User talk:Oren0

'''Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a new message.'''

Merit
Does my AN/I concern have any merit? If it does I'll take it down right now, but I wanted to know if I'm wasting ppl's time. Soxwon (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm not sure it matters. This RfC is so malformed and so poorly presented that there's no way anything will come of it. RfC is meant to be a comment on a single user, usually pertaining to a single incident. What we have here is a "list of everything this user has ever done wrong", where everybody who has ever had negative interactions with Collect has been summoned to speak against him. Also, it's obvious that the desired outcome is a block/topic ban, but per Requests_for_comment: "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban". So really, this whole thing seems fairly time-wasting to me. Oren0 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am partially at fault for the spiral out of control. After they started going to articles w/o talking to anyone there and seemed to only talk to ppl on their side, I suggested and helped carry out a general inquiry from any and all involved users to try and give it a shred of credibility. I also wasn't exactly civil either. Apparently I need to review procedure for RfC. Is is salvagalbe or should we just start from scratch? Soxwon (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reclaiming copyright
You are mistaken to think that I can't reclaim copyright. Copyright rests with the creator until 50, 75, or 100 years past the date of death. The only exception to this is when a restitution has been provided to the copyright holder for the use. Without that the creator can reclaim the copyright as I have done so here. For you to remove my claim and reinstate the release, which you have no right to do, is a criminal offence as you have no right to decide what the copyright should be on my images. Jsp3970 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to chip in here; no, you can't reclaim copyright. Copyright normally does rest with the creator, but you'll note the licensing and policies on Wikipedia transfer "ownership" of your contributions to the site rather than the writer. Ironholds (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oren0. Its been pointed out to me on the Admin Incident board by user C.Fred that although I retain copyright, and the moral right to attribution for  my work, I can not revoke the license that I agreed to when I uploaded the image.  Therefore I apologize for reverting the images and will revert them back to their proper place. Sorry for causing any proplems with my actions. Jsp3970 (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, when I went to do it I found user C.Fred had already done it. Oh well. Jsp3970 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm done in the end I suppose. Are you still leaving the encyclopedia? Oren0 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

He's mad because of this. Frankly speaking, we both got into a dispute over image placement in the VIA FP9ARM article. I sought a neutral third party solution to help resolve the situation via the trains wikiprojectpage, stated my case, invited him and another "anonymous IP editor" that I was having trouble with to weigh in and apparently he went nutso.

