please contact both the oversight team and the WMF emergency contact email, even if the threats do not seem credible. (For the record I've seen totally active and engaged admins fail to do so as well so don't take this as a comment on your newly restored adminship.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Any help, come this way
Hi Jay, if you want any help in anything – understanding policies, guidelines, or any admin tool extensions, or even to spar away a response – you'll find me all ready to help. Lourdes  17:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much -- Jay  ( Talk ) 03:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment
Friends,

Thank you for all your comments. I didn't want to have a long, protracted argument with others on the discussion thread regarding my own re-sysop request. I felt that it was best to remain neutral and have the community discuss the matter. I understand where everyone is coming from. There are strong sentiments on both sides. One thing that certainly hasn't changed over the years is the vigorous, healthy, necessary discussion on whatever the matter may be.

Whether you agree or disagree with this transaction, please know that I am acting in good faith under the procedure that currently exists. I am simply one editor under the policies that govern everyone else. If the community feels that there is no place at the table for the old guard, lets have that discussion. If you disagree with the re-sysop policy, lets continue that discussion. If active administrators should be subject to performance targets, performance reviews, and the like, lets have that discussion. From my own personal standpoint, I plan on contributing productively as my own time permits.

Regarding the sentiment of "gaming the system" - I believe that is a hurtful, sinister view to have of someone. 13 years ago I was entrusted by a group of my peers to hold this responsibility. I conducted myself properly and with full accountability. After time, life gets in the way - I was not active. Nonetheless, I was still eligible to return to duty. My account was not compromised, etc. and I went through this procedure. The fact that this has spurred a long debate means that more work needs to be done. I understand the concerns that some may have about making mistakes in my return. One thing that hasn't changed from 13 years ago is that we are held to a high standard. I intend on acting to the highest standards and accountability. When making actions I will always consult policy and make sound, careful judgments.

Thank you for your time.  Jay  ( Talk ) 03:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow!!!! An absolutely epic response!!! And probably makes me feel ashamed that some of my fellow editors behaved the way they did, with you. I don't think anyone has said till this now, so here it is – Welcome Back!!! Lourdes   12:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Echoing a point - I think people on occasion forget that what you're doing as an admin is *volunteering* to help, and to react so vituperously is not really fair. Concerns are natural and understandable but there's no need to be churlish.  I think it's great that you feel you are ready to come back and lend a hand where you can. As Lourdes said, welcome back, and remember there's always others around willing to advise. Cheers! Fish +Karate  13:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. Welcome back. If I can ever be of any assistance feel free to stop by my talk page.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

With my editor hat on, I like your responses a lot, welcome back. With my Crat hat on, you've given me a fair amount of reassurance that I won't regret the action I took. With my quirky hat on (always the best hat) you seem, in a Jurassic Park-like manner, to be a living manifestation of the old-fashioned values my signature aims to encourage. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen you before today, but welcome back anyway. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 00:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Master Jay. I have no certitudes about how things will evolve. In any case, this will verify either (1) there are few exceptions to the law of large numbers ; or (2) there are large degrees of freedom in the behavior of a given person. Future will tell us if I will have to say: "I already tell you (1)" or "I already tell you (2)". For the record, the past is as follows: total number of edits ever: 2005 1304;2006 3568;2007 532;2008 14; 2009 72;2010 44;2011 3;2012 2;2013 2;2014 1;2015 8;2016 6;2017 2; 2018 2; date of RfA: 16 April 2006 with more than 3600 edits total number of admin actions ever: 2006 580;2007 47;2008 1;2009 5;2010 3;2018 2; Pldx1 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
<div class="notice" style="background:#fff1d2; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height:40px; line-height:130.7%; font-weight: 130.7%;"> <span style="color:#5871C6;cursor:pointer" class="mw-customtoggle-ArbCom_2019_special_circular"> <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ArbCom_2019_special_circular" style="display:none"> <div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:35, 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)

