User talk:Rockpocket

'''Leave a message below. If you require my urgent attention you can email me'''

Model organisms
Hi. Concerning adding knockout mouse phenotype data to Gene Wiki articles, I think this is valuable information which enriches the articles. I have however one small quibble, and that is the plug that is made to the KO Mouse Consortium and the Sanger Institute in the text of the article. I think it would be more appropriate to include this attribution in a citation rather than the text of the article.

I think the following recommendation from WP:MEDMOS is relevant: ''Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation.''

Again, I think adding the KO phenotype data is great, but where the data came from should not be over hyped. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Boghog. Thanks for you comments. I did think about this quite a bit and we actually had some extensive discussions, including Wikipedians, about the best way of phrasing things. Let me explain the reasoning. We felt it was important to mention the IKMC inline for each article because it is necessary to explain the standardized nature of the programme. Obviously there are thousands of KO mice kicking around labs and lots of different phenotypic descriptions from different labs. I'm not sure it is valuable or particularly appropriate do describe them all in the Gene Wiki, as there is bound to be conflicting information that will be explained by different penetrance of allele, different backgrounds or different phenotyping assays. But the extremely large cohort that is being produced by this programme is unique in scale - in theory we should have a large proportion of the mouse genome covered in a few years. More importantly they all have standardized construction (in terms of the allele type, targeting and the genetic backgrounds of the animals etc), are all freely available, and most important of all, they all undergo exactly the same phenotyping protocols measured to exactly the same parameters. It is this scale and standardization that make the data useful and appropriate for something like the Gene Wiki. So our reasoning of adding the link to the IKMC was not one of hyping the peole behind the data, but simply so the reader can easily understand the context of why this particular phenotyping report of this particular allele is indeed notable and worth reporting. Rather than describe the nature of the programme in each gene article, we thought pointing to IKMC inline would do the trick.


 * With regards to mentioning the producing institute, I tend to agree with you: I'm less convinced that is appropriate. The argument made to me was that because there are a number of centres involved in production and phenotyping (eventually we will include alleles from all of the producing centres, we've just started with Sanger's because I have easier access to the data), there will inevitably be some differences between them - particularly in phenotyping. It will therefore be important for the reader to know which centre any given allele is from. But of course that argument was made by a room of mouse geneticists interested in such minutiae, I doubt the average article reader will care. During these discussions I didn't think that was a particularly big deal so I didn't push the issue (plus I was more interesting in fighting off those people who insisted we should include the details of the allele, LoxP sites, selection cassettes and all!)