Given his actions and the actions of the anon IP editor, I have now ample reason to believe that User:Jsp3970 was attempting to use sockpuppetry to "help" keep his images in prominent places on Wikipedia via false pretenses. The WHOIS for the Anon IP indicates an Ontario address, and User:Jsp3970 did have an Ontario userbox on his page before he deleted his page. I did put the two together beforehand, but I erred on the side of caution first just in case.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point the user claims to be "gone for good." I do take that with some amount of salt, given that he had already said that and then came back and undid my reinstatement of "his" images.  But assuming he's gone, there's no reason to open up an SPI investigation now. Oren0 (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mibbit AfD
I've completely rewritten the Mibbit article so you may wish to revisit Articles for deletion/Mibbit. The AfD nominator has also since been blocked. Tothwolf (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC
I'm trying to open up an RfC as you suggested, but it won't post. I am not trying to debate the article, but the principle: i.e. to establish that you can't go randomly deleting articles when you feel like it and then say 'Oh but I used a redirect, so everything's fine'. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "it won't post", as the process for opening up an RfC should be pretty straightforward. Back to your main point, I agree with you that in this case the merge was a bit hasty.  But the notion that we "must" go through procedure X to reach outcome Y is not the way Wikipedia operates.  The purpose of an AfD is to determine consensus, and it's clear that the consensus among every contributor to the topic area except you is that catastrophic climate change as it was did not need to be an article.  This is why I suggested an RfC: to find out if users from outside the topic area form a consensus in favor of the article.  Further, the page wasn't just turned into a redirect, it was merged.  If you believe there is useful content from it to add to effects of global warming and/or runaway climate change, please do so. Oren0 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I diagree. Let's look at the facts.  Firstly, there was no merge - nothing was transferred.  Merge was merely a euphemism.  Secondly, as you may have noticed, I am not seeing to re-open the debate about the article, I am simply seeking to clarify the procedure.  IMO the procedure is entirely clear.  When the redirect is to a page with none of the original content and no consideration of the topic, it is clearly a deletion and not a merge.  Therefore, the procedure is clear - an AfD is required to gain consensus and properly notify the article creator.  In this case, there may be (as you point out) a case for an RfC on the article's existence, and I'd appreciate you setting one up if you think that's the case.  Primarily, however, I'm looking for your assistance in setting up an RfC on the policy, which in my view clearly indicates that using a redirect after a deletion does not magically wash away all your sins. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to undelete Bad Philosophy Page
I would like to request that you undelete the Bad Philosophy page so that I can add additional refences to make the content more appropriate for Wikipeida. Please contact me with questions. Linnix (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We are working on adding some information regarding the significance of the podcast. Do you have any additional tips on improving out article's quality? Linnix (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not sure there's anything to be done because I don't believe the podcast is notable. Looking at your references, the first problem you have is that many of your references are lies.  For example,
 * This format is often about 20 minutes to half an hour long and documents an event such as the students camping out near Jones AT&T Stadium before the November 1, 2008, Texas Tech Football game against the Texas Longhorns.[6][7][8][9][10][11]
 * References 7, 8, and 9 are self-sourced (i.e. not reliable) and 6, 10 and 11 are stories about the game that do not mention the podcast. So what that leaves us with is a deceptive situation where the statement looks sourced but really should be marked with [citation needed].  And that's the problem with the whole article.  There is exactly one reference to a semi-reliable source, and that's a mention in an opinion piece in a student newspaper.  There just isn't enough to justify meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Oren0 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Political Positions of Barak Obama
According to the Deletion Policy, the first step in deleting an article is use the  tag. If an editor disagrees he is supposed to remove the tag, not revert the article. If there is disagreement about deleting the article, then it is taken to discussion, which is my next step. But you need to follow the rules for disputing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs)
 * The act of reverting your edit removed the tag, correct? Prod is designed for low-traffic articles, not ones like that.  If you believe the article should be deleted, that's what WP:AFD is for. Oren0 (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for reverting vandalism to my user page. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Oops, forgot to fix the double headers. Would you be so kind as to fix the rationale for the semi-page protection? The extra link is great but what was done surpassed simple vandalism. Personally, I liked the last person who semi-protected it's comments better. — BQZip01 — talk 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Oren0 (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Please see Ani Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Dalejenkins
He's still got the youtube link on there even after your reversion. How does once vs. 25 times or so make any difference? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was following Xeno's lead on that. 25 links is spam, one is expression.  We allow userboxes and links to personal sites on user pages and I really don't see the harm of a single YouTube link in one place.  Hopefully Dalejenkins will live with this as a compromise, whereas I feel that if I removed them all he'd be more apt to fight about it. Oren0 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger. That does raise a question: If I run into a youtube that I like, is there any rule against posting it on my page? Once, obviously, not 25 times. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos
As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1, I have included you in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, I hope we can achieve a lasting solution. — BQZip01 — talk 06:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's Keynote at ICCC
Anthony Watt has pasted Lindzen's viewgraphs on his blog at Lindzen’s Climate Sensitivty Talk: ICCC June 2, 2009. It's an interesting read that gives the AGW alarmists a well deserved smack up side their heads!

Disclaimer: I mean this metaphorically speaking, of course, lest "the bear" come along and accuse me of promoting violence against scientists or some other asinine accusation!

I just thought you might be interested. Watch the news for a report!