My song, "Tools"
You just stay around to keep the tools, you just stay around to keep the tools! You think that we're all fools, you just stay around to keep the tools! Making minute edits every year, you make minute edits every year! We can see it's very clear, you make minute edits every year! Users such as yourself who make a significantly low amount of edits just to keep your administrative tools sicken me and many others. Just give up the tools already!!! What are you holding on to them for anyways!! What a selfish thing to do!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.104.149 (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to have a discussion about this with your username signed. RE:WP:CIVIL. I have an assumption about who has posted this, but will not comment further unless it is attributed correctly. --<font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 12:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, who ever it was, I agree with the underlying sentiment. You really should turn in your tools - it isn't as if you use them much. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have turned up, briefly, since my note above but haven't deigned to respond. Your last resysop is again attracting attention, this time in this thread, and it is an embarrassment. People are openly saying you gamed the system and no-one is hauling them over the coals for a breach of WP:NPA etc. Given the status of those commenting throughout the thread, not just about you, I think the lack of censure for allegations of gaming is significant.Please turn in your tools: you don't use them and, despite your promise to be more active, your contribution history is still very sparse, which means your understanding of the community generally, as well as of admin-related policy specifically, is going to be poor. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For years you have been watching my talk page and commenting about this, and I have sound reason to believe you used a sockpuppet to create this post. Focus your energy on contributing constructively, not stalking me and watching my pages and contributions. I will not comment or interact with you any further. This is harassment. Quietly minding my own business has no impact on you whatsoever. --<font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 07:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * / Master Jay, using sockpuppets is a very serious allegation, and one to be thoroughly investigated, since you  have sound reasons to do so, at WP:SPI.  On the other hand, the Arbitration Committee does not approve of accusing another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are... severe. So you might want to consider whether such remarks are conducive with your broader responsibilities. All the best!  ——  Serial  09:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was actually in the midst of going through with the check user process regarding this anonymous post. Since that is the case I will have to proceed. I am hesitant to take such measures since there is a conflict of interest at hand - Sitush time and time again has been opposed to my re-adminship. The optics of me pursuing them for a serious offense does not bode well, and looks like a "tit-for-tat". However, this harassment has continued for over year and I will not tolerate it. Rigorous debate on policy is healthy, and I welcome it. But to make it a personal agenda to single me out from Day 1, comment on my page time and time again, introduce my name into new discussions whenever the chance appears, is no less than a witch hunt. We are all open to criticism, but there comes a point where 1 person has an over and above singular interest in you. Only a Check User can determine the identity of an IP address. If the IP address contributions are checked, they spammed many accounts with the same message regarding adminship. Furthermore, one of the edits made by the account was a fairly similar article to the types of articles they edit. I will formally be making this submission to WP:SPI in the morning. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 10:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise you had checkuser rights and am surprised if you do. FWIW, I wasn't here when you started your account, so "Day One" would be wrong. And I am not in South Dakota, nor even the US. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to submitting this anonymous post for investigation to the Check Users through SPI. I will not be commenting further until the investigation is concluded. After that I will provide more commentary. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 10:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me make this clear, Master Jay, I have met Sitush in person at several meetups in the UK, I am aware of the area where he lives, and I am willing to vouch for his bona fides. The IP is simply causing mischief - just check their contributions where they have made the same posts to multiple admins. The IP geolocates to Aberdeen, South Dakota, and is not a proxy. There really is no way that it could possibly be Sitush, and you'll find that checkusers are unwilling to associate IPs with usernames anyway. Your best bet now would be to withdraw your accusation above against Sitush and to try to ignore provocations from IPs in future. --RexxS (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you recuse yourself from commenting here if you are a personal acquaintance? <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 19:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I shouldn't. This is a talk page, not a court of law. I came here with an open mind to explain to you that you made a mistake in confusing a UK editor with a US one, and to offer you some collegial advice. And that's the reply I get? You're welcome. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How can you have an open mind when you are advocating for a friend. Unless you just happened to be on my talk page, it appears that this friend group is piling on. Even the talk page comment notes has comments in it like " Is this enough of an admin pile on for you to retract?". So clearly there is a co-ordinated effort here to bully and intimidate. As I mentioned elsewhere, if there is a policy change to the re-sysop process that needs to be done, spend the energy on that. For 18 months since that procedure Sitush has been hounding my page, introducing my name into discussions on other pages, and so forth. None of this was started or induced from my side. And now he has dispatched his friend group (probably through offline channels) to pile up here. This tactic is clearly displayed. Enough commentary on the matter. As I mentioned before, since Check User Salvio has made a comment, I have withdrawn my accusation. If a policy needs to be adjusted, then spend energy on that. Singling me out for ridicule, scorn, continuous engagement on a transaction from a year and a half ago is not productive. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 21:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Master Jay, can I strongly suggest you stop making further accusations? You sound like you're a bit stressed, and I can understand that. But please, I think you'd do yourself a lot more good if you step back a bit and cool off before you say any more, and then maybe just let this blow over? You do, after all, keep saying you will not be commenting further on this. I think that would be wise. Anyway, I'm off to bed. Goodnight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Master Jay, I'm calling bullshit on your ridiculous accusations. I have met, at one time or another, a very significant proportion of the active editors in the UK, as well as outside of it. If you think that having met someone disqualifies me from explaining to you that they live in the UK, not the USA, you need to get your head out of your arse and pay attention what's being said to you. There was no back-channel or off-wiki arrangements, Sitush merely posted on Bishonen's talk page that you were going to ask for an SPI investigation about him – a concept so distantly removed from reality that it was funny. I thought it would be kindest to explain to you that you were mistaken (and that's exactly what I did above) before you made a fool of yourself. Obviously I was too late. --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Master Jay, you're simply muddying the waters with your baseless accusation against Sitush. You need to either strike it out or open the promised SPI as soon as possible. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
 * The IP was clearly used by an established user. A member of the general public casually editing doesn't go to administrators pages and post such things, or visit the Oversight page to revert a change. Secondly, no other established user has had such a keen interest in my user page regarding the topic at hand. And lastly, |the one edit made by the IP was done just moments before he logged in that day on an article in his interest area. Too many factors have aligned. With that being said, seeing that Checkuser Salvio has commented that an investigation would be fruitless, I am withdrawing this accusation. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 19:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What RexxS says - I know Sitush in person too, and your socking accusation is laughable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You should recuse yourself from commenting here if your are a personal acquaintance. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 19:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not acting in an admin capacity and am not in breach of WP:INVOLVED, so I can defend Sitush however the hell I please - and if you don't know that, you're just proving you're not fit to be an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC) (Comment part struck in the spirit of de-escalation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC))
 * As a checkuser, I confirm what RexxS said. None of us is going to link an IP address to a named account. Aside from that, I too suggest you withdraw your accusation. Salvio 11:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The accusation is withdrawn. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 19:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to state what probably is on a few people's minds - threatening a sockpuppet investigation on a user providing (admittedly harsh) critique is very much conduct unbecoming of an administrator. I hope Jay takes this as well as the above responses to heart.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  12:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe I've had the pleasure. I believe you are allowing an LTA IP goad you into rash and intemperate remarks. You might wish to reconsider your accusation, withdraw it, apologize. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 12:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC) As you are aware of this IP's trolling of other admins, I fail to see why you are lashing out at Sitush. It's just an IP troll who has gotten what they wanted-- a disruption banquet. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 13:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @MasterJay, What Deepfriedokra said. ~Awilley (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The accusation is withdrawn. I will not be commenting further on this. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 19:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By "not commenting", do you mean you have "withdrawn the accusation" but you will not apologize for making it in the first place? ——  Serial  04:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Not that it really matters, but I'm almost certain the IP is this troll, who uses Aberdeen IP's. Sro23 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment
It appears |I have been turned into an epithet for a nefarious administrator who lurks quietly unseen, gaming the system for decades. To what ends, I do not know. I have never been one to draw attention to myself on here, so this will be my final comment on this talking point.