 * So I agree that it would be perfectly fine to include this info in a citation. The problem now is making all the changes to the >250 articles already created in userspace! I'll start working back through them, but it will take me some time. For the ones already live I need to go back and add another, better citation (once it is published) so I will remove the centre from those at the same time. In the meantime, I'll get the coders to change script that produces the wiki-text automatically on the conclusion of phenotyping, so that the future gene articles omit that information. Does that sound ok? Rockpock  e  t  23:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks for your detailed explanation and for your offer to move the attribution to the citation.  I occasionally run a bot, so I may be able to help out with making changes to the articles where the KO data has already been added. The International Knockout Mouse Consortium has already KOed a large fraction of mouse genes.  Did you intend to add most of these to the Gene Wiki articles?  If so, it might be more appropriate to include this data in collapsible section of the PBB template similar to the GNF RNA expression pattern data (see for example PBB; while we are at it I think the RNA data should also be collapsed). If you don't mind, I think we should bring up this topic on the Gene Wiki Discussion page to get input from a wider group of Wikipedians.  I think there will be strong support for adding this data, but there may be differing opinions as to the best way to present it. In addition, one of our bots might assist you in adding this data to the rest of the Gene Wiki articles. Boghog (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the genes have been KO'd in ES cells, but only a few hundred of them have been made into mice and phenotyped so far. Sanger has about 400, and I believe MRC Harwell and UC Davis have a few hundred each currently in progress. I'd like to include all of them in Gene Wiki articles if possible over the next few years. I'm currently updating articles on the first 250 alleles that have been completed, as we are co-ordinating these into a paper (and we are keen, in the spirit of open access, to simultaneously provide summaries on WP). Actually I originally envisioned incorporating these into that template, but there are some additional issues with that (for example, a proportion of the mouse genes are not 1:1 orthologues with a human gene, e.g. Slc22a21). In the end, we decided to push the first 250 out seperately and then get some community input. So I'm happy to have further discussions and if the community feel this data is appropriate for the human PBB box then that is fine with me. Rockpock  e  t  13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited IRF1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epidermis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia training
Hi, as you're an experienced trainer, I'd be very interested in your feedback on. Feel free to discuss and improve on the WMUK wiki or in email. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hedd Wyn
User:Varlaam's slow revert-war on Hedd Wyn continues. One of his blocks (this one) relates to the same article. You first contributed to his talk page here. Please advise if any action should be taken to prevent further disruption. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No amount of requests to discuss seem to elicit a response (to the talk page). This is exactly the sort of edit summary for which he was blocked previously. It may be in everyone's interests for a topic ban. What do you think? Daicaregos (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Daicaregos. My apologies for the delay in responding to your message. I've been really snowed under a work recently and have had no time for Wikipedia. I'll try and catch up with the background to this over the weekend and respond then. I don't think it would be fair to comment prior to that. If you need more urgent action taken, I'd suggest dropping a notice at AN/I. Rockpock  e  t  23:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the training on how to use wiki and all the useful information. Orangtip (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Pheromones on the Ref Desk
Have you seen this? Check the end of Wnt's second paragraph. Can you ship me some? :>) Bielle (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am prone to worry what someone with that sort of crazy logic might do to a colony of mice. His final sentence is particularly perplexing! Rockpock  e  t  12:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Osteonectin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Rockpocket,

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 community HERE, 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 name HERE 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) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited CENPJ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hello! Rockpock e  t  11:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Just testing Alexbateman (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Insults from User:Murry1975
Hi Rockpocket. I know you are less active these days, but I wondered if you could have a look at User:Murry1975' s recent edits. I have started a general and a specific discussion about whether WP:IMOS should supersede WP:OVERLINK as regards linking Ireland. In both discussions he has repeatedly called me a "dick" in spite of my pointing out that I regard this as a personal attack. More to the point, he has not answered my specific questions on overlinking. Would it be possible for you to have a word with him when you have a chance? I will withdraw from the discussions for now and let other editors have their say. Take care, --John (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.
Hi,