--GoRight (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this yet, but I do check WUWT pretty regularly so I would have seen it.  Of course, any attempt to include this in any article would result in an outcry of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, since as we know Lindzen is a much less credible source than our friends at RealClimate. Oren0 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, of course. THAT goes without saying.  He he.  Should be obvious to everyone.  I'm actually starting to chill out about the whole thing.  It doesn't really matter, the temperature is going to do whatever it is going to do.  I think it's going to go down for some time.  For how long no one knows.  But it will be interesting to watch the resulting gyrations the AGW alarmists will have to go through when it does.  --GoRight (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oren0
Please answer here at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Golan_Heights --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
You added the "reportedly dead" stuff to the article which I think is good. However I don't think you should have changed the banner or added the "died" bit in the infobox as they seem to suggest it isn't actually "reportedly". Alan16 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough media outlets have reported this that I'm comfortable adding the template. The LA Times, NBC, and others wouldn't report such a major death unless they were sure. Oren0 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BBC, Sky, CNN, AP - you sure the majority is with you? Having it in the infobox seems to go against the "reportedly" in the article is my main point. Alan16 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I would really appreciate it
If you as a third view, could answer my questions about Israeli settlements here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Golan_Heights

Can we call them settlements? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that I was a third party on one issue doesn't mean that I'm the only one who can make decisions about another. If you would like to make changes on other pages, I suggest bringing them up on the talk pages of those and see who responds.  I do not own the Golan Heights page as a result of the RfC, though I am keeping watch on it. Oren0 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it alright if I ask for a third opinion about calling it "occupied" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary comments
I am bringing this to your attention for review, since you managed the recent RfC at Golan Heights. I reverted a recent edit by User:Supreme Deliciousness based on the following edit summary he left: "The israeli lobby "forgot" to mention the whole story, so I added it". I felt that the summary was an attack on editors who do not share the same viewpoint as him and was not added in good faith. I have also left a notice on his talk page as to why I reverted his edit. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not passed 3rr
I have only reverted it 2 times today. And please take a look at the Golan page, they changed stuff recently without consensus, shouldn't we have talked before they changed it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This one was not a revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=next&oldid=298823710 I added new quotes from the bible. Take back the 3rr, I have not reverted 3 times today.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * those three was withing 24 hours, but I never crossed more then three reverts within 24 hours, so I never broke the rules. Did you notice that the Golan article was changed today by Fipplet and Hertz? They changed material that had just been agreed upon, like that it was part of Syria before 1944, they changed it without first reaching an agreement on the talk page, and then they told me to talk at the talkpage when they themselves changed it without talking first. Why arent you doing anything about this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ok but can you please revert what has not been agreed upon, that Fipplet added today? and also update what you wrote about me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles it says I passed 3rr. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think in general this is a situation where I can remain more neutral and help keep the page sane if I don't get as involved in the individual disagreements, especially minor ones like these. I applaud the restraint you are showing by not revert warring, but you guys should use the talk page and work out your issues. The purpose of the ARBPIA thing is to show that you have been notified of the sanctions, nothing more. Oren0 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are contradicting yourself, you say take it to the talkpage, yet what was changed today without a talkpage agreement you are letting it stay. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights
Hi Oren0. On the Golan Heights article talk page you wrote that "no one can dispute that Israel controls the land but some do dispute that it is occupied." Who are the "some" who dispute that it is occupied? Do you have any sources that say that the Israeli government disagrees with the term, or are you referring to Israeli settlers, or someone else? Thanks! ← George [ talk  ] 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
Hi, I'm going to add you as a party to this requested case for arbitration. I hope that it doesn't feel too invidious being named as a party in a case when you had only got involved through closing the rfc, but I think your perception on whether my suggstion that Arbcom get involved early is appropriate. I was doing my best to avoid naming individuals, but in listing threads where the naming dispute is going on, I've listed a thread with your userid in the thread name and you have been referred to obliquely on comments about the effectiveness or otherwise and handling of the rfc.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Golan Heights
Per a motion at Arbitration/Requests/Case: The arbitration committee advises that one or more neutral admins chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame.

It is recommend that those interested use WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration as a staging post. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Change necessary to your monobook.css
In your monobook.css page, you need to add to the  line, as seen here; this ensures that your custom code will override any of the default settings made by the script. Cheers!  Gary King ( talk ) 22:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The early draft of LIndzen I've written
hi Oren0.