A group of my peers at one point in time determined that I was of sound judgement to be trusted with higher permissions than the general public. In the years since, this integrity has not been broken. My account is still active, and there have been no security concerns. The user who was entrusted with the mop 14 years ago is the same. This is not a compromised account, nor have there been any disruptive edits to the project. Civil behavior, trust, not harming the site, wanting what is best for the site, and the security of the site is the essence of the mop. None of that has changed.

The policy for the removal of the mop was for procedural, security purposes. Naturally though, these discussions have turned into a broader debate. If the policy of removing the tools, maintaining the tools, term limits, or being re-granted the tools needs to change, then it needs to change. Lets have that debate, lets achieve a consensus. However, being singled out and having a personal campaign directed to me in particular (by one user in particular) is not productive and won't advance anything in the long run. Those views have been heard. If there needs to be a change, work on that change.

We are here to contribute to the largest encyclopedia in human history, to the best of our ability. Let that be the core of what we are doing, and directing our best energy towards. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of us are. ——  Serial  04:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 05:15, 30 July 2020 (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. 20:06, 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)

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
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&#32;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 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 08:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Minor request
Hello, I'm cleaning up the dwindling number of fostered content WP:LINT errors on Wikipedia, and have brought them down to 12 remaining within user talk space. If you would be willing, would you adjust the following: {| cellpadding=2 style="background-color:AliceBlue;text-align:left"
 * Thank you!
 * Thank you!

to

{| cellpadding=2 style="background-color:AliceBlue;text-align:left"
 * [[Image:F-15 takeoff.jpg|left|174px]] Thank you!
 * [[Image:F-15 takeoff.jpg|left|174px]] Thank you!

on User talk:Master Jay/Archives May-June 2006 within the "RfA Thank you" section? This will correct this syntax issue. Thank you, Zinnober9 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
I saw your name on a very old item in the protection log, and I see that you do not edit a whole lot now. But I appreciate the work that you've done and hope you are enjoying yourself nowadays. jp×g 03:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. <font style="background:black"> Jay  <font style="background:red">( Talk ) 23:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)