Regarding this: not only isn't there a source attached to it, but it's just an announcement of intent. To be quite honest I'd be surprised if Companies House allowed for such a minor change of trading name as "The Rangers Football Club plc" to just "The Rangers Football Club". I really don't think we should be reporting as fact every thing said in a press conference right now, especially given the historical fragility of announcements from the administrators / owners / potential bidders in this case. There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football if you're interested. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is being widely reported by reliable sources (which I didn't add simply because it was in the lead). For example, the BBC are reporting the new trading name "is" The Rangers Football Club, which is more than a statement of intent. Nonetheless, I take your points and if there is a consensus, or at least a justification, for removal at this time then that is fine. I just don't typically accept reverts of good faith edits without explanation. Rockpock  e  t  12:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any evidence that the "Sevco" coalition even exists as a company right now, let alone that they've registered a new name. Apologies for the revert, but there's a great deal of attention on this article right now and the change to past tense in particular was getting some significant interest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mrc logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Mrc logo.gif. 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 Dude ( talk ) 03:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Train the Trainer - Wikimedia UK workshop for volunteers who deliver training events
Hi Rockpocket, To support the volunteers who are delivering Wikimedia training, Wikimedia UK is organising another Train the Trainer event on 27-28 October, in London. I really hope that you will be able to attend - if so please sign up: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_the_Trainers/October_event The page will also give you more information about the event, but if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me (daria.cybulska@undefinedwikimedia.org.uk). Thanks! Daria Cybulska (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fake: Forgery, Lies, & eBay
Hello, thanks for tagging this for notability. 5 years later it's still there, and you may want to consider starting a merge discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Levineps
Rockpocket, isn't Levineps banned indefinitely from creating new categories? Please see his recent contributions. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like tattle telling, this ban was years ago I believe I've changed since then. Didn't realize I was even still banned to be honest. How can this ban go away?--Levineps (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)::
 * Levineps, on your user page, there is a rather large list of the sanctions imposed on you. It says "These restrictions were imposed on 31 December 2009. They are indefinite by community consensus, as interpreted by Coffee with minor clarification by Rockpocket. They may be lifted by formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom."  Seems you've also used the "I forgot I was banned" excuse before; see |here.  My intent here is not to "tattle tell" but to serve the Wikipedia community.  I know that you have made a mess of categories in the past, and it appears that you may be headed back in that direction; see Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 1.  Jweiss11 (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for being late to the party on this - I edit relatively infrequently these days. Seems another admin has dealt with it in the meantime. For what its worth, I suggest when Levineps returns from his most recent block he appeals to the community for the terms of his sanctions to be loosened. Rockpock  e  t  20:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571441508 your edit] to Stephen W. Scherer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Scherer's group has published over 350 papers and patents cited more than 30,000 times. Geneticist honoured. Discovery of epilepsy gene puts researcher in elite group. May 10th,

A Suggestion...
Hi Darren. Your name has come up on Jimmy Wales' talk page with regard to your editing of Wellcome Sanger. Editing on a page dealing with one's employer is not prohibited no matter what anyone may say to the contrary. However, it would be a very good idea indeed if you would make clear your relationship to the company on the article's talk page so that your edits can be examined in the light of full information. I don't see a problem, myself, but declaring one's COI is always a best practice. Happy editing. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA /// Carrite (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim, thanks for bringing this to my intention. I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that I declare my professional affiliation very clearly on my user page and I am sufficiently experienced in editing to know what is appropriate factual content and what is not. If someone has an issue with the content that I add to the WTSI page, then I am very happy to defer to their (or a third opinion) due to potential COI considerations. That has not happened to date. So I just get on with improving the encyclopedia when and wherever I can. Rockpock  e  t  22:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dogs6CCcopy.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dogs6CCcopy.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet of Levineps
Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

hi review
hello i am new here just made an article need help to improve it. is it possible for u to find some one having a bit knowledge of bioinformatics or computational biology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demi_lion/Jpred this is my article. it would be nice to get some help from user who has experience in writing articles.Demi lion (talk) 20:30, 27 February 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)

Clarification motion
A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Genes mutated in mice
Category:Genes mutated in mice, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've left a comment there. Rockpock  e  t  12:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any mouse gene for which we have proof that it does not mutate? Then, given time, would you not expect all these genes to mutate at some point? What, if anything, is the difference between "mutated genes" and "non-mutated genes"? Look at the parent cat and how few articles it contains (FIVE, 2 of them one-line "articles" and 2 of them databases). Look at the articles what they are actually about. In addition, are you going to create categories for "genes mutated in C. elegans"? "Genes mutated in D. melanogaster"? "Genes mutated in Polar Bears"? I really think that this categorization tree needs significant overhaul in order to be useful. --Randykitty (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Chromatophore FAR
I have nominated Chromatophore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

ORCID
Hi,

You might want to put your ORCID iD on your user page, as described at WP:ORCID. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 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) 13:47, 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
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2017 (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 more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux  Talk 01:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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 more than 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. — xaosflux  Talk 11:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2017 has started
--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC) --Alexmar983 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : Rockpock  e  t

to
 * : Rockpock  e  t

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Kramer (singer)


The article David Kramer (singer) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies, very limited in secondary sources."

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. Elttaruuu (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of David Kramer (singer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Kramer (singer) 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/David Kramer (singer) 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 until the discussion has finished. Elttaruuu (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)