I saw your comments at Lindzen's talk page about WP:PRIMARY. After reading it I felt that probably the draft I've written of Lindzen's early career is based largely original analysis based on primary sources. On the other hand, secondary sources (e.g. other scientific papers) that reference Lindzen's early papers could probably be used as well. Do you think I could get this material in without violation WP:OR? Many thanks for your experienced input on the Lindzen bio page. Alex Harvey 09:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Harvey (sorry to Oren0 for answering :), there is no problems with using peer-reviewed studies, or primary sources, in and by itself, as long as you make certain that they have a decent citation count (for the PR papers)(ie. have been used). The trouble comes if you state things like "ground-breaking research", "significant contribution" or the like (which i don't know if you've done), since this would have to require secondary sources to state. If you are simply writing that Lindzen "up during the 80's" made research on this and that - then there would be no major problems that i see... The best would of course be to find some secondary sources and go by these - here Lindzen's award nominations should/could be a help (since they usually do a small bio to address the reasons for it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kim, yes I haven't tried to give any weight to minor papers, or at least if I have, I'd probably remove myself. It's a shame we don't have any Wiki editors who could help me with Lindzen's wave-CISK (Conditional Instability of the Second Kind) because it's doing my head in. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, hadn't seen this. You may want to ask Boris --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean that you hadn't seen that Boris and Raymond were one in the same? That's news to me as well.  I wondered where that guy went. Oren0 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I hadn't seen Alex' comment where he requested expert help. That Boris is RA's new account was pretty well known. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it wasn't a secret, but I never knew. Now I realize what you're referring to. Oren0 (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts
I don't think two hours can be considered stale. Stale reports apply more to IPs because of the concern that the IP may have been reassigned. It's perfectly reasonable to block a vandalism-only account if it vandalism after warnings, even if the edits were over an hour ago. Since it's shown that it will ignore warnings and contributes nothing positive...  Enigma msg  07:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "vandalism-only" accounts had not done enough IMO to justify indef blocks, and therefore the purpose of any block would have been to stop immediate damage to the project. 2 hours cold means no immediate impact, therefore I wasn't going to issue any block.  I believe that indef first blocks due to vandalism should be used only in rare cases. Oren0 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You opinion in a similar matter is requested.
Since you cleared up a matter of my edits being WP:SYN, see, which I have now accepted I wonder if you could render your opinion on what appears to be a similar situation,. --GoRight (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon
Interesting. Is the new style that you just revert and will not use/and directly ignore the talk page? The "biography" that you are referring to, is not a biography, but a sideline/blurb in the National Post. Which is quite likely written by the subject himself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested - Edit war
See Love Jihad. It will be helpful if you could add some incidents reported in Israel in the Love_Jihad section. I have read it here. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROD process
I'm a little bit confused by your edit summary when you removed the PROD from Climategate: "Remove prod. I'm not terribly confident that this will survive WP:AFD but it shouldn't be deleted out of process. I don't think WP:NEO applies, as the term and story have been covered in press.". As far as I know, WP:PROD is very much within standard Wikipedia process. You are of course welcome to remove the PROD if you have a good-faith belief that the article satisfies Wikipedia policy and should not be deleted, but some editors may take it amiss if you suggest that their use of PROD is somehow 'out of process'. As an aside, I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source which actually uses the term 'Climategate' (as distinct from bloggers who may use the term, and whose blogs sometimes appear as part of newspapers' websites). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether I believe the article should be kept yet. Anyone who objects to a PROD may remove it. As WP:PROD says, "If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion".  What I mean by "out of process" is that a PROD deletion of a new article is effectively hidden from view of users.  I'm not saying that I think the article should not be deleted, I'm saying that I believe that the discussion and research that comes with an AfD will bring out the data needed to make that decision.  Put simply, I don't see this page as "uncontestably deletable". Oren0 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you believe there are BLP issues here those can be fixed independently of deletion. I don't see how the any article on the subject would inherently violate BLP, and therefore I don't see why BLP is an argument for edeletion. Oren0 (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate on WP:AN
Since you are the one that originally made the claim that RealClimate is a "William Connolley-related" page could you please stop by at your earliest convenience and weigh in on the discussion there? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I just wanted to give you a tip. Per WP:DISRUPT, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." If you notice an editor who is reverting edits all across the a topic space, they can be reported for disruptive editing at the WP:AN even if they haven't violated WP:3RR. I'd read WP:DISRUPT carefully. HTH! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I guess. Unlike some, it is not my goal to silence those whom I disagree with by having them blocked.  Frankly, depending on your definition of "progress", I can think of many editors who fit that definition.  I have no doubt some would say that I do as well.  This is why, for example, I might hesitate to refer an individual to the 3RR noticeboard even if they could easily be blocked. Oren0 (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
I'm not sure I can distinguish between 'responding to consensus' and 'acting on my own behalf' when it comes to adding a tag. If I had to choose, I would say I was acting on my own behalf: after reading the article I got the impression the article was a bit biased and glancing over the talk page, there appeared to be significant contention over the neutrality of parts of the page. I was aware the page is protected, but since it was protected due to edit warring over neutrality concerns, it seemed like it would be best to have a tag informing the readers about the dispute. Do you disagree that there is a neutrality dispute on that article? Prodego talk  04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does give me an unfair advantage in the status of the page. However, I think that procedurally, not having the tag would be be Wrong™, and having it would be Right™. This is of course a terrible argument, but the tag indicates that there is a dispute over the neutrality of the page. Edit warring over whether there is a dispute over the neutrality of the page inherently means that there is a dispute over the neutrality of the page. Its somewhat circular. If I wanted to make a stronger argument, I would probably justify it by pointing out that the tag is not to be removed until the dispute is resolved, which is clearly hasn't been. In honesty the article is terribly written for something so high profile, and having it protected means that the compromise process probably isn't going to go anywhere fast. I'll have to look in to whether I can find someone to rework it. Prodego  talk  05:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, what I'd like to propose here is that we take a bit more control, establish some stricter edit warring restrictions, unprotect the page, slap up an edit notice, and enforce them with blocks so that people can get back to writing the article. Do you think that would have a positive effect? Prodego  talk  05:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NIPCC Redirect
Can I ask why this points to IPCC, rather than the more pertinent Science & Environmental Policy Project or Fred Singer? ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I may be going mad - I'm sure it did a moment ago... ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (vs NIPCC) ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NIPCC currently points to a subsection of Fred Singer, as of a 12/29 change by User:Tony Sidaway. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change points to International Conference on Climate Change.  They should probably both point to the same place, but I'm fairly indifferent as to which.  I don't see anything redirecting to IPCC though. Oren0 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - FYI, I asked here because of this diff ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
You seem to have misread the "consensus" on the talk page. Please undo this edit. There is no consensus to privilege one POV and delete the other. It also violates a little thing called WP:NPOV. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please participate in the discussion here. I'm rather curious to see how it is you came to the conclusion that Time isn't a reliable source.  Guettarda (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied as requested. 8-5 is enough of a consensus for me, especially as I find the arguments to keep it in the lead totally unpursuasive.  Time is a perfectly reliable source, but it is the only reliable source provided thus far (I looked) that uses this term.  One source versus hundreds doesn't fly.  Even worse "Swifthack" had twice as much discussion in the lead than "Climategate" did.  If the term gains traction, it may belong in the article, but it doesn't now. Oren0 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Remove duplicated Trenberth reaction
This edit you made to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident was deceptive. You claimed that it duplicated the Trenberth reaction, but in fact it included content attributed to Richard Somerville, which I have restored through a merge. Your removal of this material was also controversial as there has been consensus for its inclusion and it has been discussed in the archives. Please be more careful in the future. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I didn't mean to remove the Somerville ref, only the duplicated Trenberth quote. Oren0 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The tag was completely legit.  Oren0 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Regional varieties of English
The article is written in English English. It's bad form to convert it to American English. Guettarda (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific, as I have attempted to maintain English English (note how I spelled "organisations"). If "extract" is a British-ism, that's news to me.  If this is so, is "excerpt" not a term that would be used in British English?  If you're referring to the rest of that change, I don't believe that a change from the past tense to present perfect tense is a change that has a nationality.  I'm asking honestly here.  Oren0 (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course "excerpt" is the American equivalent of "extract". Guettarda (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't know. Believe it :).  I'll change it back. Oren0 (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. --TS 14:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

2035
Re : so far, you've failed to justify this on talk. You;'ll need to, if you want it to stand William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

142.177.62.236
See this thread for details. Many of this user's IP addresses have been blocked, and the user keeps on selecting new ones to evade the block. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientists opposing global warming listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Scientists opposing global warming. Since you had some involvement with the Scientists opposing global warming redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)147.70.242.54 (talk)

Scientists who oppose global warming listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Scientists who oppose global warming. Since you had some involvement with the Scientists who oppose global warming  redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)147.70.242.54 (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Climategate scandal
A tag has been placed on Climategate scandal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement
The discussions at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues:. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this worth it?
WP:DISRUPT/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Allegations  

Answers  --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby
During your RFA you stated that you would be helping deal with the Scibaby situation after Raul stopped doing it. Do you feel that you've done what you said you were going to do? Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is most likely in reference to the discussion taking place here. --GoRight (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I see a sockpuppet of a banned user I will report or block it. My ideology has nothing to do with my admin duties.  Honestly, I believe that WP:DUCK is often applied too broadly and rangeblocks are often too wide such that there is collateral damage, so realistically by the time I'm likely convinced that someone is a sock they're already reported or blocked by someone else.  Also, I have been editing much less of late so I'm not spending the time going through users' contributions looking for people to block.  Honestly, I'm not sure why I was dragged into this whole mess. Oren0 (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the message, how could you tell I didn't quite know what to do!

--Mcai3db3 (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion
You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Weights and measures in Liberia
Hi Oren0,

I noticed your "Original Research" notation for the section on weights and measures in the article in Liberia. Could you explain in more detail your concern and how it might be remedied? Michael Glass (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I have replied at Talk:Liberia and we should continue the discussion there. Oren0 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Futurama revival
Hello. WikiProject Futurama is being revived. Since you are listed as a participant here, you have received this message to make sure you still are. If you like to help update the WikiProject, please discuss here. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Futurama-related articles. GamerPro64 (talk) delivered by MuZebot 06:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lenna.png
Any comments on the annual Lenna controversy at File_talk:Lenna.png would be welcome. PAR (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Pos (Chess program)
Hi, you've deleted the wiki-page for Pos because not enough details were given. If I give more, will you reconsider the deleting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flok (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Oren0,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.206.39 (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello :-)
theProject (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

LocalSettings.php
Per your protection log entry, I've unprotected this page without asking you first; you noted that it could be unprotected if someone wanted to create an actual article here, and there's a request at WP:AN from someone who wants to create an article comparable to es:LocalSettings.php. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!


Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, at 12:30pm in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK
Hello, I have created a DYK for Kevin Ware at Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Ware. You are listed as an author. If you have a better hook, nominate it there. Albacore (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kevin Ware
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Luke Hancock
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Serial comma
Hi. I disagree with your addition of a "too long" tag here, and have opened a discussion about it at Talk:Serial comma. You may like to weigh in with a fuller explanation of your views. GrindtXX (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 4 October 2013 (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)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ADTree


The article ADTree has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * misused and ultimately not necessary

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just kidding! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2015 (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) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
I am disputing the same video on Sally Yates and Jeff Sessions with an editor who does not seem to understand policy. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2017 (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)

Discretionary sanctions alert

 * I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. (I realize that as an experienced editor you probably know all this) Abecedare (talk) 01:56, 5 August 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 02:38, 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 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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 00:03, 1 August 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. 20:06, 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)

Proposed deletion of Man vs. Cartoon


The article Man vs. Cartoon has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Too short-lived for attention. Hollywood Reporter is only good source here"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fanarchy


The article Fanarchy has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Sourced mostly to the network. Very short and out of date. Nothing better found"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Fanarchy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fanarchy 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/Fanarchy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. signed,Rosguill talk 01:06, 1 June 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 08:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Imminent 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 01:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

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 have been removed.

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

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux  Talk 03:